|
Current time:
April 9, 2026, 18:02 (UTC)
|
|
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
- Voting periods last for two weeks, but can close early or be extended (see below).
- Any autoconfirmed user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so.
- All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
- For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.
|
If you would like to get feedback on an idea before formally proposing it here, you may do so on the proposals talk. For talk page proposals, you can discuss the changes on the talk page itself before creating the TPP there.
How to
If someone has an idea about improving the wiki or managing its community, but feel that they need community approval before acting upon that idea, they may make a proposal about it. They must have a strong argument supporting their idea and be willing to discuss it in detail with other users, who will then vote on whether or not they think the idea should be implemented. Proposals should include links to all relevant pages and writing guidelines. Proposals must include a detailed description of the proposed changes and may link to a draft page. Any pages that would be largely affected by the proposal should be marked with {{proposal notice}}.
Rules
- Only autoconfirmed users may create or vote on proposals. Proposals can be created by one user or co-authored by two users.[Proposal 1]
- A given user may author/co-author a maximum of five total ongoing/unimplemented proposals. Any new proposals over this limit will be immediately canceled.
- Anyone is free to comment on proposals (provided that the page's protection level allows them to edit).[Proposal 2]
- Proposals conclude at the end of the day (23:59) two weeks after voting starts (all times UTC).[Proposal 3][Proposal 4]
- For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, the voting starts immediately and the deadline is two weeks later on Monday, August 15, at 23:59 (UTC).
- Proposals cannot contradict an already ongoing proposal or overturn the decision of a previous proposal that concluded less than four weeks (28 days) ago.
- Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. "Oppose", "Do nothing") unless the status quo itself violates policy.
- Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available. Keep in mind that we use approval voting, so all of your votes count equally regardless of preferred order.[Proposal 5]
- Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it. Agreeing with a previously mentioned reason given by another user is acceptable (including "per" votes), but tangential comments, heavy sarcasm, and other misleading or irrelevant quips are just as invalid as providing no reason at all.
- Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may not remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. Voters can remove or rewrite their own vote(s) at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the wiki staff.
- Users can also use the comments section to bring up any concerns or mistakes in regards to the proposal itself. In such cases, it's important the proposer addresses any concerns raised as soon as possible. Even if the supporting side might be winning by a wide margin, that should be no reason for such questions to be left unanswered. They may point out any missing details that might have been overlooked by the proposer, so it's a good idea as the proposer to check them frequently to achieve the most accurate outcome possible.
- If a user makes a vote and is subsequently blocked for any amount of time, their vote is removed. However, if the block ends before the proposal ends, then the user in question holds the right to re-cast their vote. If a proposer is blocked, their vote is removed and "(blocked)" is added next to their name in the "Proposer:" line of the proposal, which runs until its deadline as normal. If the proposal passes, it falls to the supporters of the idea to enact any changes in a timely manner.
- If one week before a proposal's initial deadline, the first place option is ahead of the second place option by eight or more votes and the first place option has at least 80% approval, then the proposal concludes early. Wiki staff may tag a proposal with "Do not close early" at any time to prevent an early close, if needed.
- Tag the proposal with {{early notice}} if it is on track for an early close. Use {{proposal check|early=yes}} to perform the check.
- Any proposal where none of the options have at least four votes will be extended for another week. If after three extensions, no options have at least four votes, the proposal will be listed as "NO QUORUM". The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
- If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
- If a proposal reaches its deadline and the first place option is ahead of the second place option by three or more votes, then the first place option must have over 50% approval to win. If the margin is only one or two votes, then the first place option must have at least 60% approval to win. If the required approval threshold is not met, then the proposal is extended for another week.
- Use {{proposal check}} to automate this calculation; see the template page for usage instructions and examples.
- Proposals can be extended a maximum of three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, then the proposal fails and cannot be re-proposed until at least four weeks after the last deadline.
- After a proposal passes, it is added to the appropriate list of "unimplemented proposals" below and is removed once it has been sufficiently implemented.[Proposal 6]
- The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of an administrator, the proposer should ask for that help. Proposals that result in changes to policy pages or general guidelines must be cited accordingly.[Proposal 7]
- For sizeable projects, a proposal author or wiki staff member may create a PipeProject page to serve as a portal for an unimplemented proposal. This is linked from the unimplemented proposals list and can contain progress tracking, implementation guidelines, resource links, a list of users working on the project, etc.
- All proposals are archived. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived, including their date of cancellation.[Proposal 8]
- Proposals can only be rewritten or canceled by their proposer within the first four days of their creation. If a proposer cancels their own proposal, they must wait three days before submitting any new proposal.
- Proposers can request their proposal be canceled by a staff member after the self-cancellation cutoff, but they must provide a valid reason for doing so. In most cases, the proposal should simply run its course.
- If the wiki staff deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to cancel it at any time.
- Unless there is major disagreement about whether certain content should be included, there should not be proposals about creating, expanding, rewriting, or otherwise fixing up pages. To organize efforts about improving articles on neglected or completely missing subjects, try setting up a collaboration thread on the forums.
- Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Staff changes are discussed internally and carried out by the bureaucrats.
- No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
Basic proposal formatting
Copy and paste the formatting below to get started; your username and the proposal deadline will automatically be substituted when you save the page. Update the bracketed variables with actual information, and be sure to replace the whole variable including the square brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information" and not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but the objective(s) of each voting option must be clearly defined. Such options should also be kept to a minimum, and if something comes up in the comments, the proposal can be amended as necessary.
===[insert a title for your proposal here]===
[describe what issue this proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the wiki handles that issue]
'''Proposer''': {{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}}<br>
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 (UTC)
====[option title (e.g. Support, Option 1)]: [brief summary of option]====
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.
====[option title (e.g. Oppose, Option 2)]: [brief summary of option]====
====Comments ([brief proposal title])====
Autoconfirmed users will now be able to vote on your proposal. Remember that you can vote on your own proposal just like the others.
To vote for an option, just insert #{{User|[your username here]}} at the bottom of the section of your choice. Just don't forget to add a valid reason for your vote behind that tag if you are voting on another user's proposal. If you are voting on your own proposal, you can simply say "Per proposal".
Poll proposal formatting
As an alternative to the basic proposal format, users may choose to create a poll proposal when one larger issue can be broken down into multiple subissues that can be resolved independently of each other.[Proposal 9] Poll proposals concerning multiple pages must have good justification for using the poll proposal format rather than individual talk page proposals or else will be canceled (for example, in the case of the princesses poll proposal, there are valid consistency concerns which make it worthwhile to consider these three articles simultaneously, but for routine article size splits, there is no need to abandon using standard TPPs for each).
In a poll proposal, each option is essentially its own mini-proposal with a deadline and suboption headings. A poll proposal can have a maximum of 15 options, and the rules above apply to each option as if it were its own proposal: users may vote on any number of options they wish, and individual options may close early or be extended separately from the rest. If an option fails to achieve quorum or reach a consensus after three extensions, then the status quo wins for that option by default. If all options fail, then nothing will be done.
To create a poll proposal, copy and paste the formatting below to get started; your username and the option deadlines will automatically be substituted when you save the page. Update the bracketed variables with actual information, and be sure to replace the whole variable including the square brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information" and not "[This is the inserted information]".
===[insert a title for your proposal here]===
[describe what issue this proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the wiki handles that issue]
'''Proposer''': {{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}}
====[option title (e.g. Option 1)]: [brief summary of option]====
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 (UTC)
;Support
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.
;Oppose
====[option title (e.g. Option 2)]: [brief summary of option]====
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 (UTC)
;Support
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.
;Oppose
====[option title (e.g. Option 3)]: [brief summary of option]====
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 (UTC)
;Support
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.
;Oppose
====Comments ([brief proposal title])====
For the purposes of the ongoing proposals list, a poll proposal's deadline is the latest deadline of any ongoing option(s). A poll proposal is archived after all of its options have settled, and it is listed as one single proposal in the archive. It is considered to have "passed" if one or more options were approved by voters (resulting in a change from the status quo), and it is considered to have "failed" if all options were rejected by voters and no change in the status quo was made.
Relevant discussions
Talk page proposals
Proposals concerning a single page or a limited group of pages are held on the most relevant talk page regarding the matter. All of the above proposal rules also apply to talk page proposals. Place {{TPP}} under the section's heading, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{settled TPP}}. Proposals dealing with a large amount of splits, merges, or deletions across the wiki should still be held on this page.
All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom) using {{ongoing TPP}}. Include a brief description of the proposal while also mentioning any pages affected by it, a link to the talk page housing the discussion, the proposal author(s), and the deadline. If the proposal involves a page that is not yet made, use {{fake link}} to communicate its title in the description. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links.
List of ongoing talk page proposals
Deletions
Moves
Merges
None at the moment.
Splits
Miscellaneous
Unimplemented proposals
Proposals
Note: Implemented for all except Bowser's Inside Story's Bowser's Castle and Kingdom Battle's Peach's Castle
Note: Articles for "Battle Without Honor or Humanity" and "Mr. Blue Sky" have not been created yet
Talk page proposals
Note: Missing Rainbow Bridge, Red Bonus Game House, Blue Bonus Game House, and Yellow Bonus Game House articles.
Note: Not yet implemented for Super Mario Galaxy and Super Mario Galaxy 2 subjects.
Note: Currently split clothing should be merged back
Note: Ended in favor of adding the Nibbla to the "Similar characters" section of the page
Writing guidelines
None at the moment.
Removals
Remove reminder, warning, and last warning templates from IP Address talk pages
Based on the vote so far, this proposal may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on April 9, 2026 at 23:59 (UTC) and close the proposal if applicable.
So, I've been scrolling through a list of pages that use the warning (File:Warning.svg) and last warning (File:Lastwarn.svg) images, and I noticed that some user talks of IP addresses are on those lists. As much as the IP addresses may be breaking rules, MarioWiki:Warning policy (under the Anonymous Users section) explicitly mentions to not give IP addresses warning templates. I realize that some of these edits might have been made a while back, but I do not know if a proposal is needed to remove the templates. Still, it bothers me that the warning policy for anonymous users hasn't been completely followed. If this proposal needs any changes, feel free to let me know.
Example: User talk:92.22.49.251
Obviously, the IP address should have been warned for their actions, but not with a template, just a message.
Proposer: Mari0fan100 (talk)
Deadline: April 16, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)
Support (remove reminder, warning, and last warning templates from IP Address talk pages)
- Mari0fan100 (talk) Per proposal.
Oppose (do not remove reminder, warning, and last warning templates from IP Address talk pages)
- Axii (talk) I do not see why existing talk pages should be altered. It's wiki history.
- Hewer (talk) We generally don't need to worry about "fixing" really old policy infractions that aren't currently causing any harm.
- I... am R.O.B. (talk) No need to change what's in the past if it's not worth fixing. That last warning is over a decade old.
- Camwoodstock (talk) The only way you'd find the vast majority of these templates on old anon pages is if you deliberately were using "What links here", and there's very little (productive) reason to be doing that on the warning templates anyways. This fixes a problem that you only really have if you're... looking at old warnings???
- The Dab Master (blocked) Per all.
- Yoshi18 (talk) Per all.
- Mario (talk) Yeah, don't need to do this.
- Jdtendo (talk) Per all.
- Sorbetti (talk) Per all.
- Drago (talk) They could have been removed at the time they were issued, but it's not worth going back and removing them now.
New features
Create "General/misc" color classes for Luigi
Brace yourselves, this is going to be a lot of words and a little technical, but ultimately, we're just asking you to look at one table, and tell us if you think it looks good enough and its circumstances are justifiable.
So this is a silly one. During our escapades with deploying series coloration, we've been stuck on the tables for New Super Luigi U. Are they some herculean effort? No, not really. There's nothing to them other tables haven't done. No, it's. Well. The colors. With the exception of the Worlds table (which is its own can of worms that's unrelated to coloration) Luigi U's tables sport this set of colors at the moment:
| Name
|
Description
|
Luigi
|
The game's protagonist. Luigi is flung from Peach's Castle by Bowser when sieges the castle. Unlike New Super Mario Bros. U, Luigi scuttles his legs when he jumps and has poor traction on the ground, similar to his appearance in some prior games. Unlike the prior game, his brother is not in this game.
|
This is not fully series coloration. The backgrounds use lm (or Luigi's Mansion), but those headers hard-coded into the each table itself. They actually lack any dark mode equivalents whatsoever, so on dark mode specifically, this is just a Luigi's Mansion table. Normally, we would peel this sort of thing away without much thought, but... Well, Luigi U is just such a weird edge case in every way, that we feel these colors are justifiable. They help visualize something that normal Super Mario series colors wouldn't; that this isn't your average Super Mario series game. So if you can't beat 'em... Why just just canonize 'em? In addition to lm, we would add luigi (likely updating all instances of lm to luigi lm via PorpleBot for good measure)
We've made a quick fuller set of colors for light and dark mode right here, and pay attention, this is what we are asking you about even if the technical stuff flew over your head:
| Mode
|
Border
|
Banner
|
Subbanner
|
Header
|
Subheader
|
Backgrounds
|
Notes
|
| Standard
|
Alternative
|
| Light
|
#000
|
#47820D
|
#6B2
|
#78C829
|
#B1E48D
|
#EFE
|
#DFD
|
Not much to say here. We used Luigi's Mansion as a basis, and gave it some desaturation from the Luigi U table's header, to help distinguish it from the lime of Yoshi games and the "pure dark green" of Luigi's Mansion.
|
| Dark
|
#090
|
#070
|
#007000
|
#116011
|
#252
|
#002C00
|
#000
|
Second verse, more-or-less same as the first. Though, in dark mode, Sports is a de-saturated lime, so we made sure to keep it distinct from that. No trying to bias it towards lime; just a straight de-saturated green, please.
|
This is all fine and good, but there are two key problems remaining. What exactly is the use case? Obviously Luigi U is one, but are we seriously going to have a set of series colors for a "series" of one game? Well, three things.
- This didn't stop Princess Peach. Super Princess Peach and Princess Peach: Showtime! both feature the same series colors despite being two separate games.
- There are, technically, other things we consider games that could use these colors! Per proposal, Luigi Bros. and Super Luigi Bros. count as games, so if they had their own tables, they could use them too. They currently lack tables, but it's something that shows there's a precedent for "Luigi games" without involving Luigi's Mansion. And, of course, Luigi's Hammer Toss exists, but since that's a part of its own set, we think it's fair to exclude it for much the same reasons as something like Luigi's Word Jumble. (We're no Luigi Games-ologists, so there may be more cases we're missing...)
- Maybe you're not convinced, as "wait, doesn't this go against the series classification we use for pages?" And... True. But, also, this discrepancy isn't particularly new, and it's nothing to really worry about. Per a previous proposal, Pyoro's minigames count as a series for the sake of categorization, but that same proposal determined Pyoro shouldn't get his own colors, and shares with WarioWare anyways. Series colors are divergent when it makes sense most for them to do so; Pyoro is viewed as a sub-series within another sub-series, so it keeps WarioWare's colors. In turn, we believe there's a good argument that Luigi games outside of Luigi's Mansion are best viewed as being in contrast to standard Mario games, and it makes sense to reflect that contrast by giving it its own series colors, even if "non-Mansion Luigi games" isn't a formally-defined, capital-S Series as far as Nintendo is concerned.
- ...lastly, if anyone's about to ask "wait, why are we giving series colors to something that's not a series?", um. Alternate media and Consoles are right there. (Put a pin in that; we have expressed before we wish to expand the colors of alternative media to fit more kinds, rather than giving all non-game mediums just one golden color, and we haven't forgotten this! Not today, though.)
The other problem would be "what about navboxes?" And to be honest... While it goes without saying that we should add Luigi series colors to navboxes as well, We're not entirely sure what those colors are. There's a lot of overlap, but there's some differences in colors for navboxes compared to tables. As the navbox colors were, to our awareness, mostly created by the proprietor, we feel it's only fair to let him handle it as he deems fit. If that means tasking us with the colors, that's fine too.
tl;dr for what we want:
- The current
lm series classes should be renamed to luigi lm.
- We will add new colors for
luigi, for non-Mansion Luigi games. These include, but are not limited to as there's a real chance we missed some (games marked with an asterisk do not presently have tables with which to use these colors on):
- Navbox colors will be made for the sake of New Super Luigi U.
...And, of course, there's two other options.
- Just give the aforementioned title Luigi's Mansion colors, turning it into the de-facto Luigi series colors: If, for some reason, you don't like our colors, but do still want to keep the unique colors for the Luigi-specific games, we've got you covered. Just... Use the Luigi's Mansion colors outright! We might wish to rename the class from
lm to luigi, but this means we don't need to implement more colors for, if we're being real here, presently only one page that has tables in the first place.
- Use pre-existing Mario colors/Status Quo: (This being per the status quo of policy, rather than the usual "do nothing", as the offending tables technically violate the style guide policy). New Super Luigi U gets the same red tables as other Super Mario platformers. We feel like this might be a bit contentious, as whether or not New Super Luigi U counts as a Super Mario platformer to begin with is a subject of debate, but per our current policies, we'd default to those colors, not to Luigi's Mansion colors. (And, of course, Luigi's Mansion will keep its unique coloration. There is no world where the Luigi's Mansion titles will be going red in the wake of this proposal, as that's not what we were asking for in the first place.)
Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk)
Deadline: April 23, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)
Gimme It All! (add Luigi (general/misc) colors to co-exist with Luigi's Mansion colors, for use with non-Mansion Luigi games)
- Camwoodstock (talk) Per proposal.
- PopitTart (talk) We actively don't consider New Super Luigi U to be a Super Mario series game, so why not?
- SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) Per all. I'm surprised this hasn't happened, like, at all.
Gimme Only One! (Luigi's Mansion colors become just Luigi colors, used for both Luigi's Mansion and non-Mansion Luigi games)
Gimme Mario! (Non-Mansion Luigi games get Super Mario franchise/series colors, Luigi's Mansion keeps its colors, status quo)
- EvieMaybe (talk) i've made it no secret in previous conversations that i don't think NSLU starring Luigi should mean it's "not a Mario game". its gameplay is near-identical to that of NSMBU, and giving it an entirely different color just because of the change in protagonist doesn't make much sense to me.
- Hewer (talk) I don't really want this to become an "is New Super Luigi U a Mainline Super Mario Game" discussion as I ultimately don't think it's super relevant here (I personally wouldn't list it as one, for the record), but just the fact it was originally released as DLC for a Super Mario game means it definitely has enough of a "series" relationship to be allowed to use the Super Mario colours, in my opinion. I think the case brought up in the proposal of how Pyoro is allowed to use the WarioWare colours kinda helps this argument, ironically.
I think we should avoid using colours that imply a "series" relationship between games that don't actually share a series as much as possible (I don't think Super Princess Peach and Princess Peach Showtime should share that colour for this reason). It especially would be weird for Luigi's Hammer Toss to use different colours from the other Super Mario Bros. Watch games, when those are the games it's actually directly related to. I could be missing something but I don't understand how Pyoro is relevant here, as there is an obvious and direct "series" link between WarioWare and Pyoro (all the Pyoro games being contained within or a direct spin-off of the WarioWare games). (I'm also not sure where you're getting "per proposal, Luigi Bros. and Super Luigi Bros. count as games" from, there were proposals to split those into their own pages but that doesn't in any way imply that they "count as games" any more than, say, a Mario Party minigame.) Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 02:17, April 9, 2026 (UTC)
- We're not gonna lie, we see no reason to not give Peach's games the same series coloration; Super Princess Peach and Princess Peach: Showtime! were both marketed as being games with Peach as the lead role, and the latter literally doesn't have Mario appear in it at all, making giving it the miscellaneous Super Mario colors... Incredibly dubious. We'll concede Luigi's Hammer Toss, we kinda forgot the other games in the set, whoops. Pyoro is mostly brought up to mention that "series in terms of colors and series in terms of categorization being different" is nothing new. The Peach colors is actually another instance of this discrepancy existing. We were thinking of the proposals to split the mini-games, but we think we were mis-remembering them a bit admittedly? They're not on the List of games... But then again, neither is Pyoro, who we consider as having a series for the sake of categorization anyways.
~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 
02:28, April 9, 2026 (UTC)
- For reference, here's the proposal that split Luigi Bros. (I guess you could argue the comparison to ports like Super Mario Advance implies it was intended to be seen as a distinct game, but that might also just have been because the proposal was framed as splitting Luigi Bros. from Mario Bros., rather than splitting it from Super Mario 3D World), and here's the proposal that split Super Luigi Bros. (again doesn't really make arguments about it being a separate game, identifies them as "minigames"). Anyway, Luigi Bros. and Super Luigi Bros. are both not currently treated as "games" by the wiki to any extent as far as I'm aware, in terms of list articles, navboxes, categories (both are categorised as minigames), etc. (And I do think it should stay that way, for the record.) Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 02:56, April 9, 2026 (UTC)
I'm not voting yet, but: what are your thoughts on considering Mario is Missing! to be a "Luigi game"? (To be honest, there's an argument to be made that there should be an "Edutainment game" navbox color that game should fall under instead...) Ahemtoday (talk) 08:20, April 9, 2026 (UTC)
- Not the proposer but I don't think it should use a different colour from other Mario Discovery Series games, like how Luigi's Hammer Toss should be consistent with the other Super Mario Bros. Watch games. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:23, April 9, 2026 (UTC)
- The edutainment games default to the general Mario colors, and we think that's reasonable. Mario Teaches Typing and Mario's Early Years are games defined by the presence of Mario, after all. ~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 15:32, April 9, 2026 (UTC)
Changes
None at the moment.
Miscellaneous
Move the April Fool's Day Archives from BJAODN to the April Fool's Day page
Based on the vote so far, this proposal may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on April 11, 2026 at 23:59 (UTC) and close the proposal if applicable.
First of all, yes this proposal is serious. The fact it's not on April Fool's Day should make that clear, but just in case it had to be said... We're glad we said so!
So, this year was bustling in terms of community activity for April Fool's Day. Without naming names (as there's no hard feelings, and it was an honest mistake amongst the involved editors), there were naturally a few people relatively new to the celebrations that didn't quite "get" it, which led to us (and a few other members of staff) creating MarioWiki:April Fool's Day, a policy page that gives the rules of the playground, so to speak, just to clear up confusion for future years as to what is and isn't okay on April Fool's Day. This is quite handy to have, we would say!
But... When deploying this policy page, we realized that April Fool's redirects to MarioWiki:BJAODN, which has served as our de-facto April Fool's archive. BJAODN is not usually an archive, but we've kept April Fool's things there as it already has all the infrastructure to support it, and it's in the spirit of being "Bad Jokes". We placed a redirect notice there, but it's more than a little bit of a hackjob fix, and it feels very weird that the archive of our April Fool's Day events is on a page separate from our policy on how April Fool's Day Events are conducted.
So! Pretty straight-forwardly, we think the April Fool's archive should be moved from BJAODN, to a new section of the April Fool's Day page. This could be as simple as the bullet-pointed list, to something like Pikipedia's own April Fool's Day page, which gives a paragraph giving a synopsis of each prank and, when applicable, credits for specific technical details. We could even elegantly link that year's joke proposal archives when applicable, which the BJAODN section presently lacks!
Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk)
Deadline: April 18, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)
Support/Move (they sure aren't deleted nonsense!)
- Camwoodstock (talk) Per proposal.
- EvieMaybe (talk) now that we have that policy page, the BJAODN archive is no longer needed. move it!
- Brett (talk) Per all.
- I... am R.O.B. (talk) Per all.
- Dominoes (talk) This entry within the voting system is sent as an indicator for which the individual concerned concurs with the rationalia and/or opinions as provided by other individuals who have casted vote within the same section. ...In other words, per all.
- Maw-Ray Master (talk) Per all.
- SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) Sounds good! One question, though. Does the "only administrators can edit" thing carry over? Because the OTHER BJAODN pages allow people to edit, but not the April Fool's Day proposals pages.
- Arend (talk) Makes sense, with the new AFD project/policy page and all.
- FanOfYoshi (talk) Per.
- Yoshi18 (talk) "Without naming names (as there's no hard feelings, and it was an honest mistake amongst the involved editors), there were naturally a few people relatively new to the celebrations that didn't quite "get" it". Yup was definitely me.
Keep at BJAODN/Status Quo (they ARE bad jokes, after all!)
Comments (And Other.)
Would that mean that the April Fool's Day proposals (and the associated subpages) would also moved from MarioWiki:BJAODN/Proposals to MarioWiki:April Fool's Day? It does make sense to keep them all together, after all, and our current setup, while it makes a lot of sense as well, also kept them quite separate from each other. 
rend (talk) (edits) 10:53, April 5, 2026 (UTC)
- This is mentioned in the last sentence of the proposal. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 16:04, April 5, 2026 (UTC)
- That's our plan, yes. No matter what form we give it, we'll make sure to include quick links to the proposal archive for that year. ~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 16:18, April 5, 2026 (UTC)
