MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/54

Add RARS to Template:Ratings
RARS is Russian Age Rating System. There are already Mario games that have been classified by this system. So why not add it to the template? Sorry for my bad English. Update: Looks like we need to add GRAC and GSRR too.

Proposer: Deadline: July 19, 2019, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per my proposal.
 * Да, we already cover other age ratings, why not this one?
 * 1) Also  (S. Korea) and  (Taiwan) should be added.
 * 2) no reason not to, methinks
 * 3) Since we already cover many age ratings, it makes sense to cover this one as well
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) - Per all.
 * 6) За все, especially Delfino4.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Ладно, почему бы и нет.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) Per all.
 * 13) Per all.
 * 14) Пер Бейби Луиджи.
 * 15) Per all.
 * 16) Per all. There isn't any real reason to include the ratings of some countries but not others.
 * 17) Per all.
 * 18) Per all.

Comments
How isn't it distinct from it? -- 12:12, July 12, 2019 (EDT)
 * Also, this is going to be very very hard to do, heres a list, don’t get mad if I miss anything or get it out of order, I am doing my best..., no dk on this list:


 * Donkey kong
 * Donkey Kong Jr.
 * Mario Bros.
 * Super Mario Bros.
 * Super Mario Bros. 2: The Lost Levels
 * (Yume Kōjō: Doki Doki Panic) Super Mario Bros. 2
 * Super Mario Bros. 2 USA
 * Super Mario Bros. 3
 * Super Mario Land.
 * Super Mario World
 * Super Mario Kart
 * Super Mario Land 2. 6 Golden Coins
 * Super Mario RPG
 * Super Mario 64
 * Paper Mario
 * Mario Kart 64
 * Mario Party
 * Mario Party 2
 * Mario Party 3
 * Luigi’s Mansion
 * Etc...
 * Do you get the point??? But, I am Joining because we need all ratings. 12:21, July 12, 2019 (EDT)

RARS was created in 2012. So, only games released after that have RARS rating, I think.-- 12:36, July 12, 2019 (EDT)
 * Moreover, Nintendo didn't actually localize any games into Russian until the release of the Switch. Also, the specific RARS you refer to doesn't have its own Wikipedia article, so how do you plan to rectify that issue? 12:41, July 12, 2019 (EDT)
 * 1. Nintendo started localizing into Russian after 3DS release (SM3DL was first)
 * 2. There's only article in Russian language. Also, in Microsoft Store you need to write rating in RARS too . Xbox page - -- 13:01, July 12, 2019 (EDT)

@FanOfYoshi heh I appreciate inputting my name in Cyrillic but ignoring that Baby Luigi is actually called Малыш Луиджи, my name romanized would actually be spelled Бейби Луиджи. It was pretty close though! 14:09, July 16, 2019 (EDT)

Create a Mario Party 11 redirect
This may sound kind of stupid, but I'm sure that there are people out there who'll automatically assume that Super Mario Party is called Mario Party 11. Super Mario Party is the eleventh Mario Party title to come out on a home console, and thus, when compared to the overall Mario Party series of 25 games, it's the 11th main game, due to the other 14 installments being either handheld or arcade. Harkening to the Mario Kart games, Super Mario Kart-Mario Kart Wii have redirects numbered 1-6. If the first six Mario Kart games warrant numbered redirects, then I really don't see why Super Mario Party cannot be treated in the same manner.

Proposer: Deadline: July 20, 2019, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) - Per proposal.
 * 3) - Per proposal
 * 4) Per proposal, especially Scrooge200's findings.
 * 5) I don't see why not. There was a counterproposal to restore the fan-made Mario Party redirects.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) per all
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Sure, per all.
 * 12) Per all, this makes sense.
 * 13) Per all.
 * 14) Per all above votes and my proposal about the Mario Kart redirects.
 * 15) - I was initially against it, having had to delete the redirect when it was initially created. But since Birdo actually calls it the eleventh party in-game, per proposal.
 * 16) I tried to do this before, but since I saw this, I am happy the redirect will return. Per proposal.
 * 17) Per all.

Comments
Here's the proposal in question in case anyone wants to view it before voting here. 00:08, July 14, 2019 (EDT)

Super Mario Party does refer to itself as "the 11th party" in-game. 00:14, July 14, 2019 (EDT)
 * Does someone know what is the corresponding Japanese text, by the way?--Mister Wu (talk) 11:32, July 14, 2019 (EDT)

Create articles for the worlds in Dr. Mario World
A proposal regarding creation of the levels is still underway. That being said, this is a much more clear-cut situation and does not need a proposal, as the stages would have to be covered somehow.

After looking at the above proposal, knowing that Dr. Mario World simply doesn't warrant articles for each of its worlds, we'd might as well get the game's worlds themselves covered. Each of Dr. Mario World's levels don't have much information to about themselves, but the worlds as a whole have a lot more that can be brought up about them. Kinda like five sticks being tied together being stronger than each individual stick. 'Nuff said, the above proposal and the opinions of Toadette the Achiever and Mario JC back this proposal up.

Proposer: Deadline: June 28, 2019, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal, Toadette the Achiever, and Mario jc.

Oppose

 * 1) This is using an unresolved proposal to force through a secondary decision, and thus I have to oppose it on principle (elaborated on below).

Comments
There's absolutely no point in forcing a second proposal, just vote on the appropriate option above and state your reasoning as you did here. The proposal seems to have an overwhelming consensus now, but there's the remote possibility of it changing by the proposal's end. -- 23:29, July 21, 2019 (EDT)

Add template for Super Smash Bros. Ultimate's moves
Creation of such a template does not need a proposal.

I've noticed that previous Super Smash Bros. games have templates leading to the characters' special moves, as well as universal techniques like air dodging, footstool jumping, and tether recoveries. It's been more than 7 months since Super Smash Bros. Ultimate - the most recent Smash game - was released, yet we still don't have a templates dedicated to its characters' moves. I'd like to change that.

Proposer: Deadline: July 29, 2019, 23:59 (GMT)

Support

 * 1) Per proposal. Just wanted to bring this to everyone's attention.

Oppose

 * 1) - Per Doomhiker's comment.
 * 2) - This proposal is completely unnecessary. The other games have a template like this, so why should it be any different here?

Comments
This really does not need a proposal. All other Smash games have a template like this, and it should automatically should be no different for Ultimate. 19:36, July 22, 2019 (EDT)
 * Seconded - This is s the sort of thing you bring up on a talk page before forcing yet another proposal. -- 19:51, July 22, 2019 (EDT)
 * Yeah, the template can just be made. 19:52, July 22, 2019 (EDT)
 * Agreed, this proposal is completely unnecessary. 20:23, July 22, 2019 (EDT)

btw opposes mean you don't want the template to exist in the first place, so that's kind of conflicting with your comments. I can probably just cancel this outright, but I want to see what MarioManiac says first. 21:13, July 22, 2019 (EDT)


 * More of an opposition to the proposal itself than the proposed move - which, as you mentioned, can be made or at least discussed without a proposal. -- 21:17, July 22, 2019 (EDT)
 * You would not even need to discuss it, as it is like giving new games nav templates once they have enough subjects: it is something that is traditionally done so it should be automatically done without discussion or proposal. 21:36, July 22, 2019 (EDT)
 * Which is me point, yes. -- 21:52, July 22, 2019 (EDT)
 * Yes, just cancel it. MarioManiac1981 (talk) 8:45, July 23, 2019 (EST)

Add when the Just released and New subject should be removed, while slightly rewording the former template
Just recently there has been discussion regarding when the template should be removed. While Alex95 said that the template should be removed after a month, the template, and its own page, says nothing about a date where it should be removed. In fact, it says "When the game is released, or more information about this subject is found, this article may need major rewriting. Remove this only when the changes have been applied.". So basically, it says that as long as the proper changes/info have been added about the new subject, the template can be removed, thus you can technically remove the template day one per the template, and as the template says that the template should only be removed once the changes are made technically the template can be on a page for years, if the changes are not made. So it is very easy to see how users can be confused on how long the template should last, and the current wording for removal should be reworded, as the template should be an alert for new subjects that are longer than one day old, but not years old. Plus it cannot hurt to specify when the template should be removed, to clear confusion. So, I propose to add a sentence and to reword the New subject template to specify when to remove the template, and the specification will also apply to the Just released template.

This is how the templates should look like after this proposal passes, if it does:  This is about a  that has just been released. Major changes should be made by a contributor who has a reliable source. This template should be removed after a month has passed since the game was first released.  This subject in an upcoming or recently released '''. When the is released, or more information about this subject is found, this  may need major rewriting. This template should be removed after a month has passed since the game was first released. The templates' pages will also include the date of removal.

Proposer: Deadline: July 24, 2019, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Agreed, although, that could be done on the template's talk page.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) I always confused these. Per proposal.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Strong support as another obstacle in the policy's elaborate reasoning to clear up.
 * 7) Don't see why not. Per all.
 * 8) Makes perfect sense to me. Per all.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) - Per my current understanding of this template.

Comments
@FanOfYoshi I done it on this page due to it affecting two templates. I would much rather one proposal then two dealing with near-identical matters. 13:22, July 17, 2019 (EDT)
 * Ok. -- 13:26, July 17, 2019 (EDT)
 * I always remove these templates two weeks after a game is first released, but OK. MarioManiac1981 (talk) 0:08, July 18, 2019 (EST)

Disallow use of "per all" votes on proposals and featured article nominations
Let's face it, this proposal had to happen. Too many people vote on a proposal just for the sake of voting, and bandwagon on the side with more votes. "Per all" implies that the voter is too lazy to simply point out their reasons or even refer back to specific previous votes. They instead opt to say "per all above reasons", quite possibly because they haven't even read the above reasons and are simply voting just by looking at the voting headers, without looking at the reasons for either side. Worst-case scenario, they see that one of the sides has a lot more votes and they cast a "per all" vote on that side just because. "Per all" is the lamest excuse to vote that ever existed and goes directly against proposal policy of "Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it". "Per all" has some real meaning behind it, but it's rarely used just because the voter agrees with and would otherwise list every single reason posted above it. It's usually just used because the voter hasn't considered the matter carefully and is rushing their vote to the side with more. It's basically putting no reason with your vote other than "you know what just look at the votes above this because I don't feel like typing everything".

Therefore, I propose that the use of "Per all" in any proposal or featured article nominations be prohibited, and any votes involving its use are eligible for removal (unless they provide other reasons along with "per all", in which case the "per all" portion of the vote be removed and the rest of the vote stays as-is). "Per proposal" and "Per " votes will still be allowed, but in the case of the latter, voters must list the users they most strongly agree with, one by one. This provides at least some certainty that they have considered the matter carefully, and examined the reasons to see which ones they buy.

Proposer: Deadline: August 3, 2019, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per my proposal. (Just watch how even in this proposal a bunch of "per all" votes get cast out of sheer spite just because)

Oppose

 * 1) Per all simply means you agree with the points others have already made. Do some people abuse it? Probably, but we have no way of knowing whether they have or not, and neither do you. I see no reason to disallow it, otherwise you'll just have everyone beating a dead horse, or worse, actively discourage users from participating in proposals. This proposal also seems pointless as you could easily get around it by just writing a laundry list of everyone else who has voted prior. If anything, I'd rather see casting blank votes as an implied "per all" being allowed.
 * 2) In my opinion, there's no good reason to force people to give longer responses to proposals. I use "per all" because I don't want to just repeat the same points that everyone else already made. Honestly, I'd support just eliminating the need for vote reasons in the first place since an empty vote is just another way of saying "per all".
 * 3) ...Yeah no. Per all is used mostly because if one was to write out the same points again as vote number twelve (or even three), it would just waste both that users time and just be frustrating to read for other people. It's not going to prevent anything either, as Waluigi Time stated above. This proposal really seems to serve no use other than ''Well, I don't like seeing the words per all so let me just get rid of it."
 * 4) ""Per all" implies that the voter is too lazy to simply point out their reasons or even refer back to specific previous votes."" There are a lot of reasons for me to oppose this, but I think this assumption seals it. Do you really want there to be no alternative or shorthand for people whose reasoning is ultimately the same as someone else's, either because it was more compelling to them or because their own stance is similar enough to another voter's that it would genuinely make little difference? Because all this is going to result in, among other things, is people struggling to word their opinions in as obtuse a way as possible just to avoid accusations of "not considering the matter carefully" or not meeting some arbitrary level of originality in their statements. I for one would rather not be mandated to type out whole lines and paragraphs in order to satisfy some random person's perception of my understanding, especially not when a "per all" would suffice - if someone really wants to "test" my understanding of a matter, they are free to ask me for an in-depth opinion. And let it be reiterated that it is the attempt to seemingly mandate a perceived laziness away - and perceived is the key word here - that rubs me the wrong way infinitely more than any other aspect (e.g. the presumption of voter motivations, for one). And there's a huge overlap with that example, likely because the entire notion of this proposal is founded on assumptions, and ones that would easily be proven wrong were one to actually engage with the voters and see what guides their thought process, instead of trying to force their hand via such an overt attempt to try and finagle their personal opinion into an enforceable guideline.
 * 5) honestly i say we're far better off getting rid of the reason required rule to begin with: a reasonless vote is pretty much just a stealth "per all". a vote is a vote. i still have the same power regardless if i write two words due to bandwagoning or type a 1000 word essay.
 * 6) Per all.

Comments
Yes, there's an inherent irony in my typing an entire paragraph about how this is going to make people feel compelled to type paragraphs, and no, I don't much care because that's well beside the point. -- 19:02, July 27, 2019 (EDT)
 * And for further commentary, I peeked at the history in Recent Changes, and apparently this is a means of dealing with "bandwagon voting". If ever a statement begged a question, this is it: what exactly is the definition of "bandwagoning" being used here, and what are actual examples of votes that meet said definition without careening down the obvious slippery slope of "X more or less agrees with something Y said"? Because again, and let's face it, sometimes someone says it better than you could. -- 19:07, July 27, 2019 (EDT)
 * if he's talking about soliticing votes from other users, that's already forbidden to begin with. really it assumes a lot of bad faith in users when that's what we shouldn't do 19:28, July 27, 2019 (EDT)

I do think that rule of "Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it" is not necessary. Per all and blank votes are simply just reiterating the other positions. To assume the worst from blank votes kinda runs against the whole "assume good faith" sort of thing. 19:37, July 27, 2019 (EDT)

Create articles on individual Dr. Mario levels
I'm specifically referring to the Miracle Cure Laboratory levels in Dr. Mario: Miracle Cure and the story mode stages in Dr. Mario World.

It still bothers me that somehow the Dr. Mario series levels aren't explicitly covered by policy, so I propose that we be able to create them. I know that it may be a bit of a stretch to propose this, but I think we have a good precedent to go by: the levels from the Minion Quest: The Search for Bowser and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes of Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga + Bowser's Minions and Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story + Bowser Jr.'s Journey, as even though they aren't really comprehensive levels per se (and thus would technically be in the same boat as the aforementioned Dr. Mario series levels), they still have articles nonetheless.

Should this proposal fail for either game, tables on the list of stages in each game will be created instead.

Proposer: Deadline: July 28, 2019, 23:59 GMT

Create articles for both games' levels

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) My second option.
 * 4) Per Toadette the Achiever. I was the one who originally added the links to the Miracle Cure Laboratory levels. While the previous Dr. Mario games have randomized levels, these don't.
 * 5) Per Obsessive Mario Fan.

Only create articles on the levels from Dr Mario: Miracle Cure

 * 1) Honestly, I agree with JC and with porplemontage in that talk page in that the levels in Dr. Mario World are more comparable to the Power Moons if anything else. Unlike the levels in Bowser Jr.'s journey, the puzzles are even more extremely straightforward and basic; the articles would contain little more than naming the amount of viruses present and features, and I really feel like that's something that could be more easily, conveniently and better summed up in a simple image + gallery format in their respective World articles summarizing the info up such as notable introductions to new game features than tearing all the tiny levels into individual pieces that would make it such a chore to navigate. It also doesn't help that the Dr. Mario World stages are generically named such as "Stage 60,201" unlike the Journey and Bowser's Minions level articles.
 * 2) Per Baby Luigi. I took a look at the stages in Dr. Mario World and there'd barely be enough to sustain half an article on its own.
 * 3) Per all. The Dr. Mario World levels should just be handled in a list because there isn't much to say about them.
 * 4) - Per all.
 * 5) I'm okay with this option too.
 * 6) As long as we still describe the level via tables on the world page, I agree with this option. Per all.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Second option, better than nothing.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) Per Baby Luigi.
 * 11) Per all, I was going to suggest the same thing.

Comments
For the level layouts, we can show the virus layouts like this:







Is it a good idea? 15:37, July 21, 2019 (EDT)
 * I think we're far better off just taking a screenshot of the level. 15:42, July 21, 2019 (EDT)
 * Yeah, that sounds easier. 15:42, July 21, 2019 (EDT)
 * (edit conflicted) That sounds a bit too strategy-guide like. For the viruses in the Dr. Mario: Miracle Cure levels, I think it's better to just label how many of each color are in the level. As for Dr. Mario World, the colors of each virus can be random for each level, so it might just be better to make a note of how many viruses are in the level, as well as how many other gimmicks there are (Brick Blocks, Koopa shells, bombs, etc.). 15:47, July 21, 2019 (EDT)
 * I think you may have a stronger case for Miracle Cure since those levels appear to be named and not under specific worlds but I'm still against Dr. Mario World levels being separate in favor of summarizing stages in a gallery format in their respective world articles. 15:50, July 21, 2019 (EDT)
 * I think Dr. Mario: Miracle Cure levels should definitely be made...Although levels from Dr. Mario World could be handled in a list, depending on how much there is to say about them. 16:09, July 21, 2019 (EDT)

What about full Worlds in Dr. Mario World? I think those should recieve articles, but probably not the individual levels. 17:08, July 21, 2019 (EDT)
 * Worlds are outside the scope of this proposal, and should be created according to myself and Mario jc. 17:23, July 21, 2019 (EDT)
 * OK. I was just wondering, in case that wasn't went over earlier. 17:27, July 21, 2019 (EDT)

there i made an article on one of the worlds from dr mario world 17:51, July 25, 2019 (EDT)

Reorganize and split Gallery:Toys and other Merchandise galleries
Hi, so this is going to be a short, yet complicated proposal. There are two gallery pages, Gallery:Toys and Gallery:Figurines (linked in header), and it's a massive lump of merchandise images, which makes it difficult to actually add information regarding the merchandise. Pikipedia actually manages their merchandise page better in my opinion, as they organize by merchandise type in the mainspace (rather than gallery mainspace), and add some info on the individual merchandise. Part of me thinks that the lack of information on official merchandise (aside from obscurity) is because much of it is listed on a gallery page, rather than designated mainspace article. There is more information to the merchandise than just a picture of galleries.

Even if this proposal does pass, we should consider sorting the merchandise into sections or articles, so like Super Mario series merchandise, Yoshi's Island merchandise, Donkey Kong series merchandise, Mario Kart merchandise. There's simply too much merchandise. Mario is one of the biggest gaming franchise of them all and has numerous spinoffs and franchises. The longevity of the franchise makes me think it's the biggest gaming franchise of them all... I'm definitely going to need the community's help on this big proposal.

Proposer: Deadline: July 30, 2019, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) - I started this proposal.
 * 2) - Per proposal.
 * 3) - Per proposal.
 * 4) Strong support. I would love to have more expanded articles on merchandise.
 * 5) Per proposal.
 * 6) - Sounds good to me. More information on these toys would be great in a list format, a gallery doesn't work for that all that well.
 * 7) Agreed. Per all.
 * 8) Lists on merchandise on individual series (not games, most of those lists would be too short) would be great, and a good amount of merchandise does have some kind of pertaining info.
 * 9) Agreed, I think more should be said about the merchandise here. If there is not much to say about one, we would just put a short description.
 * 10) Absolutely. I was just thinking about doing this not too long ago, as the current merchandise galleries are just a mess of everything being tossed in wherever. I also think there's potential to split certain merchandise lines/companies, such as the Hot Wheels toys that just came out, a single page for the many Happy Meal promotions, or the Build-A-Bear toys which are actually mostly missing from that page; we already do this for San-ei and K'NEX, actually. There's so much that can be said about stuff like this that doesn't really lend itself to a paragraph somewhere in a massive gallery.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) - Per all.
 * 13) Per all, we definitely need to better organise our merchandise coverage.

Oppose

 * 1) Honestly, to begin with, I don't see the need to do this at all. Most of the merch can be understood as an image the way it is now. Further information isn't really necessary. There's no surprise as to what a Mario figure is, and at most a caption of 'Made by [company] in [year]' would suffice. Lets say that besides it's sheer uselessness that it gets passed. The logistics of creating such lists (as you seem to be aiming for) would be extremely difficult to create effectively. Would some games be standalone and others be by series? Furthermore, I think there would be a lot of sketchy, inaccurate, and entirely nonexistant sourcing would take place, leading to a variety of errors and inconsistencies. Absolutely no reason to pass, in my eyes.

Comments
So what are some possible ideas for how we will reorganize the articles into mainspace? What will the titles be? I definitely think doing it by franchise and spinoff series is the way to go. general merchandise (such as generic mario emblem) can be sorted under "general merchandise" or something like that. I want to hear your opinions. Results May Vary (talk) 22:10, July 22, 2019 (EDT)
 * Sort by spinoff series, like, and "List of general merchandise" works. 22:13, July 22, 2019 (EDT)
 * Yes, that would be a great idea for names. Results May Vary (talk) 22:22, July 22, 2019 (EDT)
 * Just remembered that Forest of Illusion has posted lots of obscure Mario merchandise from Japan, so some of the pages could possibly be sorted by region. Results May Vary (talk) 23:13, July 22, 2019 (EDT)

New template: Alphabetize
Historically, lists and galleries have attempted to be alphabetical. For the most part, they have remained somewhat intact in remaining alphabetical. In a lot of other cases, this is not exactly true, which is where this template comes into play. This template, to be used in sections of pages, indicates that a list should be made alphabetical. It is significantly different from because rewriting a page generally adds to or removes content, and requires a type of reactional thinking to form NEW content. To make a section alphabetical, it requires moving around pre-existing content. This should lead to a higher level of consistency among articles, and greater ease for readers to navigate pages.

The template would look like this:  It has been requested that this be re-organized to be in alphabetical order.

Proposer: Deadline: August 9, 2019 at 23:59 GMT.

Support

 * 1) Per proposal. Would be weird if the guy that made it didn't support it...
 * 2) Seems a perfectly reasonable way to call attention to a specific issue to me.
 * 3) Not THAT unreasonable.
 * 4) Honestly the "we can use the rewrite template" argument seems quite invalid. Template:Tense exists, even though we technically could just use, . Template:Trivia could just be  . If we were to not have this template, then those templates would also have to go. Really, with the mentality that "just because another template just be used for the same thing", we should delete most improvement templates and make an issue template were we can do  ,  ,  , etc. However, there is one major benefit in having specific template for specific issues, and sub-templates of those (which is what Template:Tense is and what this template can be) is that when those templates are used specific categories are added to the page. This means that editors can look for specific issues to fix instead of going through all pages marked with a more general template, like the rewrite template. If you want to fix long trivia sections, you can go to Category:Articles with long trivia sections. (Unfortunately Template:Tense doesn't have its own category which it should have if you only want to fix tense, but https://www.mariowiki.com/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Tense still can be used). Of course, this template won't always be used, but there still are good uses of it, so I support.
 * 5) Per Doomhiker. Also, rewrite typically implies that an article needs its written content fixed, whereas Alphabetize typically pertains to galleries. Many users tend to focus on either written content or images, but sometimes not both. File maintainers like myself would never find such gallery sort issues in the rewrite category. In fact, I doubt very many people even scroll through that category when looking for articles to rewrite because of how bloated it is due to everyone using the template as a catch-all for any sort of issue with articles. I strongly disagree with the oppose votes here because I feel that sorting of galleries, which can be an automated process is vastly different from fixing writing within articles and deserves its own maintenance category and template, and that trying to include this in rewrite contributes to the bloat of the rewrite category, making it more useless.
 * 6) Per Doomhiker.

Oppose

 * 1) - I'm going to say the same thing here as I did in our DMs about this.  does the same thing. We don't need another template for this. Rewriting doesn't always mean adding or removing content, it could mean reorganizing content as well.
 * 2) - I know I've griped about something similar to this, but it's ultimately a semantic issue and, at most, a small quibble. Slightly altering the current templates to potentially reflect such cases would work somewhat better than a whole new template that all but says the same thing. Plus Alex makes a good point regarding what a rewrite entails.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) - Trig, sorry but I'm going to have to agree with Grammaticus and Alex. Alphabetizing isn't needed in all cases. For instance, with characters in spin-off titles, Mario should always come first and foremost, as he is the series' titular character.
 * 5) I don't see why we need to make such specific templates. As Alex95 said,  is a perfectly suitable alpabetization notice.
 * 6) Actually on second thought, using just the rewrite template works better. Per all.
 * 7) Unnecessary and redundant. Per all.
 * 8) If we can just use the rewrite template, that makes this redundant and redundant. Per all.
 * 9) With the rewrite template being available, this would just be redundant. Per all.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) Per all.
 * 13) Alphabetical order isn't always the best order... whichever order is best can depend on the content in the article, and it's slightly redundant. Opposing for now.
 * 14) What Alex said.

Comments
i said that the borders of the template is too thick and it's inconsistent with the rest of the templates in its fashion. 23:38, August 1, 2019 (EDT)


 * @Owen, I don't think you're supposed to just outright remove your initial vote - to my knowledge it's preferred that you strike through your initial vote and explain why your changed it in your new vote. -- 01:42, August 2, 2019 (EDT)
 * You can remove your vote if no one is referring to it. 12:24, August 2, 2019 (EDT)
 * Understood, thank you for clarifying. -- 15:03, August 2, 2019 (EDT)

@Doomhiker, Tense can likely go. It's a subsidiary of the Rewrite template, even sharing its category. No mainspace pages are currently using it, possibly using the standard Rewrite template instead. It seems pretty redundant. As for Trivia, it's meant for one specific type of section and has its own category to go with it. 15:16, August 2, 2019 (EDT)
 * Even with Tense having the same category (which is shouldn't), and trivia being used for a specific type of section, more specific categories are useful just for the sake of being easier and quicker to type out. 17:12, August 4, 2019 (EDT)

One suggestion I have would be to add a parameter for the user to specify a request for another sort order other than alphabetical (e.g., "It has been requested that this section be re-organized to be in release-date order." for character screenshot galleries) as other sort orders are common and I have seen many character screenshot galleries that aren't sorted properly. This may address Results May Vary's point. -- 22:53, August 2, 2019 (EDT)

Ban friend userboxes
No, not discourage. Ban.

I've seen users giving each other friend userboxes after a "friend request" (a talk page message). Thing is, this is not a social media site. There is no reason to keep around a relic from the past that should have been removed years ago.

Proposer: Deadline: August 17, 2019, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) - Per proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) I don't see how friend userboxes actually negatively impact the wiki in any meaningful way, and unless I'm missing something, Userspace doesn't actually say anything that'd justify banning them. In fact, the page explicitly says that non-wiki-related activities are allowed, and that building the community helps build the wiki itself. It's really only a problem when people get so invested in userspace that they stop contributing to the wiki.
 * 2) Per my comments and Niiue.
 * 3) - Userboxes still fall within userspace guidelines. As long as userspace editing doesn't become excessive, there's no reason to remove something fun.

Comments
Yes, i'm aware that this is not a social media, but as long as they are not too frequent, they can stay. I oppose. -- 10:47, August 10, 2019 (EDT)

@Niiue: I'm pretty sure that one of the MarioWiki pages said "this is not a social media site" somewhere, but I'll remove the misinformation. Friend userboxes don't positively impact the wiki either. No reason to keep something that doesn't do anything besides look nice. 11:04, August 10, 2019 (EDT)
 * Then why not ban userboxes entirely? Or custom signatures? Or personal images? There are a lot of things on the wiki that technically serve no purpose, and there's nothing wrong with that. The wiki isn't supposed to be serious business 24/7. 11:33, August 10, 2019 (EDT)

Determine how to handle unused appearances
Many times, a subject appears only in the files of a game, as unused content. Should this kind of appearance be covered in an article's history section, be kept in the trivia section, or just stay in the game's pre-release and unused content section? If it is included in an article's history section, it doesn't have to have its own subsection, it can be covered in an "other appearances" section. In a game appearances list, I do think unused appearances should not be included.

Proposer: Deadline: August 26, 2019, 23:59 GMT

Include in the history section in "Other appearances"

 * 1) I don't think appearances as unused content are major enough to have a whole subsection.
 * 2) Sounds like the best way to go. Their appearance in the game code is still more noteworthy than a random point in the trivia section, but there isn't a whole lot of info available to necessitate its own subsection. Other appearances will cut it just fine.
 * 3) Per YFJ.
 * 4) Agreed.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) - Per all.
 * 8) Even though they didn't make it to the game, it should still be covered on those individual subjects' pages. Say, for example, Waluigi was originally planned to appear as a playable character in 3D World but only his model was left in the game. If it wasn't on his page, you'd have no way of knowing unless you went to 3D World's pre-release section/page specifically. I'm not a fan of bogging down trivia with all these appearances, but full sections for a game they never actually appeared in seems a bit overblown. This seems the most logical.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) Per all. Could do this sort of thing with minor cameos too.
 * 13) Per all for the majority of cases, but I'd like to note I think we should make special case-by-case exceptions where mentioning something in the main part of the History section would make more sense. I can't recall any specific examples off the top of my head, but I'm talking about things like, say, if an enemy type was cut from Paper Mario and then added in Thousand-Year Door, it might flow better to mention that fact in the Paper Mario series section rather than other appearances. Or if something was cut from a game and then implemented in a remake or release, that fact should just be mentioned in the section for that game.

Comments
On a similar note, if we're going to be moving "actual" (so-to-speak) appearances of subjects to an other appearances section, can we move sections that consist of "this subject doesn't appear in this game but something similar does" to other appearances or remove them entirely? It's always bothered me looking over history sections and seeing sections for games those subjects never appeared in just because of the appearance of a subspecies or similar concept, i.e. Dry Bones in 3D World and Odyssey. -- 13:43, August 20, 2019 (EDT)
 * Yeah, I agree. It's not an actual appearance, and should stay in the variant's article. It might be able to be moved to "Other appearances", but I'm not sure. I'm thinking we should remove them entirely. 13:58, August 20, 2019 (EDT)
 * I think at the very least the debuts of those variants could potentially stay, but I don't think we'd need to mention every time that happens. So for example, going back to Dry Bones, the debut of Parabones in 3D World could be mentioned in other appearances, but we wouldn't need to mention Odyssey. -- 15:03, August 20, 2019 (EDT)
 * Depends on how big the article is. If the article is huge, this could be included within its own section in History. If it's not too big, Trivia is probably the best place, and if its really small, could just be in the main article (like with Dark Paratroopas in the Paper Mario series). Mario Sakuraba (talk) 20:40, August 20, 2019 (UK Time)

@Mario Sakuraba I think minor cameos should be included as their own subsections as long as they still remain in the Mario series. For example, a Koopa Shell making a small appearance in Kirby Super Star would go in other appearances, but Yoshi in SM64 would get its own section. 17:10, August 20, 2019 (EDT)

I also think appearances in board games, card games, etc. based on the Mario series should go in other appearances. 17:11, August 20, 2019 (EDT)

Create a DYK Committee
As requested by proposer.

Recently, I have noticed a lot of edits made to Template:DidYouKnow that were, to the most part, kinda bad. They were either unsourced in their original article, poorly-written, or just not notable enough for a section on interesting stuff (there was one that treated bomb cars exploding like something amazing). But don't fear: this proposal will set things straight. The DYK Committee (tentative) will update the template every week, adding interesting facts. Of course, there is the dreaded drawback.
 * Not everyone will be able to edit it anymore; only members of the DYK Committee will.

And this was brought up by Lord Bowser on the boards; we could also turn the Poll Committee into a Main Page Committee and let them do all the Main Page updating.

Drawbacks:
 * More workload for the PC.
 * Possible stagnance.

Proposer: Deadline: September 28, 2019, 23:59 GMT Cancelled: September 25, 2019

Create a DYK Committee

 * 1) Per proposal.

Do nothing

 * 1) I completely fail to see the point of this. All I see is you complaining about bad edits, which are easily reverted and not a cause for alarm. DYK is a simple list of random trivia facts; there is no reason it needs to be entrusted to some elite group of editors. Anyone interested in regularly updating DYK can just do so of their own free will without being part of a committee. Furthermore, only allowing a few people to edit a fact list for such a large franchise means there will be fewer ideas of what to put on the template, as well as fewer people who are tasked with updating the thing every week. I've updated DYK a few times myself, and if I ever feel like doing it again, I should not have to be part of a committee to do so. Nor should I have to contact a committee member if a catch a mistake, as opposed to just correcting it myself like I would any other page. If you notice some bad edits being made to a featured article, what are you going to do? Propose that we only allow committee members to edit featured articles? Just revert the bad edits and move on.
 * 2) I admittedly like the idea and sympathize with the desire for quality presentation and quality control thereof. We should ideally strive to a decently high standard of presentation - and that's exactly why there shouldn't be a committee. As this is a wiki that can be freely edited, mistakes on the DYK template can thus be corrected by anyone - as they should be - and with that in mind, the cons weigh a bit more heavily in this scenario. I also have to admit that this proposal does seem rather reactive in its nature. In any case it'd just lead to more potential obstructions - in addition to 7feet's cited lack of parity in presentation, it speaks to this apparent need to bureaucratize every single wiki process when said need... doesn't really exist. Even ignoring my personal opinion that most wikis are ideally best left open to edit, with standards being established through example rather than committee or administrative fiat, it's just not on and isn't in the spirit of what MarioWiki seeks to accomplish. Gonna be a no from me.
 * 3) - You don't need a huge amount of effort and sophistication to go into just finding four random facts from the Trivia section of any odd articles. What would a committee on this even do, debate how interesting they find random Mario facts? That's surely just subjective, as is the initial assertation that it's currently "bad". If you need anything, Perch's suggestion in the thread of one person looking over it is... more than enough. But there's no harm in letting anyone who wants to contribute add to it, and if anything's unacceptably bad (which it very rarely is) just edit it out.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) I fail to see why would we do this.
 * 6) I don't really see the need for an entire committee for this. Bad edits can easily be replaced/reverted. If it's a single user consistently making those bad edits, they can be told to back off and potentially face punishment if they continue.
 * 7) - Yeah, this was incredibly overreactive on my part. Opposing my own proposal.
 * 8) I waited a bit to see if someone would give a good reason for supporting, but I guess not. Per all.

Comments
On the talk page for the template, I suggested that the Did You Know committee could also be in charge of the Featured Article and News sections on the Main Page as well. What are your thoughts on this? 12:04, September 21, 2019 (EDT)
 * FA may need a committee, because we don't want bad grammar on the featured section. News doesn't, because it's just that: news about the Mario series. Anything there doesn't reflect poorly on the wiki. 12:51, September 21, 2019 (EDT)

I suggest reading this thread. Some ideas were thrown around. LudwigVon is open to expanding thee pc to include DYK too. 12:56, September 21, 2019 (EDT)
 * You mean . I personally don't see the reason in giving the Poll Committee more of a workload, but I'll add it as an option. 12:59, September 21, 2019 (EDT)
 * I did mean LudwigVon, on the polls section of the Discord server (Only the Poll Committee can access it, though). 13:01, September 21, 2019 (EDT)
 * Just for clarification, I did say that I was open to expanding the Poll Committee's tasks, but if the proposal passed with giving the workload to the Poll Committee, the final decision will be made by all the members of the current Poll Committee. This means that I am not sure we will really go ahead with that (this will also need some planning to implement that). My vice-chairperson is actually opposing to the idea by giving valid reasons. So, just to make everyone know that this isn't something concrete right now.

@7feetunder: There is a point to this. If bad edits are consistently being made to the template, along with its bursts of inactivity, why would a few users in a committee working on it be a problem? You can't just block one or two users from editing for something as small as that. DYK, as minor as it is, is on the Main Page. If something is consistently being badly written, you find a solution. These edits weren't vandalism or something, they were adding facts to the DYK template... that happened to be non-notable, but facts nonetheless. Anyone can add facts to it, yes, but this includes everyone who considers stuff like lit bombs exploding or save data descriptions notable. I'm rather skeptical about people having "less ideas" for DYK, when we literally work on a massive Mario database filled with interesting facts. If they're really idea-starved, they can just hit "Random page" until they find something interesting. Besides, three or four people would be an upgrade, compared to the two who regularly update it. Either way, it is perfectly fine to contact a committee member that something isn't alright; heck, you could just contact an admin, since the template would likely be admin-protected. If I noticed bad edits being made to a featured article, I would revert them, since they, unlike DYK, are not meant to be updated every week with interesting info. 10:48, September 22, 2019 (EDT)
 * Consistent bad edits? The bad edits you're complaining about came from a single user. A lone editor's poor contributions do not justify everyone else paying the cost. I am fully aware that DYK suffers from occasional inactivity, and an increase in people monitoring it would be a plus. But again, what's preventing anyone interested in being a part of this committee from doing that now? Why do they need exclusive access to it? They don't. This is just an overreaction to a single editor's mistakes. Not needed. 15:06, September 22, 2019 (EDT)

@TheDarkStar: You can ask for the proposal to be cancelled if you want, IIRC. -- 12:17, September 25, 2019 (EDT)
 * I knew that, I was just waiting in case someone actually makes a good point. I would honestly be fine if it was cancelled. Thanks. 12:21, September 25, 2019 (EDT)

Split all multi-items in the Mario Kart series
Okay, this is something that's been bothering me since I first joined this wiki about three years ago.

One of the habits of choice in 2009/2010 was destroying small articles deemed "stubs" and merging them into parent articles. This included the multi-items from the Mario Kart series, and no one opposed it then.

While back then everything was merged with good intentions, right now I don't see exactly how those articles are "stubs" at all. It's also not like they're just multiple items in one; in fact, there are some traits about Mario Kart multi-items that actually function different from the base item. The most common difference is the multiple items orbiting the player's kart (Double Bob-ombs, Triple Green Shells and Triple Red Shells in all games they appear in except Double Dash!!, and Triple Bananas and Triple Mushrooms in 8 and 8 Deluxe), though there are other differences as well (such as automatically being placed behind the player's kart). Plus, it's usually common sense to split out similarly-looking items when nearly everything else about them is different.

In addition, the way the subjects are clumped together aren't that impressive either; what else would it be but trying to alternate between subjects when presenting them in separate articles would be better? All in all, these are fairly separate subjects I would like to see re-split.

Proposer: Deadline: October 12, 2019, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) - Per proposal.
 * 3) In Mario Kart Tour these are even more different given that all of the items that are in bunches firing at once, plus some multi-items are character exclusive in certain games too. Per all.
 * 4) I support
 * 5) the triple items aren't identical in function either. they form a shield around your kart, and you obtain them in different places and have different probabilities. by all intents and purposes, they're different
 * 6) I honestly never thought about that before, but actually seeing it makes me think about it and yeah, I get where you're coming from. Orbiting items especially serve as both offense and defense. So yeah, per proposal.
 * 7) At first I thought otherwise, but we do have other articles for "something but there's more of it" and these are considered separate items.
 * 8) I can remember that even two years ago, these multi-items had their own articles. What was the point of their merging? Beats me. I'm in full support of splitting these.
 * 9) I don't see why not.
 * 10) Per all.

Oppose

 * 1) - Triple Green Shells isn't much different from Green Shells, it's just more Green Shells. Same goes for the other multi-items, it's just more of one item. Character-exclusivity, being dragged or carried, and whether you fire one or all at a time aren't really arguments.
 * 2) Per Alex95, I'm having a hard time justifying a separate article for "item but there's more of it".

Comments
Here's the full list:
 * Banana → Banana Bunch, Triple Bananas
 * Bob-omb → Double Bob-ombs
 * Green Shell → Triple Green Shells
 * Mushroom → Triple Mushrooms
 * Red Shell → Triple Red Shells
 * All multi-items in the arcade games not covered here

I think it's also worth noting that Banana Bunch is the exceptional case here; I'd also support throwing in the Donkey Kong Country series information seeing as how we already handle 5 Coin and 10-Coin. 15:27, October 5, 2019 (EDT)
 * Exactly. The banana page is an awkward mess because of both that and the stubborn insistence we don't split the peels. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:27, October 10, 2019 (EDT)

@alex95: triple items have different probabilities and rarities on your placement than single items (triple green shells do not even appear in ds wifi matches), they also form a shield circling around your kart which makes them more functionality different than single green shells, despite the minor difference, and they take up their own slot separate from green shells. and explain how character exclusivity isn't an "argument" the fact that only some characters can use the specific set of items strengthens the argument for the split rather than not. 16:53, October 10, 2019 (EDT)
 * Alright, you may have a point on whether it circles the racer or not, though Double Dash is an already noted exception that makes Triple Green Shells handle like regular Green Shells, except you drop two if you take any damage. Not sure about probabilities and rarities, that can just be listed in the game section.
 * For character specific items, though, would that just mean gets its own page from Triple Green Shells? Just saying Triple Green Shells are exclusive to Koopa Troopa in Double Dash (which it already does) is enough. Character exclusivity isn't enough for a split, otherwise we'd split Metal Mario (form) between it and Metal Wario.  17:03, October 10, 2019 (EDT)
 * the point about different probabilities is a point in its favor to make it a separate item from the single ones, since practically every other separate item has different probabilities and you obtain them in different placements and rankings. like, the red shell for example can be broken down to just a red-colored shell with homing, like the second upgrade missile from diddy kong racing, but that item also has different rates of obtaining them too. mario kart items don't have deeply nuanced differences from each other (fake item boxes are just see-through bananas with shell hitting capbilities, spiny shells are just red shells that home onto first place, chain chomps are just bullet bills, etc), and even the most minimal effects constitute as a big difference, so that includes the ability to orbit the character's kart in threes and that you obtain it in different positions with different probabilities than you do a single green shell. i don't think character specific items should get their own pages specific to their game appearances though but the fact is that koopa can sometimes get triples as his exclusive in a few games should solidify the point that the games treat triple green shells differently than they do singles. 17:09, October 10, 2019 (EDT)
 * It seems like my comment was misinterpreted. What I meant is that in certain games for example, Triple Green Shells cannot be used by all characters, which is yet another difference between the two. It does not mean in any way that they should be split based off their game appearances, or that items that have no variants such as Golden Mushrooms should be split. I just meant that certain variants of items being exclusive to certain characters in certain games is another difference between them and their regular variants and thus is another reason why we should split the bunch items, and is not an individual basis for a split nor a split of a split. 17:15, October 10, 2019 (EDT)
 * I know the games treat Green Shells and Triple Green Shells as separate items, it'd be a lot more coding if they weren't. But it really is just "Green Shell x3". It creates a barrier around you most of the time, but it otherwise acts exactly like three Green Shells. Probability and character exclusivity I don't think are valid arguments for splitting, unless the item does something completely different when used by a certain character. There are points both for and against this, so I'll say I'll agree with it either way, but I'm more against than for. 17:19, October 10, 2019 (EDT)
 * We split other examples of "subject x number", one notable example I can think of off the top of my head being Goomba Towers, but others include Dangos and Shy Guy Stacks. 17:21, October 10, 2019 (EDT)
 * i'd argue that general availability for players is a decent argument for considering a split and not something that can be simply handwaved away 17:33, October 10, 2019 (EDT)
 * Fair point, I'll probably think about this more. 17:40, October 10, 2019 (EDT)

Make the archives for the proposals uneditable unless you are a Bureaucrat or Admin.
Somwhat recently, the proposal page was vandalized, and it was by me. I didn't know why or how I did it at first, but what happened was I went through a user page, and I found this. title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=2418372#Create_administrative_position_of_SUPREME. I thought this was funny, and I added my name to the support list. However, I didn't realize that I had just edited the main proposals page, and not the archives. To keep this from happening again to another uneducated user, I think the wiki should have something in place to stop people from editing older proposals.

Proposer: Deadline: October 28, 2019, 10:42 GMT

Support

 * 1) I agree with this proposal, because I don't want users that didn't know what they were doing to get banned or blocked.

Split articles/keep articles split if they have notable name and appearance changes. Merge articles if they have the same name and not enough changes from the original.
Currently, the wiki does not have a clear set guideline on how similar entites with different names or slightly different entities with the same name should be handled. If this proposal goes through I believe it will friendlier for new and exisiting wiki users as it allows content to be searched outside Mario Wiki and covered more cleanly.

I propose that articles covering similar should be split in the following conditions.


 * If there is a name change. This should be the most important factor in deciding an article split, as search engines such as Google rely on the name the most.
 * It is considered a different entity by the game itself in addition to the name change. Direct replacements such as Power Star to Grand Star can be covered in the original article. Moves used by different characters count.
 * If there are design differences in addition to the above, such as with Daisy Blossom and Goombo.
 * If the same name is shared, but there are significant differences to the point where a seperate article is needed to cover them all. Examples like Mario and Sonic games from Wii to DS count.

Articles possibily affected include: Daisy Blossom, Daisy Bomber, Daisy Parasol, Azure Roller, Cyber Slick, Goombo and the ports of games with the same name such as Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker and Luigi's Mansion.

Proposer: Deadline: October 27, 2019, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Not only do I think pages such as Azure Roller and Daisy Blossom should be split from Roller and Peach Blossom because they have different names and look different, they also don't appear in every game and share every single detail. Azure Roller appears in different CPU controller karts and time trials, and Daisy Blossom is all flowers and daisies and the background and frames are completely different, and also doesn't appear in games before Super Smash Bros. Ultimate. There is also the issue of how search engines such as Google cannot easily link Daisy Blossom to Peach Blossom and a user searching up the move will not get relevant results unless it's on a seperate page. There are a lot of people searching up wheels such as Retro Off Road and Cyber Slick. For games such as Captain Toad Treasure Tracker and Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze with the same name and a lack of drastic sweeping changes, I think they should be merged and exclusive content covered in the article itself, then it would be friendlier if Switch owners are looking for the content.

Oppose

 * 1) The statement that there's no policy on splitting pages with the same name (prior to any editing) is downright false; policy and consensus have stated that if something has gameplay differences, it's splitting time. Azure Roller being merged to Roller doesn't even need a proposal, just a talk page discussion. Finally, this all seems like a knee-jerk reaction to the Daisy Bomber page being converted back to a redirect, seeing as it happened just yesterday.
 * 2) Per DarkStar and my principle towards opposing proposals that are purely reactive and/or prioritize forcing through a user's personal opinion over all else. In support of the later, it's evident that the proposal's claim (at least prior to any editing) of the wiki lacking "a guideline on how similar entites with different names or slightly different entities with the same name should be handled" is poorly researched to the point of being blatantly false - for starters, we have this proposal regarding ports, and with regards to slightly different entities and games bearing the same name, we have this section on the "Naming" page of our writing guidelines and the "New Article" guideline on titling pages for ported games, which I believe may have served as a basis for the aforementioned proposal.
 * 3) per the above, but it really seems too subjective/non-concrete to me. I think it would create more inconsistency over less due to not being able to tell alternates in-page and alternates new-page. - 11:23, October 20, 2019 (EDT)
 * 4) This proposal is extremely vague and your list doesn't even come close to how many articles this would affect, and is also confusing since it doesn't even mention which articles would be split and which ones would be merged if this passed. You're painting with far too broad of a brush here, matters like this should only be settled on a case-by-case basis. Also, like I told you before, having a different name alone is not an instant reason to split articles (on the other side of the coin, having the same name is also not an instant reason to merge articles) and would unnecessarily undo countless proposals over the years. I get that you really want Daisy Blossom to be split for whatever reason, but this is going way too far.
 * 5) As much as I'm actually extremely uneasy about merging Roller and Azure Roller, this proposal is just too vague to even consider supporting. Per all.
 * 6) To make my point clear, I do love echo fighters. However, that doesn't affect that fact that echo fighters are officially clones, and that point should be made clear as the proposer seems to think that the wiki has a bias against echos when it doesn't, as the only reason that they're treated differently is because of what they are officially considered. As a wiki we do not have any bias towards different characters, and reason why we would treat some differently is due to something official. On the other side though, this proposal seems to be made out of spite without much thought. Per all.
 * 7) Per everyone. Way too vague for my support.
 * 8) - First point, name alone is not enough, otherwise Super Thwomp and Star Thwomp would be separate. Second point, I don't even understand, this is obviously going to get a new page. Third point, if all of those three points align (which is not the case for Daisy Blossom), then yes, different name + different game play attributes = new page. Fourth point, we already do this. The Mario Kart pieces should be a different, better put-together proposal.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) Per all. There's absolutely no reason to split the same ability performed by a different character (the ability itself having an aethistic change).

Comments
We already split subjects with different names and appearances, such as with Goombo. Regardless, arguably Daisy's special moves are different than other variants, as Daisy is labelled as an echo fighter, contrary to other examples of variants which are often treated as their own separate thing. Due to that there is less ground to split Daisy's special moves when they are literally part of a official clone of a character. Regardless, the "and if there are less than four variants" thing is unnecessary, as really if a thing should be split than it should be split, merging stuff just because there is a lot of things would just be confusing and would pad out articles for no reason. 09:24, October 20, 2019 (EDT)

There are more differences between Daisy's moves and Peach's moves than Goombos and Goombas. I believe Daisy still have a seperate Movelist page in the game than Peach has. In New Super Mario Bros U Deluxe, Blue Toad and Yellow Toad were similar enough to be merged and not seperately selectable in game, and literally call the same model. They have seperate pages on the wiki. Echo Fighters are more like how you copy a file and it still takes up extra space on your harddrive, rather than creating a file shortcut. The original Japanese meaning even references how derivative numbers are still different numbers despite being copied from. -- 09:30, October 20, 2019 (EDT)
 * There isn't more difference though. If anything, that just comes off as biased. As for Blue and Yellow Toad, you can actually select either of them. The reason that they are in the same slot and thus cannot play as both Blue and Yellow Toad is because Toadette took the slot the Blue Toad had. They have separate pages on the wiki simply due to their previous appearances regardless. If you copy a file it is still the same file, and the comparison has nothing to do with wether or not Daisy's move should be split.  09:40, October 20, 2019 (EDT)


 * Even if you could select Blue and Yellow Toad in different slots, the only difference between them is the color of their mushroom cap. No gameplay differences and no design differences other than that, Nintendo explictly kept them as similar as possible. They are still seperate pages. Like Peach and Daisy's moves the game appearances are a bit different. As for the copying thing, if the file is changed a bit, for all intents and purposes it is a different file. For Blue Toad and Yellow Toad I would probably keep them split for the search engine reasons.-- 09:46, October 20, 2019 (EDT)

I have updated the proposal to more clearly reflect what I mean, and how this could be applied wiki wide. This is not reactive. -- 10:29, October 20, 2019 (EDT)

Been following the matter on the talk page, and this is rather poor form to say the least. -- 10:32, October 20, 2019 (EDT)

Generally poor form to make a proposal when you've been unanimously opposed on the talk page beforehand. 10:37, October 20, 2019 (EDT)

Explain how Daisy's moves don't deserve their own pages when they have been given their own pages ingame, plus content such as the identical Mario Kart wheels, Goombo, and the two Toads allowed to have their own pages with even less differences? That does not make any sense to me. We can very easily merge Goombo with Goomba as it is just the Super Mario Land variant of a Goomba with an appearance change. -- 10:40, October 20, 2019 (EDT)
 * Explanation.


 * Azure Roller doesn't need a proposal, just a quick discussion.
 * Daisy's specials are practically identical to Peach's save for visual effects.
 * The Toads are separate characters, not the same toad in different hats.
 * That is my explanation. 10:44, October 20, 2019 (EDT)

In addition, Goombo and Goomba have different Japanese and English names, were explicitly described as relatives, and variants of existing enemies already have precedents for splitting. Try again. -- 10:46, October 20, 2019 (EDT)

Yes, but Daisy's moves arguably fall under the Goombo and Goomba variants. Daisy's moves, whilst behaving the same as Peach's moves, have differences including visual effects. Visuals are still a difference worth noting. If Daisy's moves looked a bit different and had the same name it would make sense to keep them merged. However the naming being different means that in order for the move to be properly represented across the web, it needs to be split into a new article. If you type Daisy Blossom into Google you don't get relevant images easily, unlike with Peach Blossom. Additionally. Daisy Blossom does not appear in any other Smash game other than Ultimate. They are also technically seperate moves, such as how Blue Toad and Yellow Toad are seperate characters. Daisy is not a Peach costume, she is unlocked seperately. It is the same thing for Azure Roller and normal Roller. Different unlock times, different appearances, different names, different wheels. A split makes sense even though the function is the same. -- 10:50, October 20, 2019 (EDT)
 * It makes no sense to make a duplicate page just to note the difference in visuals. 10:59, October 20, 2019 (EDT)
 * The pages will not be duplicate pages however. Daisy Blossom's past edits had notable changes such as new images, new descriptions, and how it relates to Daisy's past instead of Peach's past. Daisy Parasol would show Daisy's 8 different parasol designs and how she uses it in her entrance animation and not her taunts and victory animations. The articles would also not be cluttered with references to previous games, like how Cyber Slicks and Azure Rollers don't reference Mario Kart 7. I plan to also revamp the Peach special pages along with this. -- 11:04, October 20, 2019 (EDT)


 * Have to second DarkStar here: The matter regarding the Final Smash will probably change when sufficient proof of differences beyond the visuals and character references (which are tied to the visual appearance, if I recall correctly) is put forth on the Talk Page where things were initially being discussed the day prior to this proposal. The same should apply for the rest of the special moves in question as well, I'd imagine. Much more pertinent is the fact that how we handle enemies and how we handle fighting moves are two entirely different baskets of eggs, and using the splitting of similar-but-differentiated enemy variants as a basis for splitting move variants that have not been sufficiently differentiated doesn't strike me as a particularly sound argument. -- 11:13, October 20, 2019 (EDT)

How so, it's literally the same thing. Goomba and Goombo have no differences beyond visuals and character references. Exact same thing with Blue Toad and Yellow Toad. You can easily merge Goombo with Goomba and no one would bat an eye. I have already put many arguments as to why Daisy's moves have merits to be seperated, and to be honest none of the reasons against it strike me as compelling or more substantial than "Daisy's just Peach in orange", and how in general there's an bias against Daisy in the wiki due to her fans. I've already provided external reasons such as search engines not correctly referencing Daisy Blossom and visual differences being important. When people are looking for Daisy Blossom, I'm pretty sure they DON'T want pictures of Peach's trophies -- 11:22, October 20, 2019 (EDT)
 * If Daisy Blossom getting "proper web representation" is your main concern here, SmashWiki already covers it on its own page. And no, that's not a good reason to split, the "X wiki does it so we should do" argument has been shot down many, many times over the years. I don't know how many times we have to tell you that every single one of Daisy's moves is functionally identical to Peach's, the only differences are visuals which aren't enough to warrant a separate page. I'd also like to point out that, with the exception of her Final Smash, not even SmashWiki splits Daisy's moves and specifically mentions that there's no difference between them, and this is the same wiki that explains specific amounts of frame and knockback trajectories. Ultimate has been out for almost a year, if SmashWiki hasn't found any differences between Peach and Daisy's moves that actually affect gameplay, there aren't any. -- 11:36, October 20, 2019 (EDT)

Gameplay is not an argument. In fact I would say that basing it only on gameplay is unfair, when there are visual differences that affect areas such as Google Images. Or how an end user is looking for a specific variant. In that case we can say that there's no difference at all between Blue Toad and Yellow Toad and that they don't deserve seperate articles. But we split them, because when someone is looking for Blue Toad or a specific variant of a wheel, they are looking for information on that Toad or wheel specifically. Merging Daisy's named moves benefits absolutely no one except the people who REALLY dislike clone characters in fighting games and think they should be erased. -- 11:58, October 20, 2019 (EDT)


 * I noticed you curiously skipped over my suggestion that you first prove there are more than visual-based and character-reference differences, and WT's rebuttal seems to indicate why, but in any case, I'll add that your statement on Goomba and Goombo is a circular argument - as stated previously, they also have different names and a statement from a notable source (Nintendo Power) that indicates they're related but not exactly the same. And again, splitting/merging enemies and attacks aren't handled with the same exact policies - and to boot, there have been numerous cases of pages for heavily similar enemies being split upon the basis of a different Japanese name. Furthermore, Blue Toad and Yellow Toad are very visibly two distinct characters that have both clearly appeared separately from each other, and are thus treated separately regardless of whether or not they serve the same gameplay function. As you just said in contradiction to your earlier point, gameplay is not an argument, and once we humor that notion and remove it from the equation, there are only visual-based differences to distinguish Daisy Blossom and Peach Blossom - thus no split.


 * In fact, you seem to be using only gameplay roles as the basis for suggesting that the aforementioned articles should be merged, with the implication that if Daisy Blossom isn't going to be split, then neither should those. This is a poorly constructed line of logic, per what I've just stated above: they're established as different characters by official material, with enough differentiation between them that is established by more than visuals. E.G. Goomba and Goombo are split on the basis of being similar-yet-distinct creatures with different names that exist in different locations, as has been established with many other regional variants (Beanbean Kingdom says hi), and Yellow and Blue Toad are split per being two different Toads that we see literally standing next to each other through the various cutscenes of the New Super Mario Bros. games they appear in, as has been established by viewing said scenes for at least five seconds. Therefore they deserve articles, contrary to what your opinion on that is.


 * In addition, you're trying to use an amendment to wiki policy to enact some arbitrary form of "one true wayism" that conflates multiple wide and distinct established proposals, guidelines and precedents and blatantly flies in the face of them for the sake of trying to obtain a desired result on a small subset of articles and correct some perceived "innate bias" against a given character. The problem with this is, even assuming said bias existed, this would be categorical overcorrecting in the other direction: the existence of said bias being invoked as the basis for this is dubious to begin with per a simple application of Hanlon's Razor (i.e. it's infinitely more believable that the page isn't split due to policy than due to some imagined character-based bias), and overall the wiki has done pretty well in regards to ironing out character favoritism and its opposite. In addition, the correction of supposed bias in scenarios like this is very often a flimsy cover to enforce a more "preferable" one; nothing is being done with Daisy's special moves that wouldn't have been done with any other moves of the same nature, and attributing this to a desire for clone characters to be """erased""" is patently nonsensical and without merit, not least because (if I recall correctly) Daisy was among one of the more popularly desired characters for Smash, as was the case with many other newcomers and Echo Fighters.


 * Finally, even ignoring that the stated "web search engine optimization" motive is evidently an ad hoc explanation trying to cover for the other less substantiated ones rebutted above, it would likely be far from high on the list of this wiki's priorities, well below maintaining a standard of encyclopedic integrity. And last I checked, I highly doubt that standard is worth sacrificing on the altar of Google results. -- 12:12, October 20, 2019 (EDT)

That does not explain why the seperate wheel designs in Mario Kart are still covered seperately despite only having decal differences. I am not objecting to these but Daisy's is literally the only case of differently named moves being used on different characters, in a different list of games, being merged. I'm not arguing that every similar move and object should be merged. I'm arguing that they should stay seperate and Daisy's moves should be seperated too. The establishment of them being different is straight in game, where Daisy Bomber and Peach Bomber have their own pages. Smash in itself is not a traditional fighter either. -- 12:23, October 20, 2019 (EDT)


 * Simple: Tires have separate articles because Mario Kart 7 and 8 established the trend of tire choice affecting vehicle performance. And if you didn't object to them, then why invoke them at all and go so far as to claim some of those instances don't deserve articles?


 * In addition, Daisy's likely seems to be the only case because she's the only Echo Fighter in Smash who's native to the Mario franchise - AKA the main reason her moves are covered on their own articles like all the other Mario characters; if other cases come up, they will receive the same treatment, and in fact I recall Dr. Mario used to receive the same treatment prior to determining that his moves were different enough from Mario's to warrant splitting coverage accordingly. Smash not being a traditional fighter has no bearing on this, and more to the point was never brought up by anyone else before you mentioned it. -- 12:30, October 20, 2019 (EDT)

That...still doesn't explain the wheels in Mario Kart. One user already explained merging the palette swapped wheels made them uneasy, despite them being identical in every other way. Also, I think being an Echo Fighter is not a good reason to merge the moves, when they are not exactly the same. Fighting game fans do have an inherent bias against clone characters and it ripples everywhere from message boards to tier lists. What benefit is there to keeping Daisy's moves merged, and do they outweigh the drawbacks, if there are even any? I agree though, I don't think I have made my point clear and this proposal is too vague. -- 12:35, October 20, 2019 (EDT)
 * I know I said I'd support merging the recolor tires, but I'm starting to go back on that because of one reason, and that's the fact that they're Mario Kart 8 variants of tires that were previously introduced in Mario Kart 7, and merging them might be a bit messy. And no, this isn't the same thing as Daisy Blossom being introduced in Ultimate. Tires in Mario Kart have differing stats from game to game, and it would be awkward having a section talking about stats in Mario Kart 7 when that specific tire didn't even exist yet. Meanwhile, Peach Blossom has changed very little since its introduction in Brawl, and doesn't have any game-specific sections that would make Daisy Blossom's inclusion on the page feel awkward. Also, I don't think many users on this wiki hate clone characters. Personally, I welcome Echo Fighters because it gives a chance for more characters to get in the game. -- 12:43, October 20, 2019 (EDT)
 * Peach Blossom's operation has changed notably between game to game however. In Brawl, it spawned thirteen small peaches, and did not affect users airborne. In Smash 4, it affected users airborne in exchange for shorter range and sleeping time, it also got completely redrawn and summoned three large peaches. Ultimate's variant had significantly increased sleeping time and new aesthetics in the background. Peach Bomber has changed drastically between games (startup, distance, damage, effects and knockback) and had custom move variants that Daisy's version obviously lacks. Peach Parasol also got tweaked quite a bit. Of course, information such as the trophies do not relate to Daisy's variant at all. -- 12:51, October 20, 2019 (EDT)


 * And again with the circular arguing. On top of differences between MK7 and 8, the wheels are all distinct from each other and have a tangible effect on gameplay (i.e. changing the overall stats of the kart they're used on) that is not universally shared among each wheel type. The palettes of said wheels contribute absolutely nothing towards that, and thus are safe to merge. In short: tire choice affects vehicle performance, and the only way that doesn't explain it is if you didn't read it to begin with.


 * And again, not only is MarioWiki not the place to try to correct biases against particular characters presumed or otherwise (because Righting Great Wrongs™ is not our job period, and should not take priority over encyclopedic integrity), the bias you're citing against this specific clone character is a non-factor in the moves receiving their current coverage. That's why I've referred to it with the air of "alleged bias" - not because it literally doesn't exist, but because there's absolutely no tangible proof of its influence on the matter at hand. And with regards to the matter at hand, the discussion should have remained on the article's Talk Page, rather than used as a not-at-all-solid basis for enacting a vague policy change that steps on the toes of several well-established policies and guidelines before it. I will likely be making my cases there as well later on.


 * The merge is not done for the sake of some arbitrary benefit, but because it is in accordance with established policies, guidelines and precedents on covering such things, which dictates it is not substantially differentiated enough to warrant a split. (Clarifying Edit: Peach Blossom has had various changes between games, yes - but Daisy Blossom has not, as it is directly based on the version used with Ultimate, and there has yet to be any proof of difference between those two versions, making the changes to Peach Blossom between games irrelevant.) And as we've painstakingly outlined, the drawbacks of blatantly and selectively ignoring these policies, guidelines and precedents in favor of a poorly-justified split whose reasoning has been shown to be thoroughly unsound rebutted far outweighs any of the similarly-debated-and-rebutted imagined benefits. -- 12:57, October 20, 2019 (EDT)

That falls apart when you realise that quoted from the wiki itself, The only difference between the Roller and Azure Roller is the azure palette and the gray screw-like rims, surrounded by a yellow outline., Absolutely no stat differences whatsoever. Many wheels in Mario Kart have identical stats, yet they are seperated for consistency. By that precedent, all of Daisy's named specials should be seperated for encyclopedic intergity and a lack of bias. Arguing against it is essentially identical to arguing against WaluigiTime's point of keeping the wheels seperate.-- 13:02, October 20, 2019 (EDT)

I wasn't going to comment further, but here's an Omega Tyrant-style deconstruction.

Currently, the wiki does not have a clear set guideline on how similar entites with different names or slightly different entities with the same name should be handled. No? Many discussions have decided by consensus that similar entities with different names should be merged. If this proposal goes through I believe it will friendlier for new and exisiting wiki users as it allows content to be searched outside Mario Wiki and covered more cleanly. You forget about the existing in-wiki search tool. ''If there is a name change. This should be the most important factor in deciding an article split, as search engines such as Google rely on the name the most.'' That's already a candidate for moving by policy. Also, why do search engines matter? The wiki is listed pretty high up on most searches, so it's kinda unnecessary. ''It is considered a different entity by the game itself in addition to the name change. Direct replacements such as Power Star to Grand Star can be covered in the original article. Moves used by different characters count.'' That's also normally a split, if it has gameplay differences. If there are design differences in addition to the above, such as with Daisy Blossom and Goombo. Goombo's been confirmed to be related to Goombas. They are not the same thing. ''If the same name is shared, but there are significant differences to the point where a seperate article is needed to cover them all. Examples like Mario and Sonic games from Wii to DS count.'' That's already a split too. 3/4 of this list is completely unnecessary, and the other quarter is dubious at best. 13:33, October 20, 2019 (EDT)

I agree about most of this propsal being vague. I want to delete it and make a talk page proposal on the relevant article. -- 13:44, October 20, 2019 (EDT)


 * A lot of DarkStar's response is what I basically covered in my vote reason above, but it does bear repeating. In addition, note the context of your own statements.


 * It is considered a different entity by the game itself in addition to the name change. Direct replacements such as Power Star to Grand Star can be covered in the original article. Moves used by different characters count.


 * There is no name being changed - just the addition of a second Final Smash copied from a pre-existing one.


 * If there are design differences in addition to the above, such as with Daisy Blossom and Goombo.
 * If the same name is shared, but there are significant differences to the point where a seperate article is needed to cover them all. Examples like Mario and Sonic games from Wii to DS count.


 * Goombas and Goombos were established as different species when they were mentioned in Nintendo Power; if this had been untrue, a correction would have been made. Again, I point to the Beanbean Kingdom from Mario and Luigi: Superstar Saga for an established case of regional variants, particularly the Beanerang Bro - who, prior to the game's remake, was covered in a separate article from the Boomerang Bro for a significant amount of time, despite sharing its name and many aspects of its design.


 * You've also backpedaled to the "Daisy Blossom isn't being split because of bias!!!" argument, when not only have you failed to prove the existence of said bias's influence in any decisions related to the move's coverage, this entire proposal and the Talk Page discussion that spawned it clearly display a lack of forethought and basic research on your part in trying to push through a change you see as desirable, despite it being rightfully contested even before the proposal was made not less than 48 hours later - in other words, trying to enact your own bias via policy change while using the correction of a supposed pre-existing bias as plausible deniability, as was pointed out and made apparent earlier. The evidence of your bias is easily visible in your actions, priorities and responses, while the evidence that the bias you keep citing had any significant influence on the coverage of Daisy Blossom (or indeed, any influence at all) is visibly lacking.


 * As a point of order, there is far a more relevant precedent to this case - Doctor Finale vs. Mario Finale. While based off the latter like Daisy Blossom is to Peach Blossom, there are actual functional differences beyond the appearance, particularly with regards to knockback and damage. Daisy Blossom and Peach Blossom do not have even those differences, and so it is determined there is no need to split them. Final Smashes and Mario Kart tires are also very much "apples and oranges", and as is indicated in the many and varied rebuttals, trying to paint things of this nature with the same brush does infinitely more harm than good, especially when they are already handled on a case-by-case basis. And this is a case where a changed appearance and references to aspects of character design alone do not sufficient cause for a split make.


 * Your repeated attempts to conflate the standard established for the Mario Kart tires with the standard for Final Smashes is indicative of a "broad strokes" approach based on a generalization fallacy that further weakens your argument in light of all the other holes in your proposal. And in claiming that "arguing against it is essentially identical to arguing against WaluigiTime's point of keeping the wheels seperate", you acknowledge one of my previously made points while somehow simultaneously ignoring it: though not all of the tires affect kart stats, enough of them do so that it makes no sense to merge them solely based on stats anyway. It's also more than a bit disingenuous to lean on the notion of "if you're arguing against X you're also arguing against Y": If I was somehow arguing against keeping the wheels separate, what would it matter? I would cross that bridge when I come to it later. And considering I'm in agreement with him on that, this smacks of a manufactured dilemma (though I'm unsure if if would be a textbook "false dilemma", but I digress).


 * In addition to the note of the Doctor Finale above, the nature of Echo Fighters provides an official basis of sorts for this: while they are indeed regarded as different moves by the game, there is not enough of a difference between the Final Smashes to justify a separate article. This is far from suggesting they are literally the same thing, but while they are not, such is beside the point - different types of subjects receive different coverage, and the standard of coverage for the Smash Bros. moves we do cover suggest there is a lack of grounds for a split.


 * And with sufficient evidence of such grounds still yet to be provided, and readily available evidence of an ulterior motive that undermines the legitimacy of the proposal being overwhelming - along with many an established basis for both the current nature of the coverage and the reason that such changes would run counter to current policy and efficient coverage overall - there is no reason at all that this proposal should pass. There is certainly no reason that things should have been "escalated" to this point, either: a Talk Page proposal should have been the course of action taken, and yet said discussion was shoehorned into a suggested policy amendment seemingly before the former option was even considered. That - on top of everything else about the proposed change - indicates that the result of the TPP will likely be the same. -- 14:00, October 20, 2019 (EDT)

As for Star Thwomp and Super Thwomp, it is literally the same entity, but Prima gave it a different name. Peach's moves and Daisy's moves exist together as different entities with OBVIOUS VISUAL DIFFERENCES but function the same. 2 out of 3. That should be enough. -- 17:12, October 20, 2019 (EDT)
 * It's not. Moves aren't entities, unlike with Star Thwomps. Both moves are the same. So really there is only still one argument for their split, which isn't enough. 17:15, October 20, 2019 (EDT)
 * So if Bowser and Donkey Kong got super moves which involved Bowser's fire breath and DK's barrel, but they had the exact same gameplay effect, would they be merged? -- 19:12, October 20, 2019 (EDT)
 * Actually, yes. 19:14, October 20, 2019 (EDT)
 * Fair point. However, there is no bias towards any variant on that page. Dry Bowser's Blazing Barrage is not merged with Bowser's Fire Breath in the table, despite being almost the same in every way. In the merged Peach/Daisy Blossom pages, there is a huge bias towards Peach's variant to the point where Daisy's is drowned out and can't be easily accessed outside the wiki, especially if the user is looking for assets. If we give equal spaces to them, it will look messy. It's a lose-lose situation. -- 19:20, October 20, 2019 (EDT)
 * "However, there is no bias towards any variant on that page" because all of them are variants of the same Powershot move in one game, which originated in that game, and have all their visual and animation differences noted. With Peach and Daisy Blossom, there's only two variants to compare: one of them has existed for several games, and the other is a variant of the first one based directly and heavily on its latest appearance. And they also only have visuals and animations to differentiate them - that's not bias, there's just legitimately not much else to cover, and certainly not enough to split. -- 19:25, October 20, 2019 (EDT)

YOU think that's not enough to warrant a split. What about if there are several roller wheels and they each got their own pages. despite having as you put it, only minor differences in the textures. The fact that Peach Blossom and Daisy Blossom only are two moves means that a split wouldn't look messy and unwarranted, because then the seperate content can be covered without making the page look cluttered. That is the point I want to get across, and seeing as how many other extremely similar cases are handled, I think there is a strong, strong personal bias. -- 06:01, October 21, 2019 (EDT)
 * I keep telling you there is no friggin' personal bias, stop going in circles groundlessly claiming that there is, it's immeasurably aggravating. Also "vehicle parts" are not the same type of entity to shared moves. This isn't apples and oranges, this is celery stalks and durians. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 06:14, October 21, 2019 (EDT)
 * Yes, I think that's not enough to warrant a split - that's how opinions work. And I've backed up my opinion with actual relevant examples of naming and splitting policies being applied to such cases, as have several other people in their own dissenting opinions. This is including your constant circular argument of "but da wheels!!1!" and the repeated contesting that those scenario are exactly the same - despite the fact that I and others have repeatedly addressed them and explained how different types of subjects are and have been consistently handled with different types of coverage by the wiki (again, with actual citations of those examples). Your refusal to acknowledge that or other "inconvenient" facts are in no way evidence of any personal bias on our part, and to accuse others of bad faith at this point is both transparently sanctimonious and inflammatory. -- 06:27, October 21, 2019 (EDT)
 * Also, Doc, I understand this is aggravating, and a bit late in the process to give this kind of advice, but try not to get too heated. -- 06:37, October 21, 2019 (EDT)