|
Current time:
October 16, 2026, 10:08 (UTC)
|
|
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
- Voting periods last for two weeks, but can close early or be extended (see below).
- Any autoconfirmed user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so.
- 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.
|
If you would like to get feedback on an idea before formally proposing it here, you may do so on the proposals talk. For talk page proposals, you can discuss the changes on the talk page itself before creating the TPP there.
How to
If someone has 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 other users, who will then vote on whether or not they think the idea should be implemented. Proposals should include links to all relevant pages and writing guidelines. Proposals must include a detailed description of the proposed changes and may link to a draft page. Any pages that would be largely affected by the proposal should be marked with {{proposal notice}}.
Rules
- Only autoconfirmed users may create or vote on proposals. Proposals can be created by one user or co-authored by two users.[Proposal 1]
- A given user may author/co-author a maximum of five total ongoing/unimplemented proposals. Any new proposals over this limit will be immediately canceled.
- Anyone is free to comment on proposals (provided that the page's protection level allows them to edit).[Proposal 2]
- Proposals conclude at the end of the day (23:59) two weeks after voting starts (all times UTC).[Proposal 3][Proposal 4]
- For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, the voting starts immediately and the deadline is two weeks later on Monday, August 15, at 23:59 (UTC).
- Proposals cannot contradict an already ongoing proposal or overturn the decision of a previous proposal that concluded less than four weeks (28 days) ago.
- Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. "Oppose", "Do nothing") unless the status quo itself violates policy.
- Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available. Keep in mind that we use approval voting, so all of your votes count equally regardless of preferred order.[Proposal 5]
- Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it. Agreeing with a previously mentioned reason given by another user is acceptable (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(s) at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the wiki staff.
- 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 "(blocked)" 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.
- If one week before a proposal's initial deadline, the first place option is ahead of the second place option by eight or more votes and the first place option has at least 80% approval, then the proposal concludes early. Wiki staff may tag a proposal with "Do not close early" at any time to prevent an early close, if needed.
- Tag the proposal with {{early notice}} if it is on track for an early close. Use {{proposal check|early=yes}} to perform the check.
- 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.
- If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
- If a proposal reaches its deadline and the first place option is ahead of the second place option by three or more votes, then the first place option must have over 50% approval to win. If the margin is only one or two votes, then the first place option must have at least 60% approval to win. If the required approval threshold is not met, then the proposal is extended for another week.
- Use {{proposal check}} to automate this calculation; see the template page for usage instructions and examples.
- Proposals can be extended a maximum of three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, then the proposal fails and cannot be re-proposed until at least four weeks after the last deadline.
- After a proposal passes, it is added to the appropriate list of "unimplemented proposals" below and is removed once it has been sufficiently implemented.[Proposal 6]
- 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 should ask for that help. Proposals that result in changes to policy pages or general guidelines must be cited accordingly.[Proposal 7]
- All proposals are archived. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived, including their date of cancellation.[Proposal 8]
- Proposals can only be rewritten or canceled by their proposer within the first four days of their creation. If a proposer cancels their own proposal, they must provide a reason and wait three days before submitting any new proposal.[Proposal 9]
- A proposer cannot cancel their proposal and then implement it anyway. Only wiki staff can cancel a proposal and immediately put it into effect.
- Proposers can request their proposal be canceled by a wiki staff member after the self-cancellation cutoff, but they must provide a valid reason for doing so. In most cases, the proposal should simply run its course.
- If the wiki staff deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to cancel it at any time.
- 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. Staff changes are discussed internally and carried out by the bureaucrats.
- No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
Proposal formatting
Copy and paste the formatting below to get started; your username and the proposal deadline will automatically be substituted when you save the page. Update the bracketed variables with actual information, and be sure to replace the whole variable including the square brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information" and not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but the objective(s) of each voting option 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|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}}<br>
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 (UTC)
====[option title (e.g. Support, Option 1)]: [brief summary of option]====
#{{user|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.
====[option title (e.g. Oppose, Option 2)]: [brief summary of option]====
====Comments ([brief proposal title])====
Autoconfirmed users will now be able to vote on your proposal. Remember that you can vote on your own proposal just like the others.
To vote for an option, just insert #{{user|[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 simply say "Per proposal".
Poll proposal formatting
As an alternative to the standard proposal format, users may choose to create a poll proposal when one larger issue can be broken down into multiple subissues that can be resolved independently of each other.[Proposal 10] Poll proposals concerning multiple pages must have good justification for using the poll proposal format rather than individual talk page proposals or else will be canceled (for example, in the case of the princesses poll proposal, there are valid consistency concerns which make it worthwhile to consider these three articles simultaneously, but for routine article size splits, there is no need to abandon using standard TPPs for each).
In a poll proposal, each option is essentially its own mini-proposal with a deadline and suboption headings. A poll proposal can have a maximum of 15 options, and the rules above apply to each option as if it were its own proposal: users may vote on any number of options they wish, and individual options may close early or be extended separately from the rest. If an option fails to achieve quorum or reach a consensus after three extensions, then the status quo wins for that option by default. If all options fail, then nothing will be done.
To create a poll proposal, copy and paste the formatting below to get started; your username and the option deadlines will automatically be substituted when you save the page. Update the bracketed variables with actual information, and be sure to replace the whole variable including the square brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information" and not "[This is the inserted information]".
===[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|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}}
====[option title (e.g. Option 1)]: [brief summary of option]====
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 (UTC)
;Support
#{{user|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.
;Oppose
====[option title (e.g. Option 2)]: [brief summary of option]====
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 (UTC)
;Support
#{{user|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.
;Oppose
====[option title (e.g. Option 3)]: [brief summary of option]====
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 (UTC)
;Support
#{{user|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.
;Oppose
====Comments ([brief proposal title])====
For the purposes of the ongoing proposals list, a poll proposal's deadline is the latest deadline of any ongoing option(s). A poll proposal is archived after all of its options have settled, and it is listed as one single proposal in the archive. It is considered to have "passed" if one or more options were approved by voters (resulting in a change from the status quo), and it is considered to have "failed" if all options were rejected by voters and no change in the status quo was made.
Relevant discussions
- ^ Proposal "Allow co-authorship of proposals" (passed on January 24, 2025)
- ^ Proposal "Allow unregistered users to comment under talk page proposals" (passed on November 14, 2024)
- ^ Proposal "Proposals Should End At The end of the day one week after voting starts (In UTC)" (passed on March 3, 2010)
- ^ Proposal "Revise how long proposals take: "IT'S ABOUT (how much) TIME (they take)"" (passed on October 16, 2024)
- ^ Proposal "Vote For More Than One Option On Proposals With More Than Two Choices" (passed on May 10, 2016)
- ^ Proposal "Delete Links to Passed Talk Page Proposals ONLY Until Action Has Been Taken" (passed on May 2, 2013)
- ^ Proposal "Cite relevant proposals and discussions on policy pages and guidelines" (passed on October 17, 2024)
- ^ Proposal "Include the date a proposal was withdrawn within the proposal (when applicable)" (passed on September 9, 2017)
- ^ Proposal "Allow users to put a reason for canceling proposals" (passed on May 8, 2026)
- ^ Proposal "Introduce a new type of proposal" (passed on February 14, 2025)
Talk page proposals
Proposals concerning a single page or a limited group of pages are held on the most relevant talk page regarding the matter. All of the above proposal rules also apply to talk page proposals. Place {{TPP}} under the section's heading, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{settled TPP}}. Proposals dealing with a large amount 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 {{ongoing TPP}}. Include a brief description of the proposal while also mentioning any pages affected by it, a link to the talk page housing the discussion, the proposal author(s), 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.
Talk page proposal formatting
==[insert a title for your proposal here]==
{{TPP}}
[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|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}}<br>
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 (UTC)
===[option title (e.g. Support, Option 1)]: [brief summary of option]===
#{{user|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.
===[option title (e.g. Oppose, Option 2)]: [brief summary of option]===
===Comments ([brief proposal title])===
==[insert a title for your proposal here]==
{{TPP}}
[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|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}}
===[option title (e.g. Option 1)]: [brief summary of option]===
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 (UTC)
;Support
#{{user|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.
;Oppose
===[option title (e.g. Option 2)]: [brief summary of option]===
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 (UTC)
;Support
#{{user|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.
;Oppose
===[option title (e.g. Option 3)]: [brief summary of option]===
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 (UTC)
;Support
#{{user|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.
;Oppose
===Comments ([brief proposal title])===
List of ongoing talk page proposals
Deletions
Moves
None at the moment.
Merges
None at the moment.
Splits
Miscellaneous
Unimplemented proposals
Proposals
Note: Implemented for all except Bowser's Inside Story's Bowser's Castle and Kingdom Battle's Peach's Castle
Note: Article for "Battle Without Honor or Humanity" has not been created yet
Talk page proposals
Note: Missing Rainbow Bridge, Blue Bonus Game House, and Yellow Bonus Game House articles.
Note: Currently split clothing should be merged back
Writing guidelines
Refer to lost media in the past tense
This is a pretty straightforward idea. I personally find it a little bit confusing to see things that in a sense don't actually exist anymore referred to with "is" instead of "was". I think it would be more elegant to say "Mario Kart Tour was a mobile game" instead of "Mario Kart Tour is a discontinued mobile game", for the same reason that "Gunpei Yokoi was a game designer" is better writing than "Gunpei Yokoi is a deceased game designer".
This would, if implemented, apply to everything in the lost media category, but I recognize that "lost media" is a somewhat broad concept and it might make more sense to instead only do this for some types of lost media. If the consensus is that only some lost media should be referred to in past tense, I'll make a second proposal covering different cases separately, based on what people bring up in the comments.
Proposer: janMisali (talk)
Deadline: October 20, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)
Refer to all lost media in the past tense
- janMisali (talk) First choice, as proposer.
Refer to some, but not all, lost media in the past tense (and make a second proposal after this one closes to decide exactly how that would work)
- janMisali (talk) Second choice, as proposer.
- Nelsonic (talk) I don't believe stuff like Mario Kart Tour can be considered lost media; the game'll likely get a continued-interest server, and I'm pretty sure it's been datamined to high heck at this point. As far as I'm aware, most truly lost media already is referred to in the past tense (for instance, Chuck Quizmo's Quiz).
#Wandering Poplin (talk) Very, very tertiary. See below vote for reasoning.
Refer to all lost media in the present tense
- P-Tux7 (talk)I believe that "was" should only refer to services that have explicitly shut down, such as WarioWare DIY and Mario Kart Tour. Since it is possible for lost media to still exist, saying "was" is presumptive and would require edits whenever lost media is found.
- Wandering Poplin (talk) Primary option. Per this discussion. This still feels like all it is going to do is further encourage "editorial panicking." And to quote Camwoodstock from that very discussion, "It's not like Mario Kart Tour ontologically ceased to be a video game the moment the servers were pulled on it. "
- Salmancer (talk) "My limited scholarly experience says that writing about fictional works should always be done in present tense." Lost or not, the only reason we should talk about fiction in the past tense is because of its release date, its creation, its reception or temporal relation to the creation or reception or other fictional works. And again, does anyone really want to go through the trouble of updating articles from present tense to past tense every time something gets discontinued?
- Camwoodstock (talk) Per our past selves when we say that it's not like lost media ontologically stops being a thing the moment it's no longer available to the public. Both in the event of server closures, but also in regards to things that are like, physically lost. Consider something like Mario Kart XXL, which, for a period of time, had only one known copy that was being hoarded by a collector. Even though this individual could literally hold the cartridge in their hands and play it on a Game Boy Advance, since it wasn't yet available to the public, it would still qualify as "lost media"... And it wouldn't make much sense to say that the game "was", or that they "owned" it. They clearly had it in their possession at that present moment.
- Illuminoid (talk) Per the discussion about this on Talk:Mario Kart Tour.
- Yoshi18 (talk) Primary choice. Per all.
- Iand255 (talk) Primary choice; per all.
- Past Brett (talk) Per all. Just because a media is no longer fully accessible doesn't means it no longer exists.
- The Dab Paster (talk) Per all.
Do nothing
- Wandering Poplin (talk) Secondary option. Same reasoning as above. I'm just not really a fan of this idea...
- Iand255 (talk) Secondary choice; per all.
- Yoshi18 (talk) Secondary choice. Per all.
@janMisali You are citing the wrong Mario Kart game in your proposal's example.
Wandering Poplin (talk) 19:15, October 6, 2026 (UTC)
- @janMisali You still have a leftover instance of "Mario Kart World" in the proposal's prose. Wandering Poplin (talk) 23:20, October 6, 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks, I can't believe I didn't spot that. jan Misali (talk · contributions) 16:14, October 7, 2026 (UTC)
If the third option passes, will real-life closed physical locations (Casa de Mario and Mario Factory (arcade)) also be referred to in present tense? 1468z (talk) 19:35, October 6, 2026 (UTC)
- I feel like those being called lost media in the first place is a bit misleading. I don't think that timed real world physical events that can't be experienced anymore because time did it's thing and passed should be lumped in with lost video games, movies, books, etc. Those things can be emulated, or archived in their entirety, or converted to a digital e-book. I can't emulate Christmas of 2012, just like I can't emulate going to Casa de Mario; they're not really lost media in the same way works of arts are, but there isn't really much of a better way of classifying them, so they get referred to as lost media anyway.
I-AHH-nD255 (talk/stalk) 21:53, October 6, 2026 (UTC)
- Agreed. Mario Factory isn't really "lost media", because it really wasn't even "media" to begin with. Wandering Poplin (talk) 22:08, October 6, 2026 (UTC)
Removals
None at the moment.
Additions
None at the moment.
Changes
Merge some articles for arrangements of recurring themes, and clarify when to split them
I've observed that some users have been a bit overzealous with the splitting recurring arrangements portion of our music coverage policy, which has resulted in oddities like the Underground BGM being split across multiple pages because the Super Mario Bros. 3 and New Super Mario Bros. Wii arrangements were considered distinct enough to split, without prior discussion as far as I'm aware. This is pretty confusing for casual readers who aren't super attuned to the musical differences and/or aware of the specifics of wiki policy to understand when and why these splits happen, and needlessly scatters information on the same subject across multiple articles. If you go to the Underground BGM page right now, it doesn't mention New Super Mario Bros. U or Puzzle & Dragons: Super Mario Bros. Edition at all, because that information has either intentionally or by oversight been shuffled over to the page for the New Super Mario Bros. Wii arrangement. It is interesting when a particular arrangement carries its influence forward or recurs in a later game, but I would consider that a part of the history for the original theme and it can easily be communicated to the reader in a sentence or two. We don't need an entire page for that.
The recurring theme guideline (that a theme appearing in 8 or more games and/or soundtrack releases is considered recurring), in general, is very outdated and based on a lot of arbitrary standards and piecemeal decisions over several years. For example, Super Mario Galaxy and Super Mario Galaxy 2 alone are enough to boost a track to "recurring" status because those games and their soundtracks have been re-released so many times. Originally it was the only way a music piece could get an article on the wiki at all, but now we're at the point where a track doesn't even have to be named or recurring to get an article, so it doesn't serve a whole lot of purpose anymore.
There are probably more than these along the same lines, but these are the articles I'm currently aware of and would like to merge back to their original themes should this pass:
Please note that this is not meant to target notably distinct arrangements (e.g. Metal Mario), themes that happen to quote other tracks (e.g. Purple Comet), or medleys of multiple themes. Rather, I'm trying to avoid having multiple articles for "here's the original Ground Theme again".
So then, when does a recurring arrangement get split? Putting this to policy on paper is actually more difficult than it sounds, but something has to be done here, so here's what I propose for now: Notable arrangements of existing themes can still be split on a case-by-case basis, requiring a discussion beforehand. In essence, the goal is shifting the default away from splitting as soon as possible, and encouraging editors to use their best judgment instead of trying to define a specific line in the sand and dealing with inevitable edge cases.
- Option 1: The case-by-case basis rule goes into effect, and the pages listed above are merged.
- Option 2: The case-by-case basis rule goes into effect, while the pages listed above are left alone to be discussed later. I'm willing to add/remove articles from the list based on feedback, but if you vehemently disagree with any of the merges I've proposed, you can pick this option.
- Option 3: Nothing changes, any arrangement meeting the recurring guideline can continue to be split without discussion.
Proposer: Waluigi Time (talk)
Deadline: October 17, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)
Option 1: Enact case-by-case rule and merge listed pages
- Camwoodstock (talk) Seems fair to us. Per proposal
- The Real Color Splash Fan (talk) Secondary option. Per proposal..
- Ninja Squid (talk) Per proposal.
#The Dab Master (talk) Primary choice; per proposal.
#Waluigi Time (talk) Per proposal.
Option 2: Enact case-by-case rule, individual pages to be discussed later
- The Dab Master (talk) Primary choice; a few of the articles listed are about themes that have some very extensive history, and splitting arrangements admittedly does make larger articles easier to manage.
- Mr. Sorbetti (talk) I agree that most of the splits , like Attack of the Airships, Airship Theme (New Super Mario Bros. Wii), Super Mario 2007, Toad House (Super Mario 3D Land theme), Underground BGM (Super Mario Bros. 3), Underground Theme (New Super Mario Bros. Wii), and Space Athletic, seem unnecessary, as these arrangements basically sound almost the same as the music from which they were arranged. However, for the others, I can't really say the same. Hazy Maze Cave is very, very different from your normal underground arrangement, and I would compare it to Purple Comet (theme). Toad House Minigame (New Super Mario Bros. Wii) seems to be different enough from the normal overworld bgm to grant it its own page and also fulfills a different consistent role. For the rest, I agree, and I also agree that there should be rules in place to prevent unnecessary splits, but I think Hazy Maze Cave and Toad House Minigame need their own discussion imo.
- The Real Color Splash Fan (talk) Primary option. I think if a theme hasn't received any new arrangements and was just reused at least seven times, like the arrangements of "Invincibility BGM" from Super Mario Bros. 3 and Super Mario World, (which don't have articles but were put on Template:Themes) that doesn't mean we should make a whole article for it. However, not all the themes listed above fall into this criteria, in my opinion.
- Wandering Poplin (talk) Secondary option. Per all.
- Iand255 (talk) Primary choice; Per all, specifically Mr. Sorbetti's vote and my own comment (see in the threads below).
- PipesTheVlob (talk) Per all, especially Mr. Sorbetti.
- Waluigi Time (talk) Secondary choice.
Option 3: Do nothing (Oppose)
- Hewer (talk) This proposal doesn't "clarify" when to split recurring arrangements at all, it actively makes it less clear by removing the rule we already have (that 8 appearances warrants a split). The fact this proposal has already invited disagreement over what arrangements are worthy of splits demonstrates this. The current setup isn't perfect, I get that the "8 appearances" criteria is quite arbitrary (and I do think it's silly how we count soundtrack releases as separate appearances), but I still think having some kind of rule to base this on is better than going solely off of vibes, which would result in disagreements that can't really be settled.
(Also, the proposal's claim that "now we're at the point where a track doesn't even have to be named or recurring to get an article" is misleading, as the current rule is that a track must be named and/or recurring to get an article. So a track that is neither wouldn't get one.)
- Wandering Poplin (talk) Primary option. Per Hewer.
- Polley001 (talk) While I'm glad to see that the issues with music theme pages are being looked at, I don't think this proposal is tackling the real problems here. Having pages for notable arrangements, even ones that aren't insanely different, shouldn't inherently be a problem. What makes it a problem is how these articles are structured fundamentally. At present they largely only exist to be appearance lists, and hardly have anything to say about the pieces or arrangements themselves, something which is (bizarrely, in my opinion) outright encouraged by the style guide. And even when accepting them as the glorified appearance lists they typically are, as this proposal does, many of them are terrible and don't actually convey everywhere that they have appeared. I actually think that Space Athletic for example is quite a decent article, it's the fact that Underground BGM (Super Mario Bros.) doesn't acknowledge any of the arrangements of "Space Athletic" in any way that I take immense issue with. Worries around content duplication are fine and all, but there are a multitude of ways around that (main article directions, transclusion) and at the bare minimum that really shouldn't apply to the appearance table of all things.
- Nelsonic (talk) Per all.
- The Dab Master (talk) Secondary choice; per all and my own vote above.
- Wilben (talk) Per all. Most, if not all, of the arrangements suggested to be merged have their own distinct instrumentations and histories to warrant their own dedicated articles (particularly Attack of the Airships and Airship Theme (New Super Mario Bros. Wii), which both have additional unique melodies at the end), and splitting them when they become recurring just makes larger articles easier to manage. I really don't see what this proposal is trying to accomplish.
- Iand255 (talk) I think the arguments made by more recent voters on this option are far more convincing than before. Secondary choice; Per all.
- Mr. Sorbetti (talk) Secondary option. Per all.
- Waluigi Time (talk) Per Polley001 specifically. The core issue in my opinion is that these splits are gutting the history sections and appearances tables of the original theme pages, leaving readers with no indication that the information exists or where to find it. If we can address that directly, I don't really have a problem with these articles existing, although I would still suggest a re-examination of the recurring theme guidelines at some point.
I don't think that the "Toad House Minigame" and "Hazy Maze Cave" articles should be merged. @Mr. Sorbetti also voiced disagreement with merging those articles while I was writing this comment, so I'll provide my thoughts as well:
- Although the Super Mario Galaxy and New Super Mario Bros. Wii arrangements of "Airship BGM" have distinct musical elements, they both serve the same role as an airship theme within their respective games. These two iterations, in terms of both arrangement and role, make sense to be covered on the "Airship BGM" article.
- On the other hand, "Toad House Minigame" doesn't serve the same role as a ground theme or main the
