MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/63: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:57, November 10, 2023

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

Reconsider Nintendo's website filenames being used as a source

consider filenames as a source and create redirects 6-0-1-0
See this proposal for full context. Nintendo is sadly known to make mistakes in their filenames found on their websites (especially Play Nintendo). I think we can all agree there is zero reason to believe these files should have the same priority as number 4 in the acceptable sources for naming policy, but I also believe we shouldn't throw them away. If Nintendo blunders, we mention it. If this proposal passes, the following changes will be implemented:

Nintendo's weird website filenames can be added either as trivia or in the same section as internal names, but these names shouldn't be anywhere near the first paragraph.
In a potential unforeseen case where the website filename is the only name Nintendo provided, it will occupy the last 7th place in acceptable sources for naming (yes, even below the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia)

Redirects, on the other hand, is something I'm unsure about.

Proposer: Axis (talk)
Deadline: August 24, 2023, 23:59 GMT

Support, use these names as redirects as well

MegaBowser64 (talk) No harm done by using redirects, unless we want to obliterate these names off the wiki.
Hewer (talk) Honestly, I still don't really get why the last proposal had so much vehement opposition just because "no one thinks these are the actual names". While that may be true, it's not like we're trying to make these the article titles - I'd obviously agree if that was the proposal, but I don't really see the harm of making a note of these on pages like we usually strive to do with all the official information we get. And I tend to support redirects for any names that have been officially used, since having more redirects is completely harmless - it's potentially helpful and never a hindrance, so again, I don't see a problem.
Mister Wu (talk) If we can distinguish them from the games’ internal names, I think that these names can be a nice addition to the pages.
Camwoodstock (talk) Since the original option was, evidently, not in-line with what we were expecting, this one seems at least closer with our original intent. While these should be low-priority due to their obscure nature, but there's no harm in acknowledging that they exist in the first place.
Pseudo (talk) Per all.
Killer Moth (talk) Per all.

Support, but these names shouldn't be used as a redirect

Only cite them in case of no other source being available

Koopa con Carne (talk) I don’t know how often this might happen, but if a filename is the only source we can work with for a given name, it shouldn’t be discounted.

#Camwoodstock (talk) In the extremely unlikely case that the Nintendo website's data is the one, the only authority on a name, we may as well use it; otherwise, though, we can probably get away with discounting them. After all, these are names you'd only encounter by prodding at the site data.

~~#Pseudo (talk) Per Koopa con Carne.~~

Oppose

#Koopa con Carne (talk) I actually think it's a good idea to cite web filenames as a recourse when absolutely nothing else comes in clutch, and I support mentioning the original filename of a wiki upload on its file page as it still defines the image in an official capacity, but the overall course of action proposed here still puts too much stock in this kind of material. Per some of the opposers to the previous proposal.

Comments

@Camwoodstock: Why is it that the obscurity of the names means we should ignore them? There's plenty of obscure content on the wiki, if anything it makes it more interesting to note them if it's obscure and not many people know about them. I don't understand why this proposal and the previous one were opposed with arguments along the lines of "too obscure, no one will see these" when that's never been a factor in anything else on the wiki to my knowledge. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 05:31, August 19, 2023 (EDT)

Yeah, I was bewildered by this argument in the previous proposal too. It's nonsense, as the wiki already cites no shortage of material you'd normally have to look really deep into finding--and it seems weird to think a filename for an image that is readily available on Nintendo's website is somehow more obscure than a section in some '90s player's guide that is not sold anymore. However, I'll grant you that there are still some reasons to argue against the use of these filenames as sources of information, namely that those who help piece together promo material aren't obliged to demonstrate a staggering amount of professionality in the way they represent Mario concepts, and are not what you'd construe as an authority on such. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 05:47, August 19, 2023 (EDT)

Indeed, hence why I don't think we should make these page titles or otherwise give them much credence, but noting them in trivia sections and the like seems like it should be fine to me as this is still official material, and it's certainly not like we usually tend to ignore promotional material like these websites. Hewer

(talk · contributions · edit count) 06:21, August 19, 2023 (EDT)

We should probably clarify that we specifically mean our vote in the sense of, if there is zero other authority for a name, we can use it as a last resort, as it is still a valid name. Not "discard" it as in "it gets ignored outright the moment more authoritative name arrives", heavens no! But if a more definitive name exists, it should get priority over the website name for stuff like, y'know, article names, while the website name can remain as a redirect if it doesn't conflict with anything. Apologies for not being very clear. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 22:39, August 20, 2023 (EDT)

So you agree with making redirects for the file names but are supporting the option to not create them? This just makes me more confused. The support options here aren't to regard these as a high source of authority, just to make them redirects and make a note of them on articles like we usually do with alternate names. Hewer

(talk · contributions · edit count) 09:01, August 21, 2023 (EDT)

...Okay, now we're confused, OOPS. We voted that because we thought the option was to consider those a valid name, but only as the second-to-lowest priority, literally only beating out the Encyclopedia; as better names from higher priority sources follow suit, we follow our standard protocol from there. If that's not what the option meant (and it's seeming like there is, indeed, a semantic difference, but we wanna make absolutely certain first that's the case!), we can change our vote as need be. And, once again, sorry for the confusion. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 10:20, August 21, 2023 (EDT)

The option you voted for does not allow these files to be used as redirects, and the Enclyclopedia names would actually take priority over these weird web filenames. I should have made it clearer, but it's too late to edit the proposal now Axis (talk) 10:35, August 21, 2023 (EDT)

Our bad. Changin' our vote then! ~Camwoodstock (talk) 10:40, August 21, 2023 (EDT)

Create an article for Tetris 99 and add it to the list of games

create Tetris 99 article 6-2
Tetris 99 currently does not have an article on this wiki, and I believe one should be created and the game should be added to the List of games, List of games by date, and List of games by genre articles. The game features many Super Mario- and Nintendo-themed elements, including from Luigi's Mansion 3, Paper Mario: The Origami King, Super Mario All-Stars, Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury, Mario Golf: Super Rush, WarioWare: Get It Together!, and Mario Party Superstars.

There is direct precedent for this in the form of Tetris DS. Like Tetris 99, Tetris DS features many Super Mario- and Nintendo-themed elements, and as a result, it has an article on this wiki and is included in the List of games, List of games by date, and List of games by genre articles. Examples of other games that feature Super Mario elements and thus have articles and are in the list of games articles include Minecraft, Rhythm Heaven Megamix, NES Remix, NES Remix 2 , Ultimate NES Remix, Nintendo Land, Captain Rainbow, SSX on Tour, and NBA Street V3.

Proposer: ToxicOJ (talk)
Deadline: August 26, 2023, 23:59 GMT

Support

ToxicOJ (talk) Per proposal.
Axis (talk) Given a large amount of Mario themes present in this game, there is enough content to justify creating a full article on this game.
Ray Trace (talk) Tbh, we have an article for the Nintendo Badge Arcade even though it's a Nintendo game with the extent of Mario-related appearances being practically Mario-themed skins. This game appears to have more Mario-inspired content than that, and even comes with its own soundtrack (which is more than something like SSX on Tour and NBA Street V3). In context of the puzzle game (where there wouldn't be playable characters to begin with), I'd say the changes are enough to warrant an article, especially with the high amount of Mario content it did receive.
Tails777 (talk) Per Ray Trace.
Killer Moth (talk) Per Ray Trace. After thinking about it this makes sense.
Camwoodstock (talk) Was formerly on the fence, but after thinking about it, this really isn't out of the ordinary at all. In the interest of narrowing down any specific details, though, if we've got stuff like Art Style: PiCTOBiTS (a game that mostly features cameos and a few Mario items as pivotal game mechanics), Densetsu no Stafy 3 (a game that is otherwise linked to a single series, but has a full Wario Land 4 crossover level), and especially the aforementioned article on standard Tetris and Nintendo Badge Arcade, both of which feature as primarily cameos but have notable things beyond that (The Tetris cameos had a hand in later titles like Tetris Attack, and y'know, Badge Arcade has the multi-time niche fandom anomaly that is Crazy Galaxy), Tetris 99 fits just right in as another one of those guest appearances we can give some level of coverage.

Oppose

Hewer (talk) I think this is really stretching what can be considered a guest appearance. It doesn't have you playing as Mario characters like many of those examples do, and the Mario elements it features don't even directly affect gameplay or get interacted with, it's just skins based on other games that change visuals and sounds. I'd say it fits better on the list of references.
TheUndescribableGhost (talk) per Hewer. I get that they are a lot of effort put in them, but it doesn't really modify the gameplay. Let, if the Tertis blocks were maybe replaced with Mario blocks, maybe? I mean, Just Dance was voted a guest appearance but that was because of the effort of the music videos. Even if I would agree with you, you don't try to explain how it is more than a skin. Because that's how it feels to me.

Comments

Please note that there was just a proposal that determined that the NES Tetris does not count as a full appearance or a guest appearance but rather a standard reference; it includes direct appearances of Mario, DK, Luigi, Bowser, and Peach outside of gameplay. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:02, August 19, 2023 (EDT)

I think Art Style: PiCTOBiTS should be a good comparison for games that don't have playable Mario characters or interactible Mario elements.

How many themes/levels are Mario themed?
Are there sounds/music borrowed from the Mario games?
And most importantly, how much of a game do these levels/objects/themes occupy compared to non-Mario elements?

If the answers to these questions are comparable to Art Style: PiCTOBiTS, then we could say it is a guest appearance. Also take a look at the proposal Doc von Schmeltwick linked, as what is and isn't a guest appearance is very much up for debate. What do you think? Axis (talk) 12:10, August 19, 2023 (EDT)

For the last point, the Mario themes are only some in a plethora of themes based on Nintendo Switch games that are exclusively available in limited-time events, so I don't think it gets a great score there. And from what I can tell from its article (I haven't played the game), it seems like Pictobits does feature interactible Mario elements in the form of coins and POW Blocks. Hewer

(talk · contributions · edit count) 12:37, August 19, 2023 (EDT)

As resident Pictobits-head, we can vouch that you do in fact use Mario items to an extent (you can collect coins very obviously modelled off of SMB1, and there's the POW block as a mechanic). So, there's definitely a stronger argument for Pictobits over Tetris 99, as you can directly interact with both of those (you spend coins, and as mentioned, the POW is an outright mechanic of the game). ~Camwoodstock (talk) 22:37, August 20, 2023 (EDT)

In addition to the Super Mario elements already mentioned, Tetris 99 does actually feature Super Mario elements in gameplay. In the Super Mario Bros. level, Empty Blocks fill the bottom of the playing area when other players attack, and the player must destroy them with tetrominoes before they get too high. In the Donkey Kong level, the bottom fills with barrels. In the Super Mario All-Stars level, the bottom fills with Hard Blocks. In the Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury level, the bottom fills with brick blocks. In the WarioWare: Get It Together! level, the tetrominoes themselves have Wario, Ashley, Young Cricket, Kat, 9-Volt, 18-Volt, and Mona on them. Further, in the Super Mario Bros. and Super Mario All-Stars levels, the player can earn up to four Super Stars when they defeat other players. In the Donkey Kong level, you earn Hammers. In the Luigi's Mansion 3 level, you earn Polterpups. In the Paper Mario: The Origami King level, you earn coins. In the Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury level, you earn Cat Shines. In the WarioWare: Get It Together! level, you heard the Golden Coin from Wario Castle. In the Mario Party Superstars level, you earn Stars. Tetris 99 also features several arrangements of Super Mario musical themes not heard in any other game. The Super Mario Bros. level features original arrangements of the "Ground Theme", "Shiro BGM", and the "Course Clear" themes, and the Donkey Kong features original arrangements of the "Game Start", "25m" and the "Hammer" themes. Additionally, the Luigi's Mansion 3, Paper Mario: The Origami King, Super Mario All-Stars, Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury, Mario Golf: Super Rush!, Warioware: Get It Together!, and Mario Party Superstars levels feature several original musical themes from each of their respective games, as well as a wide variety of Super Mario sound effects. ToxicOJ (talk) 16:43, August 23, 2023 (EDT)

@Ray Trace: "In context of the puzzle game (where there wouldn't be playable characters to begin with)" I beg to differ. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:55, August 23, 2023 (EDT)

Trim requirements for elemental creatures categories

tighten the second half 1-8-1
This proposal follows from the responses on Talk:Koopa Troopa#Water creatures. Currently, the requirements for these categories are for the subject to either be composed of an element or use it in some way, and more recently the latter has led to some arbitrary cases that may only be exclusive to one or very few games, for example Bowser is under Category:Poisonous creatures for some of his attacks in the first two Paper Mario games causing Poison, and Koopa Troopa is now under Category:Water creatures for a water-based animation in Mario Power Tennis. This proposal aims to ditch the second half of the requirement of these categories; only if the subject is clearly composed of the subject may the category be used.

PROPOSAL EDIT: Addition of another option to keep the second half but tighten it. This will lead to usage of the categories if the subject isn't composed of the element but is still strongly associated with it such as Bowser remaining categorised under Fire creatures for his fire breath, and one-off RPG enemies that cause status effects with these elements such as Poison Pokey and Flamin' Stooge.

Proposer: Swallow (talk)
Deadline: September 16, 2023, 23:59 GMT

Remove second half entirely

Swallow (talk) Secondary choice

~~#SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per proposal. Second choice.~~

Tighten the second half

Swallow (talk) Primary choice
SolemnStormcloud (talk) ~~Primary choice.~~ Per proposal.
Camwoodstock (talk) Makes sense to us.
Pseudo (talk) Per all.
LadySophie17 (talk) Per myself, as I originally proposed it lol. Jokes aside I would prefer a more defined wording on where the line would be drawn.
TheFlameChomp (talk) Per proposal.
Ray Trace (talk) Honestly I'm iffy on the existence of these category at all since for example in the poisonous creatures category, they're either composed of creatures that can cause a poison status effect in RPGs or characters that can spit purple fluids. It spans across too many games of wildly different genres and idk, it just doesn't sound right at all when something like a Sniffle Thwomp occupies the same category as a Malboro.
Mario (talk) Categories should be reworked yeah. We should be calling several of the poisonous creatures "VENOMOUS". 😤

Do nothing

Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - I find it rather difficult to be "clearly composed of [poison]," myself. That category is primarily for things that cause the poison status effect, are mentioned as being poisonous in their name or description, or are capable of spitting poison projectiles. The only examples I can really think of are Poison Bubble, maybe Mokura, and possibly some Pokémon. It also makes sense to have things that can cause the burn status to be listed as fire creatures, things that can freeze be listed as ice creatures, and so on and so forth.

Comments

~~If we go with simply tightening the second criteria, how would this affect Mini Goomba, which I brought up in the preceding discussion?~~ Disregard this—I didn't notice the "one-off" in the proposal. SolemnStormcloud (talk) 18:12, September 9, 2023 (EDT)

What do you think should be defining terms for "tightening" the second half? Like, where would we draw the line? It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 19:10, September 9, 2023 (EDT)

Mostly if it's an element the subject never uses outside of the game or series where it does, as has been brought up with Bowser and Koopa Troopa.

Nightwicked Bowser

19:14, September 9, 2023 (EDT)

If that's the case, then how would this option affect instances of a subject using an element across multiple series, but it's not a frequent attribute in their overall history? Case in point, Bowser being under Category:Electrical creatures for his usage of electricity in Hotel Mario, the opening of Super Mario Galaxy, and—although it's not mentioned on his character page (likely because it's via the Star Rod and not natural here)—Paper Mario. SolemnStormcloud (talk) 08:52, September 10, 2023 (EDT)

Delete the {{wp}} and {{fandom}} templates

Do not delete templates 1-11
It's been four months since My last proposal to create interwiki templates to various wikis (like NIWA) has been declined, and the {{wp}} and {{fandom}} templates are still there. In fact, the Super Mario Wiki does not need these. Like Steve said, when the prefixes work just fine. If you don't want to type things twice, just do either [[wikipedia:Mario|]] or [[wikia:c:mario:Mario|]]; the following will work: Mario for Wikipedia and Mario for Fandom. Just like that!

Proposer: GuntherBB (talk)
Deadline: October 2, 23:59 GMT

Support

GuntherBB (talk) Per proposal

Oppose

Axis (talk) Just because there is a relatively short alternative way, it doesn't take away from the fact that the template names are even shorter. Especially the Fandom one.
FanOfYoshi (talk) Per Axis.
MegaBowser64 (talk) *cough* *sigh* "There is no point in change for the sake of change."
Camwoodstock (talk) Per Axis. The template names are already as short as they can get short of full-on one-letter templates of borderline incoherence, and we probably don't need to lengthen these names arbitrarily if anyone editing these already understands WP is Wikipedia and Fandom is... well, Wikia/Fandom. Besides, it saves time in inserting these links and in some extreme cases (read: basically any scenario involving Fandom articles) can even shrink the overall page size--both of those are very good things to have on particularly large articles!
Hewer (talk) Per all, these templates are some added convenience that have no reason to be removed, and having just two such templates that are commonly used and easy to remember is quite different to the labyrinth of abbreviations suggested in the previous proposal (not that I really feel very strongly either way about the inclusion of those other templates, I just don't see the need to remove the ones we already have).
Killer Moth (talk) Per all. I don't really see the point of doing this.
Pseudo (talk) Per all.
YoYo (talk) the amount of times ive used the wp template specifically is just too many times to even make a change like this be merely plausible.
Sdman213 (talk) Per all.
Dine2017 (talk) Per all. In addition, [[wikipedia:Mario|]] lengthens to [[wikipedia:Mario|Mario]] after the page is saved, creating more visual clutter when someone later edits the paragraph.
Windy (talk) Per all.

Comments

@Axis Doesn't that logic mean the previous proposal should have passed, though? The templates proposed there had shorter parameters to type out, but people decided it was unnecesary. Shouldn't the same apply here? ^S_o^m_e^t_hⁱ_n^g _oⁿ_e! 13:31, September 25, 2023 (EDT)

Well, {{wp}} and {{fandom}} are very commonly used and quite nifty interwiki link templates (the former because, well, it's Wikipedia, and the latter because it's the largest and most well-known wikifarm that hosts thousands of wikis: linking to a specific wiki on Fandom is in itself a bit complicated as it is, too). That whole laundry list of the previous proposal, though... they're mostly there just because they're NIWA wikis. Some of them, such as for Zelda Wiki and Nookipedia, make sense to have a template for, since Super Mario has some connections with Legend of Zelda or Animal Crossing, and thus interwiki links would be commonly used, but then there's those for Wapopedia, Dragalia Lost Wiki, and Kovopedia, which represent series that barely have any connection to Mario, and so is barely linked by this wiki, so in turn the template would barely be used as well. Not to mention it's a lot of suggested shorthands to keep track of. In such a case, it would be easier to just type [[kovopedia:Magical Vacation|]] whenever the one occasion we have to link to one of these games makes itself apparent

rend (talk) (edits) 21:37, September 27, 2023 (EDT)

Do not rename articles until the relevant media has released

wait until release 15-3
What this proposal aims to enforce is that if a subject is confirmed to have a new name in an upcoming game, the article must not be moved to the new name until the game has released. A prime example is the recent situation with Psychopath, which the Nintendo of America Twitter account referred to as "Thought Peek" for the remake and the article was immediately moved, but was since moved back to Psychopath as it might not be a proper confirmation of a new name, so this proposal should also prevent jumping the gun like this. The new name can still be mentioned in the article, but as stated must not be the article title until the game's release regardless of source.

EDIT, PLEASE READ BEFORE VOTING: I get the feeling a lot of people are going to see this and completely misunderstand my motive here, I'm not saying that we should completely ignore or distrust all pre-release marketing, this proposal is solely aimed at returning subjects in games and if they are eligable for a rename, all I hope to accomplish is establishing a rule like with latest appearances and infobox images, in that the move doesn't happen until release. Obviously it would be impossible to apply this to new subjects and I would not try and halt the creation of those articles, any form of official pre-release marketing for those would be perfectly acceptable.

Proposer: Swallow (talk)
Deadline: October 5, 23:59 GMT

Support

Swallow (talk) Per proposal
Tails777 (talk) Not even just for games, content overall. Not to dig up old cases (and not to sound insensitive or anything), but we've jumped the gun before on upcoming content so I support the idea of waiting until everything is fully known before making any moves.
MegaBowser64 (talk) Per all. Doesn't seem like it could hurt, it's not like keeping the older name for a few months is the end of the world... Or is it?
Waluigi Time (talk) This seems sensible enough and consistent with how we generally handle upcoming media in other areas. Also saves us the headache of fixing things a second time if a pre-release name differs from the final product, which is always a possibility.
Herobrine (talk) Per all. Also there's always the chance of differences between American/British English localizations to take into account as well.
Camwoodstock (talk) This makes sense. As anyone acutely familiar with game development will tell you, things change mid-development, even (and in some cases especially) after promotional content says something about the game, all the time. And even if things don't change, all it takes is one blunder of cyclical reporting to accidentally trip people up anyways--remember God Slayer Bowser? Better safe and wait for the game to release than pre-empt it and get caught with our proverbial pants down if they walk back on it for whatever reason. And as Herobrine mentions, Nintendo has held different English translations between American English and British English for awhile now--who's to say this isn't another case of exactly that?
SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per all.
LinkTheLefty (talk) Let's just say that I have unfortunate reason to believe that the retranslation situation is in a way more precarious position than all of us would've liked, but since I really should not get into that here/now/ever, I'll just say "I agree it's a good idea to treat everything as a placeholder until release" and leave it at that. (Also, I thought this was already standard practice.)
TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.
Pseudo (talk) Per all.
7feetunder (talk) The Mario Party 5 bonus disc demo had early minigame names, ""Pale Piranha" was a last minute change, and so on, and so forth.
BBQ Turtle (talk) Per all.
FanOfYoshi (talk) Per all, and i just agree in general.
SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) Per all.
Mister Wu (talk) Agreed, we can’t be sure of the final name until the actual release.

Oppose

Hewer (talk) I can understand not immediately moving based on one social media post, but this easily has the potential to just seem silly if a rename is ever made very clear in pre-release material. This would also create a bit of an inconsistency with pre-release material being acceptable for the names of new subjects but not returning ones. This should probably be case-by-case in my opinion.
PaperSplash (talk) I see no reason to distrust official social media and other pre-release marketing material in cases like these.
Juan90980 (talk) Per PaperSplash's reason.

Comments

@PaperSplash I'm not saying to distrust official social media and pre-release marketing, I'm just saying to hold off from moving article titles until release like with latest appearances and infobox images. Nightwicked Bowser 15:56, September 28, 2023 (EDT)

Then why hold off? And apologies for misunderstanding, but I didn't know how else to interpret "it might not be a proper confirmation of a new name". It makes sense to wait until release for latest appearances, and while I don't necessarily agree with our current rule on infobox images I can see the reasoning for there, but I don't here. I don't think the DS Mario Circuit edit Tails777 cited is a good enough argument for a policy change across the board because Mario Kart Tour and the Mario Kart 8 Deluxe – Booster Course Pass have a rather unique situation of having content released (and seemingly developed) concurrently. (Also said edit and the reason given for it in the edit summary feel rather contradictory to me...) This also isn't like God Slayer Bowser since we're dealing with an actual official source here. I'd also like to point out that Nintendo had largely put a stop to separate American English and British English localizations by the beginning of the Switch era; pretty much all the games that still have them separate are ports of games that already had them separate and are seemingly kept that way for consistency more than anything. (And even then, there have been exceptions like Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury where the original game's British English localization was discarded anyway.) The only comparable situation I can think of where the English localization ended up going back on a rename from pre-release to post-release is the Fishman ("Merman") spirit from Super Smash Bros. Ultimate (which didn't end up affecting us either way since it's not a Mario character, but I'll still concede on this). That's what we should be looking at if anything. PaperSplash (talk) 22:18, September 28, 2023 (EDT)

The Case of Donkey Kong 64 Sub-Areas

Don't split any sub-areas 4-0-5-0
While inquiring about the Prima name of what we are now referring to as the Temple with Five Doors (discussion here), I posed another question. Why are the Temple with Five Doors and Llama's Temple (both parts of Angry Aztec) the only level-specific areas of Donkey Kong 64 to have separate articles? They date back to 2012, which is old, but not stone age old. Either way, it doesn't really make sense to have articles for just these two. So you'd think the obvious solution would to just give articles to every other sub-area. After all, we have articles for stuff like Surf Cabana and Sand Cabana, so why not? Well, there is one problem: names.

Super Mario Odyssey went so whole hog with naming everything aside from a few "bonus areas" that I had to make a proposal to decide what we didn't want articles for. Donkey Kong 64... does not do this. Wrinkly Kong mentions a few of them in her hints, but often in generic terms, so we're forced to rely on guides for many of them. Even then, the guides don't name every sub-area, so there are still some missing links in the chain. Using conjectural names to fill in the gaps would open a can of worms regarding creating articles for other nameless sub-areas such as the pyramid in Shifting Sand Land or the volcano in Lethal Lava Land.

Only split named sub-areas: Simply put, we only split the sub-areas that would not require a {{conjecture}} template. This avoids the issue of setting a potentially troublesome precedent involving nameless sub-area articles, but creates some discrepancies regarding size and scope. The rather expansive but unnamed underground crypt in Creepy Castle would not get an article, but the very small "Silo" from that same level would, purely because it and not the former was named in a guide with a seemingly arbitrary policy for naming and capitalizing things.
Split everything: Every sub-area gets an article, even if we have to use some conjectural names. I've already mentioned the can of worms this would open, but there's also just the fact that some of these areas, such as the crusher room in Frantic Factory, are very small and only house a single Golden Banana. Others may also prove challenging to come up with good conjectural names for. It does, however, avoid the arbitrariness of "whichever ones we can cite a name for" dictating which ones get articles and which don't.
Don't split any sub-areas: We'd just cover them on the main level articles. Llama's Temple and Temple with Five Doors will be merged with Angry Aztec. This avoids both the arbitrariness and the nameless sub-area precedent. Of course, many of these sub-areas are fairly large and even have different music tracks, so it could be seen as losing something. However, not having articles for DK64 sub-areas isn't that illogical to me. DK64 doesn't have much lore or world-building like Sunshine or Odyssey do, and this is reflected in how the game doesn't really name its sub-areas much, with a lot of the names coming from low-effort guides. Therefore, it's easier to justify not having an article for the Llama's Temple than it would be for Hotel Delfino.
Keep the status quo: Is there a valid argument for only having the specific two articles we have now? I really don't see how there could be one.

A list of the sub-areas and which ones have known names is included in the linked discussion page above. Note that the only guides I can reference are Nintendo Power and the Banana Guide, so anything from Prima or other guides is beyond me. If anyone could chime in about these, it would be helpful. Crocodile Isle (Donkey Kong 64), Banana Fairy Island, and K. Lumsy's Prison will not be affected by this proposal. Also, I'm thinking that the Mechanical Piranha (from Gloomy Galleon) should get an article regardless of this proposal's outcome, since it is an active robotic construct and not "just another submap".

Proposer: 7feetunder (talk)
Deadline: October 10, 2023, 23:59 GMT

Only split named sub-areas

Camwoodstock (talk) This is our primary choice, personally. If they bothered to get an official name, we might as well give them articles--or at the very least redirects, but, well, see our secondary option. This honestly wouldn't even be that much effort, as we don't believe there are too many named sub-areas as-is.
MegaBowser64 (talk) It's not like consistency is a universal quality of life, we don't need all the sub-areas in the same format, if we can split an area into its own article, why not??
Pseudo (talk) Seems like the most straightforward solution to me. Per Camwoodstock.
ToxicOJ (talk) Per Camwoodstock. If they got an official name, I think we should give them an article.

Split everything

Don't split any sub-areas

7feetunder (talk) To be honest, this is what I'm leaning towards, for the reasons I've given above and the flaws of both split options. I don't think this would result in bloated level articles either, since the two sub-area articles we do have aren't that long to begin with and many of these areas aren't as big as them.
SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per proposal.
Camwoodstock (talk) If that doesn't work out, we'd like to vote this with the caveat that we should retain redirects for named subareas, instead of a full-on deletion. We should also probably mention the official names for these sub-areas in the merged articles when it's appropriate to do so.
Pseudo (talk) Secondary choice.
Ahemtoday (talk) In general, I don't think a guide should be our sole determinant for whether to split or merge an article, at least not in these sorts of situations. And any size-based criterion would be fuzzy and subjective, which is also something I think we should avoid.

Keep the status quo

Comments

Regarding the point in the proposal that splitting named sub-areas "creates some discrepancies regarding size and scope", I think that we should set the baseline standard that areas with an official name should get an article, but I don't think this should mean that there should not be articles for large areas without an official name. There wasn't really an option to reflect this exact position, so I voted for the first option as I feel it's the closest. ToxicOJ (talk) 15:52, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

It's not just the size and scope oddities that would arise from this, it's the fact that the guide that would largely be dictating what sub-areas get articles and which don't is, naming-wise, a complete mess. For example, the short, one-way tunnel in Angry Aztec (which is not even a sub-area) containing a Stealthy Snoop barrel is given a proper name by the guide (Quicksand Tunnel) even though there's no reason for it to have one, many names are very generic (with capitalization being the only reason they can be considered names at all), and several more expansive areas are not named.

Regarding your other points: while areas with official names do usually warrant articles, not all of them do. The Super Mario Odyssey proposal I mentioned above is a perfect example of such, since the game's unprecedented "name every Checkpoint Flag" policy is the only reason it was an issue to begin with. Another example would be Windswept Valley, a specific section of a Mario 64 level I have never seen anyone vouch for splitting. About making exceptions for sufficiently large areas: we could do that, but then how "large" does an area have to be to warrant a conjecturally-named sub-area article? And that just leads us back to the slippery slope flaw of the "split everything" option.

16:36, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

Rename "Latest portrayal" section in character infobox to "Notable portrayals"

leave as is 7-1-10
This is rather self-explanatory. Regarding the {{character infobox}} template, instead of simply listing one voice actor/actress in the infobox, I believe that the section should instead list others. Not all of them though, only actors who have portrayed the character enough times to become a recognizable name for the character in whatever OFFICIAL media they portayed them in, alongside their latest ones of course. In fact, the wiki kind of already does this with characters like Mario having Charles Martinet and Chris Pratt listed together (now with Kevin Afghani too). So I propose that we rename the section to "Notable portrayals" to make the section not quite as confusing/misnamed. of course the other option would be to enforce the "latest" part, and drop Chris and Charles from the section (on Mario's page at least) entirely, leaving only Kevin Afghani, since he would be the "latest" portrayal.

So to summarise:

Option 1: Rename it to "Notable portrayals" and include multiple VAs. For example; list Charles Martinet, Chris Pratt, and Kevin Afghani for Mario... maybe even Lou Albano and Bob Hoskins since they fit the hypothetical definition I gave earlier.
Option 2: Enforce the "Latest portrayal" part. For example, only list Kevin Afghani as Mario's VA.
Option 3: Do nothing.

Proposer: YoYo (talk)
Deadline: October 20, 2023, 23:59 GMT

Rename the section

YoYo (talk) Other wikis handle it this way too, like Wikipedia.
Camwoodstock (talk) This makes sense. If we're treating this section like a "notable protrayals" section in the first place (e.g. listing both Charles and Kevin in Mario's infobox), we should probably actually label it as such so people don't get confused in the future.
Pseudo (talk) Seems sensible to me especially since this section is already being used in this way, and it should help with wiki navigation more generally.
SeanWheeler (talk) Do we have to list only one voice actor? What if someone was curious about all the voice actors who voiced Mario? Charles Martinet had voiced Mario for thirty years, and now he's getting taken off the page because Nintendo just hired Kevin Afgani? That's only going to confuse readers into thinking Kevin voiced Mario for all these appearances when he only just started in Super Mario Wonder. We should list all the voice actors for readers who are curious.
SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per all, especially SeanWheeler.
Super Game Gear (talk) Martinet deserves to be recognized for his long-time role of voicing Mario, Luigi, and others, even post-retirement.
OmegaRuby (talk) Especially with the sudden, new change in voice actor for the two main characters in the entire franchise, I feel that changing 'latest portrayals' to 'notable portrayals' would be extremely beneficial and informative for newer fans of the series. There are readers, such as myself as a small child, who generally just look at the infobox or the first section of the article for information they need, and it would probably be overall beneficial for new Mario fans browsing the wiki to know about Charles, who portrayed Mario the most, as well as being the man who has the most roles as the same character in video game history without scrolling all the way down to his Portrayals section.

Don't rename it and enforce the "latest" part

Killer Moth (talk) Per all. Just doing the latest performance will make help to make sure the page is objective.

Leave it as it is

LinkTheLefty (talk) I don't think this is fixing anything that was too broken. The second option is ideal for streamlining the infobox, but there are probably going to be more times when the latest voice actor is uncredited or when it's a one-off or substitute. And what if we have another situation where there are multiple in-game voice actors concurrently playing the role anyway? Disclosure: I owe Charles a little favor so this may or may not be my extremely petty way of returning it.
7feetunder (talk) If even the proposer isn't sure what qualifies as "notable," it's probably not a good idea. It may be blatantly obvious to include Charles Martinet for Mario, but what about Princess Peach? Which of her numerous voice actresses are "notable?" How many times does a VA have to voice a character to be "notable?" Does appearing in The Super Mario Bros. Movie alone qualify you for "notable" status? Do VAs from the old cartoons count? I had previously voted for the second option as well, but LTL's vote and comments by Waluigi Time and especially ToxicOJ have led me to retract it. There are simply too many potential gray areas regarding the latest portrayal for me to support a strict enforcement of latest only. I vastly prefer LTL's below suggestion of simply listing all game portrayals in a collapsible section, which avoids the arbitrary qualifier of "notable" entirely.
Camwoodstock (talk) Thinking on it, we think we'd be alright with this as well--plus, as we've since gone over in comments, we do have an idea that we'd prefer over simply enforcing the "latest" part.
Waluigi Time (talk) What's considered a notable portrayal is going to be very subjective (there's already uncertainty about what could qualify in this proposal). Leaving only the latest portrayal keeps the infobox simple and streamlined, and the rest of the portrayals can be covered in a dedicated section. Also, having three VAs in Mario's infobox was the decision of one editor and as I'm writing this that list has already been narrowed down to just Kevin, so it's not really accurate to say we already do this. The movie was a special case since those were the latest portrayal, but obviously not intended to be replacements for the entire franchise going forward. (I originally voted for option 2, but the only difference between these is probably a misunderstanding by the proposer. Let's not needlessly split the vote.)
FanOfYoshi (talk) Per all.
ToxicOJ (talk) There doesn't seem to be a perfect solution here. I understand arguments for both other options, but I am voting to leave it as it is because I think there are significant issues with both alternatives. Regarding option 1, I sympathize with the view that Charles should be recognized for his contributions, but changing the criteria to "notable portrayals" makes things much more subjective and leaves tons of room for gray area. Additionally, per 7feetunder, this may be an easy solution for Mario, but this proposal will impact ALL character pages, and the standard for "notable" VAs will be very difficult to determine for some characters. Regarding option 2, I agree with most of the arguments for this option, but per my comment I think a very strict interpretation of "latest portrayal" could lead to issues surrounding reused voice clips and game re-releases. Further, I think it is too early in Kevin's career as Mario to know how often Charles' voice will be reused, and we should be wary of making decisions surrounding this issue until this until the dust settles and this dynamic becomes clearer down the road. All of these reasons are why I think we should just leave things the way they are now. I also think that LTL's suggestion to list all portrayals is a great idea.
Tails777 (talk) Per all
Whitey (talk) Per all.
Swallow (talk) Per all zura
Mushroom Head (talk) Per all. If we have one VA recording new voice lines and another getting their previous ones used, then switching would be annoying and pointless. On the other hand, if no switching occurs, we use the latest one. Option 2 seems unnecessary to me.

Comments

We feel like defining a "notable" protrayal isn't all that hard, honestly--just kinda spitballing one way we could handle it, it could feature both the first portrayal*, and anyone who's played the character for some amount of time (be it in terms of chronology or in terms of games/media). The finer details and any exceptions (such as, say, putting Kevin in there despite him having only voiced one game thus far on the grounds that this was a formally-announced thing, or putting Chris Pratt in as his most recent film protrayal) could probably be determined at a later date in a future proposal (possibly one after this if "rename to notable" passes?)

...Of course, all of this is moot if we simply choose to enforce the "current voice" moniker in the first place, which we can definitely understand. We just wanna make sure people realize what they're doing when they say to do that and what that entails, in case it turns out down the road that the "simpler" option really, really wasn't for the best. Personally, failing what we mentioned above, we feel like if we had to limit it, the smartest option would be to simply have a "first protrayal/latest protrayal" thing like we do with the games*--just a little something to indicate that there are indeed more voices than just, the current one.

* doing either of these would have the objectively hilarious side-effect of potentially putting either Harris Shore from a few TV ads or Pat McBride from Donkey Kong Goes Home, both of which have Mario performances so obscure they currently lack their own articles, in the infobox on the Mario page, seeing as the two of them seem to both be contenders for first voice in our admittedly cursory searches. which we would permit on the grounds that that is, in fact, notable, even if it's very funny to jumpscare people with that album in particular ~Camwoodstock (talk) 14:13, October 14, 2023 (EDT)

What if we just limited the infobox to collapsible in-game portrayals, and made portrayals in other media its own optional section? LinkTheLefty (talk) 14:25, October 14, 2023 (EDT)

I wouldn't be opposed to including the latest actors from each distinct form of media in the "Latest portrayals" section, ie. Kevin Afghani (video games, 2023-), Chris Pratt (The Super Mario Bros. Movie). User:Whitey (talk / edits) 14:48, October 14, 2023 (EDT)

That also works, though you do still definitely run into edge-cases when a media hasn't been represented in awhile. For example, do the DiC cartoons not count as the most recent animated series, so do we include Lou Albano? ...What do we do about Pat McBride, considering how much an outlier Donkey Kong Goes Home already is? This definitely runs the risk of cycling back to the "what does everyone else consider notable enough?", so we'd be fine with just keeping it to most recent overall portrayal, personally... ;P ~Camwoodstock (talk) 14:57, October 14, 2023 (EDT)

"something to indicate that there are indeed more voices than just, the current one" - There doesn't need to be anything else to do this because that's what the latest portrayal field is for already. In cases where a character has only ever been portrayed by one person, the portrayed by field is supposed to be used instead (though latest portrayal is frequently misused for this). --

Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 15:36, October 14, 2023 (EDT)

Come to think of it, this proposal might need to be restructured a bit. As I've already pointed out, the situation where Mario had three actors listed at the time this proposal was written was not based on any existing wiki standards and is no longer the case. I assume the leave as-is option was based on the assumption that this actually was standard. Otherwise, there's not much difference between the latter two options. Even though I voted for "enforcing" this, I'd be okay with having multiple actors listed at the same time if we get another TSMBM situation where what's technically the most recent portrayal clearly isn't meant to be across the entire franchise. Unless anyone is strongly opposed to that, it's unnecessarily splitting the vote when this could probably work fine as a standard support/oppose proposal.

As an aside, I have to wonder if we should be listing Kevin at all since Wonder hasn't released just yet. -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 15:36, October 14, 2023 (EDT)

How would it be handled if a future game only uses old voice clips from Charles Martinet, such as a re-release like Super Mario 3D All-Stars, Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury, or the remastered Mario & Luigi games? I feel like it would be strange to keep swapping back and forth between Charles and Kevin if we exclusively list the voice actor from the most recently released game. On a related note, how would the years active be listed if Charles' voice is reused in a future game? ToxicOJ (talk) 07:57, October 17, 2023 (EDT)

In a situation like that, it's probably better to keep the person who's actively doing the role listed than to keep switching it out over recycled clips. --

Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 11:43, October 19, 2023 (EDT)

@SeanWheeler: The information will still be there, there's a portrayals section further down the page that does list every person who has ever portrayed Mario for anyone who wants to see that. This proposal affects the listings in the character infobox and nothing else. That field also specifically says "latest portrayal" and lists the years, in this case 2023-present, so no one should be confused about it. -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 11:43, October 19, 2023 (EDT)

A section for portrayals right in the middle of the page? I hadn't even noticed it before. But considering how many voice actors are on that list, I agree that the infobox should only have the notable portrayals such as Charles Martinet. The way he was listed in that section looks like he's been in only four games. Not many people would understand the dash between game titles as they would with years. SeanWheeler (talk) 23:45, October 20, 2023 (EDT)

Remove Creeper Launcher Link from Princess Daisy's Page

do not remove link 1-7
The top of Princess Daisy's page currently serves to point users in the correct direction in regard to content that may also contain the name Daisy. Linking to the film variant's page and the baby counterpart's page makes sense to me. Linking to a variant version of a Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon enemy that by definition is, "as the name implies, a Gobber with daisy flower designs all over him," doesn't seem justified. This character is hardly its own entity to begin with hence it being in a subcategory of the one it branches off from, and its relevance to anything beyond that seems extremely minor compared to a character like Princess Daisy. Unlike the other info it isn't even related to Daisy, and it is an extension of the Creeper Launcher, and a shallow one at that. Wario is a featured article, and it doesn't contain any such info clogging up the top of its page, even though it could arguably include anything from Baby Wario to Bwario and plenty more. At what point is there a line drawn in how much clutter and to what degree of relevancy content like this is defined? Hopefully this can serve as such a mark in the sand.

Proposer: TimonLeslieBerkowitz (talk)
Deadline: October 21, 2023, at 12:57 GMT

Support

TimonLeslieBerkowitz (talk) Per the reasons above, I support my proposal.

Oppose

Arend (talk) The {{redirect}} template, which the Creeper Launcher page is being included to on Daisy's page, is there to link any possible page a visitor might be looking for when searching for a specific term, when said term is already a redirect to the page this template is applied to. It's very similar to the {{about}} template, in that both are meant to disambiguate in regards to similar terms, like a lot of disambiguation pages. This means that sometimes, pages that may have nothing to do with the subject that the template is applied to would have to be included because they share the exact same name. That's the point of the template. The Gobber with the daisy pattern is named "Daisy", and there might be someone that may be looking for such a thing, though it would be very unwise to made the page "Daisy" a redirect to a section on Creeper Launcher when the much more well-known Princess Daisy, also referred to as "Daisy" exists. Hence why the Creeper Launcher page is on the Princess Daisy page; it's for disambiguation purposes.
Camwoodstock (talk) Admittedly, there doesn't feel like there's anything inherently wrong with this due to just how generic the word "Daisy" is. Though, it also doesn't help that, like it feels like a lot of things lately, Nintendo seems keen to throw us a curveball with the upcoming Luigi's Mansion ~~Dark Moon~~ 2 remake coming to Switch... Which seems to be once again not using the NoA names as a basis. Not that it'd seemingly matter much in this case, as it as originally named Daisy in Japanese as well, but then with the retranslations happening for the SMRPG characters... Yeah, this feels like a largely pointless removal that'd only serve to confuse things. We, admittedly, couldn't find the full policy on "See also"s on the start of the article, but from what we could gleam it's generally accepted to try to retain more links than it is to remove them unless it is well and truly silly to do so (such as the infamous Flat Zone, see also Flab Zone--literally only existing to seemingly catch typos.)
MegaBowser64 (talk) Per all. How come Wario's article only has one redirect though?
Koopa con Carne (talk) Reader searches "Daisy" on Mario Wiki in hopes of finding more about the Luigi's Mansion enemy, but gets redirected to Princess Daisy's page instead because she's the more popular character. The link at the top of the page is handy because it leads this particular reader to their intended goal.
Pseudo (talk) Per all, particularly the scenario cited by Koopa con Carne. Even if this is an obscure boss variation, it's still legitimately called "Daisy" and should be navigable to by the usual methods, regardless of how much more prominent Princess Daisy is.
Hewer (talk) Per all.
SeanWheeler (talk) Until we have a Daisy (disambiguation) page, might as well link to the other "Daisy" pages on top of her page.

Comments

This should be a talk page proposal in Daisy's talk page. Nightwicked Bowser 16:19, October 14, 2023 (EDT)

Yes, this should be moved to Talk:Princess Daisy; Proposals on the MarioWiki:Proposals page should only feature proposals that affect multiple articles, yet this proposal only affects one article.

rend (talk) (edits) 16:20, October 14, 2023 (EDT)

Ehh, we've seen a few proposals that would otherwise only impact one page end up here just because they would hold a precedent for future articles. It's not that too big a deal, admittedly. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 18:10, October 14, 2023 (EDT)

Reconsider mainline status of Super Mario Maker, Super Mario Maker 2, and Super Mario Run

leave as is 5-16-0-10
Hi, we're doing this again! As you may or may not know, back in 2018, I ran a successful proposal to get the wiki to consider Super Mario Land, Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins, Super Mario Maker, and Super Mario Run as entries of the mainline Super Mario series. Based on the sources and information I had at the time, the decision felt sound, and the wiki's userbase agreed. However, in the five years that have passed since then, new information has come to light that has led to me reconsidering my opinion on the subject in regards to Super Mario Maker and Super Mario Run.

For starters, my main source on this argument came from Nintendo's official timeline page, which alongside the games most commonly agreed to be mainline, included Maker and Run. In the time since, this page has been updated, and with the inclusion of games that are unambiguously re-releases of existing games, such as New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe and Super Mario 3D All-Stars, it raises the question of if this is a reliable list of "distinct entries in the mainline Super Mario series" at all. Additionally, in official dev interviews released in the buildup to the release of Super Mario Bros. Wonder, Wonder is treated as the first mainline 2D Mario game in 11 years, with both Maker games being brought up as if they're something else entirely. I could also bring up the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia, which treats Maker as a spin-off as well.

So, if being on Nintendo's official timeline doesn't necessitate a game being a distinct mainline entry, and official material from Nintendo treats the Maker and Run games as spin-offs, then should we still include them as mainline entries in the Super Mario series? Under this proposal, the Makers and Run would be treated as "Related games" in a similar vein to Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island and New Super Luigi U, and would be excluded when numbering the mainline Mario series (Wonder would be treated as the 19th mainline game rather than the 22nd). It would also, somewhat annoyingly, lead to us having to reorganize the "History" section for pages on a bunch of characters, objects, and enemies, so apologies in advance.

Relevant pages are Super Mario (series), Super Mario Maker, Super Mario Maker 2, and Super Mario Run.

Proposer: WayslideCool (talk)
Deadline: November 7, 2023, 23:59 GMT

Stop considering all three games mainline

WayslideCool (talk) Per proposal.
JanMisali (talk) Per proposal. I've done extensive research on the subject of which games people consider to be part of the mainline series, and while there isn't anything close to a total consensus, most people do agree that the Maker games and Run are not mainline.
Camwoodstock (talk) That makes sense to us. If Nintendo's stopped really considering the Makers and Run as mainline games as of Wonder's release, it probably seems only fair to stop counting them ourselves. Especially seeing as people already don't really treat them as mainline games if The Video Essay You've Probably Seen By Now If You're A Longtime User Of This Wiki That Was Linked Above™ is to be trusted.
ToxicOJ (talk) Second choice.
Jdtendo (talk) Per proposal. Run is an auto-runner game rather than a regular platformer, and Makers are not centered around the builtin levels but rather around user-created levels.

Change nothing, keep all three games as mainline

Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - The confusion here stems from conflating the overall Super Mario series with the specialized Super Mario Bros. subseries, which is made up of the various 2D games starring Mario and Luigi (ie, omitting the Land, Maker, and Run games, as well as, of course, the 3D games). I have the bones of a page for a SMB series article here.
FanOfYoshi (talk) Per Doc von Schmeltwick.
Axis (talk) Per Doc von Schmeltwick.
Hewer (talk) Per all, plus these games were considered part of the series in 35th anniversary stuff, so I think the official stance is clear. And as much as I like the video the supporters bring up, what fans say isn't a valid argument, see Blue Shell.
Tails777 (talk) Per all.
LinkTheLefty (talk) You're the doc, Doc.
Okapii (talk) Per all.
DrippingYellow (talk) Per Doc. I'd also like to point out that "entirely new" Mario games as mentioned in the interview could very well exclude the Mario Maker series, since their game styles are all derived from earlier Mario games. Either way, what exactly is "mainline" is not determined by the developers, but by Nintendo themselves (i.e. Miyamoto saying Zero Mission isn't a mainline Metroid game wouldn't mean anything). I don't feel like recent re-releases being placed on the list devalues that in any way.
(I neglected to mention when I first wrote this comment that there's a good reason why Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia seems to treat Super Mario Maker like a spinoff: both the game and the book were released as a tie-in for Mario's 30th Anniversary (little over a month between them), it makes perfect sense that the Encyclopedia would cover it separately.)
TheUndescribableGhost (talk) I mean, it's too early to tell if Nintendo is actually going reconsider these games as a spin-offs. It's a trick business, because there's the series and franchise, but this is far too early to make a judgement. Also, the way encyclopedia treated Mario Maker was more the recent game released at the time. I mean, who knows. A new book could exclude these games, but given the situation right now, this is the safest option.
Koopa con Carne (talk) Per Doc; they're stating in the interview that Wonder the first new 2D game in the Super Mario Bros. series since NSMBU. Mario Maker and Mario Run aren't Super Mario Bros. titles, but they are Super Mario titles, as listed on the American Mario site. There's a distinction. Also not sure how Some Guy's "extensive research" has any relevance here; it's a survey with a sample constituting like, what, 0.001% of Mario fans? Fan opinion is not taken into consideration on this wiki anyway, unless it's confirmed to act as a significant backdrop for a decision by Nintendo.
Sdman213 (talk) Per all.
Conradd (talk) Let's wait and see what Nintendo thinks of these games in the future before making a decision.
Mateo (talk) This shouldn't even be discussed in the first place. Like it was mentioned before here and in other pages, Super Mario Bros. Wonder is officially (and consistently: https://www.nintendo.com/us/whatsnew/nintendo-direct-june-2023-recap/ https://store-jp.nintendo.com/list/software/70010000068687.html even in said interview) considered the first Super Mario Bros. game (or full-fledged/traditional game, it means the same distinction) since New Super Mario Bros. U but all of them are officially considered mainline games and are listed as such in official sites (and the ports are virtually the same game so of course they'd include them). The encyclopedia is not a reliable source and it's outdated, as seen in its own page. We all should follow the facts, not personal preferences. Unless their status is officially changed (which is unlikely), this is the way it should be. Also Per all other reasons.
ExoRosalina (talk) Per all for some reason; because I think Run, Mario Maker series could consider as mainline
Arend (talk) Per all. Considering the Land, Run and Maker games as spinoffs to the Super Mario Bros. subseries should be fine enough, and I think that's what Nintendo meant when not including these games when stating Wonder is the latest Super Mario Bros. game since New U.
Jazama (talk) Per all.

Consider Maker and Maker 2 mainline, but not Run

Consider Run mainline, but not Maker and Maker 2

Sparks (talk) I thought it over now and I say that Super Mario Run plays like a traditional Mario 2D game, although on mobile instead of consoles. Like what I said in my comment below, I think the Mario Maker games are just sandbox games, and thus I don't consider them mainline Mario games. Super Mario Run is the normal Mario gameplay, and thus I think it is a mainline Mario game.
Seandwalsh (talk) Per Sparks. Super Mario Run has pretty consistently been considered mainline despite what many fans arbitrarily want to believe. Since the Super Mario Maker games have become their own beast I think their status is a little more up in the air.
LadySophie17 (talk) Per all.
Swallow (talk) My preferred option.
MegaBowser64 (talk) Per all. Super Mario Run is platforming, no matter what you want to call it, so it should be main series. Mario Maker features drastically different, non-platforming gameplay at its core, so it should not be main series.
DesaMatt (talk) Per all.
Super Game Gear (talk) I've always felt that Super Mario Maker games were their own thing.
ToxicOJ (talk) First choice.
OmegaRuby (talk) Per all. The Maker games are less games and more tools or platforms to create games. Although a story mode is present, it mostly serves as one big ideas book for people to take notes from, as levels are made in the editor with items all available to the player, save a few.
Killer Moth (talk) Per all.

Other

Comments

Personally, I think the Mario Maker games are just games where players around the world could share and post levels online (I know Mario Maker 2 had a story mode but still), but Super Mario Run is different. It's not a sandbox game and has worlds, levels and many playable characters. I'm kinda leaning towards keeping Run as a mainline Mario game, but I'll think it over first. Sparks (talk) October 31, 2023, 12:46 (EDT)

It's worth noting that Nintendo is extremely inconsistent with regards to which games are part of this series, and that this wiki already doesn't use the exact set of games found in official sources as its definitive list. There isn't an "objective" answer here; any decision for how to classify the games in this series will be a decision. Attempting to reach a definitive answer that isn't based on fan interpretation is literally impossible. Categorically, everyone here is a fan, and we are interpreting things. There's no way around that. Even if you point to one specific list Nintendo has used and say "yes, this is the definitive Canonical list of mainline Super Mario games", the choice to prioritize that source over other sources would itself be subjective fan interpretation. JanMisali (talk) 17:07, October 31, 2023 (EDT)

The whole wiki could technically be considered fan interpretation, but that's fine if it's fan interpretation of official sources, not fan interpretation with no official basis (e.g. "Hotel Mario isn't mainline because Nintendo never counts it as such" is fine, "Hotel Mario isn't mainline because most people don't think it is" is not). Anyway, I don't think I'd say Nintendo's stance is extremely inconsistent - the only differences I notice between the current official website lists are that the Japanese version has The Lost Levels, Mario Maker 3DS, SMB 35, and Wonder while the English one doesn't. The two Maker games and Run are always considered part of the series in these official sources, so even if the wiki's current list is inaccurate (I've honestly started considering reclassifying Mario 35 while writing this comment), the games concerned by this proposal aren't part of that inaccuracy. Hewer

(talk · contributions · edit count) 18:27, October 31, 2023 (EDT)

There are, however, more than just those two sources. I think "Super Mario Run isn't mainline because the developers of Super Mario Bros. Wonder don't consider it to be mainline" is just as valid as "Run is mainline because there's a website that puts it in the same list as the mainline games and some but not all reissues of mainline games". Which source you prioritize is entirely a matter of opinion, at which point I think what the most common opinion happens to be can absolutely be a relevant deciding factor. JanMisali (talk) 18:38, October 31, 2023 (EDT)

@Doc von Schmeltwick: Question: Would you consider the Run and Maker games, and maybe even the Land games, spinoffs of the Super Mario Bros. subseries? All of them feature 2D platformer gameplay in the same vein as other Super Mario Bros. games (in fact, they all feel closer as Super Mario Bros. titles than even Super Mario Bros. 2), with Run in particular featuring the same style of graphics and similar music as New Super Mario Bros. U, and Maker in particular featuring four gameplay styles based directly on four Super Mario Bros. games. I personally feel it would be wrong to not consider them Super Mario Bros. titles (or at least Super Mario Bros.-adjacent titles) purely because there's no "Bros." in the title. Keep in mind that we have dozens of Mario spinoffs despite the main series and franchise as a whole being called Super Mario, and that 90% of these spinoffs don't include "Super" in front of "Mario" in each title, so the full "Super Mario Bros." name having to be in the title shouldn't be the deciding factor IMO.
I understand that you might think this has little to do with the proposal itself, but I feel this is also relevant to your vote, since you brought your concept for a Super Mario Bros. subseries page up there. rend (talk) (edits) 19:29, November 1, 2023 (EDT)

The Super Mario series and Super Mario Bros. series share the same first four games, so by definition anything exclusive to the former is a spin-off of the latter. The reason the Super Mario Bros. series was brought up was to explain why the Wonder devs considered it the first Bros. game since NSMBU. Hewer

(talk · contributions · edit count) 17:56, November 2, 2023 (EDT)

Until the statement from the Wonder devs, I included Run as well. The Maker series would count, except 2 has the Super Mario 3D World style, which is of course part of the Super Mario 3D subseries instead. As for how they'd relate to each other, I'd consider Land/3D/Maker/Run to be derivative of Bros., but not direct subseries of it. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:04, November 2, 2023 (EDT)

I get where you're coming from about this Super Mario and Super Mario Bros. subseries distinction Doc, but bringing all of this up raises a very important question to me, which is... where did you get your list of Super Mario Bros. games from? It feels weird to me to make a point about how "fan interpretation doesn't matter" in the context of deciding which games are mainline, only to include in your counterargument... a list of games that, as far as I am aware, is largely derived from your own interpretation. We can infer that Nintendo has acknowledged the existence of a Super Mario Bros. subseries, and that Maker and Run are not part of it but U and Wonder are, but past that, any decisions we'd make are largely based on conjecture. Yeah, it's reasonable to assume that if U is part of the series, then so are the other three New Super Mario Bros. games, but without an official statement, can we really be certain? For all we know, the title New Super Mario Bros. 2 could be treated as proof that New Super Mario Bros. Wii shouldn't count. WayslideCool (talk) 10:25, November 3, 2023 (EDT)

There's this list of nine Super Mario Bros. games, but (if Google Translate is to be trusted) the wording implies that they're just examples and it's not an exhaustive list. Regardless, what matters to the proposal is that the Maker and Run games are Super Mario but not Super Mario Bros. What else is in the SMB series is irrelevant, and it's also not something that's even covered in the mainspace as far as I'm aware. Hewer

(talk · contributions · edit count) 11:11, November 3, 2023 (EDT)

Pretty sure Blhte confirmed that was simply a list of random side-scrollers Mario's been in. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 11:47, November 3, 2023 (EDT)

Amittedly, this is very silly, and we know for a dang fact this is not what Doc Von meant by this--this is just us bringing it up for the sake of being as thorough as possible, even to a ~~highly il~~logical extreme. But it is worth noting that, uh, defining what counts as a mainline Mario platformer as hinging entirely on the inclusion of the word "Bros" not only leads to weird exclusions such as the two Lands, but... um... some rather silly inclusions, to put it lightly. ;P ~Camwoodstock (talk) 21:12, November 2, 2023 (EDT)

But of course; I'm only talking about the side-scrolling platformers based around Mario (and usually Luigi). Granted, I was the one who wanted to include Super Paper Mario and Super Mario Kart as "related" games to the Super Mario series, so maybe it's not so far off of a comparison after all :P Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 11:49, November 3, 2023 (EDT)

I feel obligated to ask this: what other lists of mainline Mario games have been made by Nintendo over the years? Genuinely not sure where else Nintendo has addressed this. DrippingYellow (talk) 19:55, November 1, 2023 (EDT)

I kinda feel the need to draw attention to a pretty major point I made in the proposal, which is "How much can we really trust the Nintendo of America Super Mario Website as a canonical list of which games should be considered mainline?" This list excludes Super Mario Bros: The Lost Levels, includes Super Mario 3D All-Stars but not Super Mario All-Stars, treats recent rereleases like New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe as distinct entries, but not earlier ones like Super Mario Advance 4: Super Mario Bros. 3. I get the impression what we're seeing is less "canonical Nintendo-approved list of which games should be counted as distinct mainline entries" and more "Nintendo is a corporation that wants to promote their recent titles and is throwing in anything recent that vaguely falls under the Super Mario banner". Like, I don't know how bold a stance this is, but I don't think it's completely out of the question that a game can be a Super Mario game without being a mainline entry. (Hi Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island!) WayslideCool (talk) 10:25, November 3, 2023 (EDT)

The list is ordered by US release date, so it makes some sense that they would exclude The Lost Levels because of its weird release history outside Japan. The Japanese version of the site, ordered by Japanese release date, does have The Lost Levels. And ports are all listed separately on the Super Mario (series) article anyway because that's just how the series pages are organised. The official list being used to promote games does not change the fact that it is Nintendo's official list of Super Mario games, and also isn't a reason that we should discount specifically Maker and Run any more than it's a reason we should discount the Land games or the 3D games or whatever else we feel like excluding. Hewer

(talk · contributions · edit count) 11:11, November 3, 2023 (EDT)

Well, we did decide that Bowser's Fury and Maker for 3DS go in the "Ports, remakes, and compilations" category, despite it being arguable that both games could very well count as full sequels. And yet Super Mario Bros. 35, which again is on the same list of games without any distinction being made between it and other titles, doesn't count as a mainline entry or a reissue? I'm not suggesting that strictly adhering to Nintendo's apparent classification of these games would be better than the way we're doing it now, but we definitely are currently already discounting a few games entirely on the basis that Nintendo's classification of them doesn't make sense. JanMisali (talk) 11:43, November 3, 2023 (EDT)

You do have a point with Mario 35 like I mentioned earlier, but if there are discrepancies between our classification and Nintendo's, I think the solution is to fix them rather than use that as a reason to become even less accurate. Also, how exactly could those ports be considered "full sequels"? A port with new content is still a port and still falls under that section, I really don't see how there's an argument to be had there. Hewer

(talk · contributions · edit count) 12:14, November 3, 2023 (EDT)

Playing devil's advocate here, Bowser's Fury is a completely new game that just happens to also include a port of a previous game. Maker for 3DS, while mechanically nearly identical to Maker, has completely original levels, making its single-player "campaign" exactly as different as, say, The Lost Levels is from Super Mario Bros. Is that enough of a reason to justify actually calling them mainline entries? No, but it is enough, I think, to question exactly how objective the reasoning currently being used to disqualify a handful of the games on "the official list" really is. Clearly, not all of the games on this list "really count" as mainline Super Mario games, and it's not as simple as just pointing to some of them and saying "okay, these are reissues, so they go somewhere else". JanMisali (talk) 12:47, November 3, 2023 (EDT)

In the case of the ports specifically, I don't think it's really an argument of mainline vs. not. Note how in history sections on the wiki (Blooper for an example), the "Super Mario series" section covers ports as well since they're considered part of the series (this is even true for things that appeared in the ports but not the original like Toadette). They're listed separately in series pages and navboxes just because it's important for organization to distinguish between entirely new games and re-releases of old ones. And I still don't think the fact of them being ports is really up for debate - Bowser's Fury and the pre-made levels in Mario Maker aren't standalone games so they can't be counted separately from the ports. To get back to the topic of the proposal, I still don't see a good enough reason to distrust the official list and decide that we should exclude specifically Maker and Run. Hewer

(talk · contributions · edit count) 14:28, November 3, 2023 (EDT)

I think whether a game counts as mainline or not boils down to platforming. This is the core of the mainline Mario series. And in the case of the Mario Maker games, platforming is not at the core of it. The central concept, the critical quality of these games, is creating levels. Sure, platforming is a part of it, but say you open up one of the games for the first time. You've already played most of the 2D Mario games, and you're excited to see what this game has to offer. You don't go into course world and start playing levels, you explore the new, central concept of the game: Making levels. That's why it's called Super Mario "Maker" and not Super Mario Player. Sure, you can play user-created levels, but how would you be able to do that without users creating levels?!? Think about it. Users create levels, users play user-created levels. If it weren't for the creating aspect of the game, there would be no game! BOWSER... (talk) 10:49, November 4, 2023 (EDT)

Platforming is still a very central part of the Mario Maker games, you can't make levels without playing them and playing other people's levels in Course World is also a major aspect of the games (not to mention the pre-made levels they all have). But more importantly, what you personally think makes a game mainline isn't what matters - what matters is that Nintendo officially considers them to be mainline games. Hewer

(talk · contributions · edit count) 11:02, November 4, 2023 (EDT)

Per Hewer. While it's true that level creation is a core aspect and the whole point of the Super Mario Maker games, it should be noted that platforming is just as important, since, well, you'd be platforming in the levels that were created. If it wasn't important, why give the option to play those levels in the first place? Why does the creator need to test the levels in order to ensure they're fully playable before submitting them online? Why would there be a separate mode in which players can play a collection of random levels created by other players, which unlocks an extra goodie when completed every time?
Not to mention that the back of the box notes three points: Play, Create, Share; and also lists the slogan "Everyone can play it, anyone can make it".
Also, the levels can be styled after one of four Super Mario Bros games, and even Super Mario 3D World in the sequel, and all styles look, sound, and play almost identical to the original games. The Maker games use five core Super Mario games as a core part of its core aspect; it's basically a core Super Mario platformer through and through with a level editor.

rend (talk) (edits) 13:17, November 4, 2023 (EDT)

Fair enough. Just as a thought though, I see the Mario Maker games as more of an adaptation of previous games, using older content as a tool to create a new gameplay mechanic. It barely has any new content in terms of what can be used in future games, and is basically just "squash a whole bunch of old stuff together and throw in a level editor". Another point to be made is the lack of actual content created by Nintendo in the Mario Maker games. Sure, they made some levels, but it's just like in Geometry dash where no one really plays the official levels. Just because of the massive differences between the Mario Maker games and the average 2D Mario game, I think it should be a spin-off. I'm not saying there aren't tons of similarities, it's just that the similarities aren't overly prominent. BOWSER... (talk) 14:44, November 4, 2023 (EDT)

There are enough original things in the Super Mario Maker games to give them their own identity (certainly not "barely any" no matter how you slice it, probably not far off from how many things some of the NSMB games introduced and definitely more than The Lost Levels introduced). And your claim that there is a "lack of actual content created by Nintendo" is untrue. And "massive differences" also isn't much of an argument when this is the same series that includes both Super Mario Bros. and Super Mario Odyssey. But again, most importantly, how you see the games doesn't matter, how Nintendo sees them does. Hewer

(talk · contributions · edit count) 15:11, November 4, 2023 (EDT)

i rest my case --BOWSER... (talk) 21:21, November 4, 2023 (EDT)

Make coverage of playable Toads and playable Yoshis consistent with each other

merge Blue Toad and Yellow Toad into a shared article 2-9-13-1-3
Currently, this wiki has separate articles for Yellow Toad (New Super Mario Bros. series) and Blue Toad (character), but does not have separate articles for the different color Yoshis that are playable in Super Mario Run and Super Mario Bros. Wonder, instead covering them all under the Yoshi (species) article. This inconsistency is a little bit silly, as there isn't really anything that differentiates the Toads that couldn't also be said about the Yoshis. While I don't have a particularly strong preference for how this should be changed, I do think it would be a good idea for this to be changed to become more consistent.

Here are what I consider to be the main options for how to resolve this inconsistency:

Create new articles for all the different color Yoshis. These would not, for example, discuss every light-blue Yoshi, but only the specific character named Light-Blue Yoshi who is playable in Super Mario Bros. Wonder. This would be analogous to how the articles about the playable Toads are written.
Merge the Yellow and Blue Toad articles into the Toad (species) article. This would be analogous to how the playable Yoshis are currently covered.
Merge the Yellow and Blue Toad articles into one singular "Yellow Toad and Blue Toad" article, and leave the coverage of Yoshis as-is. (Creating a separate article for all the different color playable Yoshis collectively would be more consistent, but is also a bad idea.)
Merge the Yellow and Blue Toad articles into the main Toad article, and move the coverage of the different color playable Yoshis into the main Yoshi article. That is, treat these characters purely as variations of Toad (character) and Yoshi (character), like Pink Donkey Kong Jr. or players 3 and 4 from Mario Bros. (Game Boy Advance).

Personally, I think of these the third option is the most sensible, and would be the least disruptive.

This affects Yellow Toad (New Super Mario Bros. series), Blue Toad (character), Yoshi (species), and potentially Toad, Toad (species), and Yoshi.

Proposer: JanMisali (talk)
Deadline: November 7, 2023, 23:59 GMT

Create new articles for individual playable Yoshis

Tails777 (talk) This has always been a goal for me. Multi colored Yoshis have had consistent playable appearances and consistent differences across multiple games. Beyond just Super Mario Run and Super Mario Bros. Wonder and regardless of whether or not this option covers such things, this is the step I'd rather take.
SeanWheeler (talk) I would prefer individual pages of every character that exist over merged pages of duos.

Merge Yellow Toad and Blue Toad with Toad (species)

Somethingone (talk) Primary choice; I agree this situation is the same as the colored Yoshis, but I don't necessarily think that splitting a member solely because they are playable is a good rule to follow. There's little indication that the two toads are unique beyond them being playable.
Blinker (talk) Per proposal, I agree that something should be merged here. Considering they've been collectively referred to as "Toad" in U Deluxe and the Wonder direct, I think this makes more sense than the "Yellow Toad and Blue Toad" option. Not sure about the character/species distinction though. The line between the two pages feels quite arbitrarily drawn, for the most part, but there are instances of both playable and non-playable Toads in the character article, so if playability isn't the criterion, might as well play along with the Toad article's being written as though it's about an individual, I guess.
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per proposal, this is probably the closest to what I want in the long run.
Okapii (talk) I don’t mean to diminish the amount of effort and care that went into the pages for Blue and Yellow, but tbh I just don’t think there is enough merit to warrant these two having their own pages, or even a shared one. Taking a look at the talk pages for both shows that there has been confusion for years as to what even constitutes an appearance for these two, because they are so generic in design, personality (or lack thereof), and ability.
Camwoodstock (talk) Seeing as we nixed unique articles for each individually colored Yoshi long ago, this definitely makes more sense to us. We don't really have a dedicated Green Toad article, so these two having articles feels like a remnant of a long-bygone era of the wiki.
TheUndescribableGhost (talk) omekapo jelo Toad en laso Toad, mi wile ken sina. Jokes aside, I initially thought of the idea of merging to two into their own article as a duo, but the more I thought about it, it's actually debatable on whether or not Nintendo has made any distinction on who is exactly the Yellow or Blue Toad in many games. I know it's a controversial stance, but the same issue applies to Birdo and Boom Boom. Whenever Nintendo puts these characters in a game, they don't make it very clear on who the Birdo or Boom Boom is. Compare them to Toad, Lakitu, and Kamek in comparison to their species. There's enough information to tell the characters and species apart here. In this case, we are talking about two colors with flat personalities. I'm not going to deny that Nintendo wasn't trying to make these Toads special, but with the advent of tons of Toad colors in other Super Mario games, there's almost a level of speculation on who the actual Yellow or Blue Toad is. Both colors appear in the Mario Baseball games and there is even another Yellow Toad in the Toad Brigade. That one in particular has a unique Japanese name while the two Toads are actually given generic Japanese names (if only they went for Bucken-Berry and Ala-Gold). Super Mario Maker 2 also has a Blue Toad in Mario's construction crew and Nintendo doesn't specify if he's the same dude. I don't agree with merging these with the Toad character, because the Toad modifier only really applies to one game and in that case, the generic instance of "Toad" in that game while probably intentionally meant to reference the Toad, was really an attempt to merge these characters into one. I mean, it's not like we're missing out on that detail. So until Nintendo starts to
ToxicOJ (talk) Per all.
Ray Trace (talk) Per Camwoodstock and TheUndescribableGhost.
Jazama (talk) Per all.

Merge Yellow Toad and Blue Toad into "Yellow Toad and Blue Toad"

JanMisali (talk) Per my proposal.
Somethingone (talk) Second choice, better than nothing and seems to be how they're handled now.
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per proposal, this is probably the most clear-cut.
LadySophie17 (talk) This makes the most sense to me, like other character pairs that have appeared in the series.
Seandwalsh (talk) Second choice. Only option that makes sense of the ones proposed. I would just oppose any change but nobody’s backing that horse.
Hewer (talk) Funnily enough I was planning on a proposal to get rid of the identifiers on the Yellow Toad and Blue Toad articles before this one started. Anyway, the two always appear together and seem to be considered the same character in NSMBU Deluxe, so a merge makes sense the more that I think about it.
Tails777 (talk) Secondary option. These two Toads normally appear in the same games at the same time with the same roles. I'd argue they're more deserving of shared articles than Ashley and Red were (even if they are split now)
Archivist Toadette (talk) Sure, let's do this. I'm not a fan of the "New Super Mario Bros. series" identifier anyways, since it's technically a sub-series, but that's a discussion for another time.
Waluigi Time (talk) They have enough of a significant role that I don't think we should just be burying them in the Toad species article, but there's not really anything you can say about one that you can't say about the other, so this seems reasonable enough.
DesaMatt (talk) First choice.
MegaBowser64 (talk) per all of yall.
7feetunder (talk) I had already suggested this on Yellow Toad's talk page previously, and would have eventually proposed the merge myself had this proposal not been made first. Yellow Toad and Blue Toad appear in the exact same games and have the exact same role in each one, so much so that some of their article sections are nearly word-for-word identical. The only thing that really sets them apart is their color.
Swallow (talk) My preferred option

Merge Yellow Toad and Blue Toad with Toad, and move coverage of individual playable Yoshis to Yoshi

Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per proposal, leaning less toward this than the others for now, though.

No change

LadySophie17 (talk) Second option. They are fine as is.
Seandwalsh (talk) First choice.
DesaMatt (talk) Second choice.

Other

Comments

@@ Line 295: / Line 295: @@
 :Yes, this should be moved to [[Talk:Princess Daisy]]; Proposals on the [[MarioWiki:Proposals]] page should only feature proposals that affect ''multiple articles'', yet this proposal only affects ''one'' article. {{User:Arend/sig}} 16:20, October 14, 2023 (EDT)
 :Ehh, we've seen a few proposals that would otherwise only impact one page end up here just because they would hold a precedent for future articles. It's not that too big a deal, admittedly. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 18:10, October 14, 2023 (EDT)
+===Reconsider mainline status of ''Super Mario Maker'', ''Super Mario Maker 2'', and ''Super Mario Run''===
+{{ProposalOutcome|failed|5-16-0-10|leave as is}}
+Hi, we're doing this again! As you may or may not know, back in 2018, I ran a [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/52#Merge Super Mario Land series, Super Mario Maker, Super Mario Run into "Super Mario" series|successful proposal]] to get the wiki to consider ''[[Super Mario Land]]'', ''[[Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins]]'', ''[[Super Mario Maker]]'', and ''[[Super Mario Run]]'' as entries of the mainline [[Super Mario (series)|''Super Mario'' series]]. Based on the sources and information I had at the time, the decision felt sound, and the wiki's userbase agreed. However, in the five years that have passed since then, new information has come to light that has led to me reconsidering my opinion on the subject in regards to ''Super Mario Maker'' and ''Super Mario Run''.
+For starters, my main source on this argument came from [https://mario.nintendo.com/history/ Nintendo's official timeline page], which alongside the games most commonly agreed to be mainline, included ''Maker'' and ''Run''. In the time since, this page has been updated, and with the inclusion of games that are unambiguously re-releases of existing games, such as ''[[New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe]]'' and ''[[Super Mario 3D All-Stars]]'', it raises the question of if this is a reliable list of "distinct entries in the mainline ''Super Mario'' series" at all. Additionally, in official [https://www.nintendo.com/us/whatsnew/ask-the-developer-vol-11-super-mario-bros-wonder-part-1/ dev interviews] released in the buildup to the release of ''[[Super Mario Bros. Wonder]]'', ''Wonder'' is treated as the first mainline 2D Mario game in 11 years, with both ''Maker'' games being brought up as if they're something else entirely. I could also bring up the ''[[Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia]]'', which treats ''Maker'' as a spin-off as well.
+So, if being on Nintendo's official timeline doesn't necessitate a game being a distinct mainline entry, and official material from Nintendo treats the ''Maker'' and ''Run'' games as spin-offs, then should we still include them as mainline entries in the ''Super Mario'' series? Under this proposal, the ''Maker''s and ''Run'' would be treated as "Related games" in a similar vein to ''[[Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island]]'' and ''[[New Super Luigi U]]'', and would be excluded when numbering the mainline Mario series (''Wonder'' would be treated as the 19th mainline game rather than the 22nd). It would also, somewhat annoyingly, lead to us having to reorganize the "History" section for pages on a bunch of characters, objects, and enemies, so apologies in advance.
+Relevant pages are [[Super Mario (series)]], [[Super Mario Maker]], [[Super Mario Maker 2]], and [[Super Mario Run]].
+'''Proposer''': {{User|WayslideCool}}<br>
+'''Deadline''': November 7, 2023, 23:59 GMT
+====Stop considering all three games mainline====
+# {{User|WayslideCool}} Per proposal.
+# {{User|JanMisali}} Per proposal. I've done [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XejJ6PzPtEw extensive research] on the subject of which games people consider to be part of the mainline series, and while there isn't anything close to a total consensus, most people do agree that the ''Maker'' games and ''Run'' are not mainline.
+# {{User|Camwoodstock}} That makes sense to us. If Nintendo's stopped really considering the Makers and Run as mainline games as of Wonder's release, it probably seems only fair to stop counting them ourselves. Especially seeing as people already don't really treat them as mainline games if The Video Essay You've Probably Seen By Now If You're A Longtime User Of This Wiki That Was Linked Above™ is to be trusted.
+#{{User|ToxicOJ}} Second choice.
+#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per proposal. ''Run'' is an auto-runner game rather than a regular platformer, and ''Maker''s are not centered around the builtin levels but rather around user-created levels.
+====Change nothing, keep all three games as mainline====
+#{{user|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - The confusion here stems from conflating the overall ''Super Mario'' series with the specialized ''Super Mario '''Bros.''''' subseries, which is made up of the various 2D games starring Mario and Luigi (ie, omitting the ''Land'', ''Maker'', and ''Run'' games, as well as, of course, the 3D games). I have the bones of a page for a SMB series article [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick/Projects/Super Mario Bros. (series)|here]].
+#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Per Doc von Schmeltwick.
+#{{User|Axis}} Per Doc von Schmeltwick.
+#{{User|Hewer}} Per all, plus these games were considered part of the series in [[Super Mario Bros. 35th Anniversary#Games|35th anniversary stuff]], so I think the official stance is clear. And as much as I like the video the supporters bring up, what fans say isn't a valid argument, see [[Spiny Shell (blue)|Blue Shell]].
+#{{User|Tails777}} Per all.
+#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} You're the doc, Doc.
+#{{User|Okapii}} Per all.
+#{{User|DrippingYellow}} Per Doc. I'd also like to point out that "entirely new" Mario games as mentioned in the interview could very well exclude the Mario Maker series, since their game styles are all derived from earlier Mario games. Either way, what exactly is "mainline" is not determined by the developers, but by Nintendo themselves (i.e. Miyamoto saying Zero Mission isn't a mainline Metroid game wouldn't mean anything). I don't feel like recent re-releases being placed on the list devalues that in any way.<br>(I neglected to mention when I first wrote this comment that there's a good reason why ''[[Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia]]'' seems to treat Super Mario Maker like a spinoff: both the game and the book were released as a tie-in for Mario's 30th Anniversary (little over a month between them), it makes perfect sense that the Encyclopedia would cover it separately.)
+#{{User|TheUndescribableGhost}} I mean, it's too early to tell if Nintendo is actually going reconsider these games as a spin-offs. It's a trick business, because there's the series and [[Super Mario (franchise)|franchise,]] but this is far too early to make a judgement. Also, the way encyclopedia treated ''Mario Maker'' was more the recent game released at the time. I mean, who knows. A new book could exclude these games, but given the situation right now, this is the safest option.
+#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per Doc; they're stating in the interview that Wonder the first new 2D game in the Super Mario <u>Bros.</u> series since NSMBU. Mario Maker and Mario Run aren't Super Mario Bros. titles, but they are Super Mario titles, as listed on the American Mario site. There's a distinction. Also not sure how Some Guy's "extensive research" has any relevance here; it's a survey with a sample constituting like, what, 0.001% of Mario fans? Fan opinion is not taken into consideration on this wiki anyway, unless it's confirmed to act as a significant backdrop for a decision by Nintendo.
+#{{User|Sdman213}} Per all.
+#{{User|Conradd}} Let's wait and see what Nintendo thinks of these games in the future before making a decision.
+#{{User|Mateo}} This shouldn't even be discussed in the first place. Like it was mentioned before here and in [[Talk:Super Mario (series)|other pages]], ''Super Mario '''Bros.''' Wonder'' is officially (and consistently: https://www.nintendo.com/us/whatsnew/nintendo-direct-june-2023-recap/ https://store-jp.nintendo.com/list/software/70010000068687.html even in [https://www.nintendo.com/us/whatsnew/ask-the-developer-vol-11-super-mario-bros-wonder-part-1/ said interview]) considered the first ''Super Mario '''Bros.''''' game (or full-fledged/traditional game, it means the same distinction) since ''New Super Mario Bros. U'' but '''all''' of them are officially considered mainline games and are listed as such in official sites (and the ports are virtually the same game so of course they'd include them). The encyclopedia is not a reliable source and it's outdated, as seen in its own page. We all should follow the ''facts'', not ''personal preferences''. Unless their status is officially changed (which is unlikely), this is the way it should be. Also Per all other reasons.
+#{{User|ExoRosalina}} Per all for some reason; because I think Run, Mario Maker series could consider as mainline
+#{{User|Arend}} Per all. Considering the ''Land'', ''Run'' and ''Maker'' games as spinoffs to the ''Super Mario '''Bros.''''' subseries should be fine enough, and I think that's what Nintendo meant when not including these games when stating ''Wonder'' is the latest ''Super Mario '''Bros.''''' game since ''New U''.
+#{{User|Jazama}} Per all.
+====Consider ''Maker'' and ''Maker 2'' mainline, but not ''Run''====
+====Consider ''Run'' mainline, but not ''Maker'' and ''Maker 2''====
+#{{User|Sparks}} I thought it over now and I say that ''Super Mario Run'' plays like a traditional ''Mario'' 2D game, although on mobile instead of consoles. Like what I said in my comment below, I think the ''Mario Maker'' games are just sandbox games, and thus I don't consider them mainline ''Mario'' games. ''Super Mario Run'' is the normal ''Mario'' gameplay, and thus I think it is a mainline ''Mario'' game.
+#{{User|Seandwalsh}} Per Sparks. ''Super Mario Run'' has pretty consistently been considered mainline despite what many fans arbitrarily want to believe. Since the Super Mario Maker games have become their own beast I think their status is a little more up in the air.
+# {{User|LadySophie17}} Per all.
+#{{User|Swallow}} My preferred option.
+#{{User|MegaBowser64}} Per all. Super Mario Run is platforming, no matter what you want to call it, so it should be main series. Mario Maker features drastically different, non-platforming gameplay at its core, so it should not be main series.
+# {{User|DesaMatt}} Per all.
+#{{User|Super Game Gear}} I've always felt that ''Super Mario Maker'' games were their own thing.
+#{{User|ToxicOJ}} First choice.
+#{{User|OmegaRuby}} Per all. The ''Maker'' games are less games and more tools or platforms to create games. Although a story mode is present, it mostly serves as one big ideas book for people to take notes from, as levels are made in the editor with items all available to the player, save a few.
+#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all.
+====Other====
+====Comments====
+Personally, I think the ''Mario Maker'' games are just games where players around the world could share and post levels online (I know ''Mario Maker 2'' had a story mode but still), but ''Super Mario Run'' is different. It's not a sandbox game and has worlds, levels and many playable characters. I'm kinda leaning towards keeping ''Run'' as a mainline ''Mario'' game, but I'll think it over first. {{User:Sparks/sig}} October 31, 2023, 12:46 (EDT)
+It's worth noting that Nintendo is extremely inconsistent with regards to which games are part of this series, and that this wiki ''already'' doesn't use the exact set of games found in official sources as its definitive list. There isn't an "objective" answer here; any decision for how to classify the games in this series will be a ''decision''. Attempting to reach a definitive answer that isn't based on fan interpretation is literally impossible. Categorically, everyone here is a fan, and we are interpreting things. There's no way around that. Even if you point to one specific list Nintendo has used and say "yes, this is the definitive Canonical list of mainline ''Super Mario'' games", the choice to prioritize that source over other sources would itself be subjective fan interpretation. [[User:JanMisali|JanMisali]] ([[User talk:JanMisali|talk]]) 17:07, October 31, 2023 (EDT)
+:The whole wiki could technically be considered fan interpretation, but that's fine if it's fan interpretation of official sources, not fan interpretation with no official basis (e.g. "Hotel Mario isn't mainline because Nintendo never counts it as such" is fine, "Hotel Mario isn't mainline because most people don't think it is" is not). Anyway, I don't think I'd say Nintendo's stance is ''extremely'' inconsistent - the only differences I notice between the current official [https://www.nintendo.co.jp/character/mario/en/history/index.html website] [https://mario.nintendo.com/history/ lists] are that the Japanese version has The Lost Levels, Mario Maker 3DS, SMB 35, and Wonder while the English one doesn't. The two Maker games and Run are always considered part of the series in these official sources, so even if the wiki's current list is inaccurate (I've honestly started considering reclassifying Mario 35 while writing this comment), the games concerned by this proposal aren't part of that inaccuracy. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:27, October 31, 2023 (EDT)
+::There are, however, more than just those two sources. I think "''Super Mario Run'' isn't mainline because the developers of ''Super Mario Bros. Wonder'' don't consider it to be mainline" is just as valid as "''Run'' is mainline because there's a website that puts it in the same list as the mainline games and some but not all reissues of mainline games". Which source you prioritize is entirely a matter of opinion, at which point I think what the most common opinion happens to be can absolutely be a relevant deciding factor. [[User:JanMisali|JanMisali]] ([[User talk:JanMisali|talk]]) 18:38, October 31, 2023 (EDT)
+@Doc von Schmeltwick: Question: Would you consider the ''Run'' and ''Maker'' games, and maybe even the ''Land'' games, spinoffs of the ''Super Mario Bros.'' subseries? All of them feature 2D platformer gameplay in the same vein as other ''Super Mario Bros.'' games (in fact, they all feel closer as ''Super Mario Bros.'' titles than even ''Super Mario Bros. 2''), with ''Run'' in particular featuring the same style of graphics and similar music as ''New Super Mario Bros. U'', and ''Maker'' in particular featuring four gameplay styles based directly on four ''Super Mario Bros.'' games. I personally feel it would be wrong to ''not'' consider them ''Super Mario Bros.'' titles (or at least ''Super Mario Bros.''-adjacent titles) ''purely'' because there's no "Bros." in the title. Keep in mind that we have dozens of Mario spinoffs despite the main series and franchise as a whole being called ''Super Mario'', and that 90% of these spinoffs don't include "Super" in front of "Mario" in each title, so the full "Super Mario Bros." name having to be in the title shouldn't be the deciding factor IMO.<br>I understand that you might think this has little to do with the proposal itself, but I feel this is also relevant to your vote, since you brought your concept for a ''Super Mario Bros.'' subseries page up there. {{User:Arend/sig}} 19:29, November 1, 2023 (EDT)
+:The Super Mario series and Super Mario Bros. series share the same first four games, so by definition anything exclusive to the former is a spin-off of the latter. The reason the Super Mario Bros. series was brought up was to explain why the Wonder devs considered it the first Bros. game since NSMBU. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 17:56, November 2, 2023 (EDT)
+:Until the statement from the ''Wonder'' devs, I included ''Run'' as well. The ''Maker'' series would count, except ''2'' has the ''Super Mario 3D World'' style, which is of course part of the ''[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick/Projects/Super Mario 3D (series)|Super Mario 3D]]'' subseries instead. As for how they'd relate to each other, I'd consider ''Land/3D/Maker/Run'' to be derivative of ''Bros.'', but not direct subseries of it. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 18:04, November 2, 2023 (EDT)
+::I get where you're coming from about this ''Super Mario'' and ''Super Mario Bros.'' subseries distinction Doc, but bringing all of this up raises a very important question to me, which is... where did you get your list of ''Super Mario Bros.'' games from? It feels weird to me to make a point about how "fan interpretation doesn't matter" in the context of deciding which games are mainline, only to include in your counterargument... a list of games that, as far as I am aware, is largely derived from your own interpretation. We can infer that Nintendo has acknowledged the existence of a ''Super Mario Bros.'' subseries, and that ''Maker'' and ''Run'' are not part of it but ''U'' and ''Wonder'' are, but past that, any decisions we'd make are largely based on conjecture. Yeah, it's reasonable to assume that if ''U'' is part of the series, then so are the other three ''New Super Mario Bros.'' games, but without an official statement, can we really be certain? For all we know, the title ''[[New Super Mario Bros. 2]]'' could be treated as proof that ''[[New Super Mario Bros. Wii]]'' shouldn't count. [[User:WayslideCool|WayslideCool]] ([[User talk:WayslideCool|talk]]) 10:25, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
+:::[https://topics.nintendo.co.jp/article/6e4c7b40-bd33-4556-8ec3-0c865904ef13 There's this list of nine Super Mario Bros. games], but (if Google Translate is to be trusted) the wording implies that they're just examples and it's not an exhaustive list. Regardless, what matters to the proposal is that the Maker and Run games are Super Mario but not Super Mario Bros. What else is in the SMB series is irrelevant, and it's also not something that's even covered in the mainspace as far as I'm aware. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:11, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
+::::Pretty sure Blhte confirmed that was simply a list of random side-scrollers Mario's been in. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 11:47, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
+:Amittedly, this is very silly, and we know for a dang fact this is not what Doc Von meant by this--this is just us bringing it up for the sake of being as thorough as possible, even to a <s>highly il</s>logical extreme. But it is worth noting that, uh, defining what counts as a mainline Mario platformer as hinging ''entirely'' on the inclusion of the word "Bros" not only leads to weird exclusions such as the two Lands, but... um... [[Super Smash Bros.|some]] [[Super Mario Bros. Print World|rather]] [[Super Mario Bros. & Friends: When I Grow Up|silly]] [[New Super Mario Bros. Wii Coin World|''in''clusions]], to put it lightly. ;P {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 21:12, November 2, 2023 (EDT)
+::But of course; I'm only talking about the side-scrolling platformers based around Mario (and usually Luigi). Granted, I was the one who wanted to include ''Super Paper Mario'' and ''Super Mario Kart'' as "related" games to the ''Super Mario'' series, so maybe it's not so far off of a comparison after all :P [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 11:49, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
+I feel obligated to ask this: what other lists of mainline Mario games have been made by Nintendo over the years? Genuinely not sure where else Nintendo has addressed this. [[User:DrippingYellow|DrippingYellow]] ([[User talk:DrippingYellow|talk]]) 19:55, November 1, 2023 (EDT)
+I kinda feel the need to draw attention to a pretty major point I made in the proposal, which is "How much can we really trust the Nintendo of America Super Mario Website as a canonical list of which games should be considered mainline?" This list excludes ''[[Super Mario Bros: The Lost Levels]]'', includes ''[[Super Mario 3D All-Stars]]'' but not ''[[Super Mario All-Stars]]'', treats recent rereleases like ''[[New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe]]'' as distinct entries, but not earlier ones like ''[[Super Mario Advance 4: Super Mario Bros. 3]]''. I get the impression what we're seeing is less "canonical Nintendo-approved list of which games should be counted as distinct mainline entries" and more "Nintendo is a corporation that wants to promote their recent titles and is throwing in anything recent that vaguely falls under the ''Super Mario'' banner". Like, I don't know how bold a stance this is, but I don't think it's completely out of the question that a game can be a ''Super Mario'' game without being a mainline entry. (Hi ''Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island''!) [[User:WayslideCool|WayslideCool]] ([[User talk:WayslideCool|talk]]) 10:25, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
+:The list is ordered by US release date, so it makes some sense that they would exclude The Lost Levels because of its weird release history outside Japan. The Japanese version of the site, ordered by Japanese release date, does have The Lost Levels. And ports are all listed separately on the [[Super Mario (series)]] article anyway because that's just how the series pages are organised. The official list being used to promote games does not change the fact that it is Nintendo's official list of Super Mario games, and also isn't a reason that we should discount specifically Maker and Run any more than it's a reason we should discount the Land games or the 3D games or whatever else we feel like excluding. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:11, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
+::Well, we ''did'' decide that ''Bowser's Fury'' and ''Maker for 3DS'' go in the "Ports, remakes, and compilations" category, despite it being arguable that both games could very well count as full sequels. And yet ''Super Mario Bros. 35'', which again is on the same list of games without any distinction being made between it and other titles, doesn't count as a mainline entry ''or'' a reissue? I'm not suggesting that strictly adhering to Nintendo's apparent classification of these games would be ''better'' than the way we're doing it now, but we definitely are currently already discounting a few games entirely on the basis that Nintendo's classification of them doesn't make sense. [[User:JanMisali|JanMisali]] ([[User talk:JanMisali|talk]]) 11:43, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
+:::You do have a point with Mario 35 like I mentioned earlier, but if there are discrepancies between our classification and Nintendo's, I think the solution is to fix them rather than use that as a reason to become even less accurate. Also, how exactly could those ports be considered "full sequels"? A port with new content is still a port and still falls under that section, I really don't see how there's an argument to be had there. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:14, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
+::::Playing devil's advocate here, ''Bowser's Fury'' is a completely new game that just happens to also include a port of a previous game. ''Maker for 3DS'', while ''mechanically'' nearly identical to ''Maker'', has completely original levels, making its single-player "campaign" exactly as different as, say, ''The Lost Levels'' is from ''Super Mario Bros''. Is that enough of a reason to justify actually calling them mainline entries? No, but it ''is'' enough, I think, to question exactly how objective the reasoning currently being used to disqualify a handful of the games on "the official list" really is. Clearly, not all of the games on this list "really count" as mainline ''Super Mario'' games, and it's not as simple as just pointing to some of them and saying "okay, these are reissues, so they go somewhere else". [[User:JanMisali|JanMisali]] ([[User talk:JanMisali|talk]]) 12:47, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
+:::::In the case of the ports specifically, I don't think it's really an argument of mainline vs. not. Note how in history sections on the wiki ([[Blooper]] for an example), the "Super Mario series" section covers ports as well since they're considered part of the series (this is even true for things that appeared in the ports but not the original like [[Toadette]]). They're listed separately in series pages and navboxes just because it's important for organization to distinguish between entirely new games and re-releases of old ones. And I still don't think the fact of them being ports is really up for debate - Bowser's Fury and the pre-made levels in Mario Maker aren't standalone games so they can't be counted separately from the ports. To get back to the topic of the proposal, I still don't see a good enough reason to distrust the official list and decide that we should exclude specifically Maker and Run. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 14:28, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
+I think whether a game counts as mainline or not boils down to platforming. This is the core of the mainline Mario series. And in the case of the Mario Maker games, platforming is not at the core of it. The central concept, the critical quality of these games, is creating levels. Sure, platforming is a part of it, but say you open up one of the games for the first time. You've already played most of the 2D Mario games, and you're excited to see what this game has to offer. You don't go into course world and start playing levels, you explore the new, central concept of the game: Making levels. That's why it's called Super Mario "Maker" and not Super Mario Player. Sure, you can play user-created levels, but how would you be able to do that without ''users creating levels?!?'' Think about it. Users create levels, users play user-created levels. If it weren't for the creating aspect of the game, there would be no game! [[User:MegaBowser64|BOWSER...]] ([[User talk:MegaBowser64|talk]]) 10:49, November 4, 2023 (EDT)
+:Platforming is still a very central part of the Mario Maker games, you can't make levels without playing them and playing other people's levels in Course World is also a major aspect of the games (not to mention the pre-made levels they all have). But more importantly, what you personally think makes a game mainline isn't what matters - what matters is that Nintendo officially considers them to be mainline games. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:02, November 4, 2023 (EDT)
+:Per Hewer. While it's true that level creation is a core aspect and the whole point of the ''Super Mario Maker'' games, it should be noted that platforming is just as important, since, well, you'd be platforming in the levels that were created. If it wasn't important, why give the option to play those levels in the first place? Why does the creator need to test the levels in order to ensure they're fully playable before submitting them online? Why would there be a separate mode in which players can play a collection of random levels created by other players, which unlocks an extra goodie when completed every time?<br>Not to mention that [https://images.launchbox-app.com/1963d6bd-278e-48e7-9342-903048a89b1b.jpg the back of the box] notes three points: Play, Create, Share; and also lists the slogan "Everyone can play it, anyone can make it".<br>''Also'', the levels can be styled after one of four ''Super Mario Bros'' games, and even ''Super Mario 3D World'' in the sequel, and all styles look, sound, and play almost identical to the original games. The ''Maker'' games use five core ''Super Mario'' games as a core part of its core aspect; it's basically a core Super Mario platformer through and through with a level editor. {{User:Arend/sig}} 13:17, November 4, 2023 (EDT)
+::Fair enough. Just as a thought though, I see the Mario Maker games as more of an ''adaptation'' of previous games, using older content as a tool to create a new gameplay mechanic. It barely has any new content in terms of what can be used in future games, and is basically just "squash a whole bunch of old stuff together and throw in a level editor". Another point to be made is the lack of actual content created by Nintendo in the Mario Maker games. Sure, they made some levels, but it's just like in Geometry dash where no one really plays the official levels. Just because of the massive differences between the Mario Maker games and the average 2D Mario game, I think it should be a spin-off. I'm not saying there aren't tons of similarities, it's just that the similarities aren't overly prominent. [[User:MegaBowser64|BOWSER...]] ([[User talk:MegaBowser64|talk]]) 14:44, November 4, 2023 (EDT)
+:::[[Big Mushroom|There]] [[Bumper (Super Mario series)|are]] [[Mystery Mushroom|enough]] [[Weird Mushroom (item)|original]] [[Fire Koopa Clown Car|things]] [[Coursebot|in]] [[Mary O.|the]] [[Super Hammer (Super Mario Maker 2)|Super]] [[Yamamura|Mario]] [[Nina (Super Mario Maker 2)|Maker]] [[Soundfrog|games]] [[Partrick|to]] [[Mr. Eraser|give]] [[Worldbot|them]] [[Dash Block|their]] [[Koopa Troopa Car|own]] [[Moon (Super Mario Maker 2)|identity]] (certainly not "barely any" no matter how you slice it, probably not far off from how many things some of the NSMB games introduced and definitely more than The Lost Levels introduced). And your claim that there is a "lack of actual content created by Nintendo" [[Template:SMM levels|is]] [[Template:SMM2 levels|untrue]]. And "massive differences" also isn't much of an argument when this is the same series that includes both [[Super Mario Bros.]] and [[Super Mario Odyssey]]. But again, most importantly, how you see the games doesn't matter, how Nintendo sees them does. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 15:11, November 4, 2023 (EDT)
+:::: i rest my case --[[User:MegaBowser64|BOWSER...]] ([[User talk:MegaBowser64|talk]]) 21:21, November 4, 2023 (EDT)
+===Make coverage of playable Toads and playable Yoshis consistent with each other===
+{{ProposalOutcome|passed|2-9-13-1-3|merge Blue Toad and Yellow Toad into a shared article}}
+Currently, this wiki has separate articles for [[Yellow Toad (New Super Mario Bros. series)|Yellow Toad (''New Super Mario Bros.'' series)]] and [[Blue Toad (character)]], but does not have separate articles for the different color Yoshis that are playable in ''Super Mario Run'' and ''Super Mario Bros. Wonder'', instead covering them all under the [[Yoshi (species)]] article. This inconsistency is a little bit silly, as there isn't really anything that differentiates the Toads that couldn't also be said about the Yoshis. While I don't have a particularly strong preference for ''how'' this should be changed, I do think it would be a good idea for this to be changed to become more consistent.
+Here are what I consider to be the main options for how to resolve this inconsistency:
+# Create new articles for all the different color Yoshis. These would not, for example, discuss ''every'' light-blue Yoshi, but only the specific character named Light-Blue Yoshi who is playable in ''Super Mario Bros. Wonder''. This would be analogous to how the articles about the playable Toads are written.
+# Merge the Yellow and Blue Toad articles into the [[Toad (species)]] article. This would be analogous to how the playable Yoshis are currently covered.
+# Merge the Yellow and Blue Toad articles into one singular "Yellow Toad and Blue Toad" article, and leave the coverage of Yoshis as-is. (Creating a separate article for all the different color playable Yoshis collectively would be more consistent, but is also a bad idea.)
+# Merge the Yellow and Blue Toad articles into the main [[Toad]] article, and move the coverage of the different color playable Yoshis into the main [[Yoshi]] article. That is, treat these characters purely as variations of Toad (character) and Yoshi (character), like Pink Donkey Kong Jr. or players 3 and 4 from ''Mario Bros.'' (Game Boy Advance).
+Personally, I think of these the third option is the most sensible, and would be the least disruptive.
+This affects [[Yellow Toad (New Super Mario Bros. series)]], [[Blue Toad (character)]], [[Yoshi (species)]], and potentially [[Toad]], [[Toad (species)]], and [[Yoshi]].
+'''Proposer''': {{User|JanMisali}}<br>
+'''Deadline''': November 7, 2023, 23:59 GMT
+====Create new articles for individual playable Yoshis====
+#{{User|Tails777}} This has always been a goal for me. Multi colored Yoshis have had consistent playable appearances and consistent differences across multiple games. Beyond just ''Super Mario Run'' and ''Super Mario Bros. Wonder'' and regardless of whether or not this option covers such things, this is the step I'd rather take.
+#{{User|SeanWheeler}} I would prefer individual pages of every character that exist over merged pages of duos.
+====Merge Yellow Toad and Blue Toad with Toad (species)====
+#{{User|Somethingone}} Primary choice; I agree this situation is the same as the colored Yoshis, but I don't necessarily think that splitting a member solely because they are playable is a good rule to follow. There's little indication that the two toads are unique beyond them being playable.
+#{{user|Blinker}} Per proposal, I agree that something should be merged here. Considering they've been collectively referred to as "Toad" in U Deluxe and the Wonder direct, I think this makes more sense than the "Yellow Toad and Blue Toad" option. Not sure about the character/species distinction though. The line between the two pages feels quite arbitrarily drawn, for the most part, but there are instances of both playable and non-playable Toads in the character article, so if playability isn't the criterion, might as well play along with the Toad article's being written as though it's about an individual, I guess.
+#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Per proposal, this is probably the closest to what I want in the long run.
+# {{User|Okapii}} I don’t mean to diminish the amount of effort and care that went into the pages for Blue and Yellow, but tbh I just don’t think there is enough merit to warrant these two having their own pages, or even a shared one. Taking a look at the talk pages for both shows that there has been confusion for years as to what even constitutes an appearance for these two, because they are so generic in design, personality (or lack thereof), and ability.
+#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Seeing as we nixed unique articles for each individually colored Yoshi long ago, this definitely makes more sense to us. We don't really have a dedicated Green Toad article, so these two having articles feels like a remnant of a long-bygone era of the wiki.
+#{{User|TheUndescribableGhost}} omekapo jelo Toad en laso Toad, mi wile ken sina. Jokes aside, I initially thought of the idea of merging to two into their own article as a duo, but the more I thought about it, it's actually debatable on whether or not Nintendo has made any distinction on ''who'' is exactly the Yellow or Blue Toad in many games. I know it's a controversial stance, but the same issue applies to [[Birdo]] and [[Boom Boom]]. Whenever Nintendo puts these characters in a game, they don't make it very clear on who ''the'' Birdo or Boom Boom is. Compare them to Toad, [[Lakitu (Mario Kart referee)|Lakitu]], and Kamek in comparison [[Toad (species)|to]] [[Lakitu|their]] [[Magikoopa|species]]. There's enough information to tell the characters and species apart here. In this case, we are talking about two colors with flat personalities. I'm not going to ''deny'' that Nintendo wasn't trying to make these Toads special, but with the advent of tons of Toad colors in other ''Super Mario'' games, there's almost a level of speculation on who the actual Yellow or Blue Toad is. Both colors appear in the ''Mario Baseball'' games and there is even another [[Yellow Toad (Toad Brigade)|Yellow Toad]] in the Toad Brigade. That one in particular has a [[Yellow_Toad_(Toad_Brigade)#Names_in_other_languages|unique Japanese name]] while the two Toads are actually given [[Yellow Toad (New Super Mario Bros. series)|generic]] [[Blue_Toad_(character)#Names_in_other_languages|Japanese names]] ([[List_of_rumors_and_urban_legends#Bucken-Berry_and_Ala-Gold|if only they went for Bucken-Berry and Ala-Gold]]). ''Super Mario Maker 2'' also has a Blue Toad in Mario's construction crew and Nintendo doesn't specify if he's the same dude. I don't agree with merging these with the Toad character, because the Toad modifier only really applies to [[New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe|one game]] and in that case, the generic instance of "Toad" in that game while probably intentionally meant to reference ''the'' Toad, was really an attempt to merge these characters into one. I mean, it's not like [[Toad#New_Super_Mario_Bros._U_.2F_New_Super_Mario_Bros._U_Deluxe|we're missing out on that detail.]] So until Nintendo starts to
+#{{User|ToxicOJ}} Per all.
+#{{User|Ray Trace}} Per Camwoodstock and TheUndescribableGhost.
+#{{User|Jazama}} Per all.
+====Merge Yellow Toad and Blue Toad into "Yellow Toad and Blue Toad"====
+# {{User|JanMisali}} Per my proposal.
+# {{User|Somethingone}} Second choice, better than nothing and seems to be how they're handled now.
+#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Per proposal, this is probably the most clear-cut.
+# {{User|LadySophie17}} This makes the most sense to me, like other character pairs that have appeared in the series.
+# {{User|Seandwalsh}} Second choice. Only option that makes sense of the ones proposed. I would just oppose any change but nobody’s backing that horse.
+#{{User|Hewer}} Funnily enough I was planning on a proposal to get rid of the identifiers on the Yellow Toad and Blue Toad articles before this one started. Anyway, the two always appear together and seem to be considered the same character in NSMBU Deluxe, so a merge makes sense the more that I think about it.
+#{{User|Tails777}} Secondary option. These two Toads normally appear in the same games at the same time with the same roles. I'd argue they're more deserving of shared articles than [[Ashley]] and [[Red]] were (even if they are split now)
+#{{User|Archivist Toadette}} Sure, let's do this. I'm not a fan of the "''New Super Mario Bros.'' series" identifier anyways, since it's technically a sub-series, but that's a discussion for another time.
+#{{User|Waluigi Time}} They have enough of a significant role that I don't think we should just be burying them in the Toad species article, but there's not really anything you can say about one that you can't say about the other, so this seems reasonable enough.
+# {{User|DesaMatt}} First choice.
+#{{User|MegaBowser64}} per all of yall.
+#{{user|7feetunder}} I had already suggested this on Yellow Toad's talk page previously, and would have eventually proposed the merge myself had this proposal not been made first. Yellow Toad and Blue Toad appear in the exact same games and have the exact same role in each one, so much so that some of their article sections are nearly word-for-word identical. The only thing that really sets them apart is their color.
+#{{User|Swallow}} My preferred option
+====Merge Yellow Toad and Blue Toad with Toad, and move coverage of individual playable Yoshis to Yoshi====
+#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Per proposal, leaning less toward this than the others for now, though.
+====No change====
+# {{User|LadySophie17}} Second option. They are fine as is.
+# {{User|Seandwalsh}} First choice.
+# {{User|DesaMatt}} Second choice.
+====Other====
+====Comments====

MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/63: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:57, November 10, 2023

Reconsider Nintendo's website filenames being used as a source

Support, use these names as redirects as well

Support, but these names shouldn't be used as a redirect

Only cite them in case of no other source being available

Oppose

Comments

Create an article for Tetris 99 and add it to the list of games

Support

Oppose

Comments

Trim requirements for elemental creatures categories

Remove second half entirely

Tighten the second half

Do nothing

Comments

Delete the {{wp}} and {{fandom}} templates

Support

Oppose

Comments

Do not rename articles until the relevant media has released

Support

Oppose

Comments

The Case of Donkey Kong 64 Sub-Areas

Only split named sub-areas

Split everything

Don't split any sub-areas

Keep the status quo

Comments

Rename "Latest portrayal" section in character infobox to "Notable portrayals"

Rename the section

Don't rename it and enforce the "latest" part

Leave it as it is

Comments

Remove Creeper Launcher Link from Princess Daisy's Page

Support

Oppose

Comments

Reconsider mainline status of Super Mario Maker, Super Mario Maker 2, and Super Mario Run

Stop considering all three games mainline

Change nothing, keep all three games as mainline

Consider Maker and Maker 2 mainline, but not Run

Consider Run mainline, but not Maker and Maker 2

Other

Comments

Make coverage of playable Toads and playable Yoshis consistent with each other

Create new articles for individual playable Yoshis

Merge Yellow Toad and Blue Toad with Toad (species)

Merge Yellow Toad and Blue Toad into "Yellow Toad and Blue Toad"

Merge Yellow Toad and Blue Toad with Toad, and move coverage of individual playable Yoshis to Yoshi

No change

Other

Comments

Navigation menu

Search