MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/42

Stricter Guidelines for "References to Other Games" and "References in Later Games" Sections
Not sure where to put this or if it even needs a proposal, but I've noticed way too many times that the "References in Other Games" and "References in Later Games" sections are used for extremely minor things (especially characters/enemies reappearing) that are probably coincedental. After all, where do we draw the line? Is every appearance of Mario a direct reference to Donkey Kong? Is every appearance of "256" a Super Paper Mario reference? Wait, what's that? The Paper Mario: Sticker Star page says it is? Uh-oh:

Mario Bros.:
 * Super Paper Mario: Super Dimentio indirectly alludes to the Shellcreepers' weakness during the final battle, when taunting Mario and his party that they shall "wallow in helplessness like upside-down turtles!"

New Super Mario Bros.:
 * Super Mario Bros. 2 - Just like in this game, Small Mario can crouch.
 * Super Mario World - an item is stored on the touchscreen, and can be summoned at any time during each level. This derives directly from Super Mario World. A Monty Mole, which first appeared in this game, appears as a boss called Monty Tank. Wigglers also appeared. Grinders don't appear in New Super Mario Bros., but spiked balls appear in the game, having the same function. Items can be held in a level, just like in the aforementioned game. Also this game features Warp Pipes that can shoot the player into the air like Cannons.
 * Mario Party 4 - Mini Mushroom and Mega Mushroom return with the same function as in this game.

Super Paper Mario:
 * Mario Bros. - Super Dimentio's simile taunt to the party after the first half of the battle has him comparing the party to upside-down turtles as they wallow in helplessness, alluding to how the Shellcreeper enemy was frequently defeated.

Super Mario 3D Land:
 * Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels: Poison Mushrooms return from this game. Mario and Luigi retain their singular characteristics (Mario is more stable and balanced while Luigi jumps higher at the cost of worse traction). The phrase "THANK YOU!!" appears in the last level, but is in English instead.
 * New Super Mario Bros.: Star Coins return as Star Medals and have a similar use (unlock levels). Some flowers and bushes have a similar design to the ones from this game. Also, some levels share a similar design. A lot of returning enemies keep their NSMB designs. Dry Bowser also returns.

Paper Mario: Sticker Star:
 * Super Mario Bros. 2: Shy Guys, Snifits, Pokeys, and Ninjis, which were introduced in this game, appear in this game. Some Pokeys are designed like their first appearance from this game as well. The main theme is a jazzy version of the credits theme with snippets of the main overworld theme.
 * Super Paper Mario: At the beginning of the game, after Mario saves one of the Toads in Decalburg, the latter will say that Bowser crumpled him up 256 times, which is a nod to the running joke in Super Paper Mario, starting with Dimentio claiming that Dimension D makes his attacks "256 times more powerful", followed by Flint Cragley's camera crew stating that the "Rainbowzilla" story was apparently told that amount of times. This number is also the number of cards in the game.

New Super Mario Bros. U:
 * Super Mario World: 3-Up Moons, Bony Beetles, Baby Yoshis, Sumo Bros., Thwimps, and Torpedo Teds return. When Mario reaches the haunted part of Soda Jungle, the screen fades into the submap similar to how it fades in and out in this game. Also, the world map is connected again and a ghost ship, similar to the Sunken Ghost Ship level, appears in this game. The Warp Pipes have a similar structure to Super Mario World. Most of the worlds are named after food again. Some of the world's features are similar to those found in Dinosaur Land (e.g. Acorn Plains having jagged mountains or Soda Jungle being one-third based on the Forest of Illusion). Super Mario World has the exact same number of exits this game has: 96.
 * New Super Mario Bros. Wii: Big Urchins, Clampies, Eep Cheeps, Spiny Cheep Cheeps, Cooligans, Scaredy Rats, Huckit Crabs, Stalking Piranha Plants, and River Piranha Plants all return.

Proposer: Deadline: April 1, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per my proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) I couldn't disagree more. Reading these, minor, but interesting things were always one of my favorite things to do on this wiki. Listing references and allusions is part of the flavor and actually the mood of the original Mario game. Removing all of these would be uninformative of the rapid usage of numbers like "64", "128", and "256" in games, alongside wonderous references. This things you listed were some of the most interesting things of all about the games, how they tie into eachother. This is something a database cannot disacknowledge. These should stay.
 * 2) - As I've said in the comments twice already, a proposal vaguely calling for rules that already exist is unnecessary. Remove the proposal and just start enforcing the policy (and/or make a collab thread on the forum instead to get help with that and raise awareness).
 * 3) Per all.

Comments
So what ideas do you have with stricter guidelines? Pease give a few examples. Andymii (talk) 07:21, 25 March 2015 (EDT)
 * Disallowing examples that are basically "[character/enemy/item] appeared again", along with things that are probable coincedences anyway because of how obscure they are. Binarystep (talk) 08:52, 25 March 2015 (EDT)

This isn't a Writing Guideline proposal so I moved to to "Changes" for now, but it should actually be removed anyway because what you want already exists, having been proposed and accepted via an October 2013 WG Proposal (after a vague proposal like this one was voted down as being useless, I might add). But like so many quality control measures around here, people don't know about it and the "references to other games" sections have become crap-filled again. While another proposal is unnecessary, making a collaboration thread on the forums would probably be a good idea to try and fix this issue across the wiki. -

I definitely think stuff like Shy Guys, Pokeys, Monty Moles etc. are no longer references to their debut games because they have appeared so many times. Perhaps the limit should be five times, and if it reappears again it shouldn't be a reference to the debut anymore? -- 11:53, 25 March 2015 (EDT)
 * Maybe even less, like three. Nintendo these days rarely discards their characters. Andymii (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2015 (EDT)
 * I think the rule should be "it isn't a reference unless it's associated with the game in question". Shellcreepers appearing would be a reference, as would Fawful or Goombella, but not something as simple as "[New Super Mario Bros. enemy] appeared in New Super Mario Bros. Wii". Binarystep (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2015 (EDT)
 * So, something like those Jumping Piranha Plant things from SMW returning in Mario Party, but not something like "everything from SMG is back in SMG2 so it's a reference". -- 12:31, 26 March 2015 (EDT)

The current rules are: Beyond that, the idea is that people should use common sense to tell the difference between recurring enemies or whatever and conscientious callbacks. Of course, many editors don't conduct themselves so selectively and just dump every possible recurrence or coincidence into the Ref and Trivia sections. Just because they do doesn't mean they should, however, and other users are already well within their rights to step in and removing all the non-references. I say again: this proposal is unnecessary. -
 * References:
 * When a unique spite, design or music theme from a past game reappears. Example: a character's sprites and the design of ground blocks from Super Mario Bros. are very recognizable if they appear in a more recent game.
 * A character, location or enemy that was notable exclusively in one game is brought back someway; a particularly strong reference would go so far as to mention the happenings from that earlier game. Example: Goombella and the University of Goom are mentioned in Paper Mario: Sticker Star, clearly referencing to Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door.
 * Not references:
 * Any passing physical or gameplay resemblance where there is no actual proof that the purpose was to make a reference. Example: unless an official source proves otherwise, Super Mario 3D World doesn't refer to Wario Land 4 just because Bowser's car bears a little resemblance to the Wario Car.
 * Follow-up games aren't references to the original ones. Example: Super Mario Galaxy 2 isn't a reference to Super Mario Galaxy.
 * When a character, location, object or enemy that became common to the series reappears. Example: Shy Guys appearing in Paper Mario: Sticker Star isn't actually a reference to their debut game, Super Mario Bros. 2.

Toadbrigade5, I think you misunderstood the proposal, it's not saying not to mention arc numbers and things like that on the wiki, it's saying that "references" like "Shy Guys appearing for the millionth time is a reference to Super Mario Bros. 2", "The number 256 appearing at all anywhere for any reason is a direct Super Paper Mario reference" or "Mentioning flipped-over turtles is a reference to the original Mario Bros." are not actually references to specific games. Binarystep (talk) 06:23, 26 March 2015 (EDT)

Okay, can this be removed since the guideline already exists? Binarystep (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2015 (EDT)

Set Clear Rules as to What "Species Origin" Means
To my knowledge, the "species origin" section on Template:Species-infobox is for the main species a subspecies is descended from (e.g. Shy Guy being the species origin for Snifit), but I keep seeing it used to mean "looks like" or "type of thing" (e.g. "Bottle" being the species origin for PET Bottom), which would be like labeling Dry Bones as a subspecies of "Skeleton" or "Turtle". And while I think this section could have a use if defined better, I'm sure some would say it could just be removed altogether, or replaced with something clearer. It's starting to look like the old "Affiliation" section of Template:Character-infobox, unrelated things are being put in it just to make the infobox slightly bigger. This may not need a proposal, in which case I'll gladly delete it, but to my knowledge, there isn't anything on the wiki actually defining what that section is supposed to be used for.

Proposer: Deadline: April 2, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Make a Clear Definition of What "Species Origin" is For

 * 1) Even though I agree with Mario, I can still see an appeaseable solution to the speculation problem.

Remove the Section Altogether

 * 1) I feel like "species origin" treads too closely with speculation. Whatever purpose it has is already served by "subspecies" (or "related species", which I think is a better name than "subspecies"). The flaw in your support is the lack of explaining "Make a Clear Definition of What 'Species Origin' is For" means since it's not clear exactly how you want to define it.
 * 2) Per LGM. I think the section is unnecessary anyway.
 * 3) Per Mario.

Rename Section

 * 1) Changing my vote, I think it'd be overused a lot less if it was renamed to "Subspecies Of" or something similar.

Comments
This is partly due to the over use of sub-species with little forethought into how it actually applies to subjects broadly or if it's even practical to call something that looks slightly different than something otherwise identical a "subset of the species. If we're being literal with the term, there should only be a handful of subspecies and it would flow counter to how we generally list things (as an example, a Paragoomba wouldn't be a subspecies of Goomba, as the wings denote an evolutionary advancement and both species are frequently found in the same regions, whereas Galoomba would be more of regional cousin). However, we use the term in such away that French Canadian's are a subspecies of both Canadians and the French. Sadly, there probably isn't easy or adequate way to solve this issue this late into the game. And let's all give a big hand to the idiot who first added the term on a whim to the wiki! I'm such a damn asset, aren't I!

What the hell were we talking about again? -- Ghost Jam 03:23, 27 March 2015 (EDT)
 * Wings aren't necessarily an evolutionary advancement. Going off-topic, but technically, if wings weren't evolutionary advantageous, they wouldn't be considered "better". 19:51, 28 March 2015 (EDT)
 * For the sake of argument, I'd say it counts as an advancement in so far as video game logic is being applied, but not in reality of course. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Ghost Jam[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 01:47, 1 April 2015 (EDT)

Not really important, but here are some things I found on that section:


 * Bottle
 * Golden Diva
 * Hammer
 * Large fish
 * Robot
 * Squeak (on the Squeak article)
 * Thumbtack

Binarystep (talk) 00:49, 28 March 2015 (EDT)

My idea of a "clear definition" is basically obvious, confirmed subspecies only, like how it was originally used before people felt the need to add it to everything, not things that just look kind of similar or are that type of thing. It also means broad terms like "Bee", "Pig", etc. would not be allowed under that section, for the same reason why Goombas aren't a subspecies of Mushroom or something. To be honest, I think a lot of problems would be fixed if it was renamed to "Subspecies Of", which is a lot more clear than "Species Origin". In fact, I'll change my vote. Binarystep (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2015 (EDT)


 * @Mario (and Ghost Jam): If something's not "better" it's usually selected against and erased from populations, rather than leading to specialization - unless it's being dragged along with a good adaptation (due to the genes being close on the chromosomes), or something that started out good and only became bad after it was fixed due to new changes or changes in the environment, etc. Anyway, it doesn't matter if differences are good or bad when determining the taxonomy of a species, just that there are differences, and Ghost Jam's completely right in that the way we use "subspecies" around here is completely wrong. Aside from some RPG enemy sets that only differ in colour, strength and attack strategy, things we call "subspecies" should simply be recognized as full species, and in the interest of uniformity and not making subjective judgment calls, it would be better to even call the biologically similar-enough things "species" too. After all, the wiki's current mix of "species" and "subspecies/sub species/sub-species" is both inconsistent (in many ways) and often just speculating about what's a full species and what's a subspecies, which, as Ghost Jam also pointed out, is frequently done wrong, and periodically leads to rather messy situations. (I.e. is a Shady Paratroopa a Shady Koopa "subspecies" or a Koopa Paratroopa "subspecies", or neither, or both, given how Shady Koopas and Koopa Paratroopas are already "subspecies" of Koopa Troopas?) As a zoologist by trade, it makes me cringe to see the word splattered around the wiki, and it is honestly on my (very long) "to do" list to see it wiped out someday, including replacing the "subspecies" header of the infoboxes with "derived species"/"descendents"/etc. But for now, to make this more on-topic, @Binarystep: imo, what you're looking for for the vague "species origin" header is "parent species" - the species that directly gave rise to a given species (in RL it refers to evolution, but here it's from a game development POV - however the idea's the same: from X came Y, by adding wings/changing the colour/etc.). I also recommend making only one rename/redefine voting header (alongside the removal and leave-it-be options) as you're potentially splitting the vote and the basic idea that it's potentially a useful header if it's fixed is pretty much the same for both options anyway. -
 * Ooo, yeah, but my point is that wings don't necessarily denote an advancement, which implies it's "better" somehow. But anyhow, what about "related species" rather than "subspecies"? You can put the alleged "parent species" on top and put all the related ones underneath without actually assuming the Paragoomba came before the Paragloomba or something like that. I mean, creation-wise, that would make sense, but it seems to be assuming that one form chronologically came before the other. Or, maybe I'm just bringing up arguments that aren't there. 22:49, 31 March 2015 (EDT)
 * I knew that wing thing was wrong when I typed it, but it was the only thing think of to get the point across (I was also going under the assumption most people get all the things involved in the species/subspecies selection process, hell I only have a cursory understanding of it). Regardless, I like the idea of the mass correction of terms and Walkazo's suggestion of derived species (or similar). -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Ghost Jam[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 01:45, 1 April 2015 (EDT)
 * To be honest, I don't think "Related Species" would work for that, I think it'd be better for similar species (e.g. Li'l Sparkys are similar to Sparks, but not a subspecies). Binarystep (talk) 04:08, 1 April 2015 (EDT)
 * Perhaps, but I think related is just specific enough to group Paragoomba and its variants or something like that. 15:55, 1 April 2015 (EDT)

You know, I'm going to withdraw this, since it doesn't really need a proposal, I'll try my luck with a forum thread instead. Binarystep (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2015 (EDT)
 * A vote would still be good in the long run, but if you want to have a forum discussion in the meantime, okay (I'll remove the proposal for you later, or maybe tomorrow, but as the discussion's still in progress here, hence I haven't yanked it yet; plus I've been really busy or the last few days). Also, keep in mind that I might just make that "no more subspecies" proposal in the meantime (if I can make the time to write, run and start enforcing it), thus forcing some name changes in the template either way, but no promises. Anyway, I feel it's worth having a specific section for the parent species that the developers spun the later species off of, since the tendency is to make longer lists alphabetical so any nested nuances would be easily lost, and in general, it's best to specifically say "this is x" instead of assuming everyone will understand that the first thing in list y is x. "Derived species" can be the counterpart that's exclusivity used for species that were based on the focal species (such as Colossal Koopa Paratroopa for Gargantua Koopa Troopa), while "related species" (or perhaps "similar species") header can be used for things that are morphologically similar to the species in question, rather than simply listing all other derivative species: we have nav templates for that. -
 * To be honest, I think the Species Origin section could be fixed, just not with that name, which is too confusing (a lot of people seem to think it means "based on", probably because of how on a lot of game wikis, "Origin" refers to a real life thing being referenced). I actually have an idea for a remade species infobox, but I don't know enough about coding to make an example on my sandbox, unfortunately. Also, in response to Mario, I actually have a WIP species chart in my sandbox, showing the most logical (based on appearances, names, behavior, and ingame/manual/guide info if available) species/subspecies relations, I'd like some feedback on it. Binarystep (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2015 (EDT)

Merge the X bosses from Mario & Luigi: Dream Team
We have done similar things with the X bosses from Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story. I don't see a reason why these bosses should get serparate page when the X bosses from Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story don't receive said treatment. So what should we do? Should we keep them merged or should we separate them?

Proposer: Deadline: April 12, 2015, 23:59 GMT.

Serparate the bosses into sub-pages

 * 1) This honestly confuses me. Why should we serparate the optional bosses from one game and not the other?

Comments
For clarification, are you referring to pages like Big Massif X, Grobot X, and Mammoshka X (for Dream Team), and Durmite X, Wisdurm X, and Dark Satellmite X (for Bowser's Inside Story)? You're talking about a discrepancy between the two games' bosses, but they seem to be treated the same way to me. Do you want to merge them, or split them?
 * I'm talking about pages like Antasma X and the Giant Bossses whom are currently merged, unlike those pages you mentioned earlier. [[File:Koopatrol sign.gif]]ExPower[[File:Koopatrol sign.gif]] talk 08:34, 6 April 2015 (EDT)
 * In that case, we already have a proposal that allows them to be split. If they haven't been split, it's simply because nobody's gotten around to them yet. Having a second proposal is simply redundant.
 * That means that I'm deletibg this proposal. Any admin, feel free to archive this. (Thats how you delete a proposal right?) I will split them tomorrow. (For my timezone it is late and I need some sleep). [[File:Koopatrol sign.gif]]ExPower[[File:Koopatrol sign.gif]] talk 16:59, 6 April 2015 (EDT)
 * Just so you know, users can cancel and archive their own proposals within the first three days of creation, but I'll still archive it for you: it's no problemo. -

Pie For Everyone (revist redux)
Over the last year, since we last came together to discuss the often mentioned and regularly requested "pie button" feature, I've been submerging myself into the community to find what you, the users, actually want. More than that, I've been practically pestering my fellow admins on what they actually think of the my suggested pie creation and distribution system, why they felt it wouldn't work, the possible benefits and long term costs of such a system and how we can bring it all to the people.

Taking all the feedback into account and reviewing the results of the past proposals, here are what I have identified as the key concerns:


 * 1) Selection. Not of pie fillings, but of just pie itself. Some stated cake was better, other suggested they would support the idea if milk was offered.
 * 2) Difficulty. This seemed to be the chief concern among my fellow admins, that it would take a large number of resources to set up and that the slightest miss-step will bring the whole thing crashing down.
 * 3) Practicality. A few were concerned that pie, or indeed any food, would be a poor motivator or reward for hard working editors.
 * 4) Dumb/Silly/Stupid. I believe this speaks for itself.

I've crunched the numbers, looked over our resources and I think I've found a solution for all of these points that I hope will quill any further concerns. Now, before we get into this, let's be clear that this is an early draft of ideas for a work in progress. Positive feedback would be the most helpful in rearing the project to it's full potential.

Here is what has been carried over from the previous two proposals, with edits to match current ideas:


 * A single editor may only make use of the pie button once every 24 hours, due to constraints on the currently proposed delivery system (detailed below).
 * Each piece of pie will cost $3 American (or it's equivalent in your home countries currency). This is to cover basic delivery services. This price may need to be adjusted as the project fleshes itself out.
 * Third point to help make proposal look less like I just suddenly decided to do it at 3am, when in actually I've been thinking about this for a week, but I come up with my best ideas under time related pressure.

And to the concerns listed above:

1. I don't think it would be that much of an issue to expand out selection to cover other pastries, perhaps even instituting a "pay for custom" type system in case someone wants something we either don't offer by default or just never thought to add to the list. For this tentative list, it has been suggested that we offer:


 * Doughnut (suggested flavors: jelly (various), glazed, whole wheat & bovine laxative)
 * Cake (suggested flavors: angel food, chocolate, soylent green & Surge(TM))
 * Warm milk (suggested flavors: strawberry, chocolate, vegetable & soy)
 * Pie (suggested flavors: cherry, apple, Dippy's Home Made Sen-pie & Willem Dafoe).

This list is likely to change as the project matures and actual prices are worked out, but I feel this is a good start.

2. To the point of difficulty, I fully accept that the "pie haxoring" method was a bad idea, both for reasons of assuming wiki syntax is stable enough to do anything beyond confusing new editors and for the need to trust Wayoshi to do anything that would be classified as "not ticking off half the wiki staff" (paraphrasing). I have since Rube Goldberg'd a new creation and delivery system that I think makes full use of our resources while also not overtaxing our administrative team.


 * Step 1. Making the pies. I almost feel like I don't need to go into greater detail here, mostly because we are a close community of involved peoples and maybe a bit because I couldn't come up with an adequate way to segue into this one, but the pastries will of course be hand baked by our very own Crocodile Dippy. Perhaps this isn't known to some, but Dippy is a world renown baker and I am proposing we put her underused skills to work for the wiki. It should be noted that this isn't intended as a reassignment of her current position, but an addition to her current responsibilities on the wiki, with the authority to draft editors as needed Thunderdome-style.


 * Step 2. The delivery system. Again dipping into our talented staff pool, many of you know that our very own Walkazo is a Zoologist of some merit. Using her amazing science driven druid powers over nature, my current plan is to have her entrance a flock of carrier birds and a herd of large damn moles who will then deliver ordered pastries in a timely fashion. Distance won't be a problem as Walkazo is an all knowing druid-magician hybrid and can summon creatures to any spot on the planet with a flick of the crazy huge shotgun you see her hauling around in every picture.


 * Step 3. The currency exchange, payment processing, all the little financial things. For that, we have Paypal. Yeah, that's it, Paypal, no joke here, move on.

3 & 4. For both the naysayers and generally negative people in the community, I say the following: I hear you. I hear your complaints, your detraction's and your concerns. Perhaps we don't see eye to eye, but I am here for you. I've been here for you for years and I know how to help you fully understand the untapped potential pie presents for us. Out in NIWA square (so that our brother and sister wiki's can make use of it as well), I am having a small, four foot high by four foot wide pole installed. This part is rather complicated and full of jargon, but a sign will be installed next to said pole so that those who are otherwise concerned with how "dumb" this idea is can present their opinion via an open forum method I'm calling the "sit and spin".

My friends, my family, let me be clear. This is no vanity project. I really feel that the power presented by a full stomach will allow us to reach higher than ever before, to become one of the most powerful wiki's on the internet and to truly reward those among us honestly deserve it. I ask you to think of your fellow editors when voting. I ask you to think of what you want out of the wiki when voting. I ask you to think....of pie.

Proposer: Deadline: April 8, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Pie For Everyone

 * 1) I'm currently hungry so this seems like a great idea!
 * 2) This is a great idea and I'm surprised this hasn't happened yet. Per proposal.
 * 3) Name one other wiki that has pie for everyone.
 * 4) I never get pie anymore.
 * 5) I could go for a nice plate of 3.14 and... oh wait, wrong pie. Eh, who cares. I support both pie and pi.
 * 6) If this fails for the third(?) time I will lose all faith in humanity. It's PIE, PEOPLE!!!!!!!
 * 7) - My flocks of giant (and/or adorable) pie-carrying birds are at your disposal (and so is my shotgun).
 * 8) It will help me in my bird watching, and I'll get some sweets in the deal. It's hard to pass up a genuine treat like this!
 * 9) Equal distribution of wealth.
 * 10) From the depths of my Bake Cave, my minions and I work hard to ensure our pies are of the highest quality and standard for any Mario recolour's consumption. All to make Ghost Jam-senpai notice me~
 * 11) Lol wy not.
 * 12) Considering the grievous lack of pie in the past, this is the best possible way to make sure our members have the energy they need to keep editing.
 * 13) I feel like this can only go well.
 * 14) Think about the possibilities here. With the ability to quickly and cheaply summon pie, we will no longer have to leave our computers for such minor interruptions as "preparing food" or "going to school" or even "getting a real job". With this massive increase in editing time, production will also see a huge increase. With this surge, the quality of our wiki would increase so much that we would take over the wikiverse! This proposal will lead us to WIKIVERSE DOMINATION! Anyone who truly loves MarioWiki will support this proposal!
 * 15) After careful research I have determined that the cake is in fact not a lie and tastes delicious.

Pie For No One

 * 1) pie killed me and my family i cant let it kill ppl again
 * 2) If you're not going to offer a sprinkles option for the doughnut feature then expect an angry mob from me. You wouldn't want that, would you?
 * 3) I don't like pie. # Love the cake, but you gotta have it so Peach delivers it to me personally. I'm the reason this wiki exists, SO CATER TO ME YOU PIECE OF JAM. Also, since you have no choice to choose which species of bird to deliver me the cake (love me some Aphelocoma californica cake studded with whole peanuts), I have to oppose even if I'm not so important. # Per Kart Player 2011. Also, it's a joke proposal. # No it's not.
 * 4) Since you (and me now) voted twice, it clearly is.
 * 5) I don't eat pie, I don't like cake, I don't drink milk and me liking doughnuts is not enough reason for me to support this. Include pancakes or otherwise the good sir in the comments is completely right; this proposal is a joke.
 * 6) Sorry, but I don't think the system will work. Let's face it − even though Ghost Jam is trying to make a workable system, but how are you going to get a valid address? What if someone accidentally hit the "Pie" button? What if someone jokefully hits the pie button over and over, in fact, so much the admins get terrifically annoyed? No matter how "perfect" you make it, this system won't work.
 * 7) No ice cream option equals no go, gho jo.
 * 8) Add ice cream, or else you will pie! (Also, I'm afraid of people abusing the option for throwing instead of eating.)
 * 9) There are far, far, far too many problems with this proposal. It would take such a long time to list them all, but they should be plain to see. # I'm not very active here, so no one should have pies D:.
 * 10) Also voting twice, because everyone agrees with me.
 * 11) } This could end world hunger, but pie is a sugar-loaded fat bomb that will forever endanger the survival of this wiki. If it was pasta I would most definitely support.
 * 12) I will say no pie and that is a per all!

Comments
This is purely a joke, like the last two proposals just like them.
 * What made you guess that, eh? 14:52, 1 April 2015 (EDT)
 * I think it's for real 15:04, 1 April 2015 (EDT)
 * Indeed. One does not joke about pie. -
 * Get out, you shameless sockpuppet. Bring me in the REAL Walkazo and demand her that we include A. californica in this proposal or it's totally no deal. 15:21, 1 April 2015 (EDT)
 * I will do my best to summon some Scrub jays for this enterprise should you ever push the pie button. -
 * Oh, sweet! :D 15:34, 1 April 2015 (EDT)

Chocolate Mario's head looks delicious, by the way. 16:22, 1 April 2015 (EDT)

@Super-Yoshi: It is my understanding that pie is vindictive and doesn't like being voted against. Just saying. @Baby Luigi: A sprinkles option could easily be worked in. :D @Kart Player 2011: While pie is the focus of the proposal, it's not the only thing we'll be offering. Check point number one of concerns. -- Ghost Jam 20:18, 1 April 2015 (EDT)
 * If it's not worked in and if it's not guaranteed I will not change my vote. 16:03, 3 April 2015 (EDT)

As an add-on to this proposal, I suggest we round up all the non-patriots who oppose this proposal, and therefore the growth of the wiki, and ban/execute them. --Vommack (talk) 12:12, 6 April 2015 (EDT)
 * But look what cakes and doughnuts did to Wario! Granted, he deserves such a fate, but we don't! The success of this proposal will only lead to creating fat monstrosities like that! Therefore, the un-success of this proposal will be very, very sad but will save the citizens of MarioWiki from becoming as ugly as Wario. Also, there is still no ice cream, so I guess everyone must pie, except that I still have no clue what that means.
 * Not necessarily, all we need to do is exercise to get rid of the calories and such, if people can't do that then it'll be entirely their fault if they end up looking like Wario.
 * I hear Fawful has a treadmill that will burn calories almost instantly. If you don't believe me, just ask Bowser.

New way to cite YouTube videos
There are many YouTube citations in the wiki that are displayed just like an URL or a "[1]" or something like that. I propose we adopt a way to cite YouTube videos in "References" sections, apart from the external website citation covered by the Citation Policy.

As suggested, it would work as follows:


 * Channel name. (Year, month day of publication). [link to the video using its title]. YouTube. Retrieved [date the reference was added].

Example: "Nintendo. (January 14, 2015). Wii U - Mario Party 10 Trailer. YouTube. Retrieved April 3, 2015."

Proposer: Deadline: April 17, 2015, 23:59 GMT.

Support

 * 1) - My proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) I guess this will have to do so, yes to that and per all!
 * 4) - Per proposal. More regulation of citations is always desirable, especially now that this suggestion's consistent with the exiting website format.
 * 5) Per proposal.
 * 6) This makes sense, so per proposal.
 * 7) No format is better than this one, no matter how hard you try.
 * 8) I like how this makes pages look neater.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) I appreciate new efforts to formalize citation policy. If this passes, I will be happy to help reformat existing youtube citations.

Comments
Good idea to set a specific standard for YouTube videos, and suggesting we include the channel and post date, although for consistency, I think the overall citation should be a bit more in line to our current desired format for websites: "Nintendo. (January 14, 2015). Wii U - Mario Party 10 Trailer. YouTube. Retrieved April 3, 2015." Also, if a video's taken down, it's of no more use to us and needs to be replaced as a citation. If it's region-blocked, that might be worth noting before the retrieval date, although even then, it'd be more ideal to find a reference everyone can see. -


 * OK, thank you. Can I edit the example and change it to yours? -
 * Yes, of course! -
 * Thanks!

If it's taken down, shouldn't we add a notification that the link isn't working anymore rather than remove it? 15:07, 3 April 2015 (EDT)
 * Hmmm, maybe a template would be a good idea to add, rather than just removing things and replacing them with  - at least that'd show there used to be a concrete reason for why we say what we say. -
 * We probably need that template prior to this proposal since I came across a few dead links in the references, and I didn't want to remove them, but I had no other way of notifying that the link is dead. 16:10, 3 April 2015 (EDT)

What if I don't want to have a channel name displayed as a reference on this wiki? Because I made one reference where I directly recorded the damn thing and it has my name as a channel name in it. 16:06, 3 April 2015 (EDT)
 * Yeah, I believe it was her real name too... 16:10, 3 April 2015 (EDT)
 * If you don't want people to be aware of your real name, you probably shouldn't put it in a place where anyone can see it. Besides, they'd see it once they follow the link to the video.
 * Google Plus gave me the account name that I never really wanted in the first place that's how I got it. 17:08, 3 April 2015 (EDT)
 * That's frustrating, but shouldn't you be able to change the channel name? Stuff online seems to say you can... -

If we have dead videos or region-locking issues, we could always abuse the exemptions we have as an encyclopedia to reupload the videos to the official MarioWiki account. -- Ghost Jam 20:46, 3 April 2015 (EDT)

Here's my example if it passes: If I want to see the trailer for 200cc in Mario Kart 8, then it will look like this: "Nintendo. (April 1, 2015). Wii U - Mario Kart 8 200cc is Here! Trailer. YouTube. Retrieved April 4, 2015." That will happen! -

Create Template:organization-infobox
I've noticed that pages on organizations or groups either don't use infoboxes, or use Template:species-infobox (Snowmad and Tiki Tak Tribe were the pages I first noticed this on), listing species employed by the organization as sub-species, which looks...odd. Besides, we have infoboxes for other things, like locations, organizations aren't any less important.

Proposer: Deadline: April 23, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Who opposes their own proposal?
 * 2) That makes sense. Per Binarystep.
 * 3) - Per me in the comments. We don't absolutely need it, but it's not like having it would be a bad thing.

Comments
We already have one.--Vommack (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2015 (EDT)
 * That's for RL companies, so it wouldn't be an even worse fit. Although in all honesty, as long as people aren't stupid and only use the "first/latest appearances" and "notable members" headers and not the ones that make no sense, works fine. But I also suppose a different template wouldn't hurt, seeing as we also have, ,  and even , among others. But what exactly do you (Binarystep) want as the new template? It's not good enough to just ask us to approve something without even a vague clue about what you have in mind. -  17:23, 16 April 2015 (EDT)
 * Oh. Yeah, that makes more sense than what I was thinking. The species infobox still work alright though.--Vommack (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2015 (EDT)
 * Maybe we should use the same template as the one which is used by the Koopalings for the Tiki Tak Tribe, but for the snowmad, I'm not sure...-- 17:27, 16 April 2015 (EDT)

I'm not good enough at HTML to make an example, but here are the parameters I'd want it to have:


 * leader - the character in charge of the organization (e.g. Bowser for Koopa Troop)
 * members - notable characters employed by the organization (e.g. Bashmaster for Snowmads)
 * employed_species (probably needs a better name) - species frequently employed by the organization (e.g. the various Tikis for the Tiki Tak Tribe)
 * first_appearance - self-explanatory
 * latest_appearance - self-explanatory

Binarystep (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2015 (EDT)


 * "member_species" might be a better name. Also, for "leader", what happens if leadership changes over the course of a game or going from backstory to a game? And I don't mean things like Bowser getting temporarily usurped but getting back control of the Koopa Troop by the end - more like odd situations like the Shroobs where Princess Shroob was more of an interim leader for the majority of the game, or coups that actually stick. Would both leaders get listed, with parenthesis saying "(first)"/"(former)"/"(current)"/"interim", etc.? And in which case, should that header perhaps read "leader(s)" (but still be coded "leader" for simplicity)? -
 * Either list the most recent leader only, or list multiple ones with brackets to clarify. Binarystep (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2015 (EDT)

Merge post-Special Zone enemies or Split Goomba (SMW:SMA2) and Pokey (SMW:SMA2)
It seems a little incongruous that the Super Mario World enemy skins are split but the Super Mario Advance 2-exclusive ones are not. At the same time, besides the alternate names in the SNES version, there isn't any real sign to consider these different enemies. I think the case for merging is stronger, but I'll leave the option to instead split the rest of them.

Proposer: Deadline: April 24, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Merge post-Special Zone enemies to original enemy articles

 * 1) It was always an aesthetic difference to begin with, and merging eliminates at least one conjectural-titled article.
 * 2) It's true that some sources individualize them, namely the SMW credits and the Mario Mania guide, but these are nothing more than reskins. There are absolutely no differences between them besides the way they look. Also, if them being recognized as individual enemies is what we use as our justification, that'd be quite a slippery slope to follow, considering other enemies that are also individually recognized (case in point, the Green/Red Koopas).
 * 3) I'm going to approve this one because they are part of the original enemies so, per all!
 * 4) I was actually planning on proposing this a while ago, but never got around to it. Per all.
 * 5) Per all.

Comments
Exactly how many articles are being affected here? Merging a lot of uniquely-titled and different-looking things could potentially lose us search traffic... And please provide links, instead of expecting everyone to run around searching for the relevant pages and sections themselves: it's literally part of Rule 1 at the top of the page. -
 * I don't think the search traffic argument holds water in this case. People aren't googling en-masse for obscure enemies sprite-swaps featured in one game, and if they do, they're very likely to have heard of the wiki through other means. --Glowsquid (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2015 (EDT)
 * @Time Turner - Mario Mania is kind of vague about it, although it does imply that a bit with the "A New Cast" heading at the end.
 * @Walkazo - If we go with the first option, the following articles are affected: Jumping Pumpkin Plant, Pidgit Bill, Mask Koopa, and Para Mask Koopa (the latter being the conjectural one I mentioned). If we go with the second option, it will keep these pages split and also add the enemies changed in the Game Boy Advance port - the sunglasses "Goomba" (as it was called) and its derivatives, and the stone-like Pokey. The third option, which I've mistakenly left out before, just keeps everything the way it is. LinkTheLefty (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2015 (EDT)

Staying neutral for now... On one hand, they look different and are officially named. On the other hand, the guide that named them is the same guide that acted like every behavior of Chargin' Chuck was its own species. If these are going to be merged, shouldn't the different types of Boo Buddies (except Block, as it does something other than move differently) be merged as well? Binarystep (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2015 (EDT)
 * Chargin' Chucks and Boo Buddies could also probably be addressed at some point as they might be considered another example of incongruity, but this proposal is specifically about the enemies whose graphics change by completing the Funky course, not including ones given separate identification in guide material. It's not quite the same thing, especially since Chargin' Chucks and Boo Buddies have different interactions with the player. LinkTheLefty (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2015 (EDT)

Use "wide image" templates for level maps and the like
In pages about levels or worlds such as this, this and this, since the images showing the maps are wide, they are displayed in a very small size, making them hard to see clearly unless you click the image.

Well, Wikipedia has a template, which can be useful for cases like these. We could use both the 100% wide and 45% (or another size) wide variations, depending on the case.

Proposer: Deadline: April 25, 2015, 23:59 GMT.

Support

 * 1) My proposal.
 * 2) Per Mr. Ice Bro.
 * 3) - Per proposal: scrollboxes for images can be pretty handy.
 * 4) I love this idea! It makes it so one does not have to click on an image to enlarge it; plus, you get a clearer image.
 * 5) A great idea indeed! I'll approve this proposal with a per all!

Stop Listing Sub-Species on Generic Real-World Species Pages
I've noticed that a lot of species pages (like Cooligan or Snaps to give two examples) are listed as "sub-species" of generic real-world species (e.g. Bee, Crab, Penguin), instead of being labeled independent species. At first, this makes sense, as they're clearly based on said species, but if you consider that we don't call Koopas a sub-species of Turtle or Goombas a sub-species of Mushroom, it starts to look inconsistent. I've also noticed the reverse happening, where real-world species articles have long sub-species sections consisting of every species that resembles it, even though that is literally not what "sub-species"/"species origin" means at all. While I'm not saying we should delete all real-world species pages (though the ones that consist of "background thing what looks like species" should probably be removed), I don't think we should list species from the games as being directly related to them, as there's a difference between a real-life inspiration and an in-universe relation.

tl;dr not everything has to be a subspecies of something, infoboxes don't have a minimum length.

Proposer: Deadline: April 26, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per my proposal.
 * 2) Per Binary.
 * 3) Per both on this case!
 * 4) per
 * 5) Per Binarystep.

Comments
Note that real-world species could still have "Related Species" sections, and list species based on them there. Binarystep (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2015 (EDT)

Create Template:Organization-infobox
I've noticed that pages on organizations or groups either don't use infoboxes, or use Template:species-infobox (Snowmad and Tiki Tak Tribe were the pages I first noticed this on), listing species employed by the organization as sub-species, which looks...odd. Besides, we have infoboxes for other things, like locations, organizations aren't any less important. The last proposal was a vote short of passing, so I'm reposting this to get more attention.

Proposer: Deadline: May 1, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per my proposal.
 * 2) - Per what I said in the last proposal.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) Per all. Species and organizations should be differentiated.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) I am going to approve on this one with an example for the Koopa Troop: The leader of the group is Bowser, the species is a Koopa, and the members of the group are Bowser Jr., the Koopalings, Lakitu, and more! So, I'm approving this proposal!
 * 7) Per all.

Comments
For reference, the parameters (aside from the obvious ones included in every infobox) would be: Binarystep (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2015 (EDT)
 * leader (the character in charge of the organization)
 * member_species (species frequently employed by the organization)
 * members (notable members)

Create Template:Pmitembox
I've noticed we're using Template:Recipe-Infobox for Paper Mario series items, which leads to saying things like that Repel Gel or Yellow Berries are "Made by Tayce T.", which looks weird. Besides, a Paper Mario item infobox would give us a convenient place to list the non-HP/FP-related effects of some items, maybe even what enemies drop them, etc.

Proposer: Deadline: May 2, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per my proposal.
 * 2) This sounds like a really good idea and could be helpful in the future. Per proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) Per Megadardery's comment below, even if it isn't exactly an opposing vote. Would rather see a redesign of the current infobox.
 * 2) Unneccessary, see my comment below.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) - Per Megadardery. We have enough maintenance projects in need of completion already: we don't need to add superfluous template replacement work to the to-do lists.

Comments
Not voting -yet- but you know that the "Made by" parameter is optional. I would prefer if we used that Recipe-Infobox template for all the items in the PM series with a few more tweaks (ignore the name of the template), like adding a description parameter. And potentially adding a "Gotten from" (seriously don't have a clue on what to name this, as this should fit both cases: the item being dropped by an enemy, or being bought from a shop) as another parameter. What I am getting at is that instead of a new template -especially because it is already used in many non-recipes items-, we can use the existing template but with a few modifications (again, ignore the name of the template.) If you want to know how it would look like, I can make a draft. But again, not all the information should be in the infobox, some can be left to the article.-- 19:50, 25 April 2015 (EDT)


 * Even another look into this, makes me feel that dropped by, or bought from is unnecessary. In extreme cases, he article should have covered that. Many Items can be dropped, or bought from various enemies or shops respectively. This could become a clutter if every single instance is put into the infobox, and if not, and simply listed as "Various", it becomes very unneeded. So, I think, should be used instead for this purpose, with little to no modifications. (Maybe only the description)-- 08:44, 28 April 2015 (EDT)

Make Template:Questionable-source
I've noticed a lot of pages with names that are technically sourced, but use unreliable sources like the Super Mario Daijiten (see: Most Wario Land enemies/bosses). Since putting a citation and marking it with ref needed could look confusing, my solution is an easy-to-understand template at the top of the page, something like this.

Proposer: Deadline: May 11, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per my reasons stated above.

Oppose

 * 1) - It would be better to just have something like Wikipedia's "better source" template to flag iffy refs: then it could be used for situations besides just the ones affecting article titles, like how the new  template can be used for too-vague print refs.

Comments
I have another idea for the template that says something to the effect of "Some of the sources cited on this page are unreliable, replace them with better ones if possible", would that be better? Binarystep (talk) 15:54, 4 May 2015 (EDT)
 * Like a -style notice template? That idea has a bit more merit, but I feel like it's better just sticking with the system flagging the specific problems: no need to advertise twice over that we suck at citing our sources for the most part. -
 * I suppose, but ref needed implies a lack of a source, while this is more "better source needed". Binarystep (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2015 (EDT)
 * Like I said in my vote, we should just make more templates like ref needed (rather than banner notice templates) for flagging both less-than-ideal sources and broken links, hence "ref needed system". -
 * Ah, alright then. Binarystep (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2015 (EDT)

Stop Using the "Super Mario Daijiten" as a Source
Let me preface this by saying that the "Super Mario Daijiten (Big Dictionary)" has proved to be correct on some other occasions in the past. However, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

So, what is this "Big Dictionary"? To put it simply, it is us, but in Japanese: it's a compilation of everything in the Mario series (and the Donkey Kong, Yoshi, and Wario series) with some information about them. Naturally, this includes all of those obscure enemies from the older platformers, like Scubi, Bībī, Sutāzu, and many more, though these names were either taken from or changed to ones from the Daijiten. One immediate problem is noticeable: Japanese names are hard to search for. Names taken from Japanese sources are (supposed to be) written out not with a translation, but with the romanization, avoiding the problem of subjective translations. This also includes any special characters with macrons above them, and this results in links being difficult to use with them, for the simple reason that a very large portion of readers wouldn't be able to type these letters, and the wiki isn't able to recognize substitute letters, so "Sutazu" would not work as a link or a search term for "Sutāzu", and it's a tedious process to get to the article of relevance. There's also the point of English and Japanese names looking rather messy side-by-side, though that's mostly personal preference. Of course, these points are completely ignored if they're the only official names that we can find, and therein lies the problem.

As mentioned above, the site is basically us with a different language, and that includes the fact that it is a fan site, subject to all of the follies that editors can employ. If it doesn't explicitly display that the name is from an official source, listed here, it cannot be used since it could easily just be a made-up name. Even if other similar sites share the name with the Daijiten, if they don't have an official source, it doesn't count: they could have easily taken the name from each other, validating the name by virtue of lazy editing. Even besides that, however, there's no reason for all of the names for a certain game to be correct if a few of them turn out to be correct. For example, I've picked up the Prima guide for Yoshi's Island DS, and it turns out that most of the enemies from that game (on this wiki, at least) take their names from this guide - emphasis on most. Scorchit, originally "Zeus Guy", and Toober Guy, originally "Tube Guy", went under different names between the guide and the wiki, but since some of the other names were backed up with "is good is from book", all of them were thought to come from the book. This is faulty logic and using such a broad generalization really can't be healthy for the wiki.

While I understand that some of the conjectural names weren't very descriptive (Dōryī, for example, was "Plant"), I'd rather have a million "Birds" and "Crabs" than a name that is not only hard to link to and search for, but a name that has a good chance of being just as conjectural as the other names. Even for a site that's had a good track record, I feel like allowing the site to be used for all names is just opening the floodgates for name-related debacles, and I'd rather avoid that. Note: this proposal, if it succeeds, would involve removing all names that are currently "sourced" with the Daijiten, as well as renaming articles with those names to English variants.

Proposer: Deadline: May 14, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Remove it

 * 1) Per my proposal.

Do not remove it

 * 1) - It would be a waste to wholesale dismiss the Daijitan as a resource and potentially move countless pages away from legitimate names to pure conjecture (and scrap dozens if not hundreds more  entries) just because it's been wrong a few times. We're no better than them when it comes to making periodic mistakes, rampant eschewing of citations, and the occasional rogue user just making stuff up: we might as well tell people to ignore us as a resource too. It would be better to simply be transparent by citing them whenever we use them and marking those citations as less-than-ideal with a "better source" template, the same as we would with Wikipedia references or any other iffy, yet better-than-nothing references. The anti-Japanese arguments are meaningless: we will always have Japanese and other non-English names to deal with, mixed in with the made-up English names (and/or in the foreignname templates). Redirects get around the macrons without any grief for searchers or editors who don't want to bother copy and paste a macron from somewhere else for the link, and policy actually says redirects should be created for that reason: any macron-bearing pagename without a redirect is an oversight.
 * 2) Changing my vote, per Walkazo. Removing names that are possibly correct and replacing them with names we made up is a horrible idea.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Per all!

Comments
As passing this proposal would mark many of our articles as conjectural titles, one strategy we could employ is to see the references of each page on the Super Mario Daijiten (if there is one). That way, we can see still use the Daijiten to indirectly get official information, which we can in turn cite. Andymii (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2015 (EDT)
 * I made the assumption that, if the Daijiten used sources, we would have used them in the first place instead of citing the Daijiten. It's a fair point to make, though, but I'm not exactly fluent enough to navigate the site, and some online translation probably won't help. Would you happen to be able to go through the site?

Unfortunately, no. I guess it is up to our Japanese-fluent users to help us out now. However, there is a function though on Google Translate that translate whole entire websites, so that might be useful in getting the general idea, maybe even enough so we can get official information accurately without knowing much of the language. Andymii (talk) 09:50, 11 May 2015 (EDT)

Just noting here that I retracted my vote in favor of removing it. I agree with Walkazo's argument enough to change my mind, but not enough to fully cast a vote either direction now, as it hinges on a type of template that we currently (to my knowledge, at least) do not employ. -- 1337star (Mailbox SP) 14:51, 11 May 2015 (EDT)
 * The template exists now, for the record. -


 * Neat. -- 1337star (Mailbox SP) 16:28, 13 May 2015 (EDT)

Stop using the "Names in other languages" on this wiki
First of all, I don't think the "Names in other languages" is very useful. It just lists the names in different languages. Second of all, you can change the language on the wiki (I've done it before). And third of all, a lot of users just focus on this section of every article. What I think is the "Names in other languages" should only be on articles of games. Why can't you just change the language on the wiki and see everything in that language? I think it should'nt be on articles that are subjects to games, I think it should only be on articles on games (Mario Kart 8, Paper Mario, etc.)

Proposer: Deadline: June 15, 2015, 23:59 EDT

Support

 * 1) Per my proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) There is no reason to arbitrarily remove valid, relevant information from articles.
 * 2) - Stripping legitimate, interesting information from thousands of articles is a ludicrous idea.
 * 3) Per Walkazo. Can't say anything else why I'm opposing other than what Walkazo said.

Comments
Why remove content from the wiki? Are you saying that direct translations are an ideal replacement, even when we have translation variations within languages (differences between French Nintendo of Europe and French Nintendo of America? Translations might help more international readers and also provides information for the curious and those playing games in other languages. It's removal of meaningful content for no gain specified, so I don't think this proposal will go anywhere. This is a pretty big change, so you need very strong reasons if you expect people (like me) to support. 00:03, 8 June 2015 (EDT)

1) ... What ?! 2) If you're referring to the affiliated German and Italian wikis as "changing the language", they're not the same thing as the English wiki and there are a bunch of other languages that the section template includes (not to mention it seems there's more of a conscious effort here to strictly archive the official). 3) This would be damaging. If enough users find the translation/localization process interesting, why take a big part of that away? The section is there to relegate foreign names, so why go through the monumental effort to censor an important piece of series history? If all these articles rely on foreign names, do you suggest only using foreign names whenever it's convenient? Etc. LinkTheLefty (talk) 00:30, 8 June 2015 (EDT)

OK, I don't think this will work out. I just thought it was'nt that useful. Okay, I regret making this proposal. I am truly sorry, I just changed my mind on this. I just figured out that if this proposal won, it would be VERY damaging. I don't know what else to say. ShyGuy8 (talk|contribs) 00:39, 8 June 2015 (EDT)


 * You can delete the proposal if you want; just remember to archive it. -

Stop using the term "sub-species" on the wiki
For pretty much the wiki's entire run, "sub-species" (or "subspecies") has been used as shorthand to denote species like Gloomba or Fire Bro from the more basic species they're derived from (i.e. Goomba and Hammer Bro), but it's high time we put and end to it, and here's why:


 * 1) It's wrong - In science, "subspecies" denotes different populations of a species that are genetically, geographically, behaviourally, and/or morphologically distinct, yet still similar enough for interbreeding to occur freely when possible. What we call "subspecies" are not actually subspecies at all: they are completely different species, whether we're comparing Lakitus to Koopa Troopas or Deep Cheeps to Cheep Cheeps. There is no reason why we should so wilfully misuse very specific scientific terminology incorrectly when there are other options available like simply "type", "variation" or just plain "species". It's not like "beta elements" where there is no umbrella term and we have to make due with what readers are most familiar with: everyone already understands what "species" means, unlike the muddled "subspecies" (which even scientists argue about).
 * 2) It's speculation - It's clear enough when things are based on other things to whatever extent, but classifying some enemies as "subspecies" instead of "species" has always struck me as presumptuous. Where exactly does the line get drawn? Some things like Koopa Paratroopas are rather basic and fundamental in their own rights, with many derived species of their own, yet are still called "subspecies". And what about things like Shady Paratroopa that could be a subspecies of Koopa Paratroopas or Shady Koopas? Only a few sets of differently-coloured/powered RPG enemies and things like the red and blue PM Spike Tops really fit the proper "subspecies" definition, but we already established that we're not using science here, so all that's left are judgment calls being passed off as hard distinctions that don't actually exist in official material.
 * 3) It's misleading - Despite the liberties we're taking with the term, "subspecies" still inherently sounds like it requires close relatedness between species (based on their names and/or appearances), but for the sake of navigation and connectivity between articles, sometimes it's useful to be able to reflect the conceptual relatedness between rather different species, such as Clubbas and Chargin' Chucks being related to the more standard Koopa species. Having relaxed terminology would make this easier (i.e. potentially avoiding some TPPs and other such discussions) and result in less cross-talk between users operating on differing definitions of "subspecies".
 * 4) It's inconsistent - As well as murky definitions and three different ways to spell the term ("subspecies"/"sub-species"/"sub species") being found across the wiki, and even side-by-side in single articles, there are also plenty of cases where single subjects are being called both "species" and "subspecies". For example, Ice Piranha Plant bears both Category:Sub-Species and Category:NSMBU Species, is listed as a "sub-species" in the Piranha Plant infobox, and is part of the "species" list in . This is not good.

Between the disconnect with how the real world uses the word, and the different definitions, applications and spellings throughout the wiki, there is really only one way to sum up the use of "subspecies" around here: it's confusing, and we should get rid of it. Specifically, we should do the following:


 * Remove all occurrences of "subspecies", "sub-species" or "sub species" from the articles. Instead, everything should be called plain "species", and described informally as being based on and/or related to other species with words like "type", "variety", "kind", etc.
 * Delete Category:Sub-Species, Category:Yoshi Sub-Species, Category:Donkey Kong Sub-Species and Category:Wario Sub-Species. The equivalent "Species" categories exist for all four cases, but ideally, game-specific "Species" categories should be used to replace everything (but that's another kettle of fish altogether).
 * Replace the "sub_species" variable in with "derived_species". At the same time, "species_origin" should be replaced with "parent_species", for the sake of uniformity (there's already a "related species" variable for similar species not directly based on or providing the basis for the subject in question) and killing two birds with one stone since we'll have to fix the infoboxes anyway; this second change is from this cancelled proposal and its corresponding forum thread (both of which debate the use of "subspecies").
 * Add "subspecies" to the list of frequently misused terms.

This will affect A LOT of articles and will take time to gradually roll out, but I think it's worth doing. There is no good reason why we need to stay inconsistent, confusing and misinformed about how we go about defining the species of the Mario series.

Proposer: Deadline: June 11, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) - Per proposal. The zoologist half of me has wanted to eradicate this accursed term from the wiki for over seven years now. No more.
 * 2) Per Walkazo. And yes, even though the term is used to described fictional species, it still gave me misinformation when thinking about actual sub-species. That's not right. I admit I am a bit pedantic when it comes to vocabulary and jargon but honestly, I'm pedantic for the very reason of being fed misinformation, which isn't the ideal way to learn things.
 * 3) Per Walkazo and Baby Luigi. Yes, that's not right. In fact, I think it should be related spiecies instead of subspiecies.
 * 4) Per Walkazo.
 * 5) Yes, remove ALL instances of it. I was misinformed about the true definition of "subspecies" this entire time I was in this wiki. This is a personal account, but if it confuses me, it's bound to confuse a lot of other readers. This wiki leads us to think "subspecies" means a derived or related organism even though the technical term is "some differences but capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring", especially provided that the "producing fertile offspring" part is the fundamental definition of a species. In that sense, subspecies do NOT denote separate species; the basic Linnaeus names have two names, but a third one is given if it's a subspecies. "Derived species", "parent species", "related species", these are all more correct and much more precise substitutes, making them vastly superior to the vague, confusing, incorrect "subspecies". In writing, we aim for precision and accuracy, and this proposed changes does exactly what is the gold standard in writing, so, as someone who admits of being very pedantic at times (the scathing criticism to singular "they" and contractions), it's not surprising that I want these changed enacted. This time, though, it's not pedantry, it's about being precise and accurate. It's been seven years, but better late than never to undo all that damage.
 * 6) Per all, but take note of the rare few official cases.
 * 7) Per all
 * 8) Per all; a nicely crafted argument. I just find it funny that we are now debating over scientific terminology in a wiki about talking mushrooms and turtle kings.
 * 9) Per proposal. (I also notice a bit of support due to the inadvertent spread of misinformation - "Beta" is rightfully considered a misused term as well, but I really do think a better label than "Beta elements" should be considered since it's a somewhat similar situation.)
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) my younger self would hate me for this Per all.
 * 12) Per all.
 * 13) Yes! GET RID OF IT! Walkazo is indeed correct!
 * 14) Per Walkazo.
 * 15) Per all.

Comments
@SmokedChili: We can make an exception, but it's going to break consistency, and it won't be unreasonable to assume it's another species (just how people assumed all those dark-eyed juncos were separate species), and, besides, Nintendo was very wrong about terminology before (most blatantly, the most egregious and irresponsible usage of "remix" I've ever seen in official media: Super Smash Bros. 4). 15:09, 5 June 2015 (EDT)

Commenting on the Shady Paratroopa part, I think we should just use the most basic enemy and say its a derivative (or whatever word we decide on using) of Koopa Troopa.
 * I actually feel like it'd be better to say it's a derivative of both Shady Koopa and Paratroopa, rather than listing derivatives of derivatives on the most basic pages, at that makes for some potentially unwieldy lists. -
 * Per. Spiked Gloombas can be derived from both Spiked Goombas and Gloombas, easy to list it as derived from both. 23:50, 7 June 2015 (EDT)

Change the main series to include Super Mario Land 1 and 2
For years it has been debated whether Nintendo considered the Super Mario Land games apart of the main Mario series or not. Super Mario Wiki, and rightfully so, chose that the Super Mario Land games are not apart of the main Mario series but rather considered its own series most likely because of the Nintendo sources below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzERrLY-_9s 

As one can see, Nintendo did not include the land games as part of the main Mario series titles during Mario's 25th anniversary 5 years ago. This has lead people such as myself to believe that the Super Mario Land games are indeed apart of their own series. However, as of May 29, 2015. Nintendo has updated Mario's 30th anniversary site to include all the main series Mario titles. In this list is Super Mario Land and Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins. As shown, this is included in both the American and Japanese versions of the site.

http://www.nintendo.co.jp/mario30th/index.html#/history/ http://supermario.nintendo.com/#/history/

Due to this confirmation by Nintendo, all articles on Super Mario Wiki should be changed to fit this new information. Such articles as the Super Mario Series articles should be changed to add the two Land games, and articles such as Super Mario Land Series articles should most likely be deleted entirely due to their interference of the first two Super Mario Land games being apart of the main Mario series. Other changes being the chronological order of Mario titles. An example being, changing "New Super Mario Bros. is the eighth installment in the Super Mario series." To. "New Super Mario Bros. is the tenth installment in the Super Mario series."

These things might change from time to time, but it's the company's current view that should be reflected on the articles. This is why the Super Mario Land games should now officially be considered apart of the main Mario series by Super Mario wiki.

Proposer: Deadline: June 14, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per my proposal. Due to the recent confirmation by Nintendo themselves, the wiki should have articles changed to fit this new confirmation.
 * 2) More recent stuff takes precedence. It doesn't really make sense to exclude the Land games from the main series, anyway.
 * 3) I feel like it's obligatory that we maintain the most recent official source for any information in a wiki. Right now, Nintendo considers the first two Super Mario Land games as a part of the "canon" Super Mario line of platformer games. That can change next week for all we know, and even if that does happen we have to accept the most recent official source, but this isn't something that can be ignored. It must at least be mentioned in all appropriate pages that games like Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels, Super Mario Land, Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins and Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island were all at one point subjectively considered a part of the main series of Super Mario games.

Oppose

 * 1) - While the 30th anniversary stuff is more recent, the fact that the 25th anniversary excluded the SML games shouldn't be ignored, and it should be kept in mind that unlike the Super Mario History 1985-2010 booklet (which is more complete than the linked-to poster and video), the 30th anniversary stuff leaves out all the remakes (i.e. SMAS and the SMA series), and the US version of the website also leaves out Lost Levels. Plus, neither celebration included all the random SMB remakes and whatnot, whereas we do need to take everything into account, from the remakes to the conflicting and ever-changing stances Nintendo takes on its material, and then organize them in the way that makes the most sense. And I still think it makes more sense to keep the SML games separate in History sections, templates and categories (this is actually a big change with far-reaching consequences being proposed here: not just Super Mario (series) and a few articles' opening lines), given how different the series is, its historic separation from the rest of the games, and most of all, the fact that the series straddles both SM and Wario Land (awkward at the best of times, but it'd be worse if no bridge series is used or acknowledged). And for all we know, the 35th anniversary will be back to separating them anyway. But I do think the SM series page should include SML (and Yoshi's Island) somehow, like how it's got the remakes listed separately - but certainly not instead of the SML series page, especially considering that WL:SML3 and VB:WL definitely aren't SM material, yet should still be grouped with the first two games somewhere, as well as in appropriate History sections (same reason why SMA gets its own series page, despite being mostly part of SM and otherwise part of Yoshi).
 * 2) Per Walkazo
 * 3) The Super Mario Land games are incredibly distinct from the "main" Mario games, mostly by dint of being developed by Gunpei Yokoi/Nintendo R&D1 rather than Miyamoto/Nintendo EAD, and our articles should reflect that. Otherwise, per Walkazo.
 * 4) Per Walkazo, in the comments and in the vote.
 * 5) Per all. While they are platformers with similar gameplay, the Land games are unique from other Mario platformers at the end of the day.
 * 6) Per all. Plus, which category will you put Super Mario Bros. 2 into?
 * 7) Judging from my argument below, it's clear to me that I'm siding with this side. An appearance in a celebration of Mario's anniversary is significant, but not enough to be a compelling reason change our core organizational structure because Nintendo decided that Super Mario Land 1 & 2 existed for once. I'll be open for another integration if Nintendo does go beyond just an anniversary game, but the mess that is Super Mario Land 1 & 2, Virtual Boy, and Super Mario Land 3, it's good as it is.
 * 8) Per Walkazo.
 * 9) In the short, per Walkazo. In the long, while there are a number of very interesting talking points below, none of them strike me as compelling enough to shake up our core archiving structure. Surely we can come up with an unobtrusive way to document both sides of the argument (both of which present accurate information) without tearing down walls.

Comments
@Walkazo. Potential change does not warrant the act of keeping something the same. The wiki is to be based on current viewpoints of Nintendo which is the lore creator. It's the company's current view that should be reflected on the articles. If we were to not follow Nintendo's viewpoint, any viewpoint could be established based on the person's own imagination. "What if Nintendo decides to officially change Birdo to Ostro to avoid confusion?" This is irrelevant as it is based on what Nintendo finds true and not true. "If" cannot be a factor of whether or not we apply the land games or not. That would be based on our own assumptions and our assumptions are endless. We must use Nintendo's current viewpoint to stay relevant in the Mario franchise. If not the wiki becomes outdated with old information.
 * My point isn't that Nintendo might change their minds again, but rather, that they really doesn't give a crap about "lore", "true"ness or keeping its stories straight when it comes to Mario: they flip-flop about stuff all the time and information is often inconsistent, and as a result, the only way to maintain easy, logical organization is for the wiki to think for ourselves sometimes, like with splitting, merging and grouping enemies based on facts other than plain names, or deciding on how to organize our game pages. For in-universe stuff like the Kooplaings' paternity, our hands are tied and we need to give the new story prominence (but still mention the old story), but this is a different matter: as long as we acknowledge on all the relevant pages that Nintendo currently considers SML 1 & 2 as part of the SM series, and didn't before, whether or not we follow up with shuffling History sections, categories, lists and templates is up to us, based on whether we think it will or won't be a better way to present and organize the information. -

Whether Nintendo cares about the Mario canon or not is not for us to decide. We can mention how Nintendo used to not consider the Land games being apart of the main series, but we must also tell the reader Nintendo's current stand point. An example being starwars. The lore is changing all the time, however, the star wars wiki does not keep the old lore as canon. It mentions how it used to be canon, but supports the current standpoint of lucas film if we like it or not. There is much Mario lore that Nintendo has dropped that has been official in the past. This is not a situation like the koopalings where the creator of Mario says they are not Bowsers kids, but this is the whole company of Nintendo saying that the Super Mario Land games are indeed apart of the main series. Both in Japan, and all over the World. I know it sounds like a lot of work for us to have to update so many articles. If there is official information with no way to disprove it, it CANNOT be denied. All official Mario information must be used in Mario wiki. One could argue that the past has more info, but that does not make it relevant. Over time things become outdated and it is Nintendo that updates it. We must accept what Nintendo updates.

@Walkazo - I'm not completely confident in either choice right now, but remakes/rereleases were never a necessary mention in official celebrations since it's understood that they're not exactly the original titles (we certainly don't count them as such, either), so I'm not sure why they're factored in the counter-argument... (I must say, Super Mario 3D Land makes sense with its namesake included.) LinkTheLefty (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2015 (EDT)

@LinkTheLefty- Indeed, the remakes have never been mentioned to be apart of the main Super Mario titles. As we all know, Super Mario Land 1 and 2 are not remakes of any main series Mario game. Unless someone has any evidence to prove that Super Mario Land 1 and 2 are not apart of the main series, and since Nintendo has stated they are apart of the main series as of now, it is only right to have Super Mario wiki state the same.


 * My point is that what works for Nintendo for their celebration stuff doesn't necessarily work for us, since they're cherry-picking lists of showy platformers while we're trying to document every single game and present all that info in the clearest way possible. They already cut out plenty of remakes and obscure games that we can't, and they don't need to worry about awkward things like SML and SML2 having a direct sequel (WK:SML3) that's also the start of a separate series, and another followup that never got finished (VB Mario Land) and wouldn't've fit in either SM or WL anyway. As long as we're basing out decisions on facts, we're allowed to make judgment calls when splitting, merging or reclassifying iffy enemy situations and whatnot, and similarly, we're also allowed to think outside the box a bit when it comes to dealing with iffy series situations. Like I said in my vote, the first two SML series games should be acknowledged on Super Mario (series) (that page is missing a lot of remakes too, but I digress), but they should remain separate when it comes to overall wiki organization. (On a side note, my guess is that SM3DL is the reason why the games are included this time around, unlike in 2010, although besides the name, like every other SM game, it has nothing to do with SML or its sequel at all.) -
 * Yeah, you do have a point in how Nintendo cannot celebrate all Mario games they acknowledge into one anniversary game, or they'll be here all day. But that they picked Super Mario Land out of all games alongside games like Super Mario Bros., Super Mario Bros. 3, Super Mario World, and even the forgotten Super Mario Bros. 2 does feel significant. As of now, however, I'm still supporting still holding out how Nintendo really treats Super Mario Land. This is a rather big change that will affect the corresponding history section, so I feel like acting carefully is the best decision to make when it comes to this. Still, Super Mario Land being placed alongside the other major games still means something... 23:48, 7 June 2015 (EDT)

Then when do you propose is the right time? Nintendo did say that they would talk more about Mario's 30th anniversary during E3 2015, so maybe till then? I do not think we should wait to long on this. We cannot wait another 10 years to see if Nintendo still counts the land games as apart of the main series because that would make this wiki outdated. Although it is very understandable to be questioning if Nintendo will keep it apart in the future or not, it is very important to keep the wiki up to date on Nintendo's standpoint. We must focus the wiki on Nintendo's understanding. If not we would not have a wiki based on Nintendo's Mario, but rather a wiki based on what we want Mario to be. I know it is a lot of work and a huge overhaul for the wiki. Though it is very important for the readers to know about this information Nintendo has provided us. To ignore it based on our assumptions is not fair. The sooner we start editing, the more our readers know more about this information.


 * I'm on the fence. If this Super Mario Land categorization feels isolated, in other words, continues to feel discourse, as I said, it's a lot of work. I'd wait for perhaps one or two more years (not ten, where did you get that figure from?); as the Super Mario Land games are heavily disjointed from the mainstream games, more so than Super Mario Bros. 2, this work we're proposing would essentially be a waste of time and effort for our editors. And no editor would like that. I think the categorization works as it does, although I do admit that the organization is still an issue, but, logical and convenient organization sometimes works over company ideals, especially when the company can be all over the place with the Mario games. I don't think you've really refuted 'kazo's points though, as you've just reiterated what you said earlier.


 * "We must focus the wiki on Nintendo's understanding."
 * Nintendo's understanding is putting the Super Mario Land games in the same series as Super Mario series. This is the only evidence in favor of reorganizing the info, and we have several reasons to keep Super Mario Land as separate: very disjointed, obscure game, hardly any reappearances from enemies to worlds to music in the future games, and that it was left out of an anniversary game that was very limited in itself does mean something. This is why I'd rather wait and see any future actions of what Nintendo might do to the Super Mario Land series.


 * "Rather a wiki based on what we want Mario to be"
 * No, we're not saying that we're writing the Mario series as how we interpret; we're saying that we and Nintendo have different methods of organization, and Nintendo hasn't had this problem because they aren't and, so far, never required to cover the Mario series in the same scope as us.


 * " Though it is very important for the readers to know about this information Nintendo has provided us. To ignore it based on our assumptions is not fair."
 * We shouldn't be ignoring it, but my biggest problem with this proposal is changing long-established structure because "it appeared in a Mario anniversary game". Of course, that game is fairly significant, but I don't think it proves a lot. I did say it meant something for Super Mario Land to appear alongside the bigger games, but so far, it's one game. 15:44, 8 June 2015 (EDT)

Obscurity is not an excuse and can be subjective based on the person. One could argue that Super Mario bros 2 (U.S.A) is too obscure to be considered a main series Mario title, though we all know it is. Another example being Super Mario Sunshine. Very different environment, no standard Mario enemies (Koopas, Goombas, etc), and a very different gameplay mechanic involving F.L.U.D.D. Although these two games are very different from other main series Mario titles, they are still apart of the main series. Even with their mass differences, they all keep the same design, they are platformers. Super Mario land 1 and 2 are both platformers that follow heavily on the 2d Mario aspect. Mario still grabs mushrooms, still defeats enemies, still fights bosses, and completes levels in similar manner to the other Mario games.

This is not a simple anniversary game, this is an entire celebration recognizing that the Super Mario Land games are apart of the main Super Mario series. Posters, commercials, and celebration videos will all recognize this. For Nintendo to recognize these games for Mario's 30th anniversary celebration is huge. Saying it is all apart of one small game is a little extravagant. Please don't take this as rude in anyway, as I don't want to offend anyone, but fear of a lot of work shows laziness. Although it is a lot of work, it is our job to tell our readers. If it will take 1-2 years to tell our readers. We can at least delete absolutes, such as "Super Mario Land is not considered apart of the Super Mario series." As shown on the Super Mario Land (series) article.

"not ten, where did you get that figure from?" What I said was not actually sarcasm. My estimates are based on when Mario's 40th anniversary occurs. As Nintendo will most likely bring back up the main series on Mario's 40th anniversary, it makes sense for me to think that the wiki would wait that long to see if Nintendo confirmed it again. You could argue that I could have just said 5 years based on Mario's 35th anniversary. But the chances of Nintendo celebrating this big again are more low and is not as big as a 40th anniversary.


 * Well, a lot of the weird SMS things got incorporated into the both subsequent SM games and the series at large, like Petey Piranha, Bowser Jr., Toadsworth, Gooper Blooper, Piantas, Cataquacks, FLUDD references and Isle Delfino locations in spinoffs. SMS also included a few regular enemies, like Bob-ombs, Bullet Bills, Boos, Chain Chomps, Pokeys, Bloopers, Cheep Cheep, a Monty Mole boss, Peach as the damsel-in-distress, and Bowser as the final boss. By contrast, SML has Mario, (Super) Mushrooms, Star(men) and nothing else, with nothing recurring save for Tatanga in SML2 and Daisy reappearing in spinoffs only, with possible but unconfirmed Sarasaland locations to go along with her sometimes. SML2 is better off in the using-recurring-enemies department, even a bit better off than SMS, but it still doesn't add anything to the SM series, unlike SMS which was clearly embraced as from the start. The only thing it did was add Wario to the series, and the first thing he did was launch his own spinoff series with Wario Land: Super Mario Land 3, which really just emphasizes why subsuming SML into SM is a bad idea: it has as much to do with WL as the SM games, and reflecting that bridge existence by keeping it separate from both is the least awkward way to try and deal with it (with WL:SML3 either being with the rest of WL or the rest of SML depending on the content in question - but it certainly wouldn't do to put it with SM, ever). You can ignore SML and SML2 and the rest of the series will stay exactly the same (and so far, we have ignored it without issue), but the same can't be said for any of the other non-remake games; even Lost Levels added new stuff, like Luigi's different jump mechanics. -
 * Obscurity is not an excuse and can be subjective based on the person. While it is true that obscurity can be subjective, what is generally known is that the Super Mario Land are a far deviant from any Mario game, and it rarely gets mentioned in other Mario games, hence why it's perfectly appropriate to say they're obscure. The term "obscure" is a relative term regardless, and using it to describe the Super Mario Land series in comparison with other Super Mario games is reasonable considering that, as Walkazo has stated, has been barely referenced throughout the entire realm of the Mario series whereas the rest of the Super Mario games have at one point. The Super Mario platformers are a highly popular and well-known brand, the Super Mario Land, while it could be about as popular, isn't remarkable as well known as any other entry of the Mario series, and is extremely deviant from it, is fine to be its own separate thing. Walkazo has already proposed a solution to this muddy categorizing and I agree with her on using that. 23:15, 8 June 2015 (EDT)

Although Super Mario Land 1 and 2 have had less of an impact with less references, to say the Land games did nothing to add on to the Super Mario series in the future is false. Such example as the director of Super Mario Galaxy 2 and Super Mario 3D Land, in an interview with IGN. Koichi Hayashida (the director) said that when Mario shoots a fireball in Super Mario 3D Land it bounces off the wall. He said this was taken from Super Mario Land as he had so much fun having the "Super Ball" bounce off the wall in the game. Interview can be read below.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/03/12/making-mario-magic-the-interview

Even easter eggs have occurred from Super Mario Land. An example being in Super Mario 3D Land, one can see a flying saucer believed to be Tatanga flying through the sky. Easter egg can be seen in video below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smwnedFs8I8

Impact cannot be a factor whether or not the Land games are included. If Nintendo refers to the Land games as part of the main series then it should be so. Development team can also not be used as a counter argument because many other Nintendo franchises have done the same. Although the Land games were not made by EAD, that is not a counter argument. The Legend of Zelda games oracle of ages and oracle of seasons were made by Capcom, yet Nintendo refers to them as apart of the main Zelda series. If one could use the argument of impact, then oracle of ages and seasons should not be apart of the main Zelda series because it has had little to no references in future games. Another example being Metroid. Many teams have worked on Metroid such as EAD, Retro Studios, and Team Ninja. Many of these arguments cannot be used against why the Land games should not be included.

btw, @Walkazo- I can already tell we are going to be big rivals on this wiki XD.


 * That is hardly any influence to the Mario series other than an extremely minor nod and a speculative Easter Egg. Hardly anything from Super Mario Land 1 & 2 has been put in later Mario games, down right to the music. Walkazo is correct: Super Mario Land is a heavily disjointed Mario game with no impact in most Mario games. It's great that it has its section in an anniversary game, showing that Nintendo hasn't completely ignored it, but based on how little impact it has made, it might not even exist. :/ No, we editors aren't pretending it didn't exist or it's a "fake" Mario game.


 * In this case, impact on the entire series is a good indicator on how the Land games should be grouped. Nintendo hasn't had any official word on it, so we're left to organize with our own standards. Unlike Mario, The Legend of Zelda games have an established canon, and the Oracle of Ages and Seasons games are included within the official timeline; all Mario games are ambiguously canon, even Hotel Mario and Mario is Missing, even though those aren't acknowledged by Nintendo. We're not using developer teams as an argument here (except for l337star, who brought it up, but that's a reason the games are so distinct rather than "it's developed by these guys, so it's a different game"; his argument still has problems, but it's not my main thrust) and I wasn't intending to either. As we stated, Nintendo doesn't need to cover the Mario series in the same scope as we do. As for your argument "fear of a lot of work shows laziness", you're oversimplifying it. What I'm arguing is this proposal is, as I stated earlier is "this proposal is changing long-established structure because 'it appeared in a Mario anniversary game'." It's not a very compelling reason for me or other editors apparently, to start devoting hard work. We will devote hard work to wikis, if you see from our previous proposals. Finally, the final argument is how we have Super Mario Land 3, which is the first game in a new nonMario series. You haven't proposed any solutions to that potential problem if we have the Super Mario Land games integrated into the same section as Super Mario Bros. 2. It might be convenient for Nintendo to select only Super Mario Land 1 & 2 to showcase that "yeah, they exist", but we have to consider all three Super Mario Lands and that's a problem for us.


 * In the meantime, it's good you're here for a discussion because it's not very often we have a user willing to go on long debates. :) 00:49, 9 June 2015 (EDT)

I should be in bed, but I love my Mario talk so here comes another novel XD.

Once again, influence is subjective. How much we say somthing influences something else to determine if it fits with something is always debatable. Either way, influence should not be a counter argument. Something could be influential or not at all, but that does not make it any less relevant. Yes the Land games have many elements that are different. But at it's core it still plays very much like any standard Mario game.

"The Legend of Zelda games have an established canon, and the Oracle of Ages and Seasons games are included within the official timeline; all Mario games are ambiguously canon." This is not true if Nintendo themselves say Super Mario Land 1 and 2 are canon. Which they are. According to the Hyrule historia, it says that Nintendo may change the Zelda timeline at any time. So Zelda does not have a completely established canon either.

As for a solution for Wario Land: Super Mario Land 3. We can treat it like we do with Yoshi's island : Super Mario world 2. We obviously do not have a "Super Mario World series" article. We have a Yoshi series article and "Super Mario World 2" is in it. We can just leave Super Mario Land 3 (Wario Land) in the Wario Land series article and delete the Super Mario Land Series article to put the Super Mario Land games in the main series article. There would be no need for their own section as other main series Mario titles are series with in themselves as well. The Super Mario Galaxy series, the New Super Mario Bros series, the Super Mario Bros series, the 3D series, etc. Despite these all being a series with in a series, there is no need for a "Super Mario Galaxy" series article because it is apart of the main series.

Glad you like having me debate. If there is no one to challenge anything, things don't always progress. That is why I, the biggest Mario nerd is here.
 * Just as long as we nerds have a civilized debate, I'm fine for that. In fact, I need to go to bed sometime soon. I really don't like one-sided proposals because I fear group-think may take over, and that's bad. :)


 * Influence is subjective, but also relative. We measure influence on how it has impacted future Mario games in terms of appearances and mechanics in later games; let's work from that. Super Mario Land, in that definition, has little influence on future Mario games. Its soundtrack (like its first level), is catchy, but unrecognizable. The invincibility theme is the can-can theme. We have sea dragons shooting fireballs, zombie Pionpis from the Chai Kingdom; the games look and sound very exotic. Oh, Super Mario Land is still a relevant game, don't get me wrong, but it's an obscure game by Mario standards; if it wasn't relevant, we wouldn't be having this argument! Anyhow, why can't we use influence as an argument? We sometimes use consistency and logic for our approach for organization, and Super Mario Land 1 & 2, being very different games, we use that kind of approach, especially with Nintendo's very minimalist approach with the Mario canon.


 * Speaking of Mario canon, I haven't stated that Super Mario Land 1 & 2 aren't canon. I meant to the say that the entire Mario series, subseries and all, has no established canon, so all games/comics/TV shows/film have ambiguous canon, although some subseries have their own set of continuity, most notably, Paper Mario and Mario & Luigi. Meanwhile, while Link timeline is, of course, subject to change as Nintendo sees fit, it's still far more established than the Mario canon, so it's clearer which game is canon and which game isn't. Again, subject to change, but it's unlikely Nintendo is going to overhaul The Legend of Zelda 's rather convoluted timeline any time soon. It's a different argument from what we're talking here, though, but just throwing it out, and I'm not going to go further into that one. It's in another castle.


 * The issue is that we can easily separate the two games; two games isn't quite enough to make it a series while three games are. Two games are simply a game and its sequel. Your proposal would be an easy solution if Super Mario Land were two games, but it's three games, so Super Mario Land 3 has to be included with the first two games because of the title (it's a horrible title, I agree) and not to confuse our readers. I understand where you're coming from, though, as I do want to incorporate Super Mario Land into the main Mario games because they are indeed 2D Mario platformers, and Nintendo has never acknowledged them as spin offs, so perhaps they are technically mainstream games, but I'm also uncomfortable on defining them as "mainstream" games because of their little impact and very self-contained continuity. They do look like weird bootlegs from another planet if you think about it, due to how it's been pushed to obscurity and hardly any Mario game, if at all, references them, and it's only now that they've been actually mentioned in an anniversary game. 02:36, 9 June 2015 (EDT)

Though let us not forget that influence is not only the use of future elements, but also by the influence of the player. I could argue that the impact and influence of Super Mario Land 1 and 2 have been huge on players across the world. In fact, you say they're so obscure, yet Super Mario Land is the 4th best selling Mario game of all time selling a whopping 18.14 million copies and the sequel being the 10 best selling at a huge 11.18 million. If we were to use the argument of impact (which I argue there is none), Super Mario Land is still regarded among millions of people and still remembered and being bought to this day via 3ds e-shop. If the land games were indeed so obscure...

1. No one would remember them (though millions including us do) 2. It would not have sold very much at all (18 million is huge) 3. People would not be buying it today (yet thousands still do via eshop)

So I find the value argument invalid because the Land games have a huge influence on gamers and Nintendo alike. You may argue that the impact of the games have worn off and not as many people remember it, however, this is not true as modern videos such as bentalfloss's have shown that videos on Super Mario Land gets millions of views even to this day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAtWQ_xn0kI


 * And Brentalfloss's Dr. Mario video has 3 million more views - doesn't mean we're gonna make that part of the central SM series too. Not including SML in the SM series isn't saying it's not "canon" or a bad game that no one cares about or anything like that, it's just wiki organization, based on the subject matter of the game, the name, the conflicting info Nintendo pumps out over the years, and the context of the other games. Also, just off the top of my head, seeing as Mario only appears in WL:SML3 it makes more sense to lump it in with the rest of the SML games rather than making a separate WL series History subsection. The three games are also one of the few cases of explicit continuity in the entire Mario franchise, with each game directly referencing the events of the previous game, including WL:SML3, so it is important to have a series page linking the three games together under one roof. Plus there's the fourth, unfinished game, VB Mario Land, which wouldn't fit in either SM or WL series pages, and which is the exact sorta thing which shouldn't be left to wallow without a parent series (or a convenient place in History sections for a "this almost happened too btw" aside), since that'll be the only way most readers will probably hear about it at all, and spreading info is kinda what we're here to do. -

You are contradicting yourself. Your counter argument for why the Super Mario Land games should not be apart of the main series, despite what Nintendo says, was that it is not relevant (or not relevant enough) through influences to count. That is what you said correct? Then if I am not mistaken, when I proved that the Super Mario Land games do have enough impact, you counter by saying Dr. Mario is also relevant. Dr. Mario is never referred to Nintendo as being apart of the main series at all (as we know very well).

Since I proved that Super Mario Land has enough impact, and since we know Nintendo says they are apart of the main series. You are now saying they can't because of organization? I believe I gave a solution to the organization problem. If you want to use organization as a counter argument, you must counter my solution and why my solution does not work. If not, then you have nothing to counter with, which in turn means you have no means of viable information to argue with.

If I am able to completely and successfully counter you, then that means you do not have a good reason to vote. I may be mistaken but according to the rules, if you do not have a good reason, your vote does not apply. And all those saying "per Walkazo" do not have a vote either because they do not have a good reason (if your reason is not good that is). Once again, I believe if I am able to counter all of your arguments, then your, and everyone else's vote that applies to you, does not count. Please address me if I am mistaken by this rule.


 * Why are you saying that Super Mario Land 1 and 2 are not the main series of Nintendo? That is not true. Plus, your arguments are not going to change anyone's votes. It's our own choice to vote what we want to vote.

(talk|contribs) Kamek Power! 14:20, 9 June 2015 (EDT)


 * They're an important part of the overall Mario franchise/series, but not the specific, central Super Mario series. Same with Dr. Mario, although my point there was more that popular parody YouTube videos are a poor way to measure relative importance of any given game. I mean, the most popular Mario meme is Weegee, yet no one's saying Mario is Missing! is a seminal work of gaming art. You're not countering my opinions, just offering different opinions; people so far seem to share my opinions more than yours, and for that perfectly valid reason, they are voting "per Walkazo". Lucky for me, unlucky for you, stop whining about it - that's how proposals work. -

I find the comment "whining" to be inappropriate for this situation. Whether I contradict your arguments is not up to you or me, but up to an administrator. If an administrator finds that I do indeed disprove your argument, then it will have to be accepted (according to rule 5). Although right now you do have the more popular vote, that is true, ideas of popularity does not make the idea right. An example when everyone once thought the world was flat. You have also been on this wiki as opposed to me who is new, which could in turn give a biasness to your character rather then the problem at hand.

"They're an important part of the overall Mario franchise/series, but not the specific, central Super Mario series."

Tell me, how are they not apart of the Main Super Mario series?
 * Ok, stop there. I'll disprove your "everyone believed the world is flat" argument right there. Even that analogy is not correct at all. The Ancient Greeks always believed that the Earth was round, and even calculated the Earth's circumference. The educated Europeans believed that the world was round too. Hell, Columbus didn't sail to the Americas to prove it was round, he and the Spanish government who funded it already was well aware the Earth was round. It was the uneducated who thought it was flat, but honestly, they couldn't care less regardless it was that or that. I could argue the same with the geocentric vs heliocentric theory theory, and why the Galileo gambit doesn't work when trying to disprove an argument that appeals to popularity, but I'd go off in a tangent.
 * Walkazo IS an admin here, in case you hadn't realized. She's an admin who disagrees with you. Hell, she's a bureaucrat, a step above a sysop. However, you don't need to be an admin to come up with sound arguments. If you come up with sound arguments, more people will side with you.
 * Lastly, this isn't an appeal to popularity. This is us agreeing with Walkazo's rationale rather than yours.
 * By the way, Tell me, how are they not apart of the Main Super Mario series?. I thought we explained to you how it's deviant from the Super Mario series and hasn't been referenced. The overall Mario franchise means the entire Mario series while the "Super Mario" series refers to the platformers such as Super Mario Bros., Galaxy, etc. 15:34, 9 June 2015 (EDT)


 * It is a Mario Game. You are overreacting, this is not really something to complain about. Like Walkazo said, this is what proposals are about: voting on your opinion. Please stop arguing. It is important in the Mario series so it should just stay as it is. PowerKamekSig.jpg

(talk|contribs) Kamek Power! 15:29, 9 June 2015 (EDT)


 * PowerKamek, please don't stifle reasonable debate by handwaving that it's a children series of video games. Ok thanks. 15:35, 9 June 2015 (EDT)

I am a Mario nerd. That is what we do, over care about Mario :p. You have no opposition to deny my reason. Since you don't, I have every reason to continue. That is how proposals work. One proposes, one denies, one challenges the denied with a counter to move forward their proposal, and if one finds a problem with their counter, they counter back. This continues until the opposed or the proposed is proven wrong, or until the time for debate is expired. As far as I know the talk for this proposal has not expired. I still await my counter.

So I ask specifically, how are Super Mario Land 1 and 2 not apart of the Main Super Mario series?
 * They aren't. We've said a million times they're not because *insert reason* here. Go look at Walkazo's support again and some of her comments, she's highlighted exactly why they don't fit in the main Super Mario series. 15:41, 9 June 2015 (EDT)

@PowerKamek Fair enough on the world is flat analogy, I should have used another example. But to continue the overall debate.

"I thought we explained to you how it's deviant from the Super Mario series and hasn't been referenced. The overall Mario franchise means the entire Mario series while the "Super Mario" series refers to the platformers such as Super Mario Bros., Galaxy, etc."

According to my counter I have proved that it is referenced. I have also countered that references do not qualify it being apart of the main Mario series. Could you reiterate why these arguments of mine are wrong?
 * Your only proof is simply, "Nintendo put it in their anniversary game". Walkazo has already dismantled that argument on why it doesn't work, considering how Nintendo is inconsistent with their claims at points. I'd argue that references to other Mario games DO qualify as it being apart of the Mario series. Every single game in the Mario series except for Super Mario Land has referenced each other at least once. What does Super Mario Land have? The physics of the super ball? That UFO that is so-called "Tatanga's Ship" as if all generic UFOs are Tantanga's Ship? We've already countered all of your points at this point, you're just reiterating it again and claiming victory. Daisy, who wasn't brought back to reference Super Mario Land? As Walkazo said, it eventually branched off and became Wario Land, it makes more sense to make it its own series primarily because it generated a sequel where Wario was the main character. Your arguments aren't wrong, but they're weak. 15:58, 9 June 2015 (EDT)


 * "Though let us not forget that influence is not only the use of future elements, but also by the influence of the player. I could argue that the impact and influence of Super Mario Land 1 and 2 have been huge on players across the world."


 * We're arguing about Nintendo's view on the series and our organizational standards. Please stick it to that. People can easily integrate Super Smash Bros. into the Mario series "canon", and Smash Bros. does seem like a game that would be part of a Mario anniversary game. Smash Bros. even had more of an influence in the series because of Luigi's moves in Mario Sports Mix and Mario & Sonic. What we're arguing is its impact on the series, not its sales numbers. Hotel Mario is famously bad. A lot of people know about that game or at least the Mario nerds, but it in itself has extremely little impact in the Mario series asides from a cute minigame name (Hotel Goomba). It has even less of an influence than Super Mario Land, but I honestly think Hotel Mario is more infamous than Super Mario Land is famous.


 * "Since I proved that Super Mario Land has enough impact, and since we know Nintendo says they are apart of the main series. You are now saying they can't because of organization? I believe I gave a solution to the organization problem. If you want to use organization as a counter argument, you must counter my solution and why my solution does not work. If not, then you have nothing to counter with, which in turn means you have no means of viable information to argue with."


 * That's our argument from point one: the wiki organizational structure. As I repeat myself here, we're changing a core organizational structure here simply because Super Mario Land 1 & 2 appear in an anniversary game. A mention in an anniversary game is quite significant, but Nintendo has to cherry-pick and showcase several aspects of the Mario series; they leave out a lot of games, and even smaller series like Mario Kart, they have the Mario Kart arcade games left out (Mario Party has its own set of arcade games, but they're more like ports from Mario Party 5 and 8). My sister has been proposing splitting the Mario Kart arcade games in the similar way Super Mario Land is for the same reasons: it's a disjointed game with little-to-no-impact in the Mario Kart series. You haven't proved at all that it has impact other than personal experience and sales figures. We've been talking about influence within the Mario games and you were defining it to mean sales figures and player base (and that's relative; try conflating that with Super Mario Bros. and Super Mario Galaxy). That has some relevance to our wiki, but its long-term influence helps us determine how integrated within the mainstream Mario games it is. And it's not really.


 * "I find the comment "whining" to be inappropriate for this situation. Whether I contradict your arguments is not up to you or me, but up to an administrator. If an administrator finds that I do indeed disprove your argument, then it will have to be accepted (according to rule 5). Although right now you do have the more popular vote, that is true, ideas of popularity does not make the idea right. An example when everyone once thought the world was flat. You have also been on this wiki as opposed to me who is new, which could in turn give a biasness to your character rather then the problem at hand."


 * From my experience, debates don't work like that. The voting system might not be the best system since it can be so one-sided sometimes, and it's determined by sheer numbers rather than discussion, but in the long run, compelling changes do happen. You're misinterpreting our rules, which removes arguments only if they're wholly non sequitor and nonsensical; people will find your interpretation to argument akin to censorship or taking down a straw man and then removing the vote. Outright removing voting will have flaws too, since some debates go on for way too long. That being said, I'm still not convinced by your arguments, and by arguing with you further, I'm inclined to side with the janitor (my playful jargon for "admin", by the way). The main reason Walkazo is getting votes is that she makes well-thought-out arguments (I'm not a janitor like her either, just an experienced user, and I do quite frequently get perred, not all the time though; heck, I've argued with Walkazo before).


 * "According to my counter I have proved that it is referenced. I have also countered that references do not qualify it being apart of the main Mario series. Could you reiterate why these arguments of mine are wrong?"


 * One negligible bouncing fireball mechanic and a dubious "cameo" does not an influential game make. References alone do not qualify, but we're talking about overall long-term impact, not easter eggs or relevance or if it's a "true" Mario game. 16:00, 9 June 2015 (EDT)


 * To add to the last "reference" bit, plenty of inarguably non-SM games are referenced by the main series too, so the existence of SML refs, while worth considering, doesn't automatically invalidate the opposition position at all. And on that note, for the record, when proposers make it clear that they're ignoring the opposition's points, stop making new arguments and resort to ignorant and insulting gambits like "well, you're just wrong and everyone who mindlessly agrees with you should have all their votes removed too", all the while moaning in the edit summaries about how it's taking so long and gonna be so hard for them to win, then yes, it is "whining", so I stand by what I said earlier, in case anyone else questions my judgement on that matter. -
 * Yeah, those are called red herrings, the creation of new seemingly relevant opinion and arguments that divert the original argument. Thenintendostooge, debates are always hard to do, but you have to acknowledge that the opposing side has a valid viewpoint and a patience meter, and they think their side is superior to yours as you think yours is to theirs. That inherent bias makes it extremely difficult to win each other over, but the point of this debate is to perhaps convince those "on-the-fence" rather than each other. 16:24, 9 June 2015 (EDT)

@Baby Luigi- (btw, it is going to take a while to respond to all of you if you all respond at once so be patient ok? :) "Nintendo put it in their anniversary game". Wrong, I did not argue that. The games are not appearing in any anniversary game AT ALL. It is on the official Super Mario bros 30th anniversary website, not a game.

http://www.nintendo.co.jp/mario30th/index.html#/history/

"Every single game in the Mario series except for Super Mario Land has referenced each other at least once." Please tell me why it is required for there to be an reference if Nintendo says it is official on their website?
 * Ok, so it wasn't a game, it was a website.....so how does that take down my point at all? Oh wait, it really doesn't.
 * We already told you, please reread our arguments. 16:18, 9 June 2015 (EDT)
 * As we said multiple times, "One negligible bouncing fireball mechanic, a dubious "cameo", and a mention in an anniversary site do not an influential game make, especially when the previous anniversary has left out said game. References alone do not qualify, but we're talking about overall long-term impact, not easter eggs or relevance or if it's a "true" Mario game." Okay, my original argument had slightly different words, but it's not a different argument. 16:28, 9 June 2015 (EDT)

@Walkazo- "To add to the last "reference" bit, plenty of inarguably non-SM games are referenced by the main series too, so the existence of SML refs, while worth considering, doesn't automatically invalidate the opposition position at all."

How is it fair to say it needs relevance, but to criticize me when I try to prove its relevance by saying non confirmed games are relevant as well? The difference between the games you are trying to list is that the relevance is not used by Nintendo. Super Mario Land is.

"stop making new arguments and resort to ignorant and insulting gambits like "well, you're just wrong and everyone who mindlessly agrees with you should have all their votes removed too", all the while moaning in the edit summaries about how it's taking so long and gonna be so hard for them to win, then yes, it is "whining"..."

First off, it is wrong to quote what I never quoted such as "well, you're just wrong and everyone who mindlessly agrees with you should have all their votes removed too". I never said that. Second, I never insulted anyone, I am trying to have a fun clean debate here. Third off, I am not making new arguments to avoid other ones. As you can see, all of my counters have been to counter your ideas, not to start new ideas. Fourth off, I am not moaning, I am countering which I have every right to do. Fifth, I never "whined" how about how long for this debate to go on. Honestly I find it fun. I find that you are being very hurtful so lets go on a good note and debate over the proposal at hand. :)


 * Don't take it personally, but we've been trying to counter your arguments too, and, as I said, both of us have a patience meter. Walkazo viewed your edit summaries not very positively, and I can't say I disagree. That being said, I've already gone over that you've misunderstood the rules. The problem is that from what you're saying, you think you're winning the argument and "illogical votes should be removed". I've already explained that our rules don't work like that. 16:55, 9 June 2015 (EDT)


 * Walkazo is not wrong; and all of our votes should'nt be removed just because you think you're right and we're wrong.

(talk|contribs) Kamek Power! 16:38, 9 June 2015 (EDT)

@Everyone I have noticed some people have gotten a little upset with me (as most people do). Sorry if I offended you in any way. I am just trying to defend my proposal. I am new to this site and I feel rather hurt right now (I am a touchy guy). I just want to improve this wiki. So don't feel like I am against you. If there are too many people who do not like me I will delete my account. ;-;
 * We're not offended, but I personally feel we're not really advancing in this argument. Don't take it personally, but I think whatever feeling you're getting from Walkazo and I and several other users is simply the ebbing patience within this argument. Just look how long this comments section is. But again, we've tried refuting your points and we view you as bringing up new points that are not relevant to the original debate. There are a lot of other things in the wiki you can do right now, but we're not going to ban you or label you as a heathen any time soon. It's just your argument we feel is weak; we're not hating on you. :/ I've successfully and unsuccessfully argued with people like Walkazo before, so just consider this debate as part of a much bigger learning process. 16:53, 9 June 2015 (EDT)

I just suppose I am a little disappointed and sad. I have been reading this wiki since I was 12 (I am 17 now). I thought when I joined this wiki I would make friends, that's all. I thought I could find others like me that love the Mario franchise so much that they would talk about anything Mario. I just feel I am turning you against me. I don't want to be hated or seen as stupid because someone disagrees with me. I want to make friends and have fun. I just feel... really hurt right now and I don't know if I belong here :(.

If anyone would still like to debate, I am open but it seems I can't sway anyone. When the proposal expires I will wait 4 weeks repurpose it (I think that is the amount of time you have to wait to repropose right?) Because I am such a stupidly touchy person, I would rather not have any mean arguing and hurtful comments. Thank you.
 * If you're going to repurpose it, chances are, it will get shot down the same way again unless you can offer a sound rationale on why we should support it. Also, don't take any of these personally. I don't hate you. The only users I hate on the site are wandals and trolls. 17:26, 9 June 2015 (EDT)

@BabyLuigi- I believe that if Nintendo confirms it is should. I suppose we will have to wait until the idea of the Land game being in the main series list become more apparent. Not today, but some day the wiki will place the land games in the main series list. This might have come up really suddenly by Nintendo. So it might take the wiki a couple of years to change enough for the wiki grasp the task. Slowly but surely. I just made enemies out of Mario players like me. That is really hurtful to me for some reason. Maybe I am overreacting but I just feel so sad right now.
 * To be blunt, you pretty much are overreacting. This is coming from a sensitive user by the way who takes criticism personally even though I'm trying to train myself to not take criticism towards myself as a fatal wound to my inner self-esteem. I'm open to the suggestion that Nintendo could be a bit more proactive in the future in adding Super Mario Land into future installments and stuff, but that's for the uncertain future and the best thing is to stick to what we know now and let time tell what will happen. It's reasonable to assume that it will most likely not get referenced further. By the way, no users are enemies to each other unless you're a wandal or a troll. You haven't done anything that would consider me to dislike you, so far. All you did was debate. Not very good, frankly, but it's not enough to earn contempt from me. Trust me, there are far more worse users than you, the ones that truly deserve my contempt. You're not one of them. 17:50, 9 June 2015 (EDT)

I don't want your contempt, and I don't want to be friends with you, but I do not want to be your enemy either. I can tell people like you and I are very different. Having very different ideas of when something should be considered. That does not put you any more above or below me. That makes us equal. And as such I think you should treat my, and everyone else's argument as equal to yours. I think I know why I got sad. I got sad because I thought I would find people who thought of me as their equals. Mario fans talking about Mario stuff. Though when I felt you turned against me, I felt my fellow brethren were looking down on me. I don't want to be friends simply because I have a similarity with someone, but because I enjoy expressing my similarity with that person. I don't get that with you and I can tell you don't like me very much. That is life, and I should just man up. I have been criticized many times on the internet very harshly without feeling a thing. Though when I felt like a fellow Mario fan offended me, that really hurt me and that never happens. I don't think you can understand and that is ok (I am a very weird individual :p). Honostly, talking personally to a guy I just met is weird. Do something new everyday.


 * Does that include me? I don't like people hating me either.

(talk|contribs) Kamek Power! 17:55, 9 June 2015 (EDT)
 * Well let's see...do you add nonsense text just to revert them after with a bogus edit summary? Do you wandalize pages that can be undone with a click? Do you create countless sockpuppets "attacking" the site persistently without accomplishing anything substantial? If none of the above, then I don't hate you. 18:01, 9 June 2015 (EDT)


 * Nope, none of those.

(talk|contribs) Kamek Power! 18:07, 9 June 2015 (EDT)

"I just suppose I am a little disappointed and sad. I have been reading this wiki since I was 12 (I am 17 now). I thought when I joined this wiki I would make friends, that's all. I thought I could find others like me that love the Mario franchise so much that they would talk about anything Mario. I just feel I am turning you against me. I don't want to be hated or seen as stupid because someone disagrees with me. I want to make friends and have fun. I just feel... really hurt right now and I don't know if I belong here :(."

It wasn't my intention to sound unwelcoming and mean. I freaking love the Mario franchise too, why was I here for, like, 5 years still going by silly Mario-related monikers? You got to remember though, don't take this debate personally. Please don't lose sleep over this. We can still be friends. Remember, nobody is perfect and I'm not trying to attack you as a person. I'm only going after your argument and nothing else on this whole matter. See, we agree on the beta nomenclature on another proposal. I myself have made and supported proposals that have miserably failed before, and as I said, it feels bad to lose, but it's all part of getting the experience and the learning process. You're not a stupid person, and I do understand the whole premise of this argument, which is why I used qualifiers a few times. The act of starting a discussion like this is considered a good thing since it gets our thinking caps going. If I was harsh on you, then I'm sorry. I don't want to lose any new potential editors over a silly, convoluted debate like this. 18:21, 9 June 2015 (EDT)

Thank you so much. This made me feel a whole lot better. I just want to be in a place where I can share my Mario knowledge from the franchise I love so much. And if there are people like you that are willing to have me, I will be happy to stay. :) I don't know what came over me, I just felt a little sad that is all.
 * That's great! No one here wants to lose a new editor. Being a new editor is tough, but once you learn the debating style and get experience, it's going to be much easier to take the losses and frame arguments that I and Walkazo may agree with one day. 18:42, 9 June 2015 (EDT)

"''I don't want your contempt, and I don't want to be friends with you, but I do not want to be your enemy either. I can tell people like you and I are very different. Having very different ideas of when something should be considered. That does not put you any more above or below me. That makes us equal. And as such I think you should treat my, and everyone else's argument as equal to yours. I think I know why I got sad. I got sad because I thought I would find people who thought of me as their equals. Mario fans talking about Mario stuff. Though when I felt you turned against me, I felt my fellow brethren were looking down on me. I don't want to be friends simply because I have a similarity with someone, but because I enjoy expressing my similarity with that person. I don't get that with you and I can tell you don't like me very much. That is life, and I should just man up. I have been criticized many times on the internet very harshly without feeling a thing. Though when I felt like a fellow Mario fan offended me, that really hurt me and that never happens. I don't think you can understand and that is ok (I am a very weird individual :p). Honostly, talking personally to a guy I just met is weird. Do something new everyday.''"

Nobody is feeling contempt for you. There is no reason you should feel guilty about this, honestly, but you should consider it as a learning experience. We're not attacking you as a person. We're disagreeing with your reasoning. You need to learn that the Mario fanbase is a very diverse group, which means very diverse viewpoints. Frankly, it's naïve to assume we're going to agree with each other on all issues, but you know what they say? Variety is the spice of life. It's great to have dissenting viewpoints and a civil discussion on how the Mario series should be organized because that leads to a better understanding of the Mario series for the both of us. Also, the reality is that not all arguments are equal. Some carry more weight than others, and some people can word what they're arguing much better than others. Creating balance for the sake of balance is a fallacy. That arguments aren't equal, that's the heart of the debate. If both of our sides are equal, then we shouldn't be arguing in the first place. Instead we're arguing and trying to convince one side is superior to the other. It hurts to be criticized, as you feel ostracized, stupid, and generally disliked, so it's understandable to be frustrated. Don't be so hard on yourself, though, because that's what you're doing. You're not stupid, acting maliciously, or being hated. As I said, losing a debate is hard, but don't lose sleep over this and instead learn from your mistakes. It's not about winning or losing the debate, it's ultimately about improving the quality of information we Mario fans convey and enjoy, and if it leads to a better understanding for both our viewpoints, then it's a good debate. 18:42, 9 June 2015 (EDT)

Very true, but I do find it possible for two people arguments to be equal if both cannot completely prove the point, thus creating an endless debate. Either way, it does not matter. What matters is moving on and expanding the wiki for the good of the readers. Sorry for being such a soft spot earlier. It just came over me and it was weird. Once again, thanks a lot for the help, friend.
 * It's all right. And yeah, those happen too, and those are always tricky arguments. Just look at Captain Toad and that argument, lol. That's even more confusing than this argument. XD 18:59, 9 June 2015 (EDT)

Oh my Gosh you're right XD.


 * There is no reason you should feel guilty about this, honestly, but you should consider it as a learning experience. If I could offer some advice on this point, go read the proposal archives, both community proposals and talk page proposals. You'll start to see that, as the years have past and people have come and gone, everyone who is likely to vote has developed a particular response to particular topics and a voting style thereof. A proposal, especially one that is going to have far reaching implications, has to be tailored in such a way that you're going to get everyone reading to the end and productively thinking about the topic, otherwise you'll be fighting the proposal process itself. Using this one as an example, I knew two sentences in who of the usual voters were going to oppose because I have a feel for the people as well as the topic. This isn't to imply that you don't (or can't) have an understanding of our community, just that actively editing within it and simply reading along are going to yield different perspectives. Don't be discouraged though, this understanding won't be gained over night and I feel you're well on your way to becoming a valuable editor.


 * I swear I'm going to organize my thoughts more on the proposal system one of these days. Perhaps an essay. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Ghost Jam[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 03:57, 12 June 2015 (EDT)

what the fuck happened here --Glowsquid (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2015 (EDT)
 * Discussion!
 * A really convoluted one. ;P It's surprisingly tamer than other wiki arguments I've seen though. That comment kind of came off as rude though. 19:28, 9 June 2015 (EDT)

Ban the term beta * and rename pages in the Beta namespace
There was a proposal suggesting to change the name of the "beta elements" page to something more accurate. Despite being close to succeeding, it was vetoed by the admins with the reason being that "it's not meant to be taken literally" and "it works".

Except. no. The suggestion was perfectly cogent, the rationale provided for the veto was bad and the proposal should never have been reversed. Here's why

1: It's a bad, innacurate term: "Beta" in programming language refers to a specific state of development, a prerelease build that's feature-complete and is being bugtested. It's not even a particularly representative term: the beta period happens near the end of development, long after ideas suggested in pre-production are shot down, games are overhauled, unique characters and objects are removed... etc, which is what the "beta" pages usually cover.

Some may argue that "language evolves" and that "beta as it is used here is not meant to be taken literally", but I don't think it's a strong arguments. Sites focused on the documentation of unused/prelease content such as Unseen 64 and TCRF have mocked the usage of "beta" as a catch-all term and lower-quality ressources that use it that way. Other fan wikis like SegaRetro also do not use "beta" as a generic term. Fact is, "beta" is nowhere near accepted in professional circles and that's what the wiki claims to be - a professional ressource. Furthermore, why would you use an inacurate and potentially misleading term when dozens of accurate, non-misleading alternatives exist?

2: It leads to muddy, vague writing. Whenever you see "beta" used on other pages, its catch-all nature muddies the information. "Dread Kong did not exist in the beta version of Donkey Kong Jungle Beat" - nevermind that referring to a singular "beta version" betrays a gross ignorance of how game development works, what's the "beta" in question? A preview in a magazine? A proto leaked on the internet? Something suggested in pre-production that was rejected and never programmed into the game? Banning the generic beta and forcing editors to be more specific (as opposed to the current wishy-washy stance that "we know it's bad, but we still use it because reasons I guess") will improve the quality of the information.

3: The "grandfather clause" is never a good excuse: Similar to this case, "sub-species" is a long-used term that was found to be innacurate and cause inconsistencies, and the current community concensus is that it should be replaced despite its longstanding nature. "It's what we've always used" is not a good refutation when the usage of a term is proven to lower the credibility and quality of the information, as is the case here.

As a replacement, I propose beta pages to be renamed List of prerelease and unused content. "Prelease" perfectly encansuplates the varieties of content that's not present in the final code, and it's wordier, yes, but not overly so. Generic mention of "beta" should not be robotically replaced with a generic "In prelease/unused content of [game]", but rather with a specific term ("magazine preview", "prototype", "unused"), with a piped link to the "List of..." pages.

( * : This of course doesn't apply to actual beta builds, but as none of the specific builds documented here are specifically said to be real betas, that precision is kinda irrelevant.)

Proposer: Deadline: June 15, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Move beta pages to "List of prerelease and unused content" and ban the generic "beta" in mainspace articles

 * 1) Simply because something works does not make it professional or the most efficient. The simple term beta used on the wiki goes against basic definition and term of the word that is beta.
 * 2) "Beta" probably could be validated if it was actual developer terminology that refers to a specific point of development or build, but since Nintendo doesn't and won't do that publicly, I am completely okay with Beta banning for those reasons. Per proposal.
 * 3) I am okay with this. Beta is a bad term and I think that term may be better. It's a little long, but I like it. Per Glowsquid.
 * 4) Okay, I'll let it out: I felt cheated when I saw that veto and I agree that it should've never happened, and it should not happen again. This poorly-handled veto deserves all the criticism it gets for using administrative powers to shut down legit debate. Anyhow, nonstaff user's opinions aside, by keeping the term "beta" as "a-okay", we're contradicting our own policy, the Good writing's frequently misused terms. This policy will cause confusion for newer users by saying it's not okay to use "beta" while in the same time, using that term in the same way. Now, I'm feeling confident to lambast the staff team's reasoning and decision, hear me out. This is the reasoning: "'Beta' was never meant to be taken literally as the specific beta version, but as a convenient umbrella term synonymous with 'pre-release'. It works perfectly well as-is; there is no need to change the name." This reasoning has several problems. "It's never meant to be taken literally" is dodging the basic argument, that "the terminology has never been a problem in the first place" when that there was an entire proposal about it that garnered massive support (only to be shut down by a handful of people) about the usage of that term. It doesn't matter if we "intended" the term to be "taken literally"; this term certainly confuses, misleads, and misinforms our readers, just as how "subspecies", apparently, is never meant to be taken literally in this wiki. The usage of "beta" as a convenient umbrella term is the entire problem with that forsaken word. We have a much better umbrella term "pre-release and unused elements" that is not only far superior, but does not flirt with the line into pedantry. *breathes* Okay, pardon my bitter tone, I'm still a bit miffed over that, but I support this proposal as much as the subspecies eradication proposal. They're both about precise and accurate word usage and so the reasoning behind the two should be reasonably similar.
 * 5) Glowsquid's reasoning makes sense and the proposed change sounds agreeable.
 * 6) There's a fine line of difference between being "pedantic" and being "outright wrong" when it comes to terminology, and this clearly falls in the latter case by the reasoning Glowsquid provided. Per Glowsquid and Mario, they've already stated what I was going to say.
 * 7) I supported this the last time, I'm supporting it this time. Per all.
 * 8) Per all. This needs to be in the guidelines/rules if we want to make the "beta" pages accurate.
 * 9) Per all. There's not really anything I need to add here. I will, however, help move the pages when this undoubtfully comes to pass.
 * 10) Per all. It's a lot of renaming pages we'll have to be doing, though.
 * 1) Per all. It's a lot of renaming pages we'll have to be doing, though.

Comments
@Mario - I agree with practically everything that has been said on the matter so far, and there's not much for me to add besides the fact that using the term as loosely as Mario Wiki does is definitely looked down upon in certain circles (and indeed, there is still quite a lot of rogue instances of "beta" that require cleaning up regardless of this); however, while I don't feel your sentiments are wrong, it's worth acknowledging that it was a bureaucrat who decided to initiate this second proposal. I believe that counts for something! LinkTheLefty (talk) 00:30, 8 June 2015 (EDT)
 * That's true. :) However, I feel like if I attempted a redux like, it might get vetoed. Oh well, I guess you can't win by doing nothing. 15:51, 8 June 2015 (EDT)

@Glowsquid, you should probably correct your support header, "prelease" to "prerelease" 15:17, 8 June 2015 (EDT)
 * It makes for a terrible pun though. http://forum.mariowiki.com/Smileys/default/dk.gif 15:30, 8 June 2015 (EDT)

Use explanation text to explain pronouns and whatnot in quotes
Let's take a look, for example, in this section of the List of Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door quotes. I see that, since Princess Peach is referenced many times, there are many "you"s linking to her article, and this is just to indicate that she is the one being referenced. But it doesn't seem right to use links for this purpose, because for what I know they are supposed to support navigation. Plus, since regular articles usually use only one link to some subject (on the first mention), it would be nice to do the same with quotes.

So, I propose that, whenever a subject must be identified in a quote (except on the first mention), we use This kind of explanation to identify it.

So, this quote from Super Paper Mario:
 * "If he thinks you are the hero, you probably are. I think..."

Would become:
 * "If he thinks you are the hero, you probably are. I think..."

Proposer: Deadline: June 16, 2015, at 23:59 GMT.

Support

 * 1) Per my proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) I really don't see the issue of using links to link to character articles? Adding links to character name certainly doesn't create any problems whatsoever, and what you're doing is basically stripping away the link function, since these two function essentially the same: hovering over a name to show a character's name. I'm not exactly against this, but I see this as a pointless change so I'm just going for the do-nothing option, which is essentially this vote.
 * 2) - The span stuff is a huge pain to use, where as links are easy and do no harm. The wiki's studded with blue overall (or whatever colours you have your skins set to: not our fault if they links are garish), and cases like the example where "you" gets liked twice shouldn't happen anyway since the first link establishes who it is. Other times, context can tell us who's the subject matter, or perhaps the identity might not matter, just the soundbite itself for the sake of the speakers' character, so even links wouldn't be necessary. Other times, parenthetical context can be provided to explain the quotes, again without links. Overall, it's really not as bad as the proposal makes it out to be.
 * 3) That would make sense, but the problem is that the links are showing what characters they mean. In the game, it doesn't show the characters names, but since this is the Mario Wiki, it has more information on everything. I would say, "per all".
 * 4) People would like to know what characters the quote is referring to. Per all.
 * 5) I wouldn't support outright banning the span stuff, but there's no point in using it when it's a pain to implement it (I use it for furigana inputting). I understand how this alternative is attractive rather than redundant links, but I'd stick with the simpler brackets.
 * 6) It's literally almost the same thing, except with more wikicode. I don't really see the point of this.
 * 7) While I sort of disagree with the other people and believe this can be a great timesaver, it unfortunately can also be very confusing. Assuming you did not know to hover over the text (which is probably going to be most people), then, well... it just doesn't work anymore, does it?

Comments
Perhaps we can compromise by replacing all first instances (in general) with links and then making repeated instances with the explanation text fields? 21:48, 8 June 2015 (EDT)
 * Even so...what does that do that links can't? 21:50, 8 June 2015 (EDT)
 * Isn't that accomplishing the same thing with less convenience? It just seems like an unnecessary step to me. What's the downside/negative aspect of having the links in the first place?
 * @Baby Luigi: it's less of an eyesore than techno-color links all over the place (and maybe mobile users don't have to worry about accidentally touching them or something). We don't link every text in the gallery pages for that same reason, so maybe we can use those fields instead. However, as Time Turner said, it's another piece of wiki code to memorize and incorporate. 21:53, 8 June 2015 (EDT)
 * Techno color links? You mean two colors, blue and black? That's not an eye sore at all. Perhaps we can limit the linking to once per pronoun referral but that's about it. It's not that much of an eyestrain unless this wiki uses the yellow color to link things. I don't know how mobile users work though. 21:56, 8 June 2015 (EDT)
 * That's exactly what I mean. And what I mean by techno-color links, look at the example in the proposal: two links to Mario's page is a bit ludicrous. If those links are meant to give clarification, then we shouldn't have to solely rely on them; stuff like explanation text wrap exists. 22:04, 8 June 2015 (EDT)
 * I still don't see the problem in that? You're making this a bigger deal than it really is. It's still only two colors, blue and black, and it links just as much as any other article on the wiki does. 22:06, 8 June 2015 (EDT)
 * I was exaggerating myself here in terms of "gaudy links", but yeah, it was hard to tell. Sorry for that. 00:54, 9 June 2015 (EDT)

There isn't really a major problem with using links, but I think it is worth to point out that the article rules say "In general, only the first occurrence of a subject in an article should be linked to, with all subsequent occurrences in the body text written as plain text only, to avoid redundancy and clutter.". If excessive linking on article pages is recognized as clutter, then logically it should also be considered clutter on quote pages. Forbidding it in one place and making it standard protocol in another is inconsistent, and the proposal is correct in attempting to address this. - 02:51, 13 June 2015 (EDT)
 * The rule also says "Duplicate links appearing in lists, [...] are also allowed regardless of the length of a page.", so "list of quotes" are already exempt. - 12:24, 13 June 2015 (EDT)
 * Yeah, it's mostly about common sense, though, since manual of style is a guideline anyway. If the linking looks excessive on lists, feel free to remove them. 12:54, 13 June 2015 (EDT)
 * The point I was trying to make is: The fact that the rules themselves acknowledge links like these as clutter lends validity to complaints about the same clutter being allowed in lists. Claims of "this is not a problem" do not hold water because the rules definitely recognize it as a problem in other parts of the wiki already. It is more accurate to say "this is kind of a problem, but we really haven't found an efficient alternative yet". This is what I think this proposal is trying to do: Find an alternative. Whether it is efficient enough is up to everyone's personal judgment, but the core thought behind it is perfectly valid. - 03:13, 14 June 2015 (EDT)

Change the proposal system
I have heard quite a few users describe the proposal system as "flawed", particularly with the voting. I was thinking that we could change it so that, instead of a majority opinion based on votes, we could create a system where any user can post a reason, not a vote, as to why they think that they should have their changes done. Then, after the 1 or two week deadline, a proposal team could get together and decide the verdict on the matter. For instance, on this proposal, there would be a group of users giving arguments for me, and there would also be, naturally, a group of users against me. But what makes this different is that there would be no "per all"s to support the case without a proper reason.

Proposer: Deadline: Saturday 27th June, 2015 at 29:59.

Change the system

 * 1) You know, because it's not like I'm going to go against it.

Do not change the system

 * 1) Per Baby Luigi & myself in the comments. They should be able to fix any issues we have (none of which I know of) without completely changing our system.

Comments
Shouldn't something intending to make a complex change require a writing guideline?

I think you should have made a discussion on the proposal talk page instead of making a proposal about this. But I think this isn't the best way since most users "per" other users reasoning anyway and that's what proposals already sorta do. Yeah you have people jumping on the bandwagon because another user says something long without reading previous discussion and deciding what to do but it's not that much of a huge problem since it could be considered reasonable. Using "per" is just a convenient way to say that one user said one thing better than I did. I understand where this is coming from but I really don't think it'll fix the people who simply jump on the bandwagon rather than actually reading discussion and it will create more problems on its own such as no discussion at all and stagnation. 13:47, 20 June 2015 (EDT)
 * Continuing off what BL said, I also think voting instead of point-making allows the proposal to be decided by the people of the wiki, not just a select few. Keep in mind that proposals aren't debates; they  are meant to decide if the community as a whole agrees upon a proposed idea. Andymii (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2015 (EDT)
 * There's a problem with letting anyone vote though; there's actually bandwagon hopping especially on the oppose side of a proposal whose points have not been refuted except for one reason. Anyone can participate in a discussion in the first place, it's not like we restrict discussions to only a select few people. The only times that a select few make policy changes is usually after an administrative consensus but considering that they attempt to maintain the general upkeep of their wiki it is probably their duty to instill some changes. 13:58, 20 June 2015 (EDT)
 * In my opinion, that's not an issue of our voting system; it's an issue of our voting guidelines. Anyone should vote, but there should be quality control on making sure the reasons are strong. Andymii (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2015 (EDT)
 * There already is a rule about weak votes but it's not strongly enforced for several reasons: 1. We don't know if the users saying "per" read everything and is summing up what a side has to say or just skimming through the comments and 2. "I like this idea" is basically like saying "per" but in a more...praising and complimentary manner how I say it, rather than an actual reason in itself. The matter of fact is that saying simply "per" has upsides and downsides but it's probably better to leave it as it is than either forbidding the term altogether or scrutinizing the voter's intentions and thoughts every single time that is said and that's really pointless effort. 14:12, 20 June 2015 (EDT)

Remove four proposal rules
Four rules for a proposal seem unneccessary and I think they should be removed. Here are the four rules to keep or remove.

''-Any proposal that has three votes or less at deadline will automatically be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion. ''-If a proposal 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 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 all votes cast must be for a single option, rather than one option simply having more votes than the other options. ''-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.''

If this was a soccer match, does the game go to extra time (or end in a draw) just because the score is 1-0, the winning team not winning by three goals? No. The team that scored the goal wins. Why does this have to apply to proposals? If a soccer game goes into a penalty shootout and the shootout is extended to the "first to score while opponent misses" section, could it end because the shootout went for a long time? No. Why should a proposal be canceled because it's gone for four weeks without a decision made?

Proposer: Deadline: June 26, 2015, 23:59 GMT.

Remove one rule and keep three

 * 1) I do think that the first, second, and fourth rule that is being put into question are good quality rules that should not be removed for many of the reasons that  has made in the comments section.  However, the third rule is something I disagree with.  Suppose there is a proposal where there are three options, two of the options are towards changing something, possibly because there is a quality issue with the article that needs to be fixed, that can feasibly be fixed in multiple different approaches, while the third option is to keep it the same.  In cases where the Do Nothing option has the least votes on it, I feel that it means that there is a general consensus that something should be done to the article, just that what is to be done to the article is still up for debate.  It is clear that most people have a problem with the current state of the article in these cases and it is a bit unfair to keep a problem in an article, and not fix the problem just because people can't agree on what is the best way to fix the problem in the first place.

Remove all four rules

 * 1) Per my proposal. If 1-3 rules are voted to be removed and the others kept, decide which ones.

Keep all four rules

 * 1) This proposal is very problematic and I will not support removing these essential rules. See comments below.
 * 2) Per 'Zooka Mario
 * 3) Per Mario.
 * 4) - Per Bazooka Mario. Not that these rules are even negotiable in the first place: the admins who wrote them have the final say, so don't be surprised if we just veto the proposal sooner or later.
 * 5) Per Bazooka Mario, she got it exactly right. Additionally, in favor of straight up administrative veto, but I'm willing to wait a bit to see if anyone might have an interesting counter point or two. Remembering, of course, that the admin team is not a hive mind and another admin may just go ahead and shut this down, as Walkazo said.
 * 6) Per Walkazo.
 * 7) Rule 1: You can't have one or two voters represent the whole MarioWiki community. It isn't accurate. For example, if you flip a coin twice, it won't always exactly land on heads once and tails once. Rule 2: Having just one voter decide the whole proposal makes no sense. Rule 3: This helps make sure that the idea that wins is truly favored by the majority. Rule 4: If people have not found a final solution after so long, then there's obviously some major issue that's bugging half of the voters.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) - The comparison to soccer matches is inconclusive, as the results of soccer matches are seldom used to define the law. Luckily so, because that would just be moronic.
 * 10) Per all.

Comments
I will outline the rules that you have problems with and explain why these rules should be in place.

-Any proposal that has three votes or less at deadline will automatically be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion. -If a proposal 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 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 all votes cast must be for a single option, rather than one option simply having more votes than the other options. -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.
 * This rule is here to encourage more votes. People don't vote all the time. If people don't vote, it's usually that they overlook it or the proposal itself is perhaps not important to draw attention. At the last ditch, you should contact other active users on your proposal, but keep in mind, it is a last ditch attempt, so don't try this unless you're certain nobody else will vote. This hasn't happened in my five plus years here, so it shouldn't happen.
 * The soccer match analogy doesn't work here. A proposal that has 20 votes in one side and 19 votes on the other side does not mean it should pass. What you're proposing places too much emphasis on the quantity of the votes rather than the the proportion of the votes. It's the reason the U.S. congress requires a 2/3 majority rather than a simple "this side has more supporters so it wins" because there needs to be a clear majority; if the amount of dissenters that rivals the supports, then there is a problem in the proposal. Allowing proposals to pass by only one vote will create problems.
 * I don't see the problem with this? Again, you're placing too much emphasis on the sheer quantity of votes rather than the proportion.
 * If a proposal has not reached consensus at the fourth deadline, it suggests a problem with the proposal. Subjects do get controversial sometimes, but this rule prevents proposals from dragging in the mud and encourages propoers to better phrase what they want next time. It also suggests that such proposal is not ready for voting and probably requires open discussion on respective talk pages and forum posts before actually putting it up to vote.

The voting process does have its problems, but what you're proposing is simply erasing the essential margin for a majority, and that's very problematic, especially when proposal decisions are quantified here. 18:46, 19 June 2015 (EDT)


 * @Kart Player 2011: You have it backwards: the third rule is to avoid cases where vote-splitting allows a third option to come up the middle and win even if the majority of people disagree with it. I.e. if there were two change options, and 3 people voted for each, but 4 people voted for no change: 6/10 voters want something to change, but since they couldn't agree, no changes are made (although it's actually worse if a change option passes without a majority, but this is the easiest scenario to try and explain). It would be better for the wiki if that proposal keeps going until most people can agree on a change, or eventually defaults in a tie and allows the proposer to resubmit it with an option the majority of users can agree on. -
 * No, what I mean is like in cases where the do nothing vote total is, lets say... 2 votes, and one of the options to change the way the article is written has 6 votes while the other option to change the way the article is written has 7 votes which is the situation I am trying to address when I am saying that I feel the third rule is unnecessary. In that case, we'd be doing nothing because neither of the options to change anything has a majority even though both of those options clearly had more support than the do nothing option. -
 * Even ignoring the third option, 6-7 is too close a race for either solution to be the right one, which is the idea behind the second rule (which also applies to multi-option proposals), which you yourself said is fair. Better to keep debating and refining the proposal than allow a barely-supported option to pass: if 13 people think a change needs to happen, it'll happen, but it has to be one that's well-supported. -
 * The problem with what you are saying is that in the case I suggested, it is very probable that those 13 people who voted for the two options to change stuff up would have had as their second choice the other option to change stuff up rather than doing nothing so its the best move to change something in those cases. -
 * Not necessarily: there have been lots of times where I would have certainly preferred if nothing be done than the change option I didn't vote for. If nothing's done, a new proposal can easily be made; if stuff's wrecked, reversing the changes just adds another complication in trying to figure out the solution the most people actually want. Believe me, the admins put a lot of thought into these rules, they work well, and we won't be changing them anytime soon. -

@Ghost Jam: Bazooka Mario is female. 15:04, 20 June 2015 (EDT)
 * No one every tells me anything. :/ -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Ghost Jam[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 08:12, 21 June 2015 (EDT)