MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/44

Split Badge and Clothing by game
SPLIT 7-0

Badge and Clothing are currently long articles with several different lists; in Badge's case, you have both Paper Mario and Mario & Luigi games lumped in there. I think these lists, when split by game, are more manageable and serviceable when they are separate articles. In navigation templates, readers can look up the appropriate section rather than have their browser load a huge page with several irrelevant games. It would also be consistent to split them by game, since we already have other charts split by game. Finally, in Badge, while Dream Team and Bowser's Inside Story sections are rather small, I think it's still doable to leave them separate for consistency sake they can work if they get merged to their parent page, which is also consistent in other cases, which Walkazo has pointed out in her support.

Both will still stay as a lone article, but it's there to link all the badge/clothing lists by game into one article, and, at least in Badge's case, it will retain its history section.

Finally, the List of badge names in other languages (and clothing, if it has one; as far as I know, it doesn't) can be merged into these split articles, so it also eliminates an odd page that was created due to the badly-organized nature of those pages.

Proposer: Deadline: November 30, 2015, 23:59 GMT.

Support

 * 1) I think these two pages are better off split by game. Yeah, Badge is probably not going to remain featured, but that shouldn't be a reason against the merge, IMO. Featured articles were unfeatured as a result of organization and deletion proposals before, so that reason in of itself isn't good.
 * 2) - I supported the idea on the forum, and I support it here too. Except the part about splitting the BIS and DT badges: I disagree that it needs to be done for consistency, since we have plenty of cases where something split for one game remains merged in another (usually merged to the parent game article, rather than a separate page, but whatever, close enough). EDIT: Including the part about merging the BIS and DT badges to the game articles.
 * 3) – Per Walkazo, especially about leaving the Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story and Mario & Luigi: Dream Team Bros. information already present on the article as is.
 * 4) - Per Walkazo.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per proposal but not Walkzao, I think everything should be separated for both consistency and because it's still two separate games.
 * 7) Per all.

Comments
RandomYoshi: I think what Walkazo is trying to say is that the small information in Bowser's Inside Story and That Other Game can be just moved to a subsection in their parent articles. E.g. we remove Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story in Badge and add this same section under "Items" in Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story. 17:47, 24 November 2015 (EST)
 * If this is what was meant, then I understand the situation better. In fact, it's way better that way, so yay. 14:42, 26 November 2015 (EST)
 * I was actually advocating to leave the badges where they are, but moving them to the game pages makes more sense, and is more in line with existing coverage practices (which I was referring to as being similar to my original idea). -
 * I myself thought your implications (along with the "whatever, close enough" at the end) were that the moving method is the preferred and usual method. 16:15, 26 November 2015 (EST)
 * Nope, just that separate pages weren't the only way, as game pages retained things sometimes, so why not the badge page too? - or so I was arguing (but not anymore). -

Do not relegate charts to templates
PASSED 11-0

This proposal affects, , , and any other similar templates that have been overlooked. These three are charts that were once part of their respective articles (Super Smash Bros. for Wii U, Mario Kart 7, and Mario Kart 8), but were unceremoniously split into those templates. Nobody complained, and here we are. I think it's about time somebody complained. Simply put, the advantages do not outweigh the disadvantages. I brought the topic up on one of the template's talk pages, and Walkazo, BL, and LGM chimed in with their own comments. Moving the charts doesn't make editing all that much simpler, since that's what editing via section is for, and it just makes editing the charts more complicated. Since the article still has to load the template as well, I believe that it wouldn't help all that much for loading times either. Meanwhile, sticking the charts on a template by themselves is inconvenient and makes no sense considering that they're only going to be used on one or two articles, max. These charts can easily be reincorporated back into their articles.

This proposal is not affecting rules and other protected page, such as the proposal header, since they are kept separate in order to ensure that they can only be edited by the right people.

Proposer: Deadline: December 17, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) I support my proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal. Having them as templates makes it slightly more difficult/time-consuming to edit them. Templates are mainly for use on multiple pages, it makes no sense to create an entire template just for one page...
 * 3) Per myself and all involved in the talk. Get rid of 'em.
 * 4) - Per TT, I see no benefits in the current situation.
 * 5) I actually complained in person with Baby Luigi and was about to bring it up, but the latter never occurred to me. Anyway, per my comment in the talk page; templates are intended to save repetition on particular coding when it is used several times, such as navtemplates, infoboxes, notice templates, and button input. This may save text or so when you're editing an entire page, but the savings are measly when it is much more inconvenient for editors and has virtually no advantages for our readers. So, yeah, just move them back to their parent page.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Just because I have no idea what "relegate" means doesn't mean a chart isn't the same as a template. Per all.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) – Per all.
 * 11) - It would make sense if content was being duplicated on multiple pages, but simply outsourcing chunks of a single page is unnecessary added complication with very little gain: long sections aren't that big of a deal, and this trend should be stopped before it spreads any further.

Comments
Wording title is kind of weird, the proposal's strength in the future may be better if it said "Stop outsourcing entire chart content to templates"; "stop" is more precise since the outsourcing is ongoing; "relegate" is vague compared to "outsource". 15:53, 10 December 2015 (EST)
 * That seems pedantic.
 * I don't see why you're always so defensive to my wording suggestions. IMO, making the wording more precise makes it easier for referrals in the future. 17:35, 11 December 2015 (EST)
 * You didn't have to make it personal. The title gets the point of the proposal across and it can be clarified as needed in the archive.

Poking around a bit more, I actually found a bit more justification for the SSB4 template: it was meant to go on both Super Smash Bros. for Wii U and Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS, so rather than having all the identical info duplicated, it'd just be in one central place, saving space and making upkeep easier, which, assuming the two games remain identical in their rosters, does make sense. The guy who made the template initially put it on both pages, but then there was an edit war on the 3DS page and ended in the removal of the template, but really, looking at the two charts, I fail to see a difference, and really, that edit summary is contradictory to what the chart was envisioned to do (and I checked, and it looks like the pre-template version of the 3DS chart was indeed the same as the Wii U / current one). I agree that a one-template-to-one-page substitution is needless complication (we actually told people to stop doing it on userpsace years ago), but it could make sense for pages that share large chunks of content. (But even then, prior discussion would be better than just striking out on one's own.) - 16:01, 10 December 2015 (EST)
 * For this case I do see the use in having the template. Maybe the proposal could be modified to say templates only used on one page are useless whereas if they're used on more than one it's fine to have them? --
 * My sister brought it up previously: "it's more convenient to edit the template once than go through it twice" but it may not have been clear to you at the time. Anyway, I've said this already: templates are supposed to make repetitive content easier to implement, but I think we can go through case-by-case rather than make a flimsy qualifier in this proposal. 16:10, 10 December 2015 (EST)


 * Just to note: the difference in the Smash Bros. tables is that certain characters that are unlockable in the Nintendo 3DS version (Bowser Jr., Ganondorf, and Ness) are available by default in the Wii U version, and both tables reflect that by listing those characters in the appropriate sections. If we were to use one table then we would have to show that difference.


 * -Toa 95 (talk)
 * Well, there goes that. There is no reason to create the template for those either. I knew there was some catch between the 3DS and Wii U games when it comes to characters. 16:18, 10 December 2015 (EST)
 * I didn't see the talk page again after I made my comment - got too busy and forgot to check back. And ah, okay, I didn't catch the different between-header placements: I just thought there were arbitrary order differences at times and the headers blended into everything. Too bad - it'd be easier to manage one set of info, but yeah, setting up a switch function to have those characters appear in different places depending on the page would probably be too much trouble for most peoples' tastes. - 16:35, 10 December 2015 (EST)

Create a Account creation encouragement template
DELETED BY PROPOSER

Sometimes there are great ip users who make tons of useful contributions that help this wiki grow. Those ips are extremely welcome contributors who unfortunately, are ineligible to do advance things such as editing semi-protected pages, moving pages, creating new pages, and various other useful contributions due to their non-registered status. I think we should create a template to encourage them to join as registered. The template would be placed on ip user talk pages. I have drafted a design for this template:

Hello [ insert ip address here ], have you considered creating an account here. Your contributions to this wiki have been very appreciated but in order to unlock various other useful feature in this wiki, you will need to have an account. Having an account will increase your tool options by allowing you to create new pages, edit protected pages, vote in proposals and other discussions, upload new file media, rename pages, have a personal username and userpage. We strongly recommend you create an account to unlock these feature. Proposer: Deadline: December 25, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) per proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) Per the arguments that were brought up the last time this idea was proposed: it's tedious and frankly unreasonable to have someone or even several people keeping track of every IP that pops up, IP's can be accessed by numerous individuals, and a blanket template probably won't convince them to sign up if they hadn't done so already.
 * 2) There are two main reasons this probably wouldn't work: 1.) Most IPs edit once and leave, others edit about once every few months. I haven't noticed all that many IPs who make enough edits (that is, within a reasonable time period) to make an account in the three years I've been here. 2.) Rather than a template, couldn't we just tell them in an informal message?
 * 3) Just leave it up to the individual operating the IP to see if they want to have an account or not, no need to nag them with an unnecessary template. Per Time Turner.
 * 4) - Per all here, and per the opposers of the last proposal. Also, that template is garish and painful to look at.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) I think this template will actually discourage users. If there are anons that are being super active and helpful, then it's better to thank them formally to encourage their signing up than to give a less caring, automated template.
 * 7) – Per all.
 * 8) Per all. I really don't think this is something we'll ever agree to doing.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) IPs can be IPs if they WANT to, they don't need an account to edit. per all.
 * 11) Per all; If an IP doesn't want an account, they don't need to make one.
 * 12) I don't see this going well. A lot of IP's make useful edits, but a lot of them also make edits that are very unnecessary. If we incourage them to make an account, especially the bad ones, we're going to have a problem. A lot of IP's only make one edit and leave anyway. Plus, why can't we just say it in an informal message?
 * 13) While I usually dismiss such arguments like "no one can do it" as laziness, in this case, it really is near impossible to keep track of all the IPs. No one is going to be like, "hey, I recognize that IP before!" Additionally, it's highly unlikely for IPs to check their talk pages; most just edit casually. And if the IPs really want an account, they will choose to do it themselves; I doubt that many people who acceses this site are actually aware of the account feature. They're staying an IP for a reason.

The Wording on Proposals Archived by Their Proposer
WITHDRAWN BY PROPOSER

As you know, nowadays, whenever someone archives their own proposal, it is filed under "DELETED BY PROPOSER." It used to be the case that it would say "WITHDRAWN BY PROPOSER" instead. I bring this up because saying "deleted" is wrong. Deleting is more along the lines of removing altogether; this wording is odd in the case we're using it with. Here are some scenarios:

Deleted: Removed entirely from the wiki. Removed: Removed entirely from the wiki. Withdrawn: Voluntarily archived.

I'm sure there are others that could work but these are the only ones I can think of.

The two on top are misleading. The proposals aren't being obliterated from existence, except for some cases. When someone archives a proposal voluntarily because they don't want it up, they aren't really deleting it per se, only withdrawing it.

Finally, this wouldn't affect proposals vetoed by the admins and archived; they always have the wording "VETOED BY THE ADMINISTRATION." This would only affect ones removed by the proposer.

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

Change the Wording

 * 1) My proposal.

Do Nothing

 * 1) - Seeing as most pass/fail messages are customized and unique, I feel like it's not worth bending over backwards to make the cancellation messages uniform. "Deleted" is by far the most popular choice, especially in older archives, and it works perfectly well unless you want to be really pedantic; "cancelled" and "removed" have been used as well and are also fine (but really, as long as it's grey, that's what matters most). It's simpler to just let users continue to choose whatever wording they want as long as it's clear, concise and professional, regardless of whether their proposal passed, failed or was taken down early.

Comments
For such administrators actions, it's better to contact them directly. I don't think it's important to move this thing through the slow process of proposals.-- 17:01, 19 December 2015 (EST)

Redesign RPG infoboxes and bestiaries
PASSED 13-0

Having multiple infoboxes side-by-side in stats sections looks terrible, so after months of forum discussion and design drafting in my userspace, I am proposing complete redesigns of all the RPG infoboxes, primarily to allow for them to be able to toggle between vertical and horizontal forms. Vertical forms can be used like normal, at the tops of enemy pages as their main infoboxes: clutter is bad), but now for stats sections, the horizontal forms can be stacked on top of each other instead of haphazardly floating side-by-side and at the whims of varying screen widths. This is the main purpose for this proposal (hence it's in "new features"), but at the same time, various other changes will happen:


 * 1) All RPG infoboxes will toggle between vertical and horizontal forms - See above. Note that the vertical forms are the defaults so this won't cause mass appearance chaos as soon as the templates are changed.
 * 2) All RPG infoboxes will use the same colour-scheme as navigation templates (as seen here) - This will create consistency and ensures neatness and easy readability.
 * 3) All RPG infobox pages will have usage instructions and an input chart - This will make them easier to use.
 * 4) All RPG infoboxes will use consistent inputs whenever possible - This will also make them easier to use (less memorization and guessing), although it also means some inputs are being renamed and/or combined and will need to be updated on the articles (noted in red on the draft pages below).
 * 5) Some RPG infoboxes will be expanded with additional info - The infoboxes should have all the stats that we know of present, rather than forcing folks to look up supplemental charts in the bestiaries or elsewhere.
 * 6)  will need to be (re)created - Right now, Paper Mario and TTYD use the same infobox, but once all the new stats and featured are added, that won't be possible anymore, plus it's inconsistent and unnecessary to have two games in one.
 * 7) RPG infoboxes embedded in History sections should be moved to stats sections - If it's not the enemy's overall infobox, it should be in a stats section: it's just inconsistent clutter anywhere else.

It sounds like a lot, but the redesigned templates have all been drafted and are completely ready to go. All that needs to be done is updating the articles themselves by adding inputs to bring the templates up-to-date, and reorganizing the stats sections (including moving some infoboxes down there from History sections). Examples of the templates in action can be found here, and the drafts are as follows:


 * User:Walkazo/Test9 - - Super Mario RPG
 * User:Walkazo/Test1 - - Paper Mario
 * User:Walkazo/Test3 - - Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door
 * User:Walkazo/Test4 - - Super Paper Mario
 * User:Walkazo/Test6 - - Paper Mario: Sticker Star
 * User:Walkazo/Test2 - - Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga
 * User:Walkazo/Test5 - - Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time
 * User:Walkazo/Test7 - - Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story
 * User:Walkazo/Test8 - - Mario & Luigi: Dream Team

As seen in the proposal's title, bestiaries are also on the slab here, and the reason why is because, rather than having multiple and/or too-wide-for-1024px-screen tables that force readers to scroll up and down and back and forth, from now on, bestiaries should take the form of multiple stacked horizontal infoboxes. Basically, anyway - as seen on Megadardery's test pages here and here, a slightly different template will be used to change the headers from the game titles to just the enemy names, and the bestiaries will still need to include the templates in an overall table for slightly more compact stacking and uniform column widths. However, the important part is that the bestiaries' inputs will all be the same as the corresponding infoboxes', making it a simple matter of cutting and pasting to move and update information between the bestiaries and the enemy pages, or at least make it easier to use both (even the how-to information is mostly the same). A final note is that the bestiaries will now use colour-coding in the names to denote enemy types (bosses vs. enemies vs. support), as explained in the nice legend at the top of the first test page I liked to in this paragraph.

Unlike the infoboxes, only the Paper Mario bestiary is drafted and ready, but I think it's still better to get the ball rolling on this overall stats project sooner than later and start working on getting those horizontal infoboxes out there: more bestiaries can follow in time.

Proposer: (with input from  and others; bestiary work by ) Deadline: January 11, 2016, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) - Per proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) Though I haven't commented, I've been in support of an RPG infobox template overhaul since the day it was suggested. It, at the current moment, is extrmeley unsightly, ugly, and most importantly, horribly formatted to not fit in with the stats and the like. Therefore, I'm in major support with this proposal and I want it to pass ASAP.
 * 4) – Per proposal.
 * 5) The way the vertical layout of RPG infobox templates are used is utterly miserable. Here are some examples: Dry Bones, Fawful, Lava Piranha, Blooper, Spiny, Buzzy Beetle, Elite Trio, the list goes on, but it's no small sample. They leave behind lots of white space, are extremely cluttery and overall messy, and they're not very reader-friendly. Worse, practically any recurring enemy article from a MaRPG game is doomed to have several of these templates, which are not designed with recurring enemies in mind. I also support moving infoboxes that otherwise clutter the article like in Boo or Hammer Bro. to stats section and get converted to the horizontal design. I'm glad we're going to redesign some of the wiki's biggest eyesores.
 * 6) Very sharp looking compared to the dated templates we are using now.
 * 7) per all
 * 8) - Per Walkazo.
 * 9) Per Walkazo
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Per Bazooka Mario and proposal.
 * 12) Definitely per proposal
 * 13) – Per all, this looks a lot better than what we currently have.

Comments
While I'm supportive of the redesign, I have a few suggestions to go with it. 15:48, 5 January 2016 (EST)
 * 1) Infoboxes should probably ignore the direction parameter in the mobile version, as it looks pretty bad when vertical there. (I'm not entirely sure yet how that'd work though.)
 * 2) You should put the CSS that goes into these infoboxes into Common.css to avoid all that clutter.


 * The mobile stuff's beyond my abilities, I'm afraid, and I generally prefer not to add stuff to the css if I can help it. Most of the clutter you're highlighting is unavoidable anyway, as things like the widths, colours and underlining aren't uniform for cells, rows and columns, and will always have to be specified in the templates. Other things like the float and margin coding are affected by the switch function, so again, they have to be in the templates afaik. All the ugly-looking border-radius stuff is just because of the use of, so in the actual editing windows, there's not nearly that much clutter up top, and it's not like this small handful of templates will need to be edited often either way (hopefully). - 12:19, 6 January 2016 (EST)


 * I generally prefer not to add stuff to the css if I can help it. – These templates are included in 1046 pages in total as of now. All those pages include the same coding over and over again, which is exactly what CSS files were invented for; styling similar elements with the same code multiple times. Not to mention the loading times and stress on the server by keeping everything self-contained.
 * Most of the clutter you're highlighting is unavoidable anyway, as things like the widths, colours and underlining aren't uniform for cells, rows and columns, and will always have to be specified in the templates. – It is not unavoidable at all, quite the opposite. I have made this page with an example of . You can see here that the tables and a few special cells where just assigned a few CSS classes, and the rest all gets filled in by the complimenting CSS.
 * Other things like the float and margin coding are affected by the switch function, so again, they have to be in the templates afaik. – These things also can be generalized in the CSS, see the first five selectors in the CSS on the example page, and the align parameter in the Wikicode. (btw, your margin code doesn't work, it needs a default or it will be left empty.)
 * All the ugly-looking border-radius stuff is just because of the use of  – Yeah about that, only border-radius: xx is needed, the rest really is unnecessary clutter. But that is a thing that can be accounted for on a different occasion.
 * 14:29, 7 January 2016 (EST)

There's not a infobox for Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam enemies or there will be one, but it is not done yet?-- 15:22, 7 January 2016 (EST)


 * Okay, I switched everything to "border-radius:5px" to get rid of that clutter, and having "horizontal" in the align function rather than its own thing is a good idea too, so I'll convert the templates to that (skips a bit of redundancy and fixes a really trivial irritation I had with the lack of margin in the template pages). But I'm still against outsourcing the designs to the css. Navigation templates are much more widespread, yet we don't bother doing anything more than the series-specific background colours and basic franchise-wide things like the borders, text and link colours. It's just easier to deal with template design when the design's in the template, not off in the css, which the vast majority of users would have no idea how to deal with - including admins. Plus, we're the only ones who can edit the css anyway, adding another level of complication to what should be an accessible operation: wikis are supposed to be user-friendly, but needing to get help to change a column width is not user-friendly. @LudwigVon: There wasn't a M&L:PJ template while I was working on the designs, and not knowing anything about the stats that might be applicable to the game, I didn't want to hazard a guess at a template design - then someone did make a template at the last-minute, which I didn't find out about until after I made the proposal, but its a bit dodgy and currently only in use on one page, so I was going to hold off on making a new draft for it until I've had time to check out the game mechanics myself, or see other users vetting it. - 16:04, 7 January 2016 (EST)


 * I can see where you are coming from, but I don't agree about keeping everything in the templates themselves. Making it less open may be true to an extend, but infoboxes (and navtemplates too) are things that are supposed to look uniform on the wiki in whole, and I don't suppose there is a lot of reason to change the width of a column any time soon. I think it would protect the design rather than 'closing' the openness.
 * If not moving to the common css, I would at least suggest updating obsolete code. On your Essay page with all those templates, the W3C's Validator return 329 errors. I was going to bring this up at some point anyway as it is a wikiwide problem, but now is as good a time as any.
 * 17:47, 7 January 2016 (EST)


 * Every time an input needs to be added, it'll potentially force things to be shuffled around, and it'll be easier to design new templates with old ones readily available in full. The only thing I'd concede to for the css is a proper, overall infobox class or two to cover the basics (cellpadding, cellspacing, maybe border and font stuff), the way there's an overall nav template class, but that's a whole other kettle of fish since there are a lot of infoboxes that will have to be dealt with: it's beyond the scope of what this proposal is about. Anyway, I fixed all the non-padding/spacing obsolete coding in my drafts here (and there weren't 329 errors from the templates alone - the essays page had a lot more content on it). You're not the first to voice concerns about the wiki as a whole having a lot of depreciated coding, but no one's ever really cared enough to try to do anything about something that basically seems like an invisible non-issue that's beyond the knowledge of the majority of users. You could try to set up a wiki collab about it if you really wanted to. - 23:15, 7 January 2016 (EST)


 * If there where at least some base classes that would be a big improvement already (seeing the table opening tag is the worst offender everywhere), but you are right that this is outside the scope of this proposal.
 * I have been planning on making some form of collab sometime already as 'non-issue' is not really the case but that also is outside this proposal's scope so that's a discussion for then. 11:05, 8 January 2016 (EST)
 * Yeah, I was surprised when I checked common.css and found that there actually wasn't an "infobox" class, even though all the infoboxes start out that way: fixing that's definitely on my to-do list now (maybe after the rollout of this proposal's done). - 11:28, 8 January 2016 (EST)

A quick note, regarding the, the score and card how (under the name: card location) have been added to all the templates, the tattle was changed to card description and the tippi was changed to tattle for better clarity. The draft should be updated accordingly.-- 05:59, 9 January 2016 (EST)
 * Alright, updated, thanks. Changing the "tippi"/"tattle" thing was definitely a good idea, although tbh I would've recommended shorthand rather than long "card location" and "card description" inputs, but ah well, too late now. -
 * pssst, you forgot to change the second card how...-- 16:19, 9 January 2016 (EST)

Prohibit the Usage of in Headers
PASSED 14-1

Using in headers has a couple of issues. For one, it looks ugly and inconsistent with how other headers look like. The only acceptable text formatting in headers should be italicising as to indicate that it's a piece of fiction being talked about. Underlining text in headers is very bad. Furthermore, it breaks the Recent Changes. Using the Recent Changes, a user may jump directly to a section of an article if only a section was edited. However, should the header contain, this feature is broken. Having a feature that breaks a vital function of the Wiki should never be allowed. Sure, you could just hop to the section manually, but why would you do that when the Wiki can provide you a function that does that for you automatically?

I do realise and acknowledge that there is an issue with this: how do we notify the reader that these names are conjectural? The solution is simple.

===Thing that is conjecturally named===  is a thing blah blah blah blah

That way, we get the information that it's conjecturally named across, it doesn't break the Recent Changes, and it makes headers look consistent. This means that all information is preserved, and we don't have to implement a feature that breaks a very vital function of the Wiki. Alternatively and depending on the kind of section being worked with, the text doesn't need to be in a bold typeface. This also gives us the possibility to quickly summarise what the section is about in one sentence before describing the rest of the subject in greater detail. Furthermore, this methodology ensures no unnecessary and ugly notification templates need to be used at all. Additionally, removing does not break section linking at all, so all links that already exist and link to headers that already contain  will not be broken and still work.

But how do we go about finding these? The answer here is also simple. This is how.

EDIT: The old link for finding the instances of the template did not work, so this will be used instead.

Proposer: {{User|RandomYoshi}} Deadline: January 11, 2016, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) – Per proposal.
 * 2) - Per RandomYoshi.
 * 3) Per RandomYoshi.
 * 4) – Per RandomYoshi.
 * 5) - Per Pi.
 * 6) - Per π
 * 7) &mdash; Per RandomYoshi.
 * 8) I hate the use of the conjectural text template in headers, it's time to end that practice once and for all.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) Sure thing.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) per all
 * 13) Per all.
 * 14) Per everyone except Wildgoosespeeder.

Oppose

 * 1) To me, this could just be a MediaWiki bug. Before making changes to pages to adapt around the bug, have  update the software that MarioWiki uses and report the bug to the developers of MediaWiki if the bug persists.

Comments
Unfortunately MediaWiki search is broken, so the link you provided will not help us find the pages. But as far as I've seen, the only pages with conjectural section titles are the Galaxies and list of Glitches, which should be easy enough to track down. Otherwise, how is the suggested workaround going to work in the list of glitches pages? It doesn't seem efficient to specify the glitch name in every section. I think we need a better idea to over all say "Yo guys, these are all made up names so don't quote us on them will ya?".-- 12:03, 4 January 2016 (EST)
 * How about making a similar template to Template:Conjecture, but that states something like "The titles of the following sections of this article are conjectural; [and the rest is equal to the base template]"? It could have a "section=" variable that, if set to yes, states "The title of the following subsections of this section [equal to normal]". The first is used in glitch pages, the second in Galaxies pages.
 * Having additional notice templates is only going to help in increasing how messy pages look like. It's not going to be the end of the world if we repeat it for every subject we talk about. In fact, it's better to first aptly summarise a subject in one concise sentence before prattling on about the minor details of a subject: that way, readers who only wish to gain an elementary understanding of a topic can choose only to read the first sentence of a paragraph, whilst others that feel like they want a more in-depth analysis can do so by continuing to read about the subject. Because is used in the beginning of the sentence and has the subject bolded (or not), the information that they're conjecturally named is still going to be conveyed in the same way it's done at this point, except it won't break the Recent Changes and generate unprofessional-looking headers. To summarise, it won't hurt us, it won't hurt the reader, it won't hurt the page by introducing a whole batch of notice templates, and it certainly won't hurt the Recent Changes.  13:47, 4 January 2016 (EST)
 * No, it would be repetitive to state the nonofficial name of the glitch underneath every glitch section with that exact same title, it seems okay in the introduction of main articles, because you really are introducing the main element of the page, however in glitches' pages, it becomes overly annoying to read the same thing over and over again. It's like going over every section in the Mario article starting it with "[..] is a game that Mario stars in." which would be insane. Don't get me wrong, I support this proposal, because this issue is super annoying when it comes to actual editing and linking. However, the consequences of doing it this way is not something I support. I don't support the idea of the notice template either, it would be an eye catcher. However, adding it to the introduction of the list in one short sentence is not something I'm keen on, but not something I'm against either.-- 15:10, 4 January 2016 (EST)
 * I agree with RandomYoshi at this point. However, I have another idea: if templates are not good, let's just add a sentence just before the various section start. It should say "NOTE: All the glitches'/galaxies' names in this page are conjectural. Fitting names have been given by the editors.". This may seem repetitive, but remember that phone users have no way to read the message shown by hovering the cursor over conjectural text.

So, I used the link above to track down all the pages that have conjecturaltext templates in at least an header, and oooh boy, there's a very long list awaiting...

I figured out how we're going to deal with the Super Mario Galaxy and the Super Mario Galaxy 2 Galaxy levels with their planets and such. In each section about a planetoid, a picture of this planetoid should be accompanied. In this picture is usually found a small description of the planetoid. In this thumbnail should the name of the planetoid always be found. This is the instance that can have on it. How does this sound? 15:59, 5 January 2016 (EST)
 * It's a good idea. I don't know, however, if everyone reading the Galaxies' pages would stop to read thumbnails. Should we make the planet's name bold in the thumbnail, so it's more apparent?

So, we're about to settle about how to apply conjecturaltext changes on the various types of pages, but there's still an archetype: 50 pages about Wario Land II pages. Here, the problem is in the Hidden Treasure section: a conjectural name, stating what's the treasure, is in the header. However, the paragraph doesn't ever repeat this name, and we can't do the same thing RandomYoshi proposed for Galaxies because the images are far too small. The only idea I have is removing that name altogheter: I don't think it's even needed. Do you have any other ideas?


 * Been mulling it over, and I think just having a "Note: all these names are conjectural." message (in bold, even) at the tops of the "Planets/Areas" sections (on the galaxy and mission pages) would be the most efficient way to deal with the situation, avoiding the use of the specific template at all (or the need to hide the names in the thumbnail descriptions - which would be inconsistent with the rest of the wiki). As for the WLII items, I agree that it'd be simpler to remove them from the headers, and instead just describe them in the body text without having to pass them off as names. For example, Turn off the alarm clock!'s header would be "Hidden Treasure : Viking Helmet " and then the text will simply read "...The treasure of this level is a horned viking helmet that bears some resemblance to the Bull Pot..." (underline showing new content). - 12:38, 6 January 2016 (EST)
 * There are some areas that are officially named, like Cosmic Cove Galaxy's Twin Falls and Cosmic Cavern. Should we note that these are exceptions to the rule by just saying "NOTE: This area is officially named.", and provide a source for its name? 13:10, 6 January 2016 (EST)
 * Or just say "NOTE: Unless otherwise marked, all names are unofficial." and then for the ones with real names, do specifically mention and bold the names in the text with a ref ("The Twin Falls[1] area consists of..."), and that should be enough to tip readers off that those are the official ones. Then the mission articles could go a step further and say "NOTE: Unless otherwise marked with a reference, all names are unofficial." since there's no headers to worry about gunking up, just thumbnails (of if using refs for the mission pages seems like overkill, asterisks could work instead). - 13:40, 6 January 2016 (EST)
 * Deal. 13:55, 6 January 2016 (EST)

See my opposition vote for details about my thoughts. I don't know what version of MediaWiki MarioWiki is using. -- 17:49, 7 January 2016 (EST)
 * Actually even if this issue persists forever there is an easy workaround. That is, use the template under each section. Just sayin, I still agree with this proposal because the look of the hovertext in the section titles.-- 09:50, 8 January 2016 (EST)
 * Like Megadargery states above me, getting rid of the hover text is also one that needs to be done. Even if we were to place s everywhere, it would be ugly and awful. The solution that is proposed is fine. 15:57, 8 January 2016 (EST)

Protect all series page
DELETED BY PROPOSER

What I mean by series, I mean the page name like, Mario (series), Paper Mario (series), Mario & Luigi (series) so that only autoconfirmed user can edit them.

The reason I wanted all this page to be protect is because, I think these pages are often vandalized and that several false information on those pages are added. In addition, when a new official game comes out, it is also impossible for those who are not autoconfirmed user to created a page for this game.

Proposer: Deadline: January 24, 2016, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Protect those page indefinitely.

Oppose

 * 1) We should protect these pages only on a case-by-case basis, as some series are not as popular as others, and making a blanket ban on them would be in my opinion unwise. It's best left to see what peoples do to this page in the first place and drive-by wandals who wandalize the page aren't really common anyway.

Comments
I agree with Baby Luigi, I found that my proposal is pointless after all.-- 12:47, 17 January 2016 (EST)

Split the Mario & Luigi and Super Mario RPG consumables into separate articles
SPLIT 11-0

Remember back in the day when the word "stub" was thrown around like it was going out of fashion and everything smaller than Bowser's article was a stub? This resulted in a lot of articles being clumped together into one superarticle, which is kind of like Superman if he had to wear Kryptonite. What I want to bring up today involves several articles merged during that period, including Super Syrup, Ultra Syrup, Max Syrup, Super Mushroom, Ultra Mushroom, Max Mushroom, and plenty more (including subjects that were affected long after the merges). Every article that I want to split will be listed in the comments. So, the reason I want to split these articles is because there's no reason for them to be merged in the first place. They're individual items with individual names, individual effects, individual buying/selling prices, and individual locations that the games treat like individuals. In some cases, they even have individual appearances, and no, some items having the same appearance is not enough to keep them merged when everything else about them is different. The clumped articles themselves aren't all that pleasant, trying to hop from several topics in rapid succession when that information would be more easily presented in separate articles. Also, having a bunch of Foreignname templates stacked on top of each other is not good in the slightest. I was one of the people who supported those proposals, but looking back, I simply cannot see how the articles are "clearly not working seperate". In light of the recent splits, I thought this would be appropriate.

Proposer: Deadline: January 17, 2016, 23:59 GMT

Split

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) – Consistency is key. Per proposal.
 * 4) - Per Time Turner.
 * 5) Per proposal.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Should've happened earlier.
 * 8) - Per TT.
 * 9) - Cautious support. I agree with the general thrust of the proposal, but there does have to be a threshold below which two things are similar/minor enough to go on the same page. One-sentence pages, even if notionally complete, don't help anything. (I presume that last sentence doesn't apply to any of these specific splits)
 * 10) Per all
 * 11) Per proposal

Comments
Full list: I'm tempted to thrown in the Peppers alongside this proposal, but they're not quite in the same boat as the other ones. There's also the Mushroom that the Triplets give, which has a completely different effect to a regular Mushroom, but I don't know how the article would be properly identified if split.
 * Mushroom - Super Mushroom, Ultra Mushroom, Max Mushroom, Mid Mushroom, Bad Mushroom
 * Syrup - Super Syrup, Ultra Syrup, Max Syrup
 * Nuts - Super Nuts, Ultra Nuts, Max Nuts (on a side note, shouldn't it be "Nut"?)
 * Nut - Super Nut, Ultra Nut, Max Nut
 * 1-Up Mushroom - 1-Up Deluxe, Double 1-Up Mushroom
 * Drumstick - Hot Drumstick, Fiery Drumstick, TNT Drumstick
 * Candy - Super Candy, Ultra Candy, Max Candy
 * Any others that I've missed
 * It most definitely should be Nut instead of Nuts. It shouldn't be renamed right away, but it should be renamed after you've made the different Nut articles. You're allowed to link to just even if that would generate a red link.  20:17, 9 January 2016 (EST)

@Reboot: We're not giving articles to every subject under the angry sun (see: Fan (souvenirs), Lightwand), but the articles that I've listed all have more than enough information to support themselves individually.
 * I'm not sure if I understand the plan for the mushrooms. Is the intention to give the Super Mushroom from the various RPGs its own article(s), or merely move the information around to the existing one? Either way, it should be noted that the Mid/Super Mushroom and Max/Ultra Mushroom had identical Japanese names. It would appear to be another example of a translator – Ted Woolsey in this case – providing one-off separate names which would later be changed or reverted. The mushrooms in Super Mario RPG do heal different amounts of health, but those values are also inconsistent within the Mario & Luigi series itself. Mid/Super Mushroom definitely seems straightforward enough, but there is confusion with the Max Mushroom since it was actually introduced separately from Ultra Mushroom in the Mario & Luigi series, and it performs just like the original Super Mario RPG version in Superstar Saga and Partners in Time. That's not even considering Super Shroom and Ultra Shroom from Paper Mario (albeit colored differently). How does that all work out under this proposal? LinkTheLefty (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2016 (EST)

Pretty late in the proposal, but should Woo Beans, Hee Beans, Chuckle Beans, and Hoo Beans be added to this list? They're currently in Bean but I feel they can get their own article here. Does this proposal cover those? 00:14, 15 January 2016 (EST)
 * At this point, it's too late to change the proposal, but to me, they're in the same boat as the Peppers. I would like to see them split ASAP, but this proposal was meant for reverting the merges of yesteryear, and I felt that neither the Beans nor the Peppers were really a part of that. From day one, they were a part of the same article before the merges even started, so it would have been misleading to include them here. That's what talk page proposals are for!
 * I actually was about to contact you in your talk page, but better ask here now: are you planning on creating separate article for those aforementioned beans? It doesn't seem like something that would be a contentious issue since the four are pretty distinct enough, but I could be wrong... 00:28, 15 January 2016 (EST)
 * Considering their different locations, different appearances, different uses, and different names, I'm all for each Bean having its own article. I might also extend this to the stat-up Beans from later games, though I don't know enough about them to give a definite "yes this is a good idea".
 * Let's just stick with the Superstar Saga beans stuff. I think the stat-up beans shouldn't get their own page; as far as I remember, they all have the same sprite and don't differ as drastically as the Superstar Saga stuff. 00:47, 15 January 2016 (EST)
 * The Beans have different sprites in Dream Team, and considering they all increase a different stat and can be found in different locations, I wouldn't mind bringing them along for the split.
 * Fair point. Let's do that too. 16:19, 15 January 2016 (EST)

Require short detail of change in future Support/Oppose/Comment/etc proposal headers
FAILED 1-5

The reason for this is similar to the proposal above - when adding a vote or comment on a page that has a prior (usually settled) proposal, you get sent to the equivalent section for the first proposal. Similarly, the section link from RecentChanges will also send you to the wrong section in the same way (in either case, you're sent to, e.g., when the section you're looking for has an anchor along the lines of, even though the header is just ====Support==== ).

It wouldn't have to be long or complicated (e.g., this proposal could have headers of something like "Support/Oppose requiring short detail"/"Comment on requiring short detail"), the point is just for it to be unique on the page (although simplicity of rule-writing means that it would be better to include the first proposal on a page in it). Headers in past proposals wouldn't need to be changed; this would only apply to proposals, including Talk Page Proposals, started after the new policy would come into effect.

Proposer: Deadline: January 17, 2016, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) . Per own proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) - Too much screwing around for something as superfluous as where you appear in the page after saving. The Table of Contents brings you to the right header, and when you try to edit, you're in the right section, so there's really no problem. Maybe someday the MediaWiki bug will be fixed, but in the meantime, it's not worth complicating basic header stuff.
 * 2) Aside from per Walkazo, since the page load bug is a bug, it's not something we can really fix.
 * 3) Per Walkazo and the comments below. It's a MediaWiki glitch that most likely won't be fixed in the near future. All this does is add unneeded tedium to the process of proposal creation; even though  does this, it doesn't mean we should all be required to do this. I get that we're trying to work around something the can possibly get very irritating (I actually talked to Porple about it because at that point, I didn't know it was a well known MediaWiki glitch), but like I said, all this rule (for lack of a better word) would do is add unnecessary and unwanted tedium to creating proposals; and besides, the only thing it would really be absolutely necessary for is TPPs because on this page, it doesn't take much effort to go from one proposal to the next, because scrolling from Proposal A over Proposal B to Proposal C does not take much effort at all. To sum up, it really should just be an option, not a requirement.
 * 4) Per all. I'd rather ignore the bug than go through an extra step in making creative proposal headers.
 * 5) Per all.

Comments
Ghost Jam: Isn't this what this proposal is all about, though? Circumventing a bug? 19:05, 11 January 2016 (EST)
 * Exactly. We can't fix it (it's more or less baked in - the only ways to technologically fix it would be [a] prohibit more than one section with the same name on a page by throwing an error when someone tries to save it as such or [b] make section anchors something like a random alphanumeric code with no connection to the actual header text. The former is a more extreme version of what I'm suggesting, and no-one anywhere wants the latter), but we can work around it. - Reboot (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2016 (EST)
 * Or just ignore it. It's a minor bug: not worth bending over backwards over and adding another, confusingly fiddly step to proposal-making - one that promotes inconsistency and needless wordiness, at that, which will then look terrible in the archives forever. Both the long-term and short-terms costs far outweigh any benefit from avoiding a glitch that causes a second's worth of inconvenience at a time: we've shrugged and carried on for over 8 years, and we should continue with that path of least resistance. - 01:12, 12 January 2016 (EST)

Split the Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga and Partners in Time badges into separate articles
FAILED 3-5

'''Note: This proposal is not advocating to split the lists from the Badge article into separate articles. It is advocating for every single badge in those lists to have their own, respective articles (excluding Bowser's Inside Story and Dream Team). This is to prevent any confusion.'''

Please, put away your snap judgments and hear me out.

The tables in the Badge article are not adequate as fully comprehensive sources of information. At best, they can be used to summarize the basics of each badge, like the tables in various game articles, but they would benefit greatly from having individual articles. The locations of each badge beyond "this entire area", as well as when they can be obtained in shops as the story progresses; a more detailed description of each of the badges' effects, and while this may not apply to several badges in Superstar Saga that only increases stats, every badge in Partners in Time has a secondary effect, and there's no reason to drag them down just because of a few outliers; each of the badges' names in other languages, and no, I don't consider the giant and garish list to be a suitable alternative; both their base buying and selling prices; and this is just what I cam come up with off the top of my head. In theory, several of these elements could be stuffed into the tables, but at some point it'd just become bloated to the point where it'd be better to split the badges out of convenience. The tables are already showing signs of bloat: frankly, a table that requires ten footnotes and two sets of asterisks on top of that is laughably inefficient. Even if they don't have a unique sprite, they're still clearly unique items with unique attributes. There's also another recent proposal from me that wants to split some items that also share appearances, so that alone is not strong enough to keep them merged. If the game treats the items like individuals, we should do the same. From where I'm standing, this is a natural follow-up to my last proposal that involved splitting the Paper Mario badges. This can only increase the wealth of information on the wiki and limit the need to rely on an imperfect list.

As there are notable differences between the use of badges in the first two and later two games of the Mario & Luigi series, this proposal only covers said first two games.

Proposer: Deadline: January 24, 2016, 23:59 GMT

Split

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) - Per TT.

Don't split

 * 1) - Yeah, "a page for every named thing" is a valid stance, and one we generally follow, but this is starting to seem like overkill, especially when the clothing/equipment is taken into account, as if we okay this, for consistency, we should okay all those hundreds of splits too since they're basically in the same boat. And while there is enough info to make decent little pages, do we really need to? The tables aren't actually that bloated (yet - and if we want to add more stuff, we could just do similar setups to the new PM bestiary pages with stacked stats) and the Names in other language summary table isn't a bad solution at all (maybe just move it to the corresponding list page). Meanwhile, there are no unique images, all the "specific location" stuff starts to sound like walkthrough material, what the stores are up to should be covered in their respective pages already, and the "too many footnotes" argument doesn't sway me at all since the aforementioned PM bestiary pages have much more expansive "what the words mean" sections up top, and the M&L:SS footnotes is actually pretty straightforward to understand, since it's not like ten special cases requiring discussion, but ten (mostly-)recurring types of effects: just move them up top as a proper legend and it's fine. Overall, I can't help shake the feeling of "do not want" when it comes to this idea.
 * 2) Have to agree with Walkazo on this
 * 3) Per Walkazo.
 * 4) It's a good idea, but I gotta go with Walkazo here.
 * 5) Per Walkazo.

Comments
Wait, but don't we have these articles on the two subjects already? 00:14, 18 January 2016 (EST)
 * You thought the same thing with the last proposal. This proposal is not about splitting those lists into individual articles, but giving individual articles for every item in those lists.
 * Sorry. I'm probably too tired and too stupid to read things through before farting something out of my trap. But is there something the Partners in Time list misses? Only the Superstar Saga list seems convoluted as hell unless I'm being mistaken (being the dumb person I am to repeat the same comment) and even so, why don't the Bowser's Inside Story and Dream Team badges need a split? And what about the battle cards from Paper Jam? What will you do about those? Do those even have names? 00:36, 18 January 2016 (EST)
 * One step at a time. As I described in the proposal, the lists miss out on detailed locations (exact drop rates as well), names in other languages, specific buying/selling prices, and more detail for a badge's effects. While the PiT table isn't as convoluted, it's still missing a wealth of information that could be easily added if the Badges were given individual articles. The BIS and DT Badges were left out due to their radically different nature than the SS and PiT Badges. If this proposal goes well, they can be covered in due time, alongside the Battle Cards (which I, admittedly, don't know much about).

We could make the same case for Equipment. Specific ones make several effects and can be explained in detail, some are obtained specifically (although most are random if I recall correctly), and all have completely different foreign names. Yeah, equipment are more "generic" than badges but their function is quite similar to badges in many cases. Overall, I'm skeptical of this proposal. 15:19, 18 January 2016 (EST)
 * You made a case for equipment sharing properties with the badges, but what about it? Are you saying that the Badges shouldn't be split if the Equipment isn't split? Are you saying that the Badges don't deserve to be split because other articles in a similar position are merged (as I said, baby steps)? What are you skeptical about?
 * I'm just pointing out facts that might give this proposal some trouble since splitting Equipment sounds like overkill; therefore splitting badges would be overkill. 15:49, 18 January 2016 (EST)
 * And why would splitting the Equipment be overkill? If you're just referring to the pants in the M&L games, then they're basically badges of a different name, only they increase defence instead of attack (in Superstar Saga, at least). As you said yourself, pretty much everything that could be used to expand the badges could also be used to expand the equipment, and the point I want to stress the most is that the tables we have now are far from adequate enough to properly cover them. I didn't even give them a second thought while writing this proposal, but this just gives me more motivation to push forward. If you're talking about the SMRPG stuff, then I don't know enough about them to say something definitive.
 * Check the link. I've referred to the Super Smash Bros. variety of Equipment. 00:10, 22 January 2016 (EST)

Please create an example article in a subpage of your userpage so that I can judge this more accurately. 04:57, 22 January 2016 (EST)
 * I don't have the time nor the brainpower to give a bunch of fully fleshed-out examples with school just starting, but here's a start.
 * I'm not digging the excessive fluff here at all. It reads like a walkthrough and the information it contains is already present in the tables. 02:46, 24 January 2016 (EST)

Remerge most Super Mario Bros. film information
VETOED BY THE ADMINISTRATORS The information posted in the comments shows that the situation is more complicated than initially believed, however there was no time for the proposal and its participants to take that into account. The proposal may be re-listed immediately, but with the information about the creators' intent for the film to be the inspiration for the games (rather than a direct portrayal of the games and their characters) included from the start to ensure all votes are fully informed, rather than making a decision based on half the picture.

It's a pretty complex problem, so it's important that you read and understand what exactly is going on in this proposal. The general crux of this proposal is to overturn the previous proposals mentioned below, thus remerging the film information to their parent articles, but there are a few exceptions that have to be made, and they'll be explained below.

Some history: we had a few proposals related to the Super Mario Bros. film. This one in 2009 set the idea that film information should be separate because, the reasoning went, the film depictions are drastically different and unfaithful to the games for the most part. Later, this proposal (by me) reinforced it. The biggest problem with this reasoning is that is singles out the Super Mario Bros. film for being different from the games but other media and even the games themselves don't exactly follow the standards for character designs all the time. One example is Mario, which if we did went by "they look super different", we may have to split live action depictions of Mario (such as in the cartoons) because there's no way to faithfully replicate Mario's design in live-action. Another example, we don't separate King Koopa from the cartoons from Bowser even though King Koopa is completely green, has no hair, wears a crown, and has yellow underbelly that extends to his tail, traits Bowser does not have. It may be argued that King Koopa isn't different enough and the cartoons want us to treat this character the same as Bowser. What is the line between "different" enough, though? This is entirely subjective and while King Koopa indeed shares more traits with games Bowser than film Bowser does with games Bowser, I feel this is the wrong point to make. This film also wants its viewers to treat this human as Bowser, but simply "evolved" to look more human, and we get to see this character as a reptilian later in the film anyway. Furthermore, there is at least one enemy that largely resembles its game counterpart, the Bob-omb, but that isn't split.

Which brings me another problem: the split job from those proposals is inconsistent. Mario Brothers Plumbing, Snifit, Tweeter, and Bullet Bill/Banzai Bill are also not split. Why not just split them instead of merging the rest? Because there are no very good reasons to keep them split, as the only reasoning was that "they're super different". After you look past the drastic depictions, the split invites canon arguments in the wiki and suggests that the film is "less canon" than the games/cartoons/whatever, which violates a well-enforced policy, which appears to be a major blind spot or double standard for outsiders to this wiki. We've had users trying to add film information to these character's articles, which may have highlighted the problem with this split.


 * To be merged
 * Mario (film character)
 * Luigi (film character)
 * Toad (film character)
 * Princess Daisy (film character) (similarities to Princess Peach can be noted if needed; do NOT add extensive infant Daisy's information to Baby Daisy aside from a side note, similar to how Toddler Terrors of Time Travel is handled in Baby Mario and Baby Luigi)
 * President Koopa (to Bowser)
 * Yoshi (film character)
 * Goomba (film) (reptilian forms can be noted as a possible parallel to Koopa Troopas, although I don't know if the film ever refers to these as even Koopa Troopas.
 * Iggy (film character)
 * King (film character) to Mushroom King

Sure, some of these will vastly expand the parent characters (which may be heavy in content to begin with), but that means a rewrite not a reason to keep articles split. Our own MaRPG plot information is arguably just as detailed as the film's plot information, but we don't split information.


 * To remain split
 * Big Bertha (film character) (no individual Big Bertha character; there is a Big Bertha character in Fins and Roses, although its article isn't created as I speak, so the film identifier is fine)
 * Spike (film character) (there was no individual Spike character in the games; rename to Spike (character))


 * Needs information
 * Mario Brothers Plumbing
 * Snifit (Shy Guy could also use a mention if not there already)
 * Banzai Bill (it resembles a Banzai Bill and is linked as Banzai Bill in the film's article, so a mention in Banzai Bill needs to be made)
 * Monkey!

The general idea is that there has to be some parallel to these two characters. If there is an individual in the film (Mario) that is an individual in the games (Mario), then it should be merged. If there is an individual in the film (Big Bertha) that is a generic species in the game (a Big Bertha) then it should get its own article.

Proposer:, suggestions by Deadline: February 4, 2016, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) - Per proposal, per consistency with how we deal with every other conflicting piece of media, including games that don't quite fit. Even for species we split for being different in certain appearances, it's because there's different names to justify it, but that's not really applicable here, and besides, there's no reasonable question that characters like the film's Mario is Mario, just a different take on him, and that's too subjective to split pages over. If the to-be-merged character pages are massive, that's only because they're doing a poor job of summarizing the film and should be cut down: the film has its own article for a scene-by-scene breakdown, on character pages, it's padding (regardless of whether the articles are merged or standalone).
 * 2) Per all.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per all. I always thought this splitting was inconsistent.
 * 1) Per all. I always thought this splitting was inconsistent.

Oppose

 * 1) - If we are going to have pages for all paper characters (see Paper Mario (character)) on the basis of them being different characters, I see no reason why the film characters should be re-merged. Paper Mario is way more similar to Game Mario than Film Mario, and it makes little sense to state that Paper Mario is "its own entity", as Film Mario clearly doesn't follow the general story and concept of Game Mario and should therefore be its own entity.
 * 2) - Mario's article is too long, so I don't want a film continuity crammed into it. Besides, we have had different forms of Mario as separate pages and different versions of Mario on the same screen. I'm aware of Canoncity, but I would prefer the separate pages for Other Media forms of Mario and other characters that are too different from the games.
 * 3) - The post-credits scene where Iggy and Spike are brainstorming video game ideas to Japanese executives is meant to show the "true" origin of Nintendo's Super Mario Bros. due to language difficulties. This isn't reading between the lines - this was somewhat recently confirmed as the actual intent by one of the directors, and is apparently the sole reason the entire movie feels "different" from the rest of the series (which backfired with audiences). That alone should tell us the film's characters are not exactly meant to be the same entities that fans are familiar with.

Comments
Who would we merge Iggy with? He's clearly not Iggy Koopa. -- 18:27, 28 January 2016 (EST)
 * How is he not "Iggy Koopa", though? I know, he appears different and the rest of the Koopalings aren't there, but I'm sure he was created with the Koopaling in mind, with him being a cousin rather than a sibling. 18:35, 28 January 2016 (EST)
 * Possibly, but the only similarity besides the name (which could be a coincedence) is that he's a Koopa who serves Bowser. I would believe he was based on Iggy if the other Koopalings actually existed. -- 18:39, 28 January 2016 (EST)
 * So he's Koopa's adult cousin in the film instead of the (now-retconned) parent-child connection? Big whup - it's no more drastic a change than Daisy being the Mushroom princess, Koopa being President instead of King, Goombas being giant pea-headed men, Yoshi being a pet, Toad being a busker, a bare-faced Luigi being much younger than Mario, etc. It's pretty obvious that they got the name and inspiration from the Koopaling, so let's call a spade a spade and put the info in that article. -
 * Fair enough, you got me :P -- 18:41, 28 January 2016 (EST)

@Tucayo: Just because the film does a poor job at handling the depiction of the Mario characters doesn't make it grounds for disqualification within the Mario series. That's pretty much the base of your entire argument, something this proposal thoroughly debunked in its opening statements, regarding how differently various characters were portrayed in the cartoon (including the live-action version of the Super Mario Bros. Super Show, should we also split that information off considering how vastly different their roles are?) and even within the games themselves. Whereas, it's arguable within not only storyline matters but also gameplay matters that Paper Mario is his own character. Film Mario had never been referred as separate from regular Mario in the Mario series. The movie clearly established that it's the same Mario as this Mario, no matter how bad of a job they did with it or how deviating from the canon it is (and we know that this wiki has a firm stance against established canonicity), so therefore, they should be merged. 13:12, 1 February 2016 (EST)
 * "disqualification within the Mario series". The fact that the movie is not part of the Mario series makes it grounds for disqualification within the Mario series. I'd actually support splitting those appearances as well, but that should be a debate for another time. --
 * And may I ask exactly how is it not part of the Mario series? 13:21, 1 February 2016 (EST)
 * From Mario (series):
 * "The Mario series is a long-running video game series published by the popular gaming company, Nintendo. The Mario series has been running for more than a quarter of a century, and in its lifespan has released more than two hundred video games. The series also holds the title of best-selling video game franchise in history, with over 262 million combined units sold."
 * Video game series. I'm aware we classify it as "Other Media", and it's exactly that, it's other media. Our own name for it indicates it's "other", not a main part of the series but rather something additional. My vote stands. -- 13:25, 1 February 2016 (EST)
 * Are you going to advocate splitting off the Mario as depicted in other media aside from the film as well? Like, any appearances in Super Mario Adventures, Super Mario-Kun, Super Mario Bros. Super Show, Amada Anime Series: Super Mario Bros., and whatnot as well? Keep in mind, this is not a Mario series argument. This is an argument whether to integrate the film depiction of Mario into Mario's article, Luigi film character into Luigi, and others. We don't have the cartoon series and what not in the Mario series article simply because you are correct, the Mario series is a video game series. However, we are talking about individual character articles, not a video game series one, and that allows more leeway of interpretations of the character into them, in which, film Mario has the criteria of being included into Mario the characters article. 13:38, 1 February 2016 (EST)

Tucayo: Where did you get that conclusion from? What does Paper Mario have to do with the film? We're splitting Paper Mario because he's treated as a different character in Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam (he's considered a third partner, he has his own stats, and Flesh Mario interacts with him as if he's his own character). Film Mario should be merged because he's supposed to be a take on Mario; if this Mario interacted with Game Mario, it would be feasible, but no, this is supposed to be the Mario. This has nothing to do with how "different" a Mario is or "he's made of paper" or this conclusion based on faulty logic that "Paper Mario is different and his own character; Bob Hoskins Mario is different, so therefore, he should be his own character". Frankly, your logic behind why "the movie is not part of the Mario series" is ridiculous. You're even contradicting yourself in your definition: first, you're saying it's not part of the series, but then you go around and say it's not a "main" part of the series but something additional. The external media does count as part of the Mario series, but the Mario series is primarily about the games, especially when the other media are based off these games. The only barometer of what makes media worthy of coverage is if Nintendo officially was involved in it. How closely a medium (or a series of it!) adheres to Nintendo's world of Mario invites canon arguments like you're arguing here, specifically "it's not faithful so it shouldn't be covered alongside everything else", which is just a different way of saying "it's less canon/it's less authentic" when we shouldn't even begin to focus on that. As Canonicity states, "the organization of an article is simply a way to convey information in the most effective and efficient manner possible." The current split-off is not effective or efficient due to its inconsistent nature and that it singles out the Super Mario Bros. film just for being different. 15:27, 1 February 2016 (EST)
 * Show me what the article would look like if it's merged. That way I'll decide if this is indeed efficient and effective. -- 15:56, 1 February 2016 (EST)
 * This is what it may look like. 16:29, 1 February 2016 (EST)
 * Alright, looks OK. -- 21:46, 1 February 2016 (EST)

LinktheLefty: I think that verges on speculation. And even if you do accept the intent of the filmmakers, that the game developers "bastardized" Super Mario Bros., exactly how would this make film Mario a separate character from game Mario? 01:41, 4 February 2016 (EST)

SeanWheeler: Your entire vote is invalid and it is easily refuted by the arguments made in the proposal here and in this forum post here. Your argument carries no weight and I don't think your vote should count unless you actually argue your points more thoroughly. 01:43, 4 February 2016 (EST)


 * This isn't speculation, though: it's laid out pretty clearly in the aforementioned Rocky Morton interview.


 * “Well, the concept that I came up with for the movie — because it wasn’t an original script, which I didn’t like, and I went away and thought about it and then pitched to the producers my new idea — was to create a backstory that only tentatively related to the final game. The idea being that we were going to tell the real story, and that the game itself was a perversion of the original story, which the movie is. That’s why it’s different, you know; the characters are slightly different and everything because [the story] was discovered by the Japanese and they reinterpreted it, but got a few things wrong in the actual video game. Of course, [that] backfired, because people thought "They got it wrong!" ... Well the original script was like that, was like more of a direct lift from the game. And I thought well, we all know the game, wouldn’t it be interesting to create a game that was kind of darker and was the "true" story. And, you know, in history, myths get distorted — this would be the same thing, the origin of the myth, and then it got reinterpreted by the Japanese — like, you see, at the end the two executives from Nintendo come at the end to to talk to Mario and Luigi, and they tell the story of their adventure verbally and then [Nintendo] kind of writes it down and gets it all wrong, and that’s why the game is different from the film. ... I wanted to find a reason to free myself from the game, and the reason I came up with was this was the original story, and everything else was a distortion from this being the truth. And once with that concept, it freed me from being shackled to any portrayal of the video game. Of course, that p*****d a lot of people off — but that was what we decided to do!“


 * Best as I can tell, this was brought up because it was decided feeling "too different" was not a valid reason in itself, which is true. However, there's a very deliberate rationale for this, officially explaining that the film does not consciously represent what is depicted in the franchise proper. I don't know what the thought process was for reserving this key detail until after the credits when most viewers would've gone up and left the room (and those remaining would probably not think of it as anything more than an ill-executed gag), but either way, the scene definitely isn't an afterthought - according to the co-director, it is actually the entire basis that the final shooting script revolves around, specifically so the film wouldn't have to be restrained down. Essentially, it comes down to a game of telephone - can something that started out entirely differently and got mangled over time and communication troubles really be considered the thing it started out as? Same applies to the characters, setting and story as a whole. To me, this is ample grounds for segregating the information. I'm generally all for wiki policy, but I think that's really supposed to be enforced if the intent is unconfirmed and unknowable. Policy shouldn't come at the expense of overriding well-documented creator intent (whether we agree with it or not). LinkTheLefty (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2016 (EST)

I'm ebarassed to say I actually knew about the Rocky Morton comment (even wrote about it on the film's page), but I didn't consider the implications for this proposal until LTL posted.

To add to the above, this trading card for the film also hint at Rocky Morton's explanation of the movie. It even directly says "Nintendo video game". --Glowsquid (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2016 (EST)

Deal with the duplicate Paper subjects in Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam
CREATE ARTICLES FOR PAPER JAM CHARACTERS ONLY 8-0-0

Since we started hearing about the subject matter of Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam, there has been questions about what that means for the Paper Mario series and how we cover it and its subjects. There are three options:


 * 1) Make separate pages for the duplicate Paper characters/species/etc. that appear in Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam alongside their flesh/real/3D counterparts, ONLY covering their appearances in that one game, and NOT in any preceding Paper Mario games. It follows the same logic that splits Metal Mario (character) from regular Mario (or Metal Mario (form)) and Baby characters from their adult counterparts, in that the two versions of the characters appear in at least one game simultaneously and function separately from each other. Separate characters (or species, etc.) in the context of the applicable games getting separate articles makes coverage easier (one characters' plot overview per page, one set of stats per page, etc.), and, since the subjects have specific names and identities, it's likely that people will search for them, and we want to make sure that traffic comes to us and finds what they want. This is what I suggest we do.
 * 2) Split coverage of the Paper Mario series entirely due to the M&L:PJ showing that the paper world exists in a book in the regular Mario universe. This means that for consistency, everything that appeared in both series should get split, which is insane from an organizational/comprehensive coverage standpoint and runs afoul of numerous policies and fundamental organization standards. For one thing, the mere assertion that all previous Paper Mario games happened in the M&L:PJ book is reading between the lines and linking unrelated games together into a single narrative, which is against the rules. It also comes dangerously close to making forbidden canon judgments about the Paper Mario series, and even ignoring the "the book's not the real world" angle, it's still placing Paper Mario into its own chronology by separating it from the regular Histories of all the subjects, and we haven't organized articles like that for MANY years, much less split them over it. The only vestige of that sort of thinking is the separation of the film characters, under a biased "they're different" excuse, and that is currently being fixed by another proposal. Even Dr. Mario, while superficially splitting out info based on series origin, is actually more along the lines of the aforementioned Baby characters (as well as other things like Dry Bowser and different forms of boss enemies), in that he's split because he has a specific name, appearance and function with self-contained info that folks are likely to search for, with extra justification that he appears alongside the regular Mario in SSB. And so, because this flies in the face of how we cover things in the Super Mario Wiki and would result in the creation of hundreds of superfluous pages that would snarl up organization forever, I strongly suggest we do NOT do this.
 * 3) Make no new articles and talk about both versions of every co-occurring pair of Paper and flesh/3D subjects in single pages. While this would keep all the Paper things together in one page, I think the resulting clutter in those sections will outweigh any advantage that not splitting it apart would bring, plus M&L:PJ isn't even a Paper Mario game, so the Paper content within it will still be far from the actual Paper Mario content on pages with any sort of History built up. Unless there's two M&L:PJ sections per History section, one for the flesh/3D stuff, one for the Paper stuff, but that would be awkward, and could even make both sections seem incomplete or repetitive, depending on how they're handled, plus it's unlike any other aspect of our coverage of any game, and inconsistency is bad. So I suggest we don't do this either.

Hopefully there were enough pros and cons in there to convince everyone that Option 1 is the simplest way, and is the most consistent with current standards and policies. If you want more words, I also made a big forum post going through all the different sorts of doppelgangers we cover. That forum discussion actually exists because someone already went and made a Paper Mario (character) article, without any discussion, and initially as an "option 2"-style Paper Mario series-wide page, although I've since cut it back to M&L:PJ only. I'm hoping this proposal will make it clear that the community as a whole is behind that decision of mine, and will continue in that direction to move forward with that article, and the ones to follow.

I'm not going to bother making a list of pages that will need creating if Option 1 passes, but it's basically every Paper character in M&L:PJ, including Paper Luigi and his cameo, as well as the Paper Toads and Paper enemies, assuming their stats, attacks and/or other non-superficial aspects about them are different from their non-Paper counterparts (but if, for example, Paper Goombas are the same as regular Goombas except for how they look, and same goes for all the other enemies too, don't bother splitting them). Unfortunately, I don't have the game yet, so I don't know enough to even attempt to split anything myself, so others are feel free to have at it: I'm just here to establish the overall game plan.

Proposer: Deadline: February 9, 2016, 23:59 GMT

Option 1: Separate pages for M&L:PJ characters only

 * 1) - Per proposal. Even if subsequent SSB trophies or whatever vaguely characterize the M&L:PJ character as the "Paper Mario" from earlier games, I think it'd be disastrous to split the series: everything being canon and equal and organized through release dates only is the simplest and best solution, and the current practice of giving pages to simultaneously occurring alternate forms of characters is a logical, straightforward and consistent exception that should work for Paper Jam too.
 * 2) Supported this stance from the beginning, supported it in the forums, will continue doing so.
 * 3) Per Walkazo.
 * 4) Per Walkazo. I was skeptical at first, but after playing Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam and have read discussions, I finally agree to separates paper characters and only those of Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam.
 * 5) I've supported this stance, and Walkazo's points only reinforce my position.
 * 6) This is the most reasonable solution. The enemies were likely going to get separate articles anyway seeing as they were fully classified as separate enemies in game, but it does fully clear up what we'd do with characters like Paper Mario, Paper Peach and Paper Bowser (due to his incredibly small role, I'll assume Paper Luigi doesn't fully count, or does he?). Either way, per all.
 * 7) Per Walkazo in the comments.
 * 8) Per all.

Comments
While I'm not suggesting we should split all Paper Mario content, I'd like to hear your thoughts on why Baby Mario is different. His article covers all his appearances as Baby Mario, even when he doesn't appear alongside adult Mario (apart from Super Mario Momotarō and "The Early Years", for a reason I admittedly don't quite grasp). Why should we not cover Baby Mario's appearances when he doesn't meet Adult Mario in the main Mario article, which is what you guys are suggesting to do for Paper Mario? 17:22, 2 February 2016 (EST)
 * There's a very specific, consistent and explicitly named characterization of Baby Mario, and covering half his appearances on one page and half on the other would be messy, confusing and make both articles look incomplete. Dr. Mario and Dry Bowser are covered independently from the main character pages for similar reasons. But this Mario / Paper Mario co-occurence is a one-off so far, so it doesn't need to reconcile recurring solo/duo adventures. Plus, there were four games and many years where there was no distinction between Paper Mario and "real" Mario: they don't call him "Paper Mario" in the earlier games, just "Mario", so it would be wrong of us to go back and say "actually, it was this different Paper Mario all along because a game created years later says so". By contrast, Baby Mario was always "B/baby Mario", and Dr. Mario was always "Dr. Mario", etc., so we're not making stuff up to say there were distinctions from the start. The only times an infant Mario wasn't "Baby Mario" were things like Super Mario Momotarō, Family Album "The Early Years" or "Toddler Terrors of Time Travel", hence they're not covered in Baby Mario's article: that'd be us making connections/appearances that don't exist - same as retroactively making all Paper Marios feature the M&L:PJ "Paper Mario" would be. - 22:25, 2 February 2016 (EST)

To fully clarify, where will we put Paper Luigi in this case? I'm leading to assume he won't get an article due to how minor his appearance was.
 * Paper Luigi should get his own article. Sure, it's extremely minor, but it's a harmless small article. 20:40, 3 February 2016 (EST)
 * The proposal specifically states that Paper Luigi would get his own page like all the rest of the characters. - 21:44, 3 February 2016 (EST)
 * Alright then, fair enough.