MarioWiki:Proposals

Current time: February 4, 2026, 04:42 (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

1. Only autoconfirmed users may create or vote on proposals. Proposals can be created by one user or co-authored by two users.
2. 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.
3. Anyone is free to comment on proposals (provided that the page's protection level allows them to edit).
4. Proposals conclude at the end of the day (23:59) two weeks after voting starts (all times UTC).
   • 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).
5. Proposals cannot contradict an already ongoing proposal or overturn the decision of a previous proposal that concluded less than four weeks (28 days) ago.
6. Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. "Oppose", "Do nothing") unless the status quo itself violates policy.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. After a proposal passes, it is added to the appropriate list of "unimplemented proposals" below and is removed once it has been sufficiently implemented.
17. 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.
18. For sizeable projects, a proposal author or wiki staff member may create a PipeProject page to serve as a portal for an unimplemented proposal. This is linked from the unimplemented proposals list and can contain progress tracking, implementation guidelines, resource links, a list of users working on the project, etc.
19. All proposals are archived. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived, including their date of cancellation.
20. 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 wait three days before submitting any new proposal.
21. Proposers can request their proposal be canceled by a 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.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Staff changes are discussed internally and carried out by the bureaucrats.
25. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.

Basic 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 basic 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. 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.

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.

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Deletions

• Delete the List of Super Mario track names in other languages on Nintendo Music (discuss) by The Dab Master; Deadline: February 13, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Moves

• Move the Christmas extra toxic Flash games (discuss) by Nelsonic; Deadline: February 5, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)
• Determine what name should be used for Level (discuss) by Yoshi18; Deadline: February 6, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)
• Move Wii Maple Treeway (theme) to Maple Treeway (theme) (discuss) by Wilben; Deadline: February 7, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Merges

None at the moment.

Splits

• Split Roller (obstacle) from Millstone (discuss) by Sorbetti; Deadline: February 11, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)
• Split the minigames with Super Mario content from Family BASIC (discuss) by Nelsonic; Deadline: February 12, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)
• Split web videos from the TV series and films template (discuss) by Axii; Deadline: February 16, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

• Add "arrangement_of" and "arrangements" parameters to the theme infobox (discuss) by Ahemtoday; Deadline: February 9, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)
• Add Play Nintendo or its games to the List of games by date (discuss) by Nelsonic; Deadline: February 9, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)
• Do not count "Super Bell Hill"'s extended intro as being "Super Mario 3D World Theme" (discuss) by DryKirby64; Deadline: February 10, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)
• Add Shitamachi Ninjō Gekijō, Yūki Nae no GE-MU no Tsubo, Satellawalker, and Satellawalker 2 to the List of games (discuss) by Nelsonic; Deadline: February 11, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

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

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

Note: Not yet integrated for the Super Mario Maker titles and Super Mario Run.

Use the classic and classic link templates when discussing classic courses in Mario Kart Tour, YoYo (ended October 2, 2024)

Split major RPG appearances of recurring locations, EvieMaybe (ended December 16, 2024)

Note: Implemented for all except Bowser's Inside Story's Bowser's Castle and Kingdom Battle's Peach's Castle

Merge intro/outro sections, rename Gameplay section to "Overview" for Mario Party minigame articles, ToxBoxity64 (ended March 1, 2025)

Note: Not yet implemented in any Mario Party game, except Mario Party 8

Allow English Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia names to be mentioned on articles where they are not the title, Hewer (ended March 27, 2025)

Split every song from the "List of (show) songs" articles, Kaptain Skurvy (ended May 31, 2025)

Overhaul sponsor pages, Seandwalsh (ended June 26, 2025)

Reorganize recurring theme articles to use history sections, Ahemtoday (ended July 2, 2025)

Permit creation of categories based on microgame themes, PawPatroler (ended August 3, 2025)

Note: Fully implemented for WarioWare, Inc.: Mega Microgame$!.

Revamp colorful tables, Camwoodstock (ended August 14, 2025)

Make articles for the licensed songs in The Super Mario Bros. Movie, Sargent Deez (ended September 17, 2025)

Note: Articles for "Battle Without Honor or Humanity" and "Mr. Blue Sky" have not been created yet

Change game quote lists to game scripts, Scrooge200 (ended September 21, 2025)

Create an article for Gourmandise, Sargent Deez (ended October 4, 2025)

Stop using icon-based level names for Super Mario Bros. 3, PopitTart (ended October 21, 2025)

End the use of "new course" and "classic course" as universal definitions within the Mario Kart series, Polley001 (ended January 26, 2026)

Establish a "character article" structure, LadySophie17 (ended January 27, 2026)

Talk page proposals

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

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

Create articles for specified special buildings in Super Mario Run, Salmancer (ended November 15, 2024)

Note: Missing Rainbow Bridge, Red Bonus Game House, Blue Bonus Game House, and Yellow Bonus Game House articles.

Give the Cluck-A-Pop Prizes articles, Camwoodstock (ended January 31, 2025)

Split the Animal Crossing series (now Crossovers with Animal Crossing) (Draft page), Kaptain Skurvy (ended February 12, 2025)

Split Super Luigi subjects into a dedicated list article (Draft page), EvieMaybe (ended April 3, 2025)

Clean up Prohibited Command, PrincessPeachFan (ended May 13, 2025)

Determine which subjects belong in Category:Aliens, Technetium (ended June 14, 2025)

Note: Not yet implemented for Super Mario Galaxy and Super Mario Galaxy 2 subjects.

Split A Magical Tour of Yoshi's Island from Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island, Rykitu (ended July 9, 2025)

Decide how to handle hammer-based moves in Category:Hammers, SolemnStormcloud (ended July 21, 2025)

Treat Pyoro as a series, janMisali (ended September 1, 2025)

Determine whether a Final Smash is one of a fighter's special moves, Salmancer (ended September 13, 2025)

Split Challenge, VS. Game/You VS. Boo, the Album and the Toy Box + its individual toys from Super Mario Bros. Deluxe, Snessy (ended December 23, 2025)

Decide whether to use title case in English meanings of foreign names where applicable when not present in the source language, PaperSplash (ended December 26, 2025)

Merge Bob-omba, Goombob and Hulu with Bob-omb Buddy, Galoomba and Bamboo Dancer respectively, Snessy (ended December 30, 2025)

Treat courses that debuted in Mario Kart Tour and Mario Kart 8 Deluxe as Tour and 8 Deluxe courses respectively, Polterpup (ended January 1, 2026)

Determine the scope of Mini Rocket, EvieMaybe (ended January 9, 2026)

Consider "LUCKY" misses from the Paper Mario series to be a game mechanic, Pizza Master (ended January 13, 2026)

Tighten Toad, DesaMatt (ended January 17, 2026)

Move Wakkiki info to Akiki, FanOfYoshi (ended January 17, 2026)

Split Floaty Fluff from Fluff (object), Sorbetti (ended January 20, 2026)

Determine which clothing and other gear deserves individual articles, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 21, 2026)

Note: Currently split clothing should be merged back

Split the Sunset Express train from the level of the same name, Wandering Poplin (ended January 23, 2026)

Do not cover the Super Mario Bros. Special disk error screen on its list of glitches, Snessy (ended February 2, 2026)

Determine what qualifies as a game (and create appropriate categories in the process), SuperGamer18 (ended February 2, 2026)

Writing guidelines

Add "Interestingly," "Unusually," and other synonyms therein to "Frequently misused terms"

Based on the vote so far, this proposal may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on February 4, 2026 at 23:59 (UTC) and close the proposal if applicable.

Lately, we've noticed that multiple different editors (usually anons) love to, for one reason or another, start various sentences, usually notes or other bullet points, with interjections such as "Interestingly," or "Unusually,". Now, this isn't a problem exclusive to random drive-by anon edits, by any stretch. You can search for yourself, and find that many pages use "interestingly" in their text before describing something, like (at time of writing) Star Point, Underwater Theme (New Super Mario Bros. Wii), Loading zone, Dr. Eggman, Petey Piranha... Heck, we'll admit it, we're not exempt from this. Likewise with "Unusually," there's Pharaoh Guy, Frustration, Louvre, or World 5-1 (Super Mario Bros. 3)... And, of course, you can search for more examples yourself.

EDIT PER COMMENTS: "Ironically," also has many of the same pitfalls of misuse, though in that word's case, so long as the point is about an actual use of irony as a literary device, it can be exempted. We would like to include this in the point added to the Frequently misused terms list.

But... In general, if it shouldn't fly for anons, we shouldn't be letting it fly in general. This sort of subjective writing is generally frowned upon as it is, yet these interjections have stuck around. What is interesting or unusual to a reader is, inherently, subjective. For every reader who is endlessly fascinated with weird things in the corners of the Super Mario franchise, there's someone who's seen it all and doesn't really care about how "interesting" something is over something else, or doesn't find something "unusual" as they feel they've seen weirder. It's the same sort of bug-bear that some people on the Discord have brought up with "for unknown reasons", which, honestly, that one could have its own proposal down the road.

Plenty of these points could be simply rewritten to not have the leading "Interestingly," or "Unusually," though, in cases such as Nastasia's article lead, a bit of rephrasing might be required; for instance, "Unusually for such a high-ranking villain, and unlike the rest of Count Bleck's minions, she is never fought directly[...]" into "Unlike the rest of Count Bleck's minions, and despite being one of his high-ranking minion, Nastasia is never fought directly[...]"

Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk)
Deadline: February 11, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Add Interestingly/Unusually/etc. to Misued Terms, and try to avoid it (How standard.)

1. Camwoodstock (talk) Amazingly, per our own proposal.
2. Yoshi18 (talk) Ironically, er proposal.
3. EvieMaybe (talk) per proposal, if you could believe it
4. Salmancer (talk) Oddly, I don't have anything else to add here. Per proposal.
5. LadySophie17 (talk) Per proposal.
6. Maw-Ray Master (talk) Per proposal.
7. Scrooge200 (talk) Interestingly, this tends to be FANDOM slang, alongside "innuendo", "irony", and worst of all "coincidentally". Ironically, this should not be allowed on the wiki and should be phased out wherever it appears.
8. Mario (talk) "Interestingly" should be avoided. In most cases it's a case of telling rather than showing. If you think some fact is interesting to the reader, then let the fact speak for itself, don't preface it with how "interesting" it is. This is also the same for cases like "it is interesting to note". "It should be noted" and variants also fall into similar problems. While I do support the proposal to discourage the phrase whenever I can, I believe misused terms might not be the spot for it and instead should be a subsection of good writing that follow very general rules of writing.
9. Mushroom Head (talk) Per proposal.
10. Dominoes (talk) Per all... uh... supercalifragilisticexpialidociously?
11. Xiahou Ba, The Nasty Warrior (talk) Nastily, I would write to just avoid starting sentences with adverbs to begin with. "Humorously" is also another one.

Comments (Flabberghastingly...)

Hey @Camwoodstock, I have a question: What about the word "ironically"? (I like using that) Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 23:41, January 28, 2026 (UTC)

Irony is an actual literary device, though it definitely gets misused in the same ways as "Interestingly," or "Unusually,". It should also be included, with the caveat that "Ironically," is permissible so long as the situation describes is an actual use of irony. ~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 23:50, January 28, 2026 (UTC)

I'd say "for unknown reasons" is fine when describing technical oddities that have no clear explanation or changes between pre-release aspects and finalized aspects (including things like sudden delays in release schedules) that also seem to serve no transparent purpose. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:59, January 28, 2026 (UTC)

@Doc von Schmeltwick, I definitely agree with your statement. We can't explain every single development change (I mean we can barely explain a developmet change). Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 00:04, January 29, 2026 (UTC)

I fail to see the value. If there was a known or imply-able reason, we'd at minimum have a clause describing that reason. If there's nothing on the wiki describing a reason, then "the reason is not known or imply-able" is implied. Therefore, "for unknown reasons" isn't doing anything that leaving the string of text out wouldn't do. Its a waste of space. "For unknown reasons" is the packing peanuts of wiki text, borne through overthinking and having zero value as a phrase. Salmancer (talk) 13:17, January 29, 2026 (UTC)

I think any change (or any aspect at all) in a game exists for a reason and by default, we don't know that reason. Why should certain changes have their "unknown" motives highlighted but not others? Nintendo changed the green Pokey in Super Mario Galaxy "for unknown reasons". Nintendo included a Red Boo model in Mario Party 9 "for unknown reasons". There are two rows of blocks in this wall in New Super Mario Bros. 2 "for unknown reasons". Etc, etc, etc. Everything we describe is "for unknown reasons" until a reason is added next to it. If a glitch is so obscure and complex that it's unreasonably difficult to find its cause, then maybe the use of "for unknown reasons" could be warranted to emphasize the unclear origin, but even then it is completely unnecessary for the understanding of the information. We don't know why Wario sometimes uses the incorrect audio in Mario Power Tennis, but the sentence is perfectly fine without "for unknown reasons" added to it. — Lady Sophie_17 ^(T|C) 13:27, January 29, 2026 (UTC)

@LadySophie17 I agree that it certainly can be bit overused, and your argument has convinced me that it probably should be avoided for pre-release and unused content for the most part, and using it for all but the most truly inexplicable level design choices (e.g. that random Dry Bones that's loaded as part of Starshine Beach Galaxy in Super Mario Galaxy 2, but is impossible to see during normal gameplay and immediately dies upon being loaded) definitely seems like overkill. But I can see it perhaps being warranted for something like that as well as the types of glitches you mentioned, for instance, even if it's evidently not strictly necessary. I guess I'm just a bit hesitant about the phrase potentially being barred entirely, as I feel like it still might have its place in certain contexts. PaperSplash (talk) 22:29, February 3, 2026 (UTC)

@Mario - Would it be acceptable to create a general section for avoiding subjective writing (which, surprisingly, doesn't exist yet in the page about Good Writing yet!) and put the mention of avoiding "Interestingly,/Unusually," there, and just leave "Ironically," in the frequently misused terms? Or should we still bundle the trio together as misused terms, and just write a "no subjective writing" section that's independent of this proposal at a later time? (Mostly asking as this thought came into our heads... and just narrowly missed the window to edit the proposal outright to account for this, whoops. ^^;) ~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 21:46, February 1, 2026 (UTC)

I'm fine with "interestingly" being culled since it's inherently subjective, but I'm not sure if I'd say the same for "unusually" in all contexts. The Nastasia article lead @Camwoodstock used as an example seems fairly objective, at least, and I wouldn't really consider it to be a particularly flagrant misuse of the term even if the proposed rephrasing might work a bit better. PaperSplash (talk) 22:29, February 3, 2026 (UTC)

We mean... We don't find it unusual that Nastasia isn't fought in the game's story. Games have villains that are a part of a team, yet you don't fight one member, all the time. It's only "unusual" if you are already expecting to fight every member of Count Bleck's team for whatever reason. ~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 22:46, February 3, 2026 (UTC)

It's not about being subjective or not that I take issue with, it's that the word choices don't add to the prose. I think you can use subjective terms to describe something, such as describing an odd behavior as "unusually". I didn't read this proposal as a way to eliminate descriptive adverbs, just more that "interestingly" and other adverbs that unnecessarily tries to highlight/emphasize text are almost never justified, like how "all of a suddenly" and "suddenly" aren't words you want to use when you write narrative. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 01:23, February 4, 2026 (UTC)

"Suddenly" could have some merit, since it's describing something actually objective rather than subjective, that being something happening at a fast speed. (Though, admittedly, we'd generally use "Quickly" or even "Abruptly" for those purposes...) This is in contrast to words like "Unusually" or "Interestingly" or "Weirdly", which are are strictly subjective, hinging on audience reaction rather than something that's a part of a sequence of events. ~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 02:09, February 4, 2026 (UTC)

@Mario, I'll admit: I've always been a bit skeptical about the idea of putting blanket rules on what constitutes "good writing" to begin with, use of "suddenly" in narrative prose included. I understand that as a professionally written encyclopedia, though, we have to have some standards and draw some proverbial lines in the sand. @Camwoodstock, I'm still not entirely convinced the word "unusually" is strictly subjective, though I suppose that the fact that I disagree with you regarding the Nastasia example (I do think it is fairly unusual for combat-heavy games to have villains that go completely unfought) proves that it is indeed subjective in that particular case. PaperSplash (talk) 04:42, February 4, 2026 (UTC)

Removals

None at the moment.

New features

None at the moment.

Changes

Redesign the Lost template

This is a sort of quasi-sequel to a proposal we originally made for the template itself, but honestly, we have a very different vision in mind for how to roll things out, and we think it'd have direct enough consequences for the wiki as a whole that we feel like it's fair to propose it here this time.

To summarize, for the longest time, we've found the general form factor of the Template:Lost template questionable. It's currently positioned as this weird half-maintenance template, and it is clearly not fit for that. Our problems boil down to two things:

• The "documented" parameter, in general, does more harm than good. Given the nature of Lost Media, what makes a piece of media's coverage "adequate" is extremely varied, and in many cases, can come down to factors outside of one's control. When we first proposed this, and even now, Crazy Junior is presently marked as being Lost Media thanks to the absence of a ROM resurfacing in the modern day... Which, despite being wholly out of our control, still gets the section marked as having "inadequate coverage". Things are complicated by the existence of a maintenance category for these pages with "inadequate coverage", many of which are similarly out of control for editors, despite being listed alongside other, actual maintenance categories (yet, interestingly, not on the front page's to-do bar.)
  Considering many of these pages could only be improved by factors outside of our own control, we feel like it'd be far more reasonable to remove the parameter entirely. Having a "maintenance" category that can only be improved by factors outside of our own control isn't exactly the healthiest thing, and considering it's the only maintenance category that is seemingly absent from the to-do bar on the front page, a fact nobody seems to have remarked upon by now, we imagine most people would agree. When information actually does survive, but is not present on the page (for instance, Peach-hime no Princess Tanken Manga presently has a stub template on it due to the lack of information of what has properly surfaced from it, and is generally fairly short and requires expansion), that should simply be conveyed with a Template:Stub or Template:Rewrite--it shouldn't fall onto the template explaining the subject is lost media to convey the same thing, especially when many of these pages, such as Waluigi's Foot Fault, are about as complete as they'll ever be until the media in question is found.
• More subjectively, though, we just don't really like the visuals of it. It's in this strange in-between of a notice and a maintenance template, and the bright red in specific sticks out rather plainly. It gives a rather strange impression that the media in question being lost is far more urgent than it's likely meant to be, especially when Template:Damage, a template expressly meant to warn against save corruption or unwinnable scenarios, something that could cause harm to someone playing the game (however minor it may be) has a comparatively more neutral indigo.

Our solution? Well, for one, convert this from a maintenance template, into just a more standard notice, akin to what Template:Damage or Template:Another language are. The template should only really be putting the dedicated lost media or articles with lost media sections categories onto pages, nothing about how "inadequate" that coverage is or putting anything maintenance-related in there in the first place.

...Now, we don't know exactly how to write template script like this, so in lieu of that, we'll just showcase our best attempt to replicate the design we have in mind, and some details about how it should function.

Default

This article is about a work that used to be available to the public, but is now partially or entirely inaccessible.
Only remove this notice if the complete work is recovered and made available publicly.

Section

This section is about a work that used to be available to the public, but is now partially or entirely inaccessible.
Only remove this notice if the complete work is recovered and made available publicly.

With a reason

This article is about a work that used to be available to the public, but is now partially or entirely inaccessible.
Details: (reason text goes here)
Only remove this notice if the complete work is recovered and made available publicly.

This article is about a work that used to be available to the public, but is now partially or entirely inaccessible.
Details: No ROM has resurfaced, the company went under before it released, the developer was cursed by a warlock, we ate the paper the cover art was on, and really, we're just trying to demonstrate how text wrapping works on this thing.
Only remove this notice if the complete work is recovered and made available publicly.

As for why we set it up like this:

• Part of the reason we dislike the aesthetics so much are the color, and the un-capped width. The bright red is recycled from Template:Abandoned, meant for deprecated Wiki features, and on some pages where the explanation is a bit more involved, such as Donkey Kong 3: Dai Gyakushū or the recently-featured Super Mario Bros. Special, it can be this bright red banner going across the entire screen, and in pages where there is a foreign language notice, it also further calls attention by leaving a noticable vertical gap between the wide-as-heck Lost notice and the subject's infobox. We gave it a softer, more sepia-esque orange (or Donkey Kong-ish brown on Dark Mode), and hard-limited the width to 700 pixels, though realistically it should be fine up to 770 pixels on a 1280 pixel-wide display.
• We also gave the details their own line, just to more cleanly divide the template up and help it in terms of not being too wide. Even still, text wrapping should function as one would expect it to.
• While we didn't include the "documented" parameter in this sample, it would be trivial to re-insert it if people decide that should stay around--just add a line break, small text, and the thing to handle displaying the "the coverage is accurate/inaccurate", next to the "only remove this notice if the complete work is recovered and made public" notice.

And, lastly, we know someone will ask about which of the pages currently flagged with inadequate lost media documentation could have their "undocumented" status be swapped out for other maintenance tags. While we're by no means experts on all 200+ of the pages in there (seriously, this is a large category), so this isn't comprehensive, these are the ones that we were able to immediately detect. (If one isn't listed, assume it wouldn't get an extra maintenance tag, or it might've been slapped with one after we compiled all this...)

• In general, many pages for VHS and DVD releases of the DiC cartoons are flagged as inadequate for lacking images of their covers, despite having known episodes listed. These should be swapped out for Template:Image.
• Bug Race, Maestro Mario, Mario's Matching Madness are technically found, but rendered inoperable for one reason or another, suggesting the game would need to be datamined. This is kind of a weird edge-case, as one could argue they shouldn't even have the lost template, but we'd suggest a stub template if nothing else.
• Club Nintendo (French magazine), Club Nintendo (Italian magazine), Dr. Mario-kun, Famicom How-To Manga, Famicom Manga: Super Mario-kun, Ganbare Super Mario, Gimon? Kaiketsu! Mizumario, Mario & Donkey Daibōken, Miracle Peach, Nintendo-Magasinet, Oshiete! Kinopio, Otenba Peach-hime, Super Mario Wakuwaku Game Land, Super Mario-kun (Gakushū Yōchien), Super Mario-kun (Pikkapika Comics), Super Mario-kun (Shōgaku Ninensei), Super Mario-kun 2, Tobidase! Mario, are missing variable quantities of scans for relevant information, and should be given Template:Image. For a few of these, providing these scans would actually result in the media in question no longer being lost, and we're actually unable to verify off-the-cuff if some of these even qualify as Lost Media, under our rules for that.
• Donkey Kong 3: Dai Gyakushū needs a few more images of what has resurfaced of the PC-6601 version.
• Fruit by the Foot decoder machine could, in theory, have a webpage script left-over for the decoder machine's functionality, and if this can be proven (most likely by cracking into it with Inspect Element) it would warrant a stub template. However, if it can be proven that that wasn't archived, it would be about as complete as can be short of external influence, and can go without.
• In addition to needing scans, Gimon? Kaiketsu! Mizumario is a stub for what has been found.
• Workshop (Mario vs. Donkey Kong series) has a section with inadequate coverage! ...It's about something roughly equvialent to the contests held for WarioWare: D.I.Y., and, like the page for those, it should probably just get a stub.

Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk)

Do we use the new design?

Use the new design 9-0
Deadline: February 6, 2026, 23:59 GMT Closed early on January 30, 2026, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Camwoodstock (talk) Well, we made it, so we'd hope we'd like to.
2. Koopa con Carne (talk) Sure, why not? Per proposer.
3. Maw-Ray Master (talk) Per all.
4. Altendo (Lost) This vote is about a reason that used to be available to the public, but is now partially or entirely inaccessible... nah, just kidding. Per proposal.
5. {{The Dab Master|talk=y}} Per proposal.
6. SuperLostMedia18 (talk) The only thing I'm against is the color change, otherwise I don't mind the redesign.
7. Rykitu (lost edits from slightly known Super Mario Wiki editor: existence unconfirmed) (talk) Per all.
8. Lost Yoshi18 (talk) This is very well made, Cam! I don't see why not to use it.
9. Mushroom Head (talk) Per all.

Oppose

Do we deprecate the "documented" parameter?

Deadline: February 6, 2026, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Camwoodstock (talk) Per proposal. It's a little silly to have a maintenance category that can literally only be resolved by way of wholly external influence.
2. Altendo (Details) No reason has resurfaced, my reasoning went under before I could say it, because I was cursed into voting, I ate the internet router, and really, I'm just trying to get my two words out: per all.
3. Mario4Ever (talk) Per proposal.

#Maw-Ray Master (talk) Per proposer. The "documented" parameter can be replaced by a specific maintenance template(s), as the parameter itself is rather vague; what makes an article on lost media "adequately documented" anyway?

Oppose

1. Koopa con Carne (talk) When presented with lost or inaccessible media, readers should have the assurance that an article can or cannot act as a meaningful substitute for directly experiencing the work. This is most common with web games that were documented before they were preserved, like those at Nintendo Kids Club. The proposal additionally characterizes the linked category as a "maintenance" category, which is not really what it's designed to be. Well, at least, I didn't design it with that role in mind. However, somewhere along the way, it was turned into a meta category, which guest users cannot normally see in articles, so I do see why it's come to be viewed as maintenance-related. Honestly, I'd rather we repurposed the category to instead cover adequately-covered media so it loses that perception altogether.
2. SuperLostMedia18 (talk) Per Koopa con Carne.
3. Hewer (talk) Per Koopa con Carne, the information presented in this parameter is pretty important to not give the misleading impression that media being lost necessarily means we know very little about it. The solution to it being a maintenance category is to make it not be a maintenance category, not to delete the whole thing.
4. The 'Shroom (lost episodes) (DO NOT RESEARCH) (talk) Per all.
5. Maw-Ray Master (talk) (Lost edits of Super Mario Wiki editor; 2023-present) I view the "Articles with inadequate lost media documentation" category rather frequently, and it would be better to modify the Lost template so as not to suggest that an article on lost media is missing information rather that deleting the parameter entirely, so I can figure out which lost media articles I should attempt to do more research on.
6. Lost Yoshi18 (talk) Per all.

Comments (SCREAMING LUIGI IMAGE WITH RED EYES)

@Koopa con Carne, The category "Articles with inadequate lost media documentation" is expressly listed in the Maintenance category, and has been listed as such since Porplemontage's implementation of it. If it's meant to be designed for something else, it's... Doing a horrible job at being anything else in its current state, honestly. ~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 16:59, January 24, 2026 (UTC)

Why is deleting it the only solution? Just...remove it from the maintenance category. Problem solved. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 23:48, January 24, 2026 (UTC)

Well, the only other category on it is Meta categories... which is just an amalgamation of the Maintenance Category and the Administration Category (which, incidentally, has the Maintenance category as a subcategory.) It's roughly the same problem, just in a different spot. There'd have to be a fundamental shift in how the "inadequate" parameter is handled and what it actually means for it to not be just a maintenance category. ~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 00:59, January 25, 2026 (UTC)

Admittedly I was under the assumption that the "more standard notice" templates you mentioned in the proposal, such as Template:Another language (similar to this where the "problem" they denote isn't something we can really "fix" ourselves), were covered by some other non-maintenance category. But after checking I found that they go under this category, which...is also included in the maintenance category. Anyway, I still don't think a minor shortcoming with the wiki's categories is grounds to throw out this information altogether rather than actually trying to solve the issue. Even just leaving it in the meta categories list is better than deleting. I don't understand why solving this issue would need any "fundamental shift". Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 03:40, January 25, 2026 (UTC)

We guess that's fair enough. We still don't see the need to work the "inadequate coverage" point into the Lost Media template when another maintenance template would be sufficient, personally, but we'll at least concede the category thing is a weak point. ~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 04:18, January 25, 2026 (UTC)

I think it's worth noting that the degree of documentation these pages receive was not conceived of in terms of "adequacy" from the get-go. When I created the Lost template, the "documented" parameter revolved entirely around the thoroughness of the documentation, which does not put as much onus on editors as the other terminology. If you look at the code of that initial revision, the text displayed for leaving the parameter empty was more objective and didn't conjure an idea of adequacy ("It is advised to keep the subject's documentation up to date with available information.") "Inadequate" may give the impression that whoever covered said media was indifferent. "Unthorough" means that, well, the documentation isn't thorough, period. Doesn't necessarily imply the wiki responsible for the lack of content. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 20:39, January 26, 2026 (UTC)

I think text for the throughness of the documentation should say something like "Our information on this subject is therefore limited." That way, the impression would be that the information is limited because the media is lost, and not because the article is actually missing information. This would also involve a renaming of "Articles with inadequate lost media documentation" to "Articles with limited lost media documentation" to be more fitting with the modified description. As for lost media articles that are actually missing information, they can be tagged with the Stub template. Maw-Ray Master (talk) 09:42, January 31, 2026 (UTC)

I like this idea. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:55, February 1, 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, a conversion to just "Limited", putting the onus on "there's literally only so much we can do here" rather than "it's not good enough." would fix basically all of our problems. If the parameter sticks around (and it's looking like it will), we'd be happy to support a proposal to convert the "inadequate" parameter to a "limited" one. ~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 18:53, February 3, 2026 (UTC)

I just realized... there are a lot of other notice templates that also have the "Reason:"/"Specifics:" in the same line as the description. Should these be wrapped as well? The Dab Master 15:03, January 29, 2026 (UTC)

At least with more overt maintenance templates, like stubs or whatnot, having the uncapped width makes more sense, especially as maintenance templates don't appear for users that are logged out, and the colors are more neutral. In contrast, having a bright red banner going across the page for a casual browser, just to inform them that... The SPC-1500 has only 4 pieces of software that've resurfaced in the modern day, and the version of Super Mario Bros. Special for it is not one of them, is far more incomprehensible, especially since similar templates, like the ones for conjectural names or derived names, which are also visible to users that aren't logged in, are also width-capped. ~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 20:15, January 29, 2026 (UTC)

Use the world flag if a game/console releases nearly everywhere on the same day

After my previous proposals on this topic failed, I'm still wondering. Why did it fail again? There are a couple game pages that use the world flag right now, yet my proposal about them failed but the world flag was still kept in these pages. Is there something I'm not getting here or? Since this just creates major inconsistencies. Examples of pages still using the world flag are:

• Donkey Kong Bananza
• Nintendo Switch 2 Welcome Tour
• Super Mario Galaxy + Super Mario Galaxy 2
  • Super Mario Galaxy (Nintendo Switch)
  • Super Mario Galaxy 2 (Nintendo Switch)
• Luigi's Mansion 2 HD
• Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch)
• Nintendo World Championships: NES Edition
• Dr. Mario World
• Mario Tennis Fever
• Hello, Mario! (game)
• Super Mario Bros. Wonder – Nintendo Switch 2 Edition + Meetup in Bellabel Park

Now I divide them into two groups because 2 out of the 12 games listed here do it in a different way compared to the others do it in a different way:

• Donkey Kong Bananza, Nintendo Switch 2 Welcome Tour, Super Mario Galaxy + Super Mario Galaxy 2, Super Mario Galaxy (Nintendo Switch), Super Mario Galaxy 2 (Nintendo Switch), Dr. Mario World, Mario Tennis Fever, Hello, Mario! and Super Mario Bros. Wonder – Nintendo Switch 2 Edition + Meetup in Bellabell Park all just simply use the world flag and in Donkey Kong Bananza's case, it even uses the world flag despite the game releasing in another country at a later date (a reason why my previous proposal failed but it was kept there).
• Luigi's Mansion 2 HD, Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch) and Nintendo World Championships: NES Edition use the world flag but have an "Hide"/"Expand" button that shows all the separate flags.

I know Mario Tennis Fever and Super Mario Bros. Wonder – Nintendo Switch 2 Edition + Meetup in Bellabell Park may not count (since they're not released yet), but my point still stands. Adding the world flag would only be better for game/console articles since games/consoles are now more frequently released (nearly) everywhere on the same date.

Now, I have 3 options to offer:

Use the World flag and remove all other flags

This is the way how 10 of the 12 games I sorted do it (see above).

Use the World flag and hide the other flags under a "Hide"/"Expand" button

This is the way how 2 of the 12 games I sorted do it (see above).

Use the separate flags for all articles

Note that if this option, then that would mean more sourcing.

Status Quo

Leave as-is.

Proposer: Yoshi18 (talk)
Deadline: February 8, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Support: Use the World flag and remove all separate flags

1. Yoshi18 (talk) Per proposal.

Support: Use the World flag and hide the separate flags under a "Hide"/"Expand" button

1. Yoshi18 (talk) Secondary choice.

Oppose: Use the separate flags for all articles

1. Ahemtoday (talk) Fundamentally, I think we need to have full lists of the regions a game was released in. And if we have that, the world flag isn't accomplishing anything at all.
2. Altendo (talk) THIS was what I was looking for. Anyways, per everything I said on the previous proposal (especially to adhere to this proposal).
3. Hewer (talk) Per Ahemtoday.
4. EvieMaybe (talk) per Ahemtoday
5. Shadow2 (talk) My reason for opposing is unchanged from previously. Unless the game was released in North Korea, it can't accurately be represented by the world flag.
6. Camwoodstock (talk) Secondary option. While we do think there are some edge-cases where a world flag makes sense (mostly for games that were distributed digitally, and thus, were uploaded all at the same time), this'd honestly be closer to what we want than what we currently have.
7. Wandering Poplin (talk) Secondary. But otherwise, per all.
8. Mushroom Head (talk) Using the UN flag entails it was released in the ENTIRE world (or rather, the 193 members of the UN), which is not true.
9. Maw-Ray Master (talk) Per all.

Status quo: Leave as-is

1. Camwoodstock (talk) As Altendo pointed out in his original vote in the previous proposal about this, using the World flag has a pretty obvious disadvantage of not actually saying what specific regions got the game; there still doesn't seem to be anything to handle the fact that Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope has released in fewer places than Super Mario Party Jamboree. The complete lack of any real attempt to remedy this already doesn't appeal to us much, but the list of games that use the World flag anyways all have pretty clear caveats. Some of them, like Mario Tennis Fever, literally have not released yet and only have one announced release date; that's why it gets the world flag for right now. Others, like Nintendo Switch 2 Welcome Tour, are tied with a console's global launch (and, to be honest, we think its usage of it is an oversight; the Nintendo Switch 2, as you might expect, has different release dates for different regions, and the Welcome Tour demo would have one in turn...) Others still, like Dr. Mario World, were digital only, and thusly, released at the exact same time, everywhere, due to their unique distribution method. These are all pretty clear exceptions, not particularly "inconsistencies"; the closest we can think of is the aforementioned errata with the Welcome Tour, but that's not a problem with the use of the world flag, that's just the date being mis-attributed... because it attempted to use the World Flag in lieu of more individualized dates, and fixing that probably shouldn't fall onto a proposal. We also, additionally, don't particularly like the idea of stowing away more specific dates under a collapsible, but that's more personal preference, admittedly. With the lack of anything to address our problems with the original proposal, we can't exactly support any of other options here.
2. Altendo (talk) Per Camwoodstock (and by extension, myself).
3. Ahemtoday (talk) Second option, per all — while I would prefer consistency, I do acknowledge how these exceptions more accurately reflect these situation. That said, I would like them more codified...
4. Wandering Poplin (talk) Per all.

Comments of the World

@Camwoodstock @Altendo, look, Donkey Kong Bananza literally has it the way it would be for every page. The game lists the world flag yet it also lists another flag because the game released. If we keep it like this it's just nothing else but inconsistent. We should either just use the world flag or separate flags but we can't leave it like this. Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 07:15, January 26, 2026 (UTC)

Also, @Camwoodstock, what about Donkey Kong Bananza and Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch) (mainly Bananza)? Bananza literally use the world flag and under that another flag (meaning the game didn't release globally on the same date, meaning that using the world flag there makes no sense but we still continued to use it for 4 months without anyone really noticing or speaking up about it). Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 15:38, January 29, 2026 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.