MarioWiki:Proposals

Writing guidelines
None at the moment.

New features
None at the moment.

Removals
None at the moment.

Merge or delete Super Smash Bros. series general technique articles
We currently have articles on multiple general techniques used by fighters in Smash. Namely:


 * Air Dodge (note that we do not have an article on spot dodging, another Smash dodging technique)
 * Footstool Jump
 * Glide (used exclusively by non-Mario characters)
 * Shield
 * Tether recovery (note that we do not have an article on recovery in general, and none of the characters who have tether recoveries are from the Mario franchise)

I don't see a reason to keep these short and largely tangential articles, especially since we just passed a proposal to merge non-Mario items in Smash. There are a few ways we can deal with this.

Merge these articles into a list page: Self-explanatory. The list will also include general techniques we do not have articles for, such as the aforementioned spot dodging.

Delete these articles: No list will be created. Explanations of the universal techniques will be left to gameplay sections for the games, with glide and tether recovery being explained on the pages of the fighters who have them.

Delete glide and tether recovery, but leave the other articles alone: Unlike the other three, these aren't even usable by Mario characters, so they have zero relevance to the Mario franchise. We merged all the non-Mario characters' special moves (B moves) to their fighters' pages, so we should at least get rid of these.

Do nothing: Even glide and tether recovery get to stay, creating the inconsistency described above, so I don't recommend this.

The scopes of jump, roll, and taunt extend far beyond Smash, so these articles stay no matter what.

Proposer: Deadline: September 3, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Merge these articles into a list page

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Yeah, I don't think we can straight up remove Smash information in the first place, we still consider the series a crossover after all, so it is a subject to full coverage, just with MarioWiki characteristics. Otherwise I support the merge.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) I'd prefer the information didn't get removed entirely.
 * 5) Users have worked hard on those articles, so it would be better to merge them instead of deleting them.
 * 6) My second, less preferred option.
 * 7) I agree we could probably just put the tether recovery and glide information on the character pages like the non-Mario special moves, but per all otherwise since the other techniques are used by Mario characters.
 * 8) - per

Delete these articles

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) I'm not too keen on technique lists since we don't keep lists of these moves from other crossover games.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) Second option.
 * 5) per proposal.
 * 6) Per.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) These pages are only a few thousand bytes long, and since we merged all the non-Mario moves with their fighters, then surely we can do the same for these.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) Since we can describe these techniques on the appropriate pages, I don't see a reason to merge them.

Delete glide and tether recovery, but leave the other articles alone

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Second choice.

Decide what to do with Greenhouse
Good morning!

Recently, a proposal has passed, aiming to trim non-Mario Game & Watch coverage (and yes, I'm aware the changes have not yet been implemented). This proposal notably excluded Greenhouse, as despite not being a Mario game, it features a character Stanley the Bugman who later plays a major role in Donkey Kong 3, makes cameo appearances in WarioWare series, and Smash Bros. series. He also appears in the episode Greenhouse Gorilla.

Stanley did not appear in any other non-Mario media. So the way I see it, either Greenhouse is in or out. Here are three options:


 * 1) Part of the Mario franchise. The wiki considers this game a part of the Mario series, which results in the game receiving full coverage.


 * 2) Not a Mario game. The Greenhouse article gets the same treatment as all other Game & Watch titles, according to this proposal, resulting in the article getting trimmed.


 * 3) Classify as "historically significant". Or as I call it, keep the status quo. The game gets classified as "historically significant", according to Coverage. Greenhouse does not get full coverage, but the page itself will not be trimmed.

Proposer: Deadline: September 2, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Part of the franchise

 * 1) Second option. I just don't see a reason to cut it entirely from the wiki.

Historically significant

 * 1) I'd say this counts at minimum. Not only did Stanley and his spray debut here, but the game also has a similar premise in effectively the same setting (minus Kong) and even includes Buzzbees and prototypical versions of Creepy and the Donkey Kong 3 flowers.
 * 2) per proposal.
 * 3) per all.
 * 4) Per all.

Comments
I have given this topic some thought of the past few months and came up with the same options. All three are valid in my opinion. I also came up with a more radical and perhaps controversial fourth option. There exists a Stanley franchise within the Mario franchise, which consists of only four games: Green House, DK3, its G&W counterpart, and Dai Gyakushū. Nintendo had some sort of plan to grow Stanley into a more prominent character but it was curtailed when DK3 flopped.--Platform (talk) 11:50, August 26, 2022 (EDT)
 * This might be reaching, but could Super Donkey have been evidence of a failed "Stanley" franchise? On a related note, Greenhouse should properly be "Green House" per its most recent release (I know the microgame is technically newer, but microgames are separate subjects and thus allowed to have their own titles, otherwise for game articles we'd be accepting "Mario Brothers", "Mario Adv.", "Zelda", etc). LinkTheLefty (talk) 12:23, August 26, 2022 (EDT)
 * The Super Donkey protagonist reminds me of Mr. You from , who also fought gorillas.--Platform (talk) 13:30, August 26, 2022 (EDT)

Split Bowser's Castle (Mario Kart Arcade GP) and Bowser's Factory, as well as Castle Wall and Bowser's Castle (Mario Kart Arcade GP DX)
Okay, this has been bothering me for quite a while.

As you may or may not know, the base courses in Mario Kart Arcade GP DX use the same (or slightly redesigned) minimap layouts from the courses of the previous Arcade GP entries, Mario Kart Arcade GP and Mario Kart Arcade GP 2. However, the tracks have all new names, music, themes and aesthetics, so generally, the wiki considers these as different courses altogether.

That is, except for Bowser's Factory and the Arcade GP DX version of Bowser's Castle, which have been merged with the Arcade GP 1/2 version of Bowser's Castle and Castle Wall, respectively (which in turn have assumed the names of the AGPDX courses since).

This bothers me to no end, because even though they start similarly, and have the general Bowser's Castle theme, these courses still have completely different names and music, and the aesthetics are even quite different, especially after these courses' hairpin turns. For example, the throne room in AGP1's Bowser's Castle is completely gone in Bowser's Factory, as its corresponding section is now part of the factory half of the Bowser's Factory course (it's specifically been replaced by a Bob-omb factory section), which, as you might've guessed, AGP1's Bowser's Castle doesn't have. Half of the Castle Wall course also takes place on the, well, high castle wall, which is also completely absent in AGPDX's Bowser's Castle, replacing it with a curved path next to a giant Koopa Clown Car-like structure, a straight Glider section high above a (comparatively very low) rocky path surrounded by boiling lava, and another path inside with a Kamek hologram. Aside from the aesthetics, the courses also differ in obstacles and elevations. If it weren't for the beginning (which is also quite different, with the head of the Bowser statue at the gate being slanted over the gate), the courses would be nothing alike!

I get that these are all Bowser Cup courses, but with all these different songs, names, aesthetics, elevations and such, the only thing that is the same are the course maps – which are also altered in DX (most notably, the hairpin turn at the beginning is slanted in DX). All these differences essentially make them different courses altogether like the other courses of Arcade GP DX, and probably were intended to be considered different courses by Bandai Namco Games, so I believe the Wiki should consider them as different courses, too.

I also understand that classic courses may get heavy redesigns as of Mario Kart 8, but the problem is that Arcade GP DX not only is developed and published by a different team (and essentially aren't part of the mainline Mario Kart series), but AGPDX also came out before MK8 did, so the most recent title up to that point was still Mario Kart 7, which, aside from adding glider and underwater sections, still hadn't implemented heavy course redesigns yet. And the classic courses from Mario Kart 8 also kept their course names and had their songs remixed – all the Arcade GP DX had completely different names and brand new compositions that sounded nothing like the course music from the previous Arcade GP courses. Because of that, I believe the Wiki shouldn't consider this as a case of returning classic courses either.

What especially boggles my mind is that, while Bowser's Factory and Bowser Castle AGPDX are merged with Bowser's Castle AGP1 and Castle Wall (respectively), Splash Circuit and Tropical Coast are NOT merged with Mario Highway and Mario Beach (respectively) at all, despite it being the exact same case here with similar minimaps and theme (coastal Mario courses), but different names, aesthetics and songs. Heck, the beginning of these courses are ALSO similar to each other! So why are Bowser's Factory and Bowser's Castle AGPDX not getting the same treatment.

So here's what I propose: we split off the AGPDX Bowser courses from the AGP1 Bowser courses; treat them as different courses, like all the other courses from AGPDX. We first rename the articles back to and, since the articles originally started as such, then we make full articles of  and , moving the relevant info from the AGP1 articles to those pages. I found videos of these courses in Mario Kart Arcade GP and Mario Kart Arcade GP DX, in case you want to compare the courses yourself.

Alternatively, we could also merge Splash Circuit and Tropical Coast to Mario Highway and Mario Beach, respectively. If the Bowser courses are not allowed to be split off, then the Mario courses shouldn't either: it would only be fair. However, I'm personally not inclined to support this option and still prefer the Bowser courses to be split, because like the Bowser courses, the Mario courses also have their fair share of differences when it comes to music, names, aesthetics and elevations (e.g. you go into a wrecked ship in Tropical Coast, which is completely absent from Mario Beach). I also found videos for these courses in Mario Kart Arcade GP and Mario Kart Arcade GP DX for comparison.

I feel like the rest of the courses from Arcade GP DX should be left alone, as their only similarities really are the course minimaps and nothing else. We could merge them all together regardless, but that would be the same as merging all the enemy variants in Wario World back together.

Proposer: Deadline: September 3, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Split the Bowser courses, as proposed

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) courses in other games that share similar layouts are always put in different articles (Mt. Dynamite Remix and Dynamite Run from Donkey Kong Barrel Blast, for example) just because the course uses the same road layout doesn't mean they're exactly the same. Their visuals, and music, aesthetics and so on are more than enough for it to be a different course, thus it needs a different page. This is very different from the Mario Kart Tour city-courses, which all share the same model, music, name, etc. I support splitting.
 * 3) Per RSM.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per all.

Comments
This may be a bit early for me to do, but I already made example pages (as user subpages) for what they could look like post-split. This is also partially done so the procedure doesn't have to take as long if the proposal succeeds. Have a look and tell me what you think: Arend (talk) 16:17, August 30, 2022 (EDT)
 * Bowser's Castle (Mario Kart Arcade GP)
 * Castle Wall
 * Bowser's Factory
 * Bowser's Castle (Mario Kart Arcade GP DX)

On a side note, once the proposal does succeed, I might need an admin's help first before I'd be able to begin. As I stated, I would like Bowser's Factory and Bowser's Castle AGPDX to be moved back to the pages they initially started as (Bowser's Castle AGP and Castle Wall respectively), in order to preserve the original page's history to the correct subjects, and then start the splitting, but I discovered that once it was set to use the names of the AGPDX courses, it's gotten a bit... messy. You see, the original title of the article "" was moved to Bowser's Factory, and then "Castle Wall" was moved to "Bowser's Castle (arcade)" over the existing redirect, and then this was moved again to its current name, which is "Bowser's Castle (Mario Kart Arcade GP)", the one name we need "Bowser's Factory" to move back to before we can begin splitting. And because "Bowser's Castle (arcade)" is now linked to "Bowser's Castle (Mario Kart Arcade GP)", I can't move "Bowser's Factory" to that page either. And I'm not sure if I can even move "Bowser's Castle (Mario Kart Arcade GP)" to "Castle Wall" either because that redirect is initially moved to "Bowser's Castle (arcade)" instead of "Bowser's Castle (Mario Kart Arcade GP)". And the weirdest, but most simple thing is that "Bowser's Castle (Mario Kart Arcade GP DX)" was never used in the first place. So yeah, if the proposal succeeds, I may need some admin's help to move "Bowser's Factory" and "Bowser's Castle (Mario Kart Arcade GP)" back to "Bowser's Castle (Mario Kart Arcade GP)" and "Castle Wall" respectively before we can begin splitting. Arend (talk) 16:17, August 30, 2022 (EDT)

Merging Smash Bros. objects: Round 2!
Good day!

My recent proposal aimed at merging unrelated to Mario items and objects has passed, however, as it turned out, the list wasn't full -- there are still objects that should have been merged. So, why don't we finish what we started? As established earlier, cameo appearances do not justify keeping an article.

If you find more objects/items that I've missed, leave a comment so I can add them in the list.

List N
The following entries will be merged with the rest of Smash Bros. objects:
 * 1) Great Fox
 * 2) Gunship
 * 3) Subspace Gunship
 * 4) Unira (will be merged with items)
 * 5) Wolfen
 * 6) Dark Cannon
 * 7) Bumper (Super Smash Bros. series)

Now the question is, should F-Zero Racer also be merged? Is it cameo appearance or not?

Proposer: Deadline: September 5, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Merge only the List N entries

 * 1) F-Zero Racer seems to play a major-enough role.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) Per proposal.

Comments
I am a bit iffy on Unira since early appearances of Urchin were treated as either them themselves or at least a derivative (though granted Octorok has a ton of variants in Mario and we no longer have a page on it...) Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:44, August 29, 2022 (EDT)

I have two questions: ShootingStar7X (talk) 11:28, August 31, 2022 (EDT)
 * 1) Why merge the Dark Cannon into the items page when it's only ever used in The Subspace Emissary's cutscenes, and never in gameplay? Not to mention it's only categorized under Category:Objects.
 * 2) Did you forget about the Bumper, or is its appearance on Peach's Castle Mario-relevant enough to merit its own page?
 * I've deleted the item part from Dark Cannon. Bumper isn't on the list, since the only stage it appears in is Peach's Castle, at least according to the Smash Bros Wiki, so I believe it just barely qualifies, I think it needs a separate talk page proposal, just like Party Ball (item). Note that I'm not going to make one for these two pages. Spectrogram (talk) 11:41, August 31, 2022 (EDT)
 * Bumpers are also usable items on any stage, though. ShootingStar7X (talk) 11:53, August 31, 2022 (EDT)
 * Good point, but as an object they're Peach Castle exclusive. I'm still unsure whether or not I should include them, but I'd advice you to create a talk page proposal instead. Spectrogram (talk) 11:58, August 31, 2022 (EDT)
 * Flippers were also usable items in Super Smash Bros. Melee, but became stage objects in later games. That kind of puts Bumper in the same boat. LinkTheLefty (talk) 12:24, August 31, 2022 (EDT)
 * Flippers weren't objects in a Mario stage though. I'll add them in the list, but if anyone disagrees I can exclude it again. Spectrogram (talk) 12:27, August 31, 2022 (EDT)

Move Flying Goomba (Super Mario World) to, Para-Goomba (Super Mario World) to , Parabomb to
The Super Mario World section of the Japanese Mario Portal calls the Flying Goomba "Paragaloomba" and the Para-Goomba "Parachute Galoomba". These names should take priority over their current names as they are more recent, more accurate to the original Japanese and also help clear up a currently very counter-intuitive group of pages.

Firstly, Galoombas were separate enemies from the Goombas since their inception, being called kuribon as opposed to kuribō. Secondly, a well established pattern in both English and Japanese dictates that winged variants of enemies receive a Para- or Pata- prefix, respectively (Paragoombas being Patakuribō, Para-Biddybuds being Patatenten, Para-Beetles being Patametto, Parabones being Patakaron, etc). "Flying Goombas" are called Patakuri in Japanese, and were accordingly named "Paragaloombas" in the new website. "Para-goomba", on the other hand, are called Parakuri in Japanese (coincidently the same prefix as the English word, despite having different meanings) and were thus named "Parachute Galoombas" in the new website. Their new names fix both of those inconsistencies, and would make the pages more intuitive to understand. Parabomb would also be moved as to be consistent with the new Parachute Galoomba name.

Proposer: Deadline: September 5, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Move all pages

 * 1) I love any effort to fix janky old localization choices.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) My second choice, per proposal.
 * 4) per proposal :D
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per proposal
 * 7) Secondary choice. The new names for these aerial Galoombas are more consistent with the other winged enemies (it was honestly inconsistent even back when they were regarded the same as regular Goombas), and the same would apply for Parachute Bob-omb if it weren't for the fact that its old name of Parabomb is still in use in more recent titles.

Move Flying Goomba and Para-Goomba, but not Parabomb

 * 1) My first choice, per LinkTheLefty's comments.
 * 2) I feel like the fact that the name "Parabomb" has been used consistently every time they had an in-game name is enough to leave it as is. Also, unlike the Flying/Parachute G(al)oombas, Parabomb wasn't given the English name of an already existing enemy for years :P
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) Primary choice. As LinkTheLefty stated, Parabomb has made a handful of frequent reappearances in the past decade (unlike Paragaloomba and Parachute Galoomba), and still used the Parabomb name for something as recent as Dr. Mario World. We're not moving Banzai Bill to Boomer Bill because of the LEGO Mario sets, or Bomber Bill because of the Mario Portal as well, either. I feel like we have to wait and see if Parabomb reappears in future titles with the new Parachute Bob-omb moniker (and in turn, if we get winged Bob-omb appearances outside of Mario Maker in the future, and if those are called Para-Bob-omb).
 * 5) Per per.
 * 6) Until we have further discussion on it, I don't think we should be overriding other names with Mario Portal names without a really good reason. While the Galoomba moves make sense, since it's pretty confusing in its current state, I don't really feel compelled to move Parabomb right now. Parabomb is also a name used (very recently!) in-game so I don't like the massive jump in source priority here.
 * 7) Second choice, per all.
 * 8) per all.
 * 9) second option.
 * 10) Per all
 * 11) - per
 * 12) Parabomb's name has been consistently used, such as in Dr. Mario World, and it's the same in most languages. If a later game uses a different name, we can figure out what to do with that.
 * 13) Per all.
 * 14) I feel as long as the Galoombas are moved, I can go for either option. Second option, per all.

Comments
The Para-Goomba (Mario Clash) page would unfortunately remain unchanged, as Mario Clash was not featured in the new website.

Could there be an option to move the Galoombas only? While Parabomb could be renamed, I'd rather we wait until a new game uses Parachute Bob-omb before moving that one, like how Boomer/Bomber Bill is being approached. (And if we really wanted to, we could just use "Para-Goombah" for the Mario Clash Para-Goomba. It'd be a silly way to remove an identifier, but I think we can work with it.) LinkTheLefty (talk) 23:08, August 29, 2022 (EDT)
 * The same reasoning applies partially to the Parabomb page: the name Parachute Bob-Omb would be consistent with the name Parachute Galoomba, and would avoid confusion as it's not the same thing as other "Para-" enemies, which is what the Japanese name already does anyway. If we're moving one I see no reason not to move the other.
 * The difference is that the Galoombas appear infrequently and moving them would match their actual parent species, whereas Parabombs are having a decent run and have appeared as late as Dr. Mario World under that name (winged Bob-ombs are also exclusive to Super Mario Maker, and previous proposals concluded to leave those enemies as one-offs until they officially appear outside that series). LinkTheLefty (talk) 09:01, August 30, 2022 (EDT)
 * Alright. I thought about it and I'll concede that, despite not being as accurate as Parachute Bob-Ombs, the name Parabombs is still technically the most accurate name used in-game for the enemy over the years, so I have added an option to not move that page.

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.