MarioWiki:Proposals

Current time: Friday, April 19th, 07:50 GMT

Proposals can be new features (such as an extension), the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken. "Vote" periods last for one week. Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so (not, e.g., "I like this idea!"). 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.

A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed using the code {{User|User name}}.

How to

Rules

1. If users have 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 the other users, who will then vote about whether or not they think the idea should be used. Proposals should include links to all relevant pages and writing guidelines. Proposals must include a link to the draft page. Any pages that would be largely affected by the proposal should be marked with {{proposal notice}}.
2. Only registered, autoconfirmed users can create, comment in, or vote on proposals and talk page proposals. Users may vote for more than one option on proposals with more than two choices.
3. Proposals end at the end of the day (23:59) one week after voting starts, except for writing guidelines and talk page proposals, which run for two weeks (all times GMT).
   • For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, the voting starts immediately and the deadline is one week later on Monday, August 8, at 23:59 GMT.
4. Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it. Agreeing with a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted (including "per" votes), but tangential comments, heavy sarcasm, and other misleading or irrelevant quips are just as invalid as providing no reason at all.
5. 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 at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the administrators.
   • 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.
6. 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 "(banned)" 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.
7. No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
8. 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.
9. All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week. Proposals with more than two options must also be extended another week if any single option does not have a majority support: i.e. more than half of the total number of voters must appear in a single voting option, rather than one option simply having more votes than the other options.
10. If a proposal with only two voting options has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail by a margin of three votes, otherwise the deadline will be extended for another week as if no majority was reached at all.
11. Proposals can only be extended up to three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, the proposal fails and can only be re-proposed after four weeks, at the earliest.
12. All proposals are archived. 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 can ask for that help.
13. If the administrators deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to remove it at any time.
14. Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation (six days for talk page proposals). However, proposers can request that their proposal be deleted by an administrator at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived.
15. 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.
16. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the administration.
17. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
18. Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy.

Basic proposal and support/oppose format

This is an example of what your proposal must look like, if you want it to be acknowledged. If you are inexperienced or unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. Then replace the [subject] - variables with information to customize your proposal, so it says what you wish. If you insert the information, be sure to replace the whole variable including the squared brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information", not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but what each voting section is supporting 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|[enter your username here]}}<br>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the proposal was created (14 for writing guidelines and talk page proposals), at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "April 19, 2024, 23:59 GMT"]

====Support====
#{{User|[enter your username here]}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]

====Oppose====

====Comments====

---

Users will now be able to vote on your proposal, until the set deadline is reached. Remember, you are a user as well, so you can vote on your own proposal just like the others.

To support, or oppose, just insert "#{{User|[add 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 just say "Per my proposal".

Talk page proposals

All proposals dealing with a single article or a specific group of articles are held on the talk page of one of the articles in question. Proposals dealing with massive amounts of splits, merges or deletions across the wiki should still be held on this page.

For a list of all settled talk page proposals, see MarioWiki:Proposals/TPP archive and Category:Settled talk page proposals.

Rules

1. All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom) using {{TPPDiscuss}}. Include a brief description of the proposal while also mentioning any pages affected by it, a link to the talk page housing the discussion, 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. Place {{TPP}} under the section's header, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{SettledTPP}}.
2. All rules for talk page proposals are the same as mainspace proposals (see the "How to" section above), with the exceptions made by Rules 3 and 4 as follows:
3. Voting in talk page proposals will be open for two weeks, not one (all times GMT).
   • For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, it ends two weeks later on Monday, August 15, 2011, at 23:59 GMT.
4. The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.
5. When a talk page proposal passes, it should be removed from this list and included in the list under the "Unimplemented proposals" section until the proposed changes have been enacted.

List of ongoing talk page proposals

• Rename "little bird" to "small bird" (discuss) Deadline: April 18, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Delete Trophy Tussle (discuss) Deadline: April 19, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Delete all Super Smash Bros. challenges pages (discuss) Deadline: April 19, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Merge Cog (Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!) and Cog (Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door) into Cog (obstacle) and rename page to "Cog" (discuss) Deadline: April 24, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Delete or be more specific with Template:Unreferenced (discuss) Deadline: April 25, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Split Hell from List of implied locations (discuss) Deadline: April 27, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Merge the Wrecking Crew and VS. Wrecking Crew phases into list articles, Axis (ended February 24, 2022)

Do not consider usage of classic recurring themes as references to the game of origin, Swallow (ended March 9, 2022)

Split Mario Kart Tour character variants into list articles, Tails777 (ended May 4, 2022)

Enforce WCAG Level AA standards to mainspace and template content, PanchamBro (ended May 29, 2022)

Change how RPG enemy infoboxes classify role, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 18, 2022)

Trim away detailed special move information for all non-Mario fighters, Koopa con Carne (ended January 30, 2023)

• ^Note: This has yet to be done with with several non–Super Mario fighters who still have their own page; namely, Banjo, Fox, Inkling, Isabelle, Kirby, Link, Mega Man, Pac-Man, R.O.B., Sonic, and Villager.

Classify the Just Dance series as a guest appearance, Spectrogram (ended April 27, 2023)

Establish a standard for long course listings in articles for characters/enemies/items/etc., Koopa con Carne (ended June 8, 2023)

Consider filenames as sources and create redirects, Axis (ended August 24, 2023)

Add tabbers to race/battle course articles, GuntherBB (ended November 18, 2023)

Remove elemental creatures categories from various Super Mario RPG enemies, Swallow (ended January 11, 2024)

Standardize the formatting of foreign and explanatory words and phrases in "Names in other languages" tables, Annalisa10 (ended February 7, 2024)

Trim or remove various Smash franchise-specific subcategories, Camwoodstock (ended February 25, 2024)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)

Split the various reissues of Mario Bros., Doc von Schmeltwick (ended April 22, 2022)

Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)

Expand source priority exception to include regional English differences, LinkTheLefty (ended January 14, 2023)

Add product IDs in game infoboxes, Windy (ended March 18, 2023)

Remove the list of Super Smash Bros. series objects, Axis (ended May 10, 2023)

Merge Start Dash with Rocket Start, Koopa con Carne (ended August 17, 2023)

Use italics for the full title of the Mario Kart 8 Deluxe – Booster Course Pass, Hewer (ended September 15, 2023)

Split Special Shot into separate articles by game, Technetium (ended September 30, 2023)

Convert the lists of episode appearances for television series characters into categories, Camwoodstock (ended November 22, 2023)

Decide which series certain Yoshi games are related to, GuntherBB (ended December 14, 2023)

Change the Super Mario 64 DS level section to include more specific character requirements, Altendo (ended December 20, 2023)

Replace "List of Game Over screens" and "'Game Over' as death" sections with a "History" section, DrippingYellow (ended December 20, 2023)

Split the Jungle Buddies from Animal Friends, DrippingYellow (ended December 22, 2023)

Make major changes to the MarioWiki:Links page, PnnyCrygr (ended January 10, 2024)

Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)

Merge the "Johnson" running gag into one page, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)

Merge the ghost Bats and Mice from Luigi's Mansion to their respective organic counterparts from the later games, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 20, 2024)

Split Strobomb from Robomb, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 20, 2024)

Split the NES and SNES releases of Wario's Woods, SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (ended March 27, 2024)

Merge Mii Brawler, Mii Swordfighter, and Mii Gunner to Mii, TheUndescribableGhost (ended March 28, 2024)

Merge Masterpieces to the Super Smash Bros. Brawl and Super Smash Bros. for Wii U articles, Camwoodstock (ended March 31, 2024)

Split Super Luigi Bros. from NES Remix 2, DrippingYellow (ended April 5, 2024)

Merge Game & Watch: Manhole (minigame) with Manhole (Game & Watch), JanMisali (ended April 9, 2024)

Split Mario's Time Machine (Nintendo Entertainment System), or the Super Nintendo Entertainment version along with both console versions of Mario is Missing!, LinkTheLefty (ended April 11, 2024)

Rename Beanstalk to Vine, DrippingYellow (ended April 11, 2024)

Merge Treble clef with Note, Nintendo101 (ended April 17, 2024)

Writing guidelines

Always use past tense when describing pre-release and unused content

Fairly self-explanatory. These kinds of pages need to be more consistent in this way. The only time present tense should be used is when drawing comparisons to the final release.

Example: "At the start of Lap 3, Lakitu's sign said 'Final Lap'; in the final version, it says '3/3'."

Proposer: DannyTheDingo (talk)
Deadline: April 8, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. DannyTheDingo (talk) Per proposal.
2. Archivist Toadette (talk) Yeah, makes sense. Per proposal.

Oppose

1. Koopa con Carne (talk) I'd say this matter has to be explored on a case-by-case basis. In some situations, we only have some form of documentation to attest the existence of a game's early state, and, with no present whereabouts of its physical existence, it's indeed sensible to use past tense in any references to it until proven otherwise. But as Doc pointed out in the comments, some prototype builds are known to exist in the present and may even be readily available to the public--what would be the logic in referring to these using past-tense, then?
2. Results May Vary (talk) I agree with Koopa con Carne -- the last sentence (about prototype builds resurfacing) is especially true.
3. Waluigi Time (talk) Per all. We're not going around changing everything regarding Super Mario Bros. 35 or Dr. Mario World to past tense either, so I wouldn't say this is necessary.
4. Mario4Ever (talk) Per all.

Comments

What about leaked prototype builds? They still exist in a current state. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:46, March 29, 2022 (EDT)

@Koopa @Doc Fair point. When making this proposal I was primarily thinking of that "early state documentation", like E3 footage. But in terms of prototype builds, the wiki has used past-tense for them before (See Super Mario 64 and Luigi's Mansion). DingoHazel [00494] 02:49, March 30, 2022 (EDT)

Those haven't been leaked, though. I'm thinking of like Diddy Kong Pilot, where only prototype builds exist anyway. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:06, April 6, 2022 (EDT)

Forbid "special symbols" from being used in article titles

This page - ★ door - basically describes it. While it is true that the source refers to the Star Door as the "★ Door", I believe this is unintuitive for readers of this wiki. It makes more sense for an average user to search for the "star door" instead of copypasting a character that isn't even present on many keyboards. The name "★ door" should still be used in the article itself, but the title should transcribe the symbol instead of using that symbol. This would also be consistent with other articles:

• World 1-Castle (New Super Mario Bros.), where the title uses the transcribed name instead of a castle emoji (🏰).
• Minna de Atsumete!, where the title of this official SMM2 course does not use the Japanese symbols.

I believe, for the overall consistency of naming pages and unneeded complexity for readers of this wiki, uncommon symbols such as the star or emojis should be forbidden from being used in the names of articles.

Proposer: Spectrogram (talk)
Deadline: April 12, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Spectrogram (talk) per my proposal.

Oppose

1. LinkTheLefty (talk) The problem with the ★ door example is that "Big Star Door" is already pending a move (and currently redirects) to "Star Door" due to that being the in-game name, which complicates matters. Additionally, how levels are titled is generally consistent with official guides, and I don't think romanization systems for foreign characters can be compared since they're an established rule-based process. Overall, I don't think this comes up enough to be an issue like the use of hashtag at the start of a name. The only other one I can think of at the top of my head is ♥ from Yoshi's Story, which is deemed a unique subject from other heart articles.
2. Hewer (talk) It's still the official name of the subject, and people not being able to type it isn't a problem because of redirects. By this logic we should also move Pokémon to Pokemon (just as an example, there are loads of pages with accents in their titles).
3. Swallow (talk) This is a little bit like censoring content.
4. Somethingone (talk) There is a fine line to draw between accessibility and accuracy, and this is pushing it a bit too much. Redirects will work just fine.
5. Niiue (talk) Per all.

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Overhaul the no quorum proposal rule (#8)

The current rule no quorum proposals is vague, flawed, and counterproductive. Per rule 8, if a proposal has three votes or less at deadline, it NQs, ending with no action taken. In other words it needs at least four votes overall to pass. I have two major problems with this.

Problem #1: A blanket minimum number of votes means that opposition can actually cause a proposal to pass.

Take these hypothetical proposals, for instance.

• Proposal A reaches its deadline with 3 support and 0 oppose votes. That's a total of 3, exactly one shy of the minimum 4. Therefore, the proposal NQs.
• Proposal B reaches its deadline with 3 support and 2 oppose votes. That's a total of 5, enough to avoid NQ. Since there are too few votes for rule 10 to apply, and there's more support than opposition, the proposal passes.

See the problem here? Proposal B has the same amount of support as Proposal A, but more opposition, yet Proposal B passes while Proposal A does not. If Proposal B did not have those oppose votes, it wouldn't have enough votes to avoid NQ. Therefore, the opposition actually causes the proposal to pass. This should not be possible. Proposals should only ever pass in spite of opposition, never because of it.

Three-or-more-option proposals have the same problem, especially since you can vote for more than one option - the rule does not clarify whether or not multiple votes from the same user counts toward quorum. This proposal is a good example - it only met the minimum four because one of the voters picked two options.

Solution: Instead of a minimum total of 4 overall votes, make it so at least one option must have a minimum of 4 votes.

This retains the current minimum number of supports necessary to pass a proposal where no other options receive votes, but eliminates the "opposition backfire" issue mentioned above. Under this new rule, Proposal B would NQ, just like Proposal A. This rule would also apply to proposals with three or more options - at least one option would need at least 4 votes to avoid NQ.

Now for the other problem.

Problem #2: No quorum proposals just end immediately upon reaching their deadline, when we could be extending them.

Imagine the frustration. Your TPP has three supports and no opposition. If just one more person would vote, you'd be golden. But before it can happen, that deadline comes. Your proposal's over. You waited two weeks for nothing. Hey, at least you have "the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion", even though that's an extremely vague statement that is not clear at all about what it actually means. I guess it just means "redo the proposal for scratch", but why should you have to do that?

Solution: Apply the three-week extension rule to no quorum proposals.

Why do no quorum proposals have to end right then and there? Why not just extend them, like we do with proposals that do not reach a consensus by deadline? This would help give vote-starved proposals more of a chance to gain attention and reduce the number of frustrating NQs. I'm not sure if we should apply the four-week waiting period for proposals that do NQ under this new rule, but I'm leaning towards no. If you think it should, feel free to comment on it.

Proposer: 7feetunder (talk)
Deadline: April 14, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Apply both solutions

1. 7feetunder (talk) Preferred option.

Apply problem #1's solution

1. 7feetunder (talk) Second option.

Apply problem #2's solution

1. 7feetunder (talk) Better than nothing.

Miscellaneous

Establish proper size of the Media section for game articles with a dedicated media list

Most Media sections of game articles link to a separate list of media (mostly music). It has been the standard for Media sections to have a small sample of files to give an approximate preview of the full list, but the wiki is inconsistent in how many are chosen. At the time of writing, the Media section for Super Mario 64 has five audio files (plus a video), yet Mario Kart Wii and Mario Kart 7 show only one file each. Mario Party 8 has seven!

This proposal should settle on how many audio files should be chosen for Media sections. This would be more of a strong recommendation than a hard rule, but consistency is the goal here.

Video files are uncommon, but they should still be kept to one per Media section where applicable (see Super Mario Sunshine).

Proposer: DannyTheDingo (talk)
Deadline: April 5, 2022, 23:59 GMT

4-5 audio files

1. DannyTheDingo (talk) My preferred option. Leaves room for more diverse choices.
2. Somethingone (talk) Per proposal. This gives us plenty of diversity options while not over-crowding pages with media.
3. Hewer (talk) Per proposal.
4. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per proposal.
5. Ray Trace (talk) 4-5 audio files is a good sweet spot for this.
6. WildWario (talk) Per all.

Comments

I have also come across a few Media sections that merely display the beginning few files from the media list. (Until I recently changed it, the Media section for Mario Super Sluggers showed the first four in the list. This was a problem because it was largely unrepresentative; the first two were an unused theme and a repetitive 20-second loop heard once in the entire game.) I almost made a proposal about prohibiting this kind of thing, but it seems too uncommon to be worth doing that. DingoHazel [00494] 05:20, March 29, 2022 (EDT)

There technically is a rule against that sort of thing (the policy doesn't mention media but it can be reasonably assumed to extend to that), so we should probably just add a mention of media sections there. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 10:31, March 29, 2022 (EDT)

I feel that it would definitely make sense to add a mention of media sections onto that policy page. --TheFlameChomp (talk) 10:46, March 29, 2022 (EDT)

Allow/prohibit fan work by former Nintendo staff

After their contractual obligations for Nintendo have ended, certain affiliates such as Steve Mayles and Masanori Sato have continued to celebrate the franchises they helped shape through various pieces of artwork. These works, consequently, are not direct promotional material nor are they endorsed or acknowledged by Nintendo, pertaining potentially to the realm of fan art more than what this wiki outlines as official material. Nevertheless, the notability that tailgates these people was reason enough for me to have already uploaded a number of their post-contractual works on the wiki.

The proposal's aim is to sort out whether this practice should be further allowed--and on what conditions.

In hashing over the proposal's options, I will divide these "fan" works by two paradigms, so to speak: those that portray at least one specific character from the Mario franchise (which can be modified but otherwise still recognizable), and those that are parodies or feature vaguely-represented elements pertaining to the franchise, but do not otherwise portray any officially recognised character. Examples from the former include an illustration of Dixie Kong by Steve Mayles (twitter.com), a sketch of Yoshi by Masanori Sato (instagram.com), and a Bob-omb King-like creature accompanied by an actual Bob-omb (instagram.com), also by Sato; examples of the latter include an illustration of two Mario&Luigi-like characters (instagram.com), another of a turtle-esque fairy (instagram.com) resembling Boom Boom or Pom Pom, and yet another of a distinctly Wario-looking fellow (instagram.com).

In this respect, I propose three directions:

1. Allow any and all such works;
2. Allow only works that portray at least one recognised Mario element, but not those that are derivative of the Mario franchise; could likely help the wiki avoid legal stuff;
3. Prohibit all such works and delete existing uploads. If Nintendo didn't recognise them, they don't belong here.

I should note that the proposal excludes work that has had a function in the promotion or development of a certain media product or the franchise in general, such as Miyamoto's drawn cover for the Edge magazine, or the Super Smash Bros. Ultimate Mario-Rathalos artwork.

Proposer: Koopa con Carne (talk)
Deadline: April 5, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Option 1: Allow all

1. Koopa con Carne (talk) My choice.
2. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Makes sense to me
3. Niiue (talk) Per all.
4. Hewer (talk) Per all.
5. FanOfYoshi (talk) Per all.
6. Results May Vary (talk) Very interesting proposal that raises some good points. I'd say that because the staff are still recognized for when they were involved with the Mario franchise, their artworks should be allowed, especially because a lot of stems from when they were involved & many of the subscribers and viewers would perceive it this way as well.

Option 2: Allow only on-brand depictions

1. RHG1951 (talk) While I do love Sato's Mickey & Goofy artwork, I don't think it or any image that only belongs in the artists' gallery section should be uploaded here.
2. Somethingone (talk) This is a cool idea, but let's at least try to keep it relevant to the namesake of this fan wiki, mkay?
3. Ray Trace (talk) Per all.
4. Bazooka Mario (talk) I think having a bit of a limit on what kind of art can be uploaded is best. Do we know how much art they shared that isn't Mario? Can we expect that number to grow in the future?

Comments

At any rate, what do the users in here think of Sato's Mario & Luigi-esque portrayal of Mickey and Goofy? Is it worth keeping it on the wiki for the stylistic and dynamic similarities alone? -- KOOPA CON CARNE 17:44, March 30, 2022 (EDT)

@RHG1951 @Somethingone I pointed out the Mickey and Goofy image as an individual case, because I thought some users may find its connection to Mario way too tenuous, and probably only coincidental given the fact that an artist can practice their style without this necessarily connecting their works. The artwork deprecated by the second option still relates to Mario in more than just style; do keep this in mind. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 20:01, March 30, 2022 (EDT)