MarioWiki:Proposals

Current time: Friday, September 27th, 04:15 GMT

Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken. "Vote" periods last for one week. Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so (not, e.g., "I like this idea!"). All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options. For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

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

How to

Rules

1. If users have an idea about improving the wiki or managing its community, but feel that they need community approval before acting upon that idea, they may make a proposal about it. They must have a strong argument supporting their idea and be willing to discuss it in detail with the other users, who will then vote about whether or not they think the idea should be used. Proposals should include links to all relevant pages and writing guidelines. Proposals must include a link to the draft page. Any pages that would be largely affected by the proposal should be marked with {{proposal notice}}.
2. Only registered, autoconfirmed users can create, comment in, or vote on proposals and talk page proposals. Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available.
3. Proposals end at the end of the day (23:59) one week after voting starts, except for writing guidelines and talk page proposals, which run for two weeks (all times GMT).
   • For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, the voting starts immediately and the deadline is one week later on Monday, August 8, at 23:59 GMT.
4. Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it. Agreeing with a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted (including "per" votes), but tangential comments, heavy sarcasm, and other misleading or irrelevant quips are just as invalid as providing no reason at all.
5. Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may not remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. Voters can remove or rewrite their own vote(s) at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the administrators.
   • Users can also use the comments section to bring up any concerns or mistakes in regards to the proposal itself. In such cases, it's important the proposer addresses any concerns raised as soon as possible. Even if the supporting side might be winning by a wide margin, that should be no reason for such questions to be left unanswered. They may point out any missing details that might have been overlooked by the proposer, so it's a good idea as the proposer to check them frequently to achieve the most accurate outcome possible.
6. If a user makes a vote and is subsequently blocked for any amount of time, their vote is removed. However, if the block ends before the proposal ends, then the user in question holds the right to re-cast their vote. If a proposer is blocked, their vote is removed and "(banned)" is added next to their name in the "Proposer:" line of the proposal, which runs until its deadline as normal. If the proposal passes, it falls to the supporters of the idea to enact any changes in a timely manner.
7. No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
8. Any proposal where none of the options have at least four votes will be extended for another week. If after three extensions, no options have at least four votes, the proposal will be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
9. If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
10. If a proposal reaches its deadline and the first place option is ahead of the second place option by three or more votes, then the first place option must have over 50% support to win. If the margin is only one or two votes, then the first place option must have at least 60% support to win. If the required support threshold is not met, then the proposal is extended for another week.
    • Use the {{proposal check}} tool to automate this calculation; see the template page for usage instructions and examples.
11. Proposals can only be extended up to three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, then the proposal fails and can only be re-proposed after four weeks (at the earliest).
12. All proposals are archived. The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of an administrator, the proposer can ask for that help.
13. If the administrators deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to remove it at any time.
14. Proposals can only be rewritten or canceled by their proposer within the first three days of their creation (six days for writing guidelines and talk page proposals). However, proposers can request that their proposal be canceled by an administrator at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived.
15. Unless there is major disagreement about whether certain content should be included, there should not be proposals about creating, expanding, rewriting, or otherwise fixing up pages. To organize efforts about improving articles on neglected or completely missing subjects, try setting up a collaboration thread on the forums.
16. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the administration.
17. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
18. Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy.

Basic proposal and support/oppose format

This is an example of what your proposal must look like, if you want it to be acknowledged. If you are inexperienced or unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. Then replace the [subject] - variables with information to customize your proposal, so it says what you wish. If you insert the information, be sure to replace the whole variable including the squared brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information", not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but what each voting section is supporting must be clearly defined. Such options should also be kept to a minimum, and if something comes up in the comments, the proposal can be amended as necessary.

---

===[insert a title for your proposal here]===
[describe what issue this proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the wiki handles that issue]

'''Proposer''': {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the proposal was created (14 for writing guidelines and talk page proposals), at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "September 27, 2024, 23:59 GMT"]

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

====Oppose====

====Comments====

---

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

To support, or oppose, just insert "#{{User|[add your username here]}}" at the bottom of the section of your choice. Just don't forget to add a valid reason for your vote behind that tag if you are voting on another user's proposal. If you are voting on your own proposal, you can just say "Per my proposal".

Talk page proposals

Proposals concerning a single page or a limited group of pages are held on the most relevant talk page regarding the matter. Proposals dealing with a large amount of splits, merges, or deletions across the wiki should still be held on this page.

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

Rules

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

List of ongoing talk page proposals

• Allow usage of {{Release}} as a generic "flag list" template (discuss) Deadline: September 27, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Prune "sports" games from Black Shy Guy in line with White Shy Guy and Red Boo (discuss) Deadline: September 28, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Merge Preying Mantas with Jellyfish (discuss) Deadline: September 28, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Create article(s) for the SM64DS character rooms (discuss) Deadline: September 30, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Create an article for the Peach doll from Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars (discuss) Deadline: September 30, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Remove the remaining non-Super Mario "stage gimmicks and hazards" from Super Smash Bros. (discuss) Deadline: October 1, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Remove non-Super Mario "stage cameos" from Super Smash Bros. (discuss) Deadline: October 1, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Rename {{Manga infobox}} to {{Publication infobox}} (discuss) Deadline: October 4, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Merge Play Nintendo secret message puzzles (discuss) Deadline: October 4, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Merge categories for Donkey Kong Country remakes with their base game's categories (discuss) Deadline: October 5, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Refer to "King Bill" as "Bull's-Eye Banzai" for coverage in New Super Mario Bros. Wii (discuss) Deadline: October 6, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Rename Perfect Edition of the Great Mario Character Encyclopedia to Perfect Ban Mario Character Daijiten (discuss) Deadline: October 7, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Create article for Ally mechanic from Mario Party (discuss) Deadline: October 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

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

Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)

Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles, Nintendo101 (ended July 3, 2024)

^ NOTE: Not yet integrated for the New Super Mario Bros. games, the Super Mario Maker games, Super Mario Run, or Super Mario Bros. Wonder

Expand use of "rawsize" gallery class, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended July 19, 2024)

Create new sections for gallery pages to cover "unused/pre-release/prototype/etc." graphics separate from the ones that appear in the finalized games, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 2, 2024)

Tag sections regarding the unofficially named planets/area in Super Mario Galaxy games with "Conjecture" and "Dev data" templates, GuntherBayBeee (ended September 10, 2024)

Create MarioWiki:WikiLove and WikiLove templates, Super Mario RPG (ended September 20, 2024)

Talk page proposals

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

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

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

Allow separate articles for Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)'s subjects, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended August 3, 2024)

Split Bowser's Flame from Fire Breath, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 18, 2024)

Split Banana Peel from Banana, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 18, 2024)

Split truck article into cargo truck and pickup truck articles, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 21, 2024)

Merge Crocodile Isle (Donkey Kong 64) with Crocodile Isle, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 21, 2024)

Writing guidelines

Change how "infinitely respawning" enemies are counted in level enemy tables

Currently, the wiki lists enemy counts for each level in tables located in that level's article. This is all well and good, but the problem arises when infinitely respawning ones (like piped ones) are included. As seen here, this is awkwardly written as

• "[number] (not including the infinite [enemy] spawning from [number] [method]),"

and why shouldn't it include them? That method of writing is ungainly, misleading, and bloats the table's width unnecessarily. Therefore, I propose the alternate writing of

• "[number] + (∞ x [number]),"

with the "x [number]" and parentheses being removed if there is only one case. So in the linked example, it would be "6 + ∞," which says the same thing without contradicting itself with a lengthy diatribe.
(Also I had to restrain myself from using * rather than x because that's how I'm used to writing multiplication in equations. Thanks, higher-level math classes defaulting to "X" as a variable! But the asterisk could be used too, anyway.)

Proposer: Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
Deadline: September 30, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per
2. Altendo (talk) - This doesn't sound like a bad idea, although I do think there should be an asterisk like "*" instead which leads to a note saying "not including the infinite [enemy] spawning from [number] [method]", as enemies can spawn in different ways, and showing how they spawn could still be useful. If we just show "∞ x [number]", it wouldn't show how Goombas are spawned in (the linked page doesn't specify how they are spawned in otherwise). But I do like the idea of shortening the "count" section of tables.

#ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per Altendo. This formatting is much better, but I also think some note of where the infinite enemy spawner(s) originate from should be preserved.
#Super Mario RPG (talk) Per all.

Oppose

1. Hewer (talk) I don't see the benefit of changing this. The current wording is straightforward and succinct, I'd expect the reader to understand "6 (not including the infinite Goombas spawning from one Warp Pipe)" easily. Changing it to "6 + ∞" just makes it less clear for no reason, I'd definitely be confused if I saw that and didn't know this specific context. The fact that the other support votes have also brought up how doing this risks losing the specific information completely (and suggested a more long-winded solution that seems to contradict the proposal) compels me to oppose this more.
2. Waluigi Time (talk) Per Hewer.
3. FanOfYoshi (talk) Per all.
4. Axii (talk) Per Hewer
5. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per all.
6. EvieMaybe (talk) we don't need to throw a mathematical equation at people
7. Sparks (talk) Per all.
8. ThePowerPlayer (talk) I realized that this only makes sense if you have it explained to you like in the proposal description, which defeats the purpose.
9. Arend (talk) I feel that "[number] (+ [number] infinite spawn points)" would be less awkward to write than what we currently do and more understandable fir most people than what is proposed here
10. Killer Moth (talk) Per all.

Comments

@Hewer - "succinct" would generally imply "short, sweet, and to-the-point," of which the current method is the exact opposite. I'm fine with including an asterisk-note next to the infinity, but the current one is much too bloated, outright admits to stating false information, and since the tables are center-aligned with that horizontal-bloat, it makes it look incredibly awkward. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:41, September 17, 2024 (EDT)

I guess we just have totally opposing opinions on this one, because I don't personally find ten words of explanation to be "much too bloated", would rather "state false information" (not really what's happening because it's immediately clarified and the only way not to state any "false" info would be to just put "∞" which helps no one) than obscure the meaning of what we're trying to say, and I don't at all think the somewhat wider tables look "incredibly awkward". This is a case where I feel giving more explanation than "6 + ∞" is necessary for the sake of conveying clear information, so I'd rather prioritise that over having a thin table (which I still don't really see why that's so desirable). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 03:19, September 18, 2024 (EDT)

If this proposal passes, I think that a dedicated template should be made; something like {{infinite respawn|5|3}} that would produce "5 + (∞ × 3)". Or at the very least, use an actual "×" symbol rather than "x". Jdtendo^(T|C) 12:08, September 19, 2024 (EDT)

I dislike the idea of hiding details in easily missable hover text and don't really see the benefit of using it. It just makes it more convoluted. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:12, September 20, 2024 (EDT)

I'll refrain from voting because I have a visceral reaction to anything that resembles a math formula, and I want as little as possible for personal preference to seep into my vote. That's not to say I don't understand what's being proposed, in fact it makes perfect sense if you're aiming strictly for concision, but you'd need to take into account how accessibly that information is communicated--you'd need to establish that "infinity symbol" stands for infinite enemy spawning point, which is not immediately clear. At that point, you'd go for a relatively lengthy explanation nonetheless. Though, I agree that the phrasing in that page you linked doesn't sound inclusive. I think something like "5 individual, 3 infinite spawning points" works better if we're going down this path.
If the proposal passes, I'd like to see it implemented in the manner Jdtendo suggests above.
EDIT: I'm aware there's already plenty of math on this wiki that has potential to confound people, but in that case, not only is its succinctness a better way to explain how the game's scoring system works (as opposed to paragraphs-long descriptions), but it's taken straight out of the game as well. I'd say, use math formulas only when you're sure prose would be of less service to its intended audience: people looking up how many enemies are in a level aren't necessarily interested in complex gameplay dynamics. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 13:12, September 19, 2024 (EDT), edited 14:55, September 19, 2024 (EDT)

I'd personally prefer if this was notated with ω instead of ∞, something like "3ω+5", but that would probably be too confusing to anyone not already familiar with transfinite ordinal notation. jan Misali (talk · contributions) 10:01, September 21, 2024 (EDT)

This should be written "ω⋅3+5" because 3⋅ω = ω; multiplication on transfinite ordinal numbers is not commutative. Jdtendo^(T|C) 12:40, September 21, 2024 (EDT)

Maybe just have a table for finite enemies and a table for infinite enemies? There's horizontal space for both. Salmancer (talk) 11:33, September 21, 2024 (EDT)

That just needlessly splits information, which I again don't see the benefit of (and I still don't really see how there's a problem here that needs fixing anyway). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 21:26, September 21, 2024 (EDT)

Figure out how to handle {{classic}} and {{classic-link}} templates when discussing Mario Kart Tour classic courses

This wiki has two templates used to format classic courses in the Mario Kart series: {{classic}} and {{classic-link}}. These templates convert text like "3DS Shy Guy Bazaar" into a format that closer resembles the one seen in games, with the prefix being written as such, a prefix, and not part of the courses name. So "3DS Shy Guy Bazaar" becomes "3DS Shy Guy Bazaar". However, there's an exception this wiki seems to have regarding this template: classic courses in Mario Kart Tour.

This is because the game does not structure the title of courses in such a way: instead it writes the prefix as large as the rest of the name, so it's written as "3DS Shy Guy Bazaar". However, I feel this creates a lot of inconsistency and confusion here on this wiki. For example, the page for a course like 3DS Rock Rock Mountain, a course featured as a classic in and out of Tour structures fellow course names both ways, with and without the template, simply because of the game the classic course appears in. To make things more confusing, when a Tour section on a course's page discusses classic courses outside of Tour, it uses the template, as seen in a few course pages. Additionally, page titles for courses that are only classics in Tour still use a smaller font for the page name, such as GBA Lakeside Park. Finally, some courses in Tour don't even adhere to this rule that has been enforced before, such as Wii Maple Treeway.

(I cannot find the edit log, however I was informed by a moderator here that it is a rule that is enforced a while back)

So this proposal is asking for one thing: an enforcement to be decided on.

The options are simple:

• Use the templates for all references to classic courses.
• Not use the template when referring to classic courses in Tour.

RMX courses will not be affected by this since the "RMX" is established to be part of the course's name.

Proposer: YoYo (talk)
Deadline: October 2, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Use the templates for all classic course links

1. YoYo (talk) per my proposal, I think that the template formats them in a way that distinguishes the prefix from course name, and I think consistency is important here.
2. Tails777 (talk) I really don't think we need to be that accurate with the way things are written. Just because Tour doesn't have the system prefixes in a slightly smaller font, doesn't mean we have to follow in suit. Heck, when I removed some images from infoboxes and put them in respective sections, I kept using the {{classic}} templates regardless of which game section they were in. Why would the size of the font be that big of a deal? I think using the template for all classic courses is just the way to go.

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Add film and television ratings to Template:Ratings

Regarding ratings on the games we cover on this wiki, it's usually done very well and even shows off obscure rating companies hardly anyone talks about. It's educational and shows how the world rates a Super Mario game. However, when it comes to television shows and movies, they do not get the same treatment. Television shows don't even have ratings in their infobox. And while the movies do, they not only list just the MPAA, which for people who live in the United Kingdom or other countries, is not representative of the majority of the world, it's just the text, "PG". Sure, most people know it means "Parental Guidance," but imagine if we included more ratings. It's not super easy to find ratings for films and television shows in general, other than IMDB and there are no sources for proof of these ratings. When it comes to the Canadian Home Video Rating System, I can hardly find what rating was applied to that particular movie/TV show and I remember not being lucky for searching any other ratings for other movies (personal experience, but I remember searching on one of these websites and the site was rather buggy or didn't have the film/show in question).

The better solution is to add film and television ratings to the rating template so we can provide a wide variety of ratings for movies and television shows. In this case, users from around the world can view how movies are rated in almost every country. As for what ratings we add, it's a bit tricky. Because there is a lot, I would need some help here. Regardless, I got some EFIGS ratings in question. If you have more ratings, please let me know and I'll add it to the proposal These are split up into film and television.

Film

• Motion Picture Association film rating system (MPAA)
• British Board of Film Classification (BBFC)
• Freiwillige Selbstkontrolle der Filmwirtschaft (FSK)
• Canadian Home Video Rating System (It can also apply to DVDs of TV shows as well.)

Television

• TV Parental Guidelines

My list so far is not comprehensive, but my idea is to add these ratings (and potentially others) to the template and make the infoboxes look much prettier and more visually educational. I have nothing else to say, so that's about it.

Proposer: TheUndescribableGhost (talk)
Deadline: October 1, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. TheUndescribableGhost (talk) Rated PR for per proposal.
2. Technetium (talk) Never noticed ratings were missing from TV and movie coverage until now. It feels obvious ratings should be included like they are with games. Per proposal.
3. FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) This is something I never noticed, but I completely agree. I'm happy that there are observant people in this world! Per proposal.
4. Arend (talk) Per all (fun fact: the Dutch rating system for movies and television, Kijkwijzer, is being utilized by NICAM, which happens to also rate games in Europe using PEGI. In fact, PEGI's ratings appear to be based on those of Kijkwijzer)
5. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all.
6. Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal.
7. Sparks (talk) Per all.
8. Mari0fan100 (talk) Per all, especially since movies like The Super Mario Bros. Movie have classification ratings.
9. Killer Moth (talk) Per all.
10. BMfan08 (talk) Per all! (This comment is not yet rated.)
11. EvieMaybe (talk) i cannot fathom a reason someone would oppose this

Comments

Wait, couldn't this just be a talk page proposal on the template itself? It would affect many pages, yes, but this is specifically about editing a template… I'm honestly not so sure. Technetium (talk) 15:52, September 24, 2024 (EDT)

Split articles for certain official single-game enemy behavior splits

In the early days, before Nintendo was really sure how they wanted to classify enemies, there were some splits that didn't stick - namely, behaviors that were initially unique to a specific subtype, and then became normal alternatives to the base enemies. I'm specifically talking about:

• Sky Blooper - Blooper variant from Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels
• Upside-down Buzzy Beetle - Buzzy Beetle variant from Super Mario Bros. 3
• Upside-down Spiny - Spiny variant from Super Mario Bros. 3
• Scattering Blooper - Blooper Nanny variant from Super Mario Bros. 3
• Upside-down Piranha - Piranha Plant variant from Super Mario Land

I make this mainly because the Mario Portal splits each of these for these games specifically, across language borders, despite being a newer source (which is notably a lot more than Boss Bass/Big Bertha gets, so that merge remains correct), along with Upside-down Piranha making the Smash Bros. Piranha Plant list; other instances of similar things occurring that have not (yet) been corroborated by a source like Portal (such as Tobipuku from New Super Mario Bros.) will not be counted. Now, I want to clarify something important: this split only covers the appearances where the official word treats them as distinct enemies. Random upside-down Buzzy Beetles and Piranha Plants in New Super Mario Bros. Wii are not counted, as they are not distinguished from their base species in any way in that game.

I have a demo for these pages in the various sections of this page, along with stuff for the below proposal.

Proposer: Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
Deadline: October 3, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Scattering Support

1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per

Upside-down Oppose

1. Arend (talk) Maybe a case could be made for Scattering Blooper, but Sky Blooper and Upside-down Piranha Plant also behave (nearly) identical to their regular counterparts. Not to mention that nearly all the regular versions of these enemies have retroactively gained attributes of these enemies too (Buzzy Beetles and Spinies can appear commonly walking on ceilings and dropping down in various games, Piranha Plants can pop out upside down from a ceiling pipe in various games, nearly all Bloopers encountered on land float above the ground; none of these are regarded as distinct variants in those later games), so it's a little weird to me if only those specific versions of enemies are regarded as separate entities but regular versions of these enemies adapting these attributes aren't; feels inconsistent and confusing for a reader.
2. Axii (talk) Per Arend. I feel like it would be an unnecessary split. Nintendo doesn't refer to these enemies separately in any newer games. Sky Blooper may have had a chance, but Super Mario Maker clearly shows that they are just regular Bloopers. I can see Scattering Blooper being split in the future though.
3. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per opposition.
4. Hewer (talk) Not opposed to all of these (I'd probably support splitting Sky Blooper), but while I do generally like following official classification of things, having an article for Buzzy Beetles that were upside down in SMB3 specifically and no other game just feels silly and confusing.
5. Killer Moth (talk) Per all.
6. EvieMaybe (talk) i can see the case for scattering blooper and MAYBE sky blooper, but i don't think i agree with the philosophy behind the proposal.

Sky Comments

I understand the rationale, but Mario Portal (and most game material) also recognizes things like green-shelled and red-shelled Koopas as distinct from one another and they also have different behaviors from one another. That'd probably be a bigger proposal than you'd be interested in executing, but how would you feel on those types of enemies being split? I at least like the idea of Sky Blooper getting its own article on the face of it. - Nintendo101 (talk) 22:27, September 25, 2024 (EDT)

Those shouldn't be by virtue of the functional distinctions being inconsistent, especially when you get into things like Shy Guys. Most of them use (identifiers) too rather than actual naming differences. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:09, September 25, 2024 (EDT)

Fair (especially for Shy Guys), though generally, I'm pretty sure red-shelled Koopas mechanically are always the ones that turn when they reach an edge, whereas green-shelled ones don't.

What if, for those enemies, there was a similar scenario as with Koopa Shells, where there is one main article, but also smaller ones for Green Shells and Red Shells for scenarios where the shells have mechanical differences? We could have a main Koopa Troopa article, and then a Koopa Troopa (Green) and Koopa Troopa (Red). - Nintendo101 (talk) 23:50, September 25, 2024 (EDT)

You're only looking in terms of 2D platformers, there. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:02, September 26, 2024 (EDT)

(I hope this is isn't too tangential - I appreciate your insight on this) I think the only 3D platformer with both Koopa Troopas is Super Mario Galaxy, and they still have mechanical differences from one another in those games.

For platformers and spin-offs where colors are only cosmetic, I think it would be fine for them to share a single Koopa Troopa article (again, similar setup to Koopa Shell). But I understand the resistance to that idea, because it could be messy and difficult to curate. - Nintendo101 (talk) 00:09, September 26, 2024 (EDT)

And there's the black-and-white Super Mario Land 2, where the art shows green, but the behavior's more like typical red ones. Then we get into Paratroopas, where originally green hopped or moved back-and-forth and red moved up-and-down, then games like Super Mario World have red ones moving horizontally or green ones moving vertically. And then there's Cheep Cheep - swimming Cheep Cheeps' colors in SMB1 were purely cosmetic, then SMB3 had lots of behavioral variation among red-colored ones and only one behavior for green-colored ones. I think keeping the "color" ones grouped unless a very notable difference is present (like the Paper Mario and Yoshi's Story versions of Black Shy Guy) is the best way to go in that regard. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:23, September 26, 2024 (EDT)

@Opposition I see this as a similar case to Gloomba only covering the blue underground Goombas when they are officially split, or Headbonk Goomba only covering headbonking Goombas when they are officially split. Same for the large-sized Chain Chomps and Wigglers sometimes being considered "big" versions and sometimes considered standard. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:09, September 26, 2024 (EDT)

Split articles for the alternate-named reskins from All Night Nippon: Super Mario Bros.

All Night Nippon: Super Mario Bros. has various alternatively named graphic swaps of things from Super Mario Bros., most of which relate to the cast and iconography of the show it is based on. These include:

• OkaP and Pakkun OkaP replacing Goomba and Piranha Plant (split demoed here alongside stuff from the above proposal
• The Hiranya replacing the Star
• The various celebrities replacing the Toads (though admittedly the bonus one is unknown)

These are meant to be seen as different things from the originals, so the current system of lumping them in with them is awkward to say the least. The only real outlier here is the NBS logo replacing the axe, because from what I can tell Katsu Yoshida never named the eye.

Proposer: Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
Deadline: October 3, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Sunplaza Support - all subjects

1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per
2. Ahemtoday (talk) Consistent with how we handle, say, Deku Babas in Mario Kart 8.
3. Shoey (talk) I've always said the wiki needs more weirdo articles.
4. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per. Don't see why not. Deku Baba is a good parallel.
5. Mariuigi Khed (talk) Per.
6. FanOfYoshi (talk) Per all.
7. EvieMaybe (talk) i always thought we dont give ANNSMB enough coverage here. per all

Sunplaza Support - only enemies

1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.