MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/81

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposer: Sylux (talk) (blocked)
Deadline: February 8, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Support

#Sylux (talk) Support as creator.

Oppose

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The affected pages include:

• Historical logos
  • Mario & Sonic
  • Donkey Kong Country (series)
  • Dr. Mario (series)
  • Mario Kart (the old logo in the "Creation" section)
• Different formatting (historical logos left of the infobox will also be moved to the gallery, for consistency with this proposal)
  • Super Mario (franchise)
  • Super Mario (series)
• International logos (the NTSC-U one will continue to be used in the infobox)
  • Donkey Kong Land (series)

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

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

Move all of the extra logos to the gallery

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

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

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

NUKE: Bring ALL of the logos into the infobox

1. Yoshi18 (talk) Tertiary choice.

Logo comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments (Mario Kart course definitions)

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

I feel like they're probably popular enough with fans to warrant existing anyway, doesn't seem so different from how Intermission redirects to Route. Polley001 (talk) 21:58, January 19, 2026 (UTC)

I think the redirects should stay but we should also make redirects with a "Switch" prefix (Mario Kart 8 Deluxe tracks are unofficially known (but well known) by that prefix) Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 17:35, January 20, 2026 (UTC)

Establish a "character article" structure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support: Establish the structure

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

Comments (Character article structure)

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

I can't think of many examples besides your namesake, but I imagine the section can just stay where it is, effectively replacing its History section. Any boss with more than one appearance should probably just have a History section instead. Not sure I even like the idea of a Battle section when it can be reworked into a regular History section anyway, but changing that section is outside of the scope of this proposal — Lady Sophie_17 ^(T|C) 16:03, January 20, 2026 (UTC)

I thought this proposal might remove it, but I see it won't, that will require another proposal. Thanks for the clarification. Sorbetti (talk) 20:04, January 20, 2026 (UTC)

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

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