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.
A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed using the code {{User|User name}}.
How to
Rules
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}}.
Only registered, autoconfirmed users can create, comment in, or vote on proposals and talk page proposals. Users may vote for more than one option on proposals with more than two choices.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
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.
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.
If a proposal with only two voting options has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail by a margin of three votes, otherwise the deadline will be extended for another week as if no majority was reached at all.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the administration.
No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
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 2, 2024, 23:59 GMT"]
====Support====
#{{User|[enter your username here]}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]
====Oppose====
====Comments====
Users will now be able to vote on your proposal, until the set deadline is reached. Remember, you are a user as well, so you can vote on your own proposal just like the others.
To support, or oppose, just insert "#{{User|[add your username here]}}" at the bottom of the section of your choice. Just don't forget to add a valid reason for your vote behind that tag if you are voting on another user's proposal. If you are voting on your own proposal, you can just say "Per my proposal".
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.
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}}.
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:
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.
The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.
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
Delete all Super Smash Bros. challenges pages (discuss) Deadline:April 19, 2024, 23:59 GMTApril 26, 2024, 23:59 GMT May 3, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Consider Beanies and Octoombas to be related to Goombas rather than direct variants of them (for consistency with Galoomba et al.) (discuss) Deadline: May 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Split "Baby Fat" from Baby Yoshi (discuss) Deadline: May 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT
In Template:Species infobox, expand "Relatives" guidelines to include variant-type relationships with significant differences between species (discuss) Deadline: May 12, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Reconsider mainline status of Super Mario Maker, Super Mario Maker 2, and Super Mario Run
Hi, we're doing this again! As you may or may not know, back in 2018, I ran a successful proposal to get the wiki to consider Super Mario Land, Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins, Super Mario Maker, and Super Mario Run as entries of the mainline Super Mario series. Based on the sources and information I had at the time, the decision felt sound, and the wiki's userbase agreed. However, in the five years that have passed since then, new information has come to light that has led to me reconsidering my opinion on the subject in regards to Super Mario Maker and Super Mario Run.
For starters, my main source on this argument came from Nintendo's official timeline page, which alongside the games most commonly agreed to be mainline, included Maker and Run. In the time since, this page has been updated, and with the inclusion of games that are unambiguously re-releases of existing games, such as New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe and Super Mario 3D All-Stars, it raises the question of if this is a reliable list of "distinct entries in the mainline Super Mario series" at all. Additionally, in official dev interviews released in the buildup to the release of Super Mario Bros. Wonder, Wonder is treated as the first mainline 2D Mario game in 11 years, with both Maker games being brought up as if they're something else entirely. I could also bring up the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia, which treats Maker as a spin-off as well.
So, if being on Nintendo's official timeline doesn't necessitate a game being a distinct mainline entry, and official material from Nintendo treats the Maker and Run games as spin-offs, then should we still include them as mainline entries in the Super Mario series? Under this proposal, the Makers and Run would be treated as "Related games" in a similar vein to Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island and New Super Luigi U, and would be excluded when numbering the mainline Mario series (Wonder would be treated as the 19th mainline game rather than the 22nd). It would also, somewhat annoyingly, lead to us having to reorganize the "History" section for pages on a bunch of characters, objects, and enemies, so apologies in advance.
JanMisali (talk) Per proposal. I've done extensive research on the subject of which games people consider to be part of the mainline series, and while there isn't anything close to a total consensus, most people do agree that the Maker games and Run are not mainline.
Camwoodstock (talk) That makes sense to us. If Nintendo's stopped really considering the Makers and Run as mainline games as of Wonder's release, it probably seems only fair to stop counting them ourselves. Especially seeing as people already don't really treat them as mainline games if The Video Essay You've Probably Seen By Now If You're A Longtime User Of This Wiki That Was Linked Above™ is to be trusted.
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - The confusion here stems from conflating the overall Super Mario series with the specialized Super Mario Bros. subseries, which is made up of the various 2D games starring Mario and Luigi (ie, omitting the Land, Maker, and Run games, as well as, of course, the 3D games). I have the bones of a page for a SMB series article here.
Hewer (talk) Per all, plus these games were considered part of the series in 35th anniversary stuff, so I think the official stance is clear. And as much as I like the video the supporters bring up, what fans say isn't a valid argument, see Blue Shell.
DrippingYellow (talk) Per Doc. I'd also like to point out that "entirely new" Mario games as mentioned in the interview could very well exclude the Mario Maker series, since their game styles are all derived from earlier Mario games. Either way, what exactly is "mainline" is not determined by the developers, but by Nintendo themselves (i.e. Miyamoto saying Zero Mission isn't a mainline Metroid game wouldn't mean anything). I don't feel like recent re-releases being placed on the list devalues that in any way. (I neglected to mention when I first wrote this comment that there's a good reason why Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia seems to treat Super Mario Maker like a spinoff: both the game and the book were released as a tie-in for Mario's 30th Anniversary (little over a month between them), it makes perfect sense that the Encyclopedia would cover it separately.)
TheUndescribableGhost (talk) I mean, it's too early to tell if Nintendo is actually going reconsider these games as a spin-offs. It's a trick business, because there's the series and franchise, but this is far too early to make a judgement. Also, the way encyclopedia treated Mario Maker was more the recent game released at the time. I mean, who knows. A new book could exclude these games, but given the situation right now, this is the safest option.
Koopa con Carne (talk) Per Doc; they're stating in the interview that Wonder the first new 2D game in the Super Mario Bros. series since NSMBU. Mario Maker and Mario Run aren't Super Mario Bros. titles, but they are Super Mario titles, as listed on the American Mario site. There's a distinction. Also not sure how Some Guy's "extensive research" has any relevance here; it's a survey with a sample constituting like, what, 0.001% of Mario fans? Fan opinion is not taken into consideration on this wiki anyway, unless it's confirmed to act as a significant backdrop for a decision by Nintendo.
Conradd (talk) Let's wait and see what Nintendo thinks of these games in the future before making a decision.
Mateo (talk) This shouldn't even be discussed in the first place. Like it was mentioned before here and in other pages, Super Mario Bros. Wonder is officially (and consistently: https://www.nintendo.com/us/whatsnew/nintendo-direct-june-2023-recap/https://store-jp.nintendo.com/list/software/70010000068687.html even in said interview) considered the first Super Mario Bros. game (or full-fledged/traditional game, it means the same distinction) since New Super Mario Bros. U but all of them are officially considered mainline games and are listed as such in official sites (and the ports are virtually the same game so of course they'd include them). The encyclopedia is not a reliable source and it's outdated, as seen in its own page. We all should follow the facts, not personal preferences. Unless their status is officially changed (which is unlikely), this is the way it should be. Also Per all other reasons.
Consider Maker and Maker 2 mainline, but not Run
Consider Run mainline, but not Maker and Maker 2
Sparks (talk) I thought it over now and I say that Super Mario Run plays like a traditional Mario 2D game, although on mobile instead of consoles. Like what I said in my comment below, I think the Mario Maker games are just sandbox games, and thus I don't consider them mainline Mario games. Super Mario Run is the normal Mario gameplay, and thus I think it is a mainline Mario game.
Seandwalsh (talk) Per Sparks. Super Mario Run has pretty consistently been considered mainline despite what many fans arbitrarily want to believe. Since the Super Mario Maker games have become their own beast I think their status is a little more up in the air.
MegaBowser64 (talk) Per all. Super Mario Run is platforming, no matter what you want to call it, so it should be main series. Mario Maker features drastically different, non-platforming gameplay at its core, so it should not be main series.
OmegaRuby (talk) Per all. The Maker games are less games and more tools or platforms to create games. Although a story mode is present, it mostly serves as one big ideas book for people to take notes from, as levels are made in the editor with items all available to the player, save a few.
Personally, I think the Mario Maker games are just games where players around the world could share and post levels online (I know Mario Maker 2 had a story mode but still), but Super Mario Run is different. It's not a sandbox game and has worlds, levels and many playable characters. I'm kinda leaning towards keeping Run as a mainline Mario game, but I'll think it over first. Sparks (talk) October 31, 2023, 12:46 (EDT)
It's worth noting that Nintendo is extremely inconsistent with regards to which games are part of this series, and that this wiki already doesn't use the exact set of games found in official sources as its definitive list. There isn't an "objective" answer here; any decision for how to classify the games in this series will be a decision. Attempting to reach a definitive answer that isn't based on fan interpretation is literally impossible. Categorically, everyone here is a fan, and we are interpreting things. There's no way around that. Even if you point to one specific list Nintendo has used and say "yes, this is the definitive Canonical list of mainline Super Mario games", the choice to prioritize that source over other sources would itself be subjective fan interpretation. JanMisali (talk) 17:07, October 31, 2023 (EDT)
The whole wiki could technically be considered fan interpretation, but that's fine if it's fan interpretation of official sources, not fan interpretation with no official basis (e.g. "Hotel Mario isn't mainline because Nintendo never counts it as such" is fine, "Hotel Mario isn't mainline because most people don't think it is" is not). Anyway, I don't think I'd say Nintendo's stance is extremely inconsistent - the only differences I notice between the current official websitelists are that the Japanese version has The Lost Levels, Mario Maker 3DS, SMB 35, and Wonder while the English one doesn't. The two Maker games and Run are always considered part of the series in these official sources, so even if the wiki's current list is inaccurate (I've honestly started considering reclassifying Mario 35 while writing this comment), the games concerned by this proposal aren't part of that inaccuracy. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:27, October 31, 2023 (EDT)
There are, however, more than just those two sources. I think "Super Mario Run isn't mainline because the developers of Super Mario Bros. Wonder don't consider it to be mainline" is just as valid as "Run is mainline because there's a website that puts it in the same list as the mainline games and some but not all reissues of mainline games". Which source you prioritize is entirely a matter of opinion, at which point I think what the most common opinion happens to be can absolutely be a relevant deciding factor. JanMisali (talk) 18:38, October 31, 2023 (EDT)
@Doc von Schmeltwick: Question: Would you consider the Run and Maker games, and maybe even the Land games, spinoffs of the Super Mario Bros. subseries? All of them feature 2D platformer gameplay in the same vein as other Super Mario Bros. games (in fact, they all feel closer as Super Mario Bros. titles than even Super Mario Bros. 2), with Run in particular featuring the same style of graphics and similar music as New Super Mario Bros. U, and Maker in particular featuring four gameplay styles based directly on four Super Mario Bros. games. I personally feel it would be wrong to not consider them Super Mario Bros. titles (or at least Super Mario Bros.-adjacent titles) purely because there's no "Bros." in the title. Keep in mind that we have dozens of Mario spinoffs despite the main series and franchise as a whole being called Super Mario, and that 90% of these spinoffs don't include "Super" in front of "Mario" in each title, so the full "Super Mario Bros." name having to be in the title shouldn't be the deciding factor IMO. I understand that you might think this has little to do with the proposal itself, but I feel this is also relevant to your vote, since you brought your concept for a Super Mario Bros. subseries page up there. rend(talk)(edits) 19:29, November 1, 2023 (EDT)
The Super Mario series and Super Mario Bros. series share the same first four games, so by definition anything exclusive to the former is a spin-off of the latter. The reason the Super Mario Bros. series was brought up was to explain why the Wonder devs considered it the first Bros. game since NSMBU. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 17:56, November 2, 2023 (EDT)
Until the statement from the Wonder devs, I included Run as well. The Maker series would count, except 2 has the Super Mario 3D World style, which is of course part of the Super Mario 3D subseries instead. As for how they'd relate to each other, I'd consider Land/3D/Maker/Run to be derivative of Bros., but not direct subseries of it. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:04, November 2, 2023 (EDT)
I get where you're coming from about this Super Mario and Super Mario Bros. subseries distinction Doc, but bringing all of this up raises a very important question to me, which is... where did you get your list of Super Mario Bros. games from? It feels weird to me to make a point about how "fan interpretation doesn't matter" in the context of deciding which games are mainline, only to include in your counterargument... a list of games that, as far as I am aware, is largely derived from your own interpretation. We can infer that Nintendo has acknowledged the existence of a Super Mario Bros. subseries, and that Maker and Run are not part of it but U and Wonder are, but past that, any decisions we'd make are largely based on conjecture. Yeah, it's reasonable to assume that if U is part of the series, then so are the other three New Super Mario Bros. games, but without an official statement, can we really be certain? For all we know, the title New Super Mario Bros. 2 could be treated as proof that New Super Mario Bros. Wii shouldn't count. WayslideCool (talk) 10:25, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
There's this list of nine Super Mario Bros. games, but (if Google Translate is to be trusted) the wording implies that they're just examples and it's not an exhaustive list. Regardless, what matters to the proposal is that the Maker and Run games are Super Mario but not Super Mario Bros. What else is in the SMB series is irrelevant, and it's also not something that's even covered in the mainspace as far as I'm aware. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:11, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
Pretty sure Blhte confirmed that was simply a list of random side-scrollers Mario's been in. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 11:47, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
Amittedly, this is very silly, and we know for a dang fact this is not what Doc Von meant by this--this is just us bringing it up for the sake of being as thorough as possible, even to a highly illogical extreme. But it is worth noting that, uh, defining what counts as a mainline Mario platformer as hinging entirely on the inclusion of the word "Bros" not only leads to weird exclusions such as the two Lands, but... um... somerathersillyinclusions, to put it lightly. ;P ~Camwoodstock(talk) 21:12, November 2, 2023 (EDT)
But of course; I'm only talking about the side-scrolling platformers based around Mario (and usually Luigi). Granted, I was the one who wanted to include Super Paper Mario and Super Mario Kart as "related" games to the Super Mario series, so maybe it's not so far off of a comparison after all :P Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 11:49, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
I feel obligated to ask this: what other lists of mainline Mario games have been made by Nintendo over the years? Genuinely not sure where else Nintendo has addressed this. DrippingYellow (talk) 19:55, November 1, 2023 (EDT)
I kinda feel the need to draw attention to a pretty major point I made in the proposal, which is "How much can we really trust the Nintendo of America Super Mario Website as a canonical list of which games should be considered mainline?" This list excludes Super Mario Bros: The Lost Levels, includes Super Mario 3D All-Stars but not Super Mario All-Stars, treats recent rereleases like New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe as distinct entries, but not earlier ones like Super Mario Advance 4: Super Mario Bros. 3. I get the impression what we're seeing is less "canonical Nintendo-approved list of which games should be counted as distinct mainline entries" and more "Nintendo is a corporation that wants to promote their recent titles and is throwing in anything recent that vaguely falls under the Super Mario banner". Like, I don't know how bold a stance this is, but I don't think it's completely out of the question that a game can be a Super Mario game without being a mainline entry. (Hi Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island!) WayslideCool (talk) 10:25, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
The list is ordered by US release date, so it makes some sense that they would exclude The Lost Levels because of its weird release history outside Japan. The Japanese version of the site, ordered by Japanese release date, does have The Lost Levels. And ports are all listed separately on the Super Mario (series) article anyway because that's just how the series pages are organised. The official list being used to promote games does not change the fact that it is Nintendo's official list of Super Mario games, and also isn't a reason that we should discount specifically Maker and Run any more than it's a reason we should discount the Land games or the 3D games or whatever else we feel like excluding. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:11, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
Well, we did decide that Bowser's Fury and Maker for 3DS go in the "Ports, remakes, and compilations" category, despite it being arguable that both games could very well count as full sequels. And yet Super Mario Bros. 35, which again is on the same list of games without any distinction being made between it and other titles, doesn't count as a mainline entry or a reissue? I'm not suggesting that strictly adhering to Nintendo's apparent classification of these games would be better than the way we're doing it now, but we definitely are currently already discounting a few games entirely on the basis that Nintendo's classification of them doesn't make sense. JanMisali (talk) 11:43, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
You do have a point with Mario 35 like I mentioned earlier, but if there are discrepancies between our classification and Nintendo's, I think the solution is to fix them rather than use that as a reason to become even less accurate. Also, how exactly could those ports be considered "full sequels"? A port with new content is still a port and still falls under that section, I really don't see how there's an argument to be had there. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:14, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
Playing devil's advocate here, Bowser's Fury is a completely new game that just happens to also include a port of a previous game. Maker for 3DS, while mechanically nearly identical to Maker, has completely original levels, making its single-player "campaign" exactly as different as, say, The Lost Levels is from Super Mario Bros. Is that enough of a reason to justify actually calling them mainline entries? No, but it is enough, I think, to question exactly how objective the reasoning currently being used to disqualify a handful of the games on "the official list" really is. Clearly, not all of the games on this list "really count" as mainline Super Mario games, and it's not as simple as just pointing to some of them and saying "okay, these are reissues, so they go somewhere else". JanMisali (talk) 12:47, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
In the case of the ports specifically, I don't think it's really an argument of mainline vs. not. Note how in history sections on the wiki (Blooper for an example), the "Super Mario series" section covers ports as well since they're considered part of the series (this is even true for things that appeared in the ports but not the original like Toadette). They're listed separately in series pages and navboxes just because it's important for organization to distinguish between entirely new games and re-releases of old ones. And I still don't think the fact of them being ports is really up for debate - Bowser's Fury and the pre-made levels in Mario Maker aren't standalone games so they can't be counted separately from the ports. To get back to the topic of the proposal, I still don't see a good enough reason to distrust the official list and decide that we should exclude specifically Maker and Run. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:28, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
Make coverage of playable Toads and playable Yoshis consistent with each other
Currently, this wiki has separate articles for Yellow Toad (New Super Mario Bros. series) and Blue Toad (character), but does not have separate articles for the different color Yoshis that are playable in Super Mario Run and Super Mario Bros. Wonder, instead covering them all under the Yoshi (species) article. This inconsistency is a little bit silly, as there isn't really anything that differentiates the Toads that couldn't also be said about the Yoshis. While I don't have a particularly strong preference for how this should be changed, I do think it would be a good idea for this to be changed to become more consistent.
Here are what I consider to be the main options for how to resolve this inconsistency:
Create new articles for all the different color Yoshis. These would not, for example, discuss every light-blue Yoshi, but only the specific character named Light-Blue Yoshi who is playable in Super Mario Bros. Wonder. This would be analogous to how the articles about the playable Toads are written.
Merge the Yellow and Blue Toad articles into the Toad (species) article. This would be analogous to how the playable Yoshis are currently covered.
Merge the Yellow and Blue Toad articles into one singular "Yellow Toad and Blue Toad" article, and leave the coverage of Yoshis as-is. (Creating a separate article for all the different color playable Yoshis collectively would be more consistent, but is also a bad idea.)
Merge the Yellow and Blue Toad articles into the main Toad article, and move the coverage of the different color playable Yoshis into the main Yoshi article. That is, treat these characters purely as variations of Toad (character) and Yoshi (character), like Pink Donkey Kong Jr. or players 3 and 4 from Mario Bros. (Game Boy Advance).
Personally, I think of these the third option is the most sensible, and would be the least disruptive.
Proposer: JanMisali (talk) Deadline: November 7, 2023, 23:59 GMT
Create new articles for individual playable Yoshis
Tails777 (talk) This has always been a goal for me. Multi colored Yoshis have had consistent playable appearances and consistent differences across multiple games. Beyond just Super Mario Run and Super Mario Bros. Wonder and regardless of whether or not this option covers such things, this is the step I'd rather take.
Merge Yellow Toad and Blue Toad with Toad (species)
Somethingone (talk) Primary choice; I agree this situation is the same as the colored Yoshis, but I don't necessarily think that splitting a member solely because they are playable is a good rule to follow. There's little indication that the two toads are unique beyond them being playable.
Blinker (talk) Per proposal, I agree that something should be merged here. Considering they've been collectively referred to as "Toad" in U Deluxe and the Wonder direct, I think this makes more sense than the "Yellow Toad and Blue Toad" option. Not sure about the character/species distinction though. The line between the two pages feels quite arbitrarily drawn, for the most part, but there are instances of both playable and non-playable Toads in the character article, so if playability isn't the criterion, might as well play along with the Toad article's being written as though it's about an individual, I guess.
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per proposal, this is probably the closest to what I want in the long run.
Okapii (talk) I don’t mean to diminish the amount of effort and care that went into the pages for Blue and Yellow, but tbh I just don’t think there is enough merit to warrant these two having their own pages, or even a shared one. Taking a look at the talk pages for both shows that there has been confusion for years as to what even constitutes an appearance for these two, because they are so generic in design, personality (or lack thereof), and ability.
Camwoodstock (talk) Seeing as we nixed unique articles for each individually colored Yoshi long ago, this definitely makes more sense to us. We don't really have a dedicated Green Toad article, so these two having articles feels like a remnant of a long-bygone era of the wiki.
TheUndescribableGhost (talk) omekapo jelo Toad en laso Toad, mi wile ken sina. Jokes aside, I initially thought of the idea of merging to two into their own article as a duo, but the more I thought about it, it's actually debatable on whether or not Nintendo has made any distinction on who is exactly the Yellow or Blue Toad in many games. I know it's a controversial stance, but the same issue applies to Birdo and Boom Boom. Whenever Nintendo puts these characters in a game, they don't make it very clear on who the Birdo or Boom Boom is. Compare them to Toad, Lakitu, and Kamek in comparison totheirspecies. There's enough information to tell the characters and species apart here. In this case, we are talking about two colors with flat personalities. I'm not going to deny that Nintendo wasn't trying to make these Toads special, but with the advent of tons of Toad colors in other Super Mario games, there's almost a level of speculation on who the actual Yellow or Blue Toad is. Both colors appear in the Mario Baseball games and there is even another Yellow Toad in the Toad Brigade. That one in particular has a unique Japanese name while the two Toads are actually given genericJapanese names (if only they went for Bucken-Berry and Ala-Gold). Super Mario Maker 2 also has a Blue Toad in Mario's construction crew and Nintendo doesn't specify if he's the same dude. I don't agree with merging these with the Toad character, because the Toad modifier only really applies to one game and in that case, the generic instance of "Toad" in that game while probably intentionally meant to reference the Toad, was really an attempt to merge these characters into one. I mean, it's not like we're missing out on that detail. So until Nintendo starts to
LadySophie17 (talk) This makes the most sense to me, like other character pairs that have appeared in the series.
Seandwalsh (talk) Second choice. Only option that makes sense of the ones proposed. I would just oppose any change but nobody’s backing that horse.
Hewer (talk) Funnily enough I was planning on a proposal to get rid of the identifiers on the Yellow Toad and Blue Toad articles before this one started. Anyway, the two always appear together and seem to be considered the same character in NSMBU Deluxe, so a merge makes sense the more that I think about it.
Tails777 (talk) Secondary option. These two Toads normally appear in the same games at the same time with the same roles. I'd argue they're more deserving of shared articles than Ashley and Red were (even if they are split now)
Archivist Toadette (talk) Sure, let's do this. I'm not a fan of the "New Super Mario Bros. series" identifier anyways, since it's technically a sub-series, but that's a discussion for another time.
Waluigi Time (talk) They have enough of a significant role that I don't think we should just be burying them in the Toad species article, but there's not really anything you can say about one that you can't say about the other, so this seems reasonable enough.
7feetunder (talk) I had already suggested this on Yellow Toad's talk page previously, and would have eventually proposed the merge myself had this proposal not been made first. Yellow Toad and Blue Toad appear in the exact same games and have the exact same role in each one, so much so that some of their article sections are nearly word-for-word identical. The only thing that really sets them apart is their color.
Merge Yellow Toad and Blue Toad with Toad, and move coverage of individual playable Yoshis to Yoshi
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per proposal, leaning less toward this than the others for now, though.
Clarify and expand coverage of recurring musical themes
This proposal that passed back in 2018 created the groundwork for the creation of articles about recurring musical themes. I think that this was a great first step in establishing coverage of a very important aspect of the Super Mario franchise. However, I feel that the standards it set need some improvements and clarifications.
This proposal set the following standard for what qualifies a theme for an article: “the theme must be renditioned in at least 8 games, not counting remakes or reissues.” The term “renditioned” has been interpreted to mean that the game includes an entirely new arrangement. It doesn’t make sense to limit what counts as an appearance to entirely new arrangements, because whether or not a theme is “recurring” has nothing to do with it being a new arrangement, a reused arrangement, or the original version. For example, a theme that has been included in exactly 8 games, each featuring a new arrangement, would qualify for an article as a recurring theme. However, a theme that has been included in 20 games, but only 6 of those feature new arrangements, would not receive an article as a recurring theme. It doesn't make any sense to say the the first theme is recurring but the second one is not. Additionally, I think that we should include appearances in other pieces of media, such as The Super Mario Bros. Movie, rather than just limiting it to strictly games.
For these reasons, I propose this new standard: For a recurring theme to qualify for an article, it must appear in at least 8 games or other pieces of Super Mario-related media, such as movies, TV shows, albums, official live performances, etc. An appearance does not count towards the threshold only if it is the original version of the theme appearing in a remake, port, or remaster of the game of the theme’s first appearance. A game’s release through a service such as Virtual Console, Arcade Archives, or Nintendo Switch Online does not count towards the appearance threshold.
Additionally, I think it is important to define what even qualifies as a "theme." Here is the definition I propose: "A theme is a recognizable musical idea that encompasses melodic, harmonic, rhythmic, or timbral elements, either in the context of a musical composition or a sound effect."
Here are some examples of what would and would not count towards the “8 pieces of media” threshold for the “Ground Theme” from Super Mario Bros.:
Like the 2018 proposal stated, appearances that do not count towards the article creation threshold should still be noted that within the recurring theme's article, such as remakes and ports of the original game, Virtual Console releases/masterpieces, and other appearances that otherwise do not count towards the threshold.
Proposer: ToxicOJ (talk) Deadline: November 10, 2023, 23:59 GMT
SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) I agree. Then again, there are 1-ish things that don't make sense. If remakes aren't counted for the "8 pieces of media" threshold, then shouldn't Super Mario All-Stars and/or Super Mario 64 DS not count?
MegaBowser64 (talk) Sounds good. Sonic123's remark makes sense though, there should be a very clear-cut line for remakes.
Camwoodstock (talk) You could probably also change the whole "8 instances" line to say "8 unique instances" and then define what counts as a unique appearance of the song, rather than trying to mesh it all together like this (our brain kinda melted trying to read this at first... we blame a toothache ;P), but we definitely think cleanly defining what counts as a new instance of a song rather than just it appearing in another port is very handy to have, and is something sorely missing.
Regarding SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk)'s point, the standard regarding remakes is that the only appearance that doesn't count is when original theme is in a remake of the original game (i.e. Classic NES Series: Super Mario Bros.). This distinction only applies to remakes of the game where the theme first appeared. Appearances of the original theme or arrangements of the theme in remakes of subsequent games does count (i.e. Super Mario 64 DS or Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury). The intention behind this is to ensure that a theme does not end up qualifying solely based on the game of origin being rereleased in its original form over and over again. In other words:
Original theme in original game (Counts)
Original theme in remake/port of original game (Doesn't count)
Original theme in other game (Counts)
Original theme in remake/port of other game (Counts)
New arrangement in other game (Counts)
New arrangement in remake/port of original game (Counts)
New arrangement in remake/port of other game (Counts)
Reused arrangement in other game (Counts)
Reused arrangement in remake/port of the original game (Counts)
Reused arrangement in remake/port of other game (Counts)
Any type of appearance in a Virtual Console/Arcade Archives/Nintendo Switch Online game (Doesn't count)ToxicOJ (talk) 14:34, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
I get why a new arrangement makes it enough to count, but I don't understand the logic behind counting reused arrangements in ports of games other than the original. If reused arrangements in ports shouldn't count, then I think we should be consistent about that. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:43, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
Under this framework, reused arrangements in ports would count. The only thing that wouldn't count are inclusions of the original version of the theme in ports of the theme's first game of appearance. ToxicOJ (talk) 14:46, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
And that's what I have a problem with. Why is that the case? What makes reused arrangements in ports of other games more valid than reused arrangements in ports of the original game? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:53, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
When you say "reused arrangements in ports," does that include the very first version of a theme (Super Mario Bros. original version of the "Ground Theme" in Classic NES Series: Super Mario Bros.), or just reused arrangements in ports (Super Mario All-Stars arrangement of the "Ground Theme" in Super Mario All-Stars Limited Edition)? ToxicOJ (talk) 14:58, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
I'm saying that neither of those cases should count. For example, Super Mario 64 DS reusing the arrangement from SM64 shouldn't count, for the same reason that ports of Super Mario Bros. that use the original theme shouldn't count. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 15:12, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
The only reason I make the distinction between ports of later games and ports of the original game is to prevent a situation where a theme could be considered "recurring" without ever either changing its arrangement or being included in a different game from the original. If a past arrangement is reused in a port of another game, then that problem has already been avoided so there's no need to exclude that appearance. To be honest I'd rather count both of these situations towards the threshold than neither of them, but I thought that this was the best compromise standard. ToxicOJ (talk) 15:19, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
I wouldn't mind counting both either, I just have a problem with the inconsistency of counting one and not the other. It feels much more simple and logical to either count or not count all reused appearances in ports. And if we want to fully solve the problem you've described then we'd need to not count both, otherwise it would still be possible for a theme with only two appearances and one arrangement to be considered recurring. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 16:00, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
Sparks (talk) 
October 31, 2023, 12:46 (EDT)
rend (talk) (edits) 19:29, November 1, 2023 (EDT)
