MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/80

All past proposals are archived here. Please add archived proposals to the bottom of the page.

Create a reminder for trimming audio

Do not create template 5-8
So, if you don't know, we have a policy which prevents audio files from being more than 30 seconds long, and must have fadeout. Right now, there is no reminder template. However, for many other upload issues, we have a reminder template. This reminder could also be given through {{Reminder}}, but all other case-specific reminders can also be given through {{Reminder}}. This could be good because these reminders usually tell the reciever how to follow these policies. The following will be what the reminder will look like:

Dear Proposals/Archive. Thank you for your recent uploads. When uploading audio files, please trim the audio to 30 seconds long and apply a fadeout. If you don't own software capable of preforming these actions, go here to install a tool capable of doing this. If these actions continue, you will recieve a warning.

Proposer: Conkdor (talk) (blocked)
Deadline: November 1, 2025, 23:59 GMT Extended to November 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support!

1. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per proposal.
2. Martendo (talk) Per proposal.
3. Rykitu (talk) Per proposal.
4. Sorbetti (talk) Just because it doesn't happen very often doesn't mean it can't happen. This saves time from having to create a specific reminder, and I'm fine with that. This brings a benefit, a very small one, but it does. Why would it be beneficial for the wiki to oppose this benefit?
5. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per proposal. I used to upload audio file for the Score theme from Yoshi's Island: Super Mario Advance 3, but the file ended up being deleted due to a copyright violation.

Conkdor (talk) Per proposal. (Proposer's note: I give full rights to the user implementing the proposal to modify this template in any way.)

Oppose!

1. Altendo (talk) Admittedly, this does come down to personal preference, but I don't feel like a notice template is necessary for every infraction. I feel like {{reminder}} (or other warning templates, seeing how this infraction counts as most unlisted ones that constitute a {{warning}}) with a brief description is good enough for these types of notices. The other issue is that the template shown here isn't as sophisticated as the other upload templates (admittedly, it doesn't have to be), which further adds to my point about how just a warning (of some sort) template and a short message afterwards should be enough. This last point is admittedly a nitpick, but I also don't think that a fadeout is required; it's just recommended, and only the 30-second maximum length is required.
2. PanchamBro (talk) Honestly the fact that a scenario like this doesn't occur frequently, not to mention that this isn't much a serious infraction than say "creating three sockpuppet accounts" makes me question if this is necessary at all. Illustrating my point further, I've checked the logs for the past month or so, and none of the uploads indicate that they needed to be replaced due to being over 30 seconds. There is some awareness of this rule, even if you think there isn't one. Not to mention I'm put off by the wording of this template, indicating that you "will receive a warning" when on some user notice templates say that "a warning will be issued", a tonal difference that just screams aggressive compared to being fairly neutral. I know you said people could change this template to fix the wording, I understand this. But at the end of the day, this feels like newbie biting. From my experience...or anyone who had to deal with Template:Userspace before its repurposing, a informal reminder about audio trimming is better than a template itself.
3. Camwoodstock (talk) Especially now that the to-do bar exists to basically fire a signal flare anytime someone fails to properly trim audio so somebody can quickly open Audacity and fix it, we're not quite sure if this is a common enough occurrence to warrant a whole template just dedicated to telling people not to do it. As the ones that watch said to-do bar, you usually only get an incident like this once every other month, and it's only like, 1-3 files anyways...
4. Killer Moth (talk) Per all.
5. Mario jc (talk) From what I've seen, this hasn't happened too often; in fact, almost every new upload I've seen has been 30 seconds or less (at one point I even wondered if there was a system in place that prevented media files from uploading if it went over). I've also viewed these notices as quick ways to point the user to certain rules/guidelines without having to manually type a message out; I don't see them as something formal in place of a {{reminder}} and that they should go straight to a {{warning}} if it happens again. Excessive account creation, on the other hand, does happen often and there's more information that needs to be communicated to the user about it, hence the template.
6. Mari0fan100 (talk) A lot of new users may not know that audio files can only be 30 seconds long. Plus, a user uploading an audio file for 31 seconds isn't a huge issue. Also, this is not an issue I see occurring a lot. We've definitely made new reminder templates for things that occur often (such as edit flooding and using italics), but uploading an audio file that's too long isn't notable enough for a template dedicated to it yet.
7. Ihavenoideaboyo (talk) I don't really see the urgency; this seems like a well established rule that newbies would easily grasp after seeing most songs be 30 seconds long. If there's a slip up, a simple audio trim and casual user page notice should do things just fine.
8. Drago (talk) Per Mario jc.

The comments!

At least for the files themselves, isn't this what {{Template:Media-length}} is for? ~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 16:11, October 18, 2025 (EDT)

@Camwoodstock no, this is the reminder for uploading untrimmed audio files. Conkdor! (T|C) 16:41, October 18, 2025 (EDT)

I think the idea is for this to be a user notice, to be put on the talk pages of users who upload untrimmed audio, instead of using a generic reminder template. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 17:06, October 18, 2025 (EDT)

Has this been a recent recurring problem we need to address, or will this be an anticipated problem in the future? It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 17:56, October 18, 2025 (EDT)

@Mario A problem that actually just happened today. It doesn't happen very often, but neither does people making 3 sockpuppets. Conkdor! (T|C) 18:49, October 18, 2025 (EDT)

@PanchamBro What do you mean "it's not as serious"? If we don't quickly trim untrimmed audio, we could get sued! Conkdor! (T|C) 07:22, October 20, 2025 (EDT)

A simple audio gaffe (one that is over 30 seconds) might be a copyright issue, but can be easily addressed by anyone. A sockpuppet on the other hand can be a major hurdle. From new accounts made numerous times for some reason, to some socks not even making themselves known until they reveal themselves or someone eventually finds out who they are. Of course, an easy way to tell is to see if their editing patterns match, but I find the issue of sockpuppets way more serious in terms of conduct compared to someone not trimming the audio and posting the full music. This, by the way, is in your response to your comment about how infrequent "making 3 sockpuppets" are in comparison to "not trimming audio correctly", but the former is much, much understandable to warrant a user notice. -- PanchamBro (talk • contributions) 10:57, October 20, 2025 (EDT)

Distinguish more clearly between full British English localizations and simple English text differences in European versions

Adopt Option 5 1-1-4-0-8
A while back, I challenged this wiki's inconsistent use of "English", "English (United States)" and "English (United Kingdom)" as language identifiers in game infoboxes, and it was ultimately decided that when the English scripts were largely identical between regions, they should simply be listed as "English", regardless if they were still stored separately in internal data and which language files were loaded were technically still dependent on system region settings (or the regional copy of the game itself in many cases, particularly back when region-free releases were not yet the norm).

However, despite my previous efforts, it largely remains the case in practice that when the English-language versions differ at all between regions, they are considered separate "American English" and "British English" versions, even when the actual differences have little to nothing to do with the actual linguistic differences between American English and British English. Koopa Kid having a different name in European versions, including in English, from Mario Party 4 up to his final physical appearance in Mario Party 7 is seemingly enough to qualify all of those games as having "English (United Kingdom)" or "British English" versions, for instance. Mario Pinball Land, Yoshi Topsy-Turvy, Mario Tennis: Power Tour and Super Mario Strikers having different titles in Europe are also seemingly what qualifies them as having "English (United Kingdom)" as an available language, despite having little no significant regional differences between English versions beyond the title and, for the former two, the respective European or "British English" titles simply matching the Japanese one instead of the North American one.

The aforementioned examples I gave also notably predate when Nintendo of Europe actually started regularly doing "UK English adaptations" of Nintendo of America's US English localizations, or partially to wholly separate translations from Japanese into British English in the case of some games. That practice is believed to have been largely kicked off by a certain language-related snafu regarding Mario Party 8's release in the UK that ended up prompting an immediate recall. And while it ended up lasting well into the Nintendo 3DS and Wii U eras, this practice had largely stopped as a regular occurrence by the release of the Nintendo Switch. However, that hasn't completely stopped there from being some mostly arbitrary naming differences between English versions in North America and Europe (with Oceania also inheriting Europe's differences since their system regions are typically grouped together), such as Nintendo of Europe insisting on calling Toady "Magikoopa" in English in recent Mario Party games for some reason (to match the other European-language localizations, I suppose?). You also have NoE continuing to add the word "Football" into their title of the most recent Mario Strikers game, and seemingly changing a few instances of "soccer" to "football" in the English script to match, but that's not quite the same as the full UK English translation that Mario Strikers Charged Football got, is it?

So my baseline proposal is this: when those minor differences are present and need to be acknowledged, but the "British English" script is not actually in full-on British English, don't call it that. Call it something like "(the English script used in) the European version" (or "the PAL version", if you prefer, for older home console games that were released when that television standard was still largely a thing over there). I know this term makes many of us wince, but even "the European English version" or "the European English script" would be technically more accurate in a sense. Game infoboxes would also not automatically list "English (United Kingdom)" for simple naming or text differences between English versions; simply "English" would be the only listed language, as when there are no meaningful differences as all.

As for what still should be classified as "British English" or "English (United Kingdom)" specifically, I have three potential criteria in mind:

1. Only use "British English" when actual British English is used: The key determiner here would be a fairly consistent presence of British English spellings in particular in the European version when the language is set to English, even if the localization is otherwise rather similar to the American English one. Examples of this include WarioWare: D.I.Y. and the original Wii version of Super Mario Galaxy 2. More general vocabulary differences, such as the use of "football" instead of "soccer", as well as noticeable differences in things like punctuation placement between English versions that reflect differing American and British English norms may be used as supporting evidence, but should not be the sole determiner as there are cases where minor changes are like this are made to English scripts between regional versions, but American English is still predominately used regardless, like in Paper Mario, Super Paper Mario, the aforementioned Mario Strikers series apart from Charged and the Super Smash Bros. series apart from for Nintendo 3DS and for Wii U.
2. Only use "British English" if the above is the case or Nintendo does so themselves and there are English text differences present: Since "English (UK/Australia)" is now a dedicated language setting on the Nintendo Switch 2, this would include all games (including Nintendo Switch 2 Editions) specifically for that system if there are any text differences from changing said language setting, as well as Super Mario 3D All-Stars since it's an in-game setting for all games included, plus any games that Nintendo of America lists as having British English as a supported language on their website, again, when there are actual text differences present between the two regions. This would also include games that specifically mention a "UK English" localization in their credits or have a "UK", "en-GB" or equivalent language code denoted in internal data (something like "EU_English" or "EUen" though, more common in recent Nintendo games, does not itself count as I will go into in a moment), as long as this reflects some text difference(s) between regions beyond date formatting, as per the de facto status quo. I was also considering counting when the in-game language selection menu in European versions uses the Union Jack flag to denote English, but I will currently omit this as criteria given how commonplace this was in the past (and the English language did of course originate what is now part of the United Kingdom at any rate), leading to as many false or misleading positives as there are currently. If you believe this criteria should be counted, please do let me know in the comments.
3. Phase out the use of "British English" in reference to in-game English text differences in Europe entirely: When it comes to actual linguistic differences in spelling and such, it can naturally still be referred to, but "European" and "PAL" will be preferred when referring to broader regional game versions and English script differences between them that don't strictly reflect the linguistic differences between American and British English. If the English-language versions in North America and Europe have any notable differences, "English (Europe)" will be used to differentiate the latter in game infoboxes instead of "English (United Kingdom)". This also reflects how Nintendo themselves list supported languages for their games on their Japanese website, as well as the most common label they use for "European English" localization data internally (typically "EU_English" or "EUen").

Edit: Added two extra variant options based on private feedback from CarlosYoshiBoi. "Common words and/or accents localized" would count things like changing "soccer" to "football" in Mario Strikers: Battle League or Wii Fit Trainer having a distinctly American or British English accent in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate depending on region as those games having both American and British English support. This would also include certain sensitive terms specific to British English being changed in the English script used in the European version of a game, like the aforementioned Mario Party 8 situation.

Proposer: PaperSplash (talk)
Deadline: November 13, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Option 1: Only use "British English" when actual British English is used

1. PaperSplash (talk) First choice; it's the most straightforward and least misleading approach, even if it doesn't entirely match Nintendo's own.

Option 2: Only use "British English" if the above is the case or Nintendo does so themselves and there are English text differences present

1. PaperSplash (talk) Third choice; the most consistent with Nintendo's (or rather, Nintendo of America's) own public-facing listings on their website and in language settings, but also the most arbitrary and misleading approach aside from our existing one.

Option 3: Phase out the use of "British English" in reference to in-game English text differences in Europe entirely

1. PaperSplash (talk) Second choice; it allows us to largely keeps our existing approach while using more strictly accurate terminology, and "European English" or "English (Europe)" is also more closely in line with Nintendo's own labeling on their Japanese website and in internal data.
2. Altendo (talk) There are cases when there are text differences between NTSC and PAL versions, but most of them don't actually change that much text, not even using British/European spellings (take Mario Finale for example). I think that replacing "British English" with "European version" or "PAL version" makes more sense, as these are regional, not necessarily linguistic, changes (I would support "PAL version" as these "British spellings" are also used in other PAL countries, as I showed here; NTSC is mainly used in East Asia and most of the Americas, while PAL is used in most other places, including Australia and New Zealand, making PAL the preferred prefix for me), and I would also like to mention that Nintendo of Europe is not based in Britain, which means that they might not be the only Nintendo subsidiary localizing games in PAL English, seeing how they localize for many different languages (Nintendo also has offices in Hong Kong and Australia that I can assume also localize into PAL English, alongside Mandarin and maybe Cantonese for the former). As such, I don't think "British English" or even "European English" is accurate given that these changes could be more widespread than Britain and even Europe, and I don't see these as a cultural or linguistic change, as the different texts for most games are likely just the results of Nintendo's different subsidiaries localizing games in different ways rather than sticking with language or culture.
3. Blinker (talk) Per all.
4. Jazama (talk) Per all

Option 5: Option 2 but also counting any common words and/or accents localized to British English

1. CarlosYoshiBoi (talk) I support this, partly due to changes of soccer to football in the Mario Strikers games (especially Battle League) plus the Wii Fit Trainers having British English voices in Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS/Wii U and Super Smash Bros. Ultimate.
2. LadySophie17 (talk) I think this is the option I want? I believe any attempt by NoE to localize the game to a British English-speaking audience should count as the game having British English. In a best case scenario, this would consist of accurately changing American spelling to British spelling (color to colour) and American words to British words (soccer to football). Even if the localization isn't complete, like Battle League's, it still shows, to me, that they at least tried. On the other hand, games that have entirely different British scripts are not necessarily more British than games that just Ctrl+F the American script for changes.This Battle League situation reminds me of arguments about how other languages will sometimes use English names due to lack of localization, and if we should count them as names in other languages or not.
3. Jdtendo (talk) Per all.
4. FanOfYoshi (talk) Per.
5. YoYo (talk) per all
6. Altendo (talk) Second choice, per all.
7. Nintendo101 (talk) Per LadySophie17.
8. PaperSplash (talk) Fourth choice. It's the most popular option at the moment and I find it to be an acceptable compromise. I also think LadySophie17 made a good argument in its favor.

Decide how punctuation should be placed at the end of a quote

Adopt logical quotation 22-0-0
In English, there are several conventions for placing a period or comma at the end of text in quotation marks, including:

Logical quotation (LQ)

Punctuation that is not present in the original text must not be added within quotation marks. When punctuation is needed, it must be placed after the closing quotation mark.

• He said that he was "thirsty", then asked for "something to drink".
• The choices are "yes", "no", and "maybe".

Typesetters' quotation (TQ)

A period or comma must be placed within quotation marks, regardless of whether it is part of the original text.

• He said that he was "thirsty," then asked for "something to drink."
• The choices are "yes," "no," and "maybe."

Currently, the wiki's Manual of Style does not specify which quotation style should be used; in fact, it uses LQ for the most part (as in "such as "it's", "can't", and "doesn't""), but it also contains one occurrence of TQ (in ""Internal names" or "Names in other languages," respectively"). Such inconsistent quotation style can be found throughout the wiki and can lead to dispute between proponents of both styles. This proposal intends to adopt a quotation style (preferably LQ) that we shall use on the Super Mario Wiki.

Breakdown of both styles

When quoting sentence fragments, words-as-words, or titles

In LQ, the full stop or comma is placed after the closing quotation mark.

• LQ: He warns not to "pinch Wendy's Pennies", because "they pinch back".
• LQ: He said "hakoniwa", which is Japanese for "box garden".
• LQ: They sing "The Pirate Scorn", "Monkey Business", and "I Wanna be a Star".

In TQ, the full stop or comma is placed within the quotation marks.

• TQ: He warns not to "pinch Wendy's Pennies," because "they pinch back."
• TQ: He said "hakoniwa," which is Japanese for "box garden."
• TQ: They sing "The Pirate Scorn," "Monkey Business," and "I Wanna be a Star."

When quoting a full sentence that ends with a period

In both styles, the period must be kept within the quotes if it coincides with the end of the sentence containing it. (We quote the whole sentence, which includes the period, and we don't put another period after a period.)

• Both styles: He said, "When you pinch Wendy's Pennies, they pinch back."

Otherwise, the period must be omitted.

• LQ: "When you pinch Wendy's Pennies, they pinch back", he said.
• TQ: "When you pinch Wendy's Pennies, they pinch back," he said.

When breaking up a full sentence into fragments

Fragments that end with a comma keep it within the quotation marks.

• Both styles: "When you pinch Wendy's Pennies," he said, "they pinch back."

When the quote ends with a "!" or "?", or a mandatory dot (e.g., at the end of an abbreviation)

The punctuation must be kept within the quotation marks. In both styles, the quote cannot be followed by a period.

• Both styles: Mario said, "Okey-dokey!"

In both styles, the mandatory dot can be followed by a comma.

• LQ: The chapters are called "Mario Bros.", "WarioWare Inc.", and "Bowser Jr."
• TQ: The chapters are called "Mario Bros.," "WarioWare Inc.," and "Bowser Jr."

Exclamation and question marks can be followed by a comma in LQ, but not in TQ.

• LQ: Mario's catchphrases are "Here we go!", "Let's-a go!", and "Aren't I done yet?"
• TQ: Mario's catchphrases are "Here we go!" "Let's-a go!" and "Aren't I done yet?"

When placing a "!", "?", ":", or ";" after the quote

The punctuation must be placed after the closing quotation mark if it applies to the whole sentence. This is true in both styles, even though TQ arbitrarily refuses to apply this logic to commas and periods.

• Both styles: I have a "great question": what is a "pizza"? It's not a "pie"; it's "something else"!

When quoting text that itself quote text

For accuracy, we should not modify the quotation style used within the quote.

• Both styles: Electroquake said, "Notice I said "when", not "If" - gotta think positive."
• Both styles: Gaz said, "I'll be "Geno," okay?"

Why we should adopt LQ

While LQ is sometimes perceived as "British style" and TQ is more widespread in American English publications (especially for literature and journalism), LQ has been used for decades in technical and scientific writing even in the US (because LQ is needed for accuracy and precision), and is increasingly used by the general public (unconsciously, just because it's intuitive). Wikipedia uses LQ too and even has a complete essay that explains in detail why TQ is illogical and not suited to encyclopedic writing.

The main flaw of TQ is that it distorts the quote by inserting punctuation that looks like it belongs to the original text. LQ, on the other hand, is much more precise, unambiguous, and accurate to the source material. For example, look at the following two sentences in LQ:

• Camille thinks that Mario's surname is "Bros".
• Camille thinks that Mario's surname is "Bros."

You can see that Camille thinks that the surname is "Bros" without a dot in the first sentence, and "Bros." with a dot in the second sentence. When using TQ, both concepts would be written like the second sentence, which would be ambiguous.

LQ is also more intuitive to write: quoted text is a unit, consisting of words and quotation marks. Writing the quote and then placing punctuation after it is probably what you would instinctively do, unless you've been conditioned to use TQ. Some would say TQ looks more pleasing because LQ creates a gap below the closing quotation mark, but I personally disagree: LQ looks just fine whereas TQ just looks weird to me. TQ is also harder to scan: when I read text that has a period or comma baked into the quote, I spontaneously assume the punctuation is actually part of the quoted text before having to mentally move the punctuation mark outside the quote.

In conclusion, we should adopt a quotation style for consistency, and adopt LQ specifically, because it is intuitive and accurate.

Proposer: Jdtendo (talk)
Deadline: November 24, 2025, 23:59 GMT Closed early on November 17, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Option 1: Adopt "logical quotation".

1. Jdtendo (talk) "Per proposal", I said.
2. Polley001 (talk) The logical choice has "logical" in the name, fancy that. Per this logical proposal.
3. The Dab Master (talk) "Per proposal".
4. Altendo (talk) "I completely agree with this", I said. "I do agree with disambiguating things".
5. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per proposal.
6. LinkTheLefty (talk) I prefer "LQ".see?
7. Ahemtoday (talk) Per proposal.
8. Hewer (talk) Per all, TQ never made sense to me. It especially grinds my gears when music titles get affected by it (The game has an arrangement of "Ground BGM.").
9. "Ihavenoideaboyo (talk)." Per all. While we're at it, let's standardize the usage of the metric system over the imperial system!
10. Camwoodstock (talk) "Per all, especially Hewer!", the Seven Stars wrote, "The conflict with music titles is a great point, honestly."
11. Maw-Ray Master (talk) I say, "Per all".
12. Nintendo101 (talk) I think this way would be most appropriate for the scope of our coverage.
13. PnnyCrygr (talk) "Per all", said Penny.
14. EvieMaybe (talk) THANK YOU.
15. Lastro (talk) TQ literally doesn't exist in French, and there's a reason behind it. LQ all the way.
16. Dominoes (talk) "Per all." – Dominoes (November 12, 2025). MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive. Super Mario Wiki (English). Page 80. Retrieved January 12, 2026 from www.mariowiki.com.
17. Koopa con Carne (talk) "Per all", I spoke breathlessly as I rushed in late.
18. Sorbetti (talk) Per proposal.
19. Dive Rocket Launcher (talk) Per proposunctuation.
20. PaperSplash (talk) "Per all", as the saying goes.
21. AgentParadox (talk) And so in came vote 21, lit up by moon and/or sun, stating the 21÷3 characters including space, and spoke them out of the face: "Per all".
22. Rykitu (talk) Per all.

Comments (punctuation after quotes)

@Ihavenoideaboyo You know, I think that's a great idea as well. I'd say that, whenever there is a measurement using a unit in the imperial system, its corresponding measurement in a metric unit system should included after it in parentheses. Maw-Ray Master (talk) 14:21, November 10, 2025 (EST)

I'd support this, honestly. The Dab Master 14:52, November 10, 2025 (EST)

Quasi-related: a loooong time back, I recall the idea was floated of giving British/American localization a first-come, first-serve basis (e.g. giving images, names and quotes priority based on whichever released first) rather than the current all American English that the wiki decided at some point. Wonder if that idea would be more favorable now. LinkTheLefty (talk) 15:07, November 10, 2025 (EST)

I'd much rather have a consistent preference for one over the other as we currently do, otherwise it's needlessly confusing. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 17:29, November 10, 2025 (EST)

If a pre-existing text uses TQ rather than LQ, should we mark it with a "{{sic}}" template? Ihavenoideaboyo (talk) 17:56, November 10, 2025 (EST)

It's not necessary. TQ is not unusual in general English writing, and readers might get confused about what the "[sic]" applies to. Jdtendo^(T|C) 00:47, November 11, 2025 (EST)

@LinkTheLefty You left a stray "</small>" in your vote. The Dab Master 18:23, November 10, 2025 (EST)

There's a perfectly illogical explanation for that. LinkTheLefty (talk) 18:30, November 10, 2025 (EST)

I don't know how to vote for this. I have always used TQ for dialogue and full sentences, and LQ for everything else. "I don't know what to buy," Peach said. She was looking at something called an "Ultra Shroom". Then again, I tend to use SINGLE quotes for the latter instance anyway, and reserve quotation marks for ACTUAL quotations. Shadow2 (talk) 21:48, November 10, 2025 (EST)

well, no matter which wins, you're going to have to adjust anyways (unless status quo wins, of course) — eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 22:00, November 12, 2025 (EST)

I was taught to use this method of quotation for full sentences as well. Though I could also see the logic behind the other way, so I wouldn't mind adopting LQ in this scenario. Dominoes (talk) 22:18, November 12, 2025 (EST)

Stop mentioning direct/enhanced ports and remasters in the "Latest appearance" section

Do not stop 4-2-3-13
Simple as. I just don't think its very useful to have a character's latest appearance be listed as a direct/enhanced port or remaster of a game, because that fact should speak for itself. Some examples include games like Super Mario 3D All-Stars, Super Mario Galaxy 1 + 2, Luigi's Mansion 2 HD, Donkey Kong Country Returns HD, etc. To me, it be much more informative to include the latest non-port or remaster apperance in the Latest appearance section instead. Keep in mind however, that this does not include full remakes (e.g. Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch)) as those kinds of games are not direct ports and thus are technically not considered a "version" of the original game.

The one exception where it would be ok to mention a port/remaster is in the case where said port/remaster contains new content that a character appears in. For example, Bullies appear in the Bowser's Fury campaign, so that would be mentioned as their latest appearance. While Madpoles appear in the full package of Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury, they do not appear in the Bowser's Fury campaign itself, and thus it would not be mentioned as their latest appearance.

Proposer: Vivavivi004 (talk)
Deadline: November 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Option 1: Remove mentions of direct/enhanced ports & remasters in the Latest apperance section

1. Vivavivi004 (talk) Per proposal.
2. LinkTheLefty (talk) To be honest, this always bothered. We don't include the emulated rereleases on Virtual Console or Switch Online - so why on earth do we count the likes of Wii/3D All-Stars? Because it was arbitrarily pressed physically?
3. Shadow2 (talk) Listing a character's latest appearance as a port feels like listing an actor's latest role as a DVD re-release of a film from 1950. Just doesn't feel right.
4. Ahemtoday (talk) Per proposal.

Option 2: Remove mentions of direct/enhanced ports, remasters, AND remakes

1. LinkTheLefty (talk) Second option. The line between remaster and remake isn't always easy to discern. Let's just go for the whole works.
2. Ahemtoday (talk) I'm not completely set on this, but I tend to think of remakes as more of an extension of the original game than a new thing in their own right. Forgive me for not finding a better example, but if the Axem Rangers showed up in SPM or something, I'd rather be apprised of that than be told they're in SMRPG and SMRPG.

Option 3: Keep mentioning ports/remasters/remakes, but also include another "Latest appearance" section that excludes those kinds of games

1. Ihavenoideaboyo HD (talk) This way, we could make both parties happy.
2. The Dab Master (talk) Second option.
3. Vivavivi004 (talk) Second option. This would be a good option that would still keep the more literal approach done currently (as I think that still holds value) while still being informative about a characters true last NEW appearance.

Option 4: Don't remove mentions of these kinds of games in the Latest appearance section (Do nothing)

1. Hewer (talk) The line between "remake" and "enhanced port" is too unclear for my liking, and it's not unheard of for something to appear in the original version of a game but not a later version, such as 3-Up Moon Block and Propeller Platform.
2. Camwoodstock (talk) Per Hewer. When the state of the definition of what even counts as a Reissue is as much of a powder keg as it is, we don't really feel comfortable with a ruling like this.
3. Rykitu (talk) Per all.
4. New Super Altendo 3D All-Stars 64K-4D Remake Definitive Edition Super Ultra Deluxe Featuring Dante from the Devil May Cry series (talk) The most I would agree on is removing emulated games from actual releases that have more content besides the emulation (the Masterpieces in Brawl and for 3DS / Wii U and maybe Super Mario 3D All-Stars) as that is just the exact same game but running through an emulator, akin to Virtual Console and Nintendo Classics, in an actual release. But even then, you could make the argument that those emulated games in those full releases count towards their latest appearance, since those games were included in an actual release of a new title in the same vein as official modern releases, which is also true for ports, remasters, and remakes that are released outside of Virtual Console and Nintendo Classics. Let's just keep things simple and absolute for now.
5. Nintendo101 (talk) I don't think we should be making these types of litmus tests.
6. Martendo (talk) Per Altendo.
7. The Dab Master – Nintendo Switch 2 Edition + Expert in Mewing While I can understand that this can feel weird at times, after thinking about this for a bit, I honestly don't think it bothers me THAT much. It's not really a harmful bit of information to have. Per Altendo.
8. YoYo (talk) I can already see all the edit wars happening
9. Jazama (talk) Per all
10. Technetium (talk) Per all.
11. Fun With Despair (talk) Remake, rerelease or not, the game came out recently and as such it is their most recent appearance.
12. Dominoes + Dominoes 2 (2025) Per all.
13. Killer Moth (talk) Per all.

Comments (Remove ports/remasters from "Latest apperance" sections)

What if said appearance is within new content in a reissue, such as Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury? This game clearly marked new appearances for characters like Boom Boom and Bowser in the Bowser's Fury campaign (I know it's not THE latest appearance for them, I'm just using it as an example). The Dab Master 10:56, November 5, 2025 (EST)

I believe in that case, it would be ok to mention the game as long as they appear IN the new content. For example, Bullies appear in the Bowser's Fury campaign, so that would be mentioned as their latest appearance. While Madpoles appear in the full package of Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury, they do not appear in the Bowser's Fury campaign itself, and thus it would not be mentioned as their latest appearance. Vivavivi004 T | C 11:17, November 5, 2025 (EST)

I have an idea; how about we simultaneously list both the first port/remaster/remake and the first non-port/remaster/remake appearance? Ihavenoideaboyo (talk) 11:16, November 5, 2025 (EST)

Not a bad idea, I will add an option for it in the proposal. Vivavivi004 T | C 11:22, November 5, 2025 (EST)

Issue is, there's already a lot of debate and confusion on what counts as a remake vs a port / remaster on this wiki… Technetium (talk) 12:51, November 5, 2025 (EST)

@Hewer I feel like a situation where something appears in one game and not its reissue is few and far between enough that it wouldn't really be an issue. I think Option 3 could be a good solution to this. Also, I do understand that there is a big issue with what games to recognize as reissues in the first place, and I can't really argue with that (atleast for some games). But I still would want to see this proposal implemented anyways, because I have always felt that the inclusion of reissues has made the Latest apperance section not really feel like an accurate representation of the characters true history. Nobody would really say that Plungelos were last seen in 2020, because they weren't. They just happened to be in Super Mario 3D All-Stars, a collection of 3 games that were already released. Vivavivi004 T | C 14:05, November 5, 2025 (EST)

I honestly don't mean this as me deliberately being a contrarian, but I would definitely say Plungelos were last seen in 2020 because of 3D All-Stars (including outside the wiki context). Ihavenoideaboyo (talk) 15:44, November 5, 2025 (EST)

@Vivavivi004 You mispelled "appearance" as "apperance" several times. You also don't have to pipe for most plurals (like [[Madpole|Madpoles]]), as just adding an "s" at the end (like [[Madpole]]s) will yield the same result (Madpoles). Piping is obviously required for pluralizations that aren't just the word but with letters added to the end (Bullies are a great example), but for most, piping isn't required at all. Altendo 19:45, November 5, 2025 (EST)

This has nothing to do with the proposal... but thanks for the advice regardless Vivavivi004 T | C

@Shadow2 @Ahemtoday Even if reissues are counted as "extensions" rather than their own new thing, I still do not see that as a solid argument to dismiss reissues from the "Latest appearance" section. Actual game extensions (like content updates such as Luigi's appearance in Balloon World in Super Mario Odyssey, as well as the commemorative updates in games like Super Mario Run and Tetris 99) are noted in the "Latest appearance" section, even though they are even less split than reissues, and they take priority over full games released between the original game's launch and the update that adds the character. Admittedly, they do add new content to the table (while reissues often show content in previous releases, and "Latest appearance" sections don't account for updates unless the character was added in said update), but quoting Hewer, "It's not unheard of for something to appear in the original version of a game but not a later version." I know the proposal said that if it didn't appear in the original, they can appear in the "Latest appearance" section, but I feel like since these are actual releases post-original launch and not part of Nintendo's emulator services, it should be fine to retain how reissues are treated in the "Latest appearance" section. And to quote Camwoodstock, "The state of the definition of what even counts as a Reissue is as much of a powder keg as it is." Let's not risk blowing that up. Altendo 12:16, November 7, 2025 (EST)

Restore some of the pages?

So while most of these pages were merged, I've got a few that should be restored and put back into their own articles. For example, I am including crossover stuff including minor appearances in the franchise. I'll be going over the following pages:

• Captain Falcon
  • As to why his page should be restored, it's because he makes an actual physical appearance in Super Mario: Im Rausch der Geschwindigkeit, and he also appears in F-Zero X which had Rainbow Road in it.
• Ken Masters
  • Ken himself actually physically appears in a comic, Super Mario Klemp-Won-Do: Muskeln sind nicht alles!. Why do almost all of the fighters in that comic have pages yet Ken doesn't? Make it make sense. Ken shouldn't have gotten his page merged.
• Pikachu
  • While I'm barely sure if it counts, Pikachu has appeared in a few Super Mario media, such as this card and a poster for the 30th anniversary that replaced Mario with Pikachu.
• Steve
  • Steve (and maybe Alex if I remember her having her own separate page) should have never gotten his page deleted as the Nintendo versions of Minecraft might actually count.
• Princess Zelda
  • She also appeared in this commercial.
• Little Mac
  • He really needs his page restored as he appeared physically in Captain Rainbow, aside from that he was in the Wii version of Punch Out which had Donkey Kong as a playable character in it.
• Bayonetta
  • Nintendo did a collaboration with Bayonetta's own games to add Princess Peach and Princess Daisy costumes.

Proposer: ILoveBFDI1215 (talk)

Captain Falcon

Do not restore page 1-6
Deadline: November 28, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. ILoveBFDI1215 (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

1. Shadow2 (talk) Captain Falcon's appearance in this comic seems to be a single-panel cameo with no dialogue or anything else significant about it. The comic is only two pages long, so it's nothing ground-breaking or significant unless Captain Falcon actually plays an active role in the story.
2. Camwoodstock (talk) Looking at the comic, Captain Falcon makes a non-speaking (he literally isn't even drawn with a mouth) cameo for exactly 1 panel in a 2-page comic, not very compelling. The F-Zero X thing is already denoted on List of references in Nintendo video games, which we think is fair.
3. Rykitu (talk) Per Shadow2. Having ONE line in a two page comic is not notable enough for the character to get a page.
4. Captain Altendo (talk) Per all.
5. 1468z (talk) Per all.
6. Martendo (talk) Per all.

Ken Masters

Restore page 8-0
Deadline: November 28, 2025, 23:59 GMT Closed early on November 21, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. ILoveBFDI1215 (talk) Per proposal.
2. Tails777 (talk) While I agree with Salmancer on a lot of other options, this one I feel does deserve to be restored. Several other Street Fighter characters appear in the exact same comic and they all have their own articles. If Ken has a physical appearance there and the others have a physical appearance there, Ken should get the same treatment.
3. Shadow2 (talk) Seems odd to leave out Ken AND E. Honda while letting Dhalsim have a page.
4. Camwoodstock (talk) This one at least makes some sense, because he played an actually important role in the comic. This merge feels like an oversight.
5. Rykitu (talk) Per the other Street Fighter characters having pages.
6. Altendo Masters (talk) This one I do agree should be restored, per Tails777. The argument for this page being restored is at least actually valid.
7. Killer Moth (talk) Per proposal, unlike the other characters brought up Ken has a valid reason to have his page restored.
8. 1468z (talk) Per all.

Oppose

Pikachu

Do not restore page 1-9
Deadline: November 28, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. ILoveBFDI1215 (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

1. Salmancer (talk) Hi! I know this proposal was made very earnestly, but I believe you likely aren't aware of this wiki's coverage policy. It is listed on MarioWiki:Coverage, and it explains why the majority of the subjects here do not have articles on the wiki. (I didn't vote on the ones that the coverage policy alone doesn't disqualify, and for those them having pages or not is more of a subjective call) Anyhow, preamble over. Pikachu is an important Pokémon character, but that doesn't make it a relevant Mario character. In specific, we should have a page about "Mario Pikachu", the branding for the media where Pokémon used elements of the Mario brand, because it is very related to Mario, but that doesn't mean Pikachu is, especially since it's only role is dressing as the character Mario. Think about it: even though Bulbapedia does have pages about "Mario Pikachu", they don't have a Mario page or a Luigi page even though they would if they followed the philosophy that would mean Pikachu would have a page on Super Mario Wiki.
2. Shadow2 (talk) It's possible that Pikachu may have valid reasoning for having a page. However, as it is outlined in this proposal specifically, the answer is no. You've stated that Pikachu has appeared in "Super Mario media", but the example you provide is a Pokemon card. That's Pokemon media, not Super Mario media. Posters do not fall under our coverage policy.
3. Camwoodstock (talk) A Crossovers with Pokémon page has been on the backburner for months now, waiting to be made so Luigi Pokémon can be merged into it. Basically any relevant information would be more fit for that page than a dedicated Pikachu page.
4. Jdtendo (talk) Per all.
5. Hewer (talk) No major appearances in media that the wiki fully covers.
6. Rykitu (talk) Per all.
7. Altendochu (talk) Per all.
8. 1468z (talk) Per all.
9. Martendo (talk) Per all.

Steve

Do not restore page 1-9
Deadline: November 28, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. ILoveBFDI1215 (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

1. Salmancer (talk) Minecraft is currently noted as a "guest appearance". This means our coverage of the game is complete by having one article: the article for the media itself. (In this case, Minecraft.) Any additional articles relating to media that is a guest appearance exist only because the article is covering something very distinctly based on the Mario property. So Sonic Lost World gets to have an extra article for Yoshi's Island Zone, and Skylanders: SuperChargers gets to have an extra article for Molten Bowser. (Actually Superchargers should have several extra articles, but that's for another day. Steve is not based on the Mario property in any way, so while we have an article on Minecraft it does not mean we have to make an article for Steve.
2. Shadow2 (talk) Your reasoning doesn't make much sense. What do you mean "the Nintendo versions of Minecraft might actually count"? Count for what? In what way? Minecraft has its Mario mash-up crossover, but Steve exists in Minecraft as it is originally published. Nintendo doesn't have any control over Steve, they were granted permission to publish a game featuring the character. Nintendo themselves are really only responsible for the Mario mash-up stuff they included into it, and Steve is not something they "included" in any form or fashion.
3. Camwoodstock (talk) Minecraft is not Terraria. There aren't Nintendo console-exclusive references hidden in the bottom-right corners of worlds, there's not Nintendo-specific equipment Steve can use, there's just the Mash-Up Pack... Which is already covered on Minecraft, and is far more fitting there than a page for a character who may not actually even be a character (if Mojang's internal guideline book is to be trusted.)
4. Jdtendo (talk) Per all.
5. Hewer (talk) No major appearances in media that the wiki fully covers (Minecraft is a guest appearance, not full coverage).
6. Rykitu (talk) Please read MarioWiki:Coverage
7. Minecraft Altendo (talk) Per all.
8. 1468z (talk) Per all.
9. Martendo (talk) Per all.

Princess Zelda

Do not restore page 1-9
Deadline: November 28, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. ILoveBFDI1215 (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

1. Salmancer (talk) While a commercial for Wario's Woods (Nintendo Entertainment System) is a a piece of Mario media, and normally almost every character in Mario media gets a page on this wiki, the wiki is more discerning regarding characters who are not Mario characters and that goes double when the media in question is not something important enough to have its own dedicated article. Princess Zelda is not a Mario character, and the commercial does not have a dedicated article. I'm not convinced that people reading about Wario's Woods on this wiki need any more information about Princess Zelda than what is already on that commerical's entry in the List of advertisements. (And if they do, there's a little more about Princess Zelda on Crossovers with The Legend of Zelda#Princess Zelda.
2. Shadow2 (talk) Kracko, Bonkers, and Axe Knight also appear in this commercial, but we don't have pages for them either. Furthermore, in watching this commercial, it's a combination commercial for both Wario's Woods and The Legend of Zelda. The idea seems to be "These games are already on our system but we don't have Wario and Link yet, so here they are!" (Although admittedly I don't know why Zelda's already there)... It's not indicative in any way that Zelda has a direct connection to the Mario universe or any Mario characters in this context.
3. Camwoodstock (talk) Per Salmancer and Shadow2. We will at least add in that the reason there was emphasis on Wario's Woods and Zelda in the same advertisement is because it was one of the final commercial releases for the Nintendo Entertainment System--nothing too complicated, and not really anything relating them in a crossover context.
4. Jdtendo (talk) Per all.
5. Hewer (talk) No major appearances in media that the wiki fully covers.
6. Rykitu (talk) Per Shadow2 again.
7. Princess Altendo (talk) Per all.
8. 1468z (talk) Per all.
9. Martendo (talk) Per all.

Little Mac

Do not restore page 1-9
Deadline: November 28, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. ILoveBFDI1215 (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

1. Salmancer (talk) See Steve, all the things I said here apply there. Our coverage of Punch-Out!! for the Wii is complete with the article Punch-Out!! (Wii), and our coverage of Captain Rainbow is complete with the article Captain Rainbow. An article for Little Mac is not necessary. (Also as far as I'm aware Donkey Kong isn't playable in Punch-Out!! for the Wii; he's one of the CPU opponents and in Punch-Out!! being a CPU opponent does not imply playablity because in single player mode the player is Little Mac and in two player mode both players are Little Macs.)
2. Shadow2 (talk) Can confirm that Donkey Kong is not playable in Punch Out for Wii, he's just an opponent. Either way, Captain Rainbow has a lot more characters than just Little Mac in it, but we don't have pages for them either. Like with Zelda, Little Mac doesn't have any direct connection to Mario or Mario characters. He is a guest in the game, just as Birdo is a guest in the game.
3. Camwoodstock (talk) Basically anything worth denoting is already more clearly covered on Crossovers with Punch-Out!!, and we don't think making it a character page would improve its form factor.
4. Jdtendo (talk) Per all.
5. Hewer (talk) No major appearances in media that the wiki fully covers (Captain Rainbow and Wii Punch-Out are both guest appearances, not full coverage).
6. Rykitu (talk) Once again, per MarioWiki:Coverage
7. Little Altendo (talk) Per Rykitu.
8. 1468z (talk) Per all.
9. Martendo (talk) Per all.

Bayonetta

Do not restore page 1-10
Deadline: November 28, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. ILoveBFDI1215 (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

1. Salmancer (talk) Bayonetta 2 is not a guest appearance. I believe it is not a guest appearance because the Mario content is just costumes and skins, which are deemed to be minor. This means it gets less coverage than the guest appearances, such as how there isn't a article called "Bayonnetta 2". Rather, Bayonetta 2's Mario content is considered a "cameo" and cameos are universally covered one of the Lists of references, in this case List of references in third-party video games (A–M). It should also be on History of Princess Peach, Daisy, History of Bowser, and Chain Chomp in "Other appearances" sections. There is not a need for a page about Bayonetta the character, given that those pages should be describing everything that is relevant to Super Mario Wiki about the crossover content.
2. Shadow2 (talk) Just because someone gave Bayonetta a Peach outfit doesn't magically make Bayonetta a Mario-related character. By that logic, you could make a page for Jimmy down the street who dressed as Daisy for Halloween. As covered before, a lot of our crossover articles are characters who were somehow injected into the Mario universe, or came into direct contact with Mario characters such as in a comic. They're mostly "guests" who ventured into or near the Mario universe. Bayonetta has done no such thing, because it's the other way around. Mario content "guested" into her game, nothing more. So we cover that Mario content specifically (on the references page) and that's that. Bayonetta is still just doing her own thing.
3. Camwoodstock (talk) We realize a lot of our votes probably just read the same, but, really, there's only so many ways we can say "A 'crossovers with X' page or 'list of references in' page has already covered this, in a better form factor than a character page could ever provide"... But, y'know, incidentally, yeah, it's already on the third-party games references in a pretty suitable format, and moving it to a page all about Bayonetta specifically wouldn't really be much of an improvement in our opinion.
4. Jdtendo (talk) Per all.
5. Hewer (talk) No major appearances in media that the wiki fully covers (Bayonetta 2 is considered a cameo appearance, not even a guest appearance).
6. Rykitu (talk) Per all. An easter egg in a game licensed by Nintendo referencing the Mario series once is not enough for us to give full coverage on that franchise.
7. Bayoaltendo (talk) Per all.
8. 1468z (talk) Per all.
9. Martendo (talk) Per all.
10. Arend (talk) The given reason does not warrant a page for Bayonetta herself, but rather a Crossovers with Bayonetta type page. Look at our Rayman page for instance: in Rayman Legends Rayman and Globox get a Mario and Luigi costume respectively, which should put them on the same level as Bayo and her Peach and Daisy costumes. However, Rayman did not get a page on the Wiki at all UNTIL he himself made a physical appearance in the Mario series: being, the Rayman in the Phantom Show DLC for Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope. Therefore, only that game gets covered on Rayman's page, and not Rayman Legends. Bayo didn't make a single physical appearance in the Mario franchise, so she shouldn't get a page yet.

Comments

Although I don't necessarily disagree with the objective of this proposal, it is very much improperly formatted (for example, there is no "neutral" option, there was no comments section before I added one, there are no deadlines, votes, or proposer name, and the sectioning is very much off). Signatures also aren't supposed to be on the proposer itself. Altendo 19:33, November 14, 2025 (EST)

@ILoveBFDI1215 You really need to fix your proposal so it becomes votable. If you cannot make a properly formed proposal, I recommend that you withdraw this proposal in order for it to not take up space (something similar happened before, and that proposal ended up getting vetoed due to it similarly being malformed). I really recommend that you read the proposal formatting section of this page and fix it per their directions. Altendo 20:59, November 14, 2025 (EST)

This will likely get deleted and reposted with proper formatting, so I'd like to share my thoughts with the proposer beforehand... Only Captain Falcon and Ken really seem to have valid reasoning. Cameos on merchandise (Pikachu) certainly do not necessitate the creation of a page, or we'd have a bajillion pages for unrelated characters. The same goes for television commercials (Zelda). The fact that Nintendo published versions of Minecraft (Steve) doesn't even have anything to do with the Mario series in the first place... you're saying they would belong on a Nintendo wiki, not on a Mario wiki. The same reasoning goes for Nintendo's collaboration of Bayonetta, even though they added some costumes to the game doesn't magically make Bayonetta a Mario character. She existed on her own and was just given costumes. The "time and effort" of the game developers is irrelevant to our page creation processes. Captain Rainbow is not a Mario video game, and so there's no reason for us to care that Little Mac is in it. There's a LOT of characters in Captain Rainbow besides Little Mac, and we don't need to create pages for each of them. Shadow2 (talk) 23:43, November 14, 2025 (EST)

Honestly the only reason why this is poorly made because I don't know how to make a proposal. ILoveBFDI1215 (talk) 23:56, November 14, 2025 (EST)

On this very pages are templates for regular proposal formats and poll proposal formats, which you can copypaste and fill in the blanks and such. Since this proposal has support/oppose options for various options, I suggest using the poll proposal format for this one. Either of the formatting templates at least includes the most necessary things, such as a comments section and a deadline.
Also I don't think "Neutral" options are really a thing in proposals at all. These don't really help in the slightest with vote counts (for example, if the Neutral option wins, what's gonna happen then? Is it like when no consensus is reached and the proposal fails anyway? Or do we like, not count those votes? If so, then what's even the point of having those?). We don't need an extra column for neutral votes, it only complicates things. If someone feels neutral on a specific proposal, they simply abstain from voting, and if someone wants to explain why they feel neutral or want to abstain from voting, the comment section exists. rend (talk) (edits) 05:08, November 15, 2025 (EST)

So I didn't vote on Captain Falcon or Ken Masters since I believe those characters don't have articles because they only have minor roles in the stories in question. Since I can't read German, I can't form an opinion on the importance the characters have to the story, and therefore cannot dispute what I believe is the current reasoning. (Don't say "The Blue Falcon has a page because of the same story Captain Falcon is in and therefore Captain Falcon should have a page", the Blue Falcon's situation is complicated.) Salmancer (talk) 17:54, November 15, 2025 (EST)

Captain Falcon being in F-Zero X doesn't help his case for the same reason the Mario items and cosmetics in Bayonetta 2 don't help Bayonetta's case: while F-Zero X has Mario content in it is only in a cameo capacity and thus our coverage is complete with the notes on List of references in Nintendo video games, Rainbow Road, and Rainbow Road (Mario Kart 64). Salmancer (talk) 18:01, November 15, 2025 (EST)

I'll probably make a proposal to restore all Super Smash Bros. pages. ILoveBFDI1215 (talk) 19:26, November 15, 2025 (EST)

Just being in Smash Bros. alongside Mario is not enough reasoning to give them a page. The purpose of this wiki is to cover the Mario universe. If you have a page for Corrin, how much "Mario universe" content do you think could be put on this page? "Corrin appeared alongside Mario in Smash Bros." and that would be the end of the page. We can't just copy and past all of Corrin's Smash Brothers info from the Smash wiki. It doesn't belong here. Shadow2 (talk) 21:18, November 15, 2025 (EST)

That's terrible reasoning. Two wikis can cover the same thing without one of them being wrong for doing so, see Donkey Kong Wiki. Or er... saw Donkey Kong Wiki considering Super Mario Wiki ate it, but the point stands. And we would never copy information from Smashwiki for any reason, let alone because of a coverage overlap. If you want my advice, ILoveBFDI1215, the answer most likely to create the result you want is a proposal to have characters from all microgames get pages. WarioWare does get full coverage, and each microgame is basically a fictional work in itself in addition to being a component of an overall WarioWare game. (And we do give articles for every component of the minigame Pyoro (minigame), such as Bean (Pyoro) and Tenshi, even if it might be because of the full game release Bird & Beans. (But that release consists of two ported minigames, so maybe we're right back where we started and we are covering components of minigames in Pyoro's case but in no other cases for inexplicable reasons.) This incidentally would result in a number of the articles in question being recreated. (Including Corrin, because they are in Fire Emblem Engage.) Salmancer (talk) 07:34, November 16, 2025 (EST)

Pyoro's a minigame, not a microgame, so I don't see the inconsistency. And I think it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that Corrin's cameo appearance that lasts for literally one second could justify an article, there's nothing to cover there that the microgame article couldn't already cover. The Super Mario Maker costumes would have a better argument for splitting than that. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 08:56, November 16, 2025 (EST)

I'm confused. It seems like you're yelling at me for having a bad take, but then agreeing with my point in the fourth sentence? Shadow2 (talk) 22:01, November 16, 2025 (EST)

The reason we used to cover Smash Bros. stuff is because there used to not be a dedicated Smash Bros. wiki. There is one now. Thusly, a lot of this information was moved over to SmashWiki, and the pages on here were merged because it'd just be either redundant, or an inferior version to, what's already on SmashWiki. We would say you're more likely to get SmashWiki merged into this wiki, but that would have to be instigated by SmashWiki's own staff and userbase, not just one user, and certainly not via proposal. ~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 00:04, November 16, 2025 (EST)

About Corrin's page it could cover how they look like in the microgame. Right down to it saying they can walk and move their arms. ILoveBFDI1215 (talk) 17:20, November 17, 2025 (EST)

No. We don't have pages for every single minor character that appears in every microgame. Those pages would be like three sentences long. Shadow2 (talk) 00:05, November 18, 2025 (EST)

Determine which game pages with the full title to rename

This proposal aims to determine which game pages with a full title to rename. Rumor has it that both the respective proposals for using the disambiguation identifier without the subtitles for Super Mario RPG and both Donkey Kong Country 2 and Donkey Kong Country 3 have passed. The last proposal for using the disambiguation identifier without the label for Yoshi's Island pages, however, was declined.

Just as Hewer said to Dive Rocket Launcher:

“I feel like that's a bit more of a stretch since it replaces (and reorders) the subtitle rather than just removing it. Also, "Yoshi's Island" isn't quite as immediately obvious what it refers to compared to "Super Mario RPG" and "Donkey Kong Country 2/3".”

—Hewer, Use shorter disambiguation identifier (without subtitle) for Donkey Kong Country 2 and Donkey Kong Country 3 pages

This will only affect the pages Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars, Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest, and Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble! and its subpages, with Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island excluded.

The affected pages are as follows:

Namespace	Super Mario RPG		Donkey Kong Country 2		Donkey Kong Country 3
	Before success	After success	Before success	After success	Before success	After success
(Main)	Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars bestiary List of Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars glitches Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars level up progressions List of Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars pre-release and unused content List of Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars quotes List of Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars special moves List of Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars staff	Super Mario RPG Super Mario RPG bestiary List of Super Mario RPG glitches Super Mario RPG level up progressions List of Super Mario RPG pre-release and unused content List of Super Mario RPG quotes List of Super Mario RPG special moves List of Super Mario RPG staff	Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest List of Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest glitches Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest sound test (Nintendo Music) List of Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest pre-release and unused content List of Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest quotes Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest sound test List of Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest staff	Donkey Kong Country 2 List Donkey Kong Country 2 glitches Donkey Kong Country 2 (Nintendo Music) List Donkey Kong Country 2 pre-release and unused content List Donkey Kong Country 2 quotes Donkey Kong Country 2 sound test List Donkey Kong Country 2 staff	Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble! List of Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble! glitches Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble! (Nintendo Music) Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble! Original Soundtrack List of Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble! pre-release and unused content List of Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble! quotes Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble! sound test List of Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble! staff	Donkey Kong Country 3 List Donkey Kong Country 3 glitches Donkey Kong Country 3 (Nintendo Music) Donkey Kong Country 3 Original Soundtrack List Donkey Kong Country 3 pre-release and unused content List Donkey Kong Country 3 quotes Donkey Kong Country 3 sound test List Donkey Kong Country 3 staff
Category	Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars accessories Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars armor Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars artwork Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars assets Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars bosses Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars characters Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars concept art Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars consumable items Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars enemies Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars images Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars locations Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars media files Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars minigames Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars moves Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars music Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars objects Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars screenshots Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars species Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars stats Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars status effects Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars weapons Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars worlds	Super Mario RPG Super Mario RPG accessories Super Mario RPG armor Super Mario RPG artwork Super Mario RPG assets Super Mario RPG bosses Super Mario RPG characters Super Mario RPG concept art Super Mario RPG consumable items Super Mario RPG enemies Super Mario RPG images Super Mario RPG locations Super Mario RPG media files Super Mario RPG minigames Super Mario RPG moves Super Mario RPG music Super Mario RPG objects Super Mario RPG screenshots Super Mario RPG species Super Mario RPG stats Super Mario RPG status effects Super Mario RPG weapons Super Mario RPG worlds	Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest artwork Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest assets Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest bosses Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest characters Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest concept art Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest enemies Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest images Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest items Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest levels Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest media files Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest music Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest objects Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest screenshots Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest user icons Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest worlds	Donkey Kong Country 2 Donkey Kong Country 2 artwork Donkey Kong Country 2 assets Donkey Kong Country 2 bosses Donkey Kong Country 2 characters Donkey Kong Country 2 concept art Donkey Kong Country 2 enemies Donkey Kong Country 2 images Donkey Kong Country 2 items Donkey Kong Country 2 levels Donkey Kong Country 2 media files Donkey Kong Country 2 music Donkey Kong Country 2 objects Donkey Kong Country 2 screenshots Donkey Kong Country 2 user icons Donkey Kong Country 2 worlds	Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble! Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble! artwork Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble! assets Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble! bosses Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble! characters Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble! enemies Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble! items Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble! levels Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble! media files Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble! music Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble! objects Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble! Original Soundtrack images Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble! screenshots Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble! worlds	Donkey Kong Country 3 Donkey Kong Country 3 artwork Donkey Kong Country 3 assets Donkey Kong Country 3 bosses Donkey Kong Country 3 characters Donkey Kong Country 3 enemies Donkey Kong Country 3 images Donkey Kong Country 3 items Donkey Kong Country 3 levels Donkey Kong Country 3 media files Donkey Kong Country 3 music Donkey Kong Country 3 objects Donkey Kong Country 3 Original Soundtrack images Donkey Kong Country 3 screenshots Donkey Kong Country 3 worlds
Gallery	Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars	Super Mario RPG	Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest	Donkey Kong Country 2	Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!	Donkey Kong Country 3
Multimedia	Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars	Super Mario RPG	Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest	Donkey Kong Country 2	Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!	Donkey Kong Country 3

That way, if one option has decided that one page will be renamed without a game's subtitle, then we won't need to worry about that subtitle.

Proposer: GuntherBayBeee (talk)

Can the Legend of the Seven Stars subtitle be removed from pages, subpages, and categories with the "Super Mario RPG" in its title?

Do not remove subtitle 1-10
Deadline: December 17, 2025, 23:59 GMT Closed early on December 10, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Yes

1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per proposal.

No

1. Hewer (talk) Why should we not use the full titles of these games? The proposal doesn't even give an argument for this, just a list of things that would change.
2. Camwoodstock (talk) Per Hewer. There's no real reason given to rename these, and presently, just "Super Mario RPG" is used for the Switch remake (albeit, with a parenthetical to clarify it's for the Switch remake).
3. Power Flotzo (talk) Change for the sake of change.
4. Super Altendo RPG: Legend of the Seven Proposals Per.
5. Shadow2 (talk) No sufficient reasoning given in proposal.
6. Arend (talk) This really feels like GuntherBayBeee saw the aforementioned proposals about shortening the identifiers, and didn't exactly realize why these passed in the first place and drew the wrong conclusion. For the record: these proposals passed because a rerelease officially shortened the game's title to the most relevant portion, so it made sense to shorten the identifiers for these articles too given that the subjects they were about also appeared in that game. This isn't about shortening the title JUST for the sake of shortening it, and there's no reason why we shouldn't keep the full title of Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars, especially for the actual page.
7. EvieMaybe (talk) per all
8. Rykitu RPG: Legend of the Chaos Emeralds (talk) Per all, especially Power Flotzo.
9. Kaptain Skurvy RPG: Legend of the Crystal Coconut (talk) Per all
10. Nintendo101 (talk) Per all.

Can the Diddy's Kong Quest subtitle be removed from pages, subpages, and categories with the "Donkey Kong Country 2" in its title?

Do not remove subtitle 1-10
Deadline: December 17, 2025, 23:59 GMT Closed early on December 10, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Yes

1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per proposal.

No

1. Hewer's Kong Quest (talk) Per first vote
2. Camwoodstock (talk) See our first vote, and, funny enough, "the game's name without the subtitle is used for a remake later down the road, and is only distinguished on the wiki via parenthetical" is also true for this game.
3. Power Flotzo (talk) Per my vote above.
4. Altendo Country 2: Lil' Altendo's Quest Per all of the opposition.
5. Shadow2 (talk) No sufficient reasoning given in proposal.
6. Arend (talk) Idem to the SMRPG thing but with DKC2
7. EvieMaybe (talk) per all
8. Rykitu Country 2: Rykitu Jr.'s Conquest (talk) Per all.
9. Kaptain Skurvy Kountry 2: Kutlass's Krem Quest (talk) Per all
10. Nintendo101 (talk) Per all.

Can the Dixie Kong's Double Trouble! subtitle be removed from pages, subpages, and categories with the "Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!" in its title?

Do not remove subtitle 1-10
Deadline: December 17, 2025, 23:59 GMT Closed early on December 10, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Yes

1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per proposal.

No

1. Hewer's Double Trouble (talk) Per first vote
2. Camwoodstock (talk) See our first and second votes, yeah, it's true for this game too.
3. Power Flotzo (talk) Per my two votes above.
4. Altendo Country 3: Lil' Miss Altendo's Double Trouble! Ditto.
5. Shadow2 (talk) No sufficient reasoning given in proposal.
6. Arend (talk) Idem to the above things but with DKC3
7. EvieMaybe (talk) per all
8. Rykitu Country 3: Double Trouble! (talk) Per all.
9. Kaptain Skurvy Kountry 3: Green Kroc's Double Trouble! (talk) Per all
10. Nintendo101 (talk) Per all.

Do not use partial italics in titles

Remove partial italics in names and titles 8-0
The Manual of Style's current rules for title italicisation apply to video games and series (among other media not relevant here). However, the rules do not clarify whether this should apply to titles within titles — e.g., the title of a game or series used within the title of a song or board game.

In practice, the wiki tends towards italicising game and series titles within other titles (see Category:Physical games for many examples), but is not fully consistent either (the song "Mario Kart 8 Title Screen" has no italics on its relevant soundtrack page, but does elsewhere). This practice, sensibly enough, also does not extend to WarioWare microgames (e.g. Super Mario World) or Mario Kart tracks (e.g. Animal Crossing).

This proposal aims to end the practice of using italics within titles for media that is not typically italicised, and to clarify/codify this stance in the Manual of Style. My reasons are as follows:

Partial italics are misrepresentative of actual titles.

I believe that italicisation should only be used to wrap around a full title, and that titles largely should otherwise be written as-is. Super Mario and Mario Kart Tour are not misrepresentative, since they do not introduce any extra formatting within the title itself; Das Super Mario Spiel and "I Love Mario Kart Tour", on the other hand, are less appropriate.

Partial italics can cause title ambiguity.

The name of this Donkey Kong water game is consistently written as Donkey Kong, which gives the impression that names of physical games are italicised. Other examples include a Mario Kart DS jigsaw puzzle and a New Super Mario Bros. Wii pachinko toy.

Titles are less readable with mixed use of italics.

Mixing italics into (for example) a song title creates visual noise that makes it harder to parse as a single title, especially when the title is used in the text repeatedly/alongside actual game titles; one look at the page for "Super Mario Kart Title Screen" shows the extent of this.

My proposed revision to the Manual of Style is as follows (additions in bold):

Song titles, book chapters, and episode names (i.e. of television series) are not italicized, but written in quotation marks. The wiki applies the same principle to missions from the 3D Super Mario games. Titles within titles (e.g. game titles within song names) should not be italicized; this also applies to products whose names do not use italics or quotation marks, such as physical games and toys.

Proposer: Reese Rivers (talk)
Deadline: December 21, 2025, 23:59 GMT Closed early on December 14, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support: Remove partial italics in names and titles

1. Reese Rivers (talk) Per proposal.
2. The Dab Master Title Screen (talk) Per proposal. I might also add that this makes things a little harder to link to (especially on mobile), since you have to fully type [[Super Mario Kart Title Screen|''Super Mario Kart'' Title Screen]].
3. Hewer (talk) Very much per proposal, this has been bugging me for some time. "Super Mario Kart Title Screen" feels like a hypercorrection, and we also don't apply this consistently, e.g. the credits theme of Super Mario Galaxy is just "Super Mario Galaxy" (and if we did italicise that then it could lead to confusion with the game itself).
4. EvieMaybe (talk) "per all"
5. Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal. The purpose behind italicizing media in other contexts is to denote what is a container, vs. its contents. For example Super Mario World is a minigame (content) within WarioWare: Get It Together! (container). It is named after and based on Super Mario World, but it is not literally the same thing just because it’s the same combination of words. The former is a component within a video game. The latter actually is a video game. The same principal is applicable to song titles and the like. To partially italicize the titles of contents like this (or even of containers, as I sometimes encounter in citations for full books that happen to include the names of video games in their titles) dilutes the utility of italicizing the names of media in the first place.
6. Das Rykitu Spiel (talk) Per all.
7. Polley001 (talk) Per all.
8. Altendo (talk) Per all.

Comments (Do not use partial italics)

For reference, here's a relevant previous proposal where it was decided that video game titles within physical game titles should be italicised. I don't believe there was ever a discussion about formatting music titles like this, though. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:38, December 7, 2025 (EST)

A Format For Footnotes

Adopt specified format 5-0
Footnotes. So similar to citations in format, but so dissimilar to them in purpose. Currently, we do these one of two ways on the wiki, each falling on one half of this divide.

Firstly, we have {{Footnote}}, a dedicated template for footnotes. You'd think this would be the end of it, but the template is not consistent with the formatting of citations, which is very noticeable when seeing the two on the same article. This wouldn't be the end of the world, but it's also not as fully featured, only being capable of going back to the first instance of a footnote rather than being able to scroll up to multiplate instances like citations can. Multiple instances of the same footnote are not at all an uncommon use case for footnotes, so this downside is quite unfortunate.

The other method is using grouped <ref> tags with something like "group=note" or "group=a". This does have the format and functionality of citations — after all, they are citations. I would call this clearly superior to the first one, and worthy of adoption over it. However, I'm not just going to suggest standardizing to the second method. There's a little tweak we can make to make this method even better.

See, there's two things that bug me a little about the second method: first off, the use of numbers combined with the fact that it's using the same code as citations make the footnotes look as though they're a type of citation; while in the code, they are, in spirit one providing additional information and the other one providing the source of information makes them quite different in purpose. Secondly, the group label makes it wider than your average citation, or anything done with {{Footnote}}, which doesn't sound like a big deal, but the biggest use case for footnotes is tables, tight grids of information; the less a footnote has to stretch a column or move its contents, the better it looks.

I have a solution to both of these problems, and if I understand this page correctly, it lies in this site's rarely used MediaWiki namespace. Bear with me; this will be a bit technical but I'll explain what this will accomplish afterward. We will create four pages: MediaWiki:Cite link label group-footnotes, MediaWiki:Cite link label group-footnotes2, MediaWiki:Cite link label group-footnotes3, and MediaWiki:Cite link label group-footnotes4. All four pages will share the same text:

a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an ao ap aq ar as at au av aw ax ay az ba bb bc bd be bf bg bh bi bj bk bl bm bn bo bp bq br bs bt bu bv bw bx by bz ca cb cc cd ce cf cg ch ci cj ck cl cm cn co cp cq cr cs ct cu cv cw cx cy cz da db dc dd de df dg dh di dj dk dl dm dn do dp dq dr ds dt du dv dw dx dy dz ea eb ec ed ee ef eg eh ei ej ek el em en eo ep eq er es et eu ev ew ex ey ez fa fb fc fd fe ff fg fh fi fj fk fl fm fn fo fp fq fr fs ft fu fv fw fx fy fz ga gb gc gd ge gf gg gh gi gj gk gl gm gn go gp gq gr gs gt gu gv gw gx gy gz ha hb hc hd he hf hg hh hi hj hk hl hm hn ho hp hq hr hs ht hu hv hw hx hy hz ia ib ic id ie if ig ih ii ij ik il im in io ip iq ir is it iu iv iw ix iy iz ja jb jc jd je jf jg jh ji jj jk jl jm jn jo jp jq jr js jt ju jv jw jx jy jz ka kb kc kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn ko kp kq kr ks kt ku kv kw kx ky kz la lb lc ld le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo lp lq lr ls lt lu lv lw lx ly lz ma mb mc md me mf mg mh mi mj mk ml mm mn mo mp mq mr ms mt mu mv mw mx my mz na nb nc nd ne nf ng nh ni nj nk nl nm nn no np nq nr ns nt nu nv nw nx ny nz oa ob oc od oe of og oh oi oj ok ol om on oo op oq or os ot ou ov ow ox oy oz pa pb pc pd pe pf pg ph pi pj pk pl pm pn po pp pq pr ps pt pu pv pw px py pz qa qb qc qd qe qf qg qh qi qj qk ql qm qn qo qp qq qr qs qt qu qv qw qx qy qz ra rb rc rd re rf rg rh ri rj rk rl rm rn ro rp rq rr rs rt ru rv rw rx ry rz sa sb sc sd se sf sg sh si sj sk sl sm sn so sp sq sr ss st su sv sw sx sy sz ta tb tc td te tf tg th ti tj tk tl tm tn to tp tq tr ts tt tu tv tw tx ty tz ua ub uc ud ue uf ug uh ui uj uk ul um un uo up uq ur us ut uu uv uw ux uy uz va vb vc vd ve vf vg vh vi vj vk vl vm vn vo vp vq vr vs vt vu vv vw vx vy vz wa wb wc wd we wf wg wh wi wj wk wl wm wn wo wp wq wr ws wt wu wv ww wx wy wz xa xb xc xd xe xf xg xh xi xj xk xl xm xn xo xp xq xr xs xt xu xv xw xx xy xz ya yb yc yd ye yf yg yh yi yj yk yl ym yn yo yp yq yr ys yt yu yv yw yx yy yz za zb zc zd ze zf zg zh zi zj zk zl zm zn zo zp zq zr zs zt zu zv zw zx zy zz

What this will do is define the labeling of citations specifically in the groups "footnotes", "footnotes2", "footnotes3", and "footnotes4". They will not appear with prefixes, and will instead appear something like this.^[d] Which I think is perfect. It's letters to contrast the numbers of true citations. It's narrow so it slots much nicer into tables than ^{[note 4]} or even ^{[a 4]}. And of course, there's all the benefits of using the citations template for everything still. Does my excitement come through here? I'm quite proud of finding this.

{{Footnote}} will be marked a deprecated template and eventually replaced on all articles where it is currently present. I considered putting this new system into that template instead, or offering that as an option, but considering to be easy to use it would need to have all the same functionality as a <ref> tag anyway, I... don't think it would be worthwhile to keep.

Obviously, any preexisting ref-footnotes will have to be changed to use the four specific functional groups. I don't know if I'm willing to set much more than that in stone regarding footnotes. I think I'm fine with it generally suiting the needs of the article. Articles where large footnote set(s) are localized to specific tables, such as Mario Kart, can use multiple footnote sets lying right below the pertinent tables; whereas articles with small, scattered footnote sets, such as Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, may be better served with its footnotes as a single set placed next to the citations.

Proposer: Ahemtoday (talk)
Deadline: December 15, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support (footnotes)

1. Ahemtoday (talk) Per proposal.
2. a lt en do This creates 702 footnotes, and while I don't think we can use all of them, we do have a lot of additional space here (not like we'll use all of them, but still).
3. Dominoes^[tk][ct] Seems like a pretty reasonable and elegant solution to me.
4. Arend (talk) The whole ^{[a 6]} and ^{[b 10]} stuff always looked clunky on tables featured on pages such as Standard Kart; it would've looked much better if it were shortened to things such as ^[f] and ^[j]. I think we might need more than four footnote classes later, though.
5. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per all.

Comments (footnotes)

I would rather shorten the group names to "n1", "n2", etc. (which are currently unused) instead of "footnotes", "footnotes2", etc., so that you could type <ref group=n1> instead of <ref group=footnotes>. Jdtendo^(T|C) 04:31, December 3, 2025 (EST)

Hm. I see that, but I feel like something like this is best served by maximal clarity rather than making concessions to brevity. These are group labels that cause the ref function to behave unusually, so I want their purpose to be clear and for them to be impossible to stumble upon accidentally. Although, I don't think I've ever seen citation grouping used in any way other than footnotes... Ahemtoday (talk) 12:03, December 3, 2025 (EST)

Rename "Notes" sections "Additional information"

Do not rename 1-9
"Notes" were initially named "Trivia". I wonder why "Notes" sections containing notes, trivia, allusions, cultural references, and/or continuity information are considered a naming error. I humbly ask if there's a possibility to rename "Notes" sections "Additional information", likened to be named similarly to the "Additional info" sections on articles on the Infosphere.

Proposer: GuntherBayBeee (talk)
Deadline: December 27, 2025, 23:59 GMT Closed early on December 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support: Notes are additional information!

1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose: Notes are notes!

1. Camwoodstock (talk) Notes is more concise and fairly accurate. In addition, we do have concerns about the stigma the name "additional information" could bring; the push to rename from "Trivia" to "Notes" was, partially, because "trivia" had a stigma for being a section of "yeah, no, this should be shuffled to other parts of the page if it can be helped." The name "Notes" makes it clear that it's perfectly fine to have it in its own section so long as it doesn't really fit anywhere else; by literally calling it additional information, you're practically begging editors to ask, "why is this here and not the main information?", and once a stigma like that becomes ingrained, it's hard to undo it.
2. Sorbetti (talk) Per Camwoodstock.
3. Reese Rivers (talk) Per above.
4. Polley001 (talk) Per Camwoodstock.
5. Arend (talk) To me, it appears that GuntherBayBeee doesn't seem to have a lick of understanding what the "Additional info" section on the Futurama wiki that they've based this whole proposal after even entails. If you follow the link to the Additional info section of the wiki's Manual of Style page that he provided, as well as browsing through the wiki in general, you will immediately notice that the "Additional info" section on the Infosphere is NOT just another term for "Notes" or "Trivia", but in fact a whole supersection of various multiple subsections... INCLUDING "Trivia"! And, it can include a whole slew of other sections if episode pages such as "Related to Items You've Viewed" or character pages like Philip J. Fry are to be believed, including "Quotes", "Appearances", "Continuity", "Allusions", etc. So "Additional info" is in fact a much too broad of a term and would not cover just notes, but also other typical staples on our wiki pages, which, if I get this right, goes completely against what the rename to "Notes" was striving for. This feels like yet another "change for the sake of change" type of proposal we've seen various times from this guy, and proposing something such as this without (visible) understand of said change, perfectly encapsulates why you SHOULDN'T propose changes just for the sake of making changes.
6. Ahemtoday (talk) Per Camwoodstock.
7. Power Flotzo (talk) Per Camwoodstock and Arend.
8. YoYo (talk) this is very pedantic at best and unnecessary at the least.
9. The Dab Master (talk) Per all.

Use the world flag if a game/console releases everywhere on the same day

Do not use the world flag 4-6
I was once on Super Mario Party Jamboree's page and saw that the game released everywhere on the exact same day but we still used many country/region (including their sources) albeit them stating the exact same day (October 17, 2024). Same for the Switch Lite on the Switch's page.

Why use all those flags when we could just use the world flag?

This has honestly bugged me for a while cause it just makes more sense to have a world flag if a game releases on the same day everywhere in the world. I mean that's why we included the (World) flag in our list of flags for the Flag template, right? Why would we (still) include it if we never use it? Since the Switch we've had several opportunities (since several games release everywhere on the same day) to use the flag yet we still don't use it, even if it is overall more convenient to use and finally gives the flag a good purpose on our wiki.

Proposer: Yoshi18 (talk)
Deadline: December 27, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support: Add the World flag to games/consoles that released on the same day everywhere in the world

1. Yoshi18 (talk) Per proposal.
2. Sargent Deez (talk) As Hewer said, we already do this on most pages. Fully rolling it out would make things more consistent and infoboxes easier to read.
3. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) +1 for consistency. Per all.
4. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per all.

Oppose: Leave as-is (status quo)

1. Altendo^[1][2][3] I see several problems with this. The first, and most obvious, would be that this would contradict the proposal that mandated citations for dates, therefore either clogging up a single flag, forcing them into subcitations within a larger one, or providing inaccurate information based on only a few regions' release date. The second issue is that the usage of this flag could be limited, because games can still release in different regions on different days, and sometimes multiple regions can do this at once, meaning that this flag's usage would likely be controversial based on which regions it should cover. The third, and biggest issue, though, is that this could misguide users into thinking that a game could release in regions where it hasn't, like Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope not releasing in as many regions as Super Mario Party Jamboree, and using a world flag to represent the "majority" could misguide people into thinking that a game released in regions it really hadn't been, which makes it more difficult to accurately determine where a game has been released in. I think a better option would be to double down on Hewer's suggestion and consolidate all of these flags into a collapsible section, but instead of using a potentially misleading or inconsistent world flag, to instead list the game's first release date in its first region outside of the section (personally, if many countries share the same worldwide release date, I think that the American release date should take precedence as it's where most readers are based in, but I also wouldn't mind having the American release date alongside a potentially earlier initial release date, likely Japanese), which gives a quick insight on its initial release date in its initial region (and maybe America) while also allowing readers to see every country a game has released in.
2. Shadow2 (talk) If it's not released in every country in the world, then we shouldn't use the world flag. I doubt these games were released in North Korea.
3. EvieMaybe (talk) per Altendo
4. Ahemtoday (talk) Per Altendo. I'm not particularly moved by the idea of a collapsible because... well, I don't see the point in collapsing the information. It's basically just doing what we were going to do anyway except now there's an extra, redundant entry that encapsulates all the others. Is it a crime for an infobox to be tall?
5. Camwoodstock (talk) Per Altendo. The point about some games releasing at the same time only in certain regions is a pretty big one; what groups should get the world flag and which ones just get their own ones isn't explained, and to be honest, we wouldn't be particularly enthused even if there was a method to that madness. (We're also not exactly keen on a collapsible, but that's its own thing.)
6. 1468z (talk) Per all.

Comments (Using the world flag)

We already do use the world flag for this though, check out the list of pages that use the file (and I guess this one too). I guess it wasn't being used on the Super Mario Party Jamboree page so that all the citations could be included, but look at how Luigi's Mansion 2 HD handles it. This seems to be an already solved problem. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 08:43, December 13, 2025 (EST)

@Hewer Yeah I see but there are still many games (and the Switch Lite) that don't use this. I guess this rather means that this proposal is meant to fully roll this out over all page. I once tried to enforce this to Super Mario Party Jamboree's page but a bureaucrat reverted my edit and told me that it would be better if I proposed this first. Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 10:26, December 13, 2025 (EST)

@Altendo I don't see any reason why this proposal passing WOULDN'T allow us to do it how @Hewer suggested / how it's handled in Luigi's Mansion 2 HD. In fact, I feel like that would actually benefit from this passing. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 11:11, December 15, 2025 (EST)

I wrote in my vote, "instead of using a potentially misleading or inconsistent world flag, to instead list the game's first release date in its first region outside of the section". Instead of a world flag, using the flag where the game first launched works much better. I also don't see how this is currently done as an issue, and the proposed "solution" could actually be a detriment, as a world flag could be misleading due to the reasons I brought up. Altendo 12:00, December 15, 2025 (EST)

Yes, but I see nothing that says we can't do it how Luigi's Mansion 2 HD's page does it if this passes, though. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 12:16, December 15, 2025 (EST)

@Altendo: I do agree with your point about preserving the list of regions that a game released in, but are you saying you would want to use collapsible sections for cases where the release date isn't the same worldwide? I don't see the need for that. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:24, December 15, 2025 (EST)

I don't remember saying that. I only remember mentioning collapsible sections as an alternative solution; I never outright mentioned this as something I wanted to do. Altendo 13:36, December 15, 2025 (EST)

@Altendo and @Shadow2, clearly there's some sort of disconnect here. Yes, the arguments of "not releasing in every country" is valid, but then shouldn't we be removing the world flag from the Luigi's Mansion 2 HD page, as well as every page that uses it when it comes to release dates for consistency if we can't use the world flag for release dates? And people getting confused about it? Yeah, ok, I get that that would happen, but only if we use JUST the world flag. I feel like Luigi's Mansion 2 HD's page gives us a good look at how it should be with other pages like it. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:14, December 16, 2025 (EST)

I agree with @SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA). This was actually another point I tried to make with this proposal. If this proposal doesn't pass I guess we have to make Luigi's Mansion 2 HD's page to look like Super Mario Party Jamboree. That's why I still don't really get your points, @Altendo and @Shadow2. It clearly works on Luigi's Mansion 2 HD's page. Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 15:02, December 16, 2025 (EST)

Wow, I...didn't actually expect a reply...but yeah, I agree. It clearly works with Luigi's Mansion 2 HD, so why not other pages? SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 15:16, December 16, 2025 (EST)

If the proposal fails then no pages would be changed. Proposals need a "do nothing" option. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 19:53, December 16, 2025 (EST)

Yes, you say that, but literally down below @Shadow2 says that if this fails then actually pages WOULD be changed. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 07:30, December 17, 2025 (EST)

"but then shouldn't we be removing the world flag from the Luigi's Mansion 2 HD page, as well as every page that uses it when it comes to release dates for consistency if we can't use the world flag for release dates?" ...Yes? I thought that would be obvious. Shadow2 (talk) 06:31, December 17, 2025 (EST)

Then that would make the pages LOSE simplicity. It's better for those pages to be consistent AND simple. Sure, not EVERY country has had games released, but that doesn't mean we have to sacrifice simplicity. We can keep the simplicity of having the world flag AND still be able to not have people confused about games releasing in, say, Vatican City or North Korea. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 07:28, December 17, 2025 (EST)

Just remove the World flag and keep the collapsible menu? If it's a simultaneous release in multiple places, then write "Release date: June 27, 2024" and change the collapsible menu to say something like "Regions released:" Shadow2 (talk) 21:50, December 17, 2025 (EST)

Uh...what? I get it if it's a few regions, but when it's a lot of regions, it's better to just have the simplicity of using the world flag. We can keep the collapsible too, since I don't see that being removed if this passes. And since you want the flag to be removed from all the pages that use it, that means you probably want it deleted, too. Also, the "Amiibo" page uses the flag too. What do you think would happen to THAT page? You'd have to replace it with A WHOLE LOT OF FLAGS. That makes the size of the page bigger. I don't know if it'll end up being big enough to hit the "this page has to be split in some way" mark, but it might. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 10:41, December 18, 2025 (EST)

Do you want factual accuracy or do you want simplicity? Shadow2 (talk) 23:53, December 18, 2025 (EST)

You're assuming those are mutually exclusive, when in fact, it's actually not. The page for Luigi's Mansion 2 HD has both the simplicity of the world flag, AND the factual accuracy by also having the collapsible. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:17, December 19, 2025 (EST)

I don't think the world flag has any simplicity at all. It's an entry on the release date list that doesn't actually represent any particular country and has a collapsible to put other release dates beneath it. What I find simple is "here are a bunch of countries and here are the dates this game released there". Ahemtoday (talk) 11:51, December 19, 2025 (EST)

So, what, make the infobox go more into the page than needed? The "world flag + collapsible" combo is simply a "hey, this game was a simultaneous release because there was no differing release dates in different regions, click the collapsible to see the specific regions" kind of thing. NOT having the world flag and the collapsible just doesn't seem right. And what about pages that use the world flag and nothing else? That's just extra bytes in the pages that don't really seem needed. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 12:00, December 19, 2025 (EST)

The real list of flags has to exist or else it isn't clear which countries a game released in. The world flag and collapsible are the extra bytes here. Ahemtoday (talk) 12:04, December 19, 2025 (EST)

I was talking about the pages that use just the world flag for the "extra bytes" bit. You misunderstood and thought I meant all pages. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 12:22, December 19, 2025 (EST)

Okay, but we shouldn't have pages like that, is my stance. They should all have full flag lists. Ahemtoday (talk) 12:41, December 19, 2025 (EST)

Then have an admin end the proposal and you and the others in the opposition do it yourselves. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 13:04, December 19, 2025 (EST)

There's no need for administrator action on this? I'm not sure what the reason to bring this up is. Ahemtoday (talk) 13:51, December 19, 2025 (EST)

Because the proposal ends on the 27th. Just have a admin end it today since you clearly want this over with. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 20:03, December 19, 2025 (EST)

Proposals can only be vetoed by admins if either the original author requests it (Ahemtoday is not the original author of the proposal), if the proposal is set up in such a way where it's impossible to use as an actual proposal (even if some staff, such as us, oppose it, it's a perfectly fine proposal in terms of how it's set up), or in the event the proposal is outright unnecessary or detrimental in the first place (which, it isn't, and this would most likely be determined when the proposal was new, rather than a week later.) A request for cancellation would have to come from Yoshi18. ~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 23:36, December 19, 2025 (EST)

I will not cancel this proposal (it likely will need to be extended anyway). I think that the fact that Luigi's Mansion 2 HD does it this way is already good enough of an argument on why this proposal should pass. Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 15:33, December 27, 2025 (EST)

Rename every series from "[game series] (series)" to "[game series]"

canceled by proposer
While I was going through the talk page proposal archive of 2025 when I found a proposal wanting to rename "Mario Kart (series)" to "Mario Kart". The proposal failed but was eventually still enforced. Now my question is: Why was this proposal still enforced? It creates major inconsistency with other series article, like for example Mario Party is still named "Mario Party (series)" rather than simply "Mario Party". That’s why this proposal aims to return the consistency for series articles.

Proposer: Yoshi18 (talk)
Deadline: January 11, 2026, 23:59 GMT Cancelled on December 28, 2025, 16:50 GMT

Option 1: Rename every game series to "[game series] (series)"

1. Yoshi18 (talk) Per proposal. First choice since the Mario Kart series article is the only article to not be named like this.

Option 2: Rename every game series to "[game series]"

1. Yoshi18 (talk) Per proposal. Second choice.

Comments (game series renaming)

The reason why it's enforced now, is because of another proposal that passed earlier this month, which aims to remove the "(series)" identifier from series pages when they don't need it; you would've known this if you scrolled a bit further down the aforementioned TPP archive.
I'm going to abstain for the moment, but I'll say that I'm completely opposing Option 2, because the reason why pages such as "Mario Party (series)" are named like this because a page without an identifier like "Mario Party" already exists. rend (talk) (edits) 11:27, December 28, 2025 (EST)

Besides, considering it's less than two weeks since said proposal, I feel like this one should be vetoed, per Rule 9. rend (talk) (edits) 11:31, December 28, 2025 (EST)

Add reception sections for song and level articles

canceled by proposer
Reviews are one of the more undercooked areas of our Wiki. Take the featured article, Super Mario Bros. Deluxe, which has only two sentences and three reviews in its reception section. While game articles need improvement in this regard, it's worth noting that there's also plenty of reviews for songs and levels. For example, IGN's ranking of The 10 Best Mario Levels of All Time and Nintendo Life's list of the Best Mario Music Ever. So, why not make reception sections the standard for them, too? The song articles "No Sleep till Brooklyn" and "Take On Me" already have them, and serve as good examples of how they could look.

Also, I'm not suggesting that we roll this out immediately. Most song and level articles are lacking in other aspects, so it's just something to keep in mind for the future

Proposer: Sargent Deez (talk)
Deadline: January 15, 2026, 23:59 GMT Cancelled on January 2, 2026, 17:59 GMT

Support

1. Sargent Deez (talk)

#The Dab Master (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

1. Hewer (talk) Where is the line drawn? If we're allowing this for levels, why not locations or items or characters? There's probably more to say about fan reactions to the latter than the former anyway. But I think the primary purpose of this wiki should be to provide information about official Mario media, not fan reactions to it (which is the kind of thing you can go to Wikipedia or another website for). I also think Camwoodstock brings up a valid concern in the comments about how this could easily lead to users just adding their own opinions to articles and claiming them to be "popular fan opinion" or whatever to make them seem more legitimate. Presumably we'd have to come up with some kind of criteria to determine which random websites' top ten lists should be considered notable enough to cite, which would be basically impossible to do objectively and, in my opinion, a waste of time and effort. I just don't really think "some IGN writer really liked New Donk City" is the kind of information that's noteworthy or relevant for us to cover, and I don't want to end up with our otherwise neutrally-written articles being filled with fan opinions. For the record, I wouldn't mind removing the "reception" sections from the licensed song articles too, I was iffy about them since they were proposed (but didn't mention it then since it wasn't a focal point of that proposal).
2. Camwoodstock (talk) In this state, we don't think we can support this proposal. We don't particularly enjoy the idea of having to cite various Listicles and. Tubers. For the sake of something like these, and in the case of levels, that is all you would be able to fall back on; there's not exactly a Rotten Tomatoes for Video Game Levels, so these more wishy-washy "top 10" or "bottom 10" articles or videos are really all you'd have. Music would at the very least least have aggregate reviews to fall back on, and, if it was just that, we could earnestly see some merit... Though, in the case of more obscure albums that have as low as one review on sites like Discogs, tracking these aggregate reviews may be a bit of an exercise in futility for them.
3. The Dab Master (talk) Per Camwoodstock.

Comments

...It's a nice idea, but we have a lot of concerns if there are actually enough few actual dedicated "reviews" for video game songs to warrant this, in part due to the general stigma they have. The closest you'd get are aggregate review percentages for entire game soundtracks, sourced from sites like Discogs, which. Hey, is better than the alternative; outside of simple aggregate reviews of entire soundtracks, we imagine this would be more-or-less devolve into citing various "Top 10" tabloid site articles and... Tubers. We, personally, do not want to have to do the legwork of verifying said YouTuber ranking Gusty Garden Galaxy "The Top 1 Mario Song" has 100,000 subscribers, and it's not an instance of some kid with the username "FNFSprunkiFan2012" adding a video they made to the page as a shameless attempt to plug said YouTube channel. In other words, Do we actually have enough sources to justify this, beyond just listicles and YouTube videos? ~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 17:38, January 1, 2026 (EST)

There's a good amount of reviews for soundtracks, such as this one of Mario Kart 64 Greatest Hits. There are probably not enough sources to have tables for most songs and levels, but I see no harm in archiving what is there. Also, I thought we had more quality control with our sources to keep scenarios like your YouTube example from happening. Regardless, it's a criticism that could also be applied to games, so I don't think it should be a determining factor.  — 17:56, January 1, 2026 (EST)

Game reviews are much more numerous than individual game level reviews or game music reviews, I'd argue it's not quite the same thing. (To be honest, I already see the "Reception" sections on game pages as something of an anomaly on this wiki, which usually dislikes including unofficial content or fan opinions.) Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 22:06, January 1, 2026 (EST)

I'm sorry, but I'm having difficulty understanding your points, @Hewer. Firstly, it's important to note that reviewers aren't just fans; they are professionals who are qualified and paid for their work, and they often have connections with companies like Nintendo that provide them with early access to content. I thought it was common knowledge that user-generated reviews on YouTube and blogs should be avoided, and I'm not sure why you're bringing it up as if it's an issue exclusive to this. Using a random YouTube video to source a release date would be no better. And your comment that this would boil down to "some IGN writer really liked New Donk City" is just wrong. Again, these people are paid professionals, and they usually give more insight than that. Also, no, you can't just go to Wikipedia for this information, as they barely have articles for Mario songs and levels. It seems like you have a vision of the Mario Wiki as just an official archive, when that's not entirely the case, since Reception sections have been the standard on game articles for years, and there's been no major backlash against them. Also, reviews can play a role in official content. For example, the unfavorable reviews of the Paper Mario games in the 2010s likely influenced how Nintendo approached the series.

Oh, and if there are reviews for items and characters, I see no problem with including them. It sounds to me like you're against Reception sections at large, not just in this context.  — 12:41, January 2, 2026 (EST)

Make everything on the wiki use GMT

canceled by proposer
Per my proposal on the Featured Articles article for nominations to use GMT (like most of the wiki) rather than EST. After making that proposal I realized that signatures use EST ("~~~~~" = "19:15, December 31, 2025 (EST)"). Now to avoid needing to make another talk page proposal and then realizing that yet another thing on the wiki uses EST, I'm now making a main proposal to change it all once and for all.

Proposer: Yoshi18 (talk)
Deadline: January 15, 2026, 23:59 GMT Cancelled on January 2, 2026, 20:00 GMT

Support (use GMT)

1. Yoshi18 (talk) Per proposal. It keeps things consistent. The wiki used to use EST for basically everything but now the wiki barely uses EST and uses GMT for basically everything (including the deadline of proposals). GMT is also more international and easy for everyone (doesn't matter from which timezone they are) to understand.

Oppose (status quo)

1. Camwoodstock (talk) While a nice idea, it's kind of a nightmare in terms of actually... Implementing this, especially when considering how much "everything" actually is. The pages that rely on GMT heavily (namely, proposals) already come equipped with tools to show the time in GMT, and if a specific timezone is wanted, it's specified beside the time, like in signatures, and that's working just fine.
2. Mari0fan100 (talk) Using a GMT time zone is ok, but it should be an option or choice to use that time zone, not mandatory. Asides from that, users should be able to use the time zone that matches the location they are currently in, rather than just GMT all the time. Not everyone on the MarioWiki lives in a GMT time zone.
3. Altendo (talk) As someone who lives in Manhattan and uses Eastern Time, this will definitely complicate things a lot, not just for me, but for everyone who doesn't live in GMT time zones. Page revisions, logs, and the block list are all tailored to preferences, so if someone wants to use GMT, they can, but it shouldn't be forced onto every user. I am unsure if initial time preferences are GMT or based on the IP address, because if the former is not the case, I don't mind setting the default time to GMT, but allowing users to change it should remain an option. For me, I easily remember GMT for things like proposals (5/4 hours ahead depending on the month compared to ET).
4. Power Flotzo (talk) Completely unnecessary and more trouble than it's worth. Per all.

Comments (Coordinated Universal Time-rs)

Local time zones should be used to refer to events taking place within a specific region, but this proposal as written would prevent usage of other time zones in such cases. A more feasible solution would be to use templates to better indicate time zones and provide automatic conversions. B700465189a9 (talk) 19:24, December 31, 2025 (EST)

@B700465189a9, while I like the idea, it has one major problem: Almost the entire wiki uses GMT and making the signatures use different timezones would mean we would (eventually) have to make a whole system for this (something probably only the Proprietor can do). GMT is just the server (and most international) time and everyone just has to adapt to it (which is easier than adapting to EST). Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 19:54, December 31, 2025 (EST)

I don't know much regarding the technical side, but if the fact that mw:Help:Signatures shows signature timestamps in the UTC timezone, and the fact that mw:Manual:Timezone also is a page, I think it should be doable? Of course, it's probably something that only Porplemontage could do here, but hey, there have been proposals passed before which requires the assistance of the proprietor.
Now I think it would also be neat if a bit could convert all already-placed timestamps from signatures (on, like talk pages and such) from EST to GMT, too, but it would also be a bit of a handful I suppose. rend (talk) (edits) 20:17, December 31, 2025 (EST)

@Mari0fan100 @Altendo From what I can gather, the proposal only would affect the signature's timestamps (the ones made with the tildes), nothing else. And I should know that this wouldn't affect the time offset preferences at all, as I have my time zone set to Europe/Amsterdam; if what you said is correct, that should mean my sig timestamps should be shown in CET, yet for some reason they're still in EST, for years at this point. Not to mention that in the same time offset section, it shows that the server time is one hour off from my local time, perfectly reflecting the difference between GMT and CET, rather than the difference between EST and CET, which is a 6 hour difference. So one could tell from this that GMT was always supposed to be the correct timezone for the server, yet for some reason, the timestamps enforce EST instead. rend (talk) (edits) 08:22, January 1, 2026 (EST)

To be fair, I completely understand the confusion. After all, the title of this proposal is "Make everything on the wiki use GMT"; when really, the proposer is confused why the signature timestamps made with tildes are always in EST whereas the rest of the wiki (proposals mainly) use GMT instead, reflecting the server time. I feel like Yoshi18 could try to reword their proposition to have just the signature timestamps adjusted. rend (talk) (edits) 08:49, January 1, 2026 (EST)

Yeah maybe I should cancel this proposal and apply it to the signature talk page instead. Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 14:59, January 2, 2026 (EST

Character introduced year category

Do not create categories 0-11
With so many Mario characters, what do you think about including established year in categories? I'd like to hear our opinions.

Example: Category:1985 introduced characters

Proposer: Windy (talk)
Deadline: January 11, 2026, 23:59 GMT Closed early on January 4, 2026, 23:59 GMT

Oppose: Unnecessary

1. Salmancer (talk) Slippery Slope Sal here. There's no reason to not then make categories for items by year of introduction, categories for location by year of introduction, categories for moves by year of introduction, and so on. Doing all of that sounds like which sounds like a lot of work. (Why do we not have to do this right now even though we have Category:Games by date? Games are non-fictional, so the implication of Category:Games by date are categories for other non-fictional things like Category:Books by date and Category:Episodes by date. There are fewer articles about non-fictional products that would need these categories than articles about fictional subjects that would need these categories.)
2. Camwoodstock (talk) Per Salmancer, this feels a little too broad for its own good, especially when you happen to hit years that have RPGs in them, and thusly cause that year's category to basically boil down to "the cast of this RPG, and also some other guys are in here." You wouldn't really get much from having a second copy of the Super Paper Mario characters category with added Terrormisu.
3. RickTommy (talk) The very definition of both trivial and irrelevant.
4. Yoshi18 (talk) Per all. I don't even really get what this proposal is meant to mean or change (as in; change something useful).
5. EvieMaybe (talk) per Camwoodstock
6. Wandering Poplin (talk) Per all. Especially since the "year" some characters can vary widely depending on the region, especially during the early years.
7. Power Flotzo (talk) Per all.
8. 1468z (talk) Per all.
9. Rykitu (talk) Per all, especially RickTommy. The closest you've got to this is List of characters by first appearance (which is very incomplete compared to List of characters, but it is something)
10. Arend (talk) Whereas "established" (the initially proposed word) would get too vague at a certain point, "introduced" would get redundant and category-bloating very quick when you realize every single character would get such a type of category. I honestly cannot tell how many characters we precisely have on the wiki, but I'm pretty sure it's at least thousands. And most of them already have categories in which games they appear. While on paper it sounds neat and organized, it really falls apart when you think about it.
11. Altendo (talk) I love how the proposer didn't even vote on his own proposal. Anyways, per all.

Comments

Who would you consider "established" or a "character"? Goomba is established, but I wouldn't consider it a character per se. I feel like the definition of "established" can also be quite blurry the further you go down the list. Is Candy Kong still an established character? How about Toadsworth? Are recurring characters with large absences that have recently come back still "established"? rend (talk) (edits) 11:40, December 28, 2025 (EST)

I thought "established" was being used to mean "introduced", as in "characters introduced in 1985". And the question of whether we should categorise entities like Goomba as "characters" is not specific to this proposal, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:50, December 28, 2025 (EST)

From what I can gather, "to establish" means that something is being set up for a prolonged if not permanent time, and/or for the foreseeable future. Like, the seven kings were introduced in Super Mario Bros. 3, but considering that's their only appearance, I wouldn't call them "established".
And, I dunno, Goombas are established parts of the franchise and often considered by Nintendo as part of the main cast. I could see why someone would want to include a Goomba as an "established character". rend (talk) (edits) 13:10, December 28, 2025 (EST)

I'm not saying I don't personally think Goomba should be categorised as a character, I'm saying that's an entirely separate issue that doesn't make much sense to bring up as if it's a problem with this proposal. The way the wiki is currently organised, we have character categories and species categories as separate things, and this proposal isn't trying to change that. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 15:28, December 28, 2025 (EST)

Yeah I know, I guess I was trying to think too much ahead of any potential "broadification" of the scope. rend (talk) (edits) 15:49, December 28, 2025 (EST)

I don't really get what this proposal is meant to mean. Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 14:32, December 28, 2025 (EST)

I feel like this proposal needs additional clarification. What use would this have? Why exactly do we need this? And what do you mean by "established"? You don't even provide any reasoning for this. The Dab Master 14:45, December 28, 2025 (EST)

Renamed "established" to "introduced" right now. The category is based on "Video game characters introduced in (year)". Windy (talk) 15:01, December 28, 2025 (EST)

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

Keep the images 1-11

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 Closed early on January 5, 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)

Remove the Community Poll

Do not remove the community poll 1-28
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 Closed early on January 10, 2026, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Sarantis (talk) Per proposal.

#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.
26. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Nothing more to add, this was overall a poor reading of the room.
27. Rykitu (talk) Per all.
28. Dominoes (talk) Per all.

Comments

@Sarantis, why is this proposal 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)

@Koopa con Carne, the reason why they were called was because this proposal pretty literally says "I don't like this feature so it should be removed for everyone (even if they do like it)". Plus, part of the reasoning behind this proposal doesn't even go about their personal opinion. Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 12:28, January 7, 2026 (EST)

I appreciate your concern but I've already defended my message, and you have misread my comments just as Koopa con Carne did, making your reply also misguided. Finally, please place further replies down the comment chain, not at the top. — Lady Sophie ^(T|C) 14:48, January 7, 2026 (EST)

Sarantis does imply a view of "I dislike this, therefore nobody should" in stating that they find some of the voting frivolous, but I'm still inclined to assume it was an honest mistake. The user has not edited this page since the posting of the proposal, therefore having neither doubled down nor apologized for it, so jumping to conclusions and attacking them with invectives just comes across as assuming bad faith. There are other ways to signal this possible mistake. That's what ultimately bothered me. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 16:43, January 7, 2026 (EST)

@Koopa con Carne, I understand your concerns, but I guess the vibe of the reasoning behind this proposal made people think something bad about the proposer. Even if community members harass others for having different opinions than them, they can just report them at the Staff Noticeboard and they will definitely get blocked within a day. Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 19:32, January 9, 2026 (EST)

I mean, Sarantis did reply to Yoshi18's question to them even when there already was heavy opposition... (although to be fair, it was on the same day as them posting the proposal) rend (talk) (edits) 01:27, January 8, 2026 (EST)

Reading this proposal has raised a lot of concerns in my eyes. The front page poll does not reveal the opinions of anybody until you either (a) visit the forum, (b) click on "View Results", or (c) cast a vote yourself. In short, it's your choice as a user to see the opinions of others with the poll. I'm concerned about your choice of language in the final sentence of this proposal. "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." As I mentioned, you don't even get to see the opinions of others, either through text or a graph, unless you actively choose to do so. Otherwise, it's just presenting a question that you can choose to publicly answer or not. But the way you wrote your sentence, it sounds to me like you are getting strongly stressed out or anxious just from seeing the poll itself. As in, you see something that you know will involve the opinions of others, and it stresses you out without even seeing the opinions at all. That's rather concerning to me, and it makes me worried about your overall well-being. I know it's not really my place to say, but I feel compelled to say it anyway as someone who's gone through something similar in my life. The vast majority of people do not get stressed out simply from thinking about the unseen/unheard opinions of the masses about innocuous questions, and we as a wiki cannot cater to every single trigger point that any individual person may have. We can't get rid of the Rattly page because some people have a snake phobia, for example. I'm not going to accuse you of having any real life difficulties that you may very well not have at all, but I can just tell you that talking to people and seeking help if necessary does a lot for a person's mental health. There are plenty of ways to get help for people who are "mentally easily affected by anyone's opinion" (Whether you fall into that distinction or not), but it is not the Mario Wiki's position to facilitate that help. We are here to Mario. (Again I'm sorry if I'm out of line here, but I just felt strongly compelled to share these words) Shadow2 (talk) 22:09, January 6, 2026 (EST)

@SGoW, what even is your reasoning behind this? Like it geniunely feels like you're trolling here. Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 12:28, January 7, 2026 (EST)

@SGoW I would also like ask for an elaboration, per rules 6 and 7. Dominoes (talk) 23:28, January 9, 2026 (EST)

I hate woke SGoW^(Talk) 06:37, January 10, 2026 (EST)

It really doesn't sound like it should have anything to do with the proposal... well, mostly, it sounds kinda bigoted to complain about "woke" stuff (like those far-right people on social media complaining about minor things in movies), especially when it's about harmless polls and opinions. And this response doesn't really explain anything beyond saying that you might be a bigot too, so please tell us that this is some sort of elaborate joke. rend (talk) (edits) 07:08, January 10, 2026 (EST)

yes it's a joke lol. the proposal has almost 30 oppose votes I think I can shitpost a little. SGoW^(Talk) 07:46, January 10, 2026 (EST)

In that case, I think we can remove your vote before the proposal ends. Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 10:36, January 10, 2026 (EST)

Decide how to add the "fandom" interwiki prefix

Keep as-is 1-2-7
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.

#Yoshi18 (talk) Per Salmancer.

#Salmancer (talk) I guess, since it makes things more consistent and more approachable for people unfamiliar with Fandom's past.

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).
7. Salmancer (talk) Going with the crowd on this one. (I think the arguments on this side are very convincing.)

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)

Reception sections for characters

No character reception sections 1-13
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 Closed early on January 11, 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.
10. Yoshi18 (talk) Per all.
11. Mari0fan100 (talk) Unlike the games themselves, characters have way more subjective views from others. For example, I like Yoshi and Koopa Troopa, but others may not like those characters. I also don't like Bowser, but others may think he is awesome. Asides from that, new characters could be added, and people's opinions on them can drastically change if they take on different roles. For example, characters like Boo and Dry Bones are considered enemies in some games, but playable characters in other games, and people could have a different opinion on those characters depending on which Mario games they play. So, I believe allowing character reception sections (for characters other than Mario) would allow for too much bias and fan/opinionated content.
12. Rykitu (talk) Per all, especially the above vote.
13. Altendo (talk) I don't have anything else to say here that hasn't already been said.

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)