@Doc von Schmeltwick: As Arend mentioned, the character that ended up being "Toad" was originally called Lemmy, which to me feels like evidence that the inspiration doesn't extend beyond the name, and merging based on that alone would be a strange choice. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 16:45, April 10, 2024 (EDT)
@Doc von Schmeltwick: As Arend mentioned, the character that ended up being "Toad" was originally called Lemmy, which to me feels like evidence that the inspiration doesn't extend beyond the name, and merging based on that alone would be a strange choice. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 16:45, April 10, 2024 (EDT)
:Aside from being an ally. The "good Goomba" character at that point in the script rewrites was a separate character named "Hark," anyway, and there were other associated "freedom fighter"-type characters in addition to the one who is Toad in the final. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 17:14, April 10, 2024 (EDT)
:Aside from being an ally. The "good Goomba" character at that point in the script rewrites was a separate character named "Hark," anyway, and there were other associated "freedom fighter"-type characters in addition to the one who is Toad in the final. [https://www.smbmovie.com/SMBArchive/preproduction/script.htm Also, he was called "Toad" first], [https://www.smbmovie.com/SMBArchive/preproduction/script/13_Disney_Synopsis.htm with "Lemmy" being used for a single draft in mid-production]. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 17:14, April 10, 2024 (EDT)
==Miscellaneous==
==Miscellaneous==
Revision as of 17:18, April 10, 2024
Current time:
Monday, April 29th, 21:07 GMT
Proposals can be new features (such as an extension), the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
"Vote" periods last for one week.
Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so (not, e.g., "I like this idea!").
All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
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: "April 29, 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
Merge Super Mario Bros. (film) subjects with their game counterparts
Currently, several articles exist for characters from Super Mario Bros. (1993) that share names with and are to some extent based on corresponding characters from the source material. While from a certain perspective this makes sense (these characters are substantially different from the characters they're based on), no other non-game-compliant Mario adaptation is given this treatment. SMW:CANON suggests that all official sources should be treated equally, including in cases when these sources contradict each other. I believe that the 1993 film is a very clear case when this applies, and I propose that some if not all of these articles should be merged with their corresponding game characters.
Now, to this one might suggest: "But the characters from the 1993 film really are canonically not the same in-universe people as their game counterparts! Doesn't that mean they should be covered separately?" The thing is, that's not how this wiki treats different versions of the same character in any other instance. The article Donkey Kong covers the character Donkey Kong, including in games where that character is "canonically" Cranky Kong. Paper Mario (character) is only considered a separate character from Mario in the very specific case where the two characters coexist alongside each other. Two works of media portraying different iterations of the same character is seemingly always treated as being the same character, and the coverage of Super Mario Bros. (1993) is a strange exception to this.
The relevant articles are:
Film characters very directly based on specific characters from the source material:
Mario (talk) Echoing my sentiments in my 2016 proposal[1] a bit (tho I promise to be less grouchy :O}D). Even with the filmmmaker's contrived notion that live action movie Mario is supposed to be a separate entity from Mario from the Mario Kart series, if you work with that logic backward, they're still variants of each other, basically two different takes of the Mario the Super Brother. This can extend for the other characters. That being said, some of the target pages articles are big enough as they are already but I s'pose that's a different problem irrelevant to the logic of these pages.
Super Mario RPG (talk) Keeping the coverage on the same article reflects how they're the same thing. Different entity doesn't necessarily mean different subject. If anything, separate articles on the film characters would set an unwelcome precedent for scattering information of like, let's say, Super Mario-kun or Super Mario Bros. Movie counterparts of Mario into separate articles, which we'd want to avoid.
SolemnStormcloud (talk) I think it's best to not be arbitrary with who gets merged or not based on how different they are from their "main" counterpart. Per all.
Ahemtoday (talk) Maybe I could work with this kind of continuity-based differentiation in a series with, like, any sense of continuity, but I don't really think the Mario series has that.
Camwoodstock (talk) We think this makes the most sense, and in the name of consistency, what we do to one, we should probably do to all. Besides, it's not like the 1993 movie is even the first time that a different entity has used the name of a pre-existing entity--though unlike things like G(al)oombas, the 1993 movie incarnations stand alone, with only things like gags in mangas deciding that the movie incarnations are different from the original characters (such as what happened to Yoshi)--and even in those cases, it's pretty clearly not part of some deep lore for the film itself. We hope this rationale makes sense, anyways? As we write this we're a tad tired, so if you need clarification, just ask politely.
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - I forgot I hadn't voted. I prefer this option. I'd be fine with the other popular option (for now), aside from questioning why Toad is part of the exclusions.
Merge most of these, but keep Spike and Big Bertha separate from the enemies they're based on
Merge most of these, but keep Goomba and Snifit separate from the enemies they're based on
Merge most of these, but keep Spike, Big Bertha, Goomba, and Snifit separate from the enemies they're based on
Hewer (talk) I agree with merging the more obviously game-inspired characters like Mario and Luigi where the split feels more like a vestige of the wiki's former obsession with its made-up idea of canon, but merging characters like Iggy and Spike where pretty much the only thing in common is the name with (to my knowledge) little indication they're even based on the game characters doesn't feel right. EDIT: I agree with DrippingYellow's comment about how the King and Mushroom King shouldn't be merged though, since their only similarity is that they're both kings, but that can be dealt with in another proposal.
Arend (talk) I'm most hesitant about merging Daisy. As you know, Daisy is pretty much the movie's equivalent of Princess Toadstool, and in a previous concept, was even named Hildy/Heidi/whichever of the two it was. Had that name not been changed to Daisy, many would obviously argue to merge it with Princess Peach instead. I would also say that it's pretty bizarre to have one of the two bumbling henchmen be based on a Koopaling while the other is based on a random enemy, instead of both being based on a Koopaling (we got seven of those guys; they couldn't have called the other henchman "Larry"?); not to mention that this version of Toad was once called Lemmy (another Koopaling).
Tails777 (talk) Leaning more on this idea. There are the obvious ones, but I think the ones holding me back from an all out merge are Spike and Big Bertha, as they seem way different compared to what they are supposedly based off of (also the Iggy one feels a bit off to merge with the Koopaling).
Archivist Toadette (talk) I think I'd rather go with this option, since those particular subjects have too little overlap with their game "counterparts". Besides, how would a carnivorous freshwater fish share clear commonality with an...uncomfortably attractive humanoid being?
OmegaRuby (talk) Per all, Archivist Toadette especially.
Only merge Mario, Luigi, Yoshi, President Koopa/Bowser, and King; keep the rest separate
Merge Goomba and Snifit, but keep the characters separate
Other
Do nothing
FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) While I completely understand and agree with MarioWiki:Canonicity and the points stated above, I just don't want these to be merged at all. All of the characters mentioned are very different from their game counterparts, and many characters that are non-human in the video games are at least partially human in the movie (like Bowser (video game character) and King Koopa (movie "counterpart"). This is enough for me to not want to merge any of the pages.
SeanWheeler (talk) The 1993 movie was an awful adaptation that changed too much. I would want Bob Hoskins' Mario to remain separate from the the games' Mario. President Koopa is clearly very different from Bowser.
It's interesting to read through this old discussion, especially how much the focus at the time seems to have been on specifically Daisy. Nobody in this whole proposal or the "Peach/Daisy in Film" proposal before it ever suggests the idea of giving specifically Mario (film character) a separate article! I wonder how that happened. jan Misali (talk · contributions) 20:05, April 4, 2024 (EDT)
Did this need to be one huge proposal? The fact that there are seven options as well as an "Other" option (which, how would that even work if it got the most votes?) suggests to me that the Mario Bros. movie live-action subjects have far too much range in how close they are to their OG counterparts for this to be resolved in one seven-day proposal. For instance, I mostly agree with the fifth option, except for the inclusion of the King among the merged characters (considering that unlike the Mushroom King, he is neither the king of the Mushroom Kingdom nor Peach's father (he's Daisy's father)). If we were to add options for every little disagreement with the proposal author's reasoning in this particular instance, it would become a nightmare to try and find an appropriate option to vote on. I'd suggest splitting the proposal based on character roles (e.g. one for main characters, one for minor characters like Yoshi, one for creatures like Goombas, and one for references-in-name-only like Toad, Big Bertha, etc.) DrippingYellow (talk) 13:36, April 5, 2024 (EDT)
I would argue that range from source material isn't much of a factor in so much as they're variants of a source character and my understanding is that we do sometimes merge whack variants of the same entity, such as Skeeters. I'd go for the straightforward option because I don't see much merit debating within gradience of who gets a separate article or not. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 13:56, April 5, 2024 (EDT)
I'd still argue that there's a point where it's not so much a variant as it is an entirely new character that only uses an existing character name as a callback. The film's plot provides a framework for this, considering it is loosely based off of the Mario games' story: Princess Daisy is the damsel-in-distress, Koopa is the antagonist who kidnaps her, Goombas are his lackeys, Yoshi is a dinosaur with a long tongue who is also held captive by Koopa, and Mario and Luigi are the heroes. Those are definitely a variation of standard Mario features. However, then there are characters like Big Bertha who shares no similarities with her namesake other than being... well, big. Not to mention she should probably stay split anyway considering normal Big Bertha is an enemy species, while this Big Bertha is a unique character. Spike at the very least should also be split for similar reasons. Big Bertha's connection to her original inspiration would at least be more plausible if, for example, she was a marine biologist or had a scene where she saved Mario from drowning or something. I'm a little more inclined to merge Toad, since he gives exposition about the fungus (which would line up with the original character's appearance), but then again, he was originally named Lemmy, so the connection there may not have been intentional. And as for the King vs. the Mushroom King, the Mushroom King article is a catch-all for anytime the king of the Mushroom Kingdom. To include a King in that article who exists in a continuity where there is no Mushroom Kingdom seems a little odd. DrippingYellow (talk) 14:43, April 5, 2024 (EDT)
To be fair, we can't think of how else to showcase the granularity of the options than the deluge of choices; short of something like a checkbox-esque "vote for this one if you think it should be split!" proposal, which is entirely unprecedented and we have no real way of handling. Is it clunky? Yes. But it's either this, a bunch of standalone proposals (which could get even more messy), or some entirely new form of proposal gets invented just to handle this. ~Camwoodstock(talk) 14:57, April 5, 2024 (EDT)
I don't really see how the standalone option would make things messier. Is it that hard to keep track of multiple proposals? The choice would be between that or a list of options that is either unreadably long or doesn't have an option that aligns with your opinion due to something like an assumption by the author. DrippingYellow (talk) 21:29, April 5, 2024 (EDT)
By the by, what's this version of Spike called in the Japanese localization of the film? I think that's important to ask because we do in fact have another Spike in this franchise, one who is decidedly NOT called "Gabon" in Japanese, ever. rend(talk)(edits) 15:58, April 5, 2024 (EDT)
On the contrary, the thought has crossed my mind to go in the other direction and have something done with the Paper Mario universe and characters, but it'd probably be controversial. LinkTheLefty (talk) 16:21, April 5, 2024 (EDT)
I would oppose covering all Paper Mario appearances in the Paper character articles and I would also oppose merging them all with their regular counterparts. Nightwicked Bowser 17:25, April 5, 2024 (EDT)
You see, while the 1993 Mario movie characters are drastically different from their mainline game counterparts (or namesakes), the same cannot be said about the Paper Mario characters, which stay relatively close to the source material in comparison. Sure, the first three games gave most enemies a couple of design quirks that stand out from the mainline games, but they are still recognizable as those enemies. Same deal with the 2023 Mario movie counterparts; they have some differences, but are still clear and recognizable as the same characters. rend(talk)(edits) 17:41, April 5, 2024 (EDT)
Regarding Iggy, unused scripts on the SMBMovieArchive website show that originally, there were other Koopaling-named characters (like Morton and Wendy as announcers), showing Iggy was an intentional reference. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 06:31, April 8, 2024 (EDT)
But still, being named after another character doesn't necessarily make them the same character given how otherwise completely different they are, especially considering what's already been brought up about how characters like Toad were originally named differently. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 08:13, April 8, 2024 (EDT)
This needs looked into some more as I can't remember for certain, but I seem to recall the script referring to the generic Dinohattan police officers as Koopa Troopas (a variation of that name was given to Goombas in earlier development). Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:59, April 9, 2024 (EDT)
@Doc von Schmeltwick: As Arend mentioned, the character that ended up being "Toad" was originally called Lemmy, which to me feels like evidence that the inspiration doesn't extend beyond the name, and merging based on that alone would be a strange choice. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 16:45, April 10, 2024 (EDT)
First of all, no, this isn't a delayed April Fool's joke--we are being 100% sincere about this proposal! You know it because we waited until after we had squared away the April Fool's proposals to actually bring this up formally.
Secondly, this has been discussed before, not once but twice, and the consensus at the time was basically "it's pointless and not that funny, so why bother?" ...As you can imagine, we're not a fan of either of these stances, so we have a brief overview of our counter-arguments to these statements.
On pointlessness: Yes, archiving these in BJAODN is pointless! ...But so is the rest of BJAODN, and, paradoxically, that's kind of the point of it--that it's basically useless and for amusement only. The only "practical" thing it has are archives for the big April Fool's pages we create. The one and only time it was ever gearing up to have a "point" was to store Wario's Warehouse back when people still didn't believe it existed--then the author stepped up and said "yep, that's my work", and that entire thing was rendered moot, and BJAODN remains a mere archive for April Fool's things and, well, other deleted nonsense.
On the humor: On the "not that funny once April Fool's is done" thing--we feel like it's kinda weird to dismiss a proposal on something that is inherently, a subjective take. Humor is notoriously fickle between different people; one person's complete snorefest is another person's knee-slapper. Sure, not all April Fool's proposals are these complete gut-busters, but neither is everything else in BJAODN. And heck, even if they aren't that funny, it's kind of in the name; it's not "Deleted Nonsense", it's "Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense".
Especially in the wake of the effective renaissance of April Fool's proposals we had this year (no doubt due in part to a rather-timely proposal about April Fool's proposals, albeit moreso about denoting them as such pre-emptively), we feel it pertinent to possibly figure something out for this sooner, rather than later, while the concept's still fresh in everyone's mind. To this end, we've come up with three ideas:
Give it its own subpage per year: Whenever there's an arbitrary amount of April Fool's proposals for that year (let's say "3" for the time being, if this number needs to be adjusted we can do so later), we create a subpage alongside our main April Fool's archive page for proposals. If there aren't enough, they just go in the standard Proposals subpage for BJAODN--if memory serves, this means that 2021 and 2024 will get a subpage so far, though we may be wrong.
All of them go to the Proposals subpage: Roughly the same as above, but in every case we send them to the standard Proposals subpage with no potential for splits. We do worry about this year in particular clogging the heck out of the page, but whatever works.
Do nothing: We simply don't formally track these whatsoever in BJAODN, simple-as.
Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk) Deadline: April 8, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Support, with additional subpages
Camwoodstock (talk) Our preferred option--keep the silliness alive, and keep it nice and tidy for the future.
Sparks (talk) Having tidiness makes for easier navigation.
Tails777 (talk) It's completely understandable that humor is subjective, but let's remember to look at it from another angle; it's not always about if the joke proposal is funny, it's also about how we as users interact with each other and the jokes that adds to the humor. That was my initial support reason back during back during this proposal (which, I do realize, wasn't exactly the point of the proposal, but let's not worry about that). My main point is, I one hundred percent support archiving our April Fool's joke proposals for the sake of celebrating our fun interactions with each other as people! Per proposal!
Power Flotzo (talk) This is an excellent option and probably why we haven't archived as many of these joke proposals in the past. Per everyone else.
BMfan08 (talk) There's no fooling about this one. Per all.
FanOfYoshi (talk) Yoshi Yoshi! (Per all. Also, i always wanted this to happen)
Arend (talk) We preserve April Fool's Day archives, we preserve funnily bad proposals, why not April Fool's Day proposals? It's a lot better than scouring through countless pages of the Proposal page's revision history (and that's with 500 revisions per page in mind too).
OmegaRuby (talk) We haven't done this already? Per all.
Waddle D33 (talk) I just spent the last half hour or so reading and appreciating the articles in the BJAODN section. Anyway, I agree that BJAODN would be a good home for those types of jokes.
SeanWheeler (talk) Might as well archive these April Fools' proposals for someone who is interested.
FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) Oh, yes please!! I liked the last ones! Even though it took me a minute to figure out that they were joke proposals, I still like them! (I still want my Super Smash Bros. Ultimate cheeseburger....)
Camwoodstock (talk) Secondary option--we do worry about the page growing too long for this, but it'd make sense for the time being.
Do nothing
Comments
Is there any chance that the April Fools' proposals be merged with the April Fools' prank of that year? For example, all of the 2024 April Fools' proposals can be merged with MarioWiki:BJAODN/April Fool's 2024. Sparks (talk) 19:47, April 2, 2024 (EDT)
Okay. That makes sense. Subpages could work for the proposals then. Sparks (talk) 19:55, April 2, 2024 (EDT)
For reference, after looking at page history, the years that had at least three joke proposals were 2018 with exactly three (or four?), 2019 with five, 2020 with nine, 2021 with five (including one that already got archived which we'd have to move), and 2024 with ten, so they'd all get their own subpages, and there was also one April Fools' proposal each in 2010 and 2023 (the former got immediately deleted though). Three of the four pie proposals in the main archive were technically April Fools' as well, unsure whether those should count. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:07, April 3, 2024 (EDT)
You are the unsung hero of this proposal. We'd say if this passes in its current state, the Pie proposals that weren't tied to the aforementioned years should probably remain on the standard BJAODN Proposals section. ~Camwoodstock(talk) 14:57, April 5, 2024 (EDT)
Nightwicked Bowser 
19:18, April 4, 2024 (EDT)
It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 20:01, April 4, 2024 (EDT)
It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 13:56, April 5, 2024 (EDT)
rend (talk) (edits) 15:58, April 5, 2024 (EDT)
Sparks (talk) 
19:47, April 2, 2024 (EDT)
