Image used as a banner for the Proposals page

Current time:
Sunday, May 19th, 23:57 GMT

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

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

How to


  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 at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the administrators.
    • Users can also use the comments section to bring up any concerns or mistakes in regards to the proposal itself. In such cases, it's important the proposer addresses any concerns raised as soon as possible. Even if the supporting side might be winning by a wide margin, that should be no reason for such questions to be left unanswered. They may point out any missing details that might have been overlooked by the proposer, so it's a good idea as the proposer to check them frequently to achieve the most accurate outcome possible.
  6. If a user makes a vote and is subsequently blocked for any amount of time, their vote is removed. However, if the block ends before the proposal ends, then the user in question holds the right to re-cast their vote. If a proposer is blocked, their vote is removed and "(banned)" is added next to their name in the "Proposer:" line of the proposal, which runs until its deadline as normal. If the proposal passes, it falls to the supporters of the idea to enact any changes in a timely manner.
  7. No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
  8. Any proposal where none of the options have at least four votes will be extended for another week. If after three extensions, no options have at least four votes, the proposal will be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
  9. All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week. Proposals with more than two options must also be extended another week if any single option does not have a majority support: i.e. more than half of the total number of voters must appear in a single voting option, rather than one option simply having more votes than the other options.
  10. If a proposal with only two voting options has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail with a margin of at least three votes, otherwise the deadline will be extended for another week as if no majority was reached at all.
  11. Proposals can only be extended up to three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, the proposal fails and can only be re-proposed after four weeks, at the earliest.
  12. All proposals are archived. The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of an administrator, the proposer can ask for that help.
  13. If the administrators deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to remove it at any time.
  14. Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation (six days for talk page proposals). However, proposers can request that their proposal be deleted by an administrator at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived.
  15. Unless there is major disagreement about whether certain content should be included, there should not be proposals about creating, expanding, rewriting or otherwise fixing up pages. To organize efforts about improving articles on neglected or completely missing subjects, try setting up a collaboration thread on the forums.
  16. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the administration.
  17. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
  18. Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy.

Basic proposal and support/oppose format

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

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

'''Proposer''': {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the proposal was created (14 for writing guidelines and talk page proposals), at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "May 19, 2024, 23:59 GMT"]

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



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

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

Talk page proposals

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

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


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

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals


Merge the Wrecking Crew and VS. Wrecking Crew phases into list articles, Axis (ended February 24, 2022)
Do not consider usage of classic recurring themes as references to the game of origin, Swallow (ended March 9, 2022)
Split Mario Kart Tour character variants into list articles, Tails777 (ended May 4, 2022)
Enforce WCAG Level AA standards to mainspace and template content, PanchamBro (ended May 29, 2022)
Change how RPG enemy infoboxes classify role, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 18, 2022)
Trim away detailed special move information for all non-Mario fighters, Koopa con Carne (ended January 30, 2023)
Classify the Just Dance series as a guest appearance, Spectrogram (ended April 27, 2023)
Establish a standard for long course listings in articles for characters/enemies/items/etc., Koopa con Carne (ended June 8, 2023)
Consider filenames as sources and create redirects, Axis (ended August 24, 2023)
Add tabbers to race/battle course articles, GuntherBB (ended November 18, 2023)
Remove elemental creatures categories from various Super Mario RPG enemies, Swallow (ended January 11, 2024)
Standardize the formatting of foreign and explanatory words and phrases in "Names in other languages" tables, Annalisa10 (ended February 7, 2024)
Merge Super Mario Bros. (film) subjects with their game counterparts, JanMisali (ended April 18, 2024)
Remove profiles and certain other content related to the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia from the wiki, Koopa con Carne (ended April 30, 2024)
Trim Mario Kart course galleries of excess Tour stuff, Shadow2 (ended May 18, 2024)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
Split the various reissues of Mario Bros., Doc von Schmeltwick (ended April 22, 2022)
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
Expand source priority exception to include regional English differences, LinkTheLefty (ended January 14, 2023)
Add product IDs in game infoboxes, Windy (ended March 18, 2023)
Remove the list of Super Smash Bros. series objects, Axis (ended May 10, 2023)
Split Special Shot into separate articles by game, Technetium (ended September 30, 2023)
Convert the lists of episode appearances for television series characters into categories, Camwoodstock (ended November 22, 2023)
Change the Super Mario 64 DS level section to include more specific character requirements, Altendo (ended December 20, 2023)
Split the Jungle Buddies from Animal Friends, DrippingYellow (ended December 22, 2023)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Merge the ghost Bats and Mice from Luigi's Mansion to their respective organic counterparts from the later games, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 20, 2024)
Split Strobomb from Robomb, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 20, 2024)
Split the NES and SNES releases of Wario's Woods, SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (ended March 27, 2024)
Merge Mii Brawler, Mii Swordfighter, and Mii Gunner to Mii, TheUndescribableGhost (ended March 28, 2024)
Split Mario's Time Machine (Nintendo Entertainment System), or the Super Nintendo Entertainment version along with both console versions of Mario is Missing!, LinkTheLefty (ended April 11, 2024)
Remove non-Super Mario content from Super Smash Bros. series challenges articles, BMfan08 (ended May 3, 2024)
Merge Stompybot 3000 with Colonel Pluck, DrippingYellow (ended May 4, 2024)
Split "Team Dinosaur" from The Dinosaurs, Blinker (ended May 15, 2024)

Writing guidelines

Consider "humorous" and other related terms as frequently misused in MarioWiki:Good writing

A writing quirk that seems to pop up everywhere (particularly in the Mario RPG pages/sections) that always drives me nuts is referring to a situation or action as "comical" or "humorous". Generally, these words are used to describe something that is percieved to be amusing, which is obviously subjective and should not be present in encyclopediac writing. However, usage of these words on here seems to follow an improper, "objective" pattern of referring to features intended by the developers as gags or jokes. Examples of blatant misuse:

From the Minion Quest: The Search for Bowser article:

The group runs into Prince Peasley, and after a battle ensues with a few Piranha Beans, Captain Goomba humorously sends out one of them to attack Prince Peasley.

Who says Captain Goomba is trying to make a joke out of sending monsters out to fight an ego-centric prince? In Captain Goomba's eyes, he's practically fighting for his life trying not to be eaten. The only one who could find this humorous is the viewer, and since this is a story synopsis in an encyclopedia, there shouldn't be any viewer.

From Goomba Mask:

In Paper Mario: The Origami King, a different Goomba Mask resembling a Paper Macho Goomba appears in the Shogun Studios storage area. If Mario wears it, he spins around and causes the mask's eyes to roll, with the humorous appearance making Olivia laugh.

Even though there is actually an in-game audience this time, the wording still implies that the writer thinks it is humorous. In order to emphasize that it's Olivia who thinks it is funny, I changed the last sentence to:

If Mario wears it, he spins around and causes the mask's eyes to roll, which Olivia finds amusing to the point of laughter.

The article for Kruller has quite possibly the most egregious usage of "humorously" I've ever seen:

When Luigi enters the office afterward, Kruller briefly faints from shock at Luigi entering, before entering the next room to find a suitable weapon to defend himself (humorously getting stuck on his back mid-roll) [...] Gooigi then retrieves the Mezzanine's elevator button, with it being humorously revealed that Luigi slept through the entire battle [...] After defeating Kruller in two-player mode, Luigi, who was watching the battle from outside, takes all the credit saying that he did it, after which Gooigi humorously copies Luigi as he had actually defeated Kruller [...]

All of these are jokes meant for the audience. And once again, because this is a synopsis in an encyclopedia, there shouldn't be an audience.

And there's way more that I haven't mentioned (just look up the word "humorous" on here and you'll see what I mean). To summarize how I feel this term has been frequently misused, in a form easily copyable for the rules:

"Humorous", along with other similar words, is used from an observational perspective to describe something one finds amusing or funny, which is, of course, subjective on the part of the writer and should be avoided in an encyclopedia. However, it is commonly misused to refer to anything that is specifically written to be a joke or a gag by the authors of a piece of media. These kinds of words should generally be used only when a character or person relevant to the article finds something amusing. Not to be confused with "comedic", a word that simply means something relates to comedy in general, and is fine to use if a joke is deliberate on the part of a character (or, in case of references to the media's development, a developer).

Proposer: DrippingYellow (talk)
Deadline: May 26, 2024, 23:59 GMT


  1. DrippingYellow (talk) This whole situation is, dare I say it... "humorous". Per proposal.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) Per proposal. Flowery writing is no laughing matter!
  3. Hewer (talk) I'd add that "comedic" should be used instead to get across that something is meant to be funny while using more objective language, but otherwise, sure, I'll humour this idea.
  4. Ray Trace (talk) We should just get rid of that subjective adjective altogether, let readers decide from the context of the quote if it's humorous or not, we don't need to write an editorial about it (ie sentences such as "Patrick gets caught by Sandy's lasso and dragged back, resulting in a nuclear explosion" already conveys to the reader that it's comedic)
  5. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.



"Comical" and "comedic" should be fine, as those simply mean relating to comedy. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:31, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

"Comedic" is definitely fine, but in multiple dictionary sources I've come across, the definition of "comical" meaning "relating to comedy" is either listed as obsolete and deprecated, or absent altogether. DrippingYellow (talk) 19:43, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

@Ray Trace That was a really good example of obvious comedy. SpongeBob itself is comedy, so that was a good idea to use that as an example! SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:12, May 15, 2024 (EDT)

@Hewer I updated the rules blurb, is it good now? DrippingYellow (talk) 11:34, May 15, 2024 (EDT)

Yeah, that works. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:43, May 15, 2024 (EDT)

Standardize "History in the Super Mario franchise" headings under certain conditions

Inspired by Nintendo101's flowerpot subpage (from an earlier revision, before it had been removed), this proposal aims to standardize the use of ==History in the Super Mario franchise== over ==History==. This will help make it clear to readers what is Super Mario and what is not while reading articles, and prevent potential disputes once a standard has been set. Please note that this proposal is NOT about the DK, Yoshi, or Wario subfranchises.

For an article to apply for the ==History in the Super Mario franchise== heading, the article should meet one of the following criteria:

  1. It is a generic subject (e.g. Grapes) or something from real life, like a person, with a fictional portrayal in Super Mario media, such as Thomas Jefferson. An example of this was on the Dinosaur article before being reverted.
  2. It is from the Super Mario franchise BUT has also appeared in non-Super Mario media, popular examples being the Super Smash Bros. series and the Minecraft textures. Everything that isn't Super Mario would be subheadings of ==History in other games==, or ==History in other media== if the subject also (or instead) appeared in publications, television shows, etc. not in Super Mario franchise. An example of this can be seen on the History of Luigi article.
  3. Crossover content, including Nintendo products, as they appear in Super Mario media. Examples can be seen on the Game Boy, Link, and Egg Pawn pages.

For the first bullet point, this would help establish that real and generic subjects are not from Super Mario and makes the History heading less ambiguous. On the Dinosaur article, for example, are we reading about history of dinosaurs as they exist in real life, up to the point of extinction, or from the Super Mario franchise? It's the latter. For George Washington, are we reading history about him from the 18th century or as he exists in the Super Mario franchise? It's also the latter, clearly.

For the second bullet point, this would help eliminate the popular misconception that Super Smash Bros. is part of the Super Mario franchise and help better contextualize Super Mario as it exists in other media, like sometimes Zelda or Minecraft, rather than being integral to the same degree as their main appearances in Super Mario media itself.

For the third bullet point, this would eliminate confusion that the history is talking about Nintendo products in general, like when they were produced, the amount of sales generated, etc. and rather mention its appearances within the Super Mario franchise itself. History on Nintendo products themselves can be found on NintendoWiki. Similarly, for articles like Link, it helps when the History section specifies it is of Link as he appears in the Super Mario franchise. Then connections to Super Mario go under the "History in other media" heading.

To make it short, if this proposal passes, and ==History== is changed to ==History in the ''Super Mario'' franchise== (and split into a separate ==History in other media== in the case of criteria #2) on an article that can be categorized by any of the three numbered bullet points above, users will not be allowed to revert it back to the initial ==History== heading, like in the aforementioned case involving the Dinosaur article.

Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk)
Deadline: May 31, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support for all three options

  1. Super Mario RPG (talk) I'm for this option.
  2. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) Yes. Also, for the flowerpot thing, I have that saved (with a few tweaks) here.

Apply to only crossover content and real products


  1. Hewer (talk) Similar to your previous proposals about reorganising history sections, I don't really see what we'd gain from this. For the first and third bullet points, the edit summary that removed it from the Dinosaur page sums up my thoughts: "This is obvious and unnecessary". Of course we're only going to be covering the subject's history that's within our scope, I don't think anyone's visiting the Dinosaur page seeking a complete history of the Mesozoic Era only to be disappointed when they don't find it. For the second bullet point, I ask the same question as your last attempt to split up non-Mario appearances: why does it not being a Mario game make it worth splitting up? The assertion that they're not "integral to the same degree as their main appearances in Super Mario media itself" feels wrong, games like Smash are major appearances of the Mario characters and are important to their histories, sometimes moreso than appearances in actual Mario games (Smash Melee introducing Yoshi's Egg Roll, Smash Ultimate being K. Rool's first physical appearance in a decade, etc.). I also again question whether "the popular misconception that Super Smash Bros. is part of the Super Mario franchise" exists or is worth "fixing" in such an indirect way (we already don't consider them Mario games to my knowledge anyway). The Game Boy example is the only one given where I see some merit in doing this, since we do give some coverage to the actual histories of Nintendo hardware and it could be worth distinguishing the history of their in-universe appearances from that.
  2. Nintendo101 (talk) Because this is the Super Mario Wiki, the inherent assumption is that any subject with an article appears in the franchise (including Link and Sonic), and that the "History" section would only cover its appearance in the Super Mario franchise. What else would it be about? If a "history in the Super Mario franchise" was to be implemented anywhere, I feel like it only makes sense for recurring subjects that debuted in the Super Mario franchise, but make recurring appearances elsewhere (like Chain Chomps, which make some a few appearances in Zelda). But even in that context, I don't know if it would be appropriate. (I also don't agree with the premise that any in-game subject is "generic", regardless of its name or design. The grapes in Yoshi's Story are just as derived from the real article as the Sour Bunch.)
  3. Nightwicked Bowser (talk) Per my edit summary Hewer quoted.


For clarity, when I say "standardize," (not to be confused with "allow," since I don't think there's anything in the rules that explicitly forbids formatting in the aforementioned three cases), it means if a page is formatted that way, others aren't allowed to revert it, since it's the standard for how said articles should look. Also, @SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA), glad to see that flowerpot page. Super Mario RPG (talk) 14:32, May 17, 2024 (EDT)

"For clarity, when I say "standardize," (not to be confused with "allow," since I don't think there's anything in the rules that explicitly forbids formatting in the aforementioned three cases), it means if a page is formatted that way, others aren't allowed to revert it, since it's the standard for how said articles should look." Thanks for the clarification! My support will still be there. "Also, @SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA), glad to see that flowerpot page." Thanks! I wanted to keep/expand on it as a subpage of my userpage, b/c I didn't want any edit conflicts. You and @Nintendo101 are free to edit it if you want. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 14:43, May 17, 2024 (EDT)

Wasn't there a proposal about roughly the same thing not too long ago? You're meant to wait 28 days between proposals on the same thing, so if that's the case, we don't exactly wanna wait for a substantial amount of votes before calling attention to it. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 15:12, May 17, 2024 (EDT)

No, I think this is different. That one had to do with removing franchise headers, which this one doesn't. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 15:23, May 17, 2024 (EDT)
Yeah, this one is not about removing headings. It's about modifying "History" to "History in the Super Mario franchise" in one of three case, and in one case (if there's appearances outside of Super Mario), splitting "History in other games/media" into its own history heading. See what I did on Don Bongo as an example. Super Mario RPG (talk) 15:39, May 17, 2024 (EDT)

Where would appearances in things like Smash and Captain N go in this case? -- KOOPA CON CARNE 15:40, May 17, 2024 (EDT)

"History in other media" (see Link article). Super Mario RPG (talk) 15:41, May 17, 2024 (EDT)
Makes sense. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 15:48, May 17, 2024 (EDT)

New features

None at the moment.


None at the moment


Split the Super Mario universe and the Paper Mario universe

I think the articles about the Super Mario universe (characters, levels, worlds, etc.) should be split between the Super Mario uiverse and the Paper Mario universe. As those are 2 different universes. This is confirmed in Mario & Luigi Paper Jam for Nintendo 3DS. Also in Super Paper Mario, there is a wedding scence with Mario, Bowser & Peach in the Paper Mario universe. In the Super Mario universe there's a wedding scene in Super Mario Odyssey. Kamek and Bowser Jr. appear for the first time in the Paper Mario verse in Paper Mario: Sticker Star. In the Super Mario universe they appear earlier. Bowser Jr. in Super Mario Sunshine and Kamek in Yoshi's Island. For example there would be an article about Mario and a seperate article about Paper Mario from the Paper Mario series. This would be a pretty big, important change for this wiki, to be even better, more accurate. And I think that's what matters. To make the Super Mario wiki more organiced and easier to use for Mario Fans. Thanks!

Proposer: Big Super Mario Fan (talk) (banned)
Deadline: May 19, 2024, 23:59 GMT


#Big Super Mario Fan (talk) Per my proposal.

  1. Mariuigi Khed (talk) I'm honestly pro, beside the fact we even arrived to the point of distinct the live action movie characters. Why? We don't have different pages for the other media? It's because they are different enough? Well, these characters are flat and have a unique design in the "first generation" of Paper Marios (even tho in the main universe the games were already establishing final designs), I also see quite a difference in characterization: in the main universe Luigi is quite non-talkative (especially in recent years) and is 100% a scaredy-cat, while in the Paper universe he's very talkative and very much a disastrous goofball ready to do something and has one singular instance of cowardice on-screen, and mostly caused by confusion. And there are some similar example here and there. Still, I see why you would think this might get messier: like, do we really need to split the Star Spirits in two pages? Not really, I'll give you that. But... on the Wikia we decided to go like this: in the subject has two appearance in both the main and paper universe, they can be split, otherwise they share the page (example: Koopatrol is in three Paper Marios and 1 non-paper game: no split; Petey Piranha is in 2 Paper Marios + MLPJ and in many non--paper games: split). Again, I would see why this won't pass, but... welp. Still got my vote.


  1. Nightwicked Bowser (talk) Per the proposal that split the Paper Jam characters and my comments here. I will also again point out MarioWiki:Canonicity.
  2. Hewer (talk) Paper Jam does not confirm that the Paper Mario games happened in a different universe, it merely confirms that there is another universe with paper versions of the characters based on those from Paper Mario. To extrapolate from that that Paper Mario and everything else are set in different universes is a forbidden speculative reading between the lines, as described in MarioWiki:Canonicity and MarioWiki:Chronology. And speaking of the latter, you can't also deem things as occurring earlier or later in a timeline, because there isn't one, and games in the franchise are allowed to contradict each other's stories as much as they please without requiring us to reshuffle everything and speculate about how they connect (doesn't Mario meet the Lumas for the first time in both of the Galaxy games?). This would very much not make the wiki "more organiced and easier to use", but rather be perhaps the biggest organisational disaster to ever befall the wiki.
  3. Nintendo101 (talk) Not sure what a "universe" is.
  4. Pseudo (talk) Per Hewer. The fact is, prior to Paper Jam, the Paper Mario series is not treated as any kind of separate world and this seems to hold even in the later Paper Mario games. This would be a huge mess and wouldn’t help anyone navigate anything on the wiki.
  5. Sdman213 (talk) Per all.
  6. Camwoodstock (talk) This is a reading that literally only makes sense in the context of Paper Jam and no other video games--both ones before it and after it. There's a reason Paperfolk was deleted on-the-spot, without proposal; treating the Paper versions of characters as being different from their not-Paper versions outside of the context of the one video game where they basically had to do that out of necessity is a complete and utter nightmare.
  7. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Yeah no. And if it weren't for Paper Mario and Luigi acting so different from the normal Mario and Luigi, I'd prefer we merged these characters outright since the counterparts are almost always seen together and have the same personalities (ie with the Peaches, the Kameks, the Bowsers, and the Juniors)
  8. Mario (talk) Not a good idea. Per Nightwicked Bowser.
  9. Ahemtoday (talk) Per all.
  10. LadySophie17 (talk) Per all.
  11. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) Well, it's either this, merge the Paper Mario characters into their OG versions like the 1990's Live-Action Mario Movie counterparts, re-split said counterparts, or keep as-is, and that's not even factoring in ALL THE OTHER COUNTERPARTS!
  12. Jazama (talk) Per all
  13. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.
  14. Ray Trace (talk) Per Hewer.
  15. BMfan08 (talk) Per all.
  16. Definitely not Sascha (talk) Per all.


The scene mentioning the paper Koopalings seems like it's foreshadowing Color Splash, but other than that, there's little hard evidence. If we can compile quotes from interviews and other promotional materials, there might be something to work with, but I've more or less given up on this one. LinkTheLefty (talk) 10:00, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

The games didn't really start acting like the Paper Mario games had their own continuity until Sticker Star, but even then it was just some throwaway lines and a multitude of dialogue-based paper jokes (as opposed to the solely visual gag-based ones from before). Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 11:41, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
Paper Mario (character) has as much right to be his own article as Rabbid Mario in my view, as do the other Paper/Rabbid characters. And for the record, Paper Kamek is fought at one point without the normal Kamek.   Nightwicked Bowser   11:55, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
He is. But his role could have just as easily gone to normal Kamek, because aside from the art style, they are exactly the same. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:11, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
But it didn't. We're covering the game as it is, not as it hypothetically could be. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:12, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
That's not the point. The point is they are completely interchangeable. If it were written on one article, it would flow more organically and be more concise. Contrast that with the Rabbid characters Keyblade brought up, who have their own very distinct wacky personalities and differently specialized abilities. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:21, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
But it would be less accurate to how they're presented in the game as two distinct characters, even if their roles are similar. If a game has two very similar but separate characters, then by all means, we should have two very similar but separate articles. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:31, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
Yellow Toad and Blue Toad are now merged. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:36, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
Fair point but they're never seen apart and share all of their appearances whereas the paper characters are Paper Jam-only, so they have much fewer appearances than their counterparts, and they have at least some separation even in Paper Jam whereas Yellow Toad and Blue Toad are always exactly identical and even considered a single character in NSMBU Deluxe. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:45, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
I'd argue that the first Paper Mario - conceived as the direct sequel of Super Mario RPG - almost feels like an intentionally separate continuity to that game in its finalized form. LinkTheLefty (talk) 15:30, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

@LinkTheLefty, @Docvon Schmeltwick, @NightwickedBowser, @Hewer:

If you read this article from the official Nintendo website. It clearly states that there are two diffrent universes.

~~ Big Super Mario Fan

While it does say "two universes collide", that still only matters for this one game and should not impact this wiki's organisation. I think that argument has been countered enough at this point.   Nightwicked Bowser   21:18, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
Again, MarioWiki:Canonicity. Even if Paper Jam did "confirm" that Paper Mario is in a separate universe, that doesn't retroactively override the portrayal in earlier (or later) games that are often made by completely different people. For a similar case, when games get remakes, we don't stop covering the original or treat the remake as the "true" version, we just cover both and note the differences. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:02, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

To anyone who reads this message. Remember that you can still support my proposal until tomorrow. If you want the Mario and the Paper Mario universe split, seperate articles for that. Thank's to everyone who supports me!
The preceding unsigned comment was added by Big Super Mario Fan (talk).

@Mariuigi Khed: The live-action film characters are planned to be merged, inconsistent differences in personality or amount of dialogue determining splits is a very slippery slope, and a minimum of two appearances is a very arbitrary metric that just invites further inconsistency. They're just different iterations of the same characters, being made of paper because everything in the game is made of paper is no more split-warranting than being made of yarn or plastic. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 05:49, May 19, 2024 (EDT)

Consider The Super Mario Bros. Movie as an installment of the Super Mario series

Now this may seem like an unusual proposal, and I wouldn't be surprised if it does not pass, but there's something that could be worth considering: The Super Mario Bros. Movie actually being part of the mainline Super Mario series. There are homages to the Super Mario series (like the Training Course), Lumalee makes an appearance, and there's a scene where Donkey Kong uses a Fire Flower, and another where Princess Peach uses an Ice Flower; these two power-ups are most commonly associated with the Super Mario series.

One of the key factors of consideration is Shigeru Miyamoto's involvement in this film, as well as in the sequel. Breath of the Wild, developed around the same time as Super Mario Odyssey, had its proper sequel, Tears of the Kingdom (Zelda was also created by Miyamoto), released around the time when Super Mario Bros. Movie premiered in theaters and had home release. While there's no established connection between Super Mario Odyssey and The Super Mario Bros. Movie, the fact that Miyamoto co-produced this film, and will be doing the next, makes me think he wants to diversify the Super Mario mainline series with more media formats, no longer confining it to just video games.

Edit: Crossed out weak points irrelevant to the proposal.

Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk)
Deadline: May 19, 2024, 23:59 GMT


#Super Mario RPG (talk) As proposer.


  1. Super Mario RPG (talk) Actually, since the movie is getting a sequel, the proposal could be its own series by then, or just another film within the Super Mario series.
  2. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Unless we're gonna consider the 1993 movie, the Valiant comics, the various anime and manga, and the DiC cartoons as part of it as well, I don't see why we should specifically do this one.
  3. Hewer (talk) ...What? The Super Mario series is a video game series, none of Nintendo's official lists of entries have any non-game stuff, the entire franchise has homages to the Super Mario series (the Fire Flower has far more appearances than just the platformers), and Miyamoto wasn't involved in Mario Odyssey or either of those Zelda games as far as I'm aware (not that that's relevant anyway). And why did you vote for both options when that's functionally the same as not voting at all (and I don't think is even allowed for a two-option proposal)? Is this a month-late April Fools' proposal? EDIT: It's also telling that, now that the weak points have been crossed out, the proposal has pretty much no arguments left.
  4. Camwoodstock (talk) - The Super Mario series of games is just that--a series of video games. This would make about as much sense as saying the Donkey Kong Country cartoon counts as a part of the Donkey Kong series of games.
  5. Nintendo101 (talk) Per all. I understand why one would want to establish a more concrete classification system, but this seems diluting and unhelpful.
  6. LadySophie17 (talk) That really doesn't belong there.
  7. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) Yeah, no. We might as well take the stance of Sega on Sonic's canon, "Everything is canon". Then again, in the words of @janMisali, "How do we know what's mainline?" That only talked about video games, but also could apply to non-games, but I think we need to play safe, so oppose.
  8. Jazama (talk) Per all
  9. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.


Uh, is Super Mario RPG allowed to vote for both options? Rule 2 states that "Users may vote for more than one option on proposals with more than two choices." I think that implies that when there's only two options, you can only choose one of them.
I could've sworn there was also a rule that states you're not allowed to choose for all options, even in multi-choice proposals where you're allowed to vote for more than one option, but I couldn't really find one like that quickly. Still, the implication that you can only choose one option in a two-options in a two-choice proposal would also imply that you can choose all but one option in a multi-choice proposal, I think.  rend (talk) (edits) 11:57, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

There's no restriction on how many options you can vote for in a proposal with more than two choices, it's just pointless to vote for all of them because it doesn't change the ratio of how many voters each option has, so it has no effect (I guess besides adding to the minimum required votes to not get no quorum). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:04, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

@Hewer No, it's a real proposal. It was something I had on mind for a while and wanted to get off of my chest to see if films really were being inducted into the series or if it was just my own headcanon. I crossed out my support and will let the proposal run its course. Super Mario RPG (talk) 11:58, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

I feel like we need to have a broader discussion on what criteria we even look for when categorizing subjects as siblings within the same "franchise" or "series". To me, it does not really matter how involved Shigeru Miyamoto is with a particular project because: (1) Miyamoto has a history of involving himself with a wide diversity of projects both within and outside of Mario just to provide development guidance or maintain brand integrity with external parties (like Illumination Studios); and (2) I generally feel like published works should be interpreted independently for their own criteria for classification. Nintendo did not always consider Super Mario Land a mainline Super Mario series game, a game that saw almost no involvement from Miyamoto, but I always considered it so because there are no objective reasons within the game itself for it to be excluded. It is nice to see that Nintendo themselves have come to that same perspective. Additionally, the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia, in all languages, explicitly states that the remakes of mainline series games, like Super Mario All-Stars and Super Mario Advance, are not literal parts of the Super Mario series (pp. 238 - 255; note the star key on 238). Offhand, I am inclined to think a separation like that is very silly. - Nintendo101 (talk) 12:50, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

Miyamoto's involvement has never been considered as a factor in anything at all to my knowledge, not sure why this proposal brought it up. Whole development teams for games can change while still being in the same series, e.g. Donkey Kong Country. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:59, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

Merge Ports, Remakes, Remasters, Collections etc. into Main series

I think the Main series Ganes and Remakes, Ports, Remasters, Collections etc. should be merged. For example in the Super Mario series. But also for every other Mario Spin off series. Especially when those are considered mainline by Nintendo, like New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe, Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury, Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, etc. It would be way simpler to just make 2 categories. 1st Mainline (New Games and Ports, Remakes, Remasters, Collections etc. inclided) 2nd Other Games or Spin offs. It wouldn't matter if they are old or new games. Of course in would still be written in the description if its a Remake or a Port, a Collection, Remaster etc. Thank you!

Proposer: Big Super Mario Fan (talk) (banned)
Deadline: May 20, 2024, 23:59 GMT


#Big Super Mario Fan (talk)Per my proposal.


  1. Nightwicked Bowser (talk) Putting remakes and ports in a seperate list from original games helps further distinguish them.
  2. Ahemtoday (talk) I don't see how it's simpler at all to put effectively the same game on the same list twice.
  3. LadySophie17 (talk) Per Nightwicked Bowser.
  4. Camwoodstock (talk) We have the "Once and only once" policy for a reason.
  5. BMfan08 (talk) Per all.
  6. Hewer (talk) This proposal is very poorly written and hard to understand, but I'm assuming it's about the way we list ports in series pages. I have actually been considering doing this with WarioWare, Inc. Mega Party Game$! specifically, partly because of the devs' continuous insistence over multiple sources that it's a distinct entry, and partly because I'm unsure if we should even be considering it a port so much as a sequel that heavily reuses from its predecessor (I haven't actually played it, so I could be wrong there, but the article certainly makes it sound like much more different than just a port - the only reason I see to consider it one is the reused microgames, but WarioWare Gold also reused its microgames from other games while being otherwise different). But besides that one specific tangent, no, per all.
  7. Nintendo101 (talk) Not a good idea.
  8. Arend (talk) I assume the same thing as the rest here and believe this is only about how we list ports/remakes/other reissues on series pages, to which I have to agree with the rest of the opposition: it's best we do not treat these rereleases on the same level as a mainline franchise entry. Nintendo doesn't seem to do that either if the whole Mario Wonder being the first sidescroller entry in 11 years thing is anything to go by (New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe was released only 4 years prior). If we did, it would only look disorganized. (Also, I pray this proposal isn't talking about rerelease pages being merged to their original counterpart, which is even worse)
  9. Sdman213 (talk) Per all.
  10. Jazama (talk) Per all
  11. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.
  12. Mario (talk) Bad proposal, poorly written and probably breaks several rules we have on the wiki anyway.
  13. Ray Trace (talk) No idea why the comments section has blown completely off the rails in regards to the aim of this proposal but per the opposition.
  14. Pseudo (talk) Per all.


Cough cough.
The preceding unsigned comment was added by SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk).

Don't misrepresent me. I did that solely because the SMA series - according to the official word on the matter - led straight into the NSMB series. I certainly don't think that should be done for every series page. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 09:42, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
(facepalm) I'm just doing it because the remakes are listed with the main games. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 09:47, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
It should only do that if there's an organic buildup with it. For instance, how DK94 is listed on the Donkey Kong series page despite being ostensibly a remake. Otherwise, it gets bogged down. Note how I didn't include SMAS+SMW or the Classic NES series. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:33, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
"Note how I didn't include SMAS+SMW or the Classic NES series." Not really a good argument, SMAS+SMW is a double remake (but SMAS 25th Anniversary Edition is a port of a remake), & the Classic NES series are just ports. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 13:34, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
It's not a "double remake", it's just a re-release of two games in a compilation together. That's like calling 3D All-Stars a "triple remake". And anyway, what does this matter? Doc's userspace isn't the mainspace, nor would it fly if it were just put on the mainspace as is (for instance, I don't think Doc intends for the "generation" headers to be put on mainspace, nor should they be). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:44, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
Uhhh, no, I said SMAS+SMW is a double remake because SMAS+SMW is a remake of SMAS, which is a remake of SMB, TLL, 2, & 3. Plus, that was just an EXAMPLE! SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 13:47, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
And I said that SMAS+SMW is not a double remake because it's not a remake of SMAS, just a re-release with another game added in as well (i.e. a compilation, like 3D All-Stars). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:49, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
But SMAS is also a compilation, which means it's not a remake under that logic. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 13:56, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
No? Whether it's a remake and whether it's a compilation are two separate things, they aren't mutually exclusive and they have no bearing on each other. Super Mario All-Stars completely recreates its four games, thus is a remake. Super Mario All-Stars + Super Mario World is a compilation that only features re-releases completely unaltered from the original release. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:00, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
Yet some stuff in SMAS was changed in SMAS+SMW.SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 14:09, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
And some stuff in 64, Sunshine, and Galaxy was changed in 3D All-Stars, doesn't make it a remake so much as an edited port. Anyway, this is (even by my standards) a pretty pointless semantic argument not really relevant to this proposal. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:34, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
Uh, no, the changes in SM3DAS are not equivalent to the changes in SMAS+SMW. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk)
Fine, Nintendo Switch Online Mario Advance 4 then, that has the e-Reader levels available without using the e-Reader. My point is that the changes are far too small to constitute a remake. Again though, what difference does this even make? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 15:10, May 13, 2024 (EDT)


I didnt mean that every Mario game should be in the same category. No. There are lots of Super Mario Bros. games that aren't canon. That's why I said Mainline games should all be in a category. Ports, Remakes Remaster, Collections included. There's also a special example. What about Bowser's Fury. ? It's a new Adventure, but it is listed under Ports, Remakes, etc. Other games or Spin offs should be in a different category. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 16:57, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

I don't remember anyone saying anything at all about other games or spin-offs, or even remotely implying that "every Mario game should be in the same category", so I have no idea where you're getting that from. And whether something is "canon" is never a factor in anything on this website, regarding both this and the Paper Mario proposal I again strongly suggest you read MarioWiki:Canonicity. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 17:07, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
@Big Super Mario Fan: What has certain games not being canon have to do with ports and remakes of mainline titles? No one has said anything about which games are being canon or not in this discussion until you brought. Hell, no one in this discussion has even uttered the word "canon" before you did (and as you can see, you bringing up canon has brought on a whole different discussion that completely undermines the original topic of the proposal).
Truthfully, bringing up canonicity in this discussion about regarding rereleases as equal to the originals (i.e. putting them in the exact same lists and categories as if they're standalone games), would imply that you view all ports, remakes, remasters, etc. as canon... which muddies the water even more on what could be regarded as canon or not, since certain remakes and rereleases actually provide different or additional content that isn't found in the original version, bringing into the discussion which version is canon and which version is not. See Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker, for instance: the original Wii U version clearly precedes Super Mario 3D World, but the Switch/3DS rerelease precedes Super Mario Odyssey instead. Which version of Treasure Tracker is canon, then? That's not even saying about the DLC for the Switch version, which precedes New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe, a rerelease of New Super Mario Bros. U that should be even older than 3D World and Odyssey. What is the timeline here?
This is why MarioWiki:Canonicity states that there's no officially recognized canon. Everyone has their own interpretation of what is canon and what is not canon, and changes into rereleases of mainline titles make that matter even more complicated.  rend (talk) (edits) 12:26, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
@Big Super Mario Fan I never said anything about ALL Mario games. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:38, May 15, 2024 (EDT)

@Hewer: I read the Canonicity article. But I think's that's not good. Because there definitiv is a canon in Mario. Not only that but there is a Mario multiverse with at least 8 different Mario universes in it. 1. Mario (Super Mario Mainline games + Spin offs) 2. Paper Mario (Paper Mario series) 3. Mario (Mario + Rabbids series) 4. Mario (Super Smash Bros. series) 5. Mario (Animated Movies) 6. Mario (Live-Action movie) 7. Mario (Cartoons) 8. Mario (Comics). There could be even more. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 19:21, May 13, 2024 (EDT) Big Super Mario Fan

The fact is, the canonicity article is how this wiki operates, period. There's no way in hell we're gonna start screwing up this wiki's manner of coverage just because certain things might not happen in the same universe.   Nightwicked Bowser   19:39, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
loooooooooooooooool where are you even getting these numbers from Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:43, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
You know, the sentence right after the boldened one stating that there's no officially recognized canon (the sencence you're arguing against) states "Therefore, arguments over canonicity (canon vs. non-canon) are purely speculative, and are of no importance to wiki articles." Your argument about there not only being a definitive canon (which you haven't elaborated on yet), but there being at least eight different Mario universes in a Mario multiverse, is exactly that kind of purely speculative that the Canonicity page was talking about. I'm not even sure if Nintendo would currently recognize several of these as part of their franchise (throwing muck in that whole multiverse idea of yours), such as "live-action movies" (there's only one of those btw) or "comics" (there's the German Club Nintendo comics and the Nintendo Comics System of Valiant btw, I doubt these share a universe). They sure don't recognize Hotel Mario as part of it.
Moreover, I'm not interested to, for instance, split the Mario page into several different articles that each describe a different incarnation of the character, if your Paper Mario proposal indicates anything. It'd be simpler and more organized to keep it all in one article.  rend (talk) (edits) 20:11, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
Live action? You mean the 1990's one? That's a multiverse in & of itself! The cartoons, comics, AND animated movies are also multiverses in & of themselves! SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:38, May 15, 2024 (EDT)

@Arend: I eleberate on the definitive Mario canon (the 1st, main Mario universe). It consists of:

  • Super Mario Mainline games (2D & 3D)
  • Mario & Luigi series
  • Mario Kart series
  • Mario Party series
  • Mario Tennis series
  • Mario Golf series
  • Mario vs. Donkey Kong series
  • Luigi's Mansion series
  • Yoshi's Island series
  • Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker
  • Super Princess Peach

It's not speculative at all. Those are all heavyly implied things. Some are even semi-confirmed. Comics and Movies are different universes than the Game universes. It wouldn't be good if it's all one one page. Because than people think there is only one Mario. Which is not the case at all. Also there is already a Paper Mario page. But just for Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam. This page could be used for the Paper Mario series. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 20:34, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

"Because than people think there is only one Mario. Which is not the case at all." ...there. Is. Though. This is quite literally what the Canonicity guidelines mean when they say "baseless speculation"--Mario in Mario Golf isn't a different character from Mario in Mario Tennis. Even if we wanted to go along with this when we already moved away from the "Marioverse" term as far back as 2007, this doesn't factor in the dozens of lesser spinoffs and side-games--though to be blunt, trying to argue between the how Mario is in some way "different" between Mario's Egg Catch and Mario Super Sluggers is beyond an exercise in futility, and would be less than useless. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 20:43, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
Well...not really? Do we consider Rabbid Mario the same as Mario? SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:38, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
No, because he's not. We do, however, consider Mario from the Mario + Rabbids games to be Mario, because he is. My guess is that Big Super Mario Fan thinks Mario + Rabbids just features Rabbid Mario instead of normal Mario, but in reality they both appear in the Mario + Rabbids games as completely separate characters, so it's more comparable to Paper Mario (character) in Paper Jam if anything. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:08, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
Yeah, true. Though we do have variants of characters that are completely different merged because of intent (and probably other factors I'm missing) with Bowser & President Koopa (which as of this writing isn't the case, but will be because a proposal on this passed). SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 11:33, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
The logic there is that President Koopa is just the movie's version of Bowser. The same can't be said about Mario and Rabbid Mario since they're clearly distinct characters that coexist in the same games, like how the Paper Mario character article only covers his Paper Jam appearance because that's the only game where he's a distinct character to normal Mario. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:42, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
No, that's not correct. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 11:53, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
Yes, it is correct. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:52, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
No, I think he knows that Mario and Rabbid Mario appear both in the Mario + Rabbids games, and only mistakingly called the actual Mario "Rabbid Mario" once: his reasoning for why the Mario + Rabbids games take place in an alternate universe, as he provided on MarioWiki talk:Canonicity, is an interview with Davide Soliani (to be fair, the assumption also matches with the intro of Kingdom Battle, when the SupaMerge hits a Super Mario poster and causes the Rabbids' washing machine to teleport into its world). His reasoning stems from the idea that all the Mario characters from those games are an alternate version of the mainline characters (not just their Rabbid counterparts), and as he stated both here and on the Canonicity talk page, he wishes to split these incarnations, as well as other incarnations from the eight (or more) "universes" he provides: which includes not just Mario + Rabbids and Paper Mario, but also Super Smash Bros., The Super Mario Bros. Movie, the 1993 Super Mario Bros. movie, the DiC Super Mario cartoon shows and "comics".
And to me, that is way, WAY worse than thinking Rabbid Mario is the same person as Mario but from another dimension.  rend (talk) (edits) 11:43, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
Yeah, you have a very good point! Also, I think the "comics" aren't part of the same continuity, which makes things worse (We'd be splitting Super Mario Kun Mario, KC Deluxe Mario, Super Mario Adventures Mario, etc.).SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 11:53, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
Indeed. On the Continuity talk page, Big Super Mario Fan admits he doesn't really know the comics that well, which is why he simply wrote "comics" as one universe instead. I imagine that if he was aware of how many comics there were, he'd want the incarnations of those to be split off too.  rend (talk) (edits) 12:01, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
Yes. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 12:06, May 15, 2024 (EDT)

@Camwoodstock: That's not what I meant. The Mario in Mario Golf and in Mario Tennis is the same. When we talk about games specifically there are 4 different Marios. 1st the Mario who appears in most Mario Games. 2nd Paper Mario who appears in the Paper Mario series. 3rd Mario who appears in the Mario + Rabbids series. 4th Mario who appears in the Super Smash Bros series. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 20:50, May 13, 2024 (EDT) Big Super Mario Fan

I'd ask why you insist the + Rabbids one is different of all possible options, but the fact is neither I nor anyone else here cares. You're basing this off nothing at all other than your own preconceived notions, which is the very definition of speculation. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:56, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
He was talking about Rabbid Mario SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:38, May 15, 2024 (EDT)

@Doc von Schmeltwick: To Answer your question. It's not speculation. Obviously there's the Main Mario, where most of his games take place. Than there's Paper Mario, who's confirmed to be a seperate character in Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam. Than there is Smash Bros. Mario who is a toy/trophy brought to live by imagination. Than there's Rabbid Mario, who was created in the Mario + Rabbids series, as seen in the cutscenes of that game. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 21:08, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

You didn't say "Rabbid Mario." You said "Mario from Mario + Rabbids." That's not the same thing. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:19, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
He MEANT RABBID MARIO! SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:39, May 15, 2024 (EDT)

"Heavily implied", "semi-confirmed" — these read to me as admissions there isn't proof. We're a wiki. We work with facts, not guesses. Ahemtoday (talk) 22:40, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

Well, SOME stuff is, but not fully. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:38, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
Exactly this. There is a time and a place for headcanons and inferences; a matter-of-fact wiki is perhaps the last place you should be putting them. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 22:41, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
Yeah, better off putting them in either your Userpage, or you User talk page. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:38, May 15, 2024 (EDT)

@Doc von Schmeltwick: I meant Mario from theMario + Rabbids series. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 22:58, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

You mean Rabbid Mario. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:38, May 15, 2024 (EDT)

@Ahemtoday: It has something to do with logic. You know milk comes from the cow, when you buy it in the supermarket. Than you wouldn't write it comes from the supermarket. Also there is evidence. Just watch the cutscenes of Super Smash Bros. or Mario + Rabbids and play Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 22:58, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

It is very easy to take a single thing, not interrogate it at all, and use "logic" to extrapolate it to everything with no regard for its actual bearing on reality. If I am to be convinced that Mario in a specific set of games is a different character from Mario in some other set, I require nothing less than an official source explicitly stating as such. To my knowledge, nothing like that exists for any of these cases. Ahemtoday (talk) 23:15, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
Yeah, cutscenes aren't FULLY official sources, developers are. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:38, May 15, 2024 (EDT)

@Ahemtoday: Well at least for Super Smash Bros., there is an official Interview with Satoru Iwata. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 23:59, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

I would like to point out that fellow NIWA wiki, the Zelda Wiki, the wiki for The Legend of Zelda series, which definitely features different incarnations of Link, Zelda, and various enemies and NPCs, do not split these incarnations in separate articles and keep them all under the same subjects (e.g. there aren't multiple articles on Link or Octorok, despite there being multiple versions of those). I know that our wiki is not the same thing, but if a wiki based on a series with 100% confirmed different incarnations of the main cast doesn't split their articles, then why should our wiki do this when the series we do cover don't have multiple incarnations of their characters at all (or it's being "implied" or "semi-confirmed" at best)?  rend (talk) (edits) 01:33, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

Good point! SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:39, May 15, 2024 (EDT)

@Arend: I give you an example. Following your logic. If a man jumps out of a window the man next to him should jump out too. Just because the Zelda Wiki doesn't split their articles, doesn not mean that we should not do this eather. Also in that Interview it's confirmed that the Super Smash Bros. characters are toys. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 02:20, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

While it's fair to say that we don't always have to do what other wikis are doing, it's also important to note that we don't always have to do the opposite of what other wikis are doing, either.
I brought up the Zelda Wiki as an example on why your idea doesn't work, because The Legend of Zelda series is the most obvious example in there being multiple versions of the same characters, that most of the time look way different in nearly every installment, and yet the Zelda Wiki does not resort to splitting them (it would only be unhandy and complicated, after all.
Super Mario isn't like that. At all. Throughout nearly all the "universes" you've determined, Mario looks the same, and his demeanor doesn't really change throughout most of them either. In essence, Mario + Rabbids!Mario is identical in appearance and behavior to mainline!Mario, so there's no need for a separate article for Mario in Mario + Rabbids. Same goes for Mario & Luigi!Mario, no need to split that off, either. Most other differences throughout these incarnations are really just splitting hairs and superficial, so when even the Zelda franchise doesn't seem worth to split all it's actually different incarnations into separate articles, then why should we be splitting hairs here?
Also I do have to agree with Hewer that we've gone quite off-topic; I'm just throwing my two cents on this multiverse thing you brought up for no reason  rend (talk) (edits) 11:30, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
Good point! SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:38, May 15, 2024 (EDT)

Y'all, we've gotten way off track. This proposal isn't even about universes. Ahemtoday (talk) 03:32, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

Yes. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:38, May 15, 2024 (EDT)

Ok, @Hewer On the SMA4, also a bad example b/c the Wii U version. @Big Super Mario Fan First, none of what you say is fully confirmed. Second, even IF there's a multiverse, there would be more universes than what you specified. Third, this doesn't have to do with universes. Fourth, this needs to stop. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:40, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

Wii U version then, this just feels pedantic at this point. I think I've already made my point there clear enough, though my main point is that this was a meaningless argument not relevant to the proposal. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:04, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
Ok, good point at that, but it did say "ports, remakes, remasters, & collections". @Big Super Mario Fan I'm still waiting for a reply here. Unless you've stopped because you've seen the wrongness of your arguments. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 13:44, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

@Arend: Easy. The games that are not canon should be listed in a different category than the ones that are canon. Regarding Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker. I can answer this as well. Both versions are canon. Here's the timeline. Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker (Wii U) ➡️ Super Mario 3D World (Wii U/Nintendo Switch) ➡️ Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker (Nintendo 3DS/Nintendo Switch) ➡️ Super Mario Odyssey (Nintendo Switch). The 2. Captain Toad adventure (episode) happens in between. New Super Mario Bros. U / New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe happen at the same time. Before Super Mario 3D World and Super Mario Odyssey. Because Ports or Remakes add content that wasn't in the original release. But it still happened at the same time. For example Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga and Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga + Bowser's Minions happens at the same time. The same applies to Mario + Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story and Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story + Bowser Jr.'s Journey. The Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker Special Episode happens before New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe, as they find the Super Crown here. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 17:33, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

You've kinda just reiterated what Arend was saying with more words, minus the actually important part: that this is pointless speculation that will definitely not be used as a basis for the wiki's organisation. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 17:39, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
Wait, you're not making any sense here. First, you're saying that, somehow, the Wii U version of Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker happens before the Switch/3DS version of Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker, even though it's the exact same adventure, so it would logically take place at the same time, something you state as such later anyway. I mean, I get why you would say that, given that in the Wii U version, it's directly followed up by 3D World, but on Switch and 3DS, it's directly followed up by Odyssey instead; but if anything, this would more logically indicate a split timeline, not that the exact same adventure happens twice. Then you say that the 2nd Captain Toad adventure (by which I assume you mean the DLC episode) happens inbetween the Wii U and Switch versions of the regular game (which already makes no sense given that it's DLC for the Switch iteration, so it should happen after that, meaning that New Super Mario Bros. U would also take place inbetween those versions (specifically after 3D World, because there really is no room for another adventure to squeeze inbetween; the 3D World opening plays directly after the credits of the Wii U version)... only to THEN say New Super Mario Bros. U takes place before BOTH 3D World and Odyssey?
Basically, what you're saying is this: Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker (Wii U) > Super Mario 3D World > Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker (Switch, Special Episode (DLC)) > New Super Mario Bros. U (Deluxe) > Super Mario 3D World > Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker (Switch, main campaign (even though it's the same as Wii U's main campaign)) > Super Mario Odyssey
...bro, I think it would be easier to say that the rereleases happen in an alternate timeline, than what you're trying to explain here, because what I've got out of your explanation doesn't make any sense. And do I really need to say that this timeline you've given me is also highly speculative? Aka, not confirmed? As in, not canon?  rend (talk) (edits) 18:17, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
Also, would it hurt if you had answered my things regarding the canonicity on remakes under where I was actually talking about that, instead of under the Zelda Wiki stuff?  rend (talk) (edits) 18:21, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
Yeah, all of what @Arend said IS true. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:39, May 15, 2024 (EDT)

@SONIC123CDMANIA: It is strongly implied, semi-confirmed + you can watch the cutscenes. Second, of course there would be more universes than what I specified. It does have to do with universes, because only the canon ones should be in a category. The others should be in another category. But it shouldn't matter if its a new game, a remake, or a port, etc. It's shouldn't stop. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 17:40, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

"strongly implied"
Please just stop. You can say that it's right, but that doesn't make it true. It's not an official distinction, there's no consistency between the relations of games. This again has nothing to do with the proposal you are discussing on. If you insist on having this discussion, it would make more sense to do so on Mariowiki Talk:Canonicity, though it's probably better suited for the forums. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:56, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
Yeah, Big Super Mario Fan keeps saying those two terms a lot, as if it means anything (plus I wouldn't say that Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker happening twice or that New Super Mario Bros. U happens both before and after Super Mario 3D World is "strongly implied" or "semi-confirmed" in any way).
At this point, "strongly implied, semi-confirmed + you can watch the cutscenes" feels like a bad equivalent of the "L + ratio + get rekt" meme or however that goes. (And I still have no idea why they brought up what is or isn't canon themselves, on their own proposal about merging rereleases with mainline titles)  rend (talk) (edits) 18:38, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
Yeah, this is not going well. Also, some "universes" are actually multiverses in their own right! How do you factor THAT in!? SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:38, May 15, 2024 (EDT)

@Arend: Okay, here's an easy to understand timeline: Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker DLC ➡️ New Super Mario Bros. U (Deluxe) ➡️ Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker (Wii U) ➡️ Super Mario 3D World ➡️ Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker (Nintendo 3DS / Nintendo Switch) ➡️ Super Mario Odyssey.
So there definitly is a canon in Mario. All the way from Donkey Kong (1981) to Princess Peach: Showtime (2024). The things is sometimes the Mario canon is a bit complex. That's why some people say there is no canon. But it's simply not true. That shouldn't be an excuse for the Super Mario Wiki. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 21:37, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

It doesn't matter how many times you baselessly declare there is a canon, it won't become any more true ("semi-confirmed" wouldn't cut it even if it was accurate). This is all still pointless speculation that will absolutely not affect how the wiki is organised, and you're extremely unlikely to convince anyone here that your speculative canon and timeline is better to base the wiki on than the way we've been doing it for years, so I suggest you just drop it, or at the very least, as Doc said, do this discussion on MarioWiki talk:Canonicity instead of your unrelated proposal. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 03:23, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
Now you're saying that the Treasure Tracker DLC takes place before the Treasure Tracker main game?! How does that make any sense at all?! I already said that it makes more sense that it would happen after the Switch version of the game, given that it's DLC for that game. And again, The Switch and 3DS versions are practically the same as the Wii U version aside from the fact that it's directly followed by Odyssey instead of 3D world. Again, it makes more sense to say that the 3DS/Switch version takes place in an alternate timeline (also, your proposed timeline doesn't even come close to "semi-confirmed" or "heavily implied"; saying that the Treasure Tracker DLC takes place before any of the main games is heavily speculative).  rend (talk) (edits) 06:39, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
???? This is making less sense. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:39, May 15, 2024 (EDT)

@Hewer: Yeah, than I will discuss it on the MarioWiki Canonicity page. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 04:13, May 15, 2024 (EDT)

We could discuss Mario AND Sonic canon on my talk page. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:38, May 15, 2024 (EDT)

@SONIC123CDMANIA+&ATSA - The Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker DLC comes before the main game, because they find the Super Crown here. Which is then used in New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe. And yes we could discuss Mario & Sonic canon on your talk page. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 18:36, May 15, 2024 (EDT)

I think that official DLC descriptions like here ("[...] you can purchase the Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker - Special Episode DLC to continue your journey [...]"), website descriptions like here ("More adventures for Captain Toad and Toadette are available as paid downloadable content!"), and official trailer blurbs like here ("Captain Toad and Toadette are back for more adventures!") kind of imply that the DLC takes place after the main game, not before. Moreover, several of the levels in the DLC are revisitations of previous courses of the main game, with the Level names titled in a way that differentiates them from the original, similar to the remix levels of World Mushroom and World Flower.  rend (talk) (edits) 19:26, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
Yeah, I agree with Hewer here. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:37, May 16, 2024 (EDT)

@Arend: Oh man! You're not making this easy for me. But the Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker DLC definitely happens before New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe, because they find the Super Crown here. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 22:49, May 15, 2024 (EDT)

Explain the DLC descriptions! SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:37, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
Well yeah, I suppose I am not making this easy. You're the one disagreeing with our Canonicity policy and claiming that all the remakes/ports/rereleases take place in the same canon timeline, and we point out the flaws in your logic. The whole Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker thing is perhaps the most notable example on why including every singe port and remake in the same single timeline as the mainline games would result in a huge mess, given how the Switch port and its DLC make changes to what follows after the game.  rend (talk) (edits) 13:27, May 16, 2024 (EDT)

@Arend, @SONIC123CDMANIA, @Hewer: I know Rabbit Mario is not Mario. That was a mistake. I don't really care about the comics. You can't split every Mario incarnation. Because than we'd have 100 Mario pages, 100 Peach pages, Bowser pages. I was only taking about the Important once. For me those are.

  1. Mario (Main Mario Universe)
  2. Paper Mario (Paper Mario Universe)
  3. Alternate Mario (Mario + Rabbids Universe)
  4. Toy/Trophy Mario (Super Smash Bros. Universe)
  5. Cartoon Mario(Cartoon Universe)
  6. Animated Mario (The Super Mario Bros. Movie)
  7. Live-Action Mario (Super Mario Bros. Live-Action movie) Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 02:49, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
1, Rabbid Mario is TECHNICALLY a alternate Mario. 2, I never said ALL versions, as in official AND unofficial, just all official versions. 3, your arguments fail when taking into account multiverses within multiverses. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:37, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
So you admit that splitting all these incarnations is a bad idea, but still insist on splitting just some of them randomly? Straight up using "I don't really care" as an argument is certainly not helping your (already very bad) case. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:52, May 16, 2024 (EDT)

@SONIC123CDMANIA: 1. Yeah but that also includes Mini Mario then. 2. Ok 3. What do you mean with multiverses in multiverses? Can you name me an example? Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 15:39, May 16, 2024 (EDT)

The cartoons, 2023 Mario Movie, 1993 Mario Movie, and the comics are all multiverses in their own rights. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:33, May 17, 2024 (EDT)

@Hewer: Not randomly splitting. Only the important ones. I only don't care about the comics. But I do care about the games. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 15:39, May 16, 2024 (EDT)

Well we're not splitting any of them and that's that.   Nightwicked Bowser   15:46, May 16, 2024 (EDT)

To be honest, this discussion has spiraled so much out of control into this whole canonicity-timeline + split-the-characters thing, that I'm contemplating whether or not we should store this on MarioWiki:BJAODN/Proposals after this proposal has ended (to clarify, that would be for the comments section alone, not the proposal's actual subject)  rend (talk) (edits) 17:21, May 16, 2024 (EDT)

My distaste for BJAODN aside, would you mind not openly mocking a user earnestly trying to argue for something? — Lady Sophie   (T|C) 17:41, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
Yeah, uh, please do not put what is very clearly just a small child that doesn't know what headcanon is into BJAODN right in front of them. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 18:06, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
Flashbacks to when many of my genuine contributions as a 13 y/o ESL were placed in BJAODN and it was among the things that gave me major anxieties that I still had to resolve by the time I turned 20. Some attitudes never change! -- KOOPA CON CARNE 18:08, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
...Yeah, okay, sorry for the suggestion. I wasn't trying to mock anyone here. I was basically spitballing since I'm kind of frustrated that this down-spiraled, off-topic discussion is still ongoing and hadn't been dropped earlier. In retrospect, suggesting it for BJAODN would probably be a bad idea and sounds meanspirited, and I apologize.  rend (talk) (edits) 18:23, May 16, 2024 (EDT)


  • Why are they multiverses in itself?
  • King Koopa is a Live-Action adaptation of Bowser though.
  • Cutscenes are canon too
  • That Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker DLC description is not canon. It's just Marketing. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 18:54, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
Cartoons: Super Mario Bros. Super Show has "a" Earth (live-action segments) & Mushroom Kingdom's planet (Cartoon segments, TAoSMB3, SMW), & also others based on other Mario cartoons (Captain N, etc.). Comics: Super Mario Kun multiverse (Main world, LoZ, etc.), KC Deluxe universe, etc. 1993 Mario Movie: "Earth" & Dinohattan (and I guess the adaptations too). 2023 Mario Movie: "Earth" (cause Brooklyn) & Mushroom Kingdom (and others not seen). For the King Koopa thing, I'm pretty sure it's President Koopa (who is an alternate version of Bowser from 1993 Mario Movie), unless you're talking about King Koopa's Kool Kartoons? For the cutscenes thing, well of course, they're part of the game. For the CT:TT DLC description, isn't marketing canon? For the Mini Mario thing, the form, or the toy? Both are split. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:33, May 17, 2024 (EDT)


I didn't know al that. I meant the Live-Action Bowser. Not the Cartoon one. And I still don't think the Captain Toad DLC description is canon. For Mini Mario, I meant the toy.

Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 18:47, May 17, 2024 (EDT)

"Live-Action Bowser" President Koopa, or the weird-looking Bowser from King Koopa's Kool Kartoons (the one that looks like he's a suit)? And Mini Mario is already split. For the CT:TT DLC description, we'll have to agree to disagree. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 20:01, May 17, 2024 (EDT)

@SONIC123CDMANIA: I meant President Bowser. I knoe that Mini Mario already his own page. Yeah I have different opinion on the DLC description.

Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 23:03, May 17, 2024 (EDT)

It's President Koopa. But anyways, he's going to be merged to Bowser because of a proposal. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 12:14, May 18, 2024 (EDT)

@Ahemtoday:I thought the MarioWiki doesn't care to much about canon. Then they could include all Mainline games in one category. Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker wouldn't be included anyway, since it's not a Super Mario game. It's a related Game. Also this proposal isn't about canon or not. It's about listing Main Games, Ports, Remasters, Remakes etc. of Games, in the same category. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 18:54, May 16, 2024 (EDT)

@NightwickedBowser: Don't be so sure.Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 18:54, May 16, 2024 (EDT)

@Arend: I'm sorry if you're not smart enough to understand what I'm talking about. BJAODN is just dumb/joke proposals. This comments section doesn't belong there. It should go to the archive just like the others. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 18:54, May 16, 2024 (EDT)

...Look, while I do genuinely feel terrible for suggesting to put it on BJAODN in the first place, it's not because I'm not "smart enough" to understand what you were talking about. My main concern is that the whole discussion has gone off-topic and has undermined the original subject of the proposal by a very large margin. Of course, I now realize that BJAODN is not the solution here, but there should probably be a discussion on how to prevent future proposals from going off-topic like this after this one ends.  rend (talk) (edits) 19:07, May 16, 2024 (EDT)

@LadySophie17: You're right. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 18:54, May 16, 2024 (EDT)

@Camwoodstock: Maybe your a small child? Me? No. Definitely not! You know what a headcanon wood be? If I'd say Mario has a 3rd brother. But I only talk about things that are heavily implied, semi-confirmed, some are even fully confirmed. There you have your answer. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 18:54, May 16, 2024 (EDT)

@Koopa con Carne: That's sad. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 18:54, May 16, 2024 (EDT)

Yeah, look, let's get back on track here. Your proposal, as I understand it, would put VS. Super Mario Bros., All Night Nippon: Super Mario Bros., Super Mario All-Stars, Super Mario All-Stars + Super Mario World, BS Super Mario USA, BS Super Mario Collection, Super Mario Bros. Deluxe, Super Mario Advance, Super Mario World: Super Mario Advance 2, Super Mario Advance 4: Super Mario Bros. 3, Classic NES Series: Super Mario Bros., Famicom Mini: Super Mario Bros. 2, Super Mario 64 DS, Super Mario All-Stars Limited Edition, New Super Mario Bros. U + New Super Luigi U, Super Mario Maker for Nintendo 3DS, New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe, Super Mario 3D All-Stars, Game & Watch: Super Mario Bros., and Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury alongside the actual mainline titles. This is not simpler. There would be more ports/remakes/collections in the "mainline" section than actual mainline games. Ahemtoday (talk) 19:18, May 16, 2024 (EDT)

I'm surprised all of you are so willing to engage in what looks like bad faith debate with this user. Oppose the proposal, and leave it at that.   It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 20:01, May 16, 2024 (EDT)

@Ahemtoday here my list. How I would do it (🆕️ meabs games that aren't already in the list, because the others are alteady in the list):

  • Super Mario Bros.
  • Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels
  • Super Mario Bros. 2
  • Super Mario Bros. 3
  • Super Mario Land
  • Super Mario World
  • Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins
  • 🆕️ Super Mario All-Stars
  • Super Mario 64
  • 🆕️ Super Mario Bros. Deluxe
  • 🆕️ Super Mario Advance
  • 🆕️ Super Mario Advance 2: Super Mario World
  • Super Mario Sunshine
  • 🆕️ Super Mario Advance 4: Super Mario Bros. 3
  • 🆕️ Classic NES series: Super Mario Bros.
  • 🆕️ Super Mario 64 DS
  • New Super Mario Bros.
  • Super Mario Galaxy
  • New Super Mario Bros. Wii
  • Super Mario Galaxy 2
  • 🆕️ Super Mario All-Stars: 25th Anniversary Limited Edition
  • Super Mario 3D Land
  • New Super Mario Bros. 2
  • New Super Mario Bros. U
  • Super Mario 3D World
  • Super Mario Maker
  • 🆕️ Super Mario Maker for Nintendo 3DS
  • Super Mario Run
  • Super Mario Odyssey
  • 🆕️ New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe
  • Super Mario Maker 2
  • 🆕️ Super Mario 3D All-Stars
  • 🆕️ Super Mario Bros. 35
  • 🆕️ Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury
  • Super Mario Bros. Wonder

22 games are in this list, I would add 13 games = 35 games.Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 20:44, May 16, 2024 (EDT)

@Mario:I have good arguments. And I'm good at discussing things with other people. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 20:44, May 16, 2024 (EDT)

@Arend: Look. Don't blame this on me. I just made the Proposal. I could'nt know that it would go off-topic. I don't want this eather. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 20:52, May 16, 2024 (EDT)

The topic began to diverge when you said: "I read the Canonicity article. But I think's that's not good. Because there definitiv is a canon in Mario. Not only that but there is a Mario multiverse with at least 8 different Mario universes in it." You begun reading the Canonicity page upon Hewer's suggestion (who could not have predicted that you would react like this at all), who in turn suggested you to do that in the first place because you told him and SONIC123: "I didnt mean that every Mario game should be in the same category. No. There are lots of Super Mario Bros. games that aren't canon." Note that prior to this, no one has ever uttered the word "canon" in this proposal at all: people only begun talking about canonicity and multiverses after you brought up those topics. I'm sorry man, I don't know who else to blame here BUT you.  rend (talk) (edits) 21:12, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
@Arend: Yes I said that. But I couldn't know that would discuss this further. But I think those people misunderstood me. Because I said three things. Canon, Multiverse and Timeline. But most of it doesn't matter for thid proposal. It's about what games should be included in a section and what in another section. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 23:25, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
Perhaps you could not have known, but neither could your objectors: Prior to you elaborating on the subject, Nightwicked curtly denied your idea to split the characters up ("There's no way in hell we're gonna start screwing up this wiki's manner of coverage just because certain things might not happen in the same universe."), Doc thought the idea was ridiculous ("loooooooooooooooool where are you even getting these numbers from"), and I objected that your multiverse idea is the exact kind of speculation that our Canonicity policy was talking about. If you felt like discussing further into it might derail the original proposal, you probably should've said that you'll elaborate further on another talk page that fits better to the topic (such as the earlier stated MarioWiki talk:Canonicity).
And no, people understood you just fine; they just did not agree with your idea to split all the Marios, Peaches, Bowsers, etc. up in separate articles about their different incarnations in certain universes. Nightwicked was very clear about that, and so was I, as well as basically everyone else opposed to your idea. The only confusion was in regards of which incarnations you wanted to split up, which doesn't matter much when people are against you splitting up any incarnations in the first place.  rend (talk) (edits) 13:01, May 18, 2024 (EDT)

Stepping in as sysop: This topic has gotten far off on a tangent and likely won't go anywhere. Keep comments after this directly relevant to the proposal. If you have nothing else to add regarding the canoncity of the Mario franchise, which is mostly a moot point anyway and our stance in the wiki will not change on this, vote on the proposal. I won't personally stop you from making comments on canoncity but you can continue argument inside, say, collapsed content.   It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 21:20, May 16, 2024 (EDT)

What about replies to previous comments? SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:33, May 17, 2024 (EDT)
You can comment freely as if I never said anything but I'm just trying to steer the discussion back to what it's supposed(?) to be, which is about the proposal to merge remakes and whatnot and not necessarily about if there is a canon or not to the Mario universe.   It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 11:55, May 17, 2024 (EDT)
...I never said that. I just was asking if it was fine to reply to previous comments, not make new ones. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 11:59, May 17, 2024 (EDT)
Yes you may.   It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 12:00, May 17, 2024 (EDT)
That's all I wanted to know. Thanks! SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 12:07, May 17, 2024 (EDT)

Create seperate pages for Level themes

I think there should be seperate pages for level themes for example: Grass lands. Not just as categories. And it should not be listed alphabetical, but rather after a game for extram all Grass land levels in Super Mario World. Than another page for different Desert levels, sorted by games.

Proposer: Big Super Mario Fan (talk) (banned)
Deadline: May 21, 2024, 23:59 GMT


#Big Super Mario Fan (talk) - Per my proposal.

  1. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) Well, the proposer said it wasn't for repetition, so sure.
  2. MegaBowser64 (talk) Per proposal


  1. Sparks (talk) Categories are enough. If there were to be articles of different level themes across all Mario games, it would get much too repetitive. Adding category identifications to the bottom of level articles sorts them all without the need for many extra pages.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) Per Sparks. These would get very repetitive, very quickly.
  3. Mario (talk) I'm not going to support a proposal that's poorly put together. Elucidate your course of action.
  4. Ray Trace (talk) The Level page I feel is already adequate for covering the themes (could maybe use an expansion). As for the Airship, Ghost House, etc. those are at least marked with a unique icon in the world map whereas a generic snow course isn't so I feel those are exceptions rather than the rule.
  5. Sdman213 (talk) Per all.
  6. Nintendo101 (talk) Per Ray Trace.

BMfan08 (talk) We already have a Level page to discuss nuances of the types of levels. Making separate pages for these would be repetitive, as Sparks and Camwoodstock said, and I fear that the listing of the levels would be longer than the description of the themes.


To be fair, we do have pages for Airship, Ghost House, Fortress, Tower, and Castle. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:44, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

@ Doc von Schmeltwick: Yes, why can't we make pages for the other level themes too. This would also be helpful for the Super Mario Maker articles. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 22:51, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

@Doc von Schmeltwick: That is a valid point, though I'd like to point out that only one of those pages actually lists all the levels of that type (which, if I'm not mistaken, is what the proposer wants to do with these articles).
@Big Super Mario Fan: What do you mean by helpful for the Super Mario Maker articles? BMfan08 (talk) 22:55, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

@BMfan08:For example in the Super Mario Maker 2 article you can click on the levels themes Ghosthouse , Airships, Castles. To than see the history of those on their own articles. I think this should also be done for orher level themes. Because that's really interesting to know. For example on YouTube there are also videos about the evolution of Grass land levels or Dessert levels, etc. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 23:05, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

I'm stuck here. On the one hand, the opposition has a point. On the other hand, both Doc & BSMF have good points too. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:41, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

This is why I'm abstaining for now. As Doc points out, we have several articles on specific level themes already, so making articles on other recurring level themes such as Ground/Grassland/Overworld and Underground would be obvious. On the other hand, it could be seen as becoming quickly repetitive, and something like Level already covers all themes without the repetition. It would also bring into question whether courses such asWorld 1-3 (Super Mario Bros.) should be counted as ground levels or sky levels.  rend (talk) (edits) 12:36, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
True, true. As for the 1-3 thing, I personally view it as both. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 13:40, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
Yeah, after giving things some thought from everyone here, I'm removing my vote for the time being. I'll abstain though, only cause I'm not entirely sure what the proposer has in mind for such articles. I'm not interested if the end goal is repetition for the sake of it. BMfan08 (talk) 14:05, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
I don't really know WHAT the proposer has in mind, which is why I'm abstaining. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 14:11, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

@SONIC123CDMANIA: I tell you what I have in mind. There should be pages for level themes likes Grass lands, Deserts, etc. They should be structured like the pages about Ghosthouse, Airship and Castle. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 17:45, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

(facepalm) I knew THAT, I'm talking about the other comments. Is this just for repetition, or not? SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:38, May 15, 2024 (EDT)

No, it's not just for reptition. It's also interesting to know about such things. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 18:42, May 15, 2024 (EDT)

Ah, ok. Thanks. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:44, May 16, 2024 (EDT)

@Mario: As I wrote. The Proposal is about creating pages for Grassland, Dessert, Water Level themes (History, Apperances), that a built like the pages for Ghost House, Airship, Castle. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 20:55, May 16, 2024 (EDT)

Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form

bit of a wordy title, so let me explain.

as they stand, enemy lists in game articles are sorted purely alphabetically. this causes some minor organization issues, for example: the "B" section of every enemy list being crowded with just about every Big variant in the game. i think that's not a useful communication of information. what i propose is that instead, variations such as Big Goombas, Horned Ant Troopers, that usually don't appear on their own, would be listed right after the base form even if it breaks alphabetical order. of course, since there can be more than one variation of an enemy, those would then be listed alphabetically, placing Big Goomba before Mini Goomba.

some games split new enemies into their own table, so if a game introduces a new variation (such as something like a Big Gamboo) they would just be on the new enemy table.

Proposer: EvieMaybe (talk)
Deadline: May 28th, 2024, 23:59 GMT


  1. EvieMaybe (talk) as proposer.
  2. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) Yeah, sure
  3. JanMisali (talk) Per proposal.
  4. Super Mario RPG (talk) Yeah, I'm fine with this.
  5. Jazama (talk) Per all
  6. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per proposal.
  7. Yook Bab-imba (talk) This is something that has bothered me forever, so I agree wholeheartedly.

Big Super Mario Fan (talk) I think that's really a good idea.


#Megadardery (talk) As the proposal currently stands, it doesn't offer a well-established alternative to the alphabetical order. I assume you mean that you want to merge the following as well (Paratroopas is grouped with Koopa Troopa, King Bob-omb is grouped with Bob-ombs, etc). Doesn't this mean, we are just grouping by species? List of species kind of already fills this purpose. Alphabetical order makes the most sense for an uncategorized exhaustive list of enemies, where List of species page fills other purposes.


Would you be open to drafting an example of what you'd like to see changed on your userpage or a sandbox? I'm kinda visually oriented. - Nintendo101 (talk) 19:48, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

Some time ago I formatted the New Super Mario Bros. 2#Enemies and obstacles in a manner similar to this proposal. This game has the gold variants, and having them clumped together just because they all begin with "gold" was odd (in fact, most enemies in this game are just variants), so I took the liberty to rearrange it. Yook Bab-imba 12:58, May 17, 2024 (EDT)

@Megadardery: I'm pretty sure Evie is just talking about enemy lists on game articles (e.g. Super Mario Bros. Wonder), which tend to always list enemies in alphabetical order regardless of enemy variants. Evie mentions how enemies are listed on games a lot.  rend (talk) (edits) 20:09, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

indeed, i kind of forgot to specify. retouched phrasing to clarify. EvieMaybe (talk) 23:42, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
Oh, I apologize, I thought this referred to List of enemies. I'll redact my vote, I agree that alphabetical order in articles is clunky, but I think chronological order (order by appearance in levels) makes the most intuitive sense. As it's less "subjective" than other forms of grouping--
User:MegadarderyUser talk:Megadardery 
06:47, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
You know, that's not a bad idea either. We'll have to see what Evie thinks of it, though.  rend (talk) (edits) 07:25, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
Weird, I remember looking at the linked page once and that was how it was structured! Did something change since then, or was that a different page? Maybe it was this?? SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:41, May 15, 2024 (EDT)


None at the moment.