MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/83

All past proposals are archived here. This page is protected to preserve the discussions as they were.

What is a Game? IV: A New Scope

As Eminem once said:

(Guess who's back... back again...)

Anyway, let's begin.

We've made a split page for physical games and given that variety of merchandise a location to be covered. However, there are still select varieties of merchandise that could qualify as physical games that currently aren't on the list. This proposal aims to add said games to the list, as most of them are divorced enough from the variety of games currently on the list that there could potentially be discourse on whether to add them or not. These game varieties will be listed below, followed by options on whether to add them or not.

LEGOs / BYGGIS / K'NEX / Dot-S

If this were to be added to the list, each set would be listed under a new section for three-dimensional puzzles (akin to the currently-listed Kumukumu Puzzle) under the section for jigsaw puzzles. These brands are technically puzzles, as the user has to put them together the same way they'd put together a jigsaw puzzle, just in a three-dimensional space. Each set article would presumably be akin to a jigsaw puzzle article (with slightly more content due to LEGO Super Mario's timer / scannable objects, K'NEX's motorized sets, and BYGGIS's cutouts). [On a separate note, I may make a proposal determining what content can be added to pre-existing jigsaw articles to improve their depth, such as - as another editor suggested - making graphics showing what kind of pieces appear in a given puzzle.) In short, I believe these three brands should be added, as they are each at least akin to a jigsaw puzzle, while LEGO Super Mario also features various scannable elements and a timer, and K'NEX features the aforementioned motorized sets.

As for Dot-S, I could honestly go either way on this one. The puzzles don't really have much in the way of names, unlike most of the other sets listed. I would still like these to be added to the list, though I'd understand if they can't warrant their own articles (and thus would be okay with the brand itself being added instead).

Playsets

If these were to be added to the list, they would most likely be put in the miscellaneous section (or a new section, depending on how many varieties of these there are). I believe these should be added to the list, as a playset is intended to bring the world of any given game to life in a physical sense, as each playset depicts either a real in-game location or a unique location fitting with in-game settings (such as underwater playsets, etcetera). A playset is meant to give the user the feeling that they are playing the game, and, while many playsets don't have a goal in that of themselves, this is due to playsets being intended for players to make their own rules. I believe these could comfortably warrant their own articles between the setting, the pieces, the setup, and other miscellaneous information.

Activity books

This one wouldn't change what is currently covered or result in additional articles (as activity books already all receive their own articles), though if these were to be added to the list, they would most likely be placed either in a new section that also includes the Twinkl activities, or in the miscellaneous section. Activity books usually feature various mazes and games, with some (such as The Super Mario Galaxy Movie Activity Kit) featuring full-blown games that the user has to physically print out and cut out to play. Because of this, I think activity books should be added to the list.

Art tools

If these were to be added to the list (depending on how many of them I can find), they would either be categorized under a new section or in the miscellaneous section. These tools include stuff like the Ravensburger-produced Mario-themed "Xoomy" (I believe that's how the toy's name is spelled) drawing toy, which is intended to aid users in learning to draw. I believe these should be added to the list, as - though most of these would comfortably warrant their own articles as merchandise as well - they could be categorized as the physical game answer to Mario Paint and the Mario Artist series.

Magic 8 Balls

These would probably go in the miscellaneous section, as there's most likely not that many of them. These could comfortably warrant their own article(s) once all of their individual answers have been found, as they're sort of like the physical game answer to the online browser games in the vein of Ask Wario or the Ask Dan-style message board-mail bag-things from the early 2000s. In short, I believe these should be considered physical games, as there is a level of interactivity to them, they have unique names, they can fill out their own articles, and they have video game parallels.

To note, some of these could be considered more on the "utility" side as opposed to the "game" side. However, as with the list of games, I believe that it'd be better to group the physical utilities with the physical games, as I don't think there's enough [known] distinct physical utilities to warrant a separate list.

Note: this proposal is sheerly intended to add these things to the list, and ensure that they will eventually get articles. I am not making writing the articles part of the proposal itself, as... well... then it probably wouldn't be implemented for a very long time due to the amount of these things.

Now let's-a vote!

Proposer: Nelsonic (talk)

(How) do we add LEGOs, BYGGIS, K'NEX, and Dot-S?

LEGO, BYGGIS, K'NEX, and Dot-S are not games 2-1-1-5
Deadline: April 25, 2026, 23:59 (UTC) Extended to May 2, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Add individually

1. Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal.
2. Rykitu (talk) I agree with adding the LEGO Super Mario sets, but only LEGO Mario as they made those sets act like a game. The other sets are just toys.

Add individually, but add Dot-S as a brand

1. Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal.

Add to the list, but only as brands

1. Camwoodstock (talk) We'd prefer each of them get listed with the brand in lieu of individual sets; there are many expansions to LEGO Super Mario that just, don't function as they're intended to unless you have the main LEGO Super Mario.

Don't add

1. Nintendo101 (talk) Per my comment below.
2. LadySophie17 (talk) Per Nintendo101.
3. Mario4Ever (talk) Per Nintendo101.
4. Jdtendo (talk) They're more like toys than games. I wouldn't consider them "three-dimensional puzzles" since the user has to follow instructions to assemble them, whereas the core gameplay of jigsaw puzzles is having to guess which piece goes where.
5. Okapii (talk) Per Jdtendo, these are toys; toys are merchandise.

Do we add playsets?

Playsets are not games 1-7
Deadline: April 25, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Yes

1. Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal.

No

1. Rykitu (talk) Playsets may be interactive, but they don't have any rules to classify them as games.
2. Power Flotzo (talk) Per Rykitu.
3. Camwoodstock (talk) Unless it's got a specific rules for play, like a board game, a playset is probably better categorized alongside toys than as a "game".
4. Nintendo101 (talk) Per my comment below.
5. LadySophie17 (talk) Per Nintendo101.
6. Mario4Ever (talk) Per Nintendo101.
7. EvieMaybe (talk) per Nintendo101.

Do we add activity books?

failed to reach consensus 6-8
Deadline: April 25, 2026, 23:59 (UTC) Extended to May 2, 2026, 23:59 (UTC) Extended to May 9, 2026, 23:59 (UTC) Extended to May 16, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Yes

1. Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal.
2. Rykitu (talk) Per proposal. I was actually considering making a proposal to split all the physical games found in activity books. While this isn't exactly what I had in mind, sure. If the My Very First Nintendo Game Boy books have a spot in the physical games list because of their water games, so can these activity books for their games.
3. Camwoodstock (talk) A game book is literally a game in a book! It's in the title. It makes sense to denote these in the physical games list, as an overlap between publications and physical games.
4. EvieMaybe (talk) per Camwoodstock.
5. Okapii (talk) Ehhhh.. yeah, per Camwoodstock.
6. Yoshi18 (talk) I mean, this maybe shouldn't count for all activity books, but some of those books are called game books for a reason.

No

1. Nintendo101 (talk) Per my comment below.
2. LadySophie17 (talk) Per Nintendo101.
3. Mario4Ever (talk) Per Nintendo101.
4. Jdtendo (talk) They're better categorized as books rather than games, and I don't see the value in having an overlap between the two categories.
5. WACCA Lily R (talk) Per Nintendo101. I believe we are too liberal with coverage of non-video game "games", and would prefer to reduce coverage then add even more.
6. Power Flotzo (talk) Per N101.
7. TheCatLover738 (talk) Per Jdtendo.
8. Kong (talk) Per Jdtendo.

Do we add art tools?

Art tools are not games 1-7
Deadline: April 25, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Yes

1. Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal.

No

1. Rykitu (talk) Adding physical versions of games that are just tools is a bit too far in my opinion.
2. Power Flotzo (talk) Per Rykitu.
3. Camwoodstock (talk) In our opinion, these make more sense to categorize alongside merchandise. It definitely falls under our coverage, but it'd be a little silly to call a stationary set a game on the grounds of "It has Mario, and you interact with it, and can draw like Mario Paint". Just say who made it, explain it, give it an image, and explain any extra bits-and-baubles on the publisher's page; we don't need to try to force the game page format onto a paintbrush with Mario on it, that's a little silly.
4. Nintendo101 (talk) Per my comment below.
5. LadySophie17 (talk) Per Nintendo101.
6. Mario4Ever (talk) Per Nintendo101.
7. EvieMaybe (talk) per Nintendo101.

Do we add Magic 8 Balls?

Magic 8 Balls are not games 1-7
Deadline: April 25, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Yes

1. Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal.

No

1. Rykitu (talk) *shakes Magic 8 Ball* "DON'T COUNT ON IT" (that joke I just made, in all seriousness, is the amount of "gameplay" this thing has.)
2. Power Flotzo (talk) Per Rykitu.
3. Camwoodstock (talk) ...Are there even any Super Mario-branded Magic 8 Balls? We feel like categorizing these amongst merchandise makes more sense, at any rate.
4. Nintendo101 (talk) Per my comment below.
5. LadySophie17 (talk) Per Nintendo101.
6. Mario4Ever (talk) Per Nintendo101.
7. EvieMaybe (talk) per Nintendo101.

The Comment Games III: Mockingjay

I think if we broaden the concept of "game" to include interactive toys, "game" becomes so broad of a concept on a site ostensibly about a video game franchise that it loses meaning and utility. An instruction manual is not served well being classified as a book. - Nintendo101 (talk) 22:57, April 15, 2026 (UTC)

To those who oppose on the activity books, some activity books feature actual board games (such as "Super Mario Bros." from Super Mario Bros.: A Big Color/Activity Book and "Board Game" from Super Mario: Mario Time!). The proposal implies that all activity books will be placed regardless if there isn't any multiplayer games in them, which I disagree with. I suggest that we only add the board and card games found in these books by themselves rather than linking the entire book. Rykitu 7:31 PM (UTC) April 26, 2026

@WACCA Lily R I hear your point, though I feel I should note that the alternative for physical game coverage isn't really all that preferable either; currently, the two options I can see are either splitting games off as they are (setting the stuff I'm mentioning in this proposal aside) or merging them all back into merchandise galleries, which... isn't really the best course of action in my opinion, as merchandise galleries don't provide any context as to what X game is and what it does. Certain things that can be done to improve physical game coverage (such as making graphics to indicate certain types of jigsaw puzzle pieces, as mentioned in a previous proposal) simply have not yet been put into place, and these may help improve the coverage of these games. I don't wish to spark any controversy as to what is notable and what isn't, as this was recently the subject of a Mario Boards thread that appears to have (albeit internally) come to a conclusion, though, in short, there's not really anywhere to merge these to in the aim of reducing coverage that doesn't reduce coverage too much, in my opinion. It is my personal opinion that covering these doesn't hurt anything, as they are all (for the most part, barring a couple of distinguish templates) rather self-contained in their own pocket of the wiki. Most of them have been migrated out of mainstream game categories into their own sub-categories (sans a couple of pinball games and a handful of others), so there's not much of the overlap that was a concern initially when these were on the main list of games. Nelsonic (talk edits) 03:22, May 6, 2026 (UTC)

I feel like we need a separate poll proposal for game books. Yoshi18 (talk | contribs) 16:45, May 14, 2026 (UTC)

@Yoshi18 I can do that (after the 30-day proposal-on-a-similar-subject-timer-thing is up). I didn't expect activity books to be super divisive, but a second proposal for them makes sense. Nelsonic (talk edits) 17:25, May 14, 2026 (UTC)

Delete the individual Yoshi's Island enemy class pages

Delete individual pages 15-0
This concerns the following category, and each of its pages, listed below for convenience:

• Category:Yoshi's Island enemy classes
  • Dudim Phreykunoutonthis
  • Edibilis Boringus
  • Harrassimentia Phlyoverus
  • Mostosti Vomitonus
  • Projectilia Ritebakatchia
  • Ucantia Defeatus

...In short, these are not anything specified by the game whatsoever. These are strictly sourced from the Nintendo Power Player's Guide for Yoshi's Island: Super Mario Advance 3, said "enemy classes" are strictly used as section headers rather than taken as being definitively about specific enemies, and even within the guide itself, it doesn't list a faux species for every enemy in the game. Pikmin, this certainly isn't; this is just kind of a joke that spans two pages, and yet somehow has six pages and a category. Imagine if every nickname Nintendo or affiliated sources have used for Shy Guys to promote the enemy-naming feature of Yoshi and the Mysterious Book, from "LL Shy G", to "Hanks", got their own not-redirect, fully-featured pages. That's roughly the level we're operating on here!

Obviously, this is kind of an absurd way to handle this, and giving this the scope we have is bordering on a nonsensical Lore™-brained extrapolation. This is the sort of thing we list as a note, or maybe at the end of the game's section on the enemy's page, not given its whole bespoke page... And if this passes, we'll see to it that that's what we do. Just mention these enemy classes on the enemies' pages, either in the section for Yoshi's Island, or in a Notes section if the enemy lacks a history section for one reason or another.

Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk)
Deadline: May 29, 2026, 23:59 (UTC) Closed early on May 22, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Support (It's no Mr. E!)

1. Camwoodstock (talk) Per our Democratius Websitius (own proposal).
2. TheCatLover738 (talk) Per proposal.
3. Rykitu (talk) Per proposal. It is worth mentioning on the enemy's pages and the game's page, but it doesn't deserve an entire article.
4. Robipedia (Japannica) Let's get rid of these wastes of pages and either use them to save the Amazon company rainforest or put actually important stuff in there.
5. Wanderia Florius (talk) Didn't we already decide this sometime ago? I thought the issue was just that nobody had gotten around to it yet. Regardless, per all.
6. Sorbetti (talk) Per proposal.
7. Arend (talk) As the guy who started the whole discussion Camwoodstock mentioned in the comments , per all and per what I said back then (even if it would be pretty funny if we had a Mysterious Book article on Dave). None of these classes warrant an article, especially if the guide they're from don't have complete enemy lists that lead to a lot of speculation and even incorrect information (e.g. listing Lakitu under Projectilia Ritebakatchia instead of under Harrassimentia Phlyoverus (and Projectilia Ritebakatchia lists Wall Lakitu instead), listing Piranha Plant instead of Spear Guy under Ucantia Defeatus, listing all the games's bosses under Ucantia Defeatus when the guide never specified that, etc).
8. Yoshi18 (talk) Per all.
9. Hewbert P. Edia (talk) It's funny that these articles have been questioned on at least five occasions over 16 years and are only now being dealt with. Anyway, better late than never.
10. EvieMaybe (talk) FINALLY! per all.
11. Dominoes (talk) Per all.
12. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all.
13. FanOfYoshi (talk) The fact they had articles never sit well with me; I'd say turn it into a redirect.
14. FluffyGuardian70 (talk) Per all.
15. Xiahou Ba, The Nasty Warrior (talk) "Hmm, this is stupid!"

Comments (Joke about "taxonomy" and "Yoshi's tax fraud" here)

@Wandering Poplin - There was a discussion on the category talk page, but it still needed to be outright proposed before we could delete the pages and move the remaining information over to the enemies' pages. This is us making that outright proposal. ~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 01:17, May 15, 2026 (UTC)

Decide how to handle reissues in the History sections of musical theme articles

Combine all reissues with the original game 5-1-3
5 out of 6 voters (83.3%) approve the first place option.

A while back, I edited the "Forest of Illusion (Map Screen)" article so that the original theme from the SNES version of Super Mario World and the arrangement from the Game Boy Advance remake were combined into one section, but it was reverted, as I was told on my User talk page that reissues with unique arrangements from the original theme should be separated. So with that mind, I went ahead and edited the "Crocodile Cacophony (K. Rool's Theme)" article so that the original theme from the SNES version of Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest and the arrangement from the Game Boy Advance remake were separated into their own sections, but it was later reverted, which I assume is because nearly every musical theme article pertaining to the Donkey Kong Country series has their reissues combined with the original game, regardless if the reissue has a unique arrangement or not. This leads me to believe that the way we currently handle reissues in musical theme articles is not very consistent.

To fix this, I propose two options (EDIT: I added a third option based on B700465189a9's comment):

• Option A: All reissues will be combined with the original game in the History section, regardless if the reissue has a unique arrangement or not.
• Option B: Only reissues with their own unique arrangements will be separated from the original game.
• Option C: Only reissues with distinct soundtracks (as in, most if not every musical theme is rearranged for the reissue) will be separated from the original game.

If Option A passes, all arrangements of musical themes from reissues shall be merged with the original game in the History sections. This means that all of the Super Mario All-Stars and Game Boy Advance arrangements of musical themes from Super Mario Bros., Super Mario Bros. 2, Super Mario Bros. 3, Super Mario World, and Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island, the Nintendo 3DS arrangements of musical themes from the Mario & Luigi series, and the Nintendo Switch arrangements of musical themes from Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars, will all be merged with their original games in their History sections.

If Option B passes, all reissues with their own exclusive arrangements of musical themes from the original games shall be separated in the History sections. This means that all of the Game Boy Color and Game Boy Advance arrangements of musical themes from Donkey Kong Country, Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest, and Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!, will be separated from their original games in their History sections. This also means that the arrangements of "Sweet Sweet Canyon" and "Dragon Driftway" from Mario Kart 8 Deluxe will incidentally be separated from the original Wii U version of Mario Kart 8 in their respective History sections.

If Option C passes, only reissues with completely distinct soundtracks from the original game shall be separated in the History sections. This means that everything that was said about Option B passing will apply, except for the arrangements of "Sweet Sweet Canyon" and "Dragon Driftway" from Mario Kart 8 Deluxe being separated, as Mario Kart 8 Deluxe's soundtrack is not completely distinct from the original Wii U version of Mario Kart 8.

Personally, I prefer Option A, as I think it would make musical theme articles in the future more neatly organized, but I also wouldn't be upset if Option B or C passes, as it would still make it so there will be consistency with how reissues in musical theme articles should be organized going forward, which is what I'm aiming for with this article, so it's a win-win.

Proposer: Wilben (talk)
Deadline: May 22, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Option A

1. Wilben (talk) My preferred choice.
2. Ahemtoday (talk) I strongly believe these sections should be combined in all scenarios, as any other type of article's history section would do. The only reason they're not is because of the old "arrangements" structure.
3. Yoshi18 (talk) Primary choice; per all.
4. LadySophie17 (talk) Consistency between types of articles is a helpful tool for readers. Those who are familiar with the wiki expect reissues/remakes to be covered under the original games already.
5. Mario4Ever (talk) Per all.

Option B

1. The Dab Master (Nintendo Switch) Primary choice; this is how we used to do this when a reissue featured at least one other arrangement or remix, and I never really saw a problem with this.

Option C

1. Wilben (talk) My secondary choice, though I still prefer Option A.
2. Yoshi18 (talk) Secondary choice; per all.
3. The Dab Master / The Dab Master Deluxe + Expert in Mewing Secondary choice; per all.

Comments

I personally would separate reissues from their original games in these history sections if the reissues feature distinct soundtracks. After all, articles like that of Koopa the Quick do separate reissues when the reissues can be analyzed separately from their original games. The distinction between the soundtracks of Super Mario Bros. and Super Mario All-Stars should not be handled in the same way as the distinction between the soundtracks of Mario Kart 8 and Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. B700465189a9 (talk) 04:04, May 8, 2026 (UTC)

Could this proposal also account for merged series sections such as Dragon Coin (sound effect) § New Super Mario Bros. series or Fortress BGM § Super Mario Maker series? The Dab Master 16:32, May 9, 2026 (UTC)

Probably not, as I'm simply proposing for how to handle reissues in musical theme articles, not series or sequels. Wilben (talk) 23:13, May 9, 2026 (UTC)

Stop requiring editors to count enemies/intractable elements in platformer level articles (unless part of a crucial objective)

canceled by proposer
Okay this thing has been bugging me since the very start, and it has been brought to my attention that there had been a past proposal about this that standardizing this, ever since I had attempted to edit various Yoshi's New Island level articles like Hop 'n' Pop Till You Drop. Over the recent times, I've found the requirement to count enemies in these articles an increasingly cumbersome task, simply because it's unimportant information, useless padding that falls astray to our good writing guideline: everything but the kitchen sink. The detail on how many Goombas appear in World 1-1 is a context-less frivolity that tells readers absolutely nothing about the level, how the enemies are placed (which is already indicated by our level layout descriptions) and gives editors extra busywork to document something most of our audience won't even notice, especially when many of the 2D platformer articles already have a map that readers can look at to get an idea of how many Goombas there are. Editors should not be expected to play Roll Call while documenting level layouts and important collectibles a level has, things that our readers actually come to our level articles for. The idea that World 1-1 also documents the number of coins there are horrifies me on a visceral level on the implications of how much improvement tags we need for the rest of the level articles on MarioWiki, and I'd rather not do this at all than require our editors to count the coins and blocks, especially in games like New Super Mario Bros. 2 that literally has hundreds of coins per level.

I understand in some cases, enemy counts are important. In turn-based RPGs such as Paper Mario and Mario + Rabbids games (the former, I understand, already has various enemy formation articles for locales), the numbers of enemies indicate how many turns the enemy has, and they play a much greater role in how RPGs fundamentally function. In Mario Party game boards, space count is crucial due to the nature of the game requiring dice rolls to move around and indicates overall board size. In platformers, enemies have the same goal as other obstacles and blocks do to a player, impede a player's progress through a level, yet the guideline imposed ignores counting obstacles like the amount of thorns a Yoshi level has, even if some levels have obstacles or features as their main selling point such as the bubbles in World 7-2 in favor of counting how many Chain Chomps the level has, and this rings true for uncountable obstacles which also can be critical to a level's design such as lava, wind, water, etc (plus how many times do we have to point out some enemy and obstacle are infinitely spawned as part of an added note simply because that's just part of the enemy behavior, Bullet Bills especially). This also ignores the case that 3D platformers are far more complex in terms of level design than 2D games and I absolutely balk at the idea of having to count how many individual Urchins there are in Drip Drop Galaxy or how many Dry Bones there are in Sunbaked Sand Castle in Dusty Dune Galaxy; even worse is requiring editors to count how many Gnawties there are in any given level such as Jungle Japes in Donkey Kong 64. We also don't document how many enemies there are in Mario Kart tracks, and miss me of having to count the total amount of Goombas or Oil Spills or even Item Boxes there are in the various Mario Circuits across the series.

Note: This proposal excludes levels where enemy count is crucial to the objective such as defeating all enemies, like those in Battle Belt Galaxy or Mystery House Melee

Proposer: Xiahou Ba, The Nasty Warrior (talk)
Deadline: June 6, 2026, 23:59 (UTC) Cancelled on May 23, 2026

Support

1. Xiahou Ba, The Nasty Warrior (talk) Per proposal.
2. LadySophie17 (talk) Per proposal.

#The Dab Master (5) Per proposal.

Oppose

1. EvieMaybe (talk) I hate to be mean, but this proposal sounds to me like "I don't want to do this, therefore it shouldn't be done". Back when I was making Virtual Boy Wario Land level articles, I had no issue counting how many of each enemy there are, and I consider it reasonable information to include in an article. While I do think we could reexamine how we count enemies for stuff like 3D games where it is harder/less informative to count them, dismissing the entire concept as "busywork" feels like three bridges too far. If you do not want to do it, not a single editor is forcing you to.
2. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per Evie.
3. Illuminoid (talk) While counting every individual coin in a course that does not involve anything interesting with them might be too much, enemies, obstacles, and some objects have a noteworthy presence in courses, and should be counted. Finding files for each thing can be annoying sometimes. Maybe a dictionary (the data type) could be added to my module, or another place, of all the files to use? That is what the original version used.
4. Sorbetti (talk) per all.
5. The Dab Master (5) Per all.
6. Camwoodstock (talk) We emphatically agree with Evie. This feels a lot like "Well, I personally don't care to maintain this, so we should just cut it altogether for everyone." Nevermind how helpful these enemy/item counts can be if you're up against a game that, say, ends up accidentally fluctuating these constantly due to a bug that plagues the entire game and causes enemies, items, and even entire platforms to disappear in extreme cases, so it's nice to have an upper bound for what is meant to be there, Super Mario Bros. Special. If you, personally, cannot be bothered to do something, it's a good thing that a wiki is something anyone can edit. We should probably be leaning into that, rather than throwing our hands up and saying "Well, one guy left this unfinished, we must cull it all because of this, Such Is The Way Of Things!"
7. Wilben (talk) Per all. I don't really see what this is supposed to accomplish.
8. Rykitu (talk) Per all. This information could also be useful for some people. Why remove useful information?
9. Nelsonic (talk) Per all. I mean, I could see why it doesn't have to be required in certain cases (as in, meriting a to-do if it isn't completed), but I'd say that outright discouraging it is a step too far. We've got plenty of editors, so if anybody wants to add this, they can. If they don't want to, they don't have to. I don't think there's any harm in having more information in articles, but I do think that there is harm in removing large amounts of information from articles.

Comments

I was actually going to create a PipeProject on getting enemy counts. For this, I made a partial draft of a module. I think this proposal should also mention this proposal by Doc von Schmeltwick to allow including a list of intractable objects in level articles. And should we still list enemies when relevant? Many courses require players to defeat every enemy or collect every coin. I assume that we do since this proposal only concerns the requirement. Also, the deadline was set wrong on this proposal. It should be June 6th, 2026. --Illuminoid (talk) 12:35, May 23, 2026 (UTC)

I can get behind listing enemies when they are crucial to an objective, such as Battle Belt Galaxy or Mystery House Melee. It's just that in general, when they are not, is when I think they are a frivolity. I should probably add this to my proposed text. Xiahou Ba^{(the Nasty Warrior)} 12:42, May 23, 2026 (UTC)

Would this proposal "discourage" counting enemies? I understand not wanting to require enemies to be counted for an article to be considered good, but discouraging it would create countless edits to existing articles that would remove factual information from existing pages. Axii (talk) 13:53, May 23, 2026 (UTC)

Restore PipeProjects

Restore PipeProjects and make a PipeProject for music 26-9

This image is clearly a remnant from 2009. I would love to see it be updated to represent the multitude of PipeProjects that I hope will arise from this proposal.

PipeProjects are portals for major projects that often branch out into multiple articles. With the Super Mario Wiki growing day by day, the need for a system that allows like-minded editors to effectively cover select parts of a franchise that spans decades of history and a variety of mediums is clear.

However, PipeProjects were abandoned fourteen years ago. As such, this proposal aims to restore PipeProjects as a wiki-centered space for collaboration. I will also propose the creation of a new PipeProject, which will serve as an inaugural example of how PipeProjects will benefit the wiki.

PipeProjects will serve as spaces to host discussions, communal drafts, resources, and links to relevant discussions and proposals. Rather than scattering this information around various talk pages and user pages, PipeProjects will work as a centralized hub where interested editors can reasonably keep up to date with the project's latest developments. Specifically, PipeProject pages will provide the following sections in order:

• an introduction providing an overview of the project and its goals;
• a curated list of links to relevant proposals, talk page proposals, and unimplemented proposals;
• a curated list of links to relevant talk page discussions;
• an overview of the resources provided by the project, including subpages and passed proposals; and
• a non-signature list of editors who actively affiliate themselves with the project.

While PipeProject pages will generally follow this structure, they may also feature images and other elements as personal touches from the projects' contributors.

Project subpages will be encouraged to host specific project resources as an indication that the pages serve the project and are free to edit. Many valuable pages hosted by other editors already are open to edits, but I believe that moving these pages to common ground would provide even more benefit to editors.

PipeProjects will be created by proposal rather than the supporter-based process currently indicated by the PipeProjects page. Proposals should focus on whether projects will be worked on by many editors and have lasting utility outside of changes to a select number of articles. Most unimplemented proposals will not result in the creation of PipeProjects.

Of course, no project is guaranteed to last forever. Starting a year after the creation of a project, if editors determine that the project is not active enough to continue, the project may be considered closed for inactivity. The year-long delay is intentionally set as a barrier to discourage the creation of projects that may not have sufficient evidence that they would last beyond that year. Subpages for closed projects will remain editable, but the project page will generally be considered archived, and the proposals and discussions lists will not be kept up to date. The existing projects from the previous iteration of PipeProjects will additionally be considered closed. Contributors to a project may close the project earlier than a year via proposal, assuming that the project's goals have been met. Contributors are permitted to reasonably expand a project's scope via consensus, allowing projects to focus on one priority (for example, documenting a portion of the mainline Super Mario series) before continuing with another (doing the same for the broader Super Mario franchise).

As an optional addendum to the restoration of PipeProjects, I recommend that a forum channel be created in the affiliated Discord server, where each post in the channel corresponds to an open PipeProject. I have observed that a system of project-focused channels works well in other wiki communities such as WiKirby, and I believe that implementing these channels would not detract from the ideal of discussions taking place primarily on the wiki.

---

Now that I have introduced my thoughts for PipeProjects as a whole, I would like the propose the creation of PipeProject Music. Over the past few years, a variety of editors including myself have developed the wiki's coverage of music. This progress shows no signs of slowing down, and the resources available and discussions needed would serve well under the structure of a PipeProject.

Specifically, I would like to nominate the following editors who I have seen work on music coverage and the relevant resources that they have contributed:

• Myself (harmonization)
• @Bel2004
• @Conradd (Eligible themes, jingles and sound effects)
• @Dominoes
• @EvieMaybe (draft proposal)
• @MarioMaker99
• @OngoingTalent13
• @Polley001 (Nintendo Music spreadsheets)
• @The Dab Master (Mario Kart World soundtrack, Mario Kart World multimedia)
• @The Eggo55
• @Vivavivi004
• @Wilben

If created, the project's scope would cover articles, sections, templates, and categories for musical themes, sound effects, soundtracks, sheet music, live performances, streaming services such as Nintendo Music, composers and other sound artists, and references to these topics in media, as well as any other music-related topics covered by the wiki.

---

Finally, I would like call out @Nintendo101's work on citations and mainline subjects. While I will not propose for those projects to become PipeProjects on Nintendo101's behalf, I believe both stand out today as incredible examples of the wiki's collaboration that PipeProjects could further enrich.

Proposer: B700465189a9 (talk)
Deadline: May 30, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Support: Restore PipeProjects

1. B700465189a9 (talk) Per proposal.
2. SuperGamer18 (talk) I was NOT around when this was a thing, but we should absolutely bring this back. I even have an idea for a new banner if the PipeProjects name is kept.
3. Camwoodstock (talk) Pardon our excitement, but... WE'VE BEEN SAYING THIS FOR YEARS!!! While the Discord and the Boards are adequate for organized efforts, having something on the wiki itself to coordinate these things would go a long way, both for accessibility and making sure those efforts don't get easily lost in the flotsam and jetsam of Actual Conversation. It clearly spells out what is actively being organized, who is working on it, lets people better determine who's handling what, and most of all, puts it in a very obvious space for it that editors are likely to actually see. We could even bolster it with our more recent infrastructure; something like a widget on the main page to show ongoing Pipe Projects to editors akin to the To-Do Bar (and maybe even listing a count of active Pipe Projects on the To-Do Bar itself for good measure), or using a variant of the {{todo}} templates to show that a page is being handled by a specific Pipe Project. We have a lot of options to bring Pipe Projects up to more modern standards, is what we're getting at! (A bit more pragmatically, this will also hopefully offload some of the long-standing "proposals to implement" from that list, by opening them up to more editors willing to pitch in. If this passes, we definitely plan to turn our "reused assets" section proposal in particular into a Pipe Project.)
4. PopitTartProjects (talk) Yes, please. I can't even count the discussions on the Discord server that have culminated in "It sure would be nice if we had the infrastructure to do a big project like this." It has reached the point of being a sarcastic in-joke.
5. Spencer PK (talk) The wiki really needs some way for large projects to be managed so stuff can get done. I left a talk page topic at the main page detailing how the wiki's current documentation of locations in RPGs are poor, but without the ability to orchestrate a project, I could only really just say "there is a problem with the wiki" and leave it at that. The ability to make a project for that would lead to that discussion getting resolved, begin discussion for how RPG location articles should be improved, and would be a natural place for discussion on handling issues as they come up.
6. Aomaf (talk) Per proposal.
7. PipeProject:Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal. I was actually considering proposing this myself at some point.
8. Reese Rivers (talk) Per all. I especially like the idea of the Discord forum channel to go alongside the projects, which I think would be very helpful for realtime collaboration.
9. PipeProject:Rykitu (talk) Per all. I always wondered why a perfectly good idea like that was deprecated, and I'm glad it's returning. My only complaint is Discord, which I don't have (and I don't want one after recent events), but I have a Boards account so that could be a good substitute if I ever decide to start one.
10. EvieMaybe (talk) It's nice to see this f