MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/84

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

Determine if certain "notable" versions of characters and species without their own articles should have their specific sections linked to

Establish policy discouraging such linking 1-9-0-0
To quote myself from a year ago:

So, a user (who I will not name to avoid harassment of them) has been updating links for Pauline in the context of her younger appearance in Donkey Kong Bananza so that they link to that game's section of her article, like so:
[[Pauline#Donkey_Kong_Bananza|Pauline]]
My sentiment on doing this is...more negative than positive. While I see the rationale behind it—a prominent younger version of a character that isn't portrayed as a distinct entity is somewhat unprecedented for this franchise, and thus linking to a page where the infobox artwork depicts said character with their usual adult appearance could be considered a little weird—it also has problems of its own. There's no indication that these links would lead to just a section of Pauline's article instead of the beginning of it until they are hovered over—and said article beginning happens to include relevant information for her appearance in Bananza, such as her voice actress, Jenny Kidd.

My biggest complaint with this, however, is also my hook for this discussion: Why single out Pauline? While we often link to certain sections of recurring locations in the context of specific games (though this is becoming less common as more iterations of such locations are being split off via proposals), this is the first time (to my knowledge) we're consistently doing this with a character. One would think some of the articles we chose to merge—such as some of the 1993 live-action film versions of characters and species (relevant proposal here) or the various representations of species as individual characters in the Mario Party series (relevant proposals here, here, and here)—would be ripe for this treatment. However, besides articles where we forgot to update links following a merge like John Leguizamo, the only article I could find with such a link was Koopa Krag in reference to his grandson...but Koopa Troopa is already linked there twice without a redirect in reference to Koopa Krag's species, so that probably doesn't count either.

I do recognize that we have no rule for or against linking to a specific version of a character or species when needed. Still, given the potential user-unfriendliness of doing this with Pauline, yet also considering the possibility of applying it to more versions of characters and species, I do think some action must be taken. Heck, even though I agree to merging the 1993 film characters with their main counterparts, they're probably more at odds with them than 13-year-old Pauline is with her adult self. Assuming we do establish an official policy for this kind of linking instead of nipping it in the bud, where would we put said policy? Could it be added to one of our existing policy pages, or would it take a new one? How would we determine if a version of a character or species is notable enough to have their specific section linked to? Such a policy may well encourage people to link every instance of King Boo in the Luigi's Mansion series to King Boo#Luigi's Mansion series (or a specific game therewithin) because of his different design and crueler characterization there, or further subjects down the slippery slope.

One year later (and with some advice from LadySophie17 (talk) on Discord), I'm finally ready to discuss adding a potential policy for this! To summarize my long spiel above, there have been a few instances where a character or species is portrayed in a way that is exceptionally different from their usual depictions, yet this portrayal is not treated as distinct from their usual self in the way that, say, Baby Mario is considered a distinct subject from adult Mario. Whether or not links for such depictions of a subject are piped to the specific section involving said depiction is inconsistent across the wiki; there are pros and cons to each approach, yet we have no official policy encouraging one or the other. This proposal seeks to remedy that.

If the addition of a policy encouraging piped links to specific version of characters passes, this paragraph (or a reworded version of it) would be added to the "Linking, linking, linking!" section of MarioWiki:Manual of Style:

Occasionally, a character or species may be portrayed in a way that is notably different from their usual depictions, yet still not treated with enough distinction for their own article. Examples include Pauline as a 13-year-old girl in Donkey Kong Bananza, or Bowser as a human-like evolved dinosaur known as "President Koopa" in the 1993 film Super Mario Bros. For such instances, it is encouraged to use piped links to the specific section of the subject's article where this depiction applies (e.g. [[Pauline#Donkey Kong Bananza|Pauline]]), or that of said subject's history article if they have one (e.g. [[History of Bowser#Super Mario Bros. (film)|President Koopa]]). This can also apply to certain depictions of species as individual characters, such as the Goomba who serves as one of the hosts in Mario Party 4.

Inversely, if we choose to discourage piped links to specific version of characters, something like this would be added instead:

Occasionally, a character or species may be portrayed in a way that is notably different from their usual depictions, yet still not treated with enough distinction for their own article. Examples include Pauline as a 13-year-old girl in Donkey Kong Bananza, or Bowser as a human-like evolved dinosaur known as "President Koopa" in the 1993 film Super Mario Bros. While it may be enticing to use piped links to the specific section of the subject's article (or separate history article) where this depiction applies to avoid possible confusion, doing so is discouraged to avoid confusing those looking for more general information on the subject instead, as well as to prevent skipping information earlier in the article that may also be relevant to the specific version of them in question. This also applies to certain depictions of species as individual characters, such as the Goomba who serves as one of the hosts in Mario Party 4.

Proposer: SolemnStormcloud (talk)
Deadline: August 22, 2026, 23:59 (UTC) Closed early on August 15, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Establish a policy encouraging linking to such sections

1. Wandering Poplin (talk) I think I prefer this option the best. For instance, if I am currently trying to find information and images relating to Nurse Toadstool, it would be more helpful to be redirected the the relevant section of the History of Princess Peach page which covers the character (albeit somewhat poorly, but that's a separate issue for another time.) than immediately being linked to Princess Peach, wasting time fruitlessly searching the page for any info on Nurse Toadstool and not finding it, opening the History of Princess Peach article, and then having to scroll through walls and walls of text until I finally find what I'm looking for.

Establish a policy discouraging linking to such sections, and remove piped links in question

1. Hewer (talk) Full vote reasoning moved to comments per request. Tldr, this style of linking is unhelpful for finding information and invites weird inconsistencies.
2. LadySophie17 (talk) Per Hewer. Pauline and President Koopa seem like reasonable use cases but Goombob and Nurse Toadstool being brought up as examples convinced me this guideline will be abused from the start. As per Arend in the comments, I also disagree with the use of section linking in navboxes.
3. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per Hewer, as well as myself from a year ago. Unless we were to have dedicated proposals on who should or shouldn't receive this treatment, it'd just be a slippery slope as to who does.
4. Rykitu (talk) Per all.
5. Arend (talk) Per all. As I explained in the comments, I would prefer to avoid linking to specific section of an article in navbox templates (at least until we have a link template that can convert anchor links to bold text when you're on its page, which may be more trouble than it's worth), and with Hewer pointing out that certain notable versions of a character can appear in multiple games (sometimes alongside the character's normal version!), then I think even splitting that notable version in its own article would be more preferable than this. Also, as they and LadySophie pointed out, this could be further abused to a ridiculous degree.
6. Ahemtoday (talk) Per Hewer.
7. Wilben (talk) Per all.
8. Dominoes § 2026 (talk) Per all.
9. Yoshi18 (2026 appearance) (talk) Per all.

Notable comments that should be linked to specifically

My main concern is whether or not navigation templates will be affected. Navboxes are usually a whole collection of links, and normally, when you check such a template on a page featured in there, that link will be made bold and unclickable to indicate you're already there, which helps quite a bit with navigating through the template. However, when you make it a link to a section instead, this does not happen: instead, it's an anchor link, which means you can still click it when you're still on said page, given that it directs you to a specific section instead of the page as a whole (even when you're already in that section). This is a bit of a pet peeve of mine given that it makes navboxes more difficult to navigate than necessary, and in the end wouldn't be all that helpful: it's kind of like putting a redirect link in a navbox template.

So if we were to make a policy in which linking to sections like this is encouraged for specific versions, I'm kinda hoping that navboxes would be exempt from this. rend (talk) (edits) 23:24, August 8, 2026 (UTC)

Huh. I originally imagined that the piping would apply to navboxes as well (I can imagine it would make sense to link Goombob in {{MPA}} to the Mario Party Advance section of Galoomba's article, especially since "Goomba (Super Mario World)" is also linked in the "Enemies and species" row), but this is a valid issue. Honestly, something like this seems like it would require a second proposal—lest I complicate this one any more. Do note that this issue of yours currently affects Pauline in {{DKB}}, but not Mario, Luigi, Yoshi, Bowser/President Koopa, Goombas, and Snifits in {{SMB film}}. (See what I mean by this piping currently being treated inconsistently?) — SolemnStormcloud (talk) 23:42, August 8, 2026 (UTC)

Do note that this issue of yours currently affects Pauline in {{DKB}}, but not Mario, Luigi, Yoshi, Bowser/President Koopa, Goombas, and Snifits in {{SMB film}}.

That's because one uses an anchor link while the other uses links proper, the former perfectly showcasing the problem I'm talking about. I'm really not talking about how we're treating the linking to specific versions thing inconsistently (that much is obvious and should be handled), but rather how we should treat this in navboxes. While I think using anchor links is really useful in various cases, I personally think we should avoid using them in navboxes for the reasons I stated earlier. Again, it's like using redirects in navboxes. rend (talk) (edits) 11:43, August 9, 2026 (UTC)

I was mainly just pointing out an instance of an anchor link currently in one of our navboxes. — SolemnStormcloud (talk) 12:43, August 9, 2026 (UTC)

@Wandering Poplin: I think this issue is better solved by using Ctrl+F than by implementing these sorts of links. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 09:48, August 9, 2026 (UTC)

Or simply using the table of contents... rend (talk) (edits) 11:43, August 9, 2026 (UTC)

Yes. But that "solution" assumes that the average casual reader would:

• Know which page the information is stored on to begin with. (The main page, the History of [subject] page, etc.)
• Knows which section of the table of contents that the information is contained in. This issue isn't the most important point, but it is a supporting problem found on pages with literal dozens of listings.
• Actually knows about the "Ctrl+F" feature, and what it does. (I didn't until you brought it up, just now. And I doubt the average casual viewer knows about it either.)
  • Is actively using a device which even has the aforementioned "Ctrl+F" feature. Not all devices do.

This issue also gets worse if you account for [subject-the-character], alter-ego appearances, and other such subjects which do not have their own pages, or even their own redirects. (Which is something I wish I'd brought up when casting my vote.)

I do acknowledge the concerns brought up by the opposition, but I feel that abolishing these links outright isn't the most favorable solution, as it does not provide a (suitable) alternative for the navigation issues which these links had otherwise resolved. I am not saying this system should be used everywhere, and for everything, but it does have some use cases which should not be ignored. Wandering Poplin (talk) 16:50, August 10, 2026 (UTC)

I had also assumed that the fact that a guideline for "what subject qualifies for being specifically linked to" and would need to be created ... was kind of a given.

The reason I never brought it up during my vote is because I'd assumed it was something we were already planning to do if this proposal succeeded. Perhaps I was mistaken. Wandering Poplin (talk) 16:50, August 10, 2026 (UTC)

The issue is that creating such a guideline would be more trouble than it's worth due to all the arbitrary judgement calls it would require about what is and isn't a "notable version". It's not something that can be easily defined, and I can't imagine there being a consistent set of criteria that would determine whether or not something "counts".
Regarding your other comment: if the reader actually knows what information they're looking for when they click on a link (which I think is a reasonable assumption) then they should probably be able to find it with a little scrolling. In the Nurse Toadstool example, I assume a reader who knows what Nurse Toadstool is would know that she's from the Dr. Mario series, so they could go to Peach's history page and click the section for the Dr. Mario series. Or alternatively, if they were really trying to find Nurse Toadstool coverage, they could just type "Nurse Toadstool" into the search bar. I don't think it's the job of regular links to do this kind of basic navigation for the reader, especially since, as I've already pointed out, linking to history sub-sections like this will usually still miss out other relevant information that the reader could've been looking for, due to the way character articles are organised. (I will note that I'm actually not a huge fan of the history page splits myself because of the hindrance to navigation, but I don't think this is the solution to that issue.) Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 17:58, August 10, 2026 (UTC)

@Hewer Could please truncate your vote and leave your entire comment here? It is a bit too lengthy for a vote section. — Lady Sophie_17 ^(T|C) 11:52, August 9, 2026 (UTC)

Didn't know there was a length limit for votes now, but sure I guess. Here's my full vote reasoning:

I don't like this style of linking because I find it strange and unhelpful to link to a specific part of a character's history section rather than linking to the character normally, as the way that character articles are structured means not all information specific to that appearance will necessarily be confined to that section on the article (such as the proposal's example of Bananza-specific information being covered in the intro to Pauline's article, and other cases like profile and statistics sections). It's especially annoying for characters like Bowser whose history sections are now split into separate articles, meaning the link doesn't even take you to the article about the character. Another problem with linking things in this way is that it arbitrarily implies some appearances of the character to be more "distinct" than others, despite the fact they're all appearances of the same subject, otherwise they wouldn't be covered on the same article. What actually determines whether any given appearance is a "notable version" or not? There's really no more reason to always link Pauline's appearance in Bananza to that game's section than there is to always link her appearance in, say, Mario Tennis Aces to that game's section, or to distinguish her appearance in the original Donkey Kong (after all, her name and design were different in that game). I also don't like the mention in the proposed policy addition that "This can also apply to certain depictions of species as individual characters", because those concepts really aren't as distinct as the wiki often makes them out to be. Would that apply to, say, Koopa Troopa's appearance in Super Mario Kart? Better to cut out the ambiguity and just link to things normally. EDIT: Oh yeah, another issue is that sometimes the same "notable version" will make multiple appearances, meaning linking to a single appearance in a history section doesn't even encompass all the appearances of that version of the subject. For example, links to Dr. Bowser originally led to Bowser's Dr. Mario World section, which was later complicated by Dr. Bowser showing up again in Mario Kart Tour. What do you do in that situation? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 15:13, August 9, 2026 (UTC)

There is no strict length limit for votes (yet), but making several paragraph-length arguments opposing a proposal can be disruptive to the voting section, and might not provide a decent space for debates and clarifications. Typing the reasoning in the comments section also allows voters to use paragraph breaks, which make for better legibility. — Lady Sophie_17 ^(T|C) 16:13, August 9, 2026 (UTC)

I'm just now realizing: If the policy to discourage this usage of piped links passes, how would we treat the one on Koopa Krag's article in reference to his grandson? Since Koopa Troopa is already linked in the context of Krag's species, should we remove the link outright; have a redundant, second link to Koopa Troopa; or even keep the piped link anyways? — SolemnStormcloud (talk) 18:26, August 9, 2026 (UTC)

Just unlink it, I suppose. That's how it was initially presented anyway, after all, until a link was added six years ago when it turns out MPDS Koopa was split into its own article years prior... until 2022 that is, when it merged back to Koopa Troopa. rend (talk) (edits) 15:26, August 10, 2026 (UTC)

---

Remove composer credits that are not officially known for music from Super Mario 3D World

do not remove 1-8
The wiki currently credits the composers for each music from Super Mario 3D World, and claims that it is from Super Mario 3D World Original Soundtrack. However, the actual album doesn't actually credit any composers, so the composers are technically still unknown. So far, the info for who the composers are are actually entirely based on internal file names. You can see how they obtained them here: https://nintendo.fandom.com/wiki/Super_Mario_3D_World_%2B_Bowser%27s_Fury/soundtrack - these are obtained through internal file names, not any official confirmation, so they are still technically unconfirmed, so we can't technically put them here yet.

So far, we use the VGMdb pages (here and here) for their information, but they likely obtain them from the file names.

An analogy is how the Nintendo Wiki (https://nintendo.fandom.com/wiki/New_Super_Mario_Bros./soundtrack) claims that the composers for New Super Mario Bros. are known based on internal file names (like "does not use samples", "mentioned by Koji Kondo", etc.), but we don't use them for this. (e.g. our Underwater Theme page still says the composer is unknown, even though the Nintendo Wiki says that the composer is Asuka Hayazaki, based on the sole fact "does not use SWAR “WAVE_WAKAI_SHARE” samples; when discussing the "Ground Theme" composition, Koji Kondo mentions that "the other songs were made by other staff members"").

Proposer: GamermanX2354 (talk)
Deadline: August 23, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Remove the composer credits for those that are unknown

1. GamermanX2354 (talk) Per proposal.

Keep the composer credits

1. Hewer (talk) If we know the composers, we should document that. Doesn't matter what the source of that information is (as long as it's reliable, which the filenames appear to be). It's true that we should stop citing the soundtrack release for this information if that's not actually where it's from, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
2. Ahemtoday (talk) Per Hewer.
3. Wilben (talk) Per Hewer.
4. The Dab Master (talk) Per Hewer.
5. Yoshi18 (talk) Per Hewer.
6. maybe Iand255 (talk) Per Hewer, and The Dab Master's comment.
7. Wandering Poplin (talk) Per Hewer.
8. PaperSplash (talk) Per all.

Comments

Super Mario 3D World, Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker, and Super Mario Odyssey all contain composer initials in track file names. The credits given in the Super Mario Odyssey Original Soundtrack match up with that game's track file names, so why not treat the other file names as reliable sources of composer credits? B700465189a9 (talk) 15:09, August 9, 2026 (UTC)

Mario Kart Wii and New Super Mario Bros. Wii as well, apparently. PaperSplash (talk) 23:34, August 19, 2026 (UTC)

We should definitely start incorporating internal name sections in theme articles to use as citations for composer credits. The references could simply say "See § Internal names." The Dab Master 17:09, August 9, 2026 (UTC)

@Hewer @Ahemtoday @Wilben @The Dab Master @Yoshi18 @Iand255 @Wandering Poplin @PaperSplash @B700465189a9 so since you guys do agree to treat internal file names as a reliable source, does that mean that we have to add composer credits to the individual music pages for Super Mario 3D World, Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker, Mario Kart Wii, and New Super Mario Bros. Wii?

(But for Mario Kart Wii, I don't really know how the file naming system works, since the prefixes are n_, o_, and r_, and there are only two known composers for Mario Kart Wii.)

Additionally, how about for New Super Mario Bros. (with the claims made in https://nintendo.fandom.com/wiki/New_Super_Mario_Bros./soundtrack)? GamermanX2354 (talk) 08:22, August 20, 2026 (UTC)

In the case of Mario Kart Wii, as far as I can tell; the prefixes have to do with what the track is used for. "n_" stands for "New" as in "New Circuit" for "Luigi Circuit" and "New Farm" for "Moo Moo Meadows". "r_" means "Retro" as in "Retro 64 Circuit" for "N64 Mario Raceway" and "Retro DS Desert" for "DS Desert Hills" (both of which I had to dig into the game files myself to figure out because I couldn't find any internal names for MKWii's Retro Courses on the wiki). And "o_" seems to stand for something like "Options" or "Other" or something, because all of the files attached to it seem to be menu music and fanfares. And since all of the suffixes have to do with when/where it plays, so I have a feeling that Mario Kart Wii having composer signatures in the file names is a misunderstanding. But the fact that Super Mario Odyssey does have them and it matches with the credits in the original soundtrack tells me that it's probably not the only one, and internal names are a valid method so long as we make sure to compare the prefixes/suffixes to the list of staff to make sure that it all matches up, which would mitigate misunderstandings such as Mario Kart Wii. IanD255, but older (talk) 09:05, August 20, 2026 (UTC)

---

Delete a handful of unnecessary horizontal infoboxes

Now, I suppose it may seem a bit strange to tackle a bunch of infobox templates at the same time, but I do believe these have a good amount of things in common: all of these (with the exception of one) have been created by disgraced user Super Mario RPG (talk) (who had also proposed other highly unnecessary templates, which either failed spectacularly, or succeeded only to be reverted later); all of them use the same horizontal infobox template style used on {{SMG boss}} created by Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) (admittedly not a bad design per se, as seen with the Smash Bros-related infoboxes such as {{SSB4 trophy}} and {{Spirit}}), and, most importantly, these tend to either convey non-profile statistics that can easily be conveyed in the History section (or don't seem all too necessary to be conveyed at all), or seems to convey profile information and stats that can be easily conveyed without the need for an infobox template like that, often having a (unnecessarily large) space for an (often tiny) image as an excuse for its existence.

Here's the templates being covered for this proposal, alongside my reasons for why I think they're unnecessary:

• {{SPP enemy}} - As can be seen in videos such as this one, the only information the Glossary provides beyond the enemy's image, is a short description, and the number of the entry out of 89 entries, yet this infobox also has parameters for the Vibe (something that the article itself already clarifies), and the levels it appears in (which could be conveyed in the History section). The template also seems to display specific Vibe icons depending on which Vibe the enemy has, so the excuse to use more images may have been a factor here as well. Moreover, not every enemy seems to use this template at all either.
• {{DKC GBA enemy}} - The GBA versions for the DKC games have no official in-game profiles (not even in its two Scrapbooks), so mostly this is just an excuse to convey the levels and worlds an enemy appears in, in a fancy template instead of the History section. I say "mostly", because the infobox also provides information about the page of the scrapbook the enemy appears on, and how to unlock said photo, as well as the points the enemy provides in DK Attack, which I'm sure can be conveyed without the need of this template (maybe in a template w/ the actual scrapbook photo would be nice). Neither of these appear in DKC3... and so, this template hasn't been used on any DKC3 enemy, either
• {{DK boss}} - This uh, seems even less necessary to me than the previous one. It display the world and level it appears in (always just the one they appear in), the amount of hits it takes to defeat it, and the... reward after defeating it (this is often just a big Banana or just the next world, or Completion if it's a final boss). This is quite clearly the most like {{SMG boss}} in the way that it has an unnecessary reward parameter, and a somewhat strange replacement for the mission parameter (of which there is no equivalent of in DKC), and it shows how this template just doesn't work for these type of bosses. Moreover, it's only been used for DKC1 and Tropical Freeze bosses
• {{WL4 enemy}} - Again seems to only be listing the worlds and levels it appears in, the difficulty in which it appears in, and the money you get from defeating it. As Spear-Mask shows (the one enemy I'm aware of which appearance rate is affected by the difficulty setting), you don't need to convey this information in that infobox. It's not used for every enemy in WL4, and those that do use this infobox appear in every difficulty in the game, proving how useless that particular parameter really is
• {{WL4 item}} - By far the most baffling one to me. It provides the amount of damage a particular item deals against a boss. Why can't this be conveyed in a simple list?!
• {{Constellation}} - The one template not by Super Mario RPG (instead, it's by GuntherBayBeee (talk), who has had his fair share of proposals for unnecessary templates too). The only relevant parameters for this Mario Party 9 template are the constellation name, image of the constellation itself, and the shorty description. Given that we don't have infobox templates for other Mario Party profile things (as seen with List of Goomba profiles and statistics#Mario Party series), this couldn't have been a simple table as well... why?

Proposer: Arend (talk)

Delete SPP enemy template?

Delete Super Princess Peach enemy template 8-0
Deadline: September 5, 2026, 23:59 (UTC) Closed early on August 29, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Delete

1. Arend (talk) Per proposal.
2. LadySophie17 (talk) Per proposal. Some of those would be analogous to having templates for Super Mario Bros. enemies. All this info about level appearances are never conveyed on tables and descriptions already have their own sections.
3. Illuminoid (talk) Per all.
4. Calm Wandering Poplin (talk) Per all.
5. Camwoodstock (talk) The only thing this actually adds is a list of levels these enemies are present in, which could easily be listed as a bullet-pointed list on the enemy's page, or its History section for Super Princess Peach. Glossary numbers and entries could be specified in the form of simply... Listing it as a single bullet in a section dedicated to glossary entries. You won't believe what some of these pages did before this template.
6. Wilben (talk) Per all.
7. BMfan08 (talk) Per all.
8. Yoshi18 (talk) Per all.

Keep

Delete DKC GBA enemy template?

Delete Donkey Kong Country (Game Boy Advance) enemy template 8-0
Deadline: September 5, 2026, 23:59 (UTC) Closed early on August 29, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Delete

1. Arend (talk) Per proposal.
2. LadySophie17 (talk) Per proposal and my first vote.
3. Illuminoid (talk) Per all.
4. Wandering Poplin (GBA) How was this even made in the first place. If it was for both the SNES and GBA combined, I would almost understand. But solely the Game Boy Advance specifically??
5. Camwoodstock (talk) We think this only exists to specify the Scrapbook page, the unlock condition for them, and the score values in DK Attack... All of which could be specified in prose in like, two sentences.
6. Wilben (talk) Per all.
7. BMfan08 (talk) Per all.
8. Yoshi18 (talk) Per all.

Keep

Delete DK boss template?

Delete Donkey Kong boss template 8-0
Deadline: September 5, 2026, 23:59 (UTC) Closed early on August 29, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Delete

1. Arend (talk) Per proposal.
2. LadySophie17 (talk) Per proposal and my first vote.
3. Illuminoid (talk) Per all. This template's page has rather odd and mobile-unfriendly formatting.
4. Wandering Poplin (boss) Per all.
5. Camwoodstock (talk) ...this literally isn't even listing anything that can't just be explained in text?????
6. Wilben (talk) Per all.
7. BMfan08 (talk) Per all.
8. Yoshi18 (talk) Per all.

Keep

Delete WL4 enemy template?

Delete Wario Land 4 enemy template 8-0
Deadline: September 5, 2026, 23:59 (UTC) Closed early on August 29, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Delete

1. Arend (talk) Per proposal.
2. LadySophie17 (talk) Per proposal and my first vote.
3. Illuminoid (talk) Per all.
4. WA-ndering Poplin (talk) Per all.
5. Camwoodstock (talk) This one, we will admit, does have the best argument for keeping it, just because displaying all the levels an enemy appears in is kind of weird otherwise, thanks to the 3 difficulty levels changing enemy locations. Even still... Just make it a bullet pointed list.
6. Wilben (talk) Per all.
7. BMfan08 (talk) Per all.
8. Yoshi18 (talk) Per all.

Keep

Delete WL4 item template?

Delete Wario Land 4 item template 8-0
Deadline: September 5, 2026, 23:59 (UTC) Closed early on August 29, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Delete

1. Arend (talk) Per proposal.
2. LadySophie17 (talk) Per proposal and my first vote.
3. Illuminoid (talk) Per all.
4. Wandering Collecter (talk) Another useless template. Per all.
5. Camwoodstock (talk) You could genuinely write a regex equation to convert all of this information into a bullet-pointed list to display this exact same information, trivially... In fact, look at the comments.
6. Wilben (talk) Per all.
7. BMfan08 (talk) Per all.
8. Yoshi18 (talk) Per all.

Keep

Delete Constellation template?

Delete Constellation template 8-0
Deadline: September 5, 2026, 23:59 (UTC) Closed early on August 29, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Delete

1. Arend (talk) Per proposal.
2. LadySophie17 (talk) Per proposal and my first vote. This one is particularly egregious.
3. Illuminoid (talk) Per all.
4. Wandering Stargazer (talk) Completely, utterly, and absolutely unnecessary. Per all.
5. Camwoodstock (talk) This one speaks to what we feel like is the ultimate problem with each of these templates, in that they're trying to "profiles and statistics"-ify random descriptions or elements that really don't... Need to be wedged into the profiles and statistics sections or pages? And being way too complicated about it, in some misguided attempt to be "professional" or something, when the end-result is just more annoying to work with or read. This one could be a single bullet-pointed description and the images could go on List of constellations in Mario Party 9, which is already an actual table.
6. Wilben (talk) Per all.
7. BMfan08 (talk) Per all.
8. Yoshi18 (talk) Per all.

Keep

Comments (Horizontal temps)

This is a bit of a hack, but the regex to replace the information in {{WL4 item}} with a bullet-pointed list would just be to replace {{WL4 item\|spoiled_rotten=(.*?)\|cractus=(.*?)\|cuckoo_condor=(.*?)\|aerodent=(.*?)\|catbat=(.*?)\|golden_diva=(.*?)}} with *[[Spoiled Rotten]]: $1\n*[[Cractus]]: $2\n*[[Cuckoo Condor]]: $3\n*[[Aerodent]]: $4\n*[[Catbat]]: $5\n*[[Golden Diva]]: $6. ~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 17:22, August 24, 2026 (UTC)

I uh, don't know how to use regex here, but I imagine it wouldn't be incredibly difficult for those that can implement it, either. rend (talk) (edits) 18:07, August 24, 2026 (UTC)

This is something that could be automatically run through PorpleBot, provided we wrote the syntax correctly. ;P ~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 18:22, August 24, 2026 (UTC)

---

Merge multiplayer variants of New Super Mario Bros. minigames

Merge all minigames that are multiplayer versions 9-0
Vs. Lakitu Launch, Jumping Brothers, Vs. Pair-a-Gone, Vs. Mario's Slides, Bob-omb Sudden Death and Vs. Trampoline Time are essentially multiplayer versions of Lakitu Launch, Bounce and Trounce, Pair-a-Gone, Mario's Slides, Sort or 'Splode and Trampoline Time respectively. Danger, Bob-omb! Danger! is named Run, Bob-omb, Run! in multiplayer, so I don’t see why these minigames shouldn’t be merged.

Proposer: Remembered Old Buddy (talk)
Deadline: September 5, 2026, 23:59 (UTC) Closed early on August 29, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Merge all minigames

1. Remembered Old Buddy (talk) Per proposal.
2. Camwoodstock (talk) Per proposal, as well as the original TPP this was based on. These all feel like fairly standard merges.
3. Bretts (talk) Per proposal.
4. The OTHER R.O.B. (talk) Per my comments on the original proposal.
5. Wilben (talk) I don't see why not.
6. VS. Iand255 (talk) Per all and my comments on the original TPP.
7. Drago (talk) These are all the same as the single-player versions, with some small changes to accommodate multiple players.
8. Vs. Yoshi18 (talk) Per my comments on the original TPP.
9. The Wandering Poplins (talk) Per all. It seems like these are less "slightly differents variants of the minigame" and more "alternate mode of the minigame which is played under different circumstances.

Comments

Why is this a poll proposal? The Dab Master 13:32, August 22, 2026 (UTC)

And also, which minigames fall under "some minigames, but not all"? rend (talk) (edits) 14:48, A