MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/31

Remove level articles of levels that have names
This policy has been declared detrimental to the wiki. If anything, all levels should have their own article regardless of name.

There are no level articles for levels named 1-1 and 2-2, but there are articles for levels named Awesome and such. There have been proposals to create articles for the "non-named" levels, but they have been turned down. We want consistency right? So, I say keep consistency and merge, the "named" levels into their world articles. There isn't anything special about "named" levels besides the name. This level deserves an article as much as this one. So, as all else has failed before, neither of them deserve their own page. The only ones that should be kept are, obviously, places that have more than one level/boss fight in 3D platformers such as, Bob-omb Battlefield, Bianco Hills, Good Egg Galaxy, and Bowser in the Dark World. Easy enough to understand right?

Proposer: Deadline: September 2, 2012, 23:59 GMT Date Vetoed: September 3, 2012, 01:14 GMT

Support

 * 1) It's my proposal, so per myself.
 * 2) Consistency is best in this situation, I see nothing special of the two different level mentioned.
 * 3) - As I've said many times before (1: most recent, 2, 3, 4, 5: earliest), levels should not get separate articles. Putting the level information on the world articles streamlines navigation and it does away with the whole "named vs. no-name" inconsistency. It also means less stubs and walkthroughs alike; the former because they'll be merged (and hopefully the short sections will then be less daunting to expand than a whole page would be), and the latter because there's a lot less pressure to make overviews long if they're sections rather than pages. However, that doesn't mean that being turned into sections will get rid of info: sections can still be nice and juicy - we just don't want the fluff is all.
 * 4) Per Walkazo
 * 5) Per Walkazo.
 * 6) Per all
 * 7) Per Walkazo
 * 8) Per Walkazo
 * 9) Just because they have names doesn't mean they're special. Also, per Miss Walkazo.

Comments
All those areas you mentioned as keeping their articles could actually be considered to be the 3D equivalents of World articles (while the missions/episodes/whatever that happen in them would be the "Levels"), which makes things a lot more straightforward: Worlds get articles, Levels don't. -

So you want to merge all of the Super Mario World levels, right?
 * Yep. Worlds get Articles, Levels don't.
 * How about Yoshi's Island levels?
 * Please read my previous comment Worlds get Articles levels DON'T.

Puns on the Mario Party articles
This is something that was briefly discussed on the talk page of Mario Party Advance. On the articles that cover the various Mario Party games (listed in the comments section), there is a "Puns" section that list all the minigames that have puns in their names. The question is, should we remove these sections or should we keep them? In my opinion, they should be removed, because while a few of them are puns on songs and English idioms, most of them are, as one person put it, "so obvious an intoxicated monkey could figure them out". It's crude, but it's true. Not to mention that several of us have been going around to articles and removing obvious trivia pieces, so having entire lists of these seems odd to me.

Proposer: Deadline: September 3, 2012, 23:59 GMT

Remove Puns Section

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) per GreenDisaster.
 * 3) Per GD, but shouldn't this be in removals?
 * 4) - The puns are more appropriately placed on the minigame articles themselves: there's no reason to have them cluttering up the game pages too. (And per Koopa K in regards to the placement of this Proposal.)
 * 5) Per Walkazo.
 * 6) Per all, also, we could just add the info to the trivia sections of the games as well, if it's not there already.
 * 7) Per proposal. These sections are pretty pointless in my opinion.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) We should just change the title, so per
 * 10) The lists are pretty pointless and the section should just be labelelled 'minigames' anyway
 * 11) At first I was thinking no, but then after looking at the puns they are pretty obvious and are just taking up space. I don't really see anything informative about it that can be helpful to the game or player or can be of any help. I believe this case should be left to the player to decipher it like if their walking along and hear the real world counterpart that pun references to then they connect the logic, so I find no reason to keep it.

Keep Puns Section

 * 1) Even though some of the puns are plain simple and the less straight forward ones will still be put into the minigame articles, precious work was put into the project, work in which my opinion still doesn't deserve to be deleted. Yes, some are dead obvious, but since the Mario Party series attracts a younger audience, it might not be very obvious to them. EDIT: Per Technickal's comment below.
 * 2) Per my comment.

Comments
And here are the articles that will be affected.


 * Mario Party
 * Mario Party 2
 * Mario Party 3
 * Mario Party 4
 * Mario Party 5
 * Mario Party 6
 * Mario Party Advance
 * Mario Party DS
 * Mario Party 7
 * Mario Party 8
 * Mario Party 9

@JORDAN DEBONO It wouldn't be totally deleted just put into the minigame article.
 * Unless it's one of those obvious ones. And how in the world is the Mario series for ages 3+? Actually, how in the world would a three year-old come onto this wiki?
 * Yea, I don't think a 3-year old would be able to type yet.
 * Let alone read what's on the articles. Also, what work? The incredibly obvious ones required no work, and everything else only needed a quick Google search to find out.
 * Really obvious ones are like, Bombsketball pun on basketball, duh, Shy Guy Says, pun on Simon Says, again, duh.

Ok look the 3+ thing was just an exaggeration ALTHOUGH all those game have 3+ on the box so you never quite know. And where will the pun article go, inside the minigame article? I don't fully understand this. Also @GreenDisaster, I was offline at the time so I couldn't respond anyone.
 * Yes. If there is a pun in the name of a minigame, the pun is mentioned in the article of a minigame unless it's one of those really obvious ones. The only thing that will be lost is stuff that we were already trying to lose in the first place.

Well that does kind of change my initial reasoning although seeing that the odds are against me and Technickal I will continue to support my vote. Thanks anyway,
 * If you're going to continue opposing it, you should at least change your reasoning to acknowledge what I've told you.

All right, if you're going to go with that angle... Currently, several of us on the forums have agreed to remove any pieces of trivia that are speculation, dumb, coincidental, or, most relevantly, obvious. And like I said, the obvious ones required no work, and the others just required a quick Google search. Besides, the point of this proposal is to remove the list of puns from the articles. You can create a separate proposal and argue about the obvious trivia there, but right now, it's irrelevant.


 * You know what, this is getting a little too confusing for me. I'll see what Technickal has to say about it. If I like his reasoning, I'll keep my vote. If not, I'll go back to remaining neutral. I just opposed because of all the articles that were going to be affected, and I'm not a fan of huge changes like that.
 * But it won't be a huge change at all. Eleven articles are going to lose a relatively small section that was mostly pointless.
 * I will see what Technickal has to say, and then I will continue from there.
 * I don't see any reason we should delete this. Of course some are ridiculously obvious (Pier Pressure anyone?). But it's fine them being in both articles. I mean, what's the harm? I also agree with Jordan's reasoning, the puns list was part of not one, but ELEVEN articles, and we shouldn't just throw it all away. My point is, the puns list works; there's no point in changing it.
 * Technickal, let me ask you a question; What exactly is lost by removing the lists? All the minigame articles already have their respective puns in their articles, as long as they're not obvious ones, so all that's really being lost is bad information that some of us have already removed on several other articles.

Create a standard on Prima guides
Aight, I know this is somewhat minor, but it applies to multiple articles on the wiki, so it warrants more than a talk page proposal.. I suggest that we create a standard on whether or not Prima guides should even be mentioned in articles. Prima guides up until Galaxy were all unofficial; instead, Nintendo Power handled the official guides. If I remember correctly, New Super Mario Bros. was the final official guide produced by Nintendo Power. Please correct me if I'm wrong in saying that Galaxy was the first official Prima guide. I want this to be as accurate as possible.

But I digress. I believe we should decide whether or not to include Prima's information, prior to Galaxy, in articles on the wiki. For example, on the Gloomba page, it says "In the Prima Super Paper Mario strategy guide, it states that Gloombas have the ability to poison the player, although this is false." This would be deleted, since the Prima guide is unofficial. However, on the Preying Mantas page, it says "In the Prima Official Game Guide for Super Mario Galaxy 2, Preying Mantas are called Jammyfish." This would stay, since that particular Prima guide is the official guide. If anyone wants, I can post a list of current articles that would and would not be affected.

It is my opinion that we should omit all of Prima's information (prior to Galaxy). Many a mention of Prima guides on the wiki is something that the company incorrectly stated in their guide. I think it's redundant to state something that an unofficial source got wrong. Of course, if the official source was incorrect, it absolutely should be added, thus the "prior to Galaxy" bit.

Proposer: Proposed Deadline: September 17, 2012, 23:59 GMT Date Withdrawn: September 5, 2012, 10:36 GMT

Remove Prima Information Prior to Super Mario Galaxy

 * 1) - See my statement above. (Note: First, this proposal does not mean I'll become an active user again, so don't ask. Second, I'm going on vacation for a week during this proposal; I won't check on it during that time.)
 * 2) It took me a little while to understand what you were saying. Still, once I realized, I strongly support this. Would we use an unofficial source for games now? No. So why should we use an unofficial source for the games then? Simple, we wouldn't. (BTW, I think Super Paper Mario was last one Nintendo Power did that was official.)

Do Nothing

 * 1) - Some (a lot) of the Prima guides made before 2007 are official-those have "official [something] guide" on the cover (granted, that may be a silly standard, but otoh, Nintendo would have certainly grilled Prima if they were falsely claiming their material as officialy licensed). They're "less" official due to having an additional degree of separation from Nintendo, but stuff from a pre-2007 Prima guide can still be used when Nintendo Power doesn't give anything/nobody on the wiki owns the Nintendo Power guide. For example, the name for the Wario World midbosses come from the prima guide.
 * 2) Per Glowsquid.
 * 3) Per Glowsquid.
 * 4) - Per Glowsquid.
 * 5) – Per Glowsquid.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all.

Comments
@Koopa K: I'll clarify with examples. EDIT: Done. -

@Glowsquid: I see your point, but I think most of the Prima guides dodge legislation thanks to their claim of "Prima's Official Guide." Anyhow, I totally see your point on the Wario World thing, but that still leaves us with the multitudes of "Prima got this wrong lol" comments. Perhaps this should be a case by case application and not a proposal. In which case I'd rather just delete this than deal with the whole thing. -

Merge the various enemy categories from Super Mario World 2 to Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island
Edibilis Boringus, Harrassimentia Phlyoverus, Projectilia Ritebakatchia, Ucantia Defeatus, Dudim Phreykunoutonthis, Mostosti Vomitonus. These articles are incredibly short without even being stubs, and could very easily be merged into SMW2. There's really not much else to say.

Proposer: Deadline: September 7, 2012, 23:59 GMT

Merge

 * 1) I'm making a statement indicating that I support my proposal.

Don't Merge

 * 1) They are officially named enemy categories and I see no reason to merge them to the SMW2 article.
 * 2) Per Raven Effect.
 * 3) Per RF.
 * 4) Per Raven. Wouldn't we have to merge the DKC ones as well?
 * 5) Per Raven and Technickal.
 * 6) Per Raven Effect
 * No, no, no, no, no; like some others have stated, I find this to be a waste of time even doing this. It's fine as it is so far.

Comments
None of the articles are a stub, so why merge?
 * The articles are pretty underdeveloped, but that doesn't mean we have to merge them - it means we have to work harder on them.
 * Not only–note that they all have the same wording, just changed category name and enemy species. It's all like a recycling.

Proposals must pass by a Majority Rule
User:Koopa K/Draft

I can put a draft in if I want to right? Anyways, I know this was already proposed here by Super Mario Bros., but I liked the idea and changed his reasoning to hopefully satisfy the opposers. Anyways, I included a draft here to make it more clear what I am trying to say.Please read the draft before you make your vote!!! I couldn't make that previous statement more clear. "You don't have a reason" is not an acceptable oppose, because I do have a reason inside the draft. I just thought it would make it more clear. So, a brief summary would be proposals may only pass if more than half of the users voting support it. (This only affects proposals with 3 or more options.) Also, no option will be deleted under any circumstances.

Proposer: Deadline: September 10, 2012, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per the proposal and what's in the draft.
 * 2) - Per what I said on SMB's old proposal: "it'd be bad if we ever do get a circumstance where something passes without a majority ... It'd be better if the proposal [is] extended ... In other words ... all proposals [should] need a majority of the voters to support any one option before a decision is made, regardless of whether the choice is pass-fail, or [has more than two options] ... The overall gist could even be explained in the top box, rather than the rules ... instead of somewhat-vaguely saying we need a "consensus"".
 * 3) – Per the people above.
 * 4) Per Walkazo.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Seriously the pers (except for the proposer) gotta be limited and if there are enough support/oppose there is no need to post that vote if all you are going to say is per all.
 * 7) I supported the last time this was proposed and I support this one too.
 * 8) – Per proposal.

Comments
Nice to see this revisited. So would this mean a new bullet points gets added to the top box saying "All proposals must pass by a majority, including proposals with more than two options."? I don't think we'd have to go into detail beyond that up there. Then, we can expand Rule 8 to say that "All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week. Proposals with more than two options must also be extended if any single option does not have 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.", thus making sure we do elaborate on "majority" somewhere on the page. Rule 9 could also be elaborated upon to make sure that 3+ option proposals really do get clear majorities. I.e. "If a proposal has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail by a margin of three votes. In other words, one option must have 50% + 3 of all votes cast. This means that if a basic two-option proposal reaches the deadline and the total number of votes for each option differ by two or less votes, the deadline will be extended for another week. Proposals with more than two options require more precise counting of votes to determine if an extension is necessary." -
 * Yea, we can do all those things you mentioned.

Coming up with a more consistent standard for the Super Mario series
The Super Mario (series) page is not governed by a consistent definition for inclusion. In particular, the first two Super Mario Land games, Wario Land, and Yoshi's Island- all of which are included on the main Wikipedia page- are absent, and it seems to me that at least a few of these games would be included were the Mario Wiki community to agree upon a clear, consistent definition for what constitutes a Super Mario title. My proposed definition would be as follows:

A platformer, either 2D, 3D, or mixed; Made by Nintendo; Features "Super Mario" in the title; Stars Mario as a playable character

The major consequence of this new definition would be the inclusion of the first two Land games onto the Super Mario (series) page. Reasons that have been provided against this inclusion have, in my mind, been very weak. Examples would include:

"The game just doesn't *feel* like a Mario game." While it's true that the first two Super Mario Land games are unique, the same can be said of Super Mario Bros. 2 and Super Mario Sunshine, both of which are included on the (series) page.

"The two Super Mario Land titles were directed by Yokoi, not Miyamoto." Again, while this is true, it's a charge that could also be directed against other games on the (series) page, such as New Super Mario Bros. 2.

"The word 'Land' in the title tells us it's a separate sub-series." This isn't tenable for two reasons. First, it would open the door to take off many other games on the list (64, Sunshine, Galaxy) that don't carry the familiar Super Mario Bros. moniker; secondly, Super Mario 3D Land is included on the (series) page, meaning it would need to be removed in the name of consistency.

"The two Land games weren't included in the Anniversary Collection Booklet." Not only does the Mario Wiki make clear that the ACB carries no weight as a source for Super Mario canonicity, it would also leave us in the dark regarding later SM games. Should 3D Land be included? NSMB2? Leaning on the ACB defeats the purpose of establishing a clear definition for inclusion on the (series) page down the road.

It goes without saying that this isn't the only definition that could be used, but based on discussion with others, it seems to be the most reasonable first step. That said, I strongly encourage a reading of this topic from the Mario Boards, started by myself, which goes into some detailed discussion about the ambiguities on the (series) page and ways to fix it: http://www.marioboards.com/index.php?topic=20682.0

Proposer: Deadline: September 18, 2012, 23:59 GMT.

Support

 * 1) Consistency and clarity are essential.
 * 2) A written set of criteria is better than a literal nothing. Though I almsot abstained from voting as I don't think that specific page is even needed.

Oppose

 * 1) Per the arguments made in the thread you posted.
 * 2) LOL, Yoshi's Island and Wario Land aren't in there because THEY AREN'T MARIO GAMES. Just because they have "Super Mario" in the title does not mean its a Mario game.
 * 3) - Per my arguments in the thread (starting with this post), and in the Comments below (which is basically a summary of my posts). Also, this wouldn't just affect Super Mario (series): it also affects History sections, navigation template and categorization, Super Mario Land (series), Mario (franchise), and anything else that talks about the Super Mario or SML subseries - it's not a little change we're talking about here.
 * 4) – Per Walkazo.
 * 5) Per Walkazo.
 * 6) Per Walkazo.
 * 7) Per all
 * 8) – Per Walkazo.

Comments
This should be a regular proposal not a TPP.

I figured I'd make a mistake like this, although I tried to follow the guidelines as best I could. Moved to where I *believe* is the correct place... fingers crossed.


 * Big long rant time: I'm trying to reproduce my key points from the thread, so that it's all in one place, and after this, I (hopefully) won't be making any more big blocks of text (I already delayed studying by two hours for this: if I keep it up, I'll totally fail my tests... not to mention, put you all to sleep).
 * First of all, that Anniversary booklet is just as valid a source of info as any other officially-licensed product of Nintendo and we should use it as such (not "lean" on it, just use it as one of many things to consider when determining the series). Also, the fact that it can't tell us anything about what happened after its publication would be a ridiculous reason to write it off.
 * Secondly, the argument that keeping the SML games based on their name means SM3DL has to be removed too is rather flawed. For one thing, it doesn't contain "Super Mario Land" in its name, and even if it did, separating it would mean everything else about the game was ignored. The game wasn't designed as a continuation of the SML subseries: the plot, enemies and power ups are all Super Mario series staples, and the level designs (indeed, the game itself) are meant as an hybrid between the free-roaming 3D platformers and the linear sidescrollers of the Super Mario subseries, while the name is an homage to SML, nothing more. Clumping games into series requires looking at the game as a whole; if they share a common element in their name, that gives us official grounds to say "yes, this is a series", but we don't have to, and on the flip side, games with differences in their names don't have to be kept apart, but it gives us the means to do so if the big picture suggests that we should. The "Super Mario Land" name gave us a means to separate the games (while the games themselves provide the reasons to separate them, which I describe in the third-last paragraph), and while one could try to separate "Super Mario Bros." by the same logic, they and the other "Super Mario whatever" platformers (2D, 3D or otherwise) have so many common elements, the logic of separating them ends at the names.
 * Now, that's not to say there aren't differences within the subseries, of course. SMB2 was recycled from another game so its plot is admittedly a departure from the usual "save Peach" story, and SMS changed things up a little too, but unlike SML, many of the new species, characters and other aspects of these games reappeared in later Super Mario games (i.e. Bob-Ombs, Pokeys, Ninjis, Pidgits, Bowser Jr., Toadsworth, Cataquacks and the Piantas), with a number of other things becoming fixtures in the Mario universe as a whole (i.e. Birdos, Shy Guys, Petey Piranha, Gooper Blooper, Isle Delfino, Shine Sprites and F.L.U.D.D.), whereas SML and SML2 only gave us Daisy (who's not in any Super Mario games) and Wario (only in one Super Mario game: SM64DS). So no, the same can't be said for SMB and SMSs' uniqueness compared to the SML titles.
 * SML may have had the same "one-track sidescroller through various worlds to save a princess" outline as the SMB games of its era, but it used completely different characters, enemies, setting and gameplay elements (the vehicles and Super Ball). SML2 may have then brought familiar Super Mario species into the mix, but it had a whole new plot and a new "choose the world you want to do first" approach to the game. And, by the time we get to SML3, the subseries has morphed into a while new subseries: the Wario Land subseries, with a new protagonist along with a new plot, new enemies, new setting and new characters. WL:SML3 still has "Super Mario" in its name, but it's definitely not a Super Mario game anymore, and rather than splitting up the "SML" games in order to keep this last one out while the others remain nestled in the Super Mario subseries, giving them their own series allows the last installation to remain with the first two. And the three SML games should be kept together, not because of their names, and certainly not because of their gameplay (seeing as each one is radically different from the next), but because they are explicitly linked together by plot, with the "Story" section of the SML2 manual referencing SMLs plot, and SML3s manual referencing SML2 by name. That's more than enough reason to keep the three games together, and it's also another difference between them and the Super Mario games, which don't make nearly as much effort (if any at all) to link themselves to one another.
 * As for Yoshi's Island, it has the "egg-as-'o'" title logo that was established by the game Yoshi three years before SMW2:YI was released, making it part of the Yoshi series right from the get-go. Like the SML games, it wasn't in the Anniversary booklet, so we have evidence tat Nintendo doesn't consider it a Super Mario game (again, we wouldn't make a decision based on that, but a fact's a fact, and it should not be overlooked). And more importantly, it doesn't have much in common with the Super Mario titles from an in-game perspective: it has a completely new story and new gameplay, aspects of which are re-used in subsequent "Super Mario"-less Yoshi games, but not the Super Mario subseries. And it doesn't even fit your criteria properly, since it doesn't star Mario as the playable character: it stars a gang of Yoshis, with Baby Mario becoming playable for brief interludes with the Super Star item.
 * Aaannnnd, I think that's everything I need to say. Hopefully I didn't forget any key points... Anyway, that's all for now, thanks for reading. -
 * SML may have had the same "one-track sidescroller through various worlds to save a princess" outline as the SMB games of its era, but it used completely different characters, enemies, setting and gameplay elements (the vehicles and Super Ball). SML2 may have then brought familiar Super Mario species into the mix, but it had a whole new plot and a new "choose the world you want to do first" approach to the game. And, by the time we get to SML3, the subseries has morphed into a while new subseries: the Wario Land subseries, with a new protagonist along with a new plot, new enemies, new setting and new characters. WL:SML3 still has "Super Mario" in its name, but it's definitely not a Super Mario game anymore, and rather than splitting up the "SML" games in order to keep this last one out while the others remain nestled in the Super Mario subseries, giving them their own series allows the last installation to remain with the first two. And the three SML games should be kept together, not because of their names, and certainly not because of their gameplay (seeing as each one is radically different from the next), but because they are explicitly linked together by plot, with the "Story" section of the SML2 manual referencing SMLs plot, and SML3s manual referencing SML2 by name. That's more than enough reason to keep the three games together, and it's also another difference between them and the Super Mario games, which don't make nearly as much effort (if any at all) to link themselves to one another.
 * As for Yoshi's Island, it has the "egg-as-'o'" title logo that was established by the game Yoshi three years before SMW2:YI was released, making it part of the Yoshi series right from the get-go. Like the SML games, it wasn't in the Anniversary booklet, so we have evidence tat Nintendo doesn't consider it a Super Mario game (again, we wouldn't make a decision based on that, but a fact's a fact, and it should not be overlooked). And more importantly, it doesn't have much in common with the Super Mario titles from an in-game perspective: it has a completely new story and new gameplay, aspects of which are re-used in subsequent "Super Mario"-less Yoshi games, but not the Super Mario subseries. And it doesn't even fit your criteria properly, since it doesn't star Mario as the playable character: it stars a gang of Yoshis, with Baby Mario becoming playable for brief interludes with the Super Star item.
 * Aaannnnd, I think that's everything I need to say. Hopefully I didn't forget any key points... Anyway, that's all for now, thanks for reading. -
 * As for Yoshi's Island, it has the "egg-as-'o'" title logo that was established by the game Yoshi three years before SMW2:YI was released, making it part of the Yoshi series right from the get-go. Like the SML games, it wasn't in the Anniversary booklet, so we have evidence tat Nintendo doesn't consider it a Super Mario game (again, we wouldn't make a decision based on that, but a fact's a fact, and it should not be overlooked). And more importantly, it doesn't have much in common with the Super Mario titles from an in-game perspective: it has a completely new story and new gameplay, aspects of which are re-used in subsequent "Super Mario"-less Yoshi games, but not the Super Mario subseries. And it doesn't even fit your criteria properly, since it doesn't star Mario as the playable character: it stars a gang of Yoshis, with Baby Mario becoming playable for brief interludes with the Super Star item.
 * Aaannnnd, I think that's everything I need to say. Hopefully I didn't forget any key points... Anyway, that's all for now, thanks for reading. -
 * Aaannnnd, I think that's everything I need to say. Hopefully I didn't forget any key points... Anyway, that's all for now, thanks for reading. -

Re: KoopaK's opposition -> Respectfully, you've failed to grasp the opening arguments. The point of this proposal is that the Super Mario (series) page needs to adopt a clear and consistent standard- whatever that standard may be. Perhaps you believe the Super Mario moniker is enough to constitute a SM game; perhaps Mario needs to be a playable character; perhaps you have a radically different standard in mind. What needs to be implemented is a standard, and the one I've provided- which only adds the two Super Mario Land games, not Wario Land or Yoshi's Island- seems like a small but productive first step towards some much-needed consistency.

Re: Walkazo's opposition -> I've addressed your points at length elsewhere, so rather than repeat myself, I'll simply target the few concrete points you make (as that wall of text is absolutely swimming in ambiguity and subjectivity save for a handful of arguments) to demonstrate why there's little substance to your multi-variable, "cladogram" approach.

1) The ACB booklet is either a) an authoritative source for determining which games are SM games, or b) not an authoritative source for determining which games are SM games. There is no middle ground. Because the Mario Wiki makes clear that no source is more "canon" than any other, the necessary conclusion is that the ACB should be treated as non-authoritative for the purpose of canonized compilation. And again, even if it were treated as authoritative, it would still be silent on later games- meaning we'd need to come up with a clear definition anyway.

2) The rest of your rambling boils down to two points of focus, neither of which are remotely objective: feel and impact. The difference between Super Mario Land and Super Mario Bros. 2, you say, is that the latter introduced new things that became staples of the series; it doesn't matter if SML fits the common-sense criteria for a Super Mario game (name, genre, playable character, developer), since, according to your definition, the game didn't have enough lasting impact to warrant inclusion. If you want to be consistent, however, this feel / impact approach is still going to demand some pretty major changes on the Super Mario (series) page. Take Super Mario Sunshine, for example: doesn't feel a thing like Mario 64, and didn't have a lasting impact on the Super Mario series. Why is it on the series page? Or take a game like Super Mario Land 2: feels very similar to a traditional SM platformer, and did have a lasting impact on the Mario franchise in the form of Wario. Or what about a game like 3D Land? The series has never had a hybrid 2D/3D platformer before, and as the game introduced little new- it was largely a SMB3 homage- those same "feel" and "impact" arguments could be leveled here as well. There's a woeful lack of consistency in your approach. Which brings me to my third point...

3) You continue even now, weeks after our first exchange, to ignore my requests for providing any clear definition for what games to include on the Super Mario (series) page. Leaning on rhetorical flourishes like "Consider all the factors!" may make your arguments persuasive to some, but it also makes them hollow, and if the Mario Wiki values clarity and consistency- and I can't imagine any reason it wouldn't- you need to make your standard clear. Is your standard complicated? That's fine. Is your standard multi-variable? That's fine. Tell us what it is.

4) Lost in Walkazo's ramblings is that I'm *not* advocating including Wario Land / Yoshi's Island into the Super Mario (series) page. Only the first two Super Mario Land games will be added. I do wish people would make sure to read the opening post carefully before commenting or voting.

Just one question: Isn't any criteria we come up with for determining what belongs in the Super Mario series inevitably going to be fan based? I know Nintendo cannot be expected to fill in the gaps every single time, but still it seems like we're just accepting/rejecting things into the Super Mario series based on our personal perceptions of what a Super Mario series game should be. I don't think it's a really important page, it's in that weird zone between Mario (franchise) and the respective sub-series like the Super Mario Bros. (series). I'm not arguing whether or not Nintendo considers Super Mario to be a separate series (because it's pretty clear that they do), but given the ambiguity what belongs in the series, I wouldn't mind if it was scrapped altogether.-- 00:53, 12 September 2012 (EDT)

Re: Knife -> You're right in that any standard we use is going to be unofficial, but assuming the Super Mario (series) page stays up (since this particular proposal doesn't question the merits of the page), the choice for now is one between a) an explicit, consistent definition, or b) something else. You'll also note that, as of writing, no standard has been given by the other side. Which means there are only a few possibilities for explaining the status quo: 1) There isn't currently a consistent definition for the Super Mario (series) page; 2) There is a consistent definition, but individual members are unwilling or unable to make it publicly explicit; 3) There is a standard, but it isn't consistent. Those voting for the Opposition should seriously reflect on how allowing this kind of ambiguity (whereas even the main Wikipedia page adopts a clear, consistent standard) will reflect on the integrity of the Mario Wiki, since I can't for the life of me think of any other such list that would go to such trouble to avoid definitional clarity.


 * Sorry about the Yoshi's Island thing (including it was partially me covering all the bases, but I also forgot about your third line by the time and was just using the opening line as reference by that point), but I didn't think you were trying to include Wario Land in there: hence I said "rather than splitting up the "SML" games in order to keep this last one out", i.e. rather than your strategy, which would merge the first two into the Super Mario subseries and leave the third one out. But speaking of extra games, doesn't the "made by Nintendo" criteria exclude Super Mario Bros. Special and All Night Nippon Super Mario Bros., since, to my knowledge, they were just licensed by Nintendo? That point either needs clarification or you need to add those games to the list of changes. You also need to start using "canon" the same way as the wiki: being "canon" just means that it's official - it has nothing to do with being authoritative, and it does not come into play when dividing up the official info into subseries (from Canonicity: "The canon of a franchise is a system of classification that separates official media products from unofficial media products [...] Any officially licensed appearance [...] are considered official [and] all official sources can be considered canonical and should be treated as such by all users [...] However, this does not mean any source of information is more canonical than the other. In no way should the organization of wiki articles be considered an assertion of what is canon in the Mario series."). The booklet is official so it is canon and we can use that information, however it is not all or nothing, since we still have the ability to make organizational decisions given the sometimes-conflicting info at hand; that's why we can separate things like King Boo (Super Mario Sunshine) from King Boo: the English name's the same, but everything else is different, so we decided they are different, and used the fact that their Japanese names are different as official grounds for splitting the page accordingly (both names are "canon", but one makes more organizational sense than the other). As for the rest of the discussion, I stand by my argument that what constitutes a Super Mario game can't be boiled down to a single elegant line; I agree that the games need to be (officially-licensed) platformers that include Mario as a playble character and which have "Super Mario" in their names in order to be Super Mario games, but the standard should not end at that. The enemy/character/whatever roster, plot and gameplay (power ups, stage select, whatever) are just as important to consider as those "must have" criteria (and some of it, like how many enemies reappear, could even be boiled down to cold hard numbers and not just qualitative observations), but either way, I disagree that looking at all the variables and making grouping decisions based on the number of similarities and differences that occur in those variables from game to game should be written off as inconsistent "rambling". The more info that is taken into account the better, because the resulting group members will have more in common with all the other members than if a broader definition was used and included less-closely-related subjects. Finally, regarding Knife's comment, having the "Super Mario" games grouped together is very useful for History sections as it keeps the main, popular platformers together, up at the top of the Histories, rather than letting the newer sets of games get buried under all the random spin-offs.-

Re: Walkazo -> No worries about the Yoshi's Island / Wario Land mix-up; I just wanted to make clear that those games are not in line to be added with this new definition if accepted. Just the first two Land games, by nature of their genre, developer, title, and playable character. The new definition would indeed exclude SMBS and ANNSMB as being "unofficial" Mario games, in the same vein as Hotel Mario, but I considered this a minor change (the one major change being, as I mentioned previously, the addition of the first two Land titles). Only two more points to address here:

1) Returning to the ACB, it is not "canon" in the sense that I'm using the word: namely, that it does not operate as an authoritative source on which games are Super Mario titles and which aren't. If it were, then we'd be left in the dark not only regarding the games released after the ACB, but also regarding remakes and ports, which go unmentioned (Super Mario 64 DS, Super Mario Bros. Game & Watch, etc.)- not to mention SMBS and ANNSMB would also find themselves excluded.

2) Your "holistic" approach comes at the price of inconsistency, subjectivity, and lack of clarity / verifiability. I do appreciate your honesty with this last post, because you yourself have now made clear that the Super Mario (series) page is currently organized without clear standards. Never mind arguments that the definition may be complicated or multi-variable; as of right now, a definition doesn't even exist. Though you're free to provide one at any time, it doesn't seem like that's a priority for you.

This is where argument ends and where opinion begins: either you opt for a standard that is without clear definition or consistency and operates based on "feel," or else you opt for a standard that sets up some reasonable, but clear and consistent, conditions for being considered a Super Mario game proper. [In other words, this is the main Wikipedia approach vs. the current Mario Wiki approach.] There's nothing else I can add on the matter beyond the observation that many people- much more than I expected- seem content to accept a status quo that lacks any kind of structure. A few days left, so we'll see where people fall on this dispute.


 * I say again, you should really use "canon" the way it's supposed to be used around here: using a unique definition for a buzzword like that is potentially misleading to voters. The argument is over, but I would like to point out that qualitative decisions are not necessarily inconsistent and unclear if they're done right (i.e. is all the games get the same criteria put to them). Besides, while the threshold of how different one game is to the rest is subjective, a lot of the criteria that are innately being taken into consideration when deciding "is SML too different to be a SM game?" are just as cut-and-dry as "is Mario playable?" (i..e Luigi? yes/no? Peach? damsel/playable/no. Plot = save Peach? yes/no/different princess. Setting = Mushroom Kingdom/other. Super Mushrooms? yes/no/different function. % of enemies that appear in other "SM" games?). Given enough time one could map all these details out and come up with some arbitrary numerical cut-off for how many differences a game can have, or whatever, but that's tedious and unnecessary when we can simply do it in our heads. It may not be a concise definition, but it's worked for years, and I think it can continue to work for the wiki. -

Seeing as I've been extremely clear as to what I mean by "canon," I doubt anyone is confused. Although since we're on the topic of misleading voters, I should mention that you continue to tiptoe around the fact that you haven't provided a standard. You're right that a complex definition can be made, but you've yet to do so, and this "holistic" approach is a tidy way to dodge the question. As I said before, it seems clear that consistency isn't a priority for this Wiki, which is disappointing to say the least; I'd expect a Wiki dedicated to the Mario games to at least meet the standards of clarity of the official Wikipedia page. As you said, though, this confused approach has been the standard here for quite some time, so it'd make sense that people would be resistant to change; it's just too bad that the change in question is a clear positive. EDIT 2: Just got a moderator warning for something waaaaaaaay less confrontational than my first edit here, so better safe than sorry. Let's just leave my closing thoughts at this: even still, no standard has been provided. Walkazo's argument is as follows:

1. We don't have an explicit standard for what constitutes a Super Mario game, so we'll evaluate things based on "impact" and "feel." 2. What is this standard, you ask? idk lol

This particular proposal submission won't go through, but hopefully it will sit with people, get their minds churning a bit, and realize that the current approach is irredeemably flawed.

Allow quotes on non-character articles
The templates and  have an important purpose on character pages, where they give a brief insight to the character's personality and/or traits. However, there are many non-character article subjects where a relevant quote can apply. But as per an unwritten, recommended guideline, these templates are restricted to character articles. I feel that we have a greater extent for the use of quotes beyond the character aspect. On a personal account, I have added quotes to non-character articles where I saw relevance, and they were promptly removed (see here and here), with the collective reason for the removals being the template is reserved for character articles. I wish to propose against the overall guideline for the quote templates. I believe if there is a readily available, strictly relevant quote that pertains to a specific non-character article, then it should have a place on that article.

Proposer: Deadline: September 19, 23:59 GMT

Support (allow quotes in accordance to the described regulations)

 * 1) Per my proposal.
 * 2) Per YoshiKong.
 * 3) I'm questioning this even being a proposal as the "rule" is not actually written anywhere and only one user "enforce" it. Either way, asinine stuff.
 * 4) Per Glowsquid.
 * 5) Glowsquid has made an excellent point. Per Glowsquid
 * 6) If it's an unwritten rule, then it can't be enforced. Also, per Glowsquid.
 * 7) – Enforcing a rule that isn't written? How stupid! Per all, mostly Glowsquid.
 * 8) I'm a personal lover of quote usage on wikis and don't see why they should be limited to character articles
 * 9) - I'm not a fan of quotes being added for the sake of having a quote, but as long as the quote is indeed relevant, it could add interest to the article, so no point eliminating that possibility outright. However, I don't think in-game quotes would be the best use of the feature: both examples provided in the Proposal struck me as unnecessary, but promotional things like the slogans on the console pages work well, and so could comments on the game's development or impact.
 * 10) Per Walkazo.

Comments
Maybe it's okay to put quotes on character and item articles, but having them at the top of a game article seems tacky to me IMO. But as far as I know we don't have an enforced policy about it either way.-- 09:46, 12 September 2012 (EDT)


 * It's one of those unwritten rules. Perhaps game articles can be an exception to the proposal. However, throughout the article Wario Land II, there are some quotes in the sections of the articles, where they back up what is explained in that section. Would this be accepted?

Merge All Game Modes Into Their Respective Game Articles They Appear In
This a matter that has become very important recently, because I've seen users making game modes in articles of their own and has created some incosistency on game articles that have their modes within - in special those latest game articles like Mario Party 9 ' s modes, New Super Mario Bros. 2 ' s Coin Rush, and New Super Mario Bros. U ' s Boost Mode. Aside of the fundamental issue, the game articles are becoming less lenghty and less deep in information without them, and look also incomplete without all the info the game modes provide just for the sake of making an article for them and because game articles are overly long. Another fact is we don't have categories for game modes, and thus, users make up for adding game mechanics categories (and as a rule of thumb, game mechanics are for gameplay options like movesets, strategies, and whatnot) and in the worst of the cases cataloguing as mini-games, and technically they aren't mini-games, they are game modes, unless Nintendo or the game itself tells that way - if the game officially calls them mini-game, then they will have their own article but otherwise won't.

Actually a solution, if we can merge the game modes into the game articles is simply rewritng all the section, making it less wordy and keeping the essential to prevent that users consider the game article "just too long".

Another solution is to make a new feature to trait game modes, creating a category (clearly called "") to keep them. However, treating game modes articles in this way may create a radical change over other games that also have game modes, for example, the Mario sport games, Mario Kart games and many other games (modes such as Balloon Battle, Time Trial, Story Mode, etc.).

Proposer: Deadline: September 22, 2012, 23:59 GMT.

Don't merge game modes

 * 1) Some game modes, including the second one you mentioned are very far from the "minor subject" state and are pretty significant.
 * 2) Per MarioSmasher and the reason I opposed to merge Coin Rush with New Super Mario Bros. 2.

Create Game modes category

 * 1) This way can solve the problem... Though creating a proposal for a category shouldn't be necessary, but well.

Comments
@Mariosmasher, The fact that a game mode articles is in general long does not make it relevant as to have its own page. Additionally I never said that are a minor subject, they must need a proper treat that settles everything.
 * I know I pointed something that you didn't say, but the fact you want all game modes be merged in their respective games may count as saying "nearly every minigame is about a minor subject". -- 09:30, 16 September 2012 (EDT)

As a general rule, topics should receive their own articles (as long as a decent amount of information can be put together). This is perfect usage of the empty section policy and article size policy that we're not just throwing all that specific info on the page about the game. -- 16:37, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

We've always had game modes being merged with the respective game article. @Porplemontage: I don't think that applies to game pages because if you split off the story, game modes, reviews, etc. what you have left is a fancy template page. Even Wikipedia retains some sections on their video game articles and they're all about splitting stuff.-- 23:19, 20 September 2012 (EDT)

Overturn Excessive Userspace Regulations and Improve Ability to Log and Enforce Userpage Editing Rules
I would like to suggest that we overturn some regulations on the userspace of the wiki that I feel that, although once had a legitimate purpose on the wiki, now might serve as an obstruction to editing or are simply no longer necessary to enforce.

Userspace Policies
 * "A navigation template for the talk page archives (This can only be made if it's used on all the archives; if you only want to put the directory on your current page, just build it right into your talk page, rather than creating a whole separate template.)" (section) &mdash; This proposal calls for the elimination of the bolded part. I think that whether a user wants to use the page on all or one of their user talk pages is their decision. The navigation template would exist no matter what, so it is pointless to involve ourselves with the enforcement of such minutia when we have better things to focus on as a community.
 * Would be rewritten as: "A navigation template for the talk page archives."
 * "A status page (Like the archive template, this should only be made if it's meant to be used on multiple pages; if it's only going to go on the userpage or the user talk page, just build the message into the page itself.)" (section) &mdash; Would be overturned as per my reasons for overturning the same rule that this one references.
 * Would be rewritten as: "A status page."
 * "Pages that are just meant to be transcluded onto another page (I.e. a status update that only goes on one page, a subpage that just contains the userbox tower, or some other component of the userpage: just put the content on the page directly. If you find that it makes your userpage too cluttered, consider lessening the amount of content.)" (section) &mdash; This is sort of a silly policy when used to cover all said pages. Users should not be forced to trim down their pages (for example, sometimes coding gets long for a small aspect of the userpage– sometimes it is simpler to outsource these longer components of the userpage to a sub-page in order to reduce clutter). If it makes editing the userpage easier and makes it neater and more trim, I think that is something that should be encouraged as it makes sifting through these pages easier for all parties involved (the user the page belongs to, administrators having to perform maintenance on a userpage, etc.). Anything that would not belong on a user sub-page would already be covered by other policies (such as whether it contributes to the wiki or community in any fashion, if it is spam, etc.).
 * Would not immediately be replaced with anything.
 * The creation of another proposal that specifies certain instances in which a page should not be created for the sole purpose of being transcluded onto another one (which are not clearly defined in the "What should I avoid?" section) is suggested in order to close potential loopholes that could lead to abuse.
 * "Archives of deleted content (If something you want to keep is being deleted, save it on your computer - it has no place here anymore.)" (section) &mdash; I do not think that this should be specifically disallowed, but that restrictions perhaps be put on it. For example, storing deleted content for the sake of storing it should be disallowed as, at that point, it is spam content (already covered by other restrictions). However, if there are ongoing changes being made to an archive of a once-existent article in order to perhaps revive discussion on its legitimacy or whatnot, that should be allowed.
 * Would not be replaced with anything.
 * "Pages that do not serve the Super Mario Wiki (I.e. fiction, opinion pieces, polls, sign-up sheets, additional information about yourself, etc.: please restrict these sorts of user-content to your main userpage. When in doubt, ask an admin, or simply err on the side of caution and do not create a new subpage.)" (section) &mdash; Same reasons as provided for the first three points. Anything that does not belong on the wiki will also have already been banned as per userspace content restrictions.
 * Would be rewritten as: "Pages that do not serve the Super Mario Wiki (see below for the sorts of things you shouldn't be doing here at all). When in doubt, ask an admin, or simply do not add content or create a subpage."
 * "Excessive swearing" (section) &mdash; Rather than outright ban it, I think we could instead place restrictions on swearing, such as perhaps requiring userpages with strong swear words to display a warning notice at the top or to find a way to make viewing these words optional. Repetitive and mindless use of such words would, of course, constitute spamming (as covered in that same section) anyway, and could potentially also violate the "flaming and defamation" policy.
 * Would be rewritten as: "Excessive swearing (unless a disclaimer is placed at the top of the page or the swearing is somehow hidden from immediate view)."
 * An advanced template that can be used to hide away strong language can be developed for those who are more familiar with syntax.
 * "Mainspace templates (while you can't post actual templates, you can copy the codes of things like infoboxes and repurpose them for your page; warning templates may not be copied, however)" (section) &mdash; I feel that the copying of warning template codes should be allowed for testing purposes only. Any other uses would violate already-existing policies on the warning templates and joke warning notices.
 * Would be rewritten as: "Mainspace templates (while you can't post actual templates, you can copy the codes of things like infoboxes and repurpose them for your page; warning templates may only be copied for testing purposes and must be restricted to a specific test subpage or section)."

Signature Policies
 * "Your signature must link to your userpage. It can also have links to your talk page, contributions, etc., but never to other users' pages. You may have a maximum of five word links, internal or external, including the mandatory user page link." (section) &mdash; The only thing I suggest for this is that the obvious exception to non-existent userpages be codified. Other than that, I have nothing to suggest for this policy.
 * Would be rewritten as: "Your signature must link to your userpage (the only exception is in the case that you do not have a userpage at all). It can also have links to your talk page, contributions, etc., but never to other users' pages. You may have a maximum of five word links, internal or external, including the user page link."

In addition to the proposed overturns or amendments to those policies, I would like to provide for provisions that increase the transparency of changes made by the administrative team to userspace policies, and also allow for the improvement of being able to track down changes made to the userspace policies.


 * A log must be created and maintained that contains an extensive record of new policies that are implemented that affect the userspace that includes what the policy does, how it effects the community, the date of when it is/was approved and/or implemented, and citing any publicly available discussions behind the policy.
 * Any and all new userspace policies enacted by the administration must be logged by the administration in the public log that is to be created.
 * Any and all userspace policies enacted via proposal or decided upon by the community at-large must also be logged. The entry in this log must also link to the proposal itself that made the change effective.
 * Administrators may not edit anybody's userpages or sub-userpages except for in the cases of performing a maintenance task, enforcing the rules that bind said pages, or upon request of the user that the page is assigned to.

Finally, for the purposes of simplicity, any current userspace rule that is overturned in this proposal will not be "un-applied" post de facto (which means any changes made under said rules will be kept and not undone- the reversals will simply provide that the rule will no longer be actively enforced). New userspace policies and restrictions proposed can, however, be made to apply to all appropriate situations.

Thank you for your time.

Proposer: (with modifications suggested by  and  in the comments section, as well as various changes suggested by the Wiki Administrative Board) Deadline: September 27, 2012, 23:59 GMT.

Endorse

 * 1) &mdash; Per me.
 * 2) Per proposal. We may be allowing a bit more freedom throughout certain aspects of the userspace, but in my opinion, it is all very logical and fair.

Comments
I think the userspace log is a great idea. Perhaps it can be expanded to include all policy in general. I agree with most of the changes to userspace, and that one change to the signature policy. But I feel that we shouldn't be allowed to create userspace templates for just the userpage. Also, excessive swearing shouldn't be allowed, and the need to hide any offensive comments through coding could be frustrating to users new to wiki syntax.
 * Thanks! And yeah, that is something I would like to be extended to other sets of policies, but for now I think the userspace is probably a good first place to start (for the purposes of this proposal, at least). The reason I suggest removing the limitations from the single-purpose templates is to alleviate space from the user articles and allow editing to become easier. I understand the logic behind the current rule is to prevent unnecessary sub-pages and also to prevent information being scattered everywhere, but I feel that those principles can still be sensibly implemented through spam rules on the userspace policy (as well as other restrictions present in the rule page there). Outsourcing certain information (such as complex coding) can be useful and can allow for us to be able to find problems more quickly (for example, coding on a really long article can take a long time to find&mdash; having them on sub-pages can alleviate this problem by allowing somebody to work with a smaller amount of text and such). I just want to provide the users with that sort of choice in order for them to do what they feel is right. Also, with the swearing rule, I again feel that the same principle can be applied through other rules (namely the spam and flaming rules). Otherwise, if it is not intended to be mindless junk or to offend people, that is where the notices could come into play&mdash; whether it be through fancy coding to block out particular words, or a simple "Warning: This page contains strong language" notice at the top. Of course, I am still open to discussing this, though, so if you still have concerns, feel free to bring them up. :P 00:02, 20 September 2012 (EDT)
 * Hey. I can see single-transclusion userspace templates being allowed, but, (just as a suggestion) we should have restrictions, so users won't see a lot of freedom in that area and create excessive subpages. Large parts of userbox coding should be acceptable, such as the userbox tower. But we should limit miscellaneous subpages such as personal infoboxes, page background code, etc. About the swearing, like you said, as long as any swearing/profanity is not singled out on any particular user, and it keeps to a level where it's not ridiculously excessive, then it should be allowed. A good mainspace example to giving a choice as to hide swearwords can be seen here. But if these new regulations are to come into play, we should organise a simple template that is to be placed at the top of any potentially-offensive page. And we should keep an advanced template which can hide specific words for more syntax-capable users. But other than that, I agree with your proposed changes. Cheers, SMB.

I don't see the problem with specifically addressing "Pages that do not serve the Super Mario Wiki" in the subpage section in addition to the overall "don't do this" section. Rather than redundancy or repetition, I view it as emphasis, and there's nothing wrong with that. However, the point could be modified to say "see below for the sorts of things you shouldn't be doing here at all" rather than "please restrict these sorts of user-content to your main userpage" (which doesn't work if transcluding subpages are allowed again), and maybe the "err on the side of caution" bit could then say "do not add content or create a subpage". I'm also leery about removing the "excessive swearing" point: just because a lot of it could be covered by the spam and flaming rules, ensuring that nothing undesirable gets through the cracks with a general moratorium is a good thing - although I'd be fine with adding, for example, "(unless a disclaimer is placed at the top of the page)" to the point (not that defending people's right to swear excessively is particularly high on my list of concerns, tbh). I also agree with YoshiKong that specifying limitations on transcluded subpages (and userspace templates, which are basically the same thing anyway) would be a good idea, rather than simply removing the rule outright and opening the system up for abuse: most users will be reasonable on their own, but it's good to have solid ammo to stop the one or two troublemakers. Similarly, rather than removing the "warning templates may not be copied, however" bit, adding "(except for testing purposes restricted to a specific test subpage or section)" to the rule would be better - I'm not sure if that's what you intended all along (the bold is vague), so I'd figure I'd address it specifically, and also add the subpage bit to ensure the wiggle room couldn't be abused. Again, like the transclusion stuff, I'm sure most people will be responsible with the templates, but it never hurts to be sure; imo, the best rules are the ones that only need to be used in emergencies. -

I made various changes to the proposal to perhaps make it more acceptable or clear in some cases. Unless I missed something, I tried to meet all of the suggestions in this comments section except for specifying limitations on transcluded userspace pages&mdash; this is because I feel that doing so might be more appropriate for another proposal instead (in fact, I decided to include a point specifically suggesting the creation of such a proposal that covers the topic further in depth). Other than that, if there are more comments, keep them coming! :) 01:17, 21 September 2012 (EDT)
 * Much clearer, thank you. However, I still think some specifics should be included in the subpage point: namely, fiction, since that's the type of subpage that pops up most often. Perhaps the parenthetical bit could be changed to "(i.e. works of fiction, polls or opinion pieces; see below for other types of content that aren't allowed on the wiki)". Also, rather than calling for another proposal about the transcluded pages, maybe just say that the restrictions will be decided later: whatever we come up with shouldn't be too limiting anyway (just a means to stop abuse), and this way, we could avoid another whole proposal if we feel that no reasonable opposition will crop up. -

Hi. I might be thinking ahead here, but I have had an idea as to hide profanity from public view, and to give a choice as to view them. Check it out as User:YoshiKong/Template:Swear, and please tell me what you think. Also, I think it's fair that this proposal be extended for another week, since it has mainly been discussion. - 22:14, 25 September 2012 (EDT)

Flat deadlines for (un)featuring nomination pages
The featured articles policy page states that a nomination fails if it has "one month of inactivity" or "[has been there] for 4 months and the oppose to support ratio is 5:1". These two rules don't work.

1: The stated four month deadline is way too generous for a 5:1 ratio. Invariably, such a large ratio means only the nominator and his sockpuppets are interested in featuring the article and that nothing is being done to improve it. Having a generous time window doesn't change that.

2;The inactivity rule is totally worthless because of how the system works. A nomination that's opposed 32-1 and hasn't been edited for nearly a month can get "reset" and linger on for another (or two, three) month because someone saw fit to add another useless oppose vote.

This leads to ridiculous situations like this thing being opposed 10 to 1 for nearly all of its lifetime and yet only being legibly archivable today. Normally I wouldn't care, but this means the targeted articles are adorned with evil, evil eyesores for the entire duration of the bloated process.

So what do I propose instead? Quite simply, have a flat, two months deadline that's not influenced by anything. It's a far simpler, less drawn-out process and the deadline doesn't even need to be inputted manually, as the coding for calculating it automatically can be easily added to the FANOMSTAT template.

Proposer: '' Deadline: October 31 2012, 23:59 GMT.

Have a flat, two month deadline for featured and unfeatured articles nominations

 * 1) - what I said.
 * 2) Per proposal. I agree that four months is a bit stretched out.
 * 3) Glowsquid's proposal sounds reasonable.
 * 4) Per proposal.
 * 5) Per proposal. I don't find it fair that an article can't be featured because one person opposes.
 * 6) Per all. Why is that even A RULE?!?!? This is totally changable, legit. How long has it even been like this?
 * 7) Per all, although I'd like to see stricter limitations on support-oppose ratios when it comes to certain nominations like this one in addition.
 * 8) Per proposal.
 * 9) Just wondering, but I thought we eliminated that one month of inactivity rule a long time ago with a proposal that sets out for four months in the first place.
 * 10) Per all
 * 11) I agree to this proposal. It's sure to help if it passes.
 * 12) Per proposal
 * 13) Per proposal.
 * 14) It is obvious we need this.
 * 15) &mdash; Per proposal.

Comments
Makes sense if it works like proposals do. Why did we even make it like that in the first place?
 * I honestly don't know why either. I guess it was different back then or something.
 * Ok thx.

Wait, if the rule is 4 months (soon to be 2) shouldn't this nomination be removed?


 * The rule starts as soon as this proposal passes. So it should take another 2 months.

@Tails777: Glowsquid didn't say what you said on the proposal would be changed.

Remove Sprites From Galleries
I've been looking at some galleries, and I've noticed that almost each one consists of sprites. These sprites are small pictures that are no where near big enough to fit inside the size of a gallery picture box. The image appears blurry, which makes it hard to see. Most of the sprite's quality in a gallery is horrible. They shouldn't be in a gallery due to this and the fuzzy appearance. Instead, these sprites should go on an article under the game it pertains to. For example, a sprite of Mario in New Super Mario Bros. 2, will go on Mario's page under its respective game. I'm not saying that these sprites are useless, just their presence in a gallery should be ceased due to bad quality, fuzzy appearances, and redundancy. By redundancy, I mean that their are multiple sprites of a character in some galleries. I will make to voting sections: Remove Sprites From Galleries and Keep Sprites in Galleries.

Proposer: Deadline: November 12, 2012 23:59 GMT

Remove Sprites From Galleries

 * 1) Per proposal. Also, these sprites will be kept, just removed from galleries because they appear blurry. I also don't feel a gallery needs sprites. I think artwork, screenshots, and promotional artwork is enough categories to keep a gallery in good shape.

Keep Sprites in Galleries

 * 1) I think sprites should have a place in our image galleries. It is the best place to keep them all together.
 * 2) Galleries are a location where images can be neatly gathered.  It wouldn't be good having a bunch of them just strewn across the page. Also, per YoshiKong who managed to ninja me.
 * 3) Per Anton
 * 4) – Per all.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Sprites are another type of art. Sprites are also official representations of characters in the games. Since they are official and relevant to the article, they should stay. And besides, removing sprites is a very broad thing. It would not only affect articles with "bad" quality sprites (even though those "sprites" are the best quality they can get), but it would also affect articles with the best quality sprites. Think Mario & Luigi, Mario Party, Super Mario Bros. games, Paper Mario, etc. All of those have galleries in which sprites are populated and removing those would greatly affect the illustrative information.
 * 8) - Per all. It's good to have centralized locations for all the images pertaining to a given subject (be it a game, character, or whatever), and that includes sprites (and 3D models). Plus, sticking all the sprites in the character pages would severely clutter up the History sections and make the articles look bad.
 * 9) - Per all. I'm not seeing the problem, to be honest. If there are any low quality images on the wiki (sprite or no), we probably have a template or something to tag them for upgrade should someone be of the mind to search for one.
 * 10) Per all. Sprites are another form of depiction for various characters, and removing them would only remove their importance in the Wiki's placement (where else would they go aside from cluttering character articles with them?).
 * 11) Per all.

Comments
@Hypnotoad, ironically, you said a key word there. Neatly gather images. That's the thing these sprites aren't neat. Their quality is atrocious.
 * How are they not neatly organized...they are organized by the order the game was released like every other image.
 * What I meant by "neatly" was that all of the images are in one location, as opposed to sporadically placed throughout the article.
 * @Hypnotoad I mean the articles for each character.
 * I may be misunderstanding what you mean. If you've got some links to examples, could you show them to help clarify?
 * @Hypnotoad say a sprite of Mario has bad quality and its in the gallery of its game. The sprite would go to Mario's article. Galleries make the sprite appear bigger, except the quality is awful.
 * I think sprites are suppose to have bad quality. They are sprites after all and aren't that big on the actual screen. They look bad cause on the gallery pages, they're bigger.
 * The NSMB2 ones aren't even sprites at all. They're 3D models. I don't know why they are improperly labeled as such. Besides, the quality isn't awful. It's actually superb for a 3DS game in that perspective. You're setting your expectations too high. The New Super Mario Bros. 2 "sprites" are the best they can get.

Merge 10-Point Star and 20-Point Star to Point Star
I was just looking at items, and I saw that the 10 and 20 point star items each have their own separate tiny article. I think this is unnecessary and we can easily merge these two tiny articles, as most of the information is simply repeated. As such, I propose that we merge them into a new page, called Point Stars, and simply put the info there.

Proposer: Deadline: November 12, 2012 23:59 GMT

Merge

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal. Articles are completely identical stubs. No one has offered me a more compelling argument for not merging other than "They aren't the same, look at the numbers!"

Don't merge

 * 1) If they are different things, they deserve their own article.
 * 2) Per DKPetey99.
 * 3) - A small articles isn't a bad thing if the subject's small. Having different articles for the different Point Stars works perfectly fine.
 * 4) Per all.

Comments
This should be a tpp not a regular proposal.
 * Okay thanks for letting me know.

@Cooooool123 if they are merged, the name "Point Star" isn't official
 * But they're both POINT STARS. There's just a ten version and a twenty version. That's like saying the name "Coin" isn't official because there's blue and red coins. (bad example I know)
 * That is a horrible example (I don't even think it qualifies as an example) because Coin is the official name for the yellow coin just like how red coin is the official name for the red coin.
 * Yeah I know. XD My bad. But they're still both Point Stars, just different values. Okay I got a better example. It's like the ten coin and the twenty coin hexes. They're still hexes (coin hexes), even if they're different values.
 * And they have separate articles because they have different effects...
 * Yes, but they're nearly the same. That will be my next project. They're almost exactly the same, and there's no point if there's only one tiny difference.
 * @Coooool123 Yes, they are nearly the same, but they are not the same.
 * But they have the same effect. It's like the bean article. The beans have different names, and do different things, but they still have the same effect. (I'll find a better example later.)

I'm at odds with myself on this. One the one hand, the beauty of having a single subject wiki is we can essentially have an unlimited number of single purpose articles about every named thing within the initial single subject. On the other hand, there is the need for efficiency and coherence within the wiki (as an encyclopedic entity). This isn't the first time we've had disagreements about articles concerning items/characters/whatever covering virtually the same information. I've normally come into these topics with a "case to case" type of mentality, some things just should be combined into a single article and some things should not. tl;dr I'm not voting yet because I'd like to see what others have to say first, but I'm noting that I don't find the argument that "They aren't the exact same thing, look at the numbers!" to be very compelling.

Allow Support Reasoning on Featured Article Nominations
This is kind of a... er... wierd rule, On Featured Article nominations, nobody other than the creator can put a reason for supporting.

I have heard some users say that sometimes they actually want to write a support vote, but can't because of the rules.

I am proposing to allow, but not require, reasoning for supporting a Featured Article nomination. However, votes that say "Per *insert user*" will be removed.

Proposer: Deadline: November 22, 2012 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) It's my proposal.
 * 2) I've often thought the exact same thing.

Oppose

 * 1) Comments should only be left in the oppose section, so as to give a reason why users don't agree with the FA nomination and give suggestions to improve the article. I believe that it is logical to leave the support section clean, rather than allow a flood of supporting comments. This can eliminate the possibility of users middle-fencing (see this nomination archive) for a good example. Most of the users there have supported the nomination, but still suggested improvements for the article. We should either support a nomination or oppose it, not both. Removing supporting comments is logical as it allows all the attention to go to what the oppose have to say. I think we should just stick to the rule we already have and only allow a supporting comment for the nominator.
 * 2) Including support reasons in Featured Article nominations is redundant. With FAs, there are established standards they must meet before they can be featured, and it stands to reason that users who nominate articles for featured status believe they meet those standards, and any supporters afterward also hold that view (or some variation which falls under one or more of the established standards). The process is the same with every FA. Proposals, by contrast, allow for greater variety regarding users' reasons for supporting them because proposals cover a wide range of topics, so there is no list of standards to which the proposer must ensure the topic of his or her proposal adheres before the proposal can be made. Every proposal must be formatted a certain way, but each type of proposal is dealt with a little differently depending on its specific type.
 * 3) As flawed as our current FA nomination system is, this wouldn't fix the flaws. Per Mario4Ever.
 * 4) There is a reason we removed support votes. Per all.
 * 5) – per all
 * 6) As Mario4Ever said, in a nutshell, we already have the reasonings here.

Comments
I would support it but then I took an arrow to the knee why should "per" votes be removed? They are as equally legitimate as the same user restating the other user's reason.

Create articles for non-Mario attractions
For the sake of resolving the discussion here, I'm reaching a decision through a proposal. It has been discussed that we shouldn't create articles for the Minigames in Nintendo Land that don't relate to the Mario series. But our coverage policy says that we cover all information in a crossover that mixes Mario with another series, but it is limited to the information from the crossover and we can't talk about additional info from the other series. We currently cover only four of the twelve minigames, one of them not being directly related to Mario. I see this as illogical as we shouldn't leave a game half covered and rely on other NIWA sites for further info on the uncovered minigames (one of them isn't even covered by a NIWA site). And then we fully cover crossovers like the Super Smash Bros. series and the Mario & Sonic series. As discussed on the talk page, we don't fully cover Captain Rainbow but the policy says we can, so why not Nintendo Land?

Proposer: Deadline: November 24, 2012 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per my arguments above.
 * 2) Per Yo-YoKong.
 * 3) - I agree this should count as a full crossover, like SSB, Itadaki Street DS or Mario Hoops 3-on-3, and so, all the minigames should get pages, including the stuff that's not directly part of the Mario-derived content in the game.
 * 4) - Per all.
 * 5) Per Walkazo.
 * 6) I'm very undecided, but I suppose the MarioWiki coverage allows us to make these articles. SO LONG as external hyperlinks to the articles in other NIWA wikis remain, I guess I'll support this.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) - Why didn't anyone bothered to move my support vote when this proposal was moved here? anyway I started this, I supported this.
 * 9) If we put all the information regarding the crossover seems sensible to create pages for the mini-games that do not belong to the Mario series, even if it could encompass all these mini games on a single page.

Oppose

 * 1)  Going against the curve here in opposing. Unlike Super Smash Bros., Mario & Sonic, or even Captain Rainbow to an extent (in the hypothetical case that our coverage of that game would be expanded), as far as I'm aware, the attractions of Nintendo Land don't interact with each other. They could essentially be their own games, they're just all on the same disc. While I could see making a page for, say, the monitor host thingy whose name I forget, making pages for non-Mario minigames just because they appear in the same collection as Mario minigames seems to be pushing our coverage policy. Now, if someone can prove to me that the games do interact in some meaningful way, I'm all for supporting this, but otherwise that's my position.
 * 2)  per 1337star.
 * 3)  Per all.
 * 4)  per 1337star

Comments
@Electrical Bowser jr. Thanks for the vote, but providing a reason is mandatory. 21:46, 17 November 2012 (EST)

In response to some of the arguments against full coverage, unlike NBA Street V3 and SSX on Tour, the Mario influence on Nintendo Land is huge, just like all the undisputed crossovers (Mario & Sonic, SSB, Fortune Street and Itadaki Street DS, Mario Kart Arcade GP 1 and 2, Wario Blast: Featuring Bomberman!, Mario Hoops 3-on-3 and Mario Sports Mix, plus the slightly different case of the Game & Watch Gallery series (they're ports of non-Mario games, but with "modern" Mario versions)). Leaving out the non-Mario stuff would make the coverage of any of these games seem patchy, whereas for NBA Street V3 and SSX on Tour, it's clear we're only bothering with the little slices of Mario and not the other 95% of the games that are completely unrelated to our series: as I said in this forum post, these games are more like "guest appearances" than full-on crossovers (same with Densetsu no Stafy 3, which we haven't even made a page for yet). Captain Rainbow is more of a crossover than a "guest appearance" given how Birdo's a major character and how there's other series represented in the game, but giving it full coverage would be difficult given the Japan-only nature of the game. Plus, most of the main characters, as well as the plot and setting, are original to the game and factor in much more heavily than the original content in other crossovers (SSBB is the only one that really comes close), which sets it a bit apart from the more standard crossovers - including Nintendo Land. And to be thorough, we also give single-article coverage only to Tetris DS and Art Style: PiCTOBiTS (and now Pushmo too), but given the simple puzzle-game nature of these titles, single articles is all we really need to cover them. The point is, Nintendo Land is much more like the other accepted crossovers than the "guest appearance" games that are only given partial coverage, so as the proposal says, it should get full coverage. -


 * Awesome. I'm glad that the decision the proposal will make is off to a good start. Also I'm just wondering, what's the limit we can go for creating articles for guest appearances? I would like to get the article Densetsu no Stafy 3 created eventually, but how notable does the guest appearance have to be to get their own article? Like for example, we have a heap of Mario references in the game The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening. Like Stafy 3, could that game also get an article? 22:18, 17 November 2012 (EST)
 * What sets Stafy 3 apart from games that merely "reference" Mario is the fact that Wario's role is fairly important, and not just a cameo that could be totally erased from the game with no effect on its plot or gameplay. Wario's not playable like the Mario characters in NBA Street V3 and SSX on Tour, but as his article explains, he helps the player complete various levels, gives them treasures and teaches them how to use one of Starfy's moves. Wario's not a major part of the game, so it's not a full crossover, but if you take him out, there would be an effect on the game, so he's more than just a cameo. And unlike something like Mario refereeing in Mike Tyson's Punch-Out!!, Wario isn't just a face slapped on what cold easily be a generic role: it's Wario being Wario in Stafy 3. Of course, speaking of Punch-Out!!, the Wii game might be eligible for an article given how Donkey Kong's featured as a bonus opponent: that's less involved than Wario is with Stafy 3, but it's still heftier than your run-of-the-mill cameo. I think the best thing to do would be to make Proposals (like this one) before expanding content for Punch-Out!! Wii, Densetsu no Stafy 3, or any other intermediate "guest appearance" game: when you're dealing with grey areas like this, case-by-case is always the way to go. -


 * Okay, but is doesn't have to be a grey area. MW:Coverage could get updated to mention such articles. At present, the policy says that we organize information based on importance. How you defined importance above may be a topic to elaborate on in the policy. And if we were to allow Densetsu no Stafy 3 as a complete article some time in future, then it may be good to update the "Cameo" section when necessary (changing the part where it says that info about the game that isn't related to the cameo appearance is not allowed). But you also said Wario was more than a cameo in Stafy 3. If he's not exactly a cameo, then what should it be defined as in the policy? Oh, and here's an image to liven up a chunk of text :D 02:53, 18 November 2012 (EST)
 * Sorry for the late reply: I haven't had much free time this week. Anyway, I agree that MW:Coverage could be updated to mention that not all outside-the-Mario-series appearances must be cameos, and instead explain that situations where the Mario character has a significant role in the non-Mario game merit a bit more coverage. However, I still think what games will then get partial coverage (a game page only, plus a section in the History section) should be decided via proposal, since what it takes to be a "significant" appearance will be different to different people, and could also be dependent on the game itself (i.e. one line in an RPG is a cameo, but one line in a sidescroller game that only has three speaking parts in two cut scenes is a big deal). As for the step above cameo, maybe we could take a cue from the TV/movie industry and call it a "bit part"? -

Better New improved edit toolbar
Shouldn't we have an improved edit toolbar. It would be great and it will make edits easy. We could make a new one by this page: Extension page on Mediawiki

Proposer: Proposed Deadline: December 16, 2012 23:59 GMT Date Withdrawn: December 15, 2012, 03:45 GMT

Support

 * 1) per my proposal
 * 2) Per proposal. The "special characters" feature would be much easier to use than looking over at Help:Editing. And the list and font size would be especially handy for new users who are otherwise unfamiliar with such coding.
 * 3) Per proposal and YoshiKong.
 * 4) Per proposal

Comments
What could you suggest to improve it? 07:20, 9 December 2012 (EST)
 * Here you go; answer is the extension page. 07:30, 9 December 2012 (EST)

If you mean this;

http://i1278.photobucket.com/albums/y513/YoshiKong/UsabillityInitiative-Edittoolbar.png

...I like it! 07:41, 9 December 2012 (EST)

Ultimately, it's Porple's decision whether or not he wants to change the toolbar. He's the one who has to install the software, so don't be surprised if you find that this proposal is shelved.-- 21:34, 11 December 2012 (EST)


 * Megadardery asked Porple's opinion on his talk page prior to making the proposal, and he seemed to agree with the idea. See here for that specific discussion. 23:28, 11 December 2012 (EST)

It would appear that this has already be implemented. So, I suppose this proposal should be marked as null, then? -- 1337star (Mailbox SP) 12:06, 12 December 2012 (EST)


 * Yeah, as of recently it has already been implemented. 14:36, 12 December 2012 (EST)

Moveto template
I think we should have a template. As some tpp's are about moving pages, this would let users know. As we want maximum participation, this would help a lot.

Proposer: Proposed Deadline: December 22, 2012 23:59 GMT Date Withdrawn: December 15, 2012, 05:20 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per my proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal. A move is no less important than a merge/split, so it would be good to have a notice which serves a similar purpose as  and, which provide a notice about the proposed change on the article page.

Comments
So will you organize a template design during or after the proposal? 22:34, 14 December 2012 (EST)


 * We do have this...


 * Oh, wasn't aware of that one. So... redundant proposal? 23:47, 14 December 2012 (EST)


 * Neither was I. Just, I had heard there wasn't one…What should I do with this, then?

Make a bot template to non-users that have made 20 or more edits to encourage them to make an account
I think this needs to be made as the number of new users have fallen since non-users were allowedto edite. My idea of a new temeplate will help to solve this and it should be automacially posted by a bot if a non-user gets 20 or more edits using an IP.

The template should include extra things you can do with an account (like uploading images or removing adverts). The template should also include info about the Super Mario Boards, chat and Userpeadia as well as awards and shroom information. I have yet to create a draft but i'll get other users to help out on that in the near future.

If this passes, it should get more people making accounts as therefore we would have bigger commuity and therfore they would be able to do more things to help out.

Proposer: Deadline: January 2, 2013 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per above.
 * 2) Per NSY. I've seen a few IPs out there who make frequent edits and start quality discussions (namely 86.148.118.231), and this would be a good was to encourage such users to create an account.
 * 3) Definitely agree here; and besides, it's difficult for us to recognize in terms of anonymous edits who are making good contributions. This should be created to encourage those folks to take the next step towards creating their account itself for these parts.
 * 4) Per all. People editing this number of edits should be forced to create an account.
 * 5) We need more accounts, not unknown people.  We need to get the word out.
 * 6) It's not a bad idea.
 * 7) At first I was a bit skeptical about informing non-users about UP, because of its current quality, but then I thought it is a great idea. As for the rest, with it 100%!
 * 8) It's always a shame to see good edits made by users you can't recognise.

Comments
Hey, could I help out with the template draft? It should have a link to Why create an account? -- 06:33, 26 December 2012 (EST)

@Megadadery - Honestly, I don't think we really need to "force" anonymous users to create an account, but we can let them know on the respective "IP talk pages" via a template that YoshiKong is thinking about that they're missing out on other features that are waiting for them on this wiki when they do create a user account. --M. C. - "Mario Gals" Fan! User Page | Talk Page 14:45, 27 December 2012 (EST)

Are you sure this can be done? I don't know how bots work.-- 12:25, 30 December 2012 (EST)


 * We'd better ask Porple before we can expect this to be implemented. 18:13, 30 December 2012 (EST)


 * Well I asked Porple, and unfortunately he doesn't know how to do this. So we would either have to withdraw this proposal or just pass off the general idea of a template and issue it manually. 04:13, 31 December 2012 (EST)

I crafted a simple draft of how the template could be. Not sure if it's good. -- 06:38, 31 December 2012 (EST)


 * It's a good start. There are some minor wording issues but they can be fixed later. 07:04, 31 December 2012 (EST)

You guys know that if a bot can't be created then the proposal can't be enforced right?


 * Well, I think we should do this, even if we have to manually distribute templates. It's worth it.  Now, who's with me?
 * Technically you guys don't have a right to even create the template because the proposal calls for a bot to issue it which isn't possible and because of that the template can't be used because the proposal doesn't say users can issue it if a bot can't but of course that's only if you want to be super super literal.

That would need another proposal. 01:58, 1 January 2013 (EST)

You know we could just info Porple about this Shoey, if you think it won't work just fill your name in the oppose box and by the way there there is one admin vote in the support box so it shows that this does work.
 * NSY please read the comments very carefully YoshiKong said he has asked Porple and Porple said it couldn't be done therefore this proposal is meaningless because you can't enforce it because the proposal calls for a bot to issue the template and since the bot can't be created you can't do anything with this proposal.

Reverse decision to make pages for the non-Mario attraction in Nintendo Land
(welp)

A while ago, there was a a proposal about creating articles for all the attractions in Nintendo Land. Said proposal was made before the WiiU (and thus, the game) was released in any territory and was based on the erroneous assumption that the game is a crossover-which it isn't. The attractions themes are strictly separate (so no Mario enemies appear in the Zelda-themed attraction and vice-versa) and there isn't any interaction in the hub. Having a bunch of stuff from multiple franchises doesn't necessarily make something a crossover, there has to be an interaction between those elements, which Nintendo Land lacks.

Having individual articles for the Mario-relevant attractions is fine, since they're reasonably long and fully-featured games, but having complete ones for the non-Mario ones is coverage creep, akin to making pages for Duck Hunt and Stadium Events because they were on the same cartridge as the original SMB at one point. Quite tellingly, despite the game being bundled with one WiiU model, only two of the eight non-Mario attractions have pages so far, which shows there isn't much interest in writing about things only marginally related to Mario.

So what I propose is simply keep the non-Mario attractions to short (maybe slightly longer than they are now) blurbs on the main Nintendo Land page, and scrap the Octopus Dance and Balloon Trip Breeze pages in the process.

Proposer: Deadline: January 9, 2013 23:59 GMT

Reverse decision

 * 1) what I wrote, lol.
 * 2) I opposed this last time so i'll oppose it again :).
 * 3) Per Glowsquid.
 * 4) This is a Mario wiki, not a Nintendo wiki.
 * 5) &mdash; Per all.
 * 6) We need information on them, but not entire pages.
 * 7) Per all!
 * 8) per akoage; we should put that stuff on Nwiki
 * 9) Per proposal, and comments.
 * 10) This is about Mario, not other Nintendo Franchices.
 * 11) Per all, and the Octopus Dance and Balloon Trip Breeze pages seem a bit redundant, too.
 * 12) Per PTR. We can rely on other wikis for those parts.
 * 13) Per BowserJunior. We don't need much info, so pages aren't really necessary. I'm satisfied with how it is now.
 * 14) Per all. Makes sense. No need to have non mario stuff on the MARIO wiki.
 * 15) That's fine. But I would leave the page Octopus Dance here, as it's from Game & Watch, and the wiki covers it.
 * 16) &mdash; Per proposal.

Comments
Just a thought, but what could be done is that on the Nintendo Land page, there be a link to the page on the wiki that centers on said attractions. (i.e Metroid Blast link to the page on Metroid Wiki, if it exists.) -- 19:55, 2 January 2013 (EST)


 * If this proposal passes, would it be okay to keep the non-Mario artworks? -- 20:12, 2 January 2013 (EST)
 * yeah. --Glowsquid (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2013 (EST)
 * I suppose so, because the artworks are of Nintendo Land's Gallery, and since the article of Nintendo Land isn't being compromised, then neither are the artworks. -- 20:48, 2 January 2013 (EST)

Reduce the Talk Page Proposal deadline to one week
I propose reducing the TPP deadline to one week. Two weeks is too long in my opinion, since most talk page proposals are for minor changes. They don't require double the time of regular proposals. TPPs aren't noticed any less than regular proposals.

If this proposal passes it would only affect TPPs created after the change.

Proposer: Deadline: January 8, 2013 January 15, 2013 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per my proposal.
 * 2) I would of argue that some TPPs are too big to be settled in one week, but then I thought about it for a second and remembered that usually when a TPP is too big, it is usually turned into a proposal on this page. I support it because I don't see why users need more than a week for TPPs; usually, the arguments settle and editing, for the contribution, stop by the fourth or fifth day.
 * 3) Per 0777.
 * 4) Per proposal.
 * 5) Per Zero.
 * 6) Two weeks is too much, I agree.
 * 7) Per all. And the comments below.

Oppose

 * two weeks give more users the chance to express their opinion, reaching a more widespread decision
 * 1) Per PTR.
 * 2) - It's not about discussion length, it's about attendance rates. Whereas proposals sit around staring you in the face, if you're not sure about a TPP at first (or don't want to tackle a huge pile of new TPPs all at once) and decide to come back to it, it could take time before you notice the little bullet and remember again (out of sight, out of mind). Also, if someone makes a good point after the initial rush of votes, since TPPs are out of the way, folks are less likely to check back in on them - ideally, a two-week window offers you more time to decide to revisit them than if it was one week long only (but I don't know if that's actually the case). Plus, if the proposer forgets to list the TPP here and no one notices for a few days, there's still a fair chunk of time left to make up for it - if it was only one week, you might have to just tediously cancel and re-start it to ensure you get a fair amount of votes.
 * 3) Sometimes moving the page X to page Y takes some time to debate about. This also can apply to combining or separating two pages. These are all TPPs, and they can be really long to sort out.
 * 4) Per Walkazo.
 * 5) Per All.
 * 6) &mdash; Per Walkazo.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) &mdash; Per all, especially Walkazo.
 * 9) Per Walkazo.
 * 10) Per all
 * 11) Per Walkazo.

Comments
Well, PTR, if these proposals last one week, then why should TPP's be any different? I'm always looking for proposals wherever they are.--

I'm at odds with this one. On one hand, shortening the proposals would mean less votes... but on the other, it may make people check them more often and take them more seriously if they're only one week...
 * Wouldn't the latter cancel out the former? Aokage (talk) 07:35, 9 January 2013 (EST)
 * Well it could go either way. But then what's the point of having separate proposals if they all last the same amount of time? What's the policy on tpps?
 * TTPs are held on Talk Pages and only affect a couple pages. This page has the more important proposals. This is what I don't get: Why do the less important proposals last longer? Aokage (talk) 12:36, 11 January 2013 (EST)
 * I thought the TTPs were the more important proposals... hmm! I guess it makes sense then!

Now I'm wondering if we should make these proposals two weeks like the TPPs...


 * Point. This proposal is a perfect reason why. The time should be the same, but if we don't make it shorter for tpp's, we should make it longer for this page.  You want to make a proposal when this is over?  If not, I will. ;) --  23:46, 11 January 2013 (EST)
 * I'm not sure extending how long proposals on this page run is a good idea. Like Walkazo said above, these proposals attract more attention than TPPs, and for the record, just because we have set amounts of times for proposals to run does not mean that the amounts of times necessarily need to be adjusted if a proposal is not resolved after that time is passed. What I'm getting at is that modifying the default amount of time proposals run won't eliminate the need to extend them when it arises.

I agree with Mario4Ever. -- 03:52, 12 January 2013 (EST)
 * Yeah, the extra TPP week is to give them more chances to get noticed, but regular Proposals don't need that leg up. We do give an extra week to Writing Guideline proposals because they're complex and include off-site draft pages that need reading over, but regular proposals are usually more straightforward, so again, they don't need the extra time. Unless, of course, the vote's split, in which case it already gets the extension(s) it needs to address the discussions (like the ironic more-than-a-week duration of this proposal). In short, important decisions do get all the voting time they need under the current rules: the system's worked fine for nearly six years, and as they say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. -
 * I agree that a week is enough for regular proposals. But do TPPs really get noticed less than regular proposals? A week should be enough for TPPs as well. If a TPP needs more time then it gets extended like regular proposals. I prefer the saying "If it ain’t broke, improve it". Aokage (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2013 (EST)

Remove the "Affiliation" parameter from infoboxes
The "Affiliation" parameter featured in character and enemy infoboxes (such as this) is vaguely defined, useless cruft. The information it conveys can easily be inferred by reading the article and it's frequently filled simply because it's there, leading to nonsense like random enemies being "affiliated" with the levels they appear in, random bosses being "affiliated" with the random enemies found in the same level and characters being affiliated with "him/herself" (lol, what?).

It's useless, frequently gives stupid (as opposed to simply useless) results and artificially fatten up the lead infoboxes. Let's bury it.

Proposer: Deadline: January 29, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Remove

 * 1) par prupsal, lul.
 * 2) Per all.
 * 3) "Relationships with Other Characters" sections should cover this.
 * 4) Per proposal.
 * 5) - Per Glowsquid.
 * 6) Per proposal.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) - Per all.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) Per Aokage.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) Per Glowsquid.
 * 13) &mdash; Per all.
 * 14) Per Glowsquid.
 * 15) - Per Glowsquid.
 * 16) Per all; I find it to be useless as well.
 * 17) Per Aokage
 * 18) Per the proposal of Glowsquid.
 * 19) Per all.
 * 20) – Per Glowsquid.
 * 21) We've had some dumb things on the site, but this takes the cake. Like Aokage said, the "relationships with other characters" section should cover it. Not only that, but it's more specific and detailed. affiliation is just a section of uselessness and names. so, per all.