MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/41

Block on wiki = block on forum
VETOED BY THE ADMINISTRATORS The wiki administration and forum administration operate independently of each other and have different rules which are not mutually applicable. A ban on the wiki does not equate to a ban on the forum unless the user has broken the rules on both venues and vice versa.

(not sure if this belongs in Changes or Miscellaneous; please move if necessary) Normally, when a user gets blocked on the wiki, nothing happens to their forum account if they have one. Now that most people have both wiki and forum accounts, it should be considered that if a user does something stupid that gets him/her blocked on the wiki, he/she might go straight to the forum and complain about it (which isn't allowed), or do the same thing he/she did on the wiki in the forum, so therefore maybe this policy should be introduced.

Proposer: Deadline: August 10, 2013, 23:59 GMT.

Ban on both only when permabanned on wiki

 * 1) Sounds fair to me.

Ban on both in all instances for same amount of time

 * 1) Per proposal.

Ban only on wiki (do nothing)

 * 1) I think it'd be better to go for a case-by-case standard for something like this. If the user was trolling the wiki, then sure a ban on the forum as well would probably be the best course of action seeing as they'll likely do the same on the forum. However, if it's something like adding false information repeatedly or using edit summaries in a non-constructive manner then I think it'd be pretty mean to bar them for all corners of the wiki.
 * 2) Per Yoshi876; if someone's not doing anything wrong on the forum they shouldn't be banned there for malicious wiki activity.

Comments
You forgot a "Do Nothing" section, which would probably be best as there are instances of people being blocked on forum and not on wiki. If the user gets themselves blocked on the wiki, but still acts in a gracious manner on the forums then I don't see why they should be banned there.
 * The "ban only on wiki" section is pretty much the "do nothing" section; sorry if that wasn't clear. 03:39, 3 August 2014 (EDT)
 * Okay, thanks :)
 * It would probably be better if there was something like "Ban if they were using excessive language on the wiki", because that's the only way I see it working. - 04:37, 3 August 2014 (EDT)
 * Or like I said, trolling, especially seeing as there is no rule against swearing on the forum so it'd be stupid to ban them because of that.
 * I meant excessive excessive swearing on the wiki. - 07:34, 3 August 2014 (EDT)
 * Still no rule against it on the forum, so it'd be pretty mean to ban them from that for it. Only way swearing would get banned from both is through flaming.
 * I guess I should of just said flaming. But the "Do nothing" still doesn't work, as it says "Only on Wiki", when they could of been banned from the forums. - 08:23, 3 August 2014 (EDT)

I think that kind of discussion should be left to the admins themselves. You should have PMed an admin telling him the idea, and left the final decision to them instead of jumping into an open proposal.-- 05:28, 3 August 2014 (EDT)

Allow the upload of voice clips
ALLOW 14-0

So, I am a bit busy, but I will spend more time in the wiki, as how it was...OK, so, I was thinking about uploading some (NOT A LOT!) of voice clips, I mean, voice clips for people hear and see the difference between voice actors. Example: Upload a Peach voice clip from SM64 and one from SMG.

My idea is have a small number of voice clips.


 * Voice clips may be with.no background GFX/SFX.

useful places to get voices: the sounds resource, the kittycorps meowmix forums, MFGG, youtube.com, ripping (use BrawlBox, SZS modifier, etc) anx trought glitches (MK8) and SSB3DS will have a voice tool like MP games.

Proposer: Deadline: August 26, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal
 * 2) Per proposal. It is a an awesome idea. It'll be convenient. For instance we could cover most of Jen Taylor's voice clips for Peach and Samantha Kelly's Peach voice clips.
 * 3) Yeah, I think it might be nice. It's not really that big a thing, but then again wynaut?
 * 4) Now that the proposal changed, I agree with this. Sound clips are a good idea to include.
 * 5) Mmmm, yeah, why not. It's a good idea to supplement those quote pages with some voices.
 * 6) Per 'Shroom64, now that the limit is gone, I agree. 7 in total was too low.
 * 7) Next time, overhaul the proposal and start again instead of changing it without anyone knowing. Per all.
 * 8) Per proposal. Though SZS Modifier CANNOT rip SFX as far as I'm concerned.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) Per all
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) We should do what we did with quotes. List a few in the article itself, and link to the main voice/sound clip page.
 * 13) That's actually a great addition, and will benefit the change of voice actors during the years.
 * 14) Per all.

Comments
@Nineelevndo, I understand your oppose...or the major part it. If ripping is hard, it isn't mybproblem: who want to rip, rip. Who doesn't...doesn't rip. Also, most of them can be downloaded anywhere, you just need to credit the ripper. Also, I said a dmall amount because of PC lags. Got it? ;)
 * If we aren't going to do much of it, then I don't see a point in a major change at all if it isn't going to be actively used. - 18:08, 19 August 2014 (EDT)
 * I understand. Maybe upload a few voice clips from alot of games should be better?
 * Given the similarity and sometimes out right sharing of sound resources within a given console generation, it'd suggest considering making one long clip per either system or voice actor that includes many/all samples we have. That is, "Mario's Voice, N64" would be the track name with every voice sample from the start of the N64 era to the end, or "Charles Martinet, 1995 - 2000" with same. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Ghost Jam[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 18:46, 19 August 2014 (EDT)
 * Uh that's not a good idea. Mario Kart Wii uses about 100 unique voice clips per character, we're not going to document all of them. Just document one per game, that's the best suited for the character. Ninelevendo, ripping voices is easy depending on the system. For Wii, all you need is BrawlBox and a clean .brsar from an .iso, and you can extract voices from sorts of games (Super Sluggers, Mario Party 8, Mario Kart Wii, Super Smash Bros. Brawl). 22:32, 20 August 2014 (EDT)
 * Too be honest, I was going to further suggest that the entire project be moved to the Mario Wiki Youtube account to save on storage space and to prevent us from having crazy long resource articles. But whatever gets the job done. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Ghost Jam[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 04:48, 22 August 2014 (EDT)

Just so you now, there's already a class of subpages for sound clips: "List of X media" pages (like this). Right now, it's only for games and whatnot, but I suppose if enough sound clips of a character are amassed, a subpage could be used for that. However I doubt that would ever be necessary, and it's not very ideal either. Uploading sound clips of voicework in of itself isn't a bad idea, tho: just be choosy about what's worth including. -
 * OK!

It may be nice to have voice clips, thing is, for all the Mario games that will come, the maximum of 7 is too low. I don't know anything on converting and stuff, but it could be nice to have them as .ogg files, just as musics. This way we could have, just like for the games page, a "List of Mario GFXs" and/or "List of GFXs from Super Mario 64". By the way, another reason for not supporting in Ninelevendo's. Why putting so effort for a such difficult thing to do when not so much people will hear it? But yes, I know that GFXs put a variety at the game and are nice to hear with music. P.S. I found a video glitch of MK8 where the music goes off and all the characters voices can be hearded, the ones when you select it. The link is www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUJH3oTDwbE. Hope I helped you if the proposal pass :)
 * I would support if it was just "let voice file be uploaded", however, a subpage and limit makes lets this proposal down. - 02:25, 20 August 2014 (EDT)
 * In fact, it would be nice to have them, but per Ninelevendo, I'm neutral. Opposing would mean no clips at all.

The majority of the users on this Wiki are on either Windows XP, Vista and 7 or Mac OS X. I'd see a lag if they were on something older let's say like Windows 2000 or Windows Me, 98 and 95 but that's very unlikely since barely anyone uses Windows 2000 or Windows 9X.I'd see that some people would receive a lag but that is if they were using an old piece of shit Windows 2000,9X or NT 4.0 PC.If someone were using Windows 2000 then this site would look all garbled up and shit like that though the chance is very unlikely for someone to use such older outdated and abandoned OSes.
 * What has the majority of users using according to some random survey that you made up got to do with why we should allow voice clips that deserve a separate page? And Tsunami, opposing wouldn't mean that, it just means that it won't happen in the same detail given as the proposal states. I'm all for letting voice clips in, but a separate page, I'm not. -  07:48, 20 August 2014 (EDT)
 * Well, the title says "Allow the upload of voice clips"... I thinked that support means can upload and oppose means can't upload. I probabily get it wrong.
 * The title states that, but the rules in the actual proposal say some things that I wouldn't agree with. -
 * @Ninelevendo and 'Shroom 64, What I mean by my point is that if someone were to be using an older PC with an outdated abandonware OS like say Windows 2000 or NT 4.0 and Windows 9X then it may be a problem since they could barely even browse the Wiki or have trouble with clip playback or something. Besides that will all depend on their internet connection and how shitty their PC is. This is barely the case since almost everyone uses a modern OS like Windows XP, Vista, 7 and 8 or Mac OS X versions 10.6 to 10.9 or any Linux distro. You see this lag thing would make perfect sense if someone were using Windows 2000, Me, 98 and NT 4.0 or 95. So is my point very clear. It think allowing voice clips on here wouldn't be a problem.
 * I agree, but the proposal states more than just allowing them. The idea of separate pages and a 2 second rule makes this proposal fail, but otherwise the idea behind it is great. - 08:34, 20 August 2014 (EDT)
 * Well, OK, aside from the fact that I didn't see your comments before I wrote my oppose, assuming they were there, I get your point there, and I guess it won't inconvenience most if not all of our viewers and users. But as Ninelevendo just said, subpages aren't a good idea still. Having maybe a few on the main pages like we do with various soundtracks seems better of an idea to me.
 * OK. If we just change the rules and just allow the upload (no subpages) at all?

I like this idea...but having entire pages for this? I don't agree. What I DO agree with is using a selected voice clip to color personality sections with characters, so you know what they sound like. I think one voice clip per character on average would be great detailing personality. 20:54, 20 August 2014 (EDT)
 * Makes sense. As for showing voices changing throughout the years, which also seems like a worthwhile reason to have them, I like Ghost Jam's suggestion of splicing many little clips together into a smaller number of more substantial clips that can all fit on the main page, once more avoiding the need for subpages. -
 * You know, I don't think it's too late to rewrite the proposal, since it's the third day. If you can, modify the rules to include the suggestions Baby Luigi and Walkazo put, remove the subpages and 2-sec limit, and then I'll move my vote.

Yeah, per Baby Luigi and Walkazo, but I think more than just one is better, like ~10 and also I guess they can be put in a place like for example: In Mario's article, in section "Media", have a subsection "Voice clips", or maybe a subsection to "Portrayals" or whatever and add several ogg files: "Tōru Furuya *insert years here*", "Lou Albano *also insert years here*", and so...-- 18:23, 25 August 2014 (EDT)

Create Separate Articles for Smash Fighters
DON'T CREATE 3-10

This is an idea I had, and it's to cut back on the more lengthy articles like Mario. The Smash section for him is cluttered with his moves, Solid Snake convo and Subscape Emissary role, and I feel like it's a little too much. The Smash Wiki has an article for Mario in each different Smash Bros., so I kind of had the idea we could create a Mario (SSB) article where we can go more in depth about just his Smash Bros. roles; moves, trophy, stickers etc.

This would apply to other Marioverse characters in Smash, and doing this would cut back on the length of these already massive articles. It also allows us to redirect the Smash Bros. section for the Koopalings to Main Article: Bowser Jr. (SSB) without having to go into depth about Ludwig's moveset on his own article.

I figure this would only apply to Marioverse characters, as it's not like Link's or Pikachu's article needs to be reduced in size.

Proposer: Deadline: September 24, 2014 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) It'd offer a much neater look to the Mario, Bowser, Peach articles. I'd say it's worth a try.
 * 2) It seems like a useful idea to save on space, and we already have things like gallery and quotes spun off into their own pages.
 * 3) that seems legit :/

Oppose

 * 1) Very pointless, they are the same thing.
 * 2) Most characters' sections aren't even that large, comparatively or otherwise. Besides, what about non-Marioverse characters who've appeared in other media, like Link or Kirby or Samus Aran? Where will you draw the line to say which articles deserves to be split and which don't?
 * 3) This sort of thing is best kept on Smashwiki, and by going into more smash related stuff some characters would have hardly any info on them because they only appear in a smash game. Creating one article for all four smash games also isn't that great of an idea, as all the different games would have their information cluttered and split, making it confusing for readers. Also, the name Mario (SSB) would be going against the rule of not using abbreviations.
 * 4) I don't understand why exactly the Smash Bros. series needs the split. The Codec part can probably be split from its main article, each special move can go further into detail in another article. There's no need to split off Smash Bros. Smash Wiki splits the articles because the wiki goes far into depth about character move properties, how effective the character is overall, and other technical stuff we don't cover. We cover the basic stuff, and that's not so much we need to split it.
 * 5) The Mario article is inevitably huge; but as Time Turner said, we have non-Mario articles like Link, R.O.B. and others that would be comparatively weird to have an unnecessary other article for SSB. But why does Ludwig (and the other Koopalings, I guess) have his own section? It is really Bowser Jr., right? Per all.
 * 6) I know Smash wiki does it, but hey, its still the same charecter and who cares if the article is huge!
 * 7) Per all. And I would like to remember we already have links to every SmashWiki page, so they can be checked. And why can't you go depth directly in the article?
 * 8) I agree that some of our more popular articles could stand a trim here or there, but I'm not sure splitting articles up into smaller articles is the way to go about it, especially considering the snowball effect it will create. If it's simply a matter of trying to shorten articles and save space, I would think cutting down the offending sections and truncating sentences when able (both of which are supposed to be standard editing practices) would be a more succinct way of doing that, and that's the method I favor.
 * 9) - The SSB clutter has always irked me to an extent, but it would be better to just move the Codec and Special Attacks sections to the "List of Profiles and Statistics" subpages that we've already created for the longer articles.
 * 10) Per all. Again.

Comments
@Tsunami We don't really cover the technical things as, for one, it would make the section really long, but most of the terms (such as "Edge-guarding") could be considered "fan-made names". Plus, we don't really cover things like Hitboxes largely because, well, we aren't Smashwiki, our policy is different to theirs. - 01:26, 18 September 2014 (EDT)
 * Okey dokey. Thanks a bunch for the clarement :) Since our policy is different, I then don't see the point of following their. Maybe, if ever Smash Bros. will become complex over years, I will support this.

@Randombob-omb4761: I take your point, but our inclusion policy has traditionally been interpreted as "more articles are better than less articles, if we can pull it off." -- Ghost Jam 22:05, 18 September 2014 (EDT)

About the special moves, couldn't we just go back to having separate articles for them? A lot of the reason behind the merge was to minimize Smash Bros. coverage, and there was also talk of stubs being created (which used to be a very scary word). The stub argument is tosh for a bunch of reasons, but the coverage of "minor" Smash Bros aspects is an interesting point that I've always wanted to discuss. We have several characters like stage-specific ones (Ultimate Chimera, Bulborb, the Great Bay turtle) merged, which is because of their small appearances. At the same time, we have SSB enemies like Mites and Like Likes that also have relatively small appearances but are still given articles because they act as full-fledged enemies. By that same token, the special moves are constantly used and being seen, and the wiki's certainly no stranger to giving articles to special moves. After all, giving them articles would clear up some of the section's clutter.

I've prattled on about a subject that I want to discuss with no real point other than that I want to discuss it. What exactly is and isn't "minor" to the point of not covering it is something that I always wanted to discuss. Anyone else wanna make sense of what I wrote and chime in with their own thoughts?


 * We used to have separate articles for every individual Smash Bros. move. Sometime during the release of Brawl, something happened that our policy changed, probably a proposal. I'm not exactly sure why though (guessing article lengths?) or if we could change our policy back. Thoughts?
 * We've overwritten larger polices that have lasted longer in the past. Besides, like Ghost Jam said, our policy has generally been in support of more articles if possible, and it's certainly possible in this case.
 * This, guys? 15:06, 20 September 2014 (EDT)
 * That's the same proposal I linked to in my second sentence.
 * I don't know, it looks like Paper Jorge overlooked your link. 15:18, 20 September 2014 (EDT)
 * Yeah, missed it.

Active rewards
DON'T HAVE 0-13

Well I was looking around the Pie for everyone joke proposal, and one of the comments said that a reward would be nice,just not pie.So it hit me why not have a rewards program. In witch active users get rewarded for being active, or editing the most or other things. The prizes witch would be given away buy the breuacrats and could be coustom userbok towers,a signiture makeover,and other little goodies.Some stuff would be easy while others chalanging tempting users to go above and beond. Proposer: (banned) Deadline: September 28, 2014, 23:59 GMT.

Oppose

 * 1) Systems like these, besides being annoyingly tedious to manage if not automated and very easy to abuse if automated, always encourage making minor edits across a large amount of articles, rather than putting time effort into a few. They tend to be counterproductive simply because people care more about the rewards than what they're actually doing to get those rewards. Simply put, it's not in our best interests.
 * 2) As some say, intrinsic motivation is a far more powerful indication you want to aid wikis than extrinsic. I can totally see people abusing this system just for the reward and never contribute to the site again. Furthermore, isn't SEEING a page look awesome already rewarding in itself? I certainly felt great when I fixed up Miracle Book and made it featured, as well as Super Duel Mode, shouldn't that be a reward in itself? In the same way modding the game doesn't get you any rewards other than people loving you for what you have done, same should apply to this wiki. We should edit and not expect a thanks in return (though it IS appreciated, I've felt great when other editors complimented my hard work). A simple compliment can make another user's day already.
 * 3) Not only would the prizes or requirements be hard to work out, but it would lower the quality of work in the long run. Instead of people putting their back into fixing articles or adding things, they'll only do whatever is needed in order for them to claim their reward, then leave the project afterwards.
 * 4) Per all. This means I got reward because I talk a lot and do some minor stuff. If the work is big, acomplishmemt is enough (so per Baby Luigi).
 * 5) Per Baby Luigi.
 * 6) - Per Baby Luigi and Tsunami. Edit wikis because you want to, not because you want to be rewarded.
 * 7) Per all. This could be used as incentive for people to work, but too much incentive in my opinion. Honestly, using this system, I should have a reward for finally making Iggy Koopa a featured article, or maybe my and Tsunami's hard work to get Lakitu featured, but I wouldn't care. Signature makeovers are something already doable on one's own time, and custom userboxes are (aside from friend userboxes) already done. Just look at Tsunami for a whole ensemble of 'em. :) Really, others may not care about the wiki and only want the rewards, which is not at all good when our goal is to be the best Mario series wiki there is. As that is the case, we can't be flooded with users who just want rewards.
 * 8) Per Baby Luigi. Editing a wiki is not something to get rewarded for. I'm sure most people who take the wiki seriously edit and help out because they just enjoy doing so.
 * 9) Per all. We've actually attempted this in the past (very early years of the wiki). What we found is that it breeds contempt between users, encourages shoddy editing and ends with us finding someone to babysit the system to avoid abuse. In the end, it was all way more trouble than it was worth. Further comments below.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) Per everything.
 * 13) Per all.

Comments
Truth be told, we tried this more than twice and in various forms. First was an informal barnstar-type system where any users could award something of their choosing to another user they felt was deserving of a more robust thank you (some talk page archives for the oldest users still have a few of these left around, despite our deciding to mass delete them). This ended up creating arguments about who gave who what for what reason and then rivals handing out bad rewards ("You got the Garlic reward cause YOU STINK!" and other crap like that). This tried to evolve into a formal awards system that fell flat on it's face (partly due to left over hostility from the informal system, partly due to apprehension on part of most of the administrative team), which then became version one of the long removed Trouble Center (this one still bugs me, it had so much potential). Other methods have been discussed over the years, on all fronts. One might ask why these attempts keep falling through when larger wikis, such as and pretty much exclusively Wikipedia, don't seem to have this problem, or at least the problem is minor at best. I think it's because of the size of the communities in question. Wikipedia is pretty much a community of communities and, much like what happens in Vegas staying in Vegas, minor award based issues that pop up in various sub-communities are handled by those communities and maybe an ops if it's Friday and Jimbo has had a few. MarioWiki is a much smaller community and intensely more intimate when it comes to it's users. When Martha May Whovier next door gets a shinny new trinket fro her lawn, Betty Lou Who wants one too. But time has proven that we can't play nice about it, so let's just stick with what Walkazo and everyone else said above. -- Ghost Jam 14:46, 22 September 2014 (EDT)
 * Even when wikis like this become much bigger that its current state, I'd still be against a rewards system of any kind. You still shouldn't expect to edit wikis to get a reward other than just being a help. People who donate or people who volunteer don't do it for a reward, they do it because it's the morally right thing to do and the reward you get isn't material, it's an intrinsic happiness when you did help out. Feeling that the wiki needs you is certainly a rewarding feeling, and I don't want any sort of rewards. It WOULD be nice, I would admit, to have a virtual image of my star in my user page but I can most certainly live without one just as well. Reputation and this good feeling you get when you help out is more of a better reward than a material one. 23:46, 22 September 2014 (EDT)
 * If we could get people over the hump, so to speak, this all might have worked out better. There is a certain allure to having a system in place so we can send lighthearted gifts and heartfelt thankyous to different users for different reasons. It shouldn't be the only reason editors edit, but it's ok for a certain level of adulation to be a reason for doing something, so long as it doesn't become the reason and that's where our community issues started (or it all went ignored, such as with Trouble Center version 2). I'll be honest, if I could ACTUALLY give ever one of our major editors a piece of pie or a T-shirt, I'd do it. But all I can really give is my thanks and support. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Ghost Jam[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 01:05, 23 September 2014 (EDT)
 * Same here. I am doing a quite difficult and long thing because 1) It is important enough to be noted and 2) Since none did it, and I have some free time, why not? I also do thing for helping out and being rewarded by the nice look of the result, NOT for being recompensed (though Mario T-Shirts are always appreciated ;) . Why did I work to feature Lakitu? 1) It's my fav character, and I promised I would not let the nomination fail 2) Helping out to not make the nomination fail, since the article was in good shape. Aaaand... everything what I could say was already said by Baby Luigi. Speking of rewards, you can customize every template by copypasting and modifing the code. Points (just like reputation in some forums) could be an idea (and is the one that makes most sense), but this way the system would be too difficult to handle (still simpler of Pie for Everyone, how could one get pie if not American?). So, this is why the compliments are the best way to credit someone for their work, to feel like it's their own day (Baby Luigi's words). My day was Lakitu's Featuration.

@TripleK: You HAVE to add a reason there or else it will be removed 14:32, 26 September 2014 (EDT)

New Article
DON'T CREATE 2-8

I was reading New Super Mario Bros. Wii when it hit me. We should make an Article called New Super Mario Bros. (Series). I mean really, look how muuch installments we have in the series and new ones coming soon. Also, we have Mario & Luigi (series) article, a Mario Kart (series) article and a Mario Party (series) article. So why not we make one for the New Super Mario Bros. Series while it is a popular series. Also, it can provide editorial oppurtunities because millions play it.

Proposer: Deadline: September 30, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) I Support this Idea
 * 2) Per proposal. Why the heck not? I think it'd work pretty good.

Oppose

 * 1) - Pretty much agree with what Walkazo said below; the NSMB series is part of the main Super Mario series and should not be separated from the rest of the games just because the gameplay is different. With the sports series and the RPG series, they are separate from the main games, therefore being deserving of a separate article to list the games and details of the series. The main series page we have now is fine and works well.
 * 2) We're messing with the foundation of the organization of this wiki. This proposal opens up questions regarding other "subseries" as well, including Super Mario Land, Super Mario 3D "thing", Super Mario Galaxy, and other subseries like that. Your examples describe standalone series, and New Super Mario Bros. is NOT a standalone series; it's a subseries of the "mainstream" Mario platformers. If this proposal passes, we have to acknowledge the existence of this New Super Mario Bros. series, which means we have to reorganize the history sections of a whole lot of articles, reorganize the navigational templates, and other things. Consider, if the door to acknowledging Super Mario Land and Super Mario 3D "thing" is opened because of this proposal, that means further reorganization of the history sections. Call me a slippery-slope spouter, but the amount of supports already, I find kind of alarming, so I'm opposing immediately.
 * 3) The way our lists are currently set up (which, as Walkazo pointed out below, are a mess and in need of maintenance), this would require a little restructuring and will most definitely have a snowball effect on the rest of the series lists. There is also the matter of acknowledging NSMB as a serperat series, what a series is, does it mesh with our current archiving methods, what are the long term effects on the rest of the lists (the snowball effect I mentioned). As Mario put it above, we're messing with the foundation here and I'm not comfortable with messing with the ground we're standing on till I'm sure the house isn't going to fall down as a result. There are various things to consider here and I don't feel that a proposal is going to offer enough time or space to hash them all out. My recommendation is to identify the various issues people are going to have, discuss them with the community on the forums, then bring the agreed upon criteria back here.
 * 4) The New Super Mario Bros Series is a sub-series of a sub-series in a series, which the wiki currently doesn't find applicable of having a page. Changing this would, like the people above said, cause a chain reaction, and end up making a everyone confused as to what deserves a page or not. If you make a proposal on changing how the wiki deals with Sub-series of sub-series (such as Mario Kart Arcade) that sounds reasonable, then this would be a good idea. In other words, per all.
 * 5) - Per myself in the comments, and per above, and per past proposals and discussions on similar matters. The Super Mario subseries is best read about as a whole, rather than breaking it into chunks; keeping the overall subseries page but making a separate NSMB-only sub-sub-series page isn't a solution to that since it just creates redundant duplication of info. It could also have repercussions on how History sections and other aspects of the wiki are organized, but in these cases too, keeping Super Mario games together makes more sense than splitting them up or getting horribly nested sub-sub-sub-sections and whatnot. Plus, making one sub-sub-series page might lead to more and more getting made, when we should really be focusing on making the series pages we already have actually look good.
 * 6) Not that any of my votes matter anyway. What I would say has already been said. And in depth.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Those series are all larger than the NSMB series. NSMB is still a relatively small series. And per everything else.

Comments
Haven't we been through this? - 22:22, 22 September 2014 (EDT)
 * Yeah, exactly, the problem is that NSMB isn't actually a standalone series like the examples listed - it's a sub-series of the overall Super Mario series, and thus, giving it a series page is actually something new and has implications for how we deal with the other sub-sets of Super Mario games. Will the original SMB games they get a series? What about how NSMB is basically just a modern continuation of the oldschool sidescrollers - is it really right to split them up? What about the 3D games, or will only the one with "3D" in the title get their own series page? And what are the implications for History section orders, templates and other wiki-wide organizational systems: right now, everything's pretty consistently going by the overall Super Mario series, and I'm leery of messing around with that. Plus, series pages are currently a mess anyway: I feel like it might be better to focus efforts on fixing up the existing Super Mario series page rather than making one or more new, smaller series pages that are basically just duplicated subsets of the overall series... - 22:46, 23 September 2014 (EDT)

Well, the Super Mario 3D series and the Super Mario Galaxy series are (currently!) just duos, but I'm curious about this; We don't have a page for this, and yet its amount of games are up to par with Super Mario Advance if New Super Luigi U isn't counted, and with the current number of Mario vs. Donkey Kong if it is. Is there areason for that? Especially because the SMA games are remakes with Mario Bros. stuck on. So basically, I can't vote yet.

Aside: Sorry for the premature deletion, everyone. Seemed like an open and shut violation to me and it probably would have been if a discussion hadn't broken out between us about this very subject at the same time. -- Ghost Jam 06:32, 24 September 2014 (EDT)

@Mario @GhostJam Erm... you two really have fear of changing some basics? I'm not blaming you at all, but I find it, like, a bit strange. Changing rules is a thing that sometimes in a project (MarioWiki, in this case) happens. By the by, I want to remember proposals can easily change from a win to a lose...
 * But wait, the Super Mario Advance series is just a remake collection. At this point, since NSMB series is, more than a remake, a (sub)series, what should we do? Delete that too? I don't understand the organization anymore. Please, explain it to me.

Look we made Subseries into pages such as Mario Kart, Mario Party, etc. and there is enough installments (5) so why oppose? And SMB, SMB2, SMB3 did not have the word "New" in their names so i am not saying "count them" i mean the 5 installments (NSMB, NSMBWii, NSMB2, NSMBU, NSLU) also this series is still pretty popular so let's do it when it is still popular.


 * @Tsunami Advance gets it own series page because it's just a remake series, not a new instalment in the Super Mario Bros. line like the NSMB games are.
 * @IggyKoopa777 Mario Kart and Mario Party are a completely separate and cut-off sub series from the Super Mario (Bros.) series, wheras the New Super Mario Bros series is a sub series of a sub series. Changing this would result in a lot of chages, and lots of them wouldn't make sense. If we take a while and work something out, then we can understand what would go where. - 08:49, 24 September 2014 (EDT)


 * @Ninelevendo What? Super Mario Bros. is a subseries? Of what? We don't have "Super Mario 2D (series)". Sorry, I don't get this at all. NSMB could also simply be a continuation of it. I recognize all pseudo-series as series, and the Super Mario series as a whole as a collection of them. I have confusion, so I will be neautral by not voting like BabyLuigi64 does.

@Iggy Koopa777 I should also add, Mario Kart and Mario Party are MUCH larger than NSMB, both have hit more than ten titles. The Mario Kart games reach a total of 11 games including arcade titles, meanwhile, Mario Party reaches 16, again including arcade games but discounting MP10. Therefore, the articles can be and are much more expansive. @Tsunami I think Ninelevendo is referring to how the Super Mario Bros. games are a subset of the Mario series as a whole.
 * And then, if the Super Mario 2D is ever recognized as a series (I know it isn't), where is it placed in the diagram I am starting figuring out? I'm thinking a diagram image should be uploaded to avoid confusion. Not the general one, we already have it. By the way, no, I won't vote again, but remain neautral.

Just a reminder that new comments always go on the bottom, lest this becomes a total mess. Anyway, as long as a set of games has three or more entries, it can get a series, that's not the problem here: the real question isn't "how much", it's "what". I.e. should a sub-sub-series of the Super Mario sub-series (of the overall Mario series) get a series article like its parent sub-series and other sub-series (like Mario Kart and whatnot), or is that going to cause organizational issues and inconsistencies between articles and series pages, duplication of information, and/or a snowball effect of sub-sub-series pages for increasingly blurry game groupings? I.e. should the original SMB games get a page too? Should SM64, SMS and the Galaxy games be grouped together as the more open-world platformers? Should the 3D games go with them because it's also 3D even if it's a bit more sidescrollery? If they make a third Galaxy game, will it get a separate series page? If they make a third 3D Land/World/etc. game, will it get a page? If they make a 3D Galaxy game then what do we do? And going outside the Super Mario games, should the three Mario Kart Arcade GP games get a page? Or the Super Mario Fushigi arcade party games? Do we really want to start prying open these cans of worms when the series pages we can agree on are already in rough shape? Anyway, the points about there already being a Super Mario Advance (series) are fair, and part of me feels like it'd be easier to just delete that page, but it's a bit different in that it's also got the Yoshi's Island remake in there, so it's not purely a subset of Super Mario-only games. It might be best to have a separate discussion/proposal about that series page... - 16:27, 24 September 2014 (EDT)

@TsunamiIt has less to do with fear of change and more to do with apprehension over overhauling an already incomplete system. The fact that we only have one main-sub-series page is endemic of the problem and most of us just aren't comfortable letting it spread without having a discussion about the long reaching effects of such a change. Also, I disagree with this comment at the bottom thing. I can't speak for anyone else, but I find this @[PERSON] crap harder to follow than just having a standard reply indent. -- Ghost Jam 20:27, 24 September 2014 (EDT)

@Mario @GhostJam Erm... you two really have fear of changing some basics? I'm not blaming you at all, but I find it, like, a bit strange. Changing rules is a thing that sometimes in a project (MarioWiki, in this case) happens. By the by, I want to remember proposals can easily change from a win to a lose...
 * I'm not afraid to change the basics. But this proposal is changing how we organize the wiki, and I don't really like to change multitudes among multitudes of history sections. Plus, it does invite discussions about those other "mainstream" platformer subseries like Super Mario Land. Our system isn't superbly flawed either, so it gives me and several other editors much less incentive to work so much with so little payoff.
 * As far as I remember, 'kazo, isn't Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island considered part of the "mainstream" Mario platformer games by some guys at Nintendo? 21:44, 24 September 2014 (EDT)
 * Yeah, but the consensus was that the wiki was gonna keep it separated for organizational purposes, citing the different gameplay, and the Yoshi Egg logo, and other things like that as reasons why it has more in common with the Yoshi series that followed it, rather than the SM series that spawned it. Plus, it's not in the SMASLE "Super Mario History" booklet (the other three SMA games were included), which is pretty much our only concrete official published Nintendo weigh-in on what's pat of the "Super Mario" series; iirc, Miyamoto said they consider it part of the main series (or something like that) in an interview, which wasn't worth uprooting the wiki's organizational system. And still isn't. -
 * Sorry for bugging you. I couldn't find an argument against that statement, since I'm also really iffy on that sort of stuff. I don't know how I missed conversations regarding that. So yeah, there's always a new person who needs an explanation. ^^' 22:13, 24 September 2014 (EDT)
 * The debate was two years ago and was mostly exhausting walls of text by me and rebuttals laced with nasty little barbs from the other guy. The forum thread specifically about the interview actually ended up getting locked and thrown in topic storage, it got so badly derailed. -
 * Thanks for letting me know. I think it was during the time of my temporary year-long departure (please don't ask why), so yeah, I missed quite a lot there. 23:20, 24 September 2014 (EDT)
 * Well, it ended in no change, so you didn't really miss much more than a messy debate. @Ghost Jam: I've seen some really screwed up Comments sections, like with people inserting new arguments about a point that was already discussed below, and posting three new comments when one could be done, and whatnot, and overall, it can make conversations/stances look circular or contrary or just plain messy. It's much easier to just always put stuff at the bottom, and indenting can still be used in addition to "@whoever:" for extra continuity (i.e. if a conversations' very indented and then someone comes and makes some unrelated (unindented) remark, just ignore it and stick with the indenting, although it breaks down if there's lots of remarks between the old post and the response). -

Ok. Let's clear up this confusion. I am NOT talking about old school games like SMB or SML. I mean NSMBU, NSMB, NSMBWii, NSMB2 and and NSLU. And Can't anyone notice the title is called New Super Mario Bros. (Series) notice that "New" part there?, yeah, that is what i am talking about. It says it right there New Super Mario Bros. (Series). NOT Super Mario Bros. (Series).
 * That's not the problem. The problem is by acknowledging a new subseries, we have to rewrite history sections for a whole ton of articles. Plus, just because it has "new" doesn't mean it's a subseries. By the logic, Super Mario Land and Super Mario 3D "thing" and Super Mario Galaxy may qualify as additional subseries, which will we will further have to accommodate for the changes. 17:13, 27 September 2014 (EDT)
 * The thing you don't understand is that the word "New" doesn't mean that it's a different series, it is still part of the Super Mario [Bros.] (series). - 17:33, 27 September 2014 (EDT)
 * We're talking about how we would handle it with other sub-subseries games; we can't make a proposal for one without it affecting similar things.
 * Which is why I suggested moving this to the forums where an organized discussion can take place. Bring the results of that discussion back to here and we'll vote on it again. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Ghost Jam[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 19:27, 27 September 2014 (EDT)

@Ninelevendo Look there is many differences also note that Super Mario Advance is made into a Series article But Wait!, it is just remakes. Also is it in 2D, do you see it's power ups in the old school version?


 * Do you see Super Paper Mario with turn based battles? Yet it's still a Paper Mario game. Do you see 4 separate characters in Mario Party 9? Yet it's still a Mario Party game. The fact that it's different is a flawed argument. The New Super Mario Bros. Series is a series within a series. Therefore splitting this would question things like the Mario Kart Arcade series. - 22:46, 27 September 2014 (EDT)
 * Actually, keeping the Mario Kart Arcade series together with the entire Mario Kart series is a debatable argument 18:36, 28 September 2014 (EDT)
 * Yeah, I'd argue for splitting the Arcade series into another series. It wouldn't have as much as a ripple effect since it's a much narrower scope, but... eh? 18:51, 28 September 2014 (EDT)

@Superfiremario: Size doesn't get factored in as much when it comes to separate series. Mario & Luigi, Mario Strikers, and Mario Baseball have less games than the collective New Super Mario Bros. subseries. Just letting you know. 22:43, 28 September 2014 (EDT)

Ok, lets explain something. First, We made Paper Mario into a series page and it has only 4 installments and there is huge differences in this so called "Series". plus the 3DS adaptation is called New Super Mario Bros. 2. Wait wait wait?!, New Super Mario Bros. 2 notice the 2 part there?, it sounds a lot like a series.
 * I don't get the analogy. From its debut, New Super Mario Bros. is originally something like a "revival" of the traditional 2D Mario platformers. It spawned several sequels bearing the name "new". I agree that New Super Mario Bros. is a sub-subseries, but we're not arguing about that. We're arguing on whenever it deserves its own series page. The way the wiki is structured, we put all the "mainstream" Mario platformers into one group, and I think this organizational structure is going swimmingly. Now, if we were to create a separate series page, we have to reorganize our history sections. Not only this, this proposal will invite discussion on whenever Sunshine and 64 should be grouped as a subseries, whenever the Super Mario Land games should be grouped, whenever the Galaxy games should be grouped, and whenever the Super Mario 3D Land/World games should be grouped. That's the fundamental part of my and several other opposers' arguments, and you're consistently not getting that point.


 * Finally, such subseries page is redundant with Super Mario (series). Now, now, we do have redundant subseries pages including DK (series), Konkey Dong Country (series), but that's a problem we're trying to deal with and adding this subsubseries as an article is going to add on to our headaches. 23:12, 28 September 2014 (EDT)


 * I think the overall DK series (containing DKC/L, Konga, plus other things like Barrel Blast, etc.) is more akin to the overall Mario series rather than any one of its subseries, so it having subseries isn't an issue like the Super Mario subseries potentially having sub-sub-series. Similarly, there's overall Wario and Yoshi series, both of which can have subseries (Wario already does, with Wario Land, WarioWare and standalone things). Categories and Coverage both reflect this "big 4" approach. -
 * One thing: You keep mentioning other series that get pages (Paper Mario, Mario Party, Mario Kart, Mario & Luigi) but they are standalone series. The four are part of no bigger karting/racing, party, or RPG series. As commonly agreed upon, New Super Mario Bros. is an extension/revival of the original quartet of Super Mario Bros. games. Therefore, it is considered a subset of the whole Super Mario Bros. series. It's not that we don't think of the games as a series (oh and by the way, numbers aren't everything in determining a series, look at Paper Mario) but it's a smaller set of another.

I doubt this proposal will pass, oh well, at least i tried. Dreams do not come true every day.
 * If you'd take the advice we're giving you, your dream may come true someday. You're facing two main problems here:
 * 1. This has the potential to turn into something bigger than can be contained in a single proposal. It needs to either be split up into a wider discussion or several more proposals. I'd go with the discussion first.
 * 2. You're fighting the proposal process itself, whether you realize it or not, so you pretty much lost this on day one. This relates to the last point pretty heavily.
 * If you think this change is best for the wiki, address the concerns we've stated and work for an amicable solution. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Ghost Jam[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 01:33, 1 October 2014 (EDT)
 * I lost it after a while too. I HAVE to discuss about this with someone...

Create articles for the assist trophy characters
CREATE 7-0

With the influx of SSB4 articles coming in, it needs to be decided now more than ever what to do with the Assist Trophy article. There are a lot of new assist trophies in the newest installment, and that's resulting in more names being added to the ever-growing list. It's gotten to the point where having a list covering all of them simply isn't enough. There are so many avenues of information that could be covered: relevant information on their original seires, their trophy and sticker descriptions, more detailed explanations of their abilities and interactions in fights (especially when some of the new ones basically act as CPU fighters)... These are all things that could easily be done if they were given separate articles. Besides that, there's one thing I'd like to mention.

To put it succinctly, we're giving articles to nearly every other character in the Smash series: the Adventure Mode enemies like Topis and Like Likes, the Subspace Emissary enemies like Mizzos and Floows, the Smash Run enemies like Cuccos and Darknuts, and pretty much every boss that isn't "this character +1 height" (Duon, Giga Bowser, Yellow Devil, etc). They range from being mindless with a single attack to requiring strategies to dodge around their attacks. The assist trophies, on the other hand, encompass all of that and have the added bonus of being items. If we're going by wiki standard, that's two reasons in one why they should have articles.

Judging by the archive of proposals, there's always been a... worry, for lack of a decent word, about covering Smash Bros. articles. There have been proposals to merge and remove and split and delete, all with varying results and decisions, but all arriving to the generally same conclusion: we should cover the Smash series, but within reason. With that said, our standards for what is "within reason" change. There are two proposals up there for not having articles for the Adventure Mode and Subspace Emissary enemies (that have passed, mind you), and yet, there have been recent proposals overriding them. What we can accept for articles has changed, and having articles for the assist trophies is definitely something that we could accept.

Proposer: Deadline: October 18, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Create the articles

 * 1) I support my proposal..
 * 2) Per proposal. I know we have SmashWiki and stuff, but all those elements appeared at least once in the Mario series: because of this, they need coverage. What about items then? I remember when I linked the page to another wiki to not display a red link, but got changed because there was need of a page. Why items get this nice treatment and Assist Trophies not? Having info about them is good, especially because some of them may have got a strange behavior (I didn't understand Kawashima at all). Also, per policy, thus Walkazo and Yoshi876 in the comments, plus Time Turner.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) Finally. Yeah. I want this since they appear in mario game, and I don't care how minor they are. Many, like Mother Brain, already recieved mentions in mario series, like samus's qoute from SMRPG and Woster's list of people who think mushroom king is idiot. So this is good idea.
 * 5) Per Proposal.
 * 6) Per proposal.
 * 7) Per Proposal.

Comments
Then what about Pokémon? They should be treated the same way as the Assist Trophy characters. Aokage (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2014 (EDT)
 * The Assist Trophies alone are a huge step, after many proposals have tussled about it. We'll start off here and then, depending on how this goes, we can move on to the Pokemon.
 * I highly dunno: however, I still think they should get the same treatment of everthing else.

How about special moves? How are we going to deal with the currently spotty coverage of it? 15:17, 11 October 2014 (EDT)
 * One major issue about a crossover series that's been argued about for years at a time, please.
 * This is SmashWiki stuff in my opinion. Unless we don't merge it with MarioWiki (very likely it will never happen) we should have the basic coverage about it and lead to SmashWiki.

This is something I can't decide on. I won't vote (for now) but I'm curious to see how this ends.


 * What other NIWA wikis cover doesn't really matter: all our DK info's also being covered by the DK Wiki, but that doesn't mean we should chop it out of our coverage. In fact, according to our coverage policy:
 * "even series that can stand alone as their own series (i.e. SSB) are considered to be partner series of the Mario games. Therefore, all these crossovers are given full coverage: everything appearing in the games gets articles."
 * Bolded for emphasis to show that, technically, the Assist trophies already could (should?) be given pages within the wiki's official coverage scope. We just haven't gotten around to it yet for one reason or another, but now's as good a time as ever to address the issue, and doing it by proposal is the best way to make a solid decision on it given the back-and-forth history we've had with our SSB content. -
 * Again, another subject, but what about something more abstract, like special moves? 18:41, 12 October 2014 (EDT)
 * What did we do with moves? If we start making moves articles, we should make some for knockback, shield... doing so means we would include everything in SmashWiki. And SmashWiki's method to explain things is different from ours: SmashWiki really looks like a straegy guide, while MarioWiki is againist looking like a guide. I find good what we're doing already: give some coverage on the moves and giving the main link to SmashWiki.

What would be the point of this? Are we giving any other real information other than who they are and what they do in the game? - 01:26, 13 October 2014 (EDT)
 * Looks like not making them is breaking policy. This is the point of making them: they appear in Mario media, and we must cover them. Those info are enough.
 * But what he's saying is that they're very minor. Just saying "Oh, they appear in games that prominently enough feature Mario, so let's make an article" isn't good enough.
 * And? Certain enemies in the Mario series are minor, should we delete them? No, policy states that the Super Smash Bros. series gets full coverage, which would mean making articles for things relevant to it, like the Assist Trophies.
 * I'm... not exactly sure what part of this you're questioning. I already gave plenty of examples about what could be included in their articles, and they'd follow the standard used for nearly every other Smash-centric character, which I also mentioned. Who they are and what they do is also the kind of information we would include in any other article, regardless of who the character is, so... help me out here, Ninelevendo.
 * @BabyLuigi64 Minor? Wait, what? They're not minor at all. The only circumstance where something is minor enough to not deserve an article is a beta SMS enemy: it never appeared anywhere but in a beta. In my opinion, everything that has a relevance higher than never appeared/not-Mario element that only made 1-3 cameos deserves an article: basically, everyone ever appeared prominently enough in a Mario game. Assist Throphies are prominent enough, or I'm totally wrong?
 * What I mean is, these are trophies that you pick up, throw, and then summon some random who-knows-what that attacks for a few seconds, and then vanishes. How isn't it? These also aren't enemies (in many cases, they're not items (they spawn from). They're minor for Smash Bros. at least to me.
 * That's the definition of at least half of the wiki's items and special moves (hyperbole, but it's not far off), and no matter how obscure the character itself may be, and most of them are certainly not, and no matter how much of an actual enemy they still are, they are still there, doing things, and because they have a presence and they do things, they deserve articles. Look at the NPCs frolicking around in Flipside like Harold or Puck. These guys do absolutely nothing but act as background, scenery so that the player doesn't think the area looks bare. Yet, they have names, so they have articles. Here, the assist trophies are individually collected and activated, all have varied and practical uses, and all make a difference in the fight. Yet, we don't have articles for them. Even in the grand scheme of Smash Bros., they are certainly not minor, and I could point you to a thousand examples of what is truly minor.

Merge all warioware microgames with their respective List of microgames in ___
DON'T MERGE 1-13

Er... Well... I suck at these. But er... User:Tsunami convinced me to do this. I think that it would be a good idea to get rid of microgame articles because number one: There tiny. Stubs. Honestly, we look for so many stubs, but no one mentions the microgames. And most of them are so minor, all you must do is tap something. It's minor, and minor warrents an article, but there are so many of them they clog the random and take up waaaaay too much space. I'm pretty sure Warioware has more articles than the Mario party and kart series have combined. And I don't think anyone who looked up Paratroopa ment the microgame.

So my idea is that we put them all in one article in an organized manor, like the List of implied Characters. We don't need to cut information, we can just copy paste it. Nothing new has to be written. I understand that this will be a MASSIVE merge, something I don't even want to know how to do. But I think it's worth it. Just please, hear me out. And er... don't criticize me for a horrible proposal.

Proposer: Deadline: November 2, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) [As proposer.]

Oppose

 * 1) Regardless of how minor you may consider them to be, and regardless how how many they are, they're still things. That sounds silly, but they are their own individual things with their own individual aspects to them, like their respective designs, their respective music, their respective difficulties, their respective controls, their respective captions, and so on and so forth. I don't see why they should be merged. Besides that, merging them all to giant lists would make them ridiculously cluttered. The largest article with have for implied things has ninety-nine entries, and most of that is usually just a few sentences for each image. The number of microgames per WarioWare series, on the other hand, has a minimum of 177 (for WarioWare: D.I.Y. Showcase) and 223 (for WarioWare: Twisted!). Keep in mind that, once all of these articles are primed for completion, they will all have infoboxes that list an image, its controls, its in-game caption, and its in-game score to beat, as well as an intro sentence and a few more lines dedicated to the differences between difficulty, and that's not including the potential of describing the actual visuals of the microgame. Transferring all of that into a single list would either make the article enormous, to the point where it'd be more practical to have them separate, or some info would need to be trimmed, which would mean that info would be lost and therefore it would be better to keep them separate. Bottom line is, it's harmless to have individual articles for them, and it's a lot better than mashing it all together into a list.
 * 2) - Small pages aren't stubs as long as they have all the info, even if it's a small amount. Many small articles is better than a few large ones: they're easier for loading, especially to lower power or older devices, they're better for navigation, they serve most readers better than single massive pages (i.e. if you only want the one microgame, you an go straight to it), and they bring in the search traffic from Google and whatnot. The wiki's stance has been like this for some time: splits, not merges, is the way to go.
 * 3) Per Time Turner and Walkazo
 * 4) I agree. Also, small articles are not necessarily stubs. Paper Mario ingredient articles don't get merged, but they contain useful information. Now, there can be a page listing every microgame at a glance, but merging all microgames into a super article is not what I'd like to do. Finally, I'm pretty sure WarioWare has less articles than the massive Mario Party and Mario Kart series combined.
 * 5) All mini games, no matter how big or how micro, get their own articles. Per all.
 * 6) Per all. Massive pages are just a nay. And there are some other reasons to not do it, that are already listed. Can't add anything.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) - Per all.
 * 9) Then we should merge Mario Party minigames, but we don't. Per all.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) These are for if you only want to look up one. If they all merged, it would take forever to search through a big, huge article and that is a pain. There is no reason to merge.
 * 12) Per BabyLuigi64'
 * 13) Per all, but I do agree that some of these articles are in need of some basic editing.

Comments
@Timeturner Niice Paragraph, but number 1: The massive numbers prove my point. The abundance of nearly identical numbers is clogging the random, and I think having a few giant articles would be easier. It wouldn't be too cluttered, I mean, is the list of implied characters considered cluttered?
 * "Clogging the random"? Is that really such a crucial thing that needs to be addressed? Besides the fact that a lot of people simply ignore the random button, is the fact that some fraction of our articles is covered by the microgames really something that bad? Also, one of my biggest points was that the implied things and the microgames are not comparable. We can scoot away with having articles like the implied character because the info on them ranges from a sentence to a short paragraph. With the microgames, on the other hand, there is a metric ton more info to cover when compared to them. Having giant articles for everything gave us things like Conker (series) and Banjo (series), which (though they are gone now) were amalgamations of nearly every single aspect from those two series and was recognized by everyone as being a cluttered mess. There was nothing more but more images and more info to deal with (in comparison to the implied characters article, by the way), but it ending up being an untamed beast. Now, add infoboxes to the mix, and you'll see why having one superlist for all of it will simply not work.
 * Yeah I guess your kinda right. I for one often use the random button, and it annoys me when I get a microgame nobody cares about. But I realize it would get cluttered in one page. Toadbrigade5 (talk) 01:28, 26 October 2014 (EDT)

@Walkazo: Wow. Can't believe I messed up on the definition of a stub. Thanks for clearing a few things up though.

@Toadbrigade5 If you understanded and want to close the proposal since there is no way it can pass/you want to oppose too/other reasons, you can ask to do so, as long it is before November 29 00:00 GMT (if I got it right), to an admin, such as Walkazo. Just saying, since by your comments I realize you realized.
 * Yeah, he can remove it himself anytime during its first three days of existence (i.e. between now and Oct. 29, 1:16 GMT, but really, we won't complain if it's later in the day on the 29th), or ask one of us to do it for him after the 29th. It just has to be archived properly, rather than simply removed. -

Captain Toad vs Toad vs Blue Toad Part Deux: The Toadening
DELETED (Before you go "not this shit again", please make sure to read this thing in full. Yes, this has been discussed a lot. No, thought-terminating clichés are not a substitute for actual discourse.)



The previous proposal outcomes regarding if the playable Toad in 3D World is Blue Toad or teh Toad are wrong and I want to reverse them. Since determining the identity of an anthropomorphic fungi in a children's video game series warrants only the highest level of intellectual scrutiny, here's a list of the for and againsts:

(Note that in both cases, Captain Toad would still warrant a separate page since he's a separate, distinct persona 'n' shit)

The Blue Toad in 3D World is Toad; Captain Toad is a totally new character


 * A website bios calls the Blue Toad "Mario's lifelong buddy". This is the big one and unambiguous, although the game appears to contradict it (See below).


 * Official material calls the blue toad in 3D World just "Toad".
 * Incidentally, though it's not as consistent, various material for Captain Toad's Treasure Tracker also refer to the PC as just "Toad" (see below).


 * Toad being blue is obviously a homage to SMB 2. This one is questionable:
 * You can still homage the idea of a blue Toad being a PC while using a separate character. Furthermore, Toad was still coloured with red spots in SMB2's promo material, and his sprite is coloured "correctly" in the game's graphically-enhanced rereleases.
 * A developer interview states Peach wasn't initially meant to be playable in 3D World. As such, any supposed homage to SMB 2 is infact unintentional *.


 * Some old interviews have EAD staff stating the Captain Toad character was "introduced" in Super Mario Galaxy
 * This one is also questionable; developers tend to be loose with their usage of "character", either because of translation issues, lack of direct equivalence or vidya designers using jargon. For example, there's an interview with the director of Donkey Kong: Jungle Beat where he unambiguously refers to the inanimate banana collectibles as "characters". Captain Toad is a distinct persona of Toad, and thus a "character" by that train of thought.

Captain Toad is teh Toad; 3D World Toad is Blue Toad
 * Captain Toad and Toad have nearly identical appearances and identical personalities. Replacing a character with a carbon copy isn't uncommon in fiction, but having both exist concurrently is.
 * Captain Toad is paired up with Toadette in Treasure Tracker just like Toad and Toadette are paired up in the sports spinoff.
 * Toad's trading card bios for Super Mario Galaxy says he's the Toad Brigade leader.
 * In the ending of 3D World, Captain Toad and the Toad Brigade appears, minus the blue Toad. Because their Blue Toad is the one adventuring with Mario. Durrrrrrr.
 * In a E3 stream of Treasure Tracker, NOA Treehouse staff directly mention Toad's roles in Smash Bros. and Wario's Woods with the implication that yes, they're the same guy * ..

Toad toad toad toad toad toad. Toad.

Based on these last two points, it seems fairly obvious to me what the facts are. Deciding what teh truth is by a vote seems dangerously close to the contemptible concept of wikiality to me, but the time-honored Mariowiki tradition is "throw a vote at it"at anything vaguely contentious. So whatever.

( * In the interest of transparency, I have to thank Wario Forums user Warelander for bringing these points to my attention.)

(P.S: May you burn in hell, Toad.)

Proposer: Deadline: December 13, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Captain Toad is the Toad (move 3D World info to Blue Toad (character)

 * 1) SUper mario trading card+bio, and it is a red toad. Toads can't change color, so why the Toad do we have this disgracement? This has FINALLY come around, so YAY! But I'd say the blue Toad is NSMBWII one!
 * 1) SUper mario trading card+bio, and it is a red toad. Toads can't change color, so why the Toad do we have this disgracement? This has FINALLY come around, so YAY! But I'd say the blue Toad is NSMBWII one!

Captain Toad is a Toad (status-quo)

 * 1) And Toadette is a Toad, and Toadsworth is a Toad, and Toadbert is a Toad, and Doctor Toadley is a Toad...seriously, we could call any Toad "the Toad". According to games, there are several Toads that look alike. Have you ever heard of Bowser's Inside Story? That has several blorbed Toads that look and act exactly like "the Toad". So, saying Captain Toad is Toad is like saying all those blorbed Toads are "the Toad". Also, Nintendo didn't say if Captain Toad was Toad, while Nintendo did say Dr. Mario was Mario.

Comments
". According to games, there are several Toads that look alike. Have you ever heard of Bowser's Inside Story? That has several blorbed Toads that look and act exactly like "the Toad"."

I've posted several sources that hint captain toad = toad. Your tagent does nothing to disprove anything I've written in the main body.

"Also, Nintendo didn't say if Captain Toad was Toad"

that's exactly what the last point of the 2nd section adress, jesus. --Glowsquid (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2014 (EST)


 * Skimming has failed me! But still, all of that is just speculation. If it doesn't say he's Toad, he's not Toad. In the instruction booklet for Dr. Mario, it literally says Dr. Mario is Mario. That's why we say the doc is the plumber. We don't know if the explorer is the well-known 'shroom, so unless official sources that say Captain Toad is Toad, we don't say that. Madz the Penguin (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2014 (EST)


 * Can there be a third option to move all the Blue Toad info (except the oldschool SMB2 stuff) to the Blue Toad (character) page but keep Captain Toad separate from the Toad? And then just leave that page for the singled-out red-capped Toad appearances through the ages, with both Captain Toad and Blue Toad mentioned in the intro as being other iterations of the/a singular character, and only list the games with them in the Possible Appearances section with leading to whatever article's applicable. That way, we're not making any judgement calls about which one is the Toad, but instead, presenting both options equally and with as little speculation as possible. -


 * "but keep Captain Toad separate from the Toad?" I may have not made that clear enough in the OP, but Captain Toad would still warrant a separate page even if we decide him = Toad as it's a distinct and consistent persona, just as Mr. L is a distinct persona of Luigi. --Glowsquid (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2014 (EST)
 * Well, make it clearer and I'll be more inclined to support. But will saying Captain Toad is The Toad mean all the Blue Toad stuff gets taken off The Toad page, or will they still stick around in Possible Appearances for the sake of covering all the bases? -

I gotta say, I consider the Japanese Mario fans lucky. At least they are not bothered by "character the character" debates. And it shouldn't be a secret that I'm against "character the character" articles. In my eyes, characters that appear as species are all generic unless given specific traits; see Toadette, Toadsworth and most boss enemies, like Kamella. If "the character" articles were merged with their respective "character species" articles, I'm sure we wouldn't have these thousand-times-done deliberations, because then we don't have to complicate things any further than we already have.

"In the ending of 3D World, Captain Toad and the Toad Brigade appears, minus the blue Toad. Because their Blue Toad is the one adventuring with Mario. Durrrrrrr." Okay, no. Spoilers for Treasure Tracker, but Blue Brigader Toad can't be 3D World Toad because they appear in separate places with different appearances. He couldn't be in two places at the same time. Also, Blue Brigader Toad makes a reference to having a poor eyesight without his glasses in Super Mario Galaxy 2. -SmokedChili (Talk) (Thoughts) 05:27, 6 December 2014 (EST)

OK. This is soo confusing, but I agrer with the blue Toad being a separate character, it should also be said, to prove this idea that he isn't ALWAYS wearing glasses. Remember Super Mario Sunshine, I played it for first time yesterday (lol, I am late) and the blue Toad there weren't wearing glasses, but I am.unsure if those guys are the same from the brigade...they have the same colors, so, I asssume they are. However I disagree with the second pary of the proposal: I think the Captain Toad isn't Toad at all. 3D qorld site called him Toad, but all CTTT website calls him Captain Toad. The offcial videos always referred to him as Captain Toad, etc. I agree for moving the 3D World info to Blue Toad, but not with the Captain Toad idea.

Split all Smash Bros. special moves into separate articles
SPLIT 15-0

The first article that really brought this to my attention was Falco Lombardi's section, because jesus, but with five individual games to grab information and images from, the special moves for the Smash characters are starting to become a bit bloated. Not to Falco's extent, mind you, but nearly all of them have the potential to be as disorganized. The newest installment introduced two variant special moves for every special move as well, which just further stockpiles more words and images to the sections. It's gotten to the point where having individual articles for them is simply better for tidiness, but individual pages will also allow more fleshed-out explanations of the moves, including images from all the games, more detailed explanations of the moves' intricacies (without seeping too much into SSBWiki's level of detail), better explanations of differences between installments... Besides the fact that we're giving articles to every other Smash Bros. element under the sun, and the fact that we are certainly no stranger to special moves (case in point, we've given articles to everyone's individual basketball dunks), and as mentioned in the coverage policy, "everything appearing in the games gets articles"... This is basically the next step. I'm aware of the previous proposal to merge them all, but as evidenced by recent proposals, our standards for importance have changed.

Proposer: Deadline: December 6, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per my proposal.
 * 2) I've been wanting to do this for years. As 'kazo said at one point, the more articles, the better. We cover Smash Bros. fully. We should cover all special moves and Final Smashes, especially since all are major aspects of Smash Bros. that are given a name. Hell, Air Dodge, Shield, and Footstool Jump all have articles. This category shouldn't be bare as it is right now, and this proposal will answer questions our potential readers have raised. Also, for those who think we're becoming SmashWiki 2.0, actually, that's a slippery slope argument. SmashWiki talks about strategies, character viability, move viability, combo potential, DACUS, wave-dashing, SHFFL, famous competitive players, famous tourneys, palette swaps, Sakurai angles, and a ton other Smash Bros. jargon and nitty bitty mechanics we won't even breahte on. Special moves, on the other hand are a crucial aspect of Smash Bros. that all players are familiar with unlike the aforementioned crap I've listed. So, yeah, full support for this.
 * 3) - Per proposal, per policy. The 5th-level header clutter in History sections caused by the SSB Special Moves has bugged me for years, and now that we're giving all the SSB subjects articles again, splitting them out fixes both the clutter and the coverage gap. It ain't 2008 no more: the times have changed.
 * 4) If we are doing special moves from Mario:Rpg, we should do these games too.
 * 5) Yes please, per all.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) Per all
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) Per all.
 * 13) &mdash; Per Time Turner and Walkazo. This proposed policy falls within our coverage and will serve to better organize the wiki.
 * 14) Per all.
 * 15) Per all.

Split the Badges of Paper Mario and The Thousand-Year Door into separate articles
SPLIT 6-0

'''Note: This proposal is not advocating to split the lists from the Badge article into separate articles. It is advocating for every single badge in those lists to have their own, respective articles. This is to prevent any confusion.'''

I'm well aware that I'm going on a bit of a splitting spree with these proposals, but stick with me for a second.

Yes, we already have lists on the main Badge page that seemingly sets up all of the badges' info in a tidy manner, but there are quite a few elements that could be added. Names in other languages, in-game descriptions (both on pick-up and in the journal), synergies/conflicts with other badges, better explanations of where they can be found besides "this whole area"... Besides, is there any real reason why they shouldn't have articles besides consistency? I mean, they're basically regular items that have permanent effects instead of one-off effects (there are quite a few that also act as special moves), and we have plenty of articles on items that are basically masquerading as keys to the next level, or even literal keys. I feel like there's certainly enough information to substantiate each and every one of these badges. For this proposal, the badges from Paper Mario and Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door will be the only ones covered (though discussion could lead to changes), since there are notable differences between the PM badges and the M&L badges and I'd like to take baby steps before diving in.

Proposer: Deadline: December 13, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Articles For All

 * 1) Per.
 * 2) I agree. It's a good idea.
 * 3) Per Time Turner (Is this the first time I said that?)
 * Ok, now that I have understood better than thought before I typed, yes, I agree with this proposal. Badges like this have as much merit has having separate articles as Orbs and candies, both of which are supplemental, yet essential items for the gameplay and have their own names in foreign languages. Split these articles.
 * 1) Per all.
 * 2) Per all. But the stickers in  Paper Mario: Sticker Star  will suffer the same treatment?

Comments
@Baby Luigi: I think you've misread what this proposal wants to do...
 * Well crap. 16:31, 6 December 2014 (EST)

Split the ghosts of ScareScraper into separate articles
DON'T SPLIT 2-4

In recent months the policy of the wiki has changed. We have created a separate articles for all the assistants and the Pokemon Super Smash Bros.. The proposal to create a separate articles for each badge is going well, even Alph also received their own page in spite of Super Smash Bros. is a simple alternate costume. So I think every single ghost deserves its own page.

Proposer: Deadline: December 15, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Articles For All

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal, but I'm not helping...

Articles For None

 * 1) Alph, while the article's existence is questionable, can maybe, maybe, squeak through for having different announcer names and a different model. These Scarescraper ghosts were merged previously because they were merely recolors for existing boss ghosts. They even appear as normal boss ghosts when you're playing download play (if you're the one without the game cartridge). This is a much different case than Assist Trophies, Pokémon, and badges, which each individual is unique.
 * 2) Per Mario.
 * 3) In the short, what Glowsquid said below. In the long, having a page for every single alternate costume and color morph that is not a confirmed individual character is stretching our inclusion policy pretty thin and I'm formally against it until someone provides a damn good argument for them. Alph is the (very weak) exception that proves the rule.
 * 4) Per the idiot

Comments
Correct me if I'm wrong, but looking at the Scarescraper page, it looks like each type of Ghost already has its own page.
 * They're redirects. 20:14, 10 December 2014 (EST)

I also don't understand how Alph has his own page either. 20:16, 10 December 2014 (EST)
 * Alph is on the teetering edge of what we cover, but despite being nothing more than an alternate costume for Olimar, he is somewhat treated as an individual character, with a fancy name and a fancy announcer call and whatnot, so I'd say he manages to teeter into an article. Back on topic, though, are there any differences at all between ghosts besides colour? Even if it was an incremental stat boost, arguments could certainly be made for it.
 * No, they're just palette swaps. As I said earlier, I've played download play earlier. When you're the one without the cartridge, the ghosts appear exactly as the typical Bomb Brother, Creeper Launcher, etc. I didn't even know there were alternate colors until my sister mentioned about the different recolors. 23:27, 10 December 2014 (EST)

Are people going to use this "the more the merrier" shit to justify making separate pages for all the Koopa Troopa shell colours next? --Glowsquid (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2014 (EST)
 * sorry for propagating it
 * I don't think it was directed at you. 23:27, 10 December 2014 (EST)
 * Anyway, playing devil's advocate, but this isn't exactly the same vein as making pages for all Koopa Troopa shell colors since those ghosts have their own special name. But, again, refuting myself, "Red Gobber" is less creative, but it's still a separate name like "Wurdle". 17:08, 11 December 2014 (EST)
 * Just you wait till my 60 page proposal I'm working on now about just that.Toadbrigade5 (talk) 21:57, 10 December 2014 (EST)

Create separate articles for DKC series and DKL series boss levels
CREATE 8-1

Alright, this has bothered me for quite some time, so I'd like to try and change it.

Currently, the Donkey Kong series's boss levels are merged with their respective boss articles. Apparently this is due to the fact that the levels are pretty much just a boss fight, and thus don't "deserve" sepate articles. I disagree. Here's some reasons as to why I think they should be split:

1. It's wiki policy that all individual levels get separate articles. 2. Keeping them merged breaks the link between level articles. On level pages, the infoboxes have arrows that link to the previous and the next level's article. However, because the boss levels don't have their own articles, the flow is broken and users must look for the next level elsewhere. 3. We have articles for similar levels in the Mario series, such as Motley Bossblob's Big Battle and A Banquet with Hisstocrat. There's no reason to treat these ones differently. 4. K. Rool's page encompasses 10 boss levels because of this. People looking for a specific one would have an easier time if they had separate articles. 5. It simply seems "incomplete" to not have these articles.

I'd also like to mention that there's one boss level that actually does feature another section before the actual fight: Tiki Tong Terror. This information is nowhere to be seen, however, because there's no article for the actual level, only Tiki Tong.

Proposer: Deadline: January 3, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Create

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) per all.
 * 3) - Per Aokage.
 * 4) Seems like we do need these pages. I wonder why they weren't created so far. update: Read Glowsquid's points, Walkazo does bring up a nice rebuttal over the problem of creating redundant pages. After all, levels deserve articles, bosses deserve articles, so bosses in a boss level should have one article on both? Perhaps it's better to create two just for the sake of flow, but maybe redirects can accomplish this? Depends if people really look for bosses rather than the level or the other way around.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per proposal.
 * 7) This has bothered me too. Per all.
 * 8) Per Walkazo. *Trololololololol*

Don't create

 * 1) - See below.

Comments
this "more the merrier" shit is going too far:

1): The quote-unquote boss levels can be barely called that. They either dump the player directly in the boss fight or (in DKC Returns) consist of a short stretch of land with a DK barrel. Any content they describe would be redundant with the individual boss pages. Standalone pages would be especially problematic for the first DKC's "boss levels", which are flat and (save for the last one) uses the same background graphic.

2): The existence of pages for similarly low-content Mario levels is not a strong precedent. An old proposal established DKC's featureless boss levels shouldn't have a page. Ergo, if the precedent was followed properly, the cited pages should not have been created.

3): The arrow situation sucks, but it's an argument to have the arrow lead to the next "proper" level (something the DKC 3 level pages already do), not create a bunch of useless pages when a simpler solution exist. --Glowsquid (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2014 (EST)


 * How do you feel about the Tiki Tong Terror level though. I get how you feel that those boss-only levels should not have their own pages but what about the one that has an actual level portion before it.  Should that level at least have its own page?   18:18, 27 December 2014 (EST)
 * yeah. --Glowsquid (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2014 (EST)

I'm not going to log a formal vote on this, as I'm stuck between what I want to say and the policies I'm sworn to uphold. On the one hand, policy is firmly in favor of this, it falls right into our inclusion policy and standard editing practices. To bring up Glowsquid's points: On the other hand, Glowsquid has a point. We are stretching the inclusion policy as far is it can go to squeeze out every article we can and I debate the supposed quality or non-stub status some of the results have left us with. Generally speaking, lots of articles are great for a museum, but less helpful for an encyclopedia and/or archive and we qualify more as the later than the former.
 * 1. Largely isn't an issue as policy doesn't dictate the contents of a level, only that it needs to be a formal level for inclusion. While I agree that this particular instance is going to result in some rather problematic blurb type articles, that's a matter for editorial concern and not an argument we can really have in the proposal setting (or at least not without a lot of forethought from the proposer).
 * 2. I agree that many of the pages in question shouldn't have existed in the first place due to a previous proposal (aside, a review of past proposals and how we keep track of them might be in order), this proposal passing is going to overturn the previous one anyway, so that problem solves itself. The real mess comes if this proposal fails.
 * 3. This is an editorial concern at best, not something that would inhibit the creation of articles.

I feel that we need to have a formal discussion about how we apply our inclusion policy before this gets out of hand, but that's a debate for another time and a different venue. -- Ghost Jam 20:53, 27 December 2014 (EST)


 * If we were talking about overlapping articles about the same (or at least similar) subject type, I'd say not to bother with the extra ones, but something doesn't sit right about substituting boss articles for boss-fight level articles. It breaks the flow and navigation (like, you get to Rope Bridge Rumble, and then the page tells you it's the last level, and the infobox bounces you straight to Oil Drum Alley, and not once does it mention there's a boss fight in between: you have to go down to the nav templates and count to figure out which boss you're at (and hope it's never switched to alphabetical order); then if you do go to the boss page, you're dead-ended because there's no level template there), and it seems like an easily fixed gap. -

Add an Easter Egg section to game articles
CREATE 12-0

A while back, there was a proposal for creating sub pages for game easter eggs. A lot of votes mentioned that A. there aren't really enough easter eggs in a game to earn an full on article for them and B. they'd work better as a section in the game article. Well that's where this comes in. May as well start a proposal for adding an Easter Egg section. Not sure if it really needs a proposal but may as well throw it out there. An easter egg section can also cut down on the amount of Trivia a game article has (such as Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon for example)

Proposer: Deadline: January 6, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Do I really need a reason to support myself?
 * 2) Per. An easter egg page would look cool.
 * 3) Long Trivia sections make an article seem unprofessional (some wikis on Wikia, I'm looking at you), so even if I love Trivia sections, an Easter Egg section would make Mario Wiki seem like a more organized wiki. However, with an Easter Egg section, we might need to change the writing guidelines a bit to avoid speculation (ex. saying Bowser's inhale ability is an easter egg to Kirby's inhale wouldn't be allowed due to how different Bowser's inhale is to Kirby's inhale).
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Meh, I've suggested this in the link the proposal provided. I can't say I haven't changed my opinion on this. Nevertheless, I don't see why you need an approval when perhaps creating the section would be good.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Some of the things in trivia sections are kind of more like Easter eggs, so that could help this out. Also, adding Easter egg sections would make some things seem more fun and would definetely attract attention.
 * 9) Per all, the current Easter egg page is terrible, it feels very crowded and having every one of them for their respective pages feels more in form. Also, delete the easter egg page and slap it in the Glossary or something.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Per Madz.
 * 12) Per all; as long as speculation is kept out, this will tidy things up.

Comments
Ugh, @MadzthePenguin, I get that you like M@L:BIS but, why does everything you say need a reference? lol,jk  Toad   and his brigade!  15:09, 30 December 2014 (EST)


 * Because I love references. Oh, I also love puns. Wynaut use references, because if I decided Natu, I would feel sad. It feels Fawful when you can't type references, because I Toadley love them. Audino why I just did Mario and Pokemon references and puns in those two sentences. Maybe that's why we need an Easter Egg section! Madz the Penguin (talk) 19:24, 30 December 2014 (EST)
 * Ok, that is Toadally Toadiffic. I'm going to stoad making Toad-puns Toaday. How you feel is definetly relaTOADable. But really, you must really, I mean, REALLY like BIS. Toad-brigade model CTTT.png Toad   and his brigade! Toadette model CTTT.png 19:58, 30 December 2014 (EST)

Didn't we formally decide to move Easter Eggs and trivia sections into the body of articles where able? I seem to recall that. Then again, maybe we were all operating on the assumption that it was a formal decision. -- Ghost Jam 00:31, 1 January 2015 (EST)
 * Not formally (at least not that I saw), but we had similar conversion when someone wanted to make a list for them. Yeah, Easter Egg page is terrible, so I support this proposal along with getting rid of that page.-- 13:54, 2 January 2015 (EST)
 * Wait, we have an Easter Egg page? I just looked at it, and it's terrible for Super Mario Wiki. It's not Le Miiverse Wiki or Haunted Hathoways Wiki terrible, but for a Mario Wiki, ugh. It's like the Sticker Star of Mario Wiki. Madz the Penguin (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2015 (EST)
 * In that it's decent but doesn't live up to its predecessors? The easter egg page couldn't live up to anything; it's absolutely incomplete if it wants to be a list of easter eggs, and gives such a vague definition to the point where it's confusing and inutile. Still, I think the page could serve as a compilation of easter eggs like List of references in the Mario series or the various outside references lists.
 * Are all the things on the list even Easter Eggs? The last one on the list seems like a cool fact rather than an Easter Egg. I've seen worse pages on other wikis, but this is Mario Wiki, also known as one of the best wikis I've seen before. We don't deserve pages like this. Madz the Penguin (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2015 (EST)


 * I just saw the page, and it definitely should be replaced by sections in articles. That page should be removed, it is unorganized and has little information.  19:25, 2 January 2015 (EST)