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)