MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/48

Is it "Coin" or "coin"?
Currently, the wiki has no set standard for the capitalization of the golden that Mario and co. collect in abundance across the franchise: is it "Coin", with a capital C, or "coin", with a lowercase c? This isn't entirely clear-cut: from the games that I've looked at, there are many that do not capitalize it, including most recently Mario Party 8, Sm4sh, and New Super Mario Bros. 2, but there are also other games that capitalize it, including New Super Mario Bros. Wii and Mario Party, and there's something odd and inconsistent about listing the Red Coin, the Purple Coin, the Blue Coin, the 20 Coin, the Key Coin, and many others as being derivatives of the coin. That lowercase "coin" seems out of place, doesn't it? Lowercasing it just because it's a generic noun doesn't hold either; the Mushroom is plainly and consistently capitalized in just about every circumstances. If you're going to say it's because the Mario Mushrooms obviously aren't like the real-life mushrooms, then I'd argue the same goes for the floating, golden, abundant Coins. There is a precedent for not capitalizing the names of subjects with, for example, treasure chest (despite there being at least one in-game source that capitalizes them, but that's an issue for another time), but it's a moot point if the subject isn't generic in the first place.

This may seem like a trivially minor issue, but at the same time, this is an issue that has yet to reach a decisive conclusion. I fail to see a reason why we shouldn't strive for consistency, especially since we've already had a proposal to decide on a set spelling for minigame (spoilers: we decided on minigame).

Proposer: Deadline: September 2, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Use "Coin"

 * 1) It's hardly as if no official sources have ever not capitalized it. Per proposal.
 * 2) Per Time Turner.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) - Originally voted to do nothing as I thought this was also talking about coins in a broader term, i.e. also including Red Coins and Blue Coins. But for referring to just the standard Yellow Coins, yes, "Coin" should be capitalized (at least in instances outside of quotes).
 * 5) Per Alex, and supporting for consistency (unless "coin" is used in generic terms; see this).
 * 6) per all

Use "coin"

 * 1) See comments.
 * 2) Alternate vote here, because the games themselves almost always refer to them in lowercase. Still, silly proposal.
 * 3) Unless it's referring to a specific type in most cases, coins (and for that matter, blocks and, in at least one instance, coin blocks) have consistently been generically lowercase in RPGs.

Do nothing

 * 1) I highly doubt that there is enough definitive official sources that specifically stick to one capitalization. I'd rather stick with this option until an official capitalization is given, and right now, there doesn't seem to be. (One example of this is that I found an all-lowercase "coin" in the Super Mario Galaxy 2 instruction booklet.)
 * 2) See comments.
 * 3) While this has bugged me minorly before, this proposal is honestly kind of silly.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) This seems to be something that changes depending on the game.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Per Toadette the Achiever.

Comments
If anyone has any more in-game citations for "Coin" or "coin" from any games that haven't been mentioned, then I'm all-ears. 00:16, 26 August 2017 (EDT)

@Toadette: I don't see why we should be inconsistent solely because the games also happen to be inconsistent. 00:47, 26 August 2017 (EDT)
 * @Time Turner: Changed the content of my vote. 00:50, 26 August 2017 (EDT)
 * What kind of official capitalization do you want? Is it necessary for Nintendo to make a press release declaring whether it's lowercase or up case? Through the simple fact that the names are seen in plain text, we already have an abundance of official names. It's up to us to decide how we should use the information. 00:52, 26 August 2017 (EDT)

I say this is as official as you can get. Although, this could be on a game to game basis. 01:37, 26 August 2017 (EDT)

@Doc: Why? 02:54, 26 August 2017 (EDT)
 * Because it's an inanimate object that is super inconsistent as to how it's capitalized. Honestly, if you wanna go by policy, see how the latest game spells it. 01:58, 26 August 2017 (CT)
 * If we strictly followed every new game, the spelling might constantly change, and there are likely cases in which there's no adequate source for capitalization. Best to nip it in the bud, no? I also don't get your point with it being an inanimate object. 03:06, 26 August 2017 (EDT)

I don't get what's acceptable about setting a standard for "microgame" but not for "coin"? 17:14, 26 August 2017 (EDT)


 * It's capitalized in the tutorial of Mario Party 2, but not capitalized in the tutorial of Mario Party 3. It's inconsistent between such close games. A better choice would be to capitalize it depending on the game, and have the higher case be more dominant otherwise (because it is a main item), but I feel this is such a minor unnoticeable issue, yet the "do nothing" option does not convince me. -- 06:30, 27 August 2017 (EDT)

Include the date a proposal was withdrawn within the proposal (when applicable)
When it comes to the proposal archives, in which we write down the date each proposal ended, it's standard to use the date a proposal was canceled by its proposer or withdrawn for whatever other reason, rather than the proposed deadline (as documented here). This makes sense: it wouldn't be accurate to say that a proposal had concluded a week later than it actually did, and the point of the archives is that we're documenting each proposal exactly as they played out (which is why we make note of proposals that themselves failed but whose proposed changes later passed, and vice-versa). With that in mind, why do we only make note of this in the broad archives and not within the proposals itself? Sure, it's possible to find the date it was canceled by going through the page's history, in the same way it's also possible to find the original proposer through the history page, but we still make note of it within the proposal itself. Leaving only the proposed deadline by itself is also rather misleading and non-informative, considering that any users reading through the proposal wouldn't be able to obviously tell when it actually closed. Even with the proposal outcome saying it was canceled, that doesn't help people find out when it was canceled. We should strive for accuracy, especially when all we'd need to do is make note of one more date.

The changes I have in mind would only be applicable to proposals that were canceled before their deadline, obviously. First of all, the Deadline section would be renamed to Proposed Deadline, with no changes to the date. Secondly, a section called Date Withdrawn would be placed underneath the Deadline, documenting exactly when the proposal was canceled. Ideally, this would include the time in GMT to match the Deadline, but for simplicity's sake, this proposal will only ask that the day needs to be documented and not the time. The details may be subject to change through future discussions, but the main change is clear: within the proposals, document when they were canceled.

Proposer: Deadline: September 9, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) - Per proposal.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) Per proposal.
 * 5) Per proposal.
 * 6) Per proposal.
 * 7) Per proposal.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Per proposal, especially considering a few recent talk page proposals ended up getting cancelled way earlier than the original deadline.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Per all.

Comments
Should this apply to all cancelled proposals regardless, or all proposals cancelled after September 9? 13:46, 3 September 2017 (EDT)
 * The plan is to make this retroactive. If the goal is to be accurate, it wouldn't do us much good to ignore ten years of proposals. 13:47, 3 September 2017 (EDT)

On that note, my plan also involves editing the proposal archives, which I can't actually do since they're protected. Should this proposal pass, the pages' protection restrictions can be temporarily lifted so that I can make the necessary changes, or an admin can make the edits themselves, whichever works best. 15:23, 3 September 2017 (EDT)

Remove letter-number labeling from Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon mission article titles
Currently, our articles for the missions from Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon include the letter-number labels in their titles (e.g. A-1: Poltergust 5000, A-2: Gear Up, B-1: A Job for a Plumber). Why? We don't do this for New Super Mario Bros. U, Super Mario 3D World, Paper Mario: Sticker Star, or any other game with world-level labeling where the levels also have proper names. I don't see a single reason for this one game to be the sole exception to this. It's just a blatant, glaring inconsistency.

Proposer: Deadline: September 10, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) It's no more a part of their names than W1-1 is for Warm Fuzzy Plains. I don't see the difference between this and this. Per proposal.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) - Per all.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per all
 * 7) The opposing argument (no offense) seems unconvincing, and Sticker Star is a perfect example. Per all.

Oppose

 * 1) It's the official naming scheme. Just create/keep redirects for the prefix-less version.
 * 2) The stage titles in Super Mario Sunshine had various colors too, and no one's making a big stink about that. The colors don't matter.

Comments
@Alex95: No they aren't. The letter-number labels are colored differently than the mission title, and the results screens omit the labels entirely. 16:44, 3 September 2017 (EDT)
 * It doesn't matter, because the game DOES list them like what you just said, by letter-number. In other words, the game DOES list the missions as A-1: Poltergust 5000, A-2: Gear Up, and so on and so forth. I don't get the point to this proposal. 16:47, 3 September 2017 (EDT)
 * Actually, that would matter. SM3DW has the world-level number, but it's not part of the title. I'll double check what the game does myself and come to a decision later. 16:49, 3 September 2017 (EDT)
 * Also, as shown in the video Time Turner linked to, levels in Sticker Star are listed similarly, and the colon doesn't appear to be in the name at all. -- 16:51, 3 September 2017 (EDT)
 * We are NOT talking about some YouTube videos, as much as I think Emile is one of the best, if not the best, YouTube LPers around. We're talking about what the GAMES say. And as far as I'm concerned, the very labeling you want removed is how Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon labels its missions, so you basically want to remove part of the official name of something, which goes completely against policy. 17:11, 3 September 2017 (EDT)
 * The videos are literally showcasing the games through footage directly captured from the games. How are we not talking about the games? 17:15, 3 September 2017 (EDT)
 * You're talking about how the videos themselves are named, not the game levels. If you look closely, you'll see that the levels are named as they should be (A-1: ...., A-2: ...., etc). 17:19, 3 September 2017 (EDT)
 * No, I am talking about what the videos themselves depict, especially considering I included timestamps. 17:20, 3 September 2017 (EDT)

It doesn't matter anyway. The levels aren't named Poltergust 5000 or Gear Up or etc, they're named A-1: Poltergust 5000, A-2: Gear Up, etc. It's their official name, and we always use the complete, official name of something. Your proposal is gonna go against that. 17:23, 3 September 2017 (EDT)

@7feetunder: Okay, so I played a level. The identifier is just that, an identifier. It also does show at the results screen. They aren't part of the title, but it would be helpful to have these identifiers should something else with the same name show up, like Poltergust 5000 or Sticky Situation. Though the same could be said about adding the identifiers to the other mentioned games... 17:23, 3 September 2017 (EDT)
 * Exactly what Alex said. Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon uses identifiers, but for the other games, the world-level number isn't part of the title. 17:26, 3 September 2017 (EDT)
 * We don't include identifiers to future-proof. Barb isn't "Barb (character)" just because another Barb might show up, and I could provide many more examples if requested. If it's a unique name, people will know what we're talking about. 17:28, 3 September 2017 (EDT)
 * OK, I looked again. When I said the results screen omits the label, I was looking at a boss mission, which are all labeled with a skull and no letter on the level select screen and nothing on the results screen. Apparently, the regular missions do include the labels. But the colors are still different, the colon is still not there, and again, it's just a W1-1-style identifier and not a part of the proper title. 17:37, 3 September 2017 (EDT)
 * I totally contradicted myself when I said it's just an identifier. That's the very thing you're trying to clarify isn't part of the actual title. However, since the game uses the identifier in every instance of the mission name, it appears to be both. 17:41, 3 September 2017 (EDT)
 * If the identifier is meant to be taken as part of the title proper, then why are the labels and names colored differently in every instance they appear together (IIRC)? 17:47, 3 September 2017 (EDT)
 * I don't know, aesthetics, man. Visual appeal. 17:52, 3 September 2017 (EDT)

I ultimately got tired of relying on videos and just whipped out my copy of the game, and here's what I confirmed: @Doc: By that same token, Road to the Big Windmill isn't called "Episode 1: Road to the Big Windmill". 18:21, 3 September 2017 (EDT)
 * I couldn't find any instances of the mission names occuring independently from the labeling, but they were always colored differently.
 * The boss and bonus missions are not labeled. On the selection screen, they have no letter-number labels, but skull and ghost icons respectively (just the icons, not A-Ghost, B-Ghost, etc.). On the results screen and touch screen (tap the little notebook paper icon in the bottom right corner), there's nothing, just the name of the mission. So our labeling of those isn't even accurate to the game. You could argue that that's a cause to remove the labels from those alone, and leave the regular missions as is, but the obvious inconsistency created by this, combined with the above point, really leads me to believe that the labels are not meant to be taken as part of the title and are just meant as identifiers. 18:28, 3 September 2017 (EDT)
 * OK. Those are on different lines though, ie "Episode 1" is placed above "Road to the Big Windmill",although many of the names seem to have come from the SMS guide. If it calls them with "Episode #" parsed in, they should probably be moved to those. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2017 (EDT)
 * The only ones that come from a guide are the "hidden" missions (like the red coin missions for the secret sub-levels), the Delfino Airstrip missions, and Corona Mountain's only mission, which aren't named nor labeled as episodes in-game. And if you wanna talk about placement, let's go back to Sticker Star. In that first video Time Turner linked, you can see that W1-1 is to the left of Warm Fuzzy Plains, just like the labeling in Dark Moon. The Toad at the very beginning of the area clearly refers to it without the label, so it isn't part of the actual name. The size and font of the W1-1 label is different, but I don't see how that's any different from the colors being different in Dark Moon. 19:05, 3 September 2017 (EDT)
 * "To the left" is extremely different in comparison to "over". Also sorry, I can't watch the video because I'm at home and have dismal bandwidth here. Sorry. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2017 (EDT)
 * Which is why I specifically brought up Sticker Star. Both that game and Dark Moon put the label to the left of the name, and not over it like Sunshine. Yet we don't label Sticker Star levels, and for good reason. 19:37, 3 September 2017 (EDT)
 * And what might that be?Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:05, 7 September 2017 (EDT)
 * I already explained that. Sticker Star's in-game dialogue omits the world-level identifiers whenever the area names are mentioned. They're not a part of the name, so there's no reason to treat them as such, especially when we don't have an ounce of precedent for it. 00:41, 9 September 2017 (EDT)

Add categories for images of characters
Currently, if one wants to find all the images of a certain character on the wiki, there is no easy way to do so. While galleries might just have all images of a character, it must be remembered that certain images have specific purposes, such as, or. Including all these images without context would likely make the galleries bloated. A simple solution at the moment might be creating categories of images of characters to be added to the images themselves, of the format. With proper maintenance, doing so would allow, in the longer term, to see all images of a character on the wiki, allowing easier maintenance as well as retrieval of images that might have a second purpose on the wiki beyond the original one they were uploaded for, all this without creating bloat on the galleries.

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

Support

 * 1) Per proposal
 * 2) I also think so. Yes, it can take a long time to finish, but finding certain character images is a hard work right now, even with the search page. It'd be split into sub-categories, to make it easier.

Oppose

 * 1) Per Alex95 and Wildgoospeeder's comments.
 * 2) I think the benefits of this proposal are far outweighed by the unnecessary processes and the horrendous organization we have to undertake. First of all, the only images that ultimately benefit from this proposal are screenshots. Nearly everything else related to their character are already found in the gallery, making the category on the bottom mostly redundant with their placement on galleries. Second, this proposal runs on the assumption that there are only one or two characters max per screenshot, and the proposed changes to the screenshots already sounds like more complication on top of an already messy proposal. Because that's what the proposal is aiming to do, and doing so will provide a gigantic, ugly mess of categories on the bottom area of the picture, which makes browsing images by their game even harder to do. And finally, what are the qualifications for characters receiving a category page? Are we going to give one-shot NPCs their own image category? The proposal doesn't say which characters "deserve" their own category, with maybe the proposed number of character images being "5", which I think is an arbitrary number for various reasons.
 * 3) This kind of system would only work properly if our images had a rigorous and consistent naming system - otherwise, it'll just be an odd mash-up of random images, with no coherent order to any of it. Per everyone else.
 * 4) Per Alex and Wildgoosespeeder in the comments. I am also not sure how many characters would receive a category.
 * 5) - Per me and Wildgoosespeeder below.
 * 6) Per Baby Luigi and Time Turner.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Per all, especially Baby Luigi.

Comments
How would group images be handled? And would this include literally every image of the character - artwork, sprites, screenshots, et al.? 16:50, 11 September 2017 (EDT)
 * For the categories to have a purpose, they should include all images of the characters. Subcategories such as sprites, artwork or scans can be implemented later if this is beneficial and if enough images can be had in them. Group images are an interesting point, I see other wikis that indeed include all characters in an image, and since multiple categories per page are a thing here too, listing all characters might indeed be the best way. Anyway, as you can easy imagine, implementing this kind of templates is not something that can be done all at once, so as first step we can categorize images having one character to immediately see the time needed to properly implement the categories, the feasiblity and the benefits - if there are any -, after this "pilot phase", group images can be dealt with.--Mister Wu (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2017 (EDT)
 * Fair enough. As follow-up questions, how many images should a character have before an category is created for them, and will this eventually be expanded to include enemies, locations, items, and others? Even if these won't be applied for the "pilot phase", I'd still say that they're worth considering for the future. 22:06, 11 September 2017 (EDT)
 * Since we are talking about specific characters, a special case, we must consider whether grouping makes sense: the main pages already group some characters together through categories, but it must be seen if this simplifies any work - if a reader or a maintainer wants to know the exact number of images of a specific character, the category page should show it, it might be even useful to know whether some characters only have a single low quality image while they should have more than that. Expanding to other classes, such as enemies or items, can be considered if we indeed obtain good results with the characters, my idea at the moment is still focusing on something we want to know the covearge of or we want to see the images of, but if you want to extend even beyond that we can consider at that point setting a limit, possibly like the one of the current standards for image categories - should be five images.--Mister Wu (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2017 (EDT)
 * So would any character with five images get a category, or would it only be major characters? I don't feel it would make sense for minor characters such as Coach to receive a category. -- 20:07, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
 * From a long term point of view, knowing that a character has not so many images might be an intenresting information, especially if said character should have many more, if this were to pass I don't think we should start with minor characters, though, we could either go with the major characters  minus the species and the Toad variants, if we want to follow the Nintendo criterion of major characters, or the Mario series characters who have a gallery on this wiki and are featured in the Super Mario series main games if we want to see whether such categorization makes sense or not.--Mister Wu (talk) 20:58, 12 September 2017 (EDT)

I don't get it. What's wrong with the galleries? Yeah, some might be rather large to look through, but categorizing an image based on character would be pretty much the same thing as sticking it in a gallery. Seems redundant to me. Additionally, categories are alphabetized, and some images may not be named based on their relevance. Galleries, however, are sorted based on the type of image, from artwork to sprites to screenshots. Sure, categories show 200 images at a time, which makes loading times easier, but galleries are sorted in a way that makes navigation easier. 13:16, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
 * I'm with on this one. I think our organization of images is a little lackluster, but the current proposal doesn't have any real benefits. We are clumping unlike images into the same image category. This will take a long time to implement, but why not organize each image category found in Category:Images by game into say like Category:Super Mario World Sprites, Category:Super Mario World Artwork, etc., to be in Category:Super Mario World Images? The reason I have not proposed this because of the sheer intensity of the project handling 300+ categories and dealing with ~80,000 images. The hiarchy I'm suggesting:
 * Category:Images by game
 * Category:Super Mario World Images
 * Category:Super Mario World Sprites
 * Category:Super Mario World Artwork
 * Category:Super Mario World Screenshots
 * Category:Super Mario Bros. Images
 * Category:Super Mario Bros. Sprites
 * Category:Super Mario Bros. Artwork
 * Category:Super Mario Bros. Screenshots
 * I don't see this being implemented any time soon. Also, there could be unforeseen conditions that could come up. -- 13:47, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
 * @ I fear you might be missing a point. Putting all images of a character in a gallery leads to bad layouts and to problems which were very well presented by, when I myself was invited to avoid this in the case of Iggy's sprites from Paper Mario: Color Splash; since the reasons are actually valid I started avoiding putting in the galleries images that are alraedy referenced in main pages due to their main purpose, and I've been mostly doing this since then to avoid cluttering galleries with images from a single source. In no way can a gallery replace a systematic retrieval system of images of a character, which is what PidgiWiki or, if we want to stay in NIWA, Bulbapedia have, both actually using a method similar to what I'm suggesting. My point is, even though in the games this might be of secondary importance, the Mario franchise as a whole is inevitably character driven, being named after a character, but currently finding all images of a character isn't simple, and galleries have unavoidable restrictions that cannot solve this - either you sacrifice layout for coverage, or you sacrifice coverage to have a cleaner layout, the latter being important not to give the idea to the new users that you can upload whatever you like in the gallery.
 * @ I won't deny the amount of work needed, still I think an issue is definitely there, and if fans are coming for images of the characters, we give them little resources to find them, same for maintainers, actually. I more than welcome better proposals for improving the situation, since of course the system I'm proposing is tested and actually implemented, but nonetheless very simple and requires much manual work to implement here.--Mister Wu (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2017 (EDT)

I'm on the fence, personally... I don't think it'd be a horrible idea, it'd just take a LOT of weeding out specifics to make it work, and gallery might be used more frequently.  ~Camwood777  (talk)  17:37, 15 September 2017 (EDT)

Also, putting ALL characters will never end, I think only in major characters, minor characters should be out of this category. 13:42, 16 September 2017 (EDT)

Double the amount of time a proposer can edit their talk page proposals
Because talk page proposals are less visible than regular proposals, they are given an extra week for discussion. I'm not going to argue against that; though smaller issues occasionally go on for too long, the extra time is invaluable for when large changes are being discussed. With that in mind, why can they only be edited within three days of the proposal's creation, the same amount of time as a regular proposal? So, we want to give people more time to discuss proposals, but we don't want to give the proposers more time to acknowledge the discussion and make changes as needed? There's a clear discrepancy here. I propose to double the amount of time a proposer can change, delete, or otherwise edit their proposals on talk pages, from three days to six. This lines up with the doubled amount of time they take in the first place.

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

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal. I think a week might make more sense than six days though; it seems simpler.
 * 3) This definitely makes sense to me. If TPPs have an increased amount of time for voting, then so should the time that is allowed to edit them. Though I don't necessarily agree with that "they are less visible" argument. Talk page proposals are about as visible as mainspace proposals, and these days, most editors DO check the list of TPPs regularly and as easily as browsing through this page. If visibility is a problem for TPPs, then measures should be taken to be more visible, since these matters are about as important as main space ones.
 * 4) Per proposal.
 * 5) - I may not be 100% on board and can see issues, but they're the same issues we're having currently, so... I'll support the proposed extension.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Since the duration of the time of voting is twice, it makes sense to also allow twice the time to edit.
 * 10) - This feels the most fair. Double the time to vote, so double the time to edit the proposal.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) Per proposal.
 * 13) Per all.
 * 14) Per all, especially Mister Wu and Camwood777. It would only seem fair to allow double the voting and double the changing at once.

Comments
"Talk page proposals may be closed by the proposer at any time if each voting option has fewer than five votes." (Closed means the same as delete.) So are you proposing to double this to ten votes too? Because closing date is not dependent on the number of days passed for TPPs. 13:01, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
 * I don't see the relevance. I'm talking about a discrepancy between the rules applied to both regular proposals and talk page proposals, not a rule that applies uniquely to talk page proposals. Besides, that rule says nothing about letting the proposer edit their proposal nor anything about what happens after five votes. 13:03, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
 * I don't see the relevance. I'm talking about a discrepancy between the rules applied to both regular proposals and talk page proposals, not a rule that applies uniquely to talk page proposals. It is kind of hard to tell the difference between the two statements. What's the difference between them? Besides, that rule says nothing about letting the proposer edit their proposal nor anything about what happens after five votes. Obviously, otherwise it will fall under "All rules for talk page proposals are the same as mainspace proposals (see the "How to" section above), with the exceptions made by Rules 3 and 4 as follows" with the above quote being rule 4 of TPPs. And I know this. Otherwise, I wouldn't make my comment. 13:10, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
 * The first statement refers to rules that apply to both kinds of proposals with the only difference being their timespan, whereas the latter statement refers to rules that apply exclusively to one kind of proposal with no parallel for the other kind. Beyond that, what point are you making? 13:14, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
 * In either statement, there is this to be considered:
 * "Proposals end at the end of the day (23:59) one week after voting starts, except for writing guidelines and talk page proposals, which run for two weeks (all times GMT).
 * For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, the voting starts immediately and the deadline is one week later on Monday, August 8, at 23:59 GMT."
 * "Voting in talk page proposals will be open for two weeks, not one (all times GMT).
 * For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, it ends two weeks later on Monday, August 15, 2011, at 23:59 GMT."
 * So they will be basically the same design. Unless I am reading this wrong. As for point to this, Isn’t it obvious? I want to know if votes are going to double or not or if canceling is going to change like the other two. 13:27, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
 * This proposal wants to change one thing: the time period in which a proposer can change their talk page proposal should be expanded to six days from the current three days. 13:33, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
 * I know this and I want to support this. But canceling a proposal is already different in TPP than in RP. I just wanting to know if you going to keep this difference, double this number, or change it to six days. In either case, I can easily support this. But I want to know before I do support. 13:39, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
 * You say that you can easily support this, but then you oppose. Sure. What specifically are you perring about their comments? sorry got the proposals mixed up 13:53, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
 * On topic, as I said previously, the only thing that will be changed is the time limit for editing the talk page proposals. 13:56, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
 * LOL. Anyways. You seem to imply that canceling will be changed to six days rather than (5) votes. OK. Though I like the 5 vote rule (and theoretically, it could be included as an additional thing to do), I don't know how it came to be. Either way this passes, this will change TPP's rule 4. 14:04, 12 September 2017 (EDT)

@Drago: It's tempting, but I'd rather that it's exactly equivalent to the main proposals. 13:14, 12 September 2017 (EDT)

The problem I'm having with this is that new information can show at any time, even at the final day of the proposal. In which case, a new proposal would be created when able to. There's also the option of getting an admin to cancel the proposal so the new information can be taken into account without actually going through with the current proposal. 13:20, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
 * So should we not allow proposers to edit proposals at all and just have them cancel their proposals whenever new information comes up? Giving the proposers more time to effectively respond to others without having the current discussions and votes being entirely cast aside (at the same time, setting a time limit for the changes prevents proposers from changing things at the last minute, but I don't want to give them infinite time). 13:22, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
 * I'm not saying that. I'm all for having more time, but at the same time, there is a limitation that can screw with the proposal at the last minute, even if the time limit is extended to anything other than "infinite". Additionally, users may have to reconsider their votes after the change, some of which may not notice it (though the proposer can certainly send a message if they wish). 13:27, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
 * The same logic can be applied to the current time limit, but I don't think that it pans out in either case. I'm suggesting that, for a 14-day proposal, proposers have the ability to make changes for the first 6 days (ratio of 6/14 or 3/7), to be equal with a 7-day proposal allowing proposers to make changes for 3 days (3/7). The proposer should be motivated to inform voters of any changes, but I don't see what's different between the two kinds of proposals. If anything, you seem to be suggesting that the current time limit should be shortened, if you're that concerned about voters not noticing any changes until it's too late. 13:33, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
 * I am concerned that voters may not notice the changes, but I definitely don't want the time to be shortened. 13:40, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
 * Another option may be to require proposals to notify voters of any changes (barring superfluous stuff like spelling/grammar corrections). 13:53, 12 September 2017 (EDT)

For a related topic, I have been thinking about the 7-day proposal and 14-day TPP should either be all 7 or 14 days for any proposal. Is there any benefit to having this time rule as we currently have it? -- 13:38, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
 * I think that this was discussed at some point in the past, but I can't seem to find any trace of it... At the very least, it's one of those rules that's been around for a long time and nobody has really bothered to question it. 13:53, 12 September 2017 (EDT)

Officially repeal the "no support reason" Featured Article nomination rule
The current rule regarding support votes in our featured articles guidelines goes something like this:

"Before doing anything, be sure to read the article completely, keeping a sharp eye out for mistakes. Afterwards, compare the article to the criteria listed above, and then either support or object the article's nomination. If you support, simply sign with your name, without adding a reason (unless you are the first supporter and thus the nominator)."

I used to enforce this rule, removing support reasons whenever I come across them, but now, I currently don't, because I've been thinking, seriously, what's the point of spending effort counter-productively removing reasons for support any more, even if the said support vote is actually constructive towards the article and not merely a fan vote as it once was? Fan votes used to be a particular problem in the past, but today, they are not as much as a problem as they once had them, so bending backwards to remove something....doesn't change anything at all and it wastes time expending effort that could go to something far more productive. The rule is also incredibly inconsistent to every other time we vote in MarioWiki, making this one of the reasons that removing support vote reasons used to be a frequent because the rule is convoluted and confusing to new users of MarioWiki and thus make the mistake constantly.

Hell, at this point, with me refusing to enforce this rule any more, it seems like no one else even enforces this terrible rule too, so now, I'd like to officially get rid of that parameter from our Featured Article ruleset once and for all, because there's no point to having a rule that no one wants to enforce and this would free up time for users doing other more productive edits, and this is especially true for support votes that actually do say something useful or actually praise editors for their hard work, which would encourage them to work harder and happier.

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

Support

 * 1) Heck, even I support featured articles with a reason. Per Baby Luigi's reasoning.
 * 2) Why is that even a rule?
 * 3) This rule is outright broken. It overcomplicates the voting process and has no clear reason for its inclusion. Heck, it might even defeat the very purpose of FAs, for the very reasons Baby Luigi mentioned. If fan votes ever do become a problem again, we can just scratch them out, since the "removal of opposes" rule didn't exist before the aforementioned proposal, so, in other words, per proposal!
 * 4) Per proposal.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Giving a reason for the support is definitely nice and actually tends to prevent otherwise unseen fan votes since it "exposes" them, in my opinion.
 * 9) - This feels pretty obvious at this point.
 * 10) - Sure, per all.
 * 1) - Sure, per all.

Comments
@Doc von Schmeltwick: I can try to explain. A lot of support reasons back in 2008-2009 used to be nothing more than "I like this guy he should be featured", so it had to be decided somewhere that they wanted to remove the reasons....because...it would...clutter...less space...and it would ... er...discourage fan voters..? I honestly don't see the logic here at all, in hindsight today. What gets accomplished here? Nothing? Just removal of words. That's it. 14:58, 13 September 2017 (EDT)
 * That logic makes the defining premise behind the movie make sense by comparison. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2017 (EDT)
 * I think part of it was that almost everyone, in essence, was just saying "Per the first guy who already wrote about why the article's good," and they got rid of the support reasons to eliminate the redundancy. This also prevents people from including anything that the nominator missed and allows people to support nominations for entirely personal reasons, so I'm all for requiring support reasons. 16:38, 13 September 2017 (EDT)
 * @Baby Luigi: I think you accidentally forgot to provide the "Per proposal" reason with your vote. Could you do that please? Thanks! 19:17, 13 September 2017 (EDT)
 * tbh, I don't think it's necessary, since I'm the original proposer so you kinda know what my intents are. 00:44, 14 September 2017 (EDT)
 * Eh, the rules say that every vote needs a strong reason. It's not necessary here, but it's useful for, say, proposals with multiple options. 12:30, 14 September 2017 (EDT)
 * You know, I've been thinking. Why exactly do we need a strong reason for voting in the first place? A vote is a vote. It has the same power regardless if there's a paragraph attached to it or if it contains only two words. Hell, the usage of "Per all" pretty much circumvents the "strong reason" rule most of the time it's used, sometimes even as veil to hide laziness or going with the popular side. I mean, fishing for votes is already strongly discouraged in the first place, so it's not like we can easily rig votes in our favor and if there is malicious intent, that's why we have admins (people can also rig proposals and circumvent things with "per all" too, but at least people aren't terrible enough for this to be a huge problem in this wiki).  18:02, 16 September 2017 (EDT)
 * I think it's just a catch-all clause to prevent people from giving insane or nonsensical reasons for voting. 18:09, 16 September 2017 (EDT)

Create articles on all of the Lakitu Info Center missions in Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam
We already separate the missions from the world articles in Super Mario 64, Super Mario Sunshine, Super Mario 64 DS, Super Mario Galaxy, Super Mario Galaxy 2, and Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon, so why don't we do the same for Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam? I can already think of a lot of content to go into these articles, and plus, I can easily create them as well.

''' I also have a draft of one such article that you can view here. '''

Proposer: Deadline: September 21, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Even though they are nothing like the missions of the 3D games. They are like the minigames of Mario Party (series).
 * 3) - Consistency, yay!
 * 4) I personally think we should have as much coverage as we can get.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per all, especially TheFlameChomp's comment in which he brings up New Super Mario Bros. U's Challenge Mode.

Oppose

 * 1) – I'm not so sure. With all the other games you provided in the proposal, the missions are the main part of the game; with Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam the missions are (from what I can tell) a secondary part of the game (though apparently some are required?). We don't split missions for other games where missions are a secondary part (e.g. Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door, Mario Kart DS). Also they seem to have quite similar objectives, especially in the second and third worlds. The draft you've provided is written well, but I can't see why these can't all be covered in one page (or even separate pages for the missions in each world).
 * 2) - Originally supported, but after seeing what MCD said, I agree with him. The missions and levels in the main games are main missions. These are secondary and don't go into as much detail, and other secondary mission pages follow suit.

Comments
Feel free to contact me if you want to assist in the project, should the proposal pass. :) 23:45, 13 September 2017 (EDT)

Before I say anything, are you planning on splitting the Trouble Center info? What makes Lakitu Info Center missions any more deserving than the Trouble Center ones? 00:48, 14 September 2017 (EDT)

As much as I want to support, I also want to oppose (so I'm not voting atm). It seems like a majority of the missions are repeats: "Find the Toads", "Capture Nabbit", "Capture Toads"... The missions in the 3D titles were more diverse, allowing for more in-depth explanations (though there are shared missions, like the Red Coin ones). How exactly are you planning on expanding the missions? (Also echoing Baby Luigi. Not everything with a name needs to be split.) 00:51, 14 September 2017 (EDT)
 * True, the vast majority missions have the same type of objective. But no two missions are exactly alike in terms of layout and structure, and the only missions that are the same are the Hard Mode variants. If you want, I can show you a demo, but that will take time to make. 01:38, 14 September 2017 (EDT)

The wiki's coverage is a bit confusing on how/why the Lakitu Info Center is required: the Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam article notes that "the player must obtain a certain number of them to progress through the story", but never expands upon this (also it mentions Paper Toads in the story and I have no idea whether that's part of a mission or the game's main story). On the other hand, the Lakitu Info Center article doesn't even mention it being required. So if anything I've said is very wrong then sorry :( 18:57, 18 September 2017 (EDT)
 * Ok. I see your concerns (Secondary, others like it that don't have articles, can be covered in one page or each in each world (I will explain why the latter of this wouldn't be a good idea), and no clear way the wiki puts what's required). I will go over your concerns one by one and help you out.
 * Secondary: This is a good concern. They are part of the "worlds", but they seem separate. However, minigames of the Mario Party serues are that way, too. Yes, the two are different, but they are very similar.
 * Others like it that don't have articles: That are what proposals are for. They can help find out whether or not to cover it. I can easily see Mario Kart DS missions get separate articles, but I'm not entire sure about Trouble Center.
 * Can be covered by in one page or each in each world: Hum... Good point... for the first one. The only problem is where will they go or how long it will be. I can see it going into either Lakitu Info Center or a new page called "List of Missions in Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam". But, what about the length. It would be quite long, but that is not a problem unless it takes a long time to load. So, then we should put each in the worlds. Nope. I can tell you one notable problem. The missions are done not as in each world like a chronological order. They may seem that way, but in reality, they are done in many ways. Why will be explained in the last paragraph. As for this, the best way for each of the worlds, it must tell when it is done.
 * No clear way the wiki puts what's required: It is quite complicated, but I will help you out. First, all but three are required for the whole entire game. But, if you clear the last three, you get the last Trio Attack. Second, they are completed in sections. These sections must be done for as a whole in order to advance the game. The sections themselves are the most complicated, so I will not covered them unless you want to know the sections.
 * Hope this helps. 20:06, 18 September 2017 (EDT)
 * I wouldn't compare these the minigames in Mario Party - there's much more variation between them, they take place far more often, if you're counting the boards as the main part of the game then they're integrated into that at least twenty times. I'm not saying we should give separate articles to the Trouble Center/Mario Kart DS missions etc. because our current coverage of them seems fine. And going by the first draft Toadette posted, I don't think about seven or so sections of about that length on each page would be too long, and if they were cut down to just the bare essentials you could probably fit it all into one page without it being too long. 08:53, 20 September 2017 (EDT)
 * "I wouldn't compare these the minigames in Mario Party - there's much more variation between them, they take place far more often, if you're counting the boards as the main part of the game then they're integrated into that at least twenty times." 1 board to 20+ minigames or 2 board to 40+ minigames is lower than 1 game to 44 Lakitu Info Center missions. Yes, you can also argue that they happen very quickly to each other. Many of them missions happen quickly too. Board argument is flawed. But, when I wrote my vote and my comment above, I didn't know about Challenge Mode in New Super Mario Bros. U. Which, besides being optional while this is all but 3 required, are pretty much the same. 09:35, 20 September 2017 (EDT)
 * But you don't only play the game twice. You're counting how many are in the game overall - if you do the same for Mario Party games you can easily get into the hundreds. Not to mention the different control schemes, categories, appearances, etc. 15:05, 20 September 2017 (EDT)
 * Ok. But, either way, it is hardly not secondary. Even if it was, there is the Challenge Mode of New Super Mario Bros. U to support this having it in the same way. 15:22, 20 September 2017 (EDT)
 * @YSSM: "All but three missions are required to beat the game." Just a quick correction: "All but three Paper Toad missions are required to beat the game." There are additional missions that can be played, but the last three missions in the game as a whole are required for game progression. 23:11, 20 September 2017 (EDT)
 * Oh right. Thanks for reminding me of those. They seem easy to miss anyways. 23:47, 20 September 2017 (EDT)

What to do about Paper Jam Shiny articles
Copy/pasted from here with no loss of information:

For the Shiny variation of enemies in Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam, we have them as separate articles from the actual enemies, such as Shiny Paper Dry Bones or Shiny Paper Swoop. and I ultimately found out that the "Shiny" part of their names don't actually exist, the enemies are actually titled "Paper Dry Bones" or "Paper Swoop" and the shiny counterparts are more like how Pokemon is handled; the same enemy, just slightly stronger. We've decided that merging the Shiny variant with the Paper variant would be best, but some don't have pages on their Paper variant either, instead being written into the main article. The main problem here is the nonexistent "Shiny" title, but "Paper" is within the enemy names as well, which gives me three options.

Option 1: Create articles for the "Paper" variant of enemies (that don't already have one) and merge the "Shiny" variants into it

Continuing with the examples above, the information on Paper Dry Bones would be split from the main Dry Bones article (with a in the corresponding section) and the information in Shiny Paper Dry Bones would be merged with Paper Dry Bones.

Option 2: Merge the "Shiny" information to the main article with the "Paper" enemies

"Paper" is part of the enemy names whereas "Shiny" isn't. Most, if not all, of the "Paper" enemies are currently merged with their main counterpart. This option involves moving the "Shiny" information there as well. For example, Paper Dry Bones and Shiny Paper Dry Bones will both be merged to Dry Bones.

Option 3: Split the "Shiny" and "Paper" enemies into separate pages

See comments below. Regular enemies, Paper enemies, and Shiny enemies would each have their own page, with the Shiny variant receiving a (Shiny) tagged at the end.

Option 4: Do nothing

Self explanatory.

To clarify, this will not effect the Shiny enemies found in Paper Mario: Sticker Star, as those enemies do have "Shiny" in their title and are considered a separate enemy.

Proposer: Deadline: September 21st, 2017 23:59 GMT

Option 1

 * 1) - My preferred option.
 * 2) I think that the paper variants should have their own pages.
 * 3) Per proposal, since I helped find some of the information.
 * 4) For consistency with the paper characters from Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam having their own page, all the paper enemies from that game should have them as well, I guess; if Shiny enemies in the game are just shown as variants of the same enemies, we should reflect that as well.
 * 5) - This makes the most sense. We made pages for the shiny versions in Sticker Star, but not for shiny OR paper versions in Paper Jam? This is silly.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Per all.

Option 3

 * 1) Shinies are different from regular paper variants in terms of improved stats and appearance. And per Option 1 vote.
 * 2) Different enemies deserve different articles.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) Per Yoshi the SSM.
 * 5) - Not my preferred option, but I suppose there'd be no harm in this.

Comments
If there is another option I didn't think of, let me know. 17:50, 14 September 2017 (EDT)
 * How about an option for creating pages for the paper variants and keeping the shiny variants separate? After all, the same name does not make the same enemy. 17:54, 14 September 2017 (EDT)
 * The problem is that "Shiny" isn't part of the enemy's name. It's more like an additional parameter. 17:58, 14 September 2017 (EDT)
 * Could we have, say, "Paper Goomba (Shiny)"?Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2017 (EDT)
 * I'm fine with that. If they have different appearances and different stats, then it's really no different than the other examples I tend to throw out at times like this. 18:12, 14 September 2017 (EDT)
 * That'd be a really odd identifier considering Shiny Paper Goomba is a different enemy. I wouldn't support it, but I can see this as an option. 19:15, 14 September 2017 (EDT)

Also, why is this a talk page proposal? Aren't these bulk changes the kind of thing best suited for the main proposal page, especially when it (potentially) involves merging? One proposal was even called out for deciding to rename multiple pages in a talk page proposal. 19:19, 14 September 2017 (EDT)
 * I thought having two weeks would be enough time for everyone to go over the different options. 19:22, 14 September 2017 (EDT)
 * "Proposals dealing with massive amounts of splits, merges or deletions across the Wiki should still be held on this page [the main proposal page]." I'm pretty sure this qualifies. Besides, how much time is really necessary to understand "create articles and merge other articles", "merge articles", and "create articles"? 19:25, 14 September 2017 (EDT)
 * Oh, I did not see that... Let me see if I can cancel this and copy/paste this proposal to the main page, or if I need to start a new one. 19:32, 14 September 2017 (EDT)
 * My comment now makes no sense. 21:37, 14 September 2017 (EDT)
 * It's fine. Mine look off, too. 21:38, 14 September 2017 (EDT)

So, now that we've settled on a location, why do you oppose option 3, Alex? 22:16, 14 September 2017 (EDT)
 * Because I see the shinies more as a pallet swap than anything else. Yes, the enemy gets a slight increase in stats sometimes, but as far as the game itself is concerned, they're the same enemy. 22:19, 14 September 2017 (EDT)
 * In the same way that Superstar Saga considers Gritty Goomba and Gritty Goomba to be the same enemy? 22:24, 14 September 2017 (EDT)
 * If the different parameters were the only thing different, then I'd say they're two forms of the same enemy, like how I'm proposing here. However, the Gritty Goomba in Teehee Valley has an additional role the variant in Gwarhar Lagoon does not. 12:57, 15 September 2017 (EDT)
 * So you'd consider Limbo Bro and Limbo Bro to be the same enemy? 13:01, 15 September 2017 (EDT)
 * Yes. I thought they were already, tbh. 13:06, 15 September 2017 (EDT)
 * Why? Because they have the same name? Even though they have different appearances, different locations, different abilities, and different stats? Shall we also merge the two Chaps for being NPCs with the same name? 13:08, 15 September 2017 (EDT)
 * Okay, I get what you're saying. They are different enemies with different just about everything. But for the Paper Jam Shiny enemies, the game (from what I know) seems to regard them as an alternate form of the same enemy. Different parameters, sure, but the same enemy. I'll go back on the Limbo Bros., and the Gritty Goombas and Chaps should remain split, due to them clearly being different enemies and characters. But as far as the game is concerned, Paper Jam seems to regard the normal and Shiny enemies as the same enemy. I'll go through with whatever option ends up supported the most. 13:20, 15 September 2017 (EDT)
 * Can you elaborate on how Paper Jam regards them as the same enemy? It's a genuine question, as I haven't played the game. 13:23, 15 September 2017 (EDT)
 * I haven't played the game either, but what I've been told and have seen, the Shiny enemies are more like an alternate variant rather than a separate enemy. 13:25, 15 September 2017 (EDT)
 * I've asked FlameChomp about it, and going by his explanation, it seems more akin to the Gold Beanies for regular Beanies or the Amazy Dayzees for Crazee Dayzees - a rarer version of a regular enemy (please, correct me if I'm wrong). I'd consider that to be something worth splitting. 13:30, 15 September 2017 (EDT)
 * The thing with Gold Beanies and Beanies or Amazy and Crazee Dayzees is, not only do they look and act different, but their name is as well. But yes, that's close to what I mean. It's simply a rarer version of the same enemy. Whether that's something to be split or not, I'm leaving to the proposal. 13:35, 15 September 2017 (EDT)
 * I played the game. And what makes shiny paper enemies different from paper enemies besides what I mentioned is that they are usually rare (though one can make them less rare) and drop Shiny Battle Cards usually. But, they seem to be in place of regular paper enemies. 13:36, 15 September 2017 (EDT)
 * A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, and an enemy by any other name would still be the same enemy. A single name should not be the only deciding factor when it comes to creating or deleting articles. I'm also not sure what you mean when you say that you're leaving it to the proposal - you're voting in the proposal yourself, and your vote counts just as much as anyone else's. You're free to change it as you see fit, or even vote for multiple options. 13:39, 15 September 2017 (EDT)
 * I'm voting for the option that I think would work best. 13:42, 15 September 2017 (EDT)
 * I think we can have Shiny Goomba separate from "Paper Goomba (Shiny)" since we list the "Paper" enemies from the other paper games with the regular enemies, and if we're splitting the "Paper" versions, we should split those "shiny" versions from the "other" shiny versions for consistency. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2017 (EDT)

The proposal did pass with Option 1 having majority of voters (8/11). 20:25, 21 September 2017 (EDT)
 * Must've miscounted then. Thanks! I'll archive this. 20:28, 21 September 2017 (EDT)

Arcade Archives page
With the recent announcement that Nintendo is putting their old Arcade games onto the switch via Arcade Archives, I feel like this is only fair; we gave Virtual Console its own page, and this is pretty similar to that.

Proposer: Deadline: September 22, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) - Well... No duh I support it. I proposed it.
 * 2) Per proposal. I don't see how it differs from the Virtual Console.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Was just thinking the same thing.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) - Per all.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Per all.

Comments
Don't think this needs a proposal tbh 20:14, 15 September 2017 (EDT)
 * Sorry. I'm still new here, and I don't really feel comfortable making whole new pages yet. At any rate, if it's fine, can it be made?  ~Camwood777  (talk)  07:48, 16 September 2017 (EDT)
 * This could probably use a proposal. Currently we have the link to Wikipedia on the main page. I suppose there wouldn't be any harm making one here that mainly focuses on the Mario titles, but I'm not sure if we need the page or not.  12:43, 16 September 2017 (EDT)

What is Yume Kōjō: Doki Doki Panic?
Yume Kōjō: Doki Doki Panic is, to make a long story short, a game that was altered to become Super Mario Bros. 2; though it did not originally contain any Mario subjects, Shy Guys, Pokeys, Bob-ombs, Birdo, and others all originate from this game. Due to the impact this game had on the Mario franchise, we cover it on the wiki, and I think we can agree on keeping it that way. At the same time, it currently exists in a limbo where we don't know to what extent we should cover it. There was a proposal that decided that covering the game's characters was too much, but at the same time, the article is a part of Category:Games not originally in the Mario series, with an emphasis on not originally; if it's currently a part of the Mario franchise, then we should cover it to that extent. Coverage doesn't even bring up the game, so there's no help there. Still, if we use the sections of the policy page as a guideline, we may be able to decide for ourselves what is Yume Kōjō: Doki Doki Panic. Here are the logical options:

Option 1: It is a full-fledged member of the Mario franchise. If this option is chosen, the game will be considered to be a member of the broad Mario franchise, albeit one that is not part of any specific series (similar to Super Princess Peach). Though it was not a Mario game at the time, you can think of it as having been retroactively included into the franchise. As such, any unique characters, items, and other subjects will also be given individual articles alongside the game's article.

Option 2: It is a crossover with the Mario franchise. If this option is chosen, the game will be treated as a crossover between the Mario franchise and some other nebulous series (it'll end up in the same section as the Mario & Sonic series and the Super Smash Bros. series). This partially relies on the assumption that the Mario subjects within the game have retroactively become members of the Mario franchise and not something that the Mario franchise appropriated. [edit]At the same time, the characters and motifs of the game can be considered to be from the actual Yume Kōjō event.[/edit] Like option 1, all of its subjects will get articles; this just affects which categories it'll be slotted into and other such details.

Option 3: It only contains guest appearances of the Mario franchise. If this option is chosen, the game will be treated as containing guest appearances (à la Captain Rainbow and SSX on Tour). This is very similar to option 2, except the argument now is that the Mario franchise's impact on the game isn't substantial enough to constitute a crossover. As with other guest appearances, the game itself will be given an article, but none of its subjects will be given an article. In short, nothing much is actually affected beyond categories and other such details.

Option 4: It is part of a group unto itself. If this option is chosen, it shall be deemed that the game is not part of the Mario franchise, not a crossover, and does not feature guest appearances, yet all the same, it is something worth covering on the wiki. Coverage will be updated with a short section under "What the Super Mario Wiki covers" that describes the game's historic role in the franchise while explaining why it is being covered on the wiki. A bit of time can also be spent explaining why similar games, such as Panel de Pon, aren't being covered on the wiki. I don't want this to be the "Yume Kōjō" exclusive section, but rather something that potentially leaves some open space for other games should they ever turn up (or Panel de Pon if we decide to give it its own article again). Since it's not a part of the franchise, the game will be treated like one of the guest appearances: only the game itself gets an article. I can provide a write-up if requested, but I think this is clear enough.

Option 5: It is perpetually in limbo (do nothing). If this option is chosen, nothing happens. Well, this proposal will be archived, but that's it.

If you're questioning why we need to decide where this game belongs, then I'll answer that it's better than having a game wrapped up in contradictions, existing someplace where nobody really knows what to do with it. Let's nip this one in the bud, shall we?

Proposer: Deadline: September 23, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Option 1 (fully part of the Mario franchise)

 * 1) We'll say it's been grandfathered in.
 * 2) The debate reminds me of the whole Donkey Kong kerkuffle in nerd circles debating whether it is a Mario franchise game or not, and yet we do include it as part of the greather Mario franchise as well because of its roots that kicked off the Mario franchise. I think the same logic there can be applied here. The fact that Doki Doki Panic even first started off as a Mario prototype before the people who owned Doki Doki Panic requested that their characters be used should tell you that the game was intended to be part of the Mario franchise to begin with and what they were going with this title. The proposal also mentions the legacy of the game to the other Mario titles and I completely agree with its very strong influence it has on the Mario franchise. I think this option is the best choice for coverage purposes.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) - This generally seems the most accurate to how it's treated nowadays.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per all

Option 2 (crossover)

 * 1) Doki Doki Panic is Super Mario Bros. 2 and could even share the template - but the Yume Kōjō-themed branding and the use of their family characters does make this version of the game a crossover.

Option 4 (entirely separate)

 * 1) Since it's not technically actually a part of the franchise, this is the next best thing.
 * 2) Per Time Turner.
 * 3) Per Time Turner.
 * 4) - It may not be part of series itself, but it still had some impact on at least one game in the main series.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Started as a tech demo for a Mario-style platform game, but didn't end being a Mario platform game because of various reasons mostly related to Yume Kōjō, yet then it was later reworked to become Super Mario Bros. 2; I think it deserves to be considered its own thing not to force the criteria of inclusions in the other categories too much - after all, only subsequently to its release did many of its elements become part of the Mario franchise.
 * 9) - Since it's based on Yume Kōjō I'd say it belongs more to that than the Mario series. Per all.
 * 10) Taking Doki Doki Panic as a Mario game is like taking Panel De Pon as a Yoshi game. Still, even though the latter's recent removal complicates things, it deserves special coverage. Per all.

Option 5 (do nothing)

 * 1) It doesn't really fall under any of the aforementioned categories perfectly, and I'm fine with the way it's currently represented.
 * 2) I agree with . I'd rather do nothing because the history of this game is very complicated and very intertwined with the Japanese and North American SMB2 games and Mario franchise in general. I think this will take months of analysis weeks of discussion before we can be more decisive and enforce a category. It fits in more than one category, and this proposal wants to converge into one only. One week is insufficient.

Comments
@Doc: How is it being represented now? There's no consistency to it currently, at least not as far as I can see. 18:46, 16 September 2017 (EDT)
 * It's represented as having a vague relation to the series, which it does have. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2017 (EDT)
 * We're not helping anyone by saying that it is vague and ill-defined and leaving it at that. Besides, just because the game itself is vaguely defined doesn't mean we should also vaguely define it. 19:12, 16 September 2017 (EDT)
 * The problem is none of the proposed categories accurately describe it. What it is is a Mario tech demo turned non-Mario game with a few Mario elements in it, that would later be reconfigured into a full Mario game. That's the most accurate descriptor. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 03:32, 18 September 2017 (EDT)

The history of this game is very complicated, more complicated than Tetris Attack, which makes it very hard to put that information in a satisfactory spot on. Why isn't this on the article's talk page? -- 21:25, 16 September 2017 (EDT)
 * I opted to slot it here due to the potential impact it may have on our coverage policy + it's more apparent as a precedent. 21:26, 16 September 2017 (EDT)

I agree with the notion that Doki Doki Panic can now be considered a full-fledged member of the franchise (it is Super Mario Bros. 2 and released a mere one year prior with Mario elements and influence already in it), but at the same time, I'd also say the pesky Yume Kōjō branding technically makes it something else. I'm considering taking the crossover option, but I also noticed that Dance Dance Revolution: Mario Mix isn't considered a crossover despite the DDR title. Is there a reason for that? LinkTheLefty (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2017 (EDT)
 * I don't rightfully know, to be honest. Maybe because, despite the name, everything in it is decidedly from the Mario franchise (besides the rhythm gameplay, although the franchise is no stranger to that)? 21:49, 16 September 2017 (EDT)
 * Then my guess is that there are no established DDR characters to consider it a crossover - but if that's the qualifier, Imajin being the mascot of the festival is enough for me. LinkTheLefty (talk) 22:22, 16 September 2017 (EDT)

@Wildgoosespeeder: What is exactly is going to be analyzed during those months? 23:53, 16 September 2017 (EDT)
 * We need a lot more discussion time than just a week. That's what I am hoping for. -- 23:57, 16 September 2017 (EDT)
 * What are you hoping to discuss during those months? 23:57, 16 September 2017 (EDT)
 * This proposal seems very complicated what you are hoping to achieve. So many options. -- 00:02, 17 September 2017 (EDT)
 * Please answer the question; I am genuinely curious what you wish to discuss for several months. 00:03, 17 September 2017 (EDT)
 * Then I don't have the answer you are looking for. A one-week proposal with vague options just sounds hasty to me. -- 00:06, 17 September 2017 (EDT)
 * What about the proposal is vague? 00:07, 17 September 2017 (EDT)
 * It sounds generalized. Also, we can vote for more than one option. I agree that a lot of the options apply to the game, but this is looking like you want it to apply to one option only in the end. -- 00:10, 17 September 2017 (EDT)
 * Can you elaborate on what you mean by the proposal being "generalized"? Also, what is the issue with letting people potentially vote for multiple options? The point of a proposa is that the community votes on what to do, and I don't see how the multiple options take away from that. 00:23, 17 September 2017 (EDT)

@Mister Wu: Except DDP does contain Mario elements, such as Super Stars and POW Blocks. Niiue (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2017 (EDT)
 * Indeed, but what you're saying doesn't ultimately contradict what I wrote here as a reason - having Mario elements doesn't make it automatically a Mario game, otherwise we should include Sonic Lost World among the Mario games, since it features one of the most relevant Mario species, Yoshis, and a lot of enemies and mechanics from both Yoshi's Story and Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island.--Mister Wu (talk) 20:07, 19 September 2017 (EDT)
 * As an aside to this conversation, perhaps Sonic Lost World could be considered a guest appearance? 20:40, 19 September 2017 (EDT)
 * Only as DLC for one of the two releases. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2017 (EDT)
 * That doesn't change things much, we're covering characters of SSB4 who only appeared as DLC, so DLC is still considered part of the game, at least on this wiki. And the Yoshi's Island Zone has some mechanics from the Yoshi games, suach as the flowers changing the goal ring and eggs coming out of the Egg Blocks, so I wonder if just guest appearances is enough.--Mister Wu (talk) 21:09, 19 September 2017 (EDT)
 * There's also the difference in that the Smash Bros games are Mario-related by default, Lost World Wii U is only Mario-related through DLC alone. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2017 (EDT)
 * The Mario mash-up pack for Minecraft is also DLC. 21:47, 19 September 2017 (EDT)
 * And that game is Minecraft, not a Mario game. The box says "Minecraft." Also, it was pre-installed on the disk, as I didn't have internet access when I first played it. Pretty sure. Still different point entirely. We cover Minecraft due to the Mario part of it, but it's incomparable with Doki Doki Panikku, due to its convoluted production history. Face it, it doesn't fit perfectly into any of the categories up above. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:17, 19 September 2017 (EDT)
 * I know; as I said at the start, this was just meant to be an aside. 23:15, 19 September 2017 (EDT)
 * The fourth option indeed states that the game doesn't fit any category and thus a new one must be created. If you want a non-Mario game featuring Mario elements not as DLC there is The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening but really, having Mario elements never was an objection to my vote reason in the first place.--Mister Wu (talk) 06:07, 20 September 2017 (EDT)
 * What I see that as meaning is that it irretrievably has nothing to do with Mario. Even though it's a Mario tech demo that eventually became a Mario game again. It's complicated and the neat little categories here are an insult to that. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:04, 20 September 2017 (EDT)
 * Calling my proposal an insult seems unduly harsh. Who am I even insulting, anyways? 14:14, 20 September 2017 (EDT)
 * The intricate history behind this game. The first option is "It's totally a Mario Game," second and third are "It has crossover/guest appearances from primarily things that weren't even Mario things yet," and fourth is "It's absolutely not a Mario game at all no matter how you look at it." None of these insinuate or can even include "Mario tech demo that became licenced to a different company to pay for it and as such became a non-Mario game, only to become a Mario game again when it was ported." Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:48, 20 September 2017 (EDT)
 * What the game started off as is meaningless in comparison to what it is now. Star Fox Adventures started off as an entirely original game, but it's still 100% a Star Fox game regardless of its history. Heck, Donkey Kong was originally created with the Popeye series in mind, but you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who wants to cover Popeye on the wiki. We don't cover Yume Kōjō" because it happened to start off as a Mario'' tech demo, we cover it because many of its elements became core parts of the franchise, and that is what's relevant to us. Also, you haven't answered my question. An insult is meaningless if nobody interprets it as an insult, so who is insulted by this proposal?  15:11, 20 September 2017 (EDT)
 * I am insulted by it. I suppose the closest we have to another example is the somewhat infamous "Super Mario 128" becoming Pikmin, if Pikmin was re-released as Super Mario 128 after reskinning. It's entirely complicated, and I am insulted by the fact that you're dumbing the complex history down. Yes, Mario is nothing but a parody of Popeye in conception, but it's different in that "Popeye" wasn't initially intended to be Donkey Kong, and Star Fox Adventures wasn't intended to be a Star Fox game in the first draft. The point is, DOki Doki Panikku was intended to be Mario in it's first draft, was released as-not-Mario, the released as Mario. It's a unique situation brought about by Nintendo's budget at the time coupled with how localization worked at the time. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2017 (EDT)

ok, so

1: "insulting the history" of a children's video game is pretty irrelevant to organisational decisions and it's such a bizarre and laughable thing to accuse someone of I couldn't help but chucke while reading it. If someone ever does a This Troper-style series of dramatic readings of mariowiki discussions I'm so telling them to do this.

2: In that Wired interview, Kensuke Tanabe refered to the original prototype as a "Mario-style" platformer, not that it was actually always a fully-fledged game in the Mario universe. Furthermore, going from what we know about Nintendo's development practice, it's possible the prototype was made without any branding in mind and was originally developed as an experiment to see if a platform game that took Super Mario Bros. formula of long scrolling levels and adapting it to a down to up format could be made fun and worth pursuing. It may seem like a nitpick, but considering people are using the prototype's supposed Mario origin as an argument, I think it's a nuance worth emphasizing. --Glowsquid (talk) 22:38, 20 September 2017 (EDT)
 * Saying something intended for all ages is a "children's" video game is also pretty insulting :Y Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:44, 20 September 2017 (EDT)

Create articles on all of the Trouble Center missions in Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door
I'm proposing this in light of the comment made here(backup link). Same deal as the other proposal, except now we're splitting off info on the Trouble Center.

Proposer: (original concern voiced by ) Deadline: September 24, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) They have in-game names with clear-cut and definitive requirements, with not all of them being simple. Let's give them articles so that the information can be properly expanded. (per all)
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Per all. I don't see an issue with having these, since we are creating articles for missions in Paper Jam.

Oppose

 * 1) - I feel like the amount of information currently present on the page is enough to satisfy readers and those looking for information.
 * 2) The Trouble Center is mostly this information.

Split all Starbeans Cafe items from the Starbeans Cafe article
These items I think deserve a split from this article. They're separate items, the blends are all consumable while the special items equipment could stand on their own and I don't see how these items should be lumped with a specific location. It doesn't help that the names in other languages headers further elongate the article for all separate items you can receive from the cafe.

This proposal affects the following items:

Blends
 * Woohoo Blend
 * Hoohoo Blend
 * Chuckle Blend
 * Teehee Blend
 * Hoolumbian
 * Chuckoccino
 * Teeheespresso

Special Items
 * Greed Wallet
 * Bonus Ring
 * Excite Spring
 * Great Force
 * Power Grip
 * Cobalt Necktie
 * Game Boy Horror SP

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

Support

 * 1) This is a messy article that shouldn't have lumped all of these items into one in the first place.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) I see no reason not to. Per Baby Luigi.
 * 4) Per proposal.
 * 5) Per proposal. Also, this ends after this game's remake launches.
 * 6) Per proposal. The Starbeans Cafe article should only be about the location itself, not every item you can get there. Especially since the cafe seems like it'll have an expanded role in the remake judging by what the article says about Minion Quest.
 * 7) - This feels like they were only merged because of the wiki's early days having one of those fits of "anything that's a stub clearly shouldn't be edited to get more content, it should, instead, die. They really need to be split.

Comments
What strong difference is there between these items and the game's badges? 20:06, 23 September 2017 (EDT)
 * The drinks are consumable items in the same vein as Super Mushrooms, Golden Mushrooms, Syrups, etc. They are totally not related to badges at all. For the Special Items, are they even categorized under a specific equipment in the game, or are they just called "Special Items"? I don't know, they all have a unique sprite design from each other, have a specific scene relating to how they're obtained, and have a history of being based off a Nintendo-themed item. I think more information can be said about them than the badges and clothing. 20:18, 23 September 2017 (EDT)
 * The special items are more similar to the equippable Accessories in later Mario & Luigi games, because they have their own equipment slot but don't fit as either clothing or badges. But yeah, I agree that they'd be better standing alone, as this was before accessories were common equipment you could obtain on the field, in battle, etc and were definitely meant to be, well, special. 12:55, 26 September 2017 (EDT)

Delete the "List of bonuses for SSB" pages
This proposal centers on two pages: List of bonuses in Super Smash Bros. and List of bonuses in Super Smash Bros. Melee.

When it comes to the pages centered around the Super Smash Bros. series, there's an unwritten compromise between this wiki and the SmashWiki: we do not cover the same information in the same way. This is evident from the different philosophies each wiki takes, for example with the Super Mario Wiki only covering fan content if it is significantly notable or has been acknowledged by Nintendo and the SmashWiki regularly covering every small-scale tournament and professional player, but it extends to each individual article as well. Take any random article and you'll see that the SmashWiki is far more detailed about the technical information, whereas the Super Mario Wiki presents the information in a more streamlined (and accessible) manner. This is the way things are, and this is the way things'll be for the forseeable future. However, this compromise only works if the information is truly being covered differently, and the two lists that are involved in this proposal fully break that.

These lists are nothing more than us writing down the information that is already present in-game, with little to no additions on our part. It's necessary to supply the means of unlocking each bonus, sure, but when every bonus can only be obtained in one way, there are only so many ways you can uniquely write about it without lapsing into poor writing. There's no additional flourishes in-game, either, so the most we can do is present it in plain text. Here's the rub: that's exactly how the SmashWiki is presenting this, and there's no other way they could present it. There's an impassable level of redundancy here, and since there's no way around it, I'd much rather that we delegate to the wiki dedicated to the series. Even when it comes to the pages on trophies, at the very least, every series' trophies are split into individual pages on the SmashWiki, whereas this wiki lumps every game's trophies into one article (for each game). Splitting the trophies by series and by game helps with navigation, while having the bonuses on separate pages here only spreads thin the little information that exists. It's not like there's a high demand for the pages on this wiki, if the What Links Here pages for each of the pages is any indication. On the very few moments, should they ever exist, that it is necessary to bring up the templates, all we need to do is link to the SmashWiki, and nothing would be different or loss. As it stands, all we're doing is violating Once and only once across multiple wikis. The other articles can stand on their own due to the numerous differences between them and their SmashWiki counterparts, but the lists of bonuses have no such luxury.

Proposer: Deadline: October 8, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) According to  Coverage, we get full coverage of the Super Smash Bros. games, and considering that these bonuses ARE part of unlocks of the Super Smash Bros. series, especially Super Smash Bros. Melee since you need to unlock ALL of them to receive an unlockable item, I don't see the harm of keeping them in. Furthermore, unlike Smash Wiki, the bonuses here are a basic part of the game that any lay player can easily access and view under the respective options menu or part of a strategy guide so technically, these bonuses aren't any more technical than having articles on the various special moves characters have. Are you also going to advocate the deletion of List of Super Smash Bros. Brawl music and the sequel's music lists, since THAT article has pretty much everything you want to be deleted in it, down to it "being redundant" with SmashWiki. Your argument about "writing stuff that is about stuff in-game" is very weak, many of our stats articles strictly concerning Mario games, especially those concerning collectable content are nothing more than a list or a bestiary: having a list is convenient for readers to read rather than needing to boot up the game and read about it there, and it applies to these articles as well. I think the standards your setting up are a bit too arbitrary for my tastes, and I think considering how we cover every other Smash aspect fully, deleting just these pages would have a breach and hole in coverage. I also think the argument for not dealing with the trophy pages is rather weak too: the only thing keeping us and SmashWiki different in our trophy coverage is pretty much only the split in articles, and it's partly due to how they choose to organize their information there rather than how we do it. I also don't feel the Once and only once argument is a strong argument to apply to multiple coverages, since that's not its intended use: we have a DK Wiki yet most of their information there is redundant with ours and it's also the reason it's not as active as here, plus, we even have two NIWA Pikmin-themed wikis to begin with. Tbh, I'm not comfortable with the passage of this proposal without rewriting the Coverage guideline, since as now, it currently allows this as it is and this proposal clearly breaches it.
 * 2) Per Baby Luigi
 * 3) Per Baby Luigi.
 * 4) - I see no reason to delete them. Besides, it does tie into the Mario universe: "Luigi KO". Now, if this was plagiarized from the Smash Wiki, then there would be significant reason to remove this, but otherwise, per Baby Luigi.
 * 5) per baby luigi
 * 6) Per Baby Luigi.
 * 7) - Our coverage rules say we keep 'em. Unless those get changed, I don't think we're losing these pages.
 * 8) Per Baby Luigi.

Comments
@BL: There's a flaw in your argument: this wiki isn't currently covering literally every aspect of the Smash games. The Smash Taunt characters all share one page, as do the various stage elements and enemies from each stage. Would you rather that all of them have individual pages? 15:13, 1 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Of course I'm not advocating covering literally every aspect of Smash game. I'm arguing that the list of bonuses articles are significant enough to the Smash series to warrant an article here, to the point where an unlockable in Super Smash Bros. Melee is tied to it. 15:16, 1 October 2017 (EDT)
 * That unlockable being a single trophy that otherwise does nothing but look pretty. Also, considering how few articles link to it, and considering that beyond that single trophy, the bonuses only exist for the purposes of score attack in a single mode that is far from the game's focus, I'm going to argue that the bonuses are not significant to the series. If they're so signficant, why were they mostly ignored in Brawl and discluded entirely in Sm4sh? 15:21, 1 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Your argument of "Doing nothing but look pretty" is a flimsy, subjective argument. In video games, collectables are always treated like a big deal, even if they're just digital images with text in them, and there's a reason game developers hide these types of things behind rewards. Regardless of how important it is to you subjectively, it has significant value regardless, to the point where it is considered a collectible especially in Super Smash Bros. Melee where you need to "collect" those bonuses to receive something. Maybe they're not important to the series as a whole, but I still say they're important enough to receive an article listing them in the respective games they appear in, pering my previous comments in my opposition. 15:31, 1 October 2017 (EDT)
 * I would argue, in turn, that your overly flowery and exagerated praising is equally subjective. There are 293 trophies in Melee alone; arguing that a single trophy that doesn't even have its own article is enough to support two articles is just taking things too far. Why does it matter how much time the devs spent on the trophies, anyways? I'm sure somebody spent plenty of time writing and drawing out the treasures in Wario: Master of Disguise, but that really doesn't mean anything. We're not going to give individual articles to them any time soon. Besides that, your argument supports giving pages for the trophies, but it means nothing for anything that involves unlocking the trophies, which is separate from the trophies themselves (the list of trophies pages don't even mention how they can be unlocked). The bonuses and trophies are entirely relevant apart from a single trophy being unlocked by them. Also, that argument is meaningless for the list of bonuses from the first game, which do not serve a greater purpose at any point. 15:46, 1 October 2017 (EDT)
 * I've talked about how the game makes a deal out of it, mostly because it does, something you can't ignore, and it even keeps a menu dedicated to this stuff in Melee. Official guides also list it as well, if they are there. The collectible articles of anything do exactly the same thing, except it's with gameplay mechanics and bonuses from Super Smash Bros. games. The only reason I brought up the Diskun trophy is because it's an unlockable linked to the collection of these items, so therefore, these bonuses fit the criteria of being a collectible item in the same way trophies are. The same thing applies to list of Super Smash Bros. bonuses, though to a lesser extent. In the end, unlike stuff like wave-dashing or L-canceling or the specifics that SmashWiki talks about, these bonuses are easily accessible to anyone and everyone playing the game. They're gameplay collectibles in the same way the trophies are, and thus, should be kept here in MarioWiki. Furthermore, when you brought up how these Smash Taunt characters are merged into one page, they're still there. Here, you're advocating complete removal of this information on MarioWiki, which is a different situation altogether. 16:00, 1 October 2017 (EDT)
 * It's only a single section of the menu. It's no more prominent than the options menu. Regardless of the game's trophy theming, the bulk of the trophies themselves can be easily ignored. Regardless, we're talking about the bonuses, which are buried within the menu, sandwiched between other statistics who are given equally low prominence yet are not given separate articles here. Even by the game's standards, the bonuses are not a signficant part of the game, especially to the point where it needs to be covered in exactly the same way as another wiki. And again, this completely disregards the first game, in which the bonuses are not kept track of in any way whatsoever, including the end score. 16:15, 1 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Sorry, but "it's only a single ssection" also seems subjective. Plus, aren't there bonus lists that you need to deal with too? 08:12, 2 October 2017 (EDT)
 * "a single section" in that it encompasses one list of text and nothing more. I also do not know what you're referring to by "bonus lists" beyond what's already been discussed. 13:40, 2 October 2017 (EDT)

Colons in navigation templates
Here's a simple problem: when it comes to navigation templates for games, some of them include a colon in their name (such as Template:ML:SS and Template:MP:IT) and others do not (such as Template:PMTTYD and Template:LMDM). Unlike my previous proposal about nav templates, this one's more of an issue: it is incredibly annoying for editors when they have to guess whether or not the template they're adding in has a colon or whether the new template they're making should have one in its title. Leaving things as they are just makes things confusingly inconsistent. Given that there's no rhyme or reason for the inconsistency, it'd be best for this to be settled for prevent any further inconvenience. There are two options for tackling this: applying a colon to every nav template that lacks it (assuming the game it's covering has a colon in its name, naturally), and removing a colon from every template that has it. I'd personally advocate not having them in the titles: though it's a part of the game's name, it doesn't convey any information that would help editors recognize the name, making it effectively wasted space. Since these templates will be constantly used by editors, it also helps to compactify them in any way we can. I also highly doubt that there will ever be a case in the future where the acronyms of two games can only be distinguished by the colon in one of their names. It also doesn't hurt that the majority of the (applicable) templates alreadny don't have a colon in their titles.

Proposer: Deadline: October 8, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Apply colons to the necessary templates

 * 1) This is my preferred option due to them being in series, but even if the other option passes, consistency will be formed. Basically, per proposal.
 * 2) - This is my preferred option, but I wouldn't mind it either way. Colons are meant to signify subtitles in the game names, so the abbreviations should be no different.

Remove colons from the necessary templates

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) This makes the most sense.
 * 3) It's just better if the colon is left out altogether, since not all games have them.
 * 4) It's a very small change, but I think it would look a lot better. Per all.
 * Eh, I don't see the harm in this. Per all.
 * 1) Per all.
 * 2) Per all.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) My preferred choice. Most games on the cover don't have a colon if they have a subtitle, so it makes sense to me. Per all.
 * 5) - This is used more than colons anyhow; this would be consistent with the other templates.

Comments

 * Templates with a colon:
 * Templates without a colon:
 * Templates without a colon:
 * Templates without a colon:
 * Templates without a colon:
 * Templates without a colon:
 * Templates without a colon:
 * Templates without a colon:
 * Templates without a colon:
 * Templates without a colon:
 * Templates without a colon:
 * Templates without a colon:
 * Templates without a colon:
 * Templates without a colon:
 * Templates without a colon:

I can see why there is no colon... for a majority of these without colons. There like one time instances, thus why a colon for these. Exceptions, Mario Golf, Mario Tennis, Paper Mario, and Wario Ware. The 2 Mario Kart are different from the series. Right now, I can see myself going for any of the three options. 16:49, 1 October 2017 (EDT)
 * A majority of the templates without colons encompass your exceptions. 16:53, 1 October 2017 (EDT)
 * True. It must have consistency. I'll vote for both. 08:59, 2 October 2017 (EDT)

Include the color brown in the general proposal archives for proposals that simply fail to reach a consensus, not just for proposals that end in a tie
I think the details here are sufficient enough. Brown is already the color used for ties, but I don't see why it isn't used for proposals that fail to gain consensus after a third deadline extension.

Proposer: Deadline: October 22, 2017, 23:59 GMT Date Withdrawn: October 19, 2017

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) The colour brown isn't used for every instance of a tie, it's for previous instances where ties caused the proposal to end, and not be extended, upon reaching the deadline; this isn't something that happens today. Red also works perfectly fine for proposals that failed to reach a consensus. And don't use my arguments in a proposal when I don't even support what you're doing.
 * 2) Per Time Turner.
 * 3) - Per mine and Time Turner's discussion in the link below.
 * 4) Per Time Turner.
 * per

Comments
Further information. 16:57, 15 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Yeah, I guess you're kind of right. Cancelling and will come up with a better alternative later. 22:33, 18 October 2017 (EDT)

Remove rule 4 of the talk page proposals
4. Talk page proposals may be closed by the proposer at any time if each voting option has fewer than five votes.

...Why? Why are proposers given the right of closing their proposals based solely on the number of votes? What purpose does this serve when proposers already have the option of closing their proposal within the first six days? If a proposal hasn't received many votes, why is the solution to completely scrap it rather than try to promomte it? What situation would even exist that would require this rule to be invoked (less than five votes on all sides and more than six days have passed), and even then, why not let an admin close it if there's a valid reason for it? If there's no valid reason for closing the proposal, why let proposers close it at any moment they want? Why only five votes in the first place, and not some other arbitrary number? Why do talk page proposals even have a rule that isn't applied to regular proposals?

This rule is pointless in all circumstances and should be promptly scrapped.

Proposer: Deadline: October 14, 2017, 23:59 GMT Extended: October 21, 2017, 23:59 GMT Extended: October 28, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) So you want to remove it. Why haven't you? (it's basically rhetorical.) Per proposal.
 * 4) No reasoning was provided for why the rule was added, and it's pointless anyways (no one uses it), so per proposal.
 * 5) - As per general proposal rules, every proposer gets three days in which they may alter or remove proposals. That's already a sufficient window to realize if your proposal is sensible and you want to stick with it.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Ridiculous rule. Per all
 * 8) Per proposal.
 * 9) Per all, especially Toadette the Achiever and Gabumon.
 * 10) per
 * 11) I always found this rule very annoying.  Per all.
 * 12) Per all.
 * 13) - Per TT and Edo.

Oppose

 * 1) I think it's better to give the proposer complete control over the proposal, and this rule does just that.
 * 2) - I don't really see a point to remove it. If there's too few votes, it's usually a no quorum anyhow, so rather than just feebly wait, the proposer might just say "forget it" and close it.
 * 3) I don't really see any actual benefit to this it seems like doing something just to do it.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Per all. There just doesn't seem to be a point to removing it. Maybe I want to put a proposal no one cares about out of its misery?
 * 6) When the proposal passes/fails, a month of waiting is needed between proposals (rule #7). That means 6 weeks of total waiting (if rule #10 doesn't apply). If the proposer has a right to withdraw with less than five votes, rule #7 can be skipped, meaning a refreshed proposal can happen within 0-6 weeks. This can allow tweaks and maybe allowing the proposal to be proposed at a better time where more people are active.
 * 7) Per all. It's entirely optional, if you don't like it, don't do it.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) - Per all.

Comments
OK, can anyone tell me the difference between talk page proposals and regular proposals? I know that one type specializes in game-related information and that one type specializes in regular wiki-related stuff, but can anyone tell me which is which? I'd really like to know. 02:40, 8 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Talk page proposals go on talk pages and usually only deal with a handful of pages or sometimes even just one page. Regular proposals go on this page and handle a broader amount of pages or other details that would directly affect policy. 11:56, 8 October 2017 (EDT)

@Lcross: Can you elaborate on what you mean by "complete control"? Would you allow a proposer to make major changes to their proposal the day that it ends? 11:56, 8 October 2017 (EDT)

@Camwood: Is there a point in keeping it around, then? And keep in mind that a proposal only needs four votes total to go into effect; in theory, a proposer could easily cancel a proposal simply because they don't like that a majority of users are voting for something that they don't want. That really doesn't seem fair to me. 12:01, 8 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Usually, by the point they could cancel a proposal simply because people don't vote for something they want/people vote for something they don't want, they wouldn't be able to cancel the proposal by this since the consensus would be above that they could cancel the vote by. And if it were lower, there would still be a no quorum. Really, either way, not allowing this does nothing, and removing this just helps delay votes that have a pretty inevitable no quorum. And before you bring up the "isn't 4 possibly enough votes to pass but they can still cancel?", don't worry. However, I think that's an entire other debacle that I think would be more appropriately addressed in another vote after this one, if this vote to remove rule 4 fails and any purpose in doing so isn't rendered moot by rule 4 simply not existing.  ~Camwood777  (talk)  15:19, 10 October 2017 (EDT)
 * A proposal with 3 votes on one side and 4 votes on the other side would be subject to this rule, and that seems like an adequate amount of votes to reach a legitimate consensus. The rule's especially problematic with proposals that have multiple options, since that naturally thins out the number of votes. Also, who are you to say that a consensus is inevitable? New information can come in at any moment, which could easily lead to new votes or people switching their votes. At the very least, if the information comes in too late, the proposer can ask the admins to cancel it and they have a perfectly valid reason to do so. Cancelling proposals early just because you feel like it only stifles productive debate. In short, keeping this rule could easily cause more harm than good. 23:12, 10 October 2017 (EDT)

@TimeTurner: Thanks for the info. It was really helpful. As for "complete control", I'm saying that the proposer should be able to decide if he/she wants to remove it, and removing rule 4 would restrict them from doing that. If they realized immediately that the said action was done for a reason and that the proposal would go against the action, then they should remove the proposal. If you still don't understand, then do you remember my proposal about merging the Hot Monster article with the Red Monster article that completely failed? I thought they were the same thing, but I immediately learned they weren't. I decided to keep the proposal anyway, because I just wanted to see how it would turn out in the end. 16:09, 8 October 2017 (EDT)
 * There's already a rule that allows you to cancel your proposal without a reason early on, especially with this recently passed proposal. If you learn "immediately" that your proposed change wasn't a good idea, then you're free to cancel it. 00:35, 9 October 2017 (EDT)

@Chester: The danger is that this rule could be used to cancel a proposal solely because the proposer doesn't like the outcome, and not because they had any sort of legitimate reason. If they did, they can inform an admin and close it that way. This is not the kind of power that needs to be given to proposers. Besides, spring cleaning is always good; why bog down the list with a pointless rule? 00:35, 9 October 2017 (EDT)

@Doc: What gives you the right to decide that nobody cares about your proposal? I'll reiterate that it only takes more than three votes for a proposal to pass, making it possible for you to cancel a proposal even if people are participating in it, but regardless, if nobody participates in your proposal and it ends in a no quorum, then the logical reason for that is because the proposed issue was too complex and wide-reaching or the proposal itself was confusing, and that's valuable information in and of itself. Besides, it's entirely possible to people to join in with new information at any point, and that could easily get the ball rolling. I'll also reiterate that it's possible for admins to close a proposal early if there's a valid reason for it; what are you doing, cancelling a proposal without a valid reason? 09:20, 10 October 2017 (EDT)
 * The fact that it's been utterly ignored for 8-10 days? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:43, 20 October 2017 (EDT)

@Wildgoosespeeder: One, that rule doesn't apply to no quorum proposals, and two, the rule exists for a reason. What's the point of rule 7 if it's so easily circumvented? 00:32, 11 October 2017 (EDT)
 * No quorum proposals is 3 or less votes total (rule #8), or if the three extensions on top of the one/two weeks and no margin of three was reached by the end (rule #11). I think rule #7 was for protections involving very active participation, not for any proposal, even proposals with little voting activity. -- 16:13, 11 October 2017 (EDT)

@Chat Man: You called the rule optional. Rules are not something you can pick and choose from to follow. They are what you must try to follow as best as you can. I say that because we are all human. Sometimes we can't follow the rules. But in no wise it is optional. And if you don't like the rule, then why did you oppose? And you're perring other votes which have things you should read as well. Also, I am just trying to cover all points, but I will let you decide to change it or keep it the same. 21:54, 15 October 2017 (EDT)

Make a new, separate "delete" template for pages with unique talk pages
As it stands, our current delete template urges for the talk page to be deleted as well, presumably assuming that it's from a move redirect. However, in the case of merges or outright page deletions, this is a bad thing, as it could cause the loss of why those events occurred in the first place. I propose we make a new, separate one for such eventualities. "deletenottalk" perhaps? I'm not sure if this belongs in "changes" or "new features," so I'm putting it here.

Proposer: Deadline: October 29, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Good idea doc.

Oppose

 * 1) I would love to see a mock-up before I even consider supporting this.
 * 2) Per Wildgoose and Mr. L in the comments.
 * 3) - Per all.
 * 4) Per Ultimate Mr. L in the comments.
 * 5) Per Wildgoosespeeder in the voting section, and Ultimate Mr. L in the comments.
 * 6) Per myself down there.
 * 7) Per the Green Thunder, and per all.

Comments
I think we should add an option to the current template that removes that text, something like:  It may also be a good plan to delete that text altogether and just let the admins decide whether or not to delete the talk page. They know what they're doing. 14:42, 22 October 2017 (EDT)


 * This is exactly what I was thinking. 22:13, 22 October 2017 (EDT)

@Time Turner: Guess what? I don't know how to make templates, so I can't make an example! But it would be like the current one, but replacing the "Please delete any accompanying talk pages as well" with "please do not delete the accompanying talk page. And @Ultimate Mr. L, the solution is not "Make your current template convoluted." Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 01:34, 23 October 2017 (EDT)
 * @Doc von Schmeltick: Yes it is. That's why one user merged with . (Well, you have to admit, it is a similar scenario.)  02:05, 23 October 2017 (EDT)
 * And it has confounded me multiple times, because it doesn't come with a use manual easy at hand, and I have to search for and hopefully find it within the nightmare that is our "templates" category for any direction at all. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 02:54, 23 October 2017 (EDT)
 * If you don't know how to make a template, ask someone to help you. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask to see a mock-up of a new template. Also, I'm perring other people, why are you singling 'me out? 07:21, 23 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Because I was half asleep (and quite frankly you're normally the one who gives me the most resistance it seems, so it's almost reflexive). I meant to @WildGooseSpeeder. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 07:28, 23 October 2017 (EDT)
 * You've used the excuse that you're tired on several other occasions. If your level of tiredness affects your editing to the point where your comments can be confused, don't edit when you're tired. 07:45, 23 October 2017 (EDT)
 * I needed to answer the question though. And I re-read it several times. The problem was I had skimmed over the list while somewhat tired, so my backup checks didn't work. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 08:02, 23 October 2017 (EDT)
 * There was not an immediate need for you to respond to the opposition votes. Proposals last for a week; you have plenty of time to come back when you're not tired. I'm also going to caution you to actually do that, considering the number of tiredness-based hiccups you've had. 08:07, 23 October 2017 (EDT)

Maybe we could change the outline color to green for quick differentiation. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:20, 23 October 2017 (EDT)

Want to add that deleting talk pages with content is already optional, as per Deletion policy. The sysops don't usually delete talk pages if the content there is relevant already, such as a proposal determining the deletion of its main page. The talk page is kept, due to the proposal, but the main page is deleted. However, I will agree to a rewording, such as "Unless there is content that shouldn't be deleted on the talk page, please delete the corresponding talk page as well." 21:13, 25 October 2017 (EDT)
 * I got worried on that front after Talk:School of Fish got deleted...admittedly, it was subsequently restored, but still, if the only reason why the corresponding talk page would be deleted would be for moving pages, why have the template say that at all? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:26, 25 October 2017 (EDT)