MarioWiki:Proposals

Writing guidelines
None at the moment.

New features
None at the moment.

Delete the categories for the levels that an Animal Friend appears in
The title's a bit unwieldy, but it's a good way of describing the categories I'm talking about, like Category:Levels with Parry and Category:Levels with Winky. Why do we have these categories? It's not like we have categories for every level featuring Orange Yoshi or Goombas or 1-Up Mushrooms or anything else apart from Animal Friends. It's not even all of them: the animals from Donkey Kong Jungle Beat are completely absent from the category deal. If you want to know every level that a certain Animal Friend appears in, their pages already list them. Although the lists are a bit unwieldy, especially when multiple of them are on the same page, the solution is not to make categories. Who would actually benefit from these categories in the first place? Who requires a compact list of every level that an Animal Friend appears in, especially when some of them have less than five entries? As I said with the proposal to delete Category:New Levels, we shouldn't need to cater to every single remote possibility.

Proposer: Deadline: November 17, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal; just having the Animal Buddy pages list the levels is good enough.
 * 3) - Per proposal.
 * 4) Per proposal.
 * 5) Per proposal.
 * 6) Per proposal.
 * 7) Per all
 * 8) Per all
 * 9) Per all.

Comments
Affected categories:
 * Category:Levels with Ellie
 * Category:Levels with Enguarde
 * Category:Levels with Expresso
 * Category:Levels with Parry
 * Category:Levels with Quawks
 * Category:Levels with Rambi
 * Category:Levels with Rattly
 * Category:Levels with Squawks
 * Category:Levels with Squitter
 * Category:Levels with Winky

Make "Bestiary" its own namespace
Sure, we have a namespace for galleries, but I don't see why we can't do the same for bestiaries. It's the same kind of "special" article that I would define galleries as as well. Therefore, I propose that we rename every instance of  to.

Proposer: Deadline: October 26, 2017, 23:59 GMT Extended to November 2, 2017, 23:59 GMT Extended to November 9, 2017, 23:59 GMT Extended to November 16, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) Per proposal.  Why not?
 * 5) This is (similar to?) one of the things Zeldawiki does that I think we should too.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Switch sides again, Per Toadette's comment.
 * 9) - Just because we've got fewer bestiaries than galleries doesn't really give much an excuse. This helps keep the wiki more organized than it would be, and that's more than a good enough reason IMO.

Oppose

 * 1) - For galleries it made sense because most major articles had one (there are currently 319); for bestiaries, I don't see the point at all. There are 12 proper bestiaries, I don't think this warrants a namespace by any means.
 * 2) Per Tucayo. I also don't see the benefit of this; it seems like more hassle then it's worth for little payoff when considering the few bestiaries on the page.
 * 3) Per Tucayo.
 * 4) - Originally supported, but considering the number of bestiaries there are, per Tucayo.
 * 5) I don't think we have enough pages of this thing to make it into a separate namespace. Per all.
 * 6) Per my comment below and Tucayo.
 * 7) Per all. I see what's trying to be done here, but it seems overly fiddly considering what is being effected, making this extra work for little reward.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Really?! Per all.
 * 10) - Per all. At least for now I don't see why this is needed.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) Per all.
 * 13) Per all.

Comments

 * I might just be a bit dumb, but I don't fully understand what this means or what the difference is. Could you give an example?-- 12:15, 20 October 2017 (EDT)
 * For example, Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga bestiary would become if this were to pass. -- 12:18, 20 October 2017 (EDT)
 * I can only see one problem with this. On every enemy page where the enemy template is placed, transcluding its info from the bestiary page, they look like this:
 * The bolded part is where we're going to get into some issues. It'll be a simple fix, but we'd have to change the link for EVERY page with an enemy template.-- 12:54, 20 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Sounds like bot work. 12:56, 20 October 2017 (EDT)
 * The bolded part is where we're going to get into some issues. It'll be a simple fix, but we'd have to change the link for EVERY page with an enemy template.-- 12:54, 20 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Sounds like bot work. 12:56, 20 October 2017 (EDT)


 * Could we keep the current names as redirects until all of the transclusions are fixed?
 * 14:05, 20 October 2017 (EDT)
 * @Ultimate Mr. L: Isn't that a standard measure? @Alex95: That was my exact plan for fixing those pages. 17:37, 20 October 2017 (EDT)

@Tucayo: "There's too little" is not an argument in and of itself. It's so that normal readers don't get confused into thinking it's an actual article. 18:00, 23 October 2017 (EDT)
 * They are articles, though?? What makes them any different from quote pages, lists of badges, recipes, assist trophies, etc.? Bold + italics doesn't make it true. -- 22:01, 23 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Those are actual list articles. Bestiaries are not technically list articles; they are rather pages that are there to have individual sections be transcluded onto actual articles. 22:07, 23 October 2017 (EDT)
 * But they are still articles by themselves. I truly fail to see the point here. -- 22:09, 23 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Again, why do you think that they're actual articles? They are not meant to be. 08:25, 24 October 2017 (EDT)

If we gonna have them as separate namespaces I honestly think the category should expand to all list articles since they are the very similar to bestiaries. I honestly think having a separate namespace for just 12 pages for something very specific is inconsistent and unprofessional.
 * @NSY: Again, bestiaries ARE NOT technically list articles; they are relevant sections of a page transcluded onto other articles, and having too few does not make too much of a difference. Also, could you please elaborate on the "inconsistency" argument? I understand it less so than Tucayo's arguments. 15:10, 24 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Well according to dictionary.com a list is defined as "a series of names or other items written or printed together in a meaningful grouping or sequence so as to constitute a record". Pretty certain an article that has a record of every enemy and their stats falls under that. It's inconsistent because these would the only list articles that got their own namespace, what about the articles listing all the mini games in a Mario Party game, would they also get their own namespace.
 * No, because that's an actual list:
 * Balloon Burst
 * Bombs Away
 * Crazy Cutter
 * Where as the bestiaries are tables:
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Name !! Location !! HP !! Items
 * Bowser || Castle || 100 || Key
 * Goomba || Plains || 3 || Mushroom
 * Koopa Troopa || Mountains || 12 ||N/A
 * }
 * We don't list out the enemies on a bestiary like we do for every single list on this site. The lists are spilt up into categories, like the Species list, and they only have a name that links to it's main article, ONLY. Nothing else about that link exists on the page.-- 17:32, 26 October 2017 (EDT)
 * However, there are some "list" articles such as List of enemy formations in Paper Mario that are tables, so the lists are not always simply just a name that links to its main article. I agree that bestiaries are like list articles. -- 17:36, 26 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Didn't know that existed. Is that article necessary? If so, seems like that should be integrated into the Paper Mario bestiary.-- 17:40, 26 October 2017 (EDT)
 * I feel that there is enough information for it to remain separate (a proposal to merge it could be created though). Even if that and the Thousand-Year Door version were merged with their bestiaries, there are still other list articles that are more than just simply names (see Category:Lists for more examples). -- 17:55, 26 October 2017 (EDT)
 * There is also List of Sammer Guys. The only reason why it is kept separate from Super Paper Mario bestiary is that it is a list of Sammer Guys fought in an optional thing (though the first 20 are required) and they are too similar to each other. As for another this bestiaries are, they are compendiums which is "a collection of concise but detailed information about a particular subject, especially in a book or other publication (not really relevant to these bestiaries, but I am quoting this word for word)" -- definition found by searching compendiums on Bing. The list of enemy formations and others listed here may be the only exceptions, though.
 * Didn't know that existed. Is that article necessary? If so, seems like that should be integrated into the Paper Mario bestiary.-- 17:40, 26 October 2017 (EDT)
 * I feel that there is enough information for it to remain separate (a proposal to merge it could be created though). Even if that and the Thousand-Year Door version were merged with their bestiaries, there are still other list articles that are more than just simply names (see Category:Lists for more examples). -- 17:55, 26 October 2017 (EDT)
 * There is also List of Sammer Guys. The only reason why it is kept separate from Super Paper Mario bestiary is that it is a list of Sammer Guys fought in an optional thing (though the first 20 are required) and they are too similar to each other. As for another this bestiaries are, they are compendiums which is "a collection of concise but detailed information about a particular subject, especially in a book or other publication (not really relevant to these bestiaries, but I am quoting this word for word)" -- definition found by searching compendiums on Bing. The list of enemy formations and others listed here may be the only exceptions, though.

Okay, this just doesn't make any sense at all. How and why in the world would we make this thing its own namespace if there are only twelve of it on the market right now? I don't get it. 17:49, 27 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Because it's not really an article. Its main purpose is infoboxes to transclude onto articles. Because it is more than just an article, I feel it warrants its own namespace. It doesn't matter how few of them there are.
 * 19:48, 28 October 2017 (EDT)
 * But why does it need a separate namespace to exemplify that fact? 20:00, 28 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Are you suggesting that the Template namspace might be the ideal home for them? (Yeah, it just now occurred to me.) 13:25, 29 October 2017 (EDT)
 * ...No? 00:11, 30 October 2017 (EDT)

Improve rewrite-expand template
I propose that the needs improved.  It has been requested that this be rewritten and expanded

Proposer: Deadline: November 18, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) Once again, per last time and then some. I don't get it, what is so wrong with the rewrite-expand template anyway? It does the job just fine.
 * 2) - Other than moving the word "to", there's no difference being made here.
 * 3) Why?
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) You can already add specifics if any are needed. This change is nothing but busywork. Per all.
 * 6) The proposal is still failing to reconsider other templates, from last time. Stop pushing this proposal until you "do your homework", for a lack of a better phrase.
 * 7) There's no point, we might as well be moving it to "not dun yet lol."
 * 8) Can't see the difference or any worthwhile or significant impact it may have, per all.
 * 9) Why do you keep trying to fix something that isn't broken?
 * 10) Per all

Ampersands in Navigation Templates
It's that time again, where we look at inconsistencies in the names of navigation templates! This time, we'll be looking at templates that use (or don't use) ampersands. It's not a given that if the game's title includes one, its corresponding template with also include one. None of the Mario & Luigi include it (Template:MLSS, Template:MLPIT, etc.), but scattered other examples include it (Template:M&SATLOG, Template:M&W, etc.). Three of the templates forMario & Sonic meanwhile substitute it for an A, as in "and", because that's not confusing in the slightest (Template:MASATOG, Template:MASATOWG, etc.). As with last time, I'll stress that having consistency is hugely important, because otherwise editors need to either remember the patterns for all of them, constantly look up the names to be sure they didn't screw up, or just make blind guesses and hope for the best. This is especially problematic when making new templates, and the editors have no idea what they should be doing (Yoshi Touch & Go, for example, still doesn't have a navigation template). Unlike last time, I don't strongly favour one side over the other: ampersands are similar to colons to some extent, and they're very much not necessary to quickly know what the template is about, but the word "and" is still a notable part of the title, and I doubt that anyone would complain if "and" was written in plain text and then included in the name (as with Template:MADKMOTM). At the very least, I'm going to say that using the letter "A" instead of "&" is bad, but otherwise, the choice is up to you.

Proposer: Deadline: November 19, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Include ampersands

 * 1) - Same with how I voted in your proposal about colons in nav templates (which ultimately didn't rule in my favor, but whatever), I think if the name of the title has the ampersand, then the abbreviation should include it.
 * 2) Per Alex. I'm sure a lot of users would refer to names like "Mario & Luigi" as "M&L", not "MAL".
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Very confusing otherwise, per all.
 * 6) With all the arguing I've done, this side appeals to me now. Per all.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) This has been bugging me for a long time, and I'm glad someone finally stepped up!

Do nothing

 * 1) I think that our current system is fine. We use "and" when the name actually consists of "and", such as Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games, and we use the ampersand when the name has it. The only reason we exclude it from the Mario & Luigi games is because it's easier to distinguish them that way. Other than that, I think that we don't need to change how we write our templates. Call me conservative if you want, but it's been that way for a long time, long enough for me to get used to.
 * 2) The Mario and Luigi games already have very long titles as it is, while Mario and Wario would be two letters if abbreviated without the &. I think the case-by case we have now is fine. As for Mario and Sonic, it's a bit less clear due to them being less, how you say, popular.
 * 3) per Doc von Schmeltwick, case-by-case.

Comments
Uh, bro, did you forget to support your proposal and put a deadline on it? I hope not, this is just a reminder. 21:51, 12 November 2017 (EST)
 * Templates that use an ampersand
 * Template:G&Wario (on a side note, this name is inconsistent with everything)
 * Template:M&SATLOG
 * Template:M&W
 * Template:MM&FaC
 * Template:P&DSMBE
 * Template:P&DSMBE Levels
 * Templates that don't use an ampersand
 * Template:MLBIS
 * Template:MLDT
 * Template:MLPIT
 * Template:MLPJ
 * Template:MLSS
 * Templates that use "A"
 * Template:MASATOG
 * Template:MASATOWG
 * Template:MASATSOWG

@Lcross: the series is titled Mario & Sonic, and all of its games follow suit. I make note of that in the proposal. 22:10, 12 November 2017 (EST)
 * Uh...okay, then. I still don't know if I want to change the Mario & Luigi templates yet, though. 22:13, 12 November 2017 (EST)
 * What's the difference between Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga and Mini Mario & Friends: amiibo Challenge? 22:15, 12 November 2017 (EST)
 * I don't look like the guy who would know. In other words, I don't know. Other than the games themselves and what they are and what they specialize in and so on and so forth, I don't know. 22:20, 12 November 2017 (EST)
 * Votes should only be made when you're confident in your decision. It's fine to change it as time passes, but if you're unsure, perhaps it would be best to abstain for the moment. 22:22, 12 November 2017 (EST)
 * Yeah, I guess you're right, but I vote and do things mostly because I want to throw in my two cents and speak my mind on most of the issues that come abound on this wiki. However, I will keep that in mind. 22:25, 12 November 2017 (EST)

@Doc: What does popularity have to do with names? We're fine with abbreviating every single other name, barring an overlap. 22:57, 12 November 2017 (EST)
 * Because people are more likely to realize what they are with the & than without if it's not popular, but it's just clutter for the more popular ones. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2017 (EST)
 * That's arbitrary and subjective, as if everyone is familiar with every single Mario & Luigi game to the point that they're somehow elevated above other games. What if they're not familiar with the games at all? Also, how does an ampersand help other games be recognized but just act as clutter for other games when all we have to work with is a few letters? 23:04, 12 November 2017 (EST)
 * We're talking about in general. After all, all of the games and series in the Mario franchise get equally proportional coverage to how iconic and famous they are, and judging from that, I think they would get the hint pretty fast. 23:13, 12 November 2017 (EST)
 * That's not true in the slightest. Every character, item, and location from every single game receives an article regardless of where it comes from. That's not proportional coverage, that's equal coverage. 23:19, 12 November 2017 (EST)
 * How is that not proportional coverage? What I'm talking about is, every game and series in the Mario franchise gets proportional prominence, and depending on how iconic and famous it is, it just...shines a brighter light, and its content is more accessed and known. That's what I meant. 23:26, 12 November 2017 (EST)
 * I don't think you know what the word "proportional" means. 23:27, 12 November 2017 (EST)
 * Yeah, that's literally not what the word "proportional" means, and the fact that some games "shine a brighter light" is seriously subjective. Why does that even matter for navigation templates? 23:30, 12 November 2017 (EST)
 * It matters because we're talking about how the popularity of these games affects how their navigation templates should be handled. I'm saying that because the games and series get the coverage and attention equal to how popular and iconic they are in the Mario franchise, their navigation templates should be handled appropriately as such, with the popular ones being left alone and the obscure ones being given more attention. The ampersand does just that. 23:40, 12 November 2017 (EST)
 * "the games and series get the coverage and attention equal to how popular and iconic they are" You were literally just told that this is completely false. And it is. 23:45, 12 November 2017 (EST)
 * Is it? I'm not completely convinced. The Super Mario franchise is the series that just fills the bucket of this wiki. Without it, the entire Mario franchise would have never existed, and not this wiki either. Most of the articles are the Super Mario series articles, and for good reason. And then you have the RPGs and the sports games. They too get a whole ton of coverage and articles on the wiki, but they're only second-best to the all-iconic Super Mario series when it comes to how much of it we have. After that, we've got some of the lesser-known games, such as Mario vs Donkey Kong and some other games that don't get as much attention, and it goes from there. I think there is some sort of social status or some hierarchy on the Mario Wiki that dictates what gets coverage and how much coverage it gets, all based on how popular, iconic, or famous it is, or if it belongs to one of the subseries that has these qualities, all behind the shadows. Call me intricate, call me a conspiracy theorist, call me just a kid who looks into things way too much, but I'm seriously thinking that the coverage of everything Mario franchise-related on this wiki is divided up this way, even if everything gets an article. 23:56, 12 November 2017 (EST)
 * While it is true that articles pertaining to popular games will inevitably see more activity than more obscure stuff simply because more people are playing them and writing about them, that has jack diddly squat to do with our coverage policy. Otherwise every single rock and blade of grass in Super Mario 64 would have a page and our entire coverage of Mario's Time Machine would consist of a two-sentence article. If that. Also, how is any of that relevant to whether or not navigation templates should use ampersands? 00:07, 13 November 2017 (EST)
 * Because this is about how the popularity and attention that each of the series gets affects what we do with their navigation templates, and in an indirect way, the coverage they get. It's what Doc kind of alluded to when he said that nothing should be done with the templates like Mario & Luigi while we should give templates like Mario & Wario a little more time in the ghostlight. This is my point all along. 00:12, 13 November 2017 (EST)
 * Navigation templates don't get treated differently based on the notability or popularity of their subjects. 00:30, 13 November 2017 (EST)
 * Well, just exactly like Doc said, people are more likely to realize what the games are with the ampersand than without it if they're not popular, but for the popular ones, it's just clutter for them. And by the way, let's not put too many indentations in our comments. Make sure to reset the bar at some point, if you know what I mean. 00:34, 13 November 2017 (EST)
 * I've already brought this up: how do you know what's popular? You might think that it's blindingly obvious, but it's extremely possible for someone to encounter the templates with little to no knowledge of the series. And even if you want to be adamant about the series being super popular, why do you want to get rid of something that could only add clarity? The M&L templates are only four to five letters long in the first place; what clutter are you even trying to avoid, especially when that same clutter is perfectly acceptable in other templates? 00:44, 13 November 2017 (EST)

Somewhat off topic, but I think why is labeled as such is so it doesn't get confused with. I'd be for renaming it to "Template:Game & Wario", though, like how we have and. 11:11, 13 November 2017 (EST)
 * In my proposal to standardize template names in general, I actually bring up this up, and I suggested formatting the names like "G&Wario" (i.e. Template:YStory and Template:YSafari). This was later shot down, but it may be worth revisiting the idea. 12:21, 13 November 2017 (EST)

Also @Doc: you do realize that there are plenty of navigation templates with long names (like any of the level-exclusive ones) and there plenty of navigation templates with only three or two characters, right? It's not even like we're writing them in full; at most, one character will be added to them or remove from them. Is that a catastrophically large change? 14:08, 13 November 2017 (EST)

Merge paper characters with the Paper Mario appearances of their 3D counterparts
A few years ago a proposal was made to split Paper Mario appearances from other appearances of Mario. That proposal failed, but that was before we had articles on paper characters. Since we have paper articles now, why is Paper Mario (character) separate from Mario (Paper Mario series)? This is especially important with articles like Sombrero Guy and Paper Sombrero Guy, as this enemy has never appeared outside of the Paper Mario series--and is still separate. Why? I propose that we move the Paper Mario series info for each character to the pages of their paper counterparts. We could just use the for the 3D counterparts. Who's with me?

Proposer: Deadline: November 30, 2017, 23:59:59 GMT

Move all Paper Mario series info

 * 1) Per proposal.

Move the info only for articles like Sombrero Guy and Paper Sombrero Guy

 * 1) Per proposal.

Leave as is

 * 1) Per the proposal that split the articles in the first place. Also, your second option is overly vague, since it does not list articles that will get affected by your proposal, hence why I'm not voting for it despite also thinking Sombrero Guy and Paper Sombrero Guy should get merged.
 * 2) Some paper articles only exist because of Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam, as the paper enemies and characters are separate from their normal selves.
 * 3) Per Baby Luigi and Eldritchdraaks. I think it's fine how it is.

Comments
@Baby Luigi: When I say "like Sombrero Guy", I mean articles about enemies who have never appeared outside the Paper Mario series and Paper Jam. Honestly, though, I think Sombrero Guy is the only one. Also, I want to move the Paper Mario series info to the paper articles, not vice versa. - 18:36, 16 November 2017 (EST)

Super Hornio Bros Page
This is a bit of a controversial one, but here it goes. I think we should incorporate a full page on both Super Hornio films for preservation purposes instead of a mere description. I would like to do this, as the film is owned by Nintendo themselves, and the history behind them are extremely interesting. I've written a draft here: User:Howzit/Sandbox. We have so many other Mario knockoffs properly documented, why not this one?

Proposer: Deadline: November 19, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal

Oppose

 * 1) Okay, since this has absolutely no relation to the Mario franchise whatsoever, I don't think this is a good idea at all.
 * 2) This is a place that kids visit. We have nothing in place to stop people underage from accessing adult only content, even if it is appropriately censored. Swearing is one thing (Bob Hoskins for example), but pornography is just a big no-no for a kid-friendly franchise and an unofficial wiki that is also kid-friendly.
 * 3) The reason this is owned by Nintendo is that they bought it out to prevent more entries coming out, as they apparently hadn't discovered that wonderful "sue" button they've used to take down far more quality-controlled fan games ever since.
 * 4) Not gonna lie, I would love if we had an article on that. It would be pretty funny and interesting. But it's not an official Mario product, despite Nintendo themselves owning the distribution rights. As such, I don't feel it deserves its own article. Rather, just a section in the bootlegs and knockoffs page we already have.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) - I'm going to oppose on the ground that from my understanding, Nintendo only bought the distribution rights and not the actual Super Hornio property (of course in practice, this is not that relevant of a distinction because only Nintendo has controls over wheter that is released). Because of that technicality, I think the way it's currently covered on the knockoffs page is the best (btw "Think of the children!" is a totally invalid reason)
 * 7) I think the brief description's enough, it is just a rip off and isn't part of the Mario series, so it definitely doesn't deserve an article of its own.
 * 8) Per all
 * 9) A) It's a bootleg. B) It is quite easily covered in List of Mario knockoffs acknowledged by Nintendo, so per all.
 * 10) Per all.

Comments
@Wildgoosespeed: We already cover it on the wiki. Also, the subject matter is irrelevant, as we're a wiki first and foremost (as the point was made on Bob Hoskin's page; we're not about to censor anything). Besides, have you read the draft? It's purely professional. 01:12, 12 November 2017 (EST)
 * The more you know, am I right? Still, I consider such coverage questionable. -- 01:14, 12 November 2017 (EST)
 * Official content is official content, no matter what form it takes. What should be debated here is whether or not it should be covered in full. For the moment, I'm leaning towards giving it a separate page, simply because it was bought by Nintendo and is therefore an official product. 01:20, 12 November 2017 (EST)
 * Legal definitions are messy. I mean, the Mario IP was licensed to those who made the Category:Edutainment Games for DOS, PC, NES, and SNES, but that doesn't mean that the games are owned by Nintendo are official. Maybe I am wrong about that. The point is the original author isn't Nintendo and yet giving credit to them as if they were because they bought the film rights isn't quite right to then label it as "official". Legalities isn't the only measure of being official. I think that Nintendo has long since forgotten those licensed instances of the Mario franchise. -- 01:34, 12 November 2017 (EST)
 * Yeah TT the only way it's official is that Nintendo literally owns it and tell me what does that really mean?

@TimeTurner: Oh. My bad. I had no idea. I should probably think twice before I start shooting my mouth off for no reason. 18:35, 12 November 2017 (EST)
 * Seems nobody actually read my post. If anyone paid attention, yes, I am WELL aware that it is a knockoff which was then bought by Nintendo to stop production. I had even put that in my draft I wrote before hand. I simply wanted to just create a full page for more coverage on the topic, but apparently so many people are "offended" by having a full page on it. (Howzit) 15.11.2017
 * That's very presumptuous of you. Note the various other reasons stated in the opposition. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 04:04, 16 November 2017 (EST)
 * Thanks, I can read. (Howzit) 15.11.2017
 * Well then you know that the opposition is coming from policy due to it not being within this wiki's coverage to support a full page, not due to people being "offended" by its content. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2017 (EST)

Bring back game-similarity charts
Okay, so anyone reading this probably doesn't know what I'm talking about. Let me give you an example. This was my first edit on the wiki. I fixed the chart under "gameplay menus". But now this chart and the other one are both gone. The editor that removed the charts gave a one-word summary: "Unnecessary". It has happened with Mario Golf (series), Mario Tennis (series), Mario Party (series), and several others. Why? "Unnecessary" is an unacceptable reason to remove such charts. As an encyclopedia and a wiki, we should never remove info because we classify it "unnecessary". An encyclopedia includes all obtainable information, necessary or unnecessary. Therefore we should stop the removal of these charts and bring them back.

Proposer: Deadline: November 20, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) Those charts don't give any information, they only show similarities between games. I don't see how they help to convey information and agree that they are (apologies in advance) unnecessary. If you can tell me how they are useful, I'll consider changing my vote.
 * 2) These charts are incredibly unwieldy and they make a shoddy attempt at comparing two different types of gameplay. It's uninformative, a messy way to organize comparisons, and simply writing similarities and comparisons in prose format is far more useful to the leader than creating a confusing table that lists elements that do not have anything in common with each other at all. Our gameplay sections in the way the articles are written are fine and are better than what they used to be.
 * 3) Per Baby Luigi.

Comments
Your edit link is fouled up. To get it to display the word This, remove the  and replace it with a space. Right now, the link not only looks wrong, it doesn't work right. 15:55, 13 November 2017 (EST) P.S. I noticed that your were trying to fix the  issue. That's a glitch that shows up all the time. To fix it, just throw some sort of code under the header. A colon works nicely, since it then doesn't actually show up on the page, but the header works right.

I kind of get why someone would want a quick 'n' easy way to check which Mario Tennis games (for an off-the-cuff example) allow mirro matches, but man, not like this. Ugly, IMAX-wide charts that only get uglier and bigger the more games are released. --Glowsquid (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2017 (EST)