MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/82

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

Establish a consistent format for non-game enemy and obstacle lists

Use tables 0-0-6-0
Articles about courses or areas (I do not know what they are generally referred to as) such as kindoms and layers usually feature an "Enemies and obstacles" section, which lists every enemy found within the area. The format for it is inconsistent, even for articles of similar topic. I have noticed three different styles for this:
The bullet point lists look like this:

• [Enemy name] ([sometimes the amount of an enemy or the specification of it being a boss])

The gallery-type ones look like this:

• 

  [Enemy name]

And the tables look like this:

Image	Name	Count	Notes
[Enemy artwork (Should be 32px)]	[Enemy Name]	[Enemy Amount; replace with "—" if non applicable]	[Notes to specify if an enemy is a boss or infinitely respawns. Can also be used to specify any oddities]

Establishing a format would keep things more organized, which is why I am making this proposal. I wish for the community's opinion on the best format.

Proposer: TheCatLover738 (talk)
Deadline: March 22, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Establish tables as the standard format

1. TheCatLover738 (talk) They are a very clean way of presenting this information.
2. Altendo (10) (Infinitely respawning) Per proposal.
3. EvieMaybe (talk) per proposal.
4. PopitTart (talk) Per proposal.
5. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per all.
6. Jdtendo (talk) Per all.

Comments about enemy list formatting

This was brought up in the Discord recently. In some games there's not really a way to count enemies at all. This especially goes for RPGs, where they tend to respawn and the actual encounters have more added (and sometimes randomized). Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 01:57, March 8, 2026 (UTC)

this is true. while i support standardizing the format in pages for stuff like platformer levels, RPGs would have to be excluded. — eviemaybe (talk) 02:01, March 8, 2026 (UTC)

We could just say "this section only counts enemies that appear on the field. For enemies that appear once a battle is entered, see [corresponding battle formation page and section]" Salmancer (talk) 16:09, March 8, 2026 (UTC)

@Salamancer, many of the Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door area articles use the {{Main}} template to link to the respective battle formation. --TheCatLover738 (talk) 16:55, March 8, 2026 (UTC)

I would like to vote for option 3, but I have a suggestion for a change: adding a "Notes" column to specify any oddities, such as respawning enemies that cannot be counted. This would allow the "Count" column to be made sortable. The "Name" column can be sortable too without any changes needed. See my example below:

Image	Name	Count	Notes
	Goomba	5
	Bullet Bill	—	Endlessly shot by Bill Blasters

— eviemaybe (talk) 02:01, March 8, 2026 (UTC)

@EvieMaybe: This sounds like a great idea! There are multiple Mario games that have an infinite amount of a specific enemy that can spawn. Mari0fan100 (talk) 08:22, March 8, 2026 (UTC)

Great Idea, I am incorporating this into the proposal.--TheCatLover738 (talk) 16:35, March 8, 2026 (UTC)

Some of the RPGs do have enemy formation articles. I actually think this could be helpful to incorporate into areas for some games, especially Paper Mario: Color Splash which has enemies that only appear in one battle in the entire game and also requires you to get rare RNG drops from them. Scrooge200 (talk) 04:47, March 8, 2026 (UTC)

I like both the table and gallery formats for this. One is neater and more compact, but the other adapts better to virtually every screen ratio (and not only allows, but prioritizes visual aids, compared to a bullet list). But the presentation should remain consistent, so I agree it's either one or the other. I'll vote for whichever of these two shape up to garner the majority vote. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 19:10, March 8, 2026 (UTC)

In four weeks after this proposal will end, I am wondering if there's a possibility for me to make a proposal that will aim to rename "Enemies and obstacles" sections "Adversaries", since enemies, obstacles, and bosses are all considered adversaries. GuntherBayBeee 14:46, March 11, 2026 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has ever called an obstacle like a Fire Bar an "adversary". Ahemtoday (talk) 15:15, March 11, 2026 (UTC)

I've come up with a better idea. What about hazards? Enemies are active hazards, while obstacles are passive hazards. Will that be a better idea? Sorry for the late reply by the way. GuntherBayBeee 21:14, March 11, 2026 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen this phrasing out in the wild either. Regardless of its commonness, I don't see the purpose behind renaming "enemies and obstacles" section in the first place. Ahemtoday (talk) 21:26, March 11, 2026 (UTC)

We don't see any reason to change "enemies and obstacles" beyond just change's sake. "Adversaries" is too flowery, and "hazards" is a bit too broad. Just because you can replace three words with one, doesn't mean you should. Some times, more words is just clearer and, paradoxically, more concise, than using one word... And having to explain it every time. ~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs )

Oh, I see. Then what will the name of the subject consisting of enemies and obstacles will be better than "adversaries" and "hazards"? GuntherBayBeee 17:18, March 12, 2026 (UTC)

To be honest, we think "enemies and obstacles" are perfectly fine as it is. Both of those words are straight-forward terminology the games use all the time, there's no need to contemplate renaming either "enemies" or "obstacles" when both of those terms are maybe two of the single most generic terms in video games, only really beaten out by like. "Player". ~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 17:28, March 12, 2026 (UTC)

You're right. The proposal to rename the "Enemies and obstacles" section will actually be unnecessary. GuntherBayBeee 20:31, March 12, 2026 (UTC)

---

Do not alter an article's display title except for technical restrictions

align page title with display title 7-3
Every wiki article has a page title, which is used in the URL of the page and can be linked to via a wikitext link ([[Page title]]), and a display title, which is the name displayed at the top of an article. By default, the display title is the same as the page title. However, changing the display title may be necessary for subjects whose name is not valid as a page title, which is allowed by the article naming policy: e.g., the article #1 Iggy's Castle has the page title "1 Iggy's Castle" because page titles cannot contain a #.

When there are no technical issues, the page title of most articles is simply the subject's name, even if it contains non-ASCII characters: e.g., Viva★Rock, KYON², ★ door… However, some articles are exceptions to that rule, such as G-Shock × Super Mario Bros. whose page title contains a lowercase "x" whereas the display title has the symbol "×", or ★World 1 (Puzzle & Dragons: Super Mario Bros. Edition) whose page title contains "Special World" which is replaced with "★World" in the display title. Even though those exceptions are not explicitely allowed by our naming policy, they stayed that way because some people have argued that page titles should be easy to type and suggested to remove symbols from page titles and only include them in display titles. I think that it's a bad solution to a false problem.

Firstly, you may have concerns about users struggling to access an article whose page title contains symbols, but there's already a solution for that: redirects. It's already customary to create typeable redirects that link to articles with titles that are hard to type: e.g., the redirect Viva Rock links to Viva★Rock. That way, a user who looks for "Viva Rock" in the search bar or browses to https://mariowiki.com/Viva_Rock can easily access the article. Also, if we chose to have symbol-less page titles, users should still be able to access the article when searching for the subject's actual name (e.g., if they copied it from a mention somewhere), which means that there should be a redirect whose name is the article's display name that links to the actual article: in other words, you would still need to create a redirect.

Secondly, contrary to what you might think, it's actually trickier to link to an article whose display title has been altered. For example, you cannot simply type [[G-Shock x Super Mario Bros.]] because the link would be displayed with an "x" instead of a "×". Instead, you need to type [[G-Shock x Super Mario Bros.|G-Shock × Super Mario Bros.]], so you still need to find a way to write the title with the proper symbol somehow. It ends up being more cumbersome than writing [[G-Shock × Super Mario Bros.]], which you can get by simply copy-pasting the article's display title; however, that currently links to a redirect so you also need to find the page title to actually link to the article, which you wouldn't have to worry about if the page title had been the same as the display title.

Thirdly, an article with an altered display title has other downsides. For example, it is named after its page title in categories, which does not reflect the subject's actual name. Also, if the article gets renamed (e.g., by adding or changing an identifier), you also need to update the display title accordingly in the source code of the article, which is an extra step, and it can get really confusing if you forget to do so.

In conclusion, an article's display title should only be changed because of technical restrictions; otherwise, it should coincide with the page title. If this proposal passes, current exceptions to the rule will have their page titles moved so that they match the display titles. (Please note that this is not a broad proposal about the use of symbols in article titles; for example, it does not state whether an article should be called "★ door" or "Star door", but it would disallow an article whose page title is "Star door" and whose display title is "★ door".)

Proposer: Jdtendo (talk)
Deadline: March 22, 2026, 23:59 GMT

Support: always align page title with display title (except for technical restrictions)

1. Jdtendo (talk) Per proposal.
2. Ahemtoday (talk) Per proposal.
3. TheCatLover738 (talk) Per proposal.
4. Hewer (talk) Sure.
5. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) After looking through the proposal, the opposition, and the comments, I think this would be a good thing. Per proposal and all.
6. PopitTart (talk) If we're gonna be referring to these pages everywhere with symbols in their names anyway, then I see no reason not to cut out the pipelink and Page Title middlemen.
7. 𝕋𝕙𝕖 𝔻𝕒𝕓 𝕄𝕒𝕤𝕥𝕖𝕣 (talk) Per all.

Oppose: do not align page title with display title for articles that currently don't follow that rule

1. Camwoodstock (talk) Awhile back, we had a proposal to move the Wario Land minigames to "🪙 Game" and "♥ Game", which failed as those titles were difficult to type; especially the Coin emoji, which still doesn't appear on Windows 10's Win + . menu, even at the end of official support. Then, not long after, there was another proposal to move "♥" to Heart (Yoshi's Story), which passed for much the same reasons--the name "♥", unless you both have a NumPad on your keyboard (and not everyone does) and know that Alt + Numpad3 types a heart, it's a difficult page to reach. In general, symbols in page names... Suck to type? And circumventing that is one of the main use-cases of the display title. Honestly, deprecating each of these (yes, including the instances of the × symbol, like in Gold Bar × 3, which was also proposed around that same timeframe, but actually got to keep its symbol due to the existence of the AltGr key... which, isn't on every keyboard, but we digress) and using a display title instead. Considering the example subject, G-Shock x Super Mario Bros., is, effectively, already doing what we plan to propose (and, if it passes, implement) in the future, you can imagine we wouldn't support changing that.
2. Option-Cancel-Zero (Altendo) Per 🧡✳🐈👁🟢. By the way, the first proposal mentioned didn't fail; rather, it was canceled by its proposer, but it still had only opposers (except for the proposer). That, combined with the overwhelming support on the Heart proposal, shows just how many users would prefer regular characters on a page title.
3. EvieMaybe (talk) i genuinely don't understand what this proposal is supposed to accomplish.

#𝕋𝕙𝕖 𝔻𝕒𝕓 𝕄𝕒𝕤𝕥𝕖𝕣 (talk) Per all. I don't see the point of this or why this should be what should change.

#PipesTheVlob (talk) Per all. I think making a change like this just because it makes it easier to write for users feels short-sighted, this is still meant to be a place for information at the end of the day, and while not very extreme this could still lead to misinformation spreading.

Comments (Page title × Display title)

@Camwoodstock: You haven't addressed the proposal's argument that it's actually harder to type these titles when using display titles because you need to pipe link it, which ultimately means you still need to include the symbol anyway. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 16:39, March 8, 2026 (UTC)

I agree. This proposal is not about adding hard-to-type characters into article names, it's about how having a discrepancy between the page title and the display title doesn't actually help alleviate the issue of hard-to-type characters. Jdtendo^(T|C) 18:07, March 8, 2026 (UTC)

...We're gonna be honest, the idea of peeling away display titles just because it's not an outright technical problem (so... basically any instance it's used for a reason that's Not a hashtag like #1 Iggy's Castle) is, similarly, not appealing to us, and also chafes against our personal preference that we could stand to be less picky about using display titles in general. ~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 19:34, March 8, 2026 (UTC)

@Altendo As I wrote in the conclusion and the vote above, this is not a proposal about whether article names should contain special characters or not. It's about how having a display title that is different from the page title is more painful than helpful. Jdtendo^(T|C) 18:43, March 8, 2026 (UTC)

@EvieMaybe This proposal is based on the principle that articles whose display title is different from the page title are a pain to work with because linking to them is not straightforward as all, which makes the use of symbol-less title pages counterproductive, as I explained in the "Secondly" paragraph. Therefore, we should align the page title of each of those articles with its display title; e.g., instead of having an article with the page title G-Shock x Super Mario Bros. and the display title "G-Shock × Super Mario Bros." which requires you to type [[G-Shock x Super Mario Bros.|G-Shock × Super Mario Bros.]] when linking to it, you would have an article whose page title and display title are both "G-Shock × Super Mario Bros.", which you could link to with [[G-Shock × Super Mario Bros.]]. Jdtendo^(T|C) 19:40, March 8, 2026 (UTC)

well, if the issue is with linking, why is this framed as a displaytitle question? i have a proposal in my sandbox about this same issue, and i don't understand why you chose to tackle the issue like this instead. — eviemaybe (talk) 19:52, March 8, 2026 (UTC)

It's more a page title issue than a display title issue. I want the article's page title to be "G-Shock × Super Mario Bros." so that [[G-Shock × Super Mario Bros.]] be a valid link, and since the page title would now be the same as the display title, it is no longer necessary to change the display title, which means that you can remove {{title|G-Shock × Super Mario Bros.}} from the article while still keeping the display title. Jdtendo^(T|C) 20:27, March 8, 2026 (UTC)

@PipesTheVlob I don't understand how this proposal passing could lead to misinformation being spread. Ahemtoday (talk) 14:02, March 16, 2026 (UTC)

Well, it wouldn't exactly be major misinformation (which is why I said it wouldn't be anything extreme), but strictly speaking it's using an incorrect name, which could then be spread further by people who don't look close enough at the page as a whole. I think everything should be as clear as possible when trying to have a website like this, intended to feature information as matter-of-factly as possible. That, and I fear this could snowball out of control, first this change is passed, then things could go further with how pages are allowed to be titled. But then again I am effectively just rambling now, the odds are low. The basic point is: This is where people get Mario information, let's make sure that information is as correct as possible. PipesTheVlob 14:11, March 16, 2026 (UTC)

@PipesTheVlob If this proposal passes, it would not change the article titles that are shown to users; it would only change the internal page title (that most users won't see) so that it matches the displayed title of the article, and specifically in cases where the internal page title is currently incorrect. This proposal would in no way spread any incorrect name, quite the opposite. Jdtendo^(T|C) 14:28, March 16, 2026 (UTC)

If I'm getting this right, your concern is with the likes of "Animal Crossing × Mario Kart 8" being written incorrectly as (in this example) "Animal Crossing x Mario Kart 8", with something simpler as the symbol, because it's an incorrect name? ...You are currently voting for the incorrect name. Ahemtoday (talk) 14:33, March 16, 2026 (UTC)

I don't think I got enough sleep last night. Whoops.PipesTheVlob 14:36, March 16, 2026 (UTC)

---

Delete redirects with the same name but in different case

canceled by proposer
Certain article feature redirects with the exact same name as another one, just with a different case. These duplicate redirects are essentially useless, as searching for "dkb" would redirect to Donkey Kong Bananza despite there only being a redirect titled "DKB". This is most prominent in the articles listing the Power Moons found in each kingdom. If one of the pages the redirect is attached to gets its title changed or deleted, fixing it causes more work with duplicate redirects. This proposal aims to delete duplicate redirects where only the first letter is capitalized, so "Alcove in the ruins" would be deleted, and "Alcove in the Ruins" would remain the same.

Proposer: TheCatLover738 (talk)
Deadline: April 7, 2026, 23:59 (UTC) Canceled on March 24, 2026, 21:00 (UTC)

Support

1. TheCatLover738 (talk) As proposer.

---

Create transcript pages for the DIC Super Mario cartoon, Captain N, and Donkey Kong Country episodes

canceled by proposer
This proposal is based on the last proposal that aims to create game scripts. Rumor has it that Captain N: The Game Master, Donkey Kong Country, and DIC Entertainment Super Mario cartoon quote pages are pages that consist of sections regarding characters, with character group sections consisting of subsections regarding members, and some character sections have subsections regarding more than one episode. I wonder whether or not if it is considered an issue.

A cue from Lemmy's Land suggests that I propose we create transcript pages regarding The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!, The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3, and Super Mario World episodes. Here are some examples for the transcript pages we want:

• "Mario Meets Koop-zilla"
• "Sneaky Lying Cheating Giant Ninja Koopas"
• "Send in the Clown"

That way, it will be easier for a transcript page to be complete. And remember, you can always use Ctrl + F if you want to find dialogue for a specific character who appears in one or more specific episodes.

Proposer: GuntherBayBeee (talk)
Deadline: April 4, 2026, 23:59 (UTC) Canceled on March 24, 2026, 22:25 (UTC)

The Adventures of The Super Support World Super Transcript!

1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per proposal.
2. Rykitu (talk) Per all.

#Camwoodstock (talk) We're still frankly a little surprised cartoons were left out of the Script page proposal from awhile back. Honestly, it'd be even easier to implement for the cartoons (if no less time consuming) as the cartoons are fully linear script-wise.
#TheCatLover738 (talk) Per all. This will be useful.

The Adventures of The Super Oppose World Super Transcript!

1. Mario (talk) This is going into content dump territory, possibly into copyright risk (I really hope people don't make a proposal creating a transcript of the movie). We're better off finding quotes that illustrate the characters or maybe highlight key points in an episode (maybe a famous joke from the show or at least any exchange an editor thought was funny). That there was a prior proposal that passed doesn't make me more supportive of the idea.
2. TheCatLover738 (talk) Per Mario.
3. EvieMaybe (talk) per Mario.
4. Yoshi18 (talk) Per Mario and Camwoodstock.
5. Camwoodstock (talk) We discussed this a bit with the other staff, and we're honestly a little inclined to agree. While transcripts would be nice, we're increasingly skeptical of if a wiki is the best fit for them. It's a lot like text dumps of games; very nice to have, but hosting them on here is overkill for our purposes.
6. LadySophie17 (talk) I find this unnecessary. For the record, I've also grown to dislike the proposal about game scripts, and since no work has been put into that at all, I'm inclined to oppose this one as well.

The Adventures of The Super Comments World Super Transcript!

Any reason other cartoons under coverage (namely Donkey Kong Country and select episodes of Captain N: The Game Master and Saturday Supercade) are omitted from this? Were they just forgotten? :O ~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 16:10, March 21, 2026 (UTC)

MarioWiki:Not an archive was created recently. This is worth a look concerning this proposal. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 04:09, March 24, 2026 (UTC)

---

Add a category for artificial intelligence

Do not create category 1-9
I am going to try to keep this proposal as unbiased as possible, but my stance should be pretty obvious. It is getting harder and harder to tell what is generated by artificial intelligence and what is not. With the launch of ItsGalaxyTime.com by General Mills to promote the The Super Mario Galaxy Movie, this is now something Mario fans have to deal with. As far as I am aware, that is the only piece of AI-generated media in the franchise right now, but I feel safe assuming it will not be the last. So why not create a category for articles which relate to artificial intelligence? This would only apply to generative AI, not older forms like non-playable characters, which have been in the Mario series since day one.

I imagine there is little support for AI on this Wiki, but I do feel this proposal may come across as biased. So, let me ask this: AI is just another form of media, right? If we can have a category for anything on the internet, why not do the same here? Yeah, there's definitely still a message being sent by this proposal that some may disagree with, but isn't that true of every proposal?

Proposer: Sargent Deez (talk)
Deadline: April 6, 2026, 23:59 (UTC) Closed early on March 30, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Support: A category for artificial intelligence works

1. SargentGPT (talk) Per proposal.

Status quo: Making a category is a no-go

1. Salmancer (talk) This feels judgy in a way I cannot stand for. Generative AI art isn't a type of art in itself. It's not the same kind of thing that the categories under Category:Images by type are tracking. Its a tool used to make the types pf art that the categories under Category:Images by type are tracking. Not to mention, determining what is and isn't made using AI with 100% certainty is kind of impossible, and like heck if a company would willingly disclose which of their pieces is created using AI or not when every time it comes up negative press follows. This isn't even getting into art that is partially done with AI, which categories are ill equipped to handle because of their all or nothing nature. Best to leave this to file descriptions, if even that.
2. Ahemtoday (talk) Are there any examples of this other than one section of ItsGalaxyTime.com and the dubs of Donkey Kong Country (television series) mentioned by 1468z? Two articles doesn't really justify a category — especially when it only applies to things that get all of one sentence on these articles.
3. EvieMaybe (talk) as opposed as i am to generative AI being used for commercial purposes, i frankly don't see the point in this besides novelty bias. AI is not a medium or a type of art, it's a tool that outputs an image. we might as well make a category for "Images made in Photoshop".
4. Camwoodstock (talk) Per all, especially Ahemtoday and Evie. There literally just aren't enough examples at the moment, and even in the world where there are more than enough examples, we don't have these categories for mediums that people actually like. When we don't have a super-category for works that use physically drawn illustrations like manga or comics (mostly because it would largely be redundant to those categories as it is), a category for "works with generative AI" is even harder to justify.
5. Rykitu (talk) Per all, particularly Ahemtoday. Not enough to justify a category. (and lets hope it stays that way. Words can not describe how I despise clankers)
6. OpenAL (Altendo) Per all.
7. Xiahou Ba, The Nasty Warrior (talk) For the record, I will state I am generally on the Pro-AI side, but evie's right: the program in of itself is just a tool just like Photoshop is, and it would be equally asinine if we did add "this image was made in Photoshop" category. Salmancer is also right that it is next to impossible to tell if an image has been generated with AI, or even edited with it, and the last thing we need is people pigeon-holing things where it is not absolutely certain. Leave the speculation and observations to chat rooms and social media, not here.
8. Power Flotzo (talk) Per all.
9. Yoshi18 (talk) Gotta have to oppose here. Per all.

Ask anything

Will this also apply to the Donkey Kong Country TV series? It has two licensed dubs in Italian and Castilian Spanish made with AI voices. 1468z (talk) 18:33, March 23, 2026 (UTC)

AI voice tools are generative, so yeah.  — 18:42, March 23, 2026 (UTC)

@User:Salmancer, my apologies, I forgot to mention this would only apply to subjects that we are 100% sure use AI, like ItsGalaxyTime.com, which uses Google Gemini. As for it being "judgey", I agree, but I feel it's a necessary compromise to see what is real or not.  — 18:42, March 23, 2026 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Wikimedia does have a category for AI-generated media, although it is fragmented into myriads of subcategories due to the sheer amount of pics hosted. I don't know useful such a category would be here, at least in isolation.
What I'm definitely not against is some sort of template disclaimer for these works. Once again, we have some precedent at Wikipedia. Mario Wiki isn't as rigorous with copyright as Wikipedia, but I believe it should still signal AI works out of good faith in much the same way it has copyright licenses for photos, artwork, and music. (For tracking purposes, such a disclaimer would have to come packaged with a category.) -- KOOPA CON CARNE 19:16, March 23, 2026 (UTC)

---

Create categories for non-video game characters

For some time now, I thought of making categories for Mario characters that did not originate from video games. My idea would be to have one category to encompass all of these characters, sub-categories specific to a certain medium and sub-categories for certain specific adaptations with a significant amount of original characters. Here are my proposed categories :

• Category:Non-video game original characters
  • Category:Comic original characters
    • Category:KC Deluxe original characters
    • Category:Super Mario Bros. (Valiant Comics) original characters
    • Category:Super Mario-kun original characters (I already made a proposal for this one)
  • Category:Film original characters
  • Category:Television series original characters
    • Category:The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3 original characters
    • Category:The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! original characters

You can also propose in the comments other categories that could be made.

Edit : some of the proposed categories' names were changed as suggested by Altendo.

Proposer: Brett (talk)

Category:Non-video game original characters

Create category 8-0
Deadline: April 12, 2026, 23:59 (UTC) Closed early on April 5, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Support

1. Brett (talk) Per proposal.
2. SuperGamer18 (talk) This should be named "Category:Non-video game characters" instead like in the main proposal text, otherwise per proposal.
3. I... am R.O.B. (talk) Per proposal.
4. The Dab Master (talk) Per proposal.
5. Camwoodstock (talk) Per our support for the original proposal for Super Mario-kun characters. We already mentioned there that we could see it being expanded to other manga, and even other mediums, and, hey, this is expanding it to other manga and other mediums!
6. Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal.
7. Maw-Ray Master (talk) Per proposal.
8. Yoshi18 (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

Category:Comic original characters

Create category 8-0
Deadline: April 12, 2026, 23:59 (UTC) Closed early on April 5, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Support

1. Brett (talk) Per proposal.
2. SuperGamer18 (talk) This should be named "Category:Comic characters" instead, otherwise per proposal.
3. I... am R.O.B. (talk) Per proposal.
4. The Dab Master (talk) Per proposal.
5. Camwoodstock (talk) See our vote on Category:Non-video game original characters, and get ready to read that a lot.
6. Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal.
7. Maw-Ray Master (talk) Per proposal.
8. Yoshi18 (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

Category:Television series original characters

Create category 8-0
Deadline: April 12, 2026, 23:59 (UTC) Closed early on April 5, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Support

1. Brett (talk) Per proposal.
2. SuperGamer18 (talk) Per proposal.
3. I... am R.O.B. (talk) Per proposal.
4. The Dab Master (talk) Per proposal.
5. Camwoodstock (talk) See our vote on Category:Non-video game original characters.
6. Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal.
7. Maw-Ray Master (television series) Per proposal.
8. Yoshi18 (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

Category:Film original characters

Create category 8-0
Deadline: April 12, 2026, 23:59 (UTC) Closed early on April 5, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Support

1. Brett (talk) Per proposal.
2. SuperGamer18 (talk) This should be named "Category:Film characters" instead, otherwise per proposal.
3. I... am R.O.B. (talk) Per proposal.
4. The Dab Master (film) Per proposal.
5. Camwoodstock (talk) See our vote on Category:Non-video game original characters.
6. Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal.
7. Maw-Ray Master (film) Per proposal.
8. Yoshi18 (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

Category:KC Deluxe original characters

Create category 8-0
Deadline: April 12, 2026, 23:59 (UTC) Closed early on April 5, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Support

1. Brett (talk) Per proposal.
2. SuperGamer18 (talk) Per proposal.
3. I... am R.O.B. (talk) Per proposal.
4. TDM Deluxe (talk) Per proposal.
5. Camwoodstock (talk) See our vote on Category:Non-video game original characters.
6. Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal.
7. Maw-Ray Master (Kodansha manga) Per proposal.
8. Yoshi18 (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

Category:Super Mario Bros. (Valiant Comics) original characters

Create category 8-0
Deadline: April 12, 2026, 23:59 (UTC) Closed early on April 5, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Support

1. Brett (talk) Per proposal.
2. SuperGamer18 (talk) Per proposal.
3. I... am R.O.B. (talk) Per proposal.
4. The Dab Master (Valiant Comics) Per proposal.
5. Camwoodstock (talk) See our vote on Category:Non-video game original characters.
6. Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal.
7. Maw-Ray Master (Valiant Comics) Per proposal.
8. Yoshi18 (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

Category:The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3 original characters

Create category 8-0
Deadline: April 12, 2026, 23:59 (UTC) Closed early on April 5, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Support

1. Brett (talk) Per proposal.
2. SuperGamer18 (talk) Per proposal.
3. I... am R.O.B. (talk) Per proposal.
4. The Adventures of The Dab Master (talk) Per proposal.
5. Camwoodstock (talk) See our vote on Category:Non-video game original characters.
6. Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal.
7. The Adventures of Maw-Ray Master 3 (talk) Per proposal.
8. Yoshi18 (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

Category:The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! original characters

Create category 8-0
Deadline: April 12, 2026, 23:59 (UTC) Closed early on April 5, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Support

1. Brett (talk) Per proposal.
2. SuperGamer18 (talk) Per proposal.
3. I... am R.O.B. (talk) Per proposal.
4. The Dab Master Show! (talk) Per proposal.
5. Camwoodstock (talk) See our vote on Category:Non-video game original characters.
6. Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal.
7. The Maw-Ray Master Super Show! (talk) Per proposal.
8. Yoshi18 (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

Comments (Non-video game characters)

...Isn't this what this presently-ongoing proposal is seeking to do, at least for comic characters? Wait, no, it was only when we hit save changes that we realized you made that proposal. Our apologies. ~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 19:48, March 29, 2026 (UTC)

I am currently supporting the creation of the categories for characters who debuted in other media (on top of the Super Mario-Kun one), but I am iffy on the overarching categories, because their naming makes it seems like it encompasses every character who appeared in a type of medium even if they did not debut there, like how Mario could be categorized as a "Film character" due to his role in the Super Mario Bros. film and The Super Mario Bros. Movie, and the naming of categories like "Non-video game characters" could be invalid if an original character appears in a video game later (not that I can think of any, but still). I would recommend renaming these categories, or at the very least adding further sub-categories to:

• Category:Non-video game characters to Category:Non-video game original characters
• Category:Comic characters to Category:Comic original characters
• Category:Film characters to Category:Film original characters
• Category:Television series characters to Category:Television series original characters

Adding these as subcategories would also make it consistent with existing categories like Category:Super Mario-kun characters, which already has a category for every character who appears in the manga but is also getting one for original characters. The current names seem misleading for what they are aiming to do, so renaming them or adding a further subcategory could help avoid confusion. I... am R.O.B. Lava Pikmin! 17:44, March 30, 2026 (UTC)

This should not have been a poll proposal. All of the arguments for the new categories are presented as one whole block. If there is no need to individually argue for each new proposed category, they should all be voted as a single and simple proposal. Especially given that everyone so far unanimously agrees on every option and has no further comments to even add. — Lady Sophie_17 ^(T|C) 13:20, April 3, 2026 (UTC)

I made this proposal a poll because I believed that there could have been some people who would have supported the creation of some of the categories, but opposed the creation others. Brett (talk) 20:08, April 3, 2026 (UTC)

I think his point is fair. After all, I was one of those people (even though I did not initially "oppose" the ones I didn't support, I just didn't vote in favor of them until my proposed changes were made). I... am R.O.B. Lava Pikmin! 23:36, April 3, 2026 (UTC)

---

Decide how to handle the Wonder forms of Koopalings

Rename with "Wonder form" identifier 1-12-0
I just saw that the "Mighty" prefix for specific Wonder forms only appears in the Training Camp rematches. Here are the following attributes to the Koopalings:

• The course featuring the regular fight with Wendy is actually simply known as "Wendy's Showdown!"
• The course featuring the regular fight with Lemmy is actually simply known as "Lemmy's Showdown!"
• The course featuring the regular fight with Larry is actually simply known as "Larry's Showdown!"
• The course featuring the regular fight with Roy is actually simply known as "Roy's Showdown!"
• The course featuring the regular fight with Iggy is actually simply known as "Iggy's Showdown!"
• The course featuring the regular fight with Morton is actually simply known as "Morton's Showdown!"
• The course featuring the regular fight with Ludwig is actually simply known as "Ludwig's Showdown!"

Well, lucky for me, I offer three options:

Option 1

Merge Mighty Wendy, Mighty Lemmy, Mighty Larry, Mighty Roy, Mighty Iggy, Mighty Morton, and Mighty Ludwig with Wendy, Lemmy, Larry, Roy, Iggy, Morton, and Ludwig respectively.

Option 2

Move Mighty Wendy, Mighty Lemmy, Mighty Larry, Mighty Roy, Mighty Iggy, Mighty Morton, and Mighty Ludwig to Wendy (Wonder form), Lemmy (Wonder form), Larry (Wonder form), Roy (Wonder form), Iggy (Wonder form), Morton (Wonder form), and Ludwig (Wonder form) respectively.

Option 3

Keep Mighty Wendy, Mighty Lemmy, Mighty Larry, Mighty Roy, Mighty Iggy, Mighty Morton, and Mighty Ludwig as-is.

In case the proposal passes with option 2 being the most voted, here is what the first sentence from the pages will read:

Wendy (Wonder form)

The Wonder form of Wendy is a Cheep Cheep-like form that Wendy takes using Bowser's Wonder power in Super Mario Bros. Wonder – Nintendo Switch 2 Edition + Meetup in Bellabel Park.

Lemmy (Wonder form)

The Wonder form of Lemmy is a jester-like form that Lemmy takes using Bowser's Wonder power in Super Mario Bros. Wonder – Nintendo Switch 2 Edition + Meetup in Bellabel Park.

Larry (Wonder form)

The Wonder form of Larry is a crystalline form that Larry takes using Bowser's Wonder power in Super Mario Bros. Wonder – Nintendo Switch 2 Edition + Meetup in Bellabel Park.

Roy (Wonder form)

The Wonder form of Roy is a massive, ghostly form that Roy takes using Bowser's Wonder power in Super Mario Bros. Wonder – Nintendo Switch 2 Edition + Meetup in Bellabel Park.

Iggy (Wonder form)

The Wonder form of Iggy is a pitcher plant-like form that Iggy takes using Bowser's Wonder power in Super Mario Bros. Wonder – Nintendo Switch 2 Edition + Meetup in Bellabel Park.

Morton (Wonder form)

The Wonder form of Morton is a marionette-like form that Morton takes using Bowser's Wonder power in Super Mario Bros. Wonder – Nintendo Switch 2 Edition + Meetup in Bellabel Park.

Ludwig (Wonder form)

The Wonder form of Ludwig is a storm cloud-riding form that Ludwig takes using Bowser's Wonder power in Super Mario Bros. Wonder – Nintendo Switch 2 Edition + Meetup in Bellabel Park.

Perhaps either options 1 or 2 will solve the issue with Mighty Wendy, Mighty Lemmy, Mighty Larry, Mighty Roy, Mighty Iggy, Mighty Morton, and Mighty Ludwig only being fought in the Training Camp rematches.

Proposer: GuntherBayBeee (talk)
Deadline: April 13, 2026, 23:59 (UTC) Closed early on April 6, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Option 1: Merge Wonder forms

1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) My preferred choice.

Option 2: Rename Wonder forms

1. Tails777 (talk) Having seen the talk page discussion, I still believe that renaming the forms is a better option. They are powered up forms unique to the Koopalings that come with some different abilities and appearances. I do believe they can have their own articles, but the "Mighty" part feels more like its describing the rematch rather than being a name for the form.
2. Sorbetti (talk) We have Wonder Bowser, Wonder Bowser Jr. and now Wonder Koopalings. That's how I see it.
3. Arend (talk) Per my reasonings and findings over at the prior discussion. The "Mighty" prefix only appears in conjunction with the rematches, the Japanese version makes it seem more like a descriptor with the usage of kanji instead of katakana, and other languages such as Dutch or German don't even make a distinction between the "buffed-up" and the "mighty" terms (Japanese also uses the same kanji for either term equivalent, but it's pronounced differently). The reason for why I'd keep the Wonder forms split is so it's consistent with other Wonder forms, such as Wonder Bowser Jr.
4. Brett (talk) Per all.
5. Soshi The Yoshi (talk) Per all.
6. Wonder Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal.
7. SuperBallBro (talk) Per all. The first three commenters made solid pointers.
8. LadySophie17 (talk) Y'know what, sure, they can stay separate.
9. Mariuigi Khed (talk) I would have preferred option 3, but Arend has a well-explained point
10. 1468z (talk) Per all.
11. EvieMaybe (talk) per Arend
12. TheCatLover738 (talk) Per all.

Mighty Comments

I feel obligated to point out, for the context of voters, that this discussion began at Talk:Super Mario Bros. Wonder – Nintendo Switch 2 Edition + Meetup in Bellabel Park§Mighty Koopalings, which I am keeping at its full link so it gets people's attention ;) I encourage others to read it before voting. I'll wait until I decide between options 1 or 2 before I vote.

With that said, @GuntherBayBeee is it really necessary to add the beginning line of every article to this proposal? I feel like it's missing a lot of context from the discussion and has a lot of padding which makes it a bit messy to read. — Lady Sophie_17 ^(T|C) 21:37, March 30, 2026 (UTC)

Of course, it really is. It's not that messy, you know. GuntherBayBeee 21:51, March 30, 2026 (UTC)

If option 1 were to pass, would the wiki continue to refer to the Wonder forms of Koopalings as "Mighty Wendy", "Mighty Lemmy", and so forth? TheCatLover738 (talk) 22:01, March 30, 2026 (UTC)

@GuntherBayBeee, additionally, I personally have an issue with the opening statement for Lemmy's Wonder article; Lemmy not only takes a jester-like form, but also a Spike-Ball form during his battle. The article does not mention his alternate form despite being mentioned in the non-Wonder form Lemmy article. Furthermore, I believe titling the Wonder form Koopaling articles "Wonder [Koopaling]" is the better option because it matches the naming scheme used for Wonder Bowser and Wonder Bowser Jr., and due to that, it is more likely to be searched by a user seeking information on the subject. TheCatLover738 (talk) 18:05, March 31, 2026 (UTC)

While I would agree that using the format of "Wonder [Koopaling]" would be better and more befitting, the fact of the matter is that we currently don't have official names for these Wonder forms yet, thus naming them all like this would be highly conjectural at the moment. Yeah, it sounds a bit silly, but not every Wonder form gets the "Wonder" prefix (Big Hoppycat is a good example of this), so it's best to not take any risks until we know more. rend (talk) (edits) 14:59, April 2, 2026 (UTC)

I understand your statement, however, "Wonder [Koopaling]" can still be a redirect. MarioWiki:Redirects seems to allow conjectural names as redirects, and as I stated previously, users are likely to search for "Wonder [Koopaling]". I will say that Big Hoppycat is not a good example for "Not all Wonder Effect-induced variations have the 'Wonder-' prefix", as Wonder Hoppycat already exists, therefore Big Hoppycat could not be named "Wonder Hoppycat". --TheCatLover738 (talk) 00:24, April 3, 2026 (UTC)

@GuntherBayBeee While I understood the general premise of the proposal and agree that changes need to be made about these """mighty""" forms, I also noticed that your proposal contains a lot of needless repetition. And, I do mean a LOT:

• After stating "Here are the following attributes to the Koopalings", you basically repeated the exact same sentence 7 times, each as a different bullet point, only changing the Koopalings' respective names, when you could've simply compressed the info in one single sentence ("However, the courses featuring the regular fight with each Koopaling is actually simply known as '[Koopaling]'s Showdown!' e.g. 'Wendy's Showdown!'"), and remove the preceding "here are the following attributes" sentence, as it implies the following are all different attributes when it's in fact a shared issue amongst all of them.
• Similarly, all the options state every single one of the articles individually, when it could've easily been shortened like this:
  • Option 1: Merge each of the Mighty forms with their respective Koopaling (e.g. Mighty Wendy merges to Wendy)
  • Option 2: Move each of the articles from using the "Mighty" prefix to instead using a "(Wonder form)" identifier (e.g. Mighty Wendy gets moved to Wendy (Wonder form)
  • Option 3: Keep the Mighty form articles as-is
• The explanation of each option is immediately being followed up by how each article's opening sentence would look like if option 2 passes, as previously pointed out by Lady Sophie. And I have to agree with her that this isn't necessary to include, as the changes are minimal enough (i.e. it only changes "Mighty [Koopaling]" to "The Wonder form of [Koopaling]"), that anyone could've figured it out by themselves, meaning it only pads out the proposal even further with redundant fluff.

Mentioning and linking each of the concerning articles is completely fine (and in fact necessary for a proposal or discussion like this, preferably in the way the preceding discussion did it) - but this is kinda overkill. The way you formatted the proposal only complicates things in unnecessary ways, and I feel like I'm reading one of you many previously failed template proposals, where you overexplain every single detail to the precise letter, confusing and alienating readers.
Speaking of the prior discussion, it would've been nice if that were mentioned and linked to as well, especially considering this proposal was obviously inspired by it (previous proposals such as this one from 2022 did that as well).
Also, the final sentence feels confusing to read, but not because of any repetition. It reads as if the issue is that the Wonder forms of the Koopalings are only fought in the Training Camp rematches, instead of it being a separate statement; it feels like a comma needed to be added after "will solve the issue" for it to make sense.
rend (talk) (edits) 17:08, March 31, 2026 (UTC)

---

Remove reminder, warning, and last warning templates from IP Address talk pages

Do not remove 1-10
So, I've been scrolling through a list of pages that use the warning (File:Warning.svg) and last warning (File:Lastwarn.svg) images, and I noticed that some user talks of IP addresses are on those lists. As much as the IP addresses may be breaking rules, MarioWiki:Warning policy (under the Anonymous Users section) explicitly mentions to not give IP addresses warning templates. I realize that some of these edits might have been made a while back, but I do not know if a proposal is needed to remove the templates. Still, it bothers me that the warning policy for anonymous users hasn't been completely followed. If this proposal needs any changes, feel free to let me know.

Example: User talk:92.22.49.251
Obviously, the IP address should have been warned for their actions, but not with a template, just a message.

Proposer: Mari0fan100 (talk)
Deadline: April 16, 2026, 23:59 (UTC) Closed early on April 9, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Support (remove reminder, warning, and last warning templates from IP Address talk pages)

1. Mari0fan100 (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose (do not remove reminder, warning, and last warning templates from IP Address talk pages)

1. Axii (talk) I do not see why existing talk pages should be altered. It's wiki history.
2. Hewer (talk) We generally don't need to worry about "fixing" really old policy infractions that aren't currently causing any harm.
3. I... am R.O.B. (talk) No need to change what's in the past if it's not worth fixing. That last warning is over a decade old.
4. Camwoodstock (talk) The only way you'd find the vast majority of these templates on old anon pages is if you deliberately were using "What links here", and there's very little (productive) reason to be doing that on the warning templates anyways. This fixes a problem that you only really have if you're... looking at old warnings???
5. The Dab Master (blocked) Per all.
6. Yoshi18 (talk) Yeah no.
7. Mario (talk) Yeah, don't need to do this.
8. Jdtendo (talk) Per all.
9. Sorbetti (talk) Per all.
10. Drago (talk) They could have been removed at the time they were issued, but it's not worth going back and removing them now.

---

Move the April Fool's Day Archives from BJAODN to the April Fool's Day page

Move 11-0
First of all, yes this proposal is serious. The fact it's not on April Fool's Day should make that clear, but just in case it had to be said... We're glad we said so!

So, this year was bustling in terms of community activity for April Fool's Day. Without naming names (as there's no hard feelings, and it was an honest mistake amongst the involved editors), there were naturally a few people relatively new to the celebrations that didn't quite "get" it, which led to us (and a few other members of staff) creating MarioWiki:April Fool's Day, a policy page that gives the rules of the playground, so to speak, just to clear up confusion for future years as to what is and isn't okay on April Fool's Day. This is quite handy to have, we would say!

But... When deploying this policy page, we realized that April Fool's redirects to MarioWiki:BJAODN, which has served as our de-facto April Fool's archive. BJAODN is not usually an archive, but we've kept April Fool's things there as it already has all the infrastructure to support it, and it's in the spirit of being "Bad Jokes". We placed a redirect notice there, but it's more than a little bit of a hackjob fix, and it feels very weird that the archive of our April Fool's Day events is on a page separate from our policy on how April Fool's Day Events are conducted.

So! Pretty straight-forwardly, we think the April Fool's archive should be moved from BJAODN, to a new section of the April Fool's Day page. This could be as simple as the bullet-pointed list, to something like Pikipedia's own April Fool's Day page, which gives a paragraph giving a synopsis of each prank and, when applicable, credits for specific technical details. We could even elegantly link that year's joke proposal archives when applicable, which the BJAODN section presently lacks!

Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk)
Deadline: April 18, 2026, 23:59 (UTC) Closed early on April 11, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Support/Move (they sure aren't deleted nonsense!)

1. Camwoodstock (talk) Per proposal.
2. EvieMaybe (talk) now that we have that policy page, the BJAODN archive is no longer needed. move it!
3. Brett (talk) Per all.
4. I... am R.O.B. (talk) Per all.
5. Dominoes (talk) This entry within the voting system is sent as an indicator for which the individual concerned concurs with the rationalia and/or opinions as provided by other individuals who have casted vote within the same section. ...In other words, per all.
6. Maw-Ray Master (talk) Per all.
7. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) Sounds good! One question, though. Does the "only administrators can edit" thing carry over? Because the OTHER BJAODN pages allow people to edit, but not the April Fool's Day proposals pages.
8. Arend (talk) Makes sense, with the new AFD project/policy page and all.
9. FanOfYoshi (talk) Per.
10. Yoshi18 (talk) "Without naming names (as there's no hard feelings, and it was an honest mistake amongst the involved editors), there were naturally a few people relatively new to the celebrations that didn't quite "get" it". Yup that was definitely me.
11. Dive Rocket Launcher (talk) Per all.

Comments (And Other.)

Would that mean that the April Fool's Day proposals (and the associated subpages) would also moved from MarioWiki:BJAODN/Proposals to MarioWiki:April Fool's Day? It does make sense to keep them all together, after all, and our current setup, while it makes a lot of sense as well, also kept them quite separate from each other. rend (talk) (edits) 10:53, April 5, 2026 (UTC)

This is mentioned in the last sentence of the proposal. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 16:04, April 5, 2026 (UTC)

That's our plan, yes. No matter what form we give it, we'll make sure to include quick links to the proposal archive for that year. ~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 16:18, April 5, 2026 (UTC)

---

Allow screenshot in infobox for subjects with an updated design when no proper artworks exist

Allow screenshot in infobox 11-0-1
When it comes to the lead image in an article, an artwork is used whenever possible. While this practice is understandable, it sometimes leads to an issue where the character's main image doesn't represent them well, either due to depicting them with an old design (King K. Rool and King Boo), alongside a different character (Baby Bowser), or wearing a specialized outfit (Baby Wario). Therefore, I believe that in those cases, a screenshot may be used instead in order better represent the subject. Preferably, this screenshot should be of good quality and show the subject entirely.
If this proposal doesn't pass, then Tokotoko, Batadon and Smithy should use back their artwork from their original game, as they currently use a screenshot in their infobox.
Edit : I'm also okay with screenshots where the background has been made transparent by a third-party, like Rocky Wrench's current infobox image, as long as the edit is of good quality.

Proposer: Brett (talk)
Deadline: April 24, 2026, 23:59 (UTC) Closed early on April 17, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Support (screenshots are sometimes better)

1. Brett (talk) Per proposal.
2. EvieMaybe (talk) per proposal.
3. TheCatLover738 (talk) Per proposal.
4. Dive Rocket Launcher (talk) Makes sense, otherwise we would need to change the infobox image of Rocky Wrench back.
5. Wilben (talk) Per proposal.
6. The Dab Master (talk) Per proposal.
7. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per proposal.
8. Power Flotzo (talk) Per the other people saying "per proposal" above me.
9. File:Sheisrightoverrrrrrrrr.png (I... am R.O.B.) Per proposal. This sort of reminds me of this proposal which allowed Dr. Mario World artwork to be used if there was no other artwork available for the subject or if a subject's modern design was only reflected in their DMW artwork. However, I would wait a few games to see if a design for a character sticks, and I am also against using background removal tools for infobox images; not only do they make the image have rough edges or lower quality, but they also fail to remove the condition on the subject itself (like a sunlighted tint on a Cow isn't going to disappear if the background is).
10. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per all.
11. File:Yoshi18.png (talk) I really don't see why not. Per all.

Do nothing (status quo)

1. Nintendo101 (talk) I don't think we need a real policy revision - it is fine to use screenshots if there is a fundemental, recurring design change that makes the present artwork in an infobox unrepresentative. However, what gives me pause for this proposal in particular is that I think some of the ones mentioned (specifically the ones for King K. Rool, King Boo, and Baby Bowser) are completely fine with the artwork they presently use in their infoboxes. For King Boo in particular, there is a particular stylistic return to the Super Mario Bros. 3-styled proportions in games like Super Mario Bros. Wonder and Mario Kart World for all Boos, but Nintendo still uses the more traditional proportions in artwork for the latter game anywaysMedia:MKW Boo Roulette.png, so its still a design they feel is emblantic for these characters.

Comments (lead image debate)

@Brett I think this proposal requires a proper "status quo" option. The oppose point does not really cover that. Some articles use screenshots, whereas others do not. - Nintendo101 (talk) 22:54, April 15, 2026 (UTC)

---

Create articles for Toad Brigade Training Camp and Attraction variations of courses in Super Mario Bros. Wonder – Nintendo Switch 2 Edition + Meetup in Bellabel Park

Create articles for both 6-0-1-0
So, as of right now, when listing courses for the Toad Brigade Training Camp and Attractions, ones that appear in the base game are linked to. The problem is that these variations have completely different things to note; while base game courses' articles mention what other course(s) and Wonder Seeds are unlocked, Attraction courses' articles would have to mention what Attraction they are from, and Toad Brigade Training Camp courses' articles would have to mention modifiers and gimmicks unique to the variation. Despite sharing a name and are likely modified duplicates, they are completely different. Moreover, layout and statistics are not shared. My idea is to have base game courses have no identifier, Attraction courses have the identifier of the Attraction title (e.g. Pole Block Passage (Think Fast: Boo's Coin Spree)), and Toad Brigade Training Camp courses have the category as the identifier (e.g. Condarts Away! (Clear course and stay invincible!)). For the "Extra training" category, the objective is used instead (e.g. Here Come the Hoppos (Clear course and avoid enemies!)).

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

Support (seperate into different articles)

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

#TheCatLover738 (talk) Primary Choice. As proposer.

Partial support (only for Toad Brigade Training Camp)

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Create "General/misc" color classes for Luigi

Create generic Luigi color classes 7-2-3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

tl;dr for what we want:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments (paint the town weegee)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Establish a standard for formatting links to series and franchise pages

do not include the identifier in the text of a link 11-3-2
11 out of 12 voters (91.7%) approve the first place option.
One thing I've noticed from scouring this wiki over the past year is that it is very inconsistent about the formatting of links to series and franchise articles when written with the definite article (e.g., when writing "the Super Mario franchise" instead of just "Super Mario"). Sometimes the term "series" or "franchise" is included in the text of these links (e.g., "the Super Mario franchise"), but other times it is not part of the link (e.g., "the Super Mario franchise"). There are even cases where both are used in the same page, like the Luigi page's intro section using the former for the Super Mario franchise and the latter for the Luigi's Mansion series. The Manual of Style kind of implies that the latter is the intended method, but doesn't explicitly state it, and it isn't being enforced as far as I can tell.

To make this consistent, I propose two options:

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

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

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

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

Option A

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

Option B

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

Do nothing

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

The comments franchise

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

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

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

To be fair, I didn't even find out about this until several months after I signed up. The Dab Master 10:02, April 21, 2026 (UTC)

---

Prioritize numerical time signature notation

Prioritize numerical notation 10-1
10 out of 10 voters (100%) approve the first place option.
I have noticed that the wiki seems to favor using "common names" to refer to time signatures (e.g. "common time", "cut time") rather than numerical notation (e.g. ⁴
₄, ²
₂). Sometimes editors even go as far as to replace the numerical notation with the common name. Currently, the documentation for the time signature template also encourages "including a prosaic name for the time signature alongside this template" due to readers who may be "unfamiliar with music notation", yet it prioritizes the common name, giving examples such as "common time (⁴
₄)". This feels like putting the cart in front of the horse, if the metaphor is appropriate.

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

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

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

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

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

Support in C major: Prioritize numerical notation

1. Dominoes (³
   ₆) Per proposal.
2. TheCatLover738 (talk) Per proposal.
3. Polley (⁰⁰¹
   ₄) Per proposal.
4. The Dab Master (²
   ₄) Primary choice; per proposal.
5. EvieMaybe (talk) per proposal.
6. I... am R.O.B. (¹⁹
   ₈₅) Per proposal.
7. Yoshi18 (⁹⁺¹⁰
   ₂₁) Per proposal.
8. Dive Rocket Launcher (talk) Per proposal.
9. BMfan08 (¹
   ₁₀₀) Per proposal.
10. ThePowerPlayer (¹³
    ₈) Per proposal.

Support in E major: Use numerical notation only

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

Comments (atonal, free time)

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

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

---

Move in-game content information under a "Game content" section in game articles

do not create section 1-10
As game articles are laid out currently, they feel a bit scattered, with the fictional in-game content being described on the same level as development and other real-life information, without any separation between them. For example, you may have an "Items" section followed by a "Staff" section.

I propose we have all in-game content packed under a "Game content" section. This makes it more organised, clearly treating the game as a real-life project first. It also would make game articles more structurally consistent, considering different game genres with different types of content. This change could potentially lead to game articles of all genres having a more universally standardised structure, as basically all diverging sections would be within the content section.

Basically:

• Types of information that would be in the "content" section: characters, enemies, items, worlds, race courses, sports courts, racing vehicles, etc.
• Types of information that would not be in the "content" section: story, gameplay, staff, glitches, music, gallery, reception, etc.

Looking into other NIWA wikis, this is how Pikipedia does it, and it makes game articles feel much more organised in my opinion.

Proposer: Bro Hammer (talk)
Deadline: May 4, 2026, 23:59 (UTC) Closed early on April 27, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Support: have game content section

1. Bro Hammer (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose: do nothing

1. Ahemtoday (talk) I see no compelling reason to make this distinction. The reason given by the proposal is to cleanly separate in-universe and out-of-universe content, but I feel the separation is already obvious. I don't think "Items" and "Staff" need to be separate sections for it to be clear they're not the same type of section. To be frank, I'm not sure there is a possible logical distinction between these two types of section, but if there is, I don't think it's along these lines. The "Gameplay" section on any given game article almost always describes actions undertaken by the fictional characters of the game; and the fictional characters, locations, and objects this proposal aims to list as "game content", as much as they exist as entities in a fictional world, exist as game mechanics to an equal degree (possibly larger, given MarioWiki:Canonicity). And even beyond all of this, if we were to treat the game as a real-life project and move in-universe information under a separate header, why does the plot, a sequence of in-universe events, go outside of it?
2. Jdtendo (talk) Per Ahemtoday.
3. Hewer (talk) I don't think this would help at making section separations more clear than they already are.
4. EvieMaybe (talk) believe it or not, i actually kind of agree with the idea this proposal pursues. however, i believe that if we're going to overhaul the structure of every game page, we might as well do it properly. this is a half-measure, and approving this just kicks the can further down the road.
5. TheCatLover738 (talk) Per all.
6. Nintendo101 (talk) This constitutes the majority of what we cover as is.
7. Camwoodstock (talk) Per all. We've heard of what Evie's talking about, and while we're on the fence about it, it would be a far better method of re-organization than this would be. When re-organizing things, it should never be a question of "hey, wait... what information goes where?" and as Ahemtoday pointed out, there's quite a bit of "hey, wait, why is that going there" with this specific pitch.
8. Yoshi18 (talk) Per all.
9. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all.
10. Arend (talk) This hasn't convinced me that the game pages need restructuring at all. Like, I get why you'd want to do it like this, but on the other hand, an average viewer might think "wait, why AREN'T the story, gameplay, glitches, and music part of the game content too? Aren't those things literally part of the game?" A "game content" section where we lump all the lists of characters, locations, objects, etc. might just confuse viewers with a name like that.

Comments (Have game content section in game articles)

For clarity regarding this proposal, could you list all current headers that would be listed under this new header? --TheCatLover738 (talk) 23:39, April 20, 2026 (UTC)

@Ahemtoday, Yes, gameplay sections mentions the fictional world, but the point is to explain the game mechanically. Yes, the story of course happens in the fictional world, but it's part of the game's core concept. Yes, items and enemies have mechanics, but they are not game-defining elements (if they are, then it's worth giving the mechanic a subsection in the gameplay section). Story and gameplay are the two most important things one needs to read about to fundamentally understand the game. In fact, they are the two things that are explained in full in the game page... Unlike items, enemies, worlds, etc, which are are all described in brief summaries, linking to their pages. So, the difference then is that story and gameplay are basically the game itself, so they are principal sections that need all the attention to communicate the game as a project. Bro Hammer (Talk • Cont) 02:12, April 21, 2026 (UTC)

I could continue to dispute where exactly the line between "game content" and "everything else" is, but in hindsight, I think that's secondary to the fact I don't see the purpose in the wiki drawing that line at all. All that happens with a "game content" section is that all the headings within it are pushed down a level, and all of two words are added to the article: "game content". I find the organizational structure perfectly clear without that. I don't think there's anything scattered or unclear about characters and locations being top-level headings the same way plot and gameplay are. And if there was, I don't think a "game content" superheading would help. All of the sections would be in the same order with or without it. Ahemtoday (talk) 03:37, April 21, 2026 (UTC)

---

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

Rename "New features" to "Additions" on MarioWiki:Proposals 6-0
The intent of this proposal is entirely in the title. One common type of proposal placed under the "New features" heading are new article creations. No one really refers to articles as "features". "Additions" is a more neutral word to sum up all the proposals placed in that category.

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

Support

1. TheCatLover738 (talk) As proposer.
2. Yoshi18 (talk) This is a short, one-worded, straightforward name that matches the others (excluding "Writing Guidelines" which just cannot be shortened to one word), so per proposal.
3. Brett (talk) Per all.
4. Wilben (talk) Per all.
5. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all.
6. Someone1234 (talk) I think this will be better.

Comments

New features had been a header from the very beginning, back when "Policies" was also a thing (and listed under New features; and also quickly removed later, probably per accident), and things like Writing guidelines and Changes weren't a thing yet. And with this PAIR system being the very first proposal listed under New features, this definitely makes me feel that New features was initially supposed to be about new wiki and policy features, before it conflated into any new additions in general over time (and the MarioWiki:Proposals page became more broad in general). In short, the New features name appears to be a relic of a long-past-gone time when MarioWiki:Proposals was solely focused on proposals about the wiki itself and its maintenance, rather than just any broad topic that could cover multiple pages. rend (talk) (edits) 19:12, April 21, 2026 (UTC)

Speaking of Writing guidelines (this may be off-topic), I have been wondering what the point is of its existence at this point. These used to be the only non-talk page proposals that lasted for two weeks instead of one, but now that all proposals last for two weeks by default, I'm now unsure what makes it special enough to be its own section when many of the proposals about writing appear equally as much in Changes, and various proposals about changes in articles have also appeared in Writing guidelines too. Maybe it makes sense to rename it into something like "Policies and guidelines" to make it clear this isn't about the articles themselves, or get rid of the section in general? rend (talk) (edits) 19:22, April 21, 2026 (UTC)

I mean, technically every proposal ever could go under the "Changes" header, since by definition any proposal is seeking to change something. And "features" is a broad enough term that any proposal about an addition to the wiki could go under "New features". Ultimately I don't think these proposal sections really matter much, especially now that the removal of the deadline difference means there is no functional distinction between them. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 23:02, April 21, 2026 (UTC)

---

Allow users to put a reason for canceling proposals

Require a reason when canceling a proposal 11-3-0
11 out of 11 voters (100%) approve the first place option.

This proposal is based on my comments here. Basically, when I was canceling my balloon proposal after reading a recommendation, I tried to include the reason for the cancellation, but nothing appeared. This makes no sense. Currently, vetoed proposals include a reason explaining why they were vetoed, but canceled proposals do not provide a similar option. This can make it unclear why a proposal was canceled, especially when the proposer wants to explain their reasoning.

I believe that allowing user to include reasons, is a win-win change, a total benefit that I don't think has any arguments against it. However, there are two ways to make this change, and I think this is where the discussion arises. These are two ways to implement this change:

Option A: Require a reason when canceling a proposal

Making it mandatory to provide reasons for canceling proposals would encourage transparency and discourage users from canceling proposals for unclear or questionable reasons, such as dissatisfaction with the voting. I believe this option is quite beneficial as it serves as a form of regulation and also solves some of the problems discussed here.

Option B: Allow users to include a reason, but make it optional

On the other hand, I understand that not all users want to provide reasons for canceling their proposals, and that's perfectly valid. This option would still improve transparency.

I think both options are equally good. Now, ending. How will this change be implemented? Well, as was pointed out in that discussion, when a proposal is vetoed, the reason takes the place of {{{2}}}, which is for the final standing of votes. Since canceled proposals don't include vote standings, they can use the same code as vetoed ones.

Proposer: Sorbetti (talk)
Deadline: May 15, 2026, 23:59 (UTC) Closed early on May 8, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Support Option A

1. Sorbetti (talk) Per proposal.
2. TheCatLover738 (talk) There should always be a reason for cancelation. Specifying it will improve the understanding from the users viewing the proposal. It also lets the cancelation be judged in case the reason is unvalid. It is already possible to include reasons in the edit summary, but when looking for old cancelation reasons, the process of searching for such can become quite tedious.
3. Jdtendo (talk) Per TheCatLover738.
4. Rykitu (talk) Per proposal.
5. Arend (talk) Not to be a snitch or target specific users, but something I noticed regarding fellow user GuntherBayBeee is not only his overabundance of (poorly-made) proposals, most of which failed or cancelled by admins, but also his tendency to cancel them when things go south; presumably for very poor reasons, if this conversation about him wanting to cancel a proposal because he "disagrees with too many oppositions" indicates anything. Requiring a reason to cancel a proposal should alleviate this issue, at least to some degree.
6. I... am R.O.B. (talk) As the person who started the entire conversation, THANK YOU. I am also in favor of removing the 3-day embargo so that legitimate users aren't forced into waiting; now that this proposal aims to reduce cancelled proposal spam, I don't see the embargo as necessary. Also, per TCL and Arend, especially with his point about Gunther only wanting to cancel his Pouncer proposal because he didn't want it to count as failed (jeez, just as I suspected), something that he blatantly admitted in the comments.
7. Brett (talk) Per all.
8. Yoshi18 (talk) Primary option. @Sorbetti W. No, but seriously, we need this.
9. EvieMaybe (talk) per proposal.
10. Velvetslugs (talk) per proposal.
11. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per proposal.

Support Option B

1. Sorbetti (talk) Per proposal.
2. Arend (talk) Even if it shouldn't be mandatory, I do think it's at the very least useful to allow users to include a reason regardless. Heck, I'm surprised this hasn't been a thing yet for years!
3. Yoshi18 (talk) Secondary option. Per Arend.

(Comments)

Frankly, can't this proposal be immediately put into effect. I know this proposal will very likely end up week early, but still. Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 18:42, May 4, 2026 (UTC)

Porplemontage already added the ability to specify a self-cancelation reason to {{proposal outcome}}. --TheCatLover738 (talk) 18:52, May 4, 2026 (UTC)

For some reason, the early close rule does not take multiple votes by the same user into account, so if the option wins by a margin of less than 8 votes or 80% approval because a user voted for both first and second place, the ECR is not put into effect. Users can cross out their secondary vote(s) if they prefer the first one, and seeing how all of the votes on Option B are those who also voted for Option A, I think that this shouldn't be an issue. That said, this will be moot if Porple does close this early (which I'm not sure if he will, but given his track record, it is very likely). I... am R.O.B. Lava Pikmin! 19:05, May 4, 2026 (UTC)

I just realized this proposal is still mainly not cancelled for the debate of putting a reason being optional. But I think this should be an after-proposal discussion, rather than it withholding the proposal from being tagged as "Put immediately into effect" (mainly considering the fact it has already been put into effect) or from the proposal ending early. Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 19:15, May 4, 2026 (UTC)

The proposal has not been put into effect because the proposal is determining if it should be obligatory or not. — Lady Sophie_17 ^(T|C) 17:13, May 8, 2026 (UTC)

While I agree with requiring a reason for cancelling a proposal, what will actually change in practical terms? What is stopping the same people that would cancel a proposal with no clear reason from canceling their proposal with "reason=I didn't like the outcome" or something along those lines? I don't really expect people to self-regulate even if their reasons have to be explicit. — Lady Sophie_17 ^(T|C) 17:13, May 8, 2026 (UTC)

---

Use manga chapters rather than volumes for subjects' first and last appearances

Use chapters 9-0
Several Super Mario mangas, including KC Mario and Super Mario-kun, first have their chapters serialized monthly in a magazine before being published together in a volume (or tankōbon). There have also been some chapters that were not included in any volumes, such as the last chapters of the Super Mario World arc of the Kodansha manga.
Therefore, I think it should be more accurate to use individual chapters rather than volumes in infobox for subjects's first and last appearance. Chapters would be formatted in the infobox this way : [manga title] ("[chapter]") ([year]). So, for example, Sue's first and last appearance would be written this way in her infobox :

Sue
First appearance	Super Mario Kodansha manga ("Walkthrough 3 (Easton Kingdom) - Overcoming love and sorrow!!") (1989)
Latest appearance	Super Mario Kodansha manga ("A tragic epilogue on the island!") (1994)

However, due to the lack of informations of some of the mangas, volumes may still be used when the exact chapter a subject first or last appeared in is unknown.
One noteworthy thing I've noticed is that the first chapter of the volume Super Mario Bros. 4: Super Mario World 1 was originally released on November 15 (cover of the magazine issue where the chapter was first released, which shows the date on the top-left corner), 6 days before the game it adapted. Therefore, this would mean that this chapter is technically the first appearance of several elements of Super Mario World, such as Yoshi.
First edit : changed how the chapters are formatted as proposed by Ahemtoday.
Second edit : actually, only the first portion of the first chapter was first published in November 15, the rest was released after Super Mario World. So while this manga chapter still is the first appearance of Yoshi, it may not be the case for elements appearing later in that same chapter.
Third edit : crossed out the text under parenthesis about the release date of the first Super Mario World arc chapter, as Platform pointed out that cover dates aren't actually release dates.

Proposer: Brett (talk)
Deadline: May 16, 2026, 23:59 (UTC) Closed early on May 9, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Support

1. Brett (talk) Per proposal.
2. Ahemtoday (talk) This makes sense to me, though I think manga chapter titles should be formatted un-italicized like TV show episodes.
3. Rykitu (talk) Per proposal. This feels more accurate than what we're doing currently.
4. SeanWheeler (talk) Wikis about a manga series, such as the One Piece Wiki would use chapters for first appearances, instead of volumes.
5. EvieMaybe (talk) sounds reasonable. how many pages would this affect in practice?
6. Velvetslugs (talk) Per proposal.
7. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per proposal.
8. Power Flotzo (talk) Per all.
9. Yoshi18 (talk) Per all.

Comments (Manga chapters)

@EvieMaybe It would affect around 370 pages, most of them are in the categories "KC Deluxe", "KC Deluxe original characters", "Super Mario-kun" and "Super Mario-kun original characters". It would also affect the list of characters. Brett (talk) 10:57, May 3, 2026 (UTC)

Be very careful about cover dates, which are not actual release dates.--Platform (talk) 19:58, May 9, 2026 (UTC)

You're right, the date on the cover is October 15, even though this issue was released on November. However, Comic BomBom issues are released the 15th of the month, so it still predates Super Mario World. Brett (talk) 21:57, May 9, 2026 (UTC)

I know I'm late to this but... is it correct to put the chapters in English when that's not an official translation? Personally, I would put just "Story arc - Chapter [number]" in the infobox, instead of the translated title. Mariuigi Khed 17:21, May 10, 2026 (UTC)

---

Move "General Information" above "History"

Move section 9-0
Okay so: for any articles about common subjects, the General Information section is mercilessly buried underneath a gigantic History section. For especially common subjects we are talking about literal hundreds of appearances to scroll through. So many appearances that it's even a small hassle to navigate to the General Info section in the contents table.

Now, what specifically makes this an issue? Well, have you taken a look at some of these sections? I wouldn't blame you if you didn't. They are plain inconvenient to get to, after all. But, if you didn't, a lot of readers probably didn't either - and a lot of other editors too.

The quality of general info sections is a massive mixed bag across the board. Some of the most notable enemies and characters in the franchise have sections that are filled with strange decisions and out-of-date references. I'm talking about the sort of writing you otherwise only see in hyper-niche articles that haven't been touched since the dawn of the wiki.

Clearly the location of this section is not helpful in its current state. It's unpolished information that's being presented to no audience. And I do think that that's a huge shame! Something like the basic description of a Goomba really shouldn't be this easy to miss! And it frankly would make a lot more sense if General Information was able to serve as an intro to the History section. Yaknow, it would be quite helpful to tell you what a Koopa even is before telling you about every single time it shows up. Aaand it would remind editors of these sections, ideally motivating them to improve them! The goal is to have better information that we can present to a bigger audience, in a more sensible location.

Also, just for the record, we've crunched the numbers and the work involved is relatively reasonable. "Only" about 220 articles would need to be updated, which I think is a fair and manageable amount of work for the long term benefit of this.

Proposer: Velvetslugs (talk)
Deadline: May 10, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Support: Move General Info above History

1. Velvetslugs (talk) Per proposal.
2. EvieMaybe (talk) After editing WiKirby for a while, I have to admit I'm kind of down for this! Describing a subject broadly and then narrowly makes more sense than narrowly and then broadly. Plus, building off of Hewer's comment, articles without a General information header just have all their general information in the intro paragraph, while ones that have it have the info bifurcated by a gigantic History section in the middle. Moving the General information section to just under the intro header would ensure the flow of information doesn't differ as drastically depending on scale. I am not sold on the "it would encourage editors to improve them" argument, but I do find it more appealing from an organizational perspective. As a bonus, it does mean that pages with a split-off History section don't immediately whisk you off to another article the second you get past the intro paragraph, which is a better look.
3. The Dab Master § General information (talk) This just kind of makes sense to me. Per all.
4. I... am R.O.B.#General Information - Per the convo in the comments.
5. Someone1234 (talk) Per all (especially EvieMaybe). It is reasonable to put their general info before their history.
6. Wilben (talk) Per all.
7. Yoshi18 (talk) Per all.
8. Dominoes § General information (talk) Per all.
9. ThePowerPlayer § General information (talk) Per all.

Oppose: Do nothing

#I... am R.O.B.#General Information - Per Hewer in the comments. The introduction already gives a brief overview of the subject, and the General Information section just serves to illustrate specific information about the character, as an expansion of the introduction. Not to mention that the section can be incredibly long, and personally, I am more interested in seeing a character's evolution throughout the series, but maybe that's just me. And as you said, "it's unpolished information". I feel like putting this unpolished information in front of the history would only make the pages look worse from a brisker perspective. I feel like the better solution is to improve these sections first, then move them near the top of the page. And I don't think that the History sections are that "gigantic" - the ones that are have been split into their own pages, so this isn't such a big deal for me (I think that the General Information sections can be even longer than the History sections, but again, maybe that's just me).

Comments (Move General Info)

Giving a basic overview of what the subject is before getting into the history is the job of the intro paragraph(s). I see "General information" as being for more in-depth details, many of which would also be covered in history when relevant. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 19:55, April 26, 2026 (UTC)

I know that "General Information" is there for more in-depth stuff. My concern is that it fails at actually conveying that in-depth info as intended, if it comes after the history section where most readers don't look. "History" and "General Information" are both usually the most important sections of articles about common subjects. Neither of them should be buried to a point where they are easy to miss!
To address ROB's concerns: You said that you are mainly interested in the history of a character, and that's of course fair! The history section is incredibly relevant and important to highlight. But that shouldn't come at the cost of neglecting the general info section. Like you said, general info is a sort of expansion of the intro - so would it not make sense to make these related sections flow into each other, instead of breaking up the flow with history between them?
Your comments about the length of these sections also made me go compare a bunch of them. I genuinely could not find any general info sections that are significantly longer than their related history sections. Most general info sections are a single paragraph, and the few heftier outliers are still quick to scroll past. So, I can assure you that front-loading general info would not hurt people who are only interested in the history section. The history section would remain easily reachable, while people who are seeking relevant basic information about a subject would hugely benefit.
Finally, I don't entirely trust the plan to improve the sections first before moving them. Clearly it hasn't worked out so far. Editors don't edit what they don't notice. And right now no one is noticing these sections. Moving them first would get a hundred new eyes on them, allowing far more work to be done far more quickly. Velvetslugs (talk) 20:28, April 27, 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that making the worse section (not in terms of what should come first, but rather how it was written) would make users aware of its problems. Users might have the same awareness of it regardless of its location. I genuinely think that the best way to handle fixing these is to rewrite them first, then move them up once they're fixed (although I'm not sure if this is needed if fixing them is your only goal). Plus, this proposal can show what needs fixing from the get-go, so mistakes and errors in the writing can become more obvious without making it the first thing to jump out after the "creation" section. I'd say fix then move, not move then fix. I... am R.O.B. Lava Pikmin! 13:50, April 28, 2026 (UTC)

I mean, if the sections are bad, then it already goes without saying that they need to be fixed regardless of any proposals (or their location on the page). Nothing's stopping anyone from fixing them all right now, it isn't something that's done via proposal. So in theory, there's no functional difference between a "fix then move" proposal and a "move then fix" proposal. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 16:36, April 28, 2026 (UTC)

Okay I think I was a bit confusing in my reasoning. Sorry for that. To be clear, the prospect of improving the sections themselves was supposed to be more of a cherry on top. My main goal is simply improving the flow of the article, and making this important section more easily accessible. Also, trying to fix these sections first is a very vague and broad goal, and would surely take months or possibly years to chip away at. To me it makes sense to start with the issue that can be addressed immediately - that being the location of the section. The contents of it can be improved at any time. Velvetslugs (talk) 17:21, April 28, 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for that. Changed my vote :) I... am R.O.B. Lava Pikmin! 17:32, April 28, 2026 (UTC)

How much stuff is in the ‘General Info’ anyway? It feels like there’s lots of stuff on a character that is important but only a few lines on less important characters. Just asking/commenting (after all, this is the comments section, right?). Someone1234 (talk) May 2, 2026, 03:02 (UTC)

---

Decide if medias that mention a subject before their first appearance or after their last appearance should be included in their infobox

don't include mentions in infobox 8-0-4-0-1-0
There are subjects who have been mentioned in a media after their last appearance, or, conversely, was mentioned in a media before their first appearance. I can think of several characters and location in these cases :

• Wrinkly Kong first appeared in Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest, but was previously mentioned in Donkey Kong Country by Cranky Kong.
• Kazooie first appeared overall in Banjo-Kazooie, then first appeared alongside Super Mario characters in the N-Gang comic Freeze Frame, but was previously mentioned in the manual of Diddy Kong Racing.
• The Mushroom King was mentioned in the manual of Super Mario Bros. before appearing in the strategy guide How to win at Super Mario Bros.
• Kolorado, Koopa Koot, Buzzar and the Dry Dry Desert only appeared in Paper Mario, but were later mentioned in Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door and its remake.
• Captain Syrup last appeared as a spirit in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate, but was later mentioned in Animal Crossing: New Horizons.

As you can see, the way these cases are handled in their infobox is not consistent, therefore, I propose different options to fix this inconsistency :

• Option A : mentions are never listed in the subject's infobox as their first or last appearance.
• Option B : mentions are listed in the subject's infobox alongside their first or last appearance if the mention precedes their first appearance or succeeds their last appearance.
• Option B (alt) : proposed by LinkTheLefty, mentions that precede a subject first appearance are listed in their infobox, but not mentions that succeed their last appearance.
• Option C : "First mention" and "Last mention" syntaxes are added in infoboxes for subjects, this would concern the Character infobox, the Form infobox, the Group infobox, the Item infobox, the Location infobox, the Move infobox and the Species infobox.
• Option C (alt) : same as option C, except it's only for the syntax "First mention".
• Option D : the status quo option, if this option gets chosen, no changes would be made.

Proposer: Brett (talk)
Deadline: May 13, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Option A

#Brett (mentioned) My preferred option, mere mentions aren't appearances, and having syntaxes for this in infobox wouldn't be really necessary as it wouldn't be used in a lot of articles. Plus, there are already listed in the subject's history section anyway.

1. Ancient Minister (extinct) Per Brett. Like, I don't think that a character's name being said is enough to have them shown as an "appearance". Like, prior to the discovery of the Shitamachi Ninjō Gekijō virtual magazine, Sonic didn't have Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest as his "first" Mario outing, despite definitely being alluded to. And is Despicable Me 3 an appearance for Donkey Kong because Balthazar Bratt mentions his name? Plus, there are so many references both in the Mario franchise and other media that this will definitely screw things up a lot. I'm fine with physical appearances (like Bowser in Wreck-it Ralph and Donkey Kong in Pixels), but brief allusions (like Felix saying Mario's name) shouldn't count as appearances at all. As for cameos, that is a whole can of worms I'd prefer to remain sealed for now.
2. Hewer (talk) By definition, a mention is not an appearance.
3. Camwoodstock (talk) Per Hewer. If, hypothetically, someone mentioned Frederick Douglass in one of the DiC cartoons prior to his appearance in Mario's Time Machine, we, personally, wouldn't count that as him "appearing."
4. EvieMaybe (talk) per Camwoodstock and Hewer
5. Wilben (talk) Per Hewer.
6. Ahemtoday (talk) A character being mentioned before their first appearance or after their last is interesting information, but these things will already be covered in the history section, which I think is sufficient. I don't think we need to add new fields or complicate the meaning of "appearance" for the sake of putting this information in the infobox when it will already be present on the article.
7. Mario4Ever (talk) Per Hewer.
8. Kong (talk) Per Hewer.

Option B

#LinkTheLefty (talk) I don't think this happens often enough to go for Option C, but mentions outside the scope of strict appearances seems like data valuable enough to add to the infobox.

Option B (alt)

1. Rykitu (talk) I think it's important to mention the first time an instance of such a character's existence is heard of in their infobox. But yeah, latest appearances aren't that impactful. Also per other votes regarding references in non-Mario media.
2. LinkTheLefty (talk) Regardless, I still think it's of interest when a formerly-unseen/conceptual subject becomes fully realized at a later point, and giving a small note of that in the infobox doesn't hurt and isn't confusing.
3. Sorbetti (talk) Per Rykitu and Link.
4. Brett (talk) Secondary choice. Since most people seems to be against the idea to create a new syntax due to not affecting a lot of articles, the first mention could instead be put in the "First appearance" parameter (though, as I said before, it wouldn't really fit the name of the parameter).

#The Last of His Kind Part III (2008 video game) Second choice. While a mention that predates an appearance could work, I don't think that an additional parameter is necessary, given that crossover characters don't have one for their first non-Mario appearance.

Option C (alt)

1. Brett (mentioned) After reading the two votes for the alternate option B, I think the first mention of a subject could be worth mentioning in the infobox, though it wouldn't be in the appearance syntax.

Comments (mentioned)

@Brett: Come to think of it, would you be willing to add variants of Options B and C that include first mentions predating physical appearances but disclude latest post-appearance mentions? LinkTheLefty (talk) 16:25, April 29, 2026 (UTC)

What would the benefit of that be? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 16:32, April 29, 2026 (UTC)

I just think the rare occasion whenever a subject "graduates" from non-physical mention to full appearance is noteworthy and unobtrusive enough. Later mentions can be handled differently. LinkTheLefty (talk) 16:40, April 29, 2026 (UTC)

Why isn't the inverse also noteworthy and unobtrusive enough? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 16:42, April 29, 2026 (UTC)