MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/58

Always use past tense when describing pre-release and unused content
Fairly self-explanatory. These kinds of pages need to be more consistent in this way. The only time present tense should be used is when drawing comparisons to the final release.

Example: "At the start of Lap 3, Lakitu's sign said 'Final Lap'; in the final version, it says '3/3'."

Proposer: Deadline: April 8, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Yeah, makes sense. Per proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) I'd say this matter has to be explored on a case-by-case basis. In some situations, we only have some form of documentation to attest the existence of a game's early state, and, with no present whereabouts of its physical existence, it's indeed sensible to use past tense in any references to it until proven otherwise. But as Doc pointed out in the comments, some prototype builds are known to exist in the present and may even be readily available to the public--what would be the logic in referring to these using past-tense, then?
 * 2) I agree with Koopa con Carne -- the last sentence (about prototype builds resurfacing) is especially true.
 * 3) Per all. We're not going around changing everything regarding Super Mario Bros. 35 or Dr. Mario World to past tense either, so I wouldn't say this is necessary.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) I get what this proposal's going for, and I agree to an extent since we're usually going to be addressing pre-release material in the context of comparing with the final, but then you've got things like "Super Donkey" where it's hard to ascertain if it should be its own thing.

Comments
What about leaked prototype builds? They still exist in a current state. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:46, March 29, 2022 (EDT)

@Koopa @Doc Fair point. When making this proposal I was primarily thinking of that "early state documentation", like E3 footage. But in terms of prototype builds, the wiki has used past-tense for them before (See Super Mario 64 and Luigi's Mansion). 02:49, March 30, 2022 (EDT)
 * Those haven't been leaked, though. I'm thinking of like Diddy Kong Pilot, where only prototype builds exist anyway. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:06, April 6, 2022 (EDT)

Forbid "special symbols" from being used in article titles
This page - ★ door - basically describes it. While it is true that the source refers to the Star Door as the "★ Door", I believe this is unintuitive for readers of this wiki. It makes more sense for an average user to search for the "star door" instead of copypasting a character that isn't even present on many keyboards. The name "★ door" should still be used in the article itself, but the title should transcribe the symbol instead of using that symbol. This would also be consistent with other articles:


 * World 1-Castle (New Super Mario Bros.), where the title uses the transcribed name instead of a castle emoji (🏰).
 * Minna de Atsumete!, where the title of this official SMM2 course does not use the Japanese symbols.

I believe, for the overall consistency of naming pages and unneeded complexity for readers of this wiki, uncommon symbols such as the star or emojis should be forbidden from being used in the names of articles.

Proposer: Deadline: April 12, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) per my proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) The problem with the ★ door example is that "Big Star Door" is already pending a move (and currently redirects) to "Star Door" due to that being the in-game name, which complicates matters. Additionally, how levels are titled is generally consistent with official guides, and I don't think romanization systems for foreign characters can be compared since they're an established rule-based process. Overall, I don't think this comes up enough to be an issue like the use of hashtag at the start of a name. The only other one I can think of at the top of my head is ♥ from Yoshi's Story, which is deemed a unique subject from other heart articles.
 * 2) It's still the official name of the subject, and people not being able to type it isn't a problem because of redirects. By this logic we should also move Pokémon to Pokemon (just as an example, there are loads of pages with accents in their titles).
 * 3) This is a little bit like censoring content.
 * 4) There is a fine line to draw between accessibility and accuracy, and this is pushing it a bit too much. Redirects will work just fine.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) This just feels arbitrary. To push the logic here, this would revert ? Block back to "Question Block" or "Question-Mark Block" despite pretty much every single source we know calling it "? Block" with an actual question mark. And that's the main problem here: where does it stop?
 * 7) Per all.

Pinball (1984): full coverage or guest appearance?
Should Pinball, an NES game released in 1984, be classified as a guest appearance or a part of the Mario series? This proposal was created following User:Mario jc's comment here.

I believe this game features enough Mario-related content to justify full coverage of this game on this wiki. 1 out of 3 scenes is dedicated to Mario. In the scene C the player is controlling Mario to save Pauline, Mario is also heavily used in promotional material, including being on the cover-art for this game.

Alternatively, we can only allow coverage for the scene C, which features Mario as a playable character and Pauline.

Affected pages:
 * Template:Pinball
 * Card (Pinball)

Proposer: Deadline: April 15, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Allow full coverage

 * 1) per proposal.
 * 2) - if Alleyway can get full coverage, so can this.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) I feel like this is one of the loosest games you can consider part of the franchise (and Mario is not referenced or advertised at all on the Famicom box), but Lady/Pauline is mentioned in the manual's "plot"/objective, so you can say it barely counts.
 * 5) Perhaps this is a crossover between the Mario series and the game of pinball.  We have full coverage of the Mario & Sonic series.  I'd argue that this game fits into the Donkey Kong/DK Jr./Donkey Kong GB line of games and would suggest adding it in the "related games" section of that series, if it's not already there.
 * 6) Per all.

Classify as a guest appearance (prohibit full coverage)

 * 1) As I understand it, this removes Pinball-exclusive articles while keeping the main game article intact. If it must be considered a guest appearance, I'd rather go for this approach, since the main article is short enough that I don't feel it's worth trimming. Either way, "penguin" does irk me a bit under the SM64 one.

Allow coverage for the Mario scene (scene C) only (and classify as a guest appearance)

 * 1) Second option.

Comments
I do want to add something. I was reminded of pages 238-255 of Encyclopedia Super Mario Bros. earlier which, while "not an exhaustive list", is nonetheless a fairly big one. It contains a bar showing Mario's involvement with each entry: four stars is "Main Super Mario series games", three stars is "Mario is a major character", two stars is "Mario plays a small part", one star is "Mario's likeness appears", and no star is "A member of the Mario family appears". Obviously, this can vary depending on if it counts Donkey Kong, Yoshi, or Wario franchises, or one-off character spinoffs like Super Princess Peach (two stars), but Pinball is decidedly none of those (for the record, the Super Smash Bros. games are two stars, though the wiki deems them a special exception). Pinball and Alleyway are given the same two-star status as things like Tennis, Tetris, Qix, and "Famicom Disk System (boot-up screen)". For reference, Famicom Grand Prix II: 3D Hot Rally has three stars even though Famicom Grand Prix: F1 Race has two stars, and Golf isn't mentioned. Granted, this is mainly referring to the involvement of character Mario rather than necessarily being indicative of Mario games, so make of this what you will. LinkTheLefty (talk) 18:14, April 8, 2022 (EDT)

Classify Art Style: PiCTOBiTS as a guest appearance and give it its own page
The DSiWare game Art Style: PiCTOBiTS is a block-falling game where you try to make various sprites. A good number of these sprites are from the NES Super Mario Bros., while a couple come from NES Wrecking Crew. While it's certainly a crossover between different franchises, the main franchise of the game is Mario, since 12 of its 30 stages focus on the franchise. The game also includes, as part of its main mechanics, coins (using their Super Mario Bros. sprites) and the POW Block; no other franchise is referenced in the main mechanics. I'd argue that it deserves coverage, just like Super Smash Bros. and NES Remix. Let's make a page for it, rather than just including it in the list of Mario references in Nintendo games. I've written something up in https://www.mariowiki.com/User:Jacklavin/Sandbox. (I've been playing the game on my 3DS, and I used No$GBA to take the screenshot.)

Proposer: Deadline: April 19, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) This is my proposal.
 * 2) This game has a significant amount of Mario-related content to be classified as a guest appearance.
 * 3) Per Spectrogram
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Per all.

Comments
While this game appears on page 250 of the Super Mario Bros. encyclopedia, it's clear from the information provided that the writer only learned about the first stage of the game; its information is actually incorrect. --Jacklavin (talk) 12:39, April 12, 2022 (EDT)

Allow articles on non-Mario subjects to link to their main Fandom wiki in their External links section
Hi Mario Wiki, this is an unexpected proposal from me, considering my involvement with Triforce Wiki. It's somewhat of a follow-up to my proposal allowing for Zelda Dungeon Wiki and Triforce Wiki articles in the external links section of The Legend of Zelda-related articles on this wiki. Zeldapedia is closed, so it was not part of that proposal.

Basically, I think the Zelda proposal has set a precedent in that it acknowledges the other two wiki options for Zelda coverage. I for one do not like Fandom at all, but my main reason for creating this proposal is because of Wikitroid, which has about three times more articles (6,497 articles at the time of typing) than NIWA's Metroid Wiki (1,743 articles at the time of typing) while not prioritizing it over the other wikis (seeing as it's standard of us to prioritize interwiki links to other NIWA wikis). Although the main community here dislikes Fandom (me being one of them ofc), a lot of the readers are probably neutral to Fandom and the idea of having a Fandom wiki to click on. I know for a fact that Sonic the Hedgehog-related articles link to both Sonic News Network and Sonic Retro wiki, prob because the former has a lot more content, so in that regard, part of this proposal is already in effect in that the existence of the different main wikis covering Sonic are acknowledged. It's also partially in effect in that NIWA's main founding member, Zelda Wiki, has been owned by Fandom since December 2018 and, being a NIWA member, even has its interwiki updated to reflect its domain name change from zelda.gamepedia.com to zelda.fandom.com. This proposal would also eliminate the double standard of allowing one Nintendo-related wiki on Fandom to be linked to (Zelda Wiki) but not the others, although it would not affect the Zelda Wiki interwiki links (or any NIWA wikis, for that matter) or their priority, particularly in the article text. Again, this proposal is only to allow a link to the Fandom wiki in the External links section of non-Mario articles (such as Kirby, Samus, etc.). We already have a template that could be put to use in this regard.

I did not count Mario-related articles within this proposal because it would be pointless to link to a Fandom wiki covering the same thing as the Mario Wiki (20,000+ articles to possibly add external link to as well), even though it appears to conflict with my point of acknowledging the other wikis providing main source of information. Seeing as Smash Bros. is a gray area within Coverage, I'm not sure if its Smash Bros.-specific articles (such as Smash Ball) would count as not being allowed to link to its Fandom counterpart. Perhaps it can become an option later on.

Edit: To be clear, the main Fandom wikis are those with the franchise listed as the subdomain (e.g. minecraft.fandom.com or sonic.fandom.com).

Proposer: Deadline: April 20, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per my comments above.
 * 2) FANDOM, formerly known as Wikia is one of the biggest wiki hosting sites. NIWA's grudge against Wikia should not stop some links.

Oppose

 * 1) I understand carefully selecting a handful if they pass community consensus/standards, but I would not abide by such a broad application for...several reasons to say the least.
 * 2) Per LTL, implementing these on a case-by-case basis would be much better for quality control. I'm also skeptical that simply picking the wiki that gets the franchise name first in every case is the best idea, as they may not always be the best quality just because of that (or, they might be the only one, but be so low quality it's not worth linking to).
 * 3) Per LTL and Waluigi Time. I definitely think that it is fair to choose to link to certain Fandom Wikis, but I would prefer that such decisions were made on a case-by-case basis. Allowing for careful consideration of individual wikis rather than applying them immediately would be better for quality control, and I agree with Waluigi Time's point that the wiki that recieves the franchise name is not always necessarily the best one on that subject.
 * 4) per my comments below: wikis should be approved individually through a proposal for each one.
 * 5) Per all. Certain Fandom wikis are indeed superior in coverage and quality to the NIWA wikis (heck, at least one Fandom even merged with its NIWA counterpart because, to put it bluntly, the former was so much more comprehensive and useful), but by and large Fandom standards are a bit poorer than what the Super Mario Wiki should enable. Each Fandom should be examined individually.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Fandom is dominated by lower standards of quality control than independent wikis and is subject to Sturgeon's Law. There are plenty of good fandom wikis out there that we could make an argument for linking, but there's also many that we should not link to for a good reason. I do agree with the opposition that examining in case-by-case basis is necessary, not something a sweeping proposal can properly address.

Comments
I think users should make a proposal first before linking to a certain wiki so that the community can decide whether this specific wiki is acceptable. Fandom is known to have many... questionable at best wikis, many unmaintained, others allow fan content pages. As an example, while the Minecraft wiki is very well maintained and has good coverage of the Minecraft series, there are also many other Minecraft wikis on Fandom, most of which are just bad. Users should decide which wikis can be linked to on this wiki. Spectrogram (talk) 12:20, April 13, 2022 (EDT)
 * In the title, I did say the MAIN wiki (e.g. metroid.fandom.com) or, in your case, minecraft.fandom.com would be the main one. I don't mean like zeldagazette.fandom.com for example. Results May Vary (talk) 12:25, April 13, 2022 (EDT)
 * That's the thing: how do you define a main wiki? I think the community consensus is needed. Spectrogram (talk) 12:36, April 13, 2022 (EDT)
 * The franchise name being the subdomain Results May Vary (talk) 12:38, April 13, 2022 (EDT)
 * Some "main" wikis may not have the same simple name as the subdomain. I still believe a proposal is needed for each wiki (or in bulk) to have them approved. Spectrogram (talk) 14:36, April 13, 2022 (EDT)

Color me confused. Is this proposal meant to allow it to be possible for the future, or will Fandom links be applied immediately? I am open to the former since there is room for discussion depending on the wiki, but disagree with the latter since this is probably best decided on a case-by-case basis. LinkTheLefty (talk) 17:56, April 13, 2022 (EDT)
 * Yeah I know, it's an unexpected proposal. The proposal talks about applying them immediately (for example, an External links section at the bottom of Samus Aran article that says " on Wikitroid" like how Link has "Link on ZD Wiki" and "Link on Triforce Wiki" listed in External links section). Results May Vary (talk) 20:01, April 13, 2022 (EDT)

Determine The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening and its reissues as a guest appearance and create an article covering all three versions and/or its Mario-related subjects
Hi, so recently I've revamped the Thwomp and Spiny article's The Legend of Zelda series sections to provide in-depth information on the article. Also following how Pinball and Art Style Pictobits are being reclassified as guest appearance/related titles and seeing as Densetsu no Starfy 3 has its own article, this had me thinking back to how earlier handheld The Legend of Zelda titles have their share of Mario content, with The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening having the most of them. A handful of the enemies are even Mario ones, and are some of their earlier appearance in games in general (as several have returned directly from Super Mario Bros. 3 and Super Mario World, which shared similar development teams). There's even developer commentary on the Mario-related subjects, which I'll list below:

Perhaps the most notable inclusion are Bloopers, Bob-ombs, Boos, Cheep Cheeps, Goombas, Piranha Plants, Pokeys, Shy Guys, Thwimps, and Thwomps. Developmental assets (see TCRF) even show a Bullet Bill and Fighter Fly. Thwomps in particular have a variant unique to The Legend of Zelda franchise, Spiked Thwomp, and a relative named Stone Elevator. Currently, they are covered within the Thwomp article itself, but seeing as they are derivatives of a Mario enemy (just in a different series, like how Giga Bowser is unique to the Super Smash Bros. series). These enemies usually have a consistent role within the Super Mario series to completely different behavior (Shy Guys, aka Masked-Mimics, and Thwomps in particular). There's also Madame MeowMeow's pet Bow Wow, who is a notable Chain Chomp who only appears in The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening and its reissues. Wart makes an appearance (though is known by his Japanese name, Mamu) but has a non-antagonistic role unlike in the Mario games. The same developers of the Super Mario series of games elaborate upon some Mario-related characters specifically for The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening (but are retained in some of Capcom's handheld Zelda titles), so the game intentionally included subjects from other games, mostly the Mario franchise, to be guest appearances.

The first item of the game's trading sequence is a doll of Yoshi, the, adding to my point of Mario-related subjects within a non-Mario game.

In Christine's love letter to Mr. Write is a photograph of Princess Toadstool; while this is a cameo, it adds to the list of Mario-related content within the game. Although they are specific to Zelda, Tarin and the Cucco Keeper are designed after Mario and Luigi respectively. In one part, Tarin becomes a Raccoon after touching a Mushroom (as opposed to the similar Tanooki Suit from Super Mario Bros. 3).

The remake somewhat elaborates upon the Mario-related content included within. I remember an advertising point was that it features content from the Super Mario games (Nintendo.com comes to mind) and it adds figurines of Mario-related enemies.

There are some people who are more knowledgeable than me on this, so hopefully this proposal is presented okay. Feel free to add further information/corrections in the comments section if there are any facts that I've missed or gotten wrong. If the proposal passes, we can figure out how to handle these subjects. Perhaps a later proposal can determine whether to create a The Legend of Zelda series page for the other The Legend of Zelda games that have Mario enemies making guest appearances (as it might seem excessive to give every Zelda game with Mario guest appearances an article, but Link's Awakening features the most notable inclusions).

Proposer: Deadline: April 20, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Create both

 * 1) Per my reasons stated above
 * 2) Per proposal, I've always been confused as to how this is less eligible than Captain Rainbow or Punch-Out!!.
 * 3) Per proposal, but I think subjects should be put through a case-by-case trial: for instance, I would oppose individually covering characters like Tarin just because a Mario character is reflected in their design, but an interactable element like the Yoshi doll most definitely deserves a page of its own.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) I feel this is consistent with our coverage on SSX On Tour, NBA Street, Skylanders, etc, which all have far less Mario content in their game than this one does.

Create only

 * 1) I always wanted to make this proposal and I even made one before being autoconfirmed because I was an idiot. Jokes aside, I feel since these games by Mario context are the same, I feel just one article is fine as it creates too much redundant information. On that note, the reason for the article's existence is because Mamu plays a main role in this game to help Link. The enemies would normally constitute a cameo for me but this one role from Wart is enough for me.
 * 2) I am conflicted on covering every single subject that could potentially be considered Mario-related, but I think the subjects that are in the game have enough of a role for an article for the game to be warrented per consistency with articles such as Densetsu no Starfy 3, Captain Rainbow, and Punch-Out!!.

Create only the Mario-related subjects

 * 1) My preference. What particularly bothers me with the current sitch is that Zelda games in general have had exclusive elaborations of Mario elements such as Podoboo Tower and Manhandla, but we can't ever cover them adequately. This approach seems pretty reasonable and would at least take a big step towards having that coverage. I'd say we can possibly even add stuff like Bombite and Arm-Mimic Hollow Mimic since they're so similar to the Mario elements.
 * 2) Per LTL.

Create neither

 * 1) We can reference Link's Awakening through the pages of the characters that appeared such as Thwomp, or on the List of Mario references in Nintendo video games. No to creating new pages on Zelda spoofs of Mario characters. Tapper from Wreck-It Ralph looks like Mario, but we don't get an article on him, or anything from Wreck-It Ralph despite the main characters' game being a Donkey Kong parody and Bowser showing up, or Mario himself being mentioned as late for Felix's party. So Tarin shouldn't get an article either. If he does, then maybe we should make articles on every expy of Mario? It would be a mess to sort out which character is similar enough to Mario or his friends.

Comments
To users who voted on this article, just to be more clear, the Mario-related subjects option applies to all games, not just The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening (the "its" in the proposal name was supposed to refer to The Legend of Zelda series itself, and LinkTheLefty appears to be keen to make articles on Mario-related subjects outside of Link's Awakening, such as with Podoboo Tower and Manhandla, rather than just ones that have made an appearance within The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening, but the proposal primarily being about Link's Awakening may have made it slightly unclear that I meant Mario-related subjects/derivatives within ALL The Legend of Zelda games). Results May Vary (talk) 13:53, April 14, 2022 (EDT)
 * I don't fully understand the rationale behind this proposal. What's the specific benefit of creating an article or articles when the information is here? Additionally, you mention having already added information to specific enemy pages about Zelda appearances, so what's stopping you from continuing to do so (e.g. adding Bow Wow to Chain Chomp)? 02:19, April 15, 2022 (EDT)
 * I can touch on the latter. In addition to their version of Mario enemies (and sometimes other series; Digdogger for example is based on Clu Clu Land Unira), Zelda games have included unique variants. This includes Manhandla (a Piranha Plant), Mini Bow-Wows (small Chain Chomps), Podoboo Tower, Head Thwomp, and more. The first and third options would allow the full creation of their own articles, appearing in infoboxes and templates. Personally, it would make those enemy families look more complete. LinkTheLefty (talk) 04:59, April 15, 2022 (EDT)
 * The reason I feel the article should exist is due to Mamu playing a major role in the game. It's not a cameo appearance, it's a legit guest appearance. His role in the game is to give Link an item. It's not different to Wario's appearance in Starfy. Wikiboy10 (talk) 07:24, April 15, 2022 (EDT)
 * Agreed with both LinkTheLefty and Wikiboy10. I like how the former said it -- it would make the enemy families more complete. Results May Vary (talk) 12:16, April 15, 2022 (EDT)
 * Legend of Zelda isn't the only thing that takes inspiration from Mario. If we create pages on Link's Awakening subjects based on Mario, then we might have to make pages on every Mario parody character. That's a slippery slope. Why not just keep the Link's Awakening sections on the original Mario character articles? Making articles on Zelda counterparts would just open the floodgates of non-Mario content, and we are lessening the Super Smash Bros. coverage for that very reason. It's actually looking like Results May Vary is trying to put Zelda in our coverage. SeanWheeler (talk) 17:28, April 18, 2022 (EDT)
 * The sole reason pages like Skylanders: SuperChargers have their own page is because of playable guest appearances and Link's Awakening doesn't, but think about the genres that are represented and you see an inconsistency. In our guest appearances, those are coincided with games that have a decent roster of playable characters anyhow. What separates Link's Awakening from, say, the games in the Mario references article aren't that these enemies are small cameos (like, there's not a picture of them or just mentioned as part of a script), but rather that there is quite a considerable amount of them and a lot of them are intractable enemies, which in context of the genre Link's Awakening is in (single player adventure game as opposed to sports titles and toys to life with multiple playable characters) that I think is similar to the playable guest stars. I don't quite agree with the rest of the Zelda series getting pages for this reason, just Link's Awakening primarily because there's an increased Mario presence in that game. The degree to how much Mario reference and the significance is debatable, sure, but I think Link's Awakening comfortably passes that line where I think having its own article is justified, especially because the Mario presence there is stronger than the likes of the guest appearance articles that do have pages here, such as the aforementioned NBA Street V3 and SSX on Tour (and keep in mind I do support keeping those articles split because those guest appearances are major too). By the way, slippery slope arguments are fallacious, and I kindly ask to please do not insinuate other user's intentions (re: accusing Results May Vary trying to put Zelda in our coverage when that's not the aim of what he wants to do). 19:59, April 18, 2022 (EDT)
 * @SeanWheeler: According to policy on guest appearances: "If a subject is unique to the game while also being clearly derived from the Mario franchise, they can receive individual articles." The floodgates are already open. 03:23, April 21, 2022 (EDT)

Overhaul the no quorum proposal rule (#8)
The current rule no quorum proposals is vague, flawed, and counterproductive. Per rule 8, if a proposal has three votes or less at deadline, it NQs, ending with no action taken. In other words it needs at least four votes overall to pass. I have two major problems with this.

Problem #1: A blanket minimum number of votes means that opposition can actually cause a proposal to pass.

Take these hypothetical proposals, for instance.
 * Proposal A reaches its deadline with 3 support and 0 oppose votes. That's a total of 3, exactly one shy of the minimum 4. Therefore, the proposal NQs.
 * Proposal B reaches its deadline with 3 support and 2 oppose votes. That's a total of 5, enough to avoid NQ. Since there are too few votes for rule 10 to apply, and there's more support than opposition, the proposal passes.

See the problem here? Proposal B has the same amount of support as Proposal A, but more opposition, yet Proposal B passes while Proposal A does not. If Proposal B did not have those oppose votes, it wouldn't have enough votes to avoid NQ. Therefore, the opposition actually causes the proposal to pass. This should not be possible. Proposals should only ever pass in spite of opposition, never because of it.

Three-or-more-option proposals have the same problem, especially since you can vote for more than one option - the rule does not clarify whether or not multiple votes from the same user counts toward quorum. This proposal is a good example - it only met the minimum four because one of the voters picked two options.

Solution: Instead of a minimum total of 4 overall votes, make it so at least one option must have a minimum of 4 votes.

This retains the current minimum number of supports necessary to pass a proposal where no other options receive votes, but eliminates the "opposition backfire" issue mentioned above. Under this new rule, Proposal B would NQ, just like Proposal A. This rule would also apply to proposals with three or more options - at least one option would need at least 4 votes to avoid NQ.

Now for the other problem.

Problem #2: No quorum proposals just end immediately upon reaching their deadline, when we could be extending them.

Imagine the frustration. Your TPP has three supports and no opposition. If just one more person would vote, you'd be golden. But before it can happen, that deadline comes. Your proposal's over. You waited two weeks for nothing. Hey, at least you have "the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion", even though that's an extremely vague statement that is not clear at all about what it actually means. I guess it just means "redo the proposal from scratch", but why should you have to do that?

Solution: Apply the three-week extension rule to no quorum proposals.

Why do no quorum proposals have to end right then and there? Why not just extend them, like we do with proposals that do not reach a consensus by deadline? This would help give vote-starved proposals more of a chance to gain attention and reduce the number of frustrating NQs. I'm not sure if we should apply the four-week waiting period for proposals that do NQ under this new rule, but I'm leaning towards no. If you think it should, feel free to comment on it.

Proposer: Deadline: April 14, 2022, 23:59 GMT Extended to April 21, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Apply both solutions

 * 1) Preferred option.
 * 2) Per proposal; I especially support enacting the first problem's solution since it would sew a blatant policy loophole.
 * 3) Per proposal. I think both solutions can work. I do support the idea of the first solution, but the second solution is also a good idea, especially if it concerns a topic that's easy to miss or can easily duck under the radar.
 * 4) After thinking a bit more, I might've misinterpreted what solution 1 would do.
 * 5) Per. Also, yes, I do feel that the four-week moratorium rule need only be applied to proposals that have several votes but remain without a clear majority.
 * 6) Second choice.

Apply problem #1's solution

 * 1) Second option.

Apply problem #2's solution

 * 1) Better than nothing.
 * 2) Per proposal (I was actually thinking of this problem recently after this proposal).
 * 3) While I disagree on some points in problem #1, namely the proposed solution, I do believe extending the NQ proposals is better than relisting them.
 * 4) I'm not sure if the first proposed solution is great in how it would affect proposals with more than two choices, but the second seems fair enough to me.
 * 5) I feel like a better solution to problem #1 would be to modify rule 10 so that it applies to all proposals, not just ones with >10 votes, and/or maybe reduce its margin from 3 to 2. That said, I do think solution #2 is a good idea.

Leave the rule as is

 * 1) I'm admittedly working from vague memories at the moment, so I apologize if anything I say is flat-out wrong, but my understanding is the portion of the rule about relisting NQ proposals is there because there isn't always enough information in them for users to make an informed decision and cast a vote. Other times, what information is there might be at odds with the stated goal. Maybe a proposed solution wouldn't adequately address a problem raised. Maybe someone points out (or realizes) the problem itself is larger in scope than originally outlined or an entirely different problem altogether. Since these sorts of discussions tend to happen after the deadline for editing the proposal has passed, it's an opportunity to incorporate whatever comes out of those into the next iteration of the proposal (in part because of rule 5). The initial deadline is usually enough time for those sorts of discussions to take place, and there are ways of getting people to weigh in if the specific issue is a lack of attention (an ever-present one regardless of what the deadline is). That said, sometimes, unfortunately, there aren't a significant number of people concerned about/invested in a particular thing, and I think the proposed more-votes-per-option solution could therefore result in more NQs or failed proposals.
 * 2) This sounds too convoluted just to get rid of a loophole; I'd prefer keeping NQs and applying the 4-vote minimum condition to rule 9 so that if a proposal with three votes, all for one option, gets the fourth vote for an opposing option, it will be extended until consensus is reached or not.
 * 3) Per all.

Comments
Another problem with no quorum is that it also means that the proposal is treated as failed, as if it was a clear opposed result. I disagree; I think it should be treated as if the proposal didn't happen, opening the door for resolution to occur via discussion. LinkTheLefty (talk) 10:32, April 8, 2022 (EDT)

@Somethingone: I'm not going to say I'm against a rule 10 modification, but such a thing would require a separate proposal, since it would need different options for reducing the voting margin or not reducing it (or only reducing it for proposals with ten votes or less). Additionally, rule 10 only applies to two-option proposals, so it would not solve problem #1 for proposals with more than two options like the one I linked. I would also like the know the issue with implementing my solution so I can improve it or come up with an alternative.

@Mario4Ever: You completely misunderstand the purpose of NQs. It is merely to prevent proposals from passing with too few votes. That's it. It is not a defense mechanism against poorly-written proposals as you seem to be claiming. The proper response to such proposals is inform the proposer in the comments why their proposal is flawed so they can either improve it, or in the event a complete overhaul is needed, cancel it and make a new one (or request an admin cancel it if 3/6 days have already passed). Plenty of proposals that NQ don't have issues at all, they just aren't getting the attention they need, and extending them would help with that. Additionally, proposals with the issues you mentioned don't always fail to obtain votes - depending on what the issue is, voters may just outright oppose it until their problems are addressed. Alternatively, the proposal might gain support before the issues with it are fully realized (example), so the idea of NQs as a defense against flawed proposals is a flimsy excuse at best. 13:50, April 8, 2022 (EDT)
 * I'm not saying that NQs are a defense mechanism against poorly-written proposals. I was just explaining that a lack of attention isn't necessarily why the minimum vote threshold isn't met, since that's one of your main points of contention. 15:36, April 8, 2022 (EDT)
 * The vast majority of proposals that end with no quorum only do so because they don't get enough attention, and there are plenty of poorly written proposals that don't get no quorum. Besides, I don't really see how your argument relates to the proposed rule changes, as waiting for flawed proposals to NQ isn't really how you're meant to deal with them anyway. 15:45, April 8, 2022 (EDT)
 * I think part of the disconnect is that the proposal references and directly links to TPPs, which do tend to get less attention than proposals on this page (or at least, they did). Most of the proposals I've weighed in on have been in the latter category, where the things I've mentioned are (were?) more likely to come up. 00:57, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
 * Your point? The majority of proposals made nowadays are TPPs, and issue of whether or not the proposal is on a talk page is irrelevant. You have yet to justify your opposition in any way. 12:47, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
 * It's relevant to my argument to the extent that it informs my perception of proposals, but getting to the point, I don't see the proposal's problem #1 as such (and don't believe effectively redefining what constitutes a quorum would benefit them if it were). I also don't think more time would necessarily give TPPs more attention because my general approach involved prioritizing things like the scope or the information I had/needed over the deadline. 14:41, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
 * How can you possibly think that problem #1 isn't an issue? You're saying that oppose votes actually causing proposals to pass is entirely logical. It's not. Imagine you oppose a proposal. It has 3 supports and 1 oppose - namely, you - near the deadline. This encourages you to game the system by removing your oppose vote at the last minute to stop the proposal from passing. How is that not completely asinine? 18:44, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
 * Let's say the proposed solution to problem #1 is implemented. You create a proposal that's set to pass with four votes to one. At the last minute, the fourth supporter decides they're ambivalent toward the outcome and removes their vote, or maybe they get blocked for some reason, and their vote is removed. Now, let's say the extension solution is also in effect, so the proposal doesn't get relisted. In the worst case scenario, another three weeks go by with no additional votes to give either option the four-vote minimum, so at the final deadline, it fails with a 3-1 ratio. Is having your proposal not go into effect at all preferable to the scenario of it getting potentially overturned later?  22:09, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
 * You're missing the point. Let's take your hypothetical proposal, but remove that one oppose vote. What happens under the current rules? It NQs, since it doesn't have enough votes. Meanwhile, your version of the proposal would pass because it does, despite having the exact same amount of support. Why should that happen? Why should it be possible for opposing a proposal be counterproductive to actually stopping a proposal from passing? Like I just said, this encourages the opposer to game the system by removing their oppose vote at the last minute so the proposal will NQ and therefore not pass, which is ridiculous. Simply put, if a 3-0 proposal doesn't pass, then a 3-1 or 3-2 shouldn't pass either. 22:38, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
 * I don't think it's counterproductive to vote in opposition to something even if it's not likely to (or doesn't) prevent the proposal from passing. My hypothetical scenario demonstrates that "gaming the system" is technically possible under the proposed new system. Since that's therefore not the problem being solved, I don't think it's a relevant justification. 23:37, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
 * Your hypothetical scenario demonstrates nothing of the sort. A supporter removing their vote because they changed their mind isn't gaming the system, it's normal. An opposer removing their oppose vote at the last minute to deliberately cause an NQ for a proposal that would otherwise pass is absolutely gaming the system - a form of which my proposed solution would render unnecessary. Opposition not preventing a proposal from passing is not the problem, it's opposition actively causing a proposal to pass because of the current NQ rule. Stop misinterpreting my posts. I'm still waiting for you to justify why a 3-0 proposal shouldn't pass, but a 3-1 or 3-2 should. 13:04, April 10, 2022 (EDT)
 * Community input is as or more important than a proposal's outcome, the impact of which is neither permanent nor irreparable. Ignoring that I never encountered a single instance of someone doing what you describe in 12 years, I think, depending on the proposal, four or five votes is an adequate reflection of that input. 14:19, April 10, 2022 (EDT)
 * That's just flat out wrong. Community input is what causes a proposal's outcome. You can't just lump supporters and opposers together under the banner of "community input" like they're the same thing. When someone opposes a proposal, it's because they don't want it to pass. Therefore, it should never result in it passing for any reason, ever. While proposals can be overturned, it requires another successful proposal, which means just one or two people wanting the overturning aren't going to cut it. If a proposal with those one or two opposers should pass, then a proposal without those opposers should also pass. If a proposal with three supporters shouldn't pass, then a proposal with three supporters and one or two opposers shouldn't pass either. I don't get why that's so hard for you to understand. 15:39, April 10, 2022 (EDT)
 * I haven't been following the discussion too closely but I think the idea is that a proposal with five votes, even if some of them are opposition, has had adequate community participation to move forward. Honestly, I think you're focusing way too hard on the issue of people potentially "gaming the system" by not opposing to deliberately force a no quorum. I've never seen that happen and it seems like assuming bad faith to me. -- 15:53, April 10, 2022 (EDT)
 * I don't think concern over a potential issue equates with assuming bad faith in the userbase. It's still a loophole and the system's better off without it. 16:47, April 10, 2022 (EDT)
 * Precisely. It doesn't matter if this loophole isn't exploited regularly, the mere fact that it's possible to exploit it warrants fixing it. It doesn't matter if you've seen it happen, not voting is a non-action, so you can't produce evidence of it happening or not happening. There's no reason not to fix this; I should never have to consider not voting on a proposal I actively oppose (or removing my existing oppose vote) just because of this loophole. 17:15, April 10, 2022 (EDT)

@LinkTheLefty: I don't understand what the problem is with how it would affect proposals with more than two choices. Be more specific so I can maybe improve it or come up with a better solution. 12:47, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
 * I feel like an issue one might have with solution 1 is that it could result in situations where proposals with many options could have many votes but still NQ because no option has >3 votes. Proposals with 5 options could take up to 16 votes before they aren't called NQs in situations like that. Somethingone (talk) 13:31, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
 * Basically. It just makes it needlessly harder for multiple-choice proposals to pass, also considering option results sometimes overlap with each other. LinkTheLefty (talk) 14:21, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
 * "Proposals with 5 options could take up to 16 votes before they aren't called NQs in situations like that." Not necessarily. A proposal with 5 options may have accrued only 4 total votes and still pass, provided all those votes are for one option in particular. If not one option has more than 3 votes, it's a NQ period, regardless of how many available options there are. 16:22, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
 * That still doesn't factor when choices overlap, which more often than not do in multiple-choice proposals. Say this hypothetical proposal: 1) do X only, 2) do Y only, 3) do Z only, 4) do X & Y, 5) do X & Z, 6) do Y & Z, 7) do X, Y & Z, and 8) don't do anything. Let's say the X & Y options are generally unpopular, but votes are accrued for options involving Z. Let's say #3 gets 3 votes, and #s5, 6 & 7 get two votes each. And for the sake of argument, let's say that all the votes are from different users. That's at least nine total, with the remaining options having zero-to-two votes. Under the current system, #3 passes, and everyone walks away somewhat pleased because they at least agreed to do Z. Under the first proposed solution, the proposal becomes a no quorum, despite the fact that virtually everyone had Z in mind, making no one happy. That's another reason why I think no quorums should be considered non-proposals rather than opposed/failed ones. LinkTheLefty (talk) 16:50, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
 * You seem to have forgotten about rule 9, which would force an extension on your hypothetical proposal anyway. If there were nine voters, three votes wouldn't be enough for the option to win. It would need more than half, in other words, at least five. 17:26, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
 * Then that might be another technicality with the system, but I digress. Fudge the specifics a bit if you like; the bottom line is 100% support on one action minimal (Z) and a lot of multiple-choice proposals are structured this way. LinkTheLefty (talk) 17:37, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
 * Are you saying that you oppose rule 9 or want it changed? Because that's what would get in the way of your hypothetical proposal. It doesn't matter how many votes there are, if the voters are spread across four voting options and they're too close, rule 9 won't let it pass. Anyway, a simple solution to the "overlapping options" issue is, once you've established that everyone wants to do Z, make Z a standalone proposal. 18:28, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
 * That seems cumbersome. You could just note in the above proposal that overlapping choices (e.g. "Z", "X&Z", and "X&Y&Z") will count votes together towards the common goal "Z". I agree with LTL insofar as it doesn't make much sense to treat these as mutually exclusive. 18:51, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
 * Is that allowed? There isn't anything about it in the proposal rules, and I've never heard of such a thing happening. 18:58, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
 * Rule 14 states: "Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation". I assume "rewritten" implies you can bring in any modifications, including additions--I've done it before in my proposals and nobody minded. It's been 2 days and ~6 hours since the proposal was published, so I think changing it as of this comment's writing is still ok. If your question refers to the matter of overlapping options, I'd say that, since the proposal at hand already sets out to amend the rules, you may indeed add any further stipulations if you see it fit. 19:18, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
 * I wasn't talking about my own proposal, I was asking if a rule about the overlapping options thing already existed (which I'm pretty sure it doesn't). 19:32, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
 * It doesn't, that's why I was suggesting it's offhandedly taken care of in the current proposal. Adding such a rule could and should have been made through a separate proposal, but what the current proposal advocates makes way to the issues described above by LTL (although I still support the amendment per se), so I was thinking you could kill two birds with one stone by taking care of it in the same proposal. 19:49, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
 * The problem with deciding on the addition of such a rule here is that this proposal already has four options, and that would require adding additional variants of those options that include adding the new rule. If there turned out to be disagreement on whether it should be added or not, this would cause division amongst the current options' votes (which are already rather close between two of them), thus increasing the risk of this proposal stalemating. Anyway, I already mentioned that the issue described in LTL's hypothetical proposal is already present due to rule 9, so as long as rule 9 exists, problem #1's solution doesn't cause any issues that don't already exist. 20:07, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
 * Yeah, ultimately, it might be better to address that matter in a future proposal. 20:19, April 9, 2022 (EDT)

@SmokedChili: If I understand correctly, what you have described is precisely what this proposal is trying to implement. 09:12, April 13, 2022 (EDT)
 * No, the difference is that with the solution 2 in effect NQs will be null because the rule will be altered from the less-than-4-votes proposals getting cancelled by NQ to them being extended instead; I want to keep the NQ condition as-is. If a proposal can't gather enough votes before the deadline, I see no point to drag it on. SmokedChili (talk) 12:13, April 13, 2022 (EDT)
 * Solution 2 will not render NQs null, just make them take longer to happen. I'm only proposing that NQ proposals be extended for up to three weeks, not indefinitely. If a proposal is 3-0 by deadline and just needs that one more vote, there's a good chance it will get that one more vote if it's given that extra time, so yes, there is a point. Even if it isn't just on the verge of reaching quorum and never does, there's no harm in extending it; it's not like we're constantly having a problem with too many ongoing proposals at once. AFAIK, we've never once had it. 12:51, April 13, 2022 (EDT)
 * NQ is specifically a proposal not meeting the minimum number of votes required before deadline. You're mixing it up with no consensus. So yes, solution 2 will render NQs full. SmokedChili (talk) 14:45, April 13, 2022 (EDT)
 * I'm not mixing anything up. Solution 2 is specifically applying the same three-week extension rule to NQs that we do proposals with no consensus, as stated right there in the proposal text. Meaning an NQ is still possible if three extensions go by and the proposal still does not have enough votes. 22:49, April 13, 2022 (EDT)
 * That's just turning a NQ into a no consensus by another name. SmokedChili (talk) 15:11, April 14, 2022 (EDT)
 * So? You say that as if NQ and no consensus functioning similarly is an actual problem, which I fail to see how it is. You've also been focusing entirely on solution 2; you have yet to explain what your problem is with solution 1 other than inexplicably calling it "convoluted". The only difference I see between my solution 1 and your proposed alternative is that my version would cause 3-1 and 3-2 proposals to NQ, while yours would treat them like a no consensus and extend them (honestly probably a better idea now that I think about it, but that only matters if we don't apply solution 2, and a solution 1-only outcome is looking unlikely at this point). If that's your issue, then say so, but that's an entirely different problem from being "convoluted". 16:07, April 14, 2022 (EDT)
 * It's the proposal process I'm calling convoluted. It's split into two parts where the first raises the bar for passing the minimum requirement before the initial deadline for consensus/extension to patch the loophole (4 votes needed is reasonable enough while I don't agree with which rule should be implemented with it), the second lowers it slightly as the alternative to also patch the loophole, but their combination drops it straight to the bottom so that all NQ/NC proposals are given the same mercy to extend (too far). Sounds too cumbersome in execution. I wanted a more condensed process while still keeping that minimum requirement pass somewhere at the initial deadline. SmokedChili (talk) 13:11, April 19, 2022 (EDT)

Create a The Legend of Zelda series article and/or a "Related series" category
This proposal is a follow-up to my The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening proposal below and possibly a fallback option in the event that The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening does not get its own article. Currently, it and other non-Mario franchises exist in the form of a category (such as Category:The Legend of Zelda series), especially if they have been featured within the Super Smash Bros. games. None of these categories fall under "Related series," which list the franchises and/or series that have crossed over with Mario before but are otherwise not a part of the overall Mario franchise (perhaps Porple can make a distinction for Related series categories and articles for like Super Smash Bros. series respectively). If Related series isn't created but The Legend of Zelda series is (I'll still leave the option below, as Related series would apply to more series/franchises), then it would go under Category:Game series as if it were part of the main Mario franchise when it is actually not.

The Legend of Zelda is a specific case, given how many times it has featured Mario-related elements within its games (like Mario enemies having guest appearances within The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening), often shares a development team with those creating a Super Mario series title around the same time (e.g. Super Mario Odyssey and The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, although this does not signify any relation to Mario but just adds to my point of how Zelda is often developed concurrently with Mario), or even a complimentary release (such as how Game & Watch: The Legend of Zelda released a year after Game & Watch: Super Mario Bros. and is parallel in how it is created).

The degree of how The Legend of Zelda-related media is connected to Mario has varied; for instance, the television series has some direct connection to the Super Mario Bros. Super Show!, particularly in the form of advertisements and mentions within the Super Mario Bros. Super Show!, but is made clear that the two are separate, whereas Nintendo Cereal System has both Mario and The Legend of Zelda within the same box. Some publications, such as Nintendo Adventure Books and the Game Boy Advance book series, while they are not Mario-specific, feature both Mario and Zelda books within the series, so both franchises have often been outsourced together (perhaps most famously, the Philips CD-i games or the aforementioned DiC Entertainment cartoons of Zelda and Super Show!). I'll get to describing some of the game-specifics in another paragraph, but the short explanation to this paragraph is that Mario and Zelda have been outsourced to third-parties on different occasions, especially in the 1980s & 1990s.

It would be convenient to have a History section in a The Legend of Zelda series article that lists every time when The Legend of Zelda has been outsourced alongside Mario or when ideas from Mario games were reused/used instead in Zelda and vice versa, although the finer details to the The Legend of Zelda series article can be worked out if this proposal were to pass (and yes, per the ZD Wiki/Triforce Wiki External links proposal, we'd add link for both of those alongside the usual ZW link in the NIWA box as well as in The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening article, provided that proposal passes), as there are several ideas and ways of how one could go about it and would probably require a group effort to really put the article all together.

Link's Awakening aside, there are other instances of guest appearances within the Mario franchise, as early as the first The Legend of Zelda itself (with Manhandla), especially with enemies and sometimes even hazardous objects (like Fire bars). However, creating an article for every The Legend of Zelda game with a guest appearance and/or derivative would be possibly going overboard (at least for the time being), so they would fall under The Legend of Zelda series article itself (particularly under a Games section or something). Again, finer details can be worked out after this proposal, but we could possibly have infoboxes for some of the other Zelda games with guest appearances (like The Minish Cap) to reflect that these are still games with a guest appearance whereas if a Zelda game only consists of cameos (Ocarina of Time comes to mind) it would not have an infobox, possibly as distinction between cameo & guest appearance, but again, the details can be worked out later. I probably mentioned this in the Link's Awakening proposal, but Capcom games (Oracle of Seasons/Ages, Four Swords, and The Minish Cap) have had a tendency to reuse Mario enemies or even introduce them (such as Lakitu in The Minish Cap). Hyrule Warriors, which is not a part of the main The Legend of Zelda series, features a derivative of the Ball & Chain item that features Chain Chomp). In this case, should we call the article The Legend of Zelda (franchise)? This can also be decided after the proposal.

Oh, before I forget, Mario & Zelda Big Band Live also features both Mario and Zelda like the Nintendo Cereal System.

Proposer: Deadline: April 21, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Create both

 * 1) Per reasons listed above.

Create only The Legend of Zelda series article

 * 1) We know that the developers exchanged a fair amount of concepts between projects in the early days, such as Fire Bars and Chain Chomps originally being designed for Zelda but ending up in Mario games first, and while the latter is more recognizably Mario, the former became just as much of a Zelda element. As this is/was a recurrent practice, having one general article makes much more sense to me than a particular game.
 * 2) Second option

Create neither

 * 1) No offense, but this is going a teensy tiny massive amount of distance too far. The "Related Series" category you're proposing just sounds like an attempt to stretch our coverage barrier as thin as it can. Where does the line of "Related Series" and "Mario Element cameos in it" end under this proposed idea? Same Development Team? Uses elements from Mario? Some sort of dialogue hinting at it? It can be stretched as far thin as it can under these circumstances, and I feel like our current "List of Mario References in X_MEDIA_SUBGENRE" pages handle this situation better than any supposed "Related Series" category could. Also, how is the SMO point valid? Nintendo EPD just makes anything Major Nintendo, and I feel like us making pages for every non-Mario thing they made would just be a million miles overboard. And besides this, I feel like this is the start(or heck even mid-start considering recent proposals) of a super slippery slope; if we make articles for everything that's even 0.00000001% Mario related, why don't we make articles for everything ever? Making pages for the LOZ series for crossing over with Mario and having some ideas from it would lead to us doing the same for things like Sonic, which has a closer connection to Mario during the 90's "war" and shares a spin-off with Mario, and we'd just be pushing and pushing the border of "what qualifies as Mario?" until it breaks. Why not make articles for all the series that are costumes in SMM? or all the franchises in SSB? Or on other series that have similar scenrios to Zelda but a lesser extent(ex. Desentsu no Stafy with its assets in SPP and Wario in one of its games, Rhythm Heaven for being more and more prominent in the Warioware series, Duck Hunt for being grouped with SMB back in the NES days, and so on)? And why not franchises related to those related franchises? Why not make articles for every series Mario cameos in? It goes on far too long. We don't need to make full-fledged articles for everything with nods to Mario in it.
 * 2) per Somethingone.
 * 3) Per Somethingone. Of course Nintendo's two most popular franchises will reference and promote each other on occasion, but this is going overboard.
 * 4) Per Somethingone. I'm not sure what new I could add the conversation that hasn't been said.
 * 5) Per Somethingone.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all. Recent proposals have been made with the intent to place restrictions and cut down on the wiki's Super Smash Bros. content, which suggests an intent within the community to cut down our coverage of topics that are less directly-related to the Mario franchise. There is no problem with having limited coverage of games with Mario-related aspects, such as Densetsu no Starfy 3 or even the proposed The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening article. There are defintely plenty of references to Mario in The Legend of Zelda series as well as other Nintendo series, but I feel that covering those stretches our coverage policy and I feel that a line should be drawn there. Articles related to those series generally have links to outside coverage of the series, and honestly I feel that that is enough for series that are not directly connected to Mario.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) Per.
 * 11) Per all. Zelda is a completely different franchise from Mario only connected through Easter Eggs and Smash Bros.

Comments
I understand that a "The Legend of Zelda (franchise)" article would detail convergent points in the developments of both it and the Mario franchise, but what distinction would there be between a "Related franchises" page, as delineated by the proposal, and the current List of Mario references in Nintendo video games? I don't recall there being as much overlap in the development histories of Mario and other franchises as much as there is between Mario and Zelda (both have largely been the responsibility of a few internal divisions), and outward, fictional references (e.g. DK barrels appear in whatever Kirby game) are already covered by the aforementioned list. 14:22, April 14, 2022 (EDT)
 * Very good point. The way I imagined it is like, with Legend of Zelda, the cameos are specifically listed on List of Mario references in Nintendo video games, the guest appearances moved to the Zelda franchise article, and being added directly beneath the The Legend of Zelda series section on that references page. The distinction would be "what makes a cameo and what makes a guest appearance," so if Mario only ever cameoed in a game or its series, it would not count as "Related series/franchise." Results May Vary (talk) 14:32, April 14, 2022 (EDT)
 * To Somethingone, I know we don't need article for everything with slight nod to Mario (makes me think of Generic subjects as well), but I was noting how The Legend of Zelda series has GUEST APPEARANCES of Mario enemies within their games (not to be confused with CAMEOS), and doing a series approach rather than individual games (for time being) could concentrate/organize the information better. Related series in NO WAY implies that Zelda is a part of Mario -- it just highlights the Mario-related aspects, primarily the guest appearances, whereas cameos,while also mentioned, are an added bonus (as the References page is for that). Results May Vary (talk) 14:39, April 14, 2022 (EDT)
 * And that's also an issue. Who's to say that Mario-franchise enemies and characters have never and will never appear in other series? Going back to my vote and under this proposal's reasoning, Wario makes a Guest Appearance in DnS and has an impact to the gameplay, so why not make an article about its entire series? Rhythm Heaven shares many characters with Warioware (like how Young Cricket is the star of one of its games), so why not make a page for that entire series? The Sonic franchise has its own spinoff shared with Mario, and has a much more eventful history with Mario than Zelda, so wny not make a page for the Sonic series? What about the franchises that made Guest Appearances in Mario Kart 8, or all the Mario elements added recently to Animal Crossing? These things can go on and on forever, and I feel like pushing our coverage specifically for Zelda would not only stretch our coverage, but be inconsistent with every other series that have had/made guest appearances from/with the mario franchise. Somethingone (talk) 14:55, April 14, 2022 (EDT)
 * I get your concern. As for Guest appearances of like Animal Crossing in Mario Kart 8, that could be noted on the Animal Crossing series category, as there's nowhere near as much history between guest/cameo appearances within Mario. Also, Mario and Sonic, yes they were rivals, and Olympic Games aside, there's little direct connection between Mario and Sonic, especially within the other games (also consider Nintendo and Sega are diff companies). The Mario vs Sonic in the 90s was a sub-war of the main console wars of that era as well. Also, Densetsu no Starfy 3, while did have Wario as guest appearance, I think the rest had just cameos. Results May Vary (talk) 15:02, April 14, 2022 (EDT)
 * Here's the problem with those examples you listed: all of those guest/crossover appearances are pretty much basic 1:1 representations of how they appear in their original series/games; Zelda appearances, on the other hand, tend to "Zelda-ify" the Mario enemies and make them their own interpretation (some of them, like Fire Bars and Lava Bubbles, go under alternate names, even in Japanese). Link's Awakening might have one of the most Nintendo IP references, but it's far from the only game to do this; it doesn't even have things like Podoboo Tower or Head Thwomp, which evolve the distinctly Mario-derived concepts further. The Switch remake does, however, mostly preserve the original Zelda-twisted nuances inherent in their designs, i.e. it does not "modernize" them like in, for instance, the Mario & Luigi remakes. In my assessment, this is not comparable. LinkTheLefty (talk) 15:59, April 14, 2022 (EDT)

Side note, I also seem to recall that one of the early games (I'm thinking The Legend of Zelda or The Adventure of Link) was tentatively pitched as "Mario Adventure" (not the "Death Mountain" working title), but I can't seem to find that info at the moment. If true, that must've been very early on in development, when Shigeru Miyamoto wanted Mario to be his signature "Mr. Video Game" character and before the themes got finalized. LinkTheLefty (talk) 14:47, April 14, 2022 (EDT)
 * And Miyamoto also pitched Splatoon as a Mario game at one point, doesn't mean we make a Splatoon series page. Somethingone (talk) 15:15, April 14, 2022 (EDT)
 * This wasn't the main basis of the argument -- it was just a sidenote that he gave (to all the other points that I made within the proposal above). Results May Vary (talk) 15:21, April 14, 2022 (EDT)
 * And I'm allowed to refute their side note just like a normal argument point. Somethingone (talk) 15:30, April 14, 2022 (EDT)
 * Sure, but I did stress that it's according to memory. It comes across like you have an axe to grind here. LinkTheLefty (talk) 15:59, April 14, 2022 (EDT)

Opposers - By all means, please elucidate why a series article is out of the question but Link's Awakening below apparently is not. LinkTheLefty (talk) 06:25, April 15, 2022 (EDT)
 * Link's Awakening in particular has a lot of specific references to Mario for it to count on the same level as, say, Captain Rainbow, but I don't think some cross-promotions and shared developers are enough to extend that to the whole series. By this logic we could also have an article on the Punch-Out!! series because of Mario as the referee and Donkey Kong as an opponent, but instead we only cover the Wii game because it's the most relevant to Mario. 06:35, April 15, 2022 (EDT)
 * Again, though, Zelda has had recurring Mario elements for such a long time that it's practically to be expected, especially the 2D games. Link's Awakening is notable, sure, but it also has more references to other Nintendo properties than other games in the series on top of that, including Kirby's Dream Land, The Frog For Whom the Bell Tolls, and even the SNES version of SimCity. If anything, that's the game with the so-called cross-promotions (though I wouldn't really call it that outside of maybe the side-scrolling sections trying to be reminiscent of Super Mario Bros.). That's why I don't particularly agree with a specific game being covered, but would instead prefer a generalized solution (which would include said game). Further, I don't buy the presented earlier for the reasons I explained. LinkTheLefty (talk) 07:09, April 15, 2022 (EDT)

Ignoring that I think "follow-up/fallback" proposals shouldn't run concurrently with whatever they're related to, I think the focus of this proposal is misplaced. Unless it was already done in the past, it should be on deciding where the series fits as outlined in the coverage policy. That would not only make future action clearer, but it would also alleviate concerns about where the line is drawn. 12:43, April 15, 2022 (EDT)

Just also going to note that I'm tired of seeing The Legend of Zelda within the source text mainly because of the uppercase identifier (ZW does uppercase for section header & identifier), so another perk of this passing would be that there could some less of that. Results May Vary (talk) 15:48, April 15, 2022 (EDT)

Another thing is that, Link's Awakening aside, the Zelda games (specifically some of the earlier 2D ones) are not "references" with their inclusion of Mario enemies, so if if a series page isn't going to be made, would individual articles be made then (if List of Mario references in Nintendo video games were to cover ONLY cameos)? Would seem redundant, or would there be a smaller-scale article? Not sure. Results May Vary (talk) 18:23, April 15, 2022 (EDT)

Create a Smash Bros. DOJO!! images category and/or an Official screenshots category
So something that I've been trying on the SSB Wiki is a category of the official Smash Bros. DOJO!! images (as well as their higher quality press variants), which is categorized within an Official screenshots category. Smash Bros. DOJO!! was a notable official website where people would get official information and updates on SSB Brawl before and some a bit after its time of release. This proposal is not asking to extend the SSB coverage, but there's a large number of screenshots on the website that feature Mario characters and stages, including ones of them using items (such as the Cracker Launcher). Even if it's not SSB Brawl, it would be useful to keep a record of all the official screenshots from either press kits or from Nintendo directly and then include them on this website (even if some may inevitably be JPG files).

Even if there were subsequent proposals to further simplify/trim SSB content (hence the reason why I made the wiki), we could at least emphasize the Mario-related content within the SSB series (for instance, in the Adventure section of the SSB Melee article, I noted yesterday how the first two stages represent the Mario and Donkey Kong franchises respectively and that the final boss, Giant Bowser, is from Mario and even its exclusive form, Giga Bowser, being exclusive to the SSB games), and the Smash Bros. DOJO!! images category would keep a record of all the Mario-related images on the SSB DOJO!!. There have been times when there have been different screenshots between the different languages of Smash Bros. DOJO!! (such as the Home-Run Contest; although the screenshot features Lucas and Pikachu, neither from Mario, it shows how the American English screenshot uses the imperial system whereas the British English screenshot uses the metric system [ft and meters respectively]).

There might be more that I'm missing, but I think these are at least the basic points, and more can be noted within the comments. Keep in mind I did note how even if there were proposals to further simplify the SSB coverage (which I would oppose personally) the Smash Bros. DOJO!! images category would at least keep a record of the multitude of Mario-related images posted on that website (including the higher quality press variations). In fact, it could even be used as a point for others to simplify SSB coverage (which, again, I'd oppose) to point out the Smash Bros. DOJO!! images with Mario-related elements within them.

On a side note, SSB Melee's Japanese website was called Smabura-Ken, which is Japanese for Smash Bros. DOJO!!, so if we are to make an image category from that as well (this can be decided after the proposal), would it be called [https://smashbroswiki.com/wiki/Category:Sumabura_ken!!_images Sumabura ken!! images]?

Proposer: Deadline: April 22, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Create both

 * 1) Per reasons stated above.
 * 2) Per proposal.

Create only the Smash Bros. DOJO!! images category

 * 1) Though only relevant to one game, it bore somewhat more of a reputation compared to the average promotional website, in no small part due to it hosting Sakurai's update feed. Therefore, making a category for images that specifically originate from it conforms to a previous, passed proposal. I'm not sure about making an "Official screenshots" category, however, largely because it would entail the huge undertaking of going over each screenshot, hunting down some press kit and whatnot that it's sourced from, and dropping it into the category accordingly. It's not a bad idea--I believe that it wouldn't conflict with the fair use screenshot categories--but I reckon the process should have already been in place long ago to make it viable.
 * 2) Per Koopa con Carne.
 * 3) Per Koopa con Carne.
 * 4) Per K the C.
 * 5) Per Koopa con Carne.

Create an article for Classic Mode
I am proposing the creation of Classic Mode, the main mode of the Super Smash Bros. series in each of its installments. Generally, I've noticed with Super Smash Bros.-related modes that if they only appear in one game, they're covered on the page itself, which is understandable (although a separate talk page proposal of mine gives reasons for recreating Adventure Mode: The Subspace Emissary, exclusive to Super Smash Bros. Brawl). There are articles for some modes, such as Break the Targets and Home-Run Contest, which are featured in several Super Smash Bros. games. Home-Run Contest is no different for each fighter, including Mario ones, whereas Classic Mode has differences per fighters, or even a set path, in most of the Super Smash Bros. installments. I'll make a paragraph for each Super Smash Bros. game, highlighting their Mario-related content in Classic Mode (including differences for fighters).

In Super Smash Bros., the mode is named 1P Game. It features three minigames, Break the Targets, Board the Platforms, and Race to the Finish!, with the former two having a different layout for each fighter. Metal Mario is a unique fighter in this mode, as Metal Boxes would only debut in the second game, and is even given his own stage to fight on. The stages are always accessed in a consistent order, with the Mario franchise-related battles being the Yoshi Team (stage 2), Mario Bros. (stage 4), Giant Donkey Kong (stage 6) and, as aforementioned, Metal Mario (stage 9), so four of the battles take place against Mario fighters, with one of them specifically featuring Metal Mario and a unique stage for him (Meta Crystal).

In Super Smash Bros. Melee, the mode is named Classic, and while the characters and stages are now randomized, the set up remains the same (like how Master Hand is fought at the end or that Snag the Trophies is the sixth stage). The opponent fighters are always fought on a specific stage representing their franchise (e.g. Mario is fought at either Princess Peach's Castle or on Rainbow Cruise & Luigi is always fought in one of the Mushroom Kingdom stages). A majority of the Giant battles have more than 50% chance of fighting a Mario character (Mario, Yoshi, Dr. Mario, Luigi, Donkey Kong, and Bowser), and they make up 6 of the 10 possible opponents (the others being Jigglypuff, Captain Falcon, Link, and Young Link). There is a Metal battle, and the scripted fight with Metal Mario has been moved into Adventure mode (something that can be noted on Classic Mode article if it's created). A few of the unlock rewards are Mario-related (like the DK Jr trophy or Dr. Mario) and, of course, the fighter-specific trophy won from completing the mode. The congratulations message at the end is different for each fighter as well (and Adventure even has their own congratulations message for each of the fighters).

In Super Smash Bros. Brawl, Classic Mode's layout is randomized per franchise (e.g. a Yoshi or a DK battle always occurs on stage 2). Just like in Super Smash Bros. Melee, there are a few Mario-related unlock rewards (aside from the character-specific trophies), such as the Paper Mario trophy or Luigi in an unlock match if no continues have been used. As usual, with Mario having several series and a few related franchises, the Yoshi, Wario, and Donkey Kong franchises are also part of the randomization (Wario is randomly selected in Stage 10 between either it, Metal Gear, or Sonic however).

In Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS, Classic mode has paths, many of them being marked by a random franchise symbol, giving more control as to which path to take. For instance, if one were to take the path with the DK symbol, the opponent and stage from that franchise is selected. In Super Smash Bros. for Wii U, Classic is set up like a tournament, and while the game randomly selects the fighters, one can see whom they can fight before starting the battle (and a faint preview of the stage where the battle occurs is shown beneath them). Also take note how the opponent and stage are not always from the same series, even in single-opponent battles (e.g. there's a possibility of fighting Mario on a The Legend of Zelda stage).

In Super Smash Bros. Ultimate, every fighter has their own predetermined path in Classic Mode and even their own titles (e.g. Donkey Kong's Classic Mode path is "Journey to New Donk City"). A majority of the fighters fight Master Hand at the end. In the case of Mario and Captain Falcon, the final boss is Giga Bowser.

So yeah, as demonstrated above, Classic Mode is different between each of its appearances, and when I listed the differences and instances of when the game randomizes things, I used Mario-related elements as an example. Let me know if I've missed anything Mario-related in this proposal.

Proposer: Deadline: April 23, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per reasons stated above.

Oppose

 * 1) Classic Mode is so wildly different between games that I just think it's covered better on the individual game pages. Also, the amount of Mario content doesn't really matter, given that there are recurring modes in Mario games we don't split such as Time Trial.
 * 2) Per Hewer
 * 3) Per Hewer. It's rare for game modes to warrant separate articles as is, so a game mode from Smash is even harder to justify an article for.
 * 4) I'm leaning towards Hewer on this one.
 * 5) Per all, plus, given we're trying to limit Smash content on the wiki a bit, this seems like a step in the wrong direction.
 * 6) Per all, since directly Mario-related modes often do not even get articles, and I also prefer to limit Smash content rather than expand it.
 * 7) Per all.

Comments
Keep in mind that Funky Fishing is very different between Donkey Kong Country's Game Boy Color and Game Boy Advance releases yet they share an article, although one could make the case that it's for a Mario-related game. Results May Vary (talk) 15:32, April 16, 2022 (EDT)
 * To be fair, I think Funky Fishing (GBC) / Funky's Fishing (GBA) is a prime candidate for a split following the expected pass of the Donkey Kong Country remakes proposal, and it's a minigame instead of a main game mode. LinkTheLefty (talk) 15:54, April 16, 2022 (EDT)

Also, if the information cannot be presented in Classic Mode article, does it get presented on the SSB series article (assuming this proposal fails)? Results May Vary (talk) 15:44, April 16, 2022 (EDT)
 * It would be presented on each of the individual game articles, considering how different Classic Mode is between games. 15:53, April 16, 2022 (EDT)

Time Trial is listed as an example of a mode that doesn't have its own page, but Battle Mode does appear to be split (it has seen also one drastic variation being the Mario Kart 8 one, but you can argue Battle Mode, at least Balloon Battle, doesn't differ as drastically as Classic Mode); Super Duel Mode also has its own page but I do agree that it has enough content and would weigh down Mario Party 5 more than Classic Mode in those respective pages. As BBQ Turtle said, I'd still not really support this proposal on grounds that it's a creep on Super Smash Bros. and I just don't think Classic Mode is quite notable enough for a MarioWiki article. 20:45, April 16, 2022 (EDT)

Remove Zelda Wiki as an interwiki link
Before I continue, please note that I am not trying to insult anyone or ask to unlink from Zelda Wiki's articles entirely. I'm just proposing to remove  as an interwiki link, and am curious to hear what the others think of this idea. If the consensus is oppose, like my proposal on allowing link to Fandom wikis, then at least we know, and it could perhaps set a precedent (like my aforementioned proposal set the precedent of a case-by-case basis for possible follow-up proposals).

While it is true that many of us here do not like Zelda Wiki, I feel that, regardless of opinion, it is redundant to have a specific interwiki link for ZW, primarily because Wikia/Fandom itself has an interwiki link, and their specific wikis can be linked to from the Wikia template. Zelda Wiki has been on Fandom for three years ever since the Gamepedia acquisition, and are just as much owned by them as the other wikis on Fandom. The only difference is that Zelda Wiki is in NIWA (they pass themselves off as independent when all of us know that's not true), and NIWA itself originated from Zelda Wiki if you look into the history.

However, at the same time I have a few reserves about them being removed as an interwiki link. My main reserve is over the NIWA template, which would need to be edited to have ZW specifically change to Fandom. Another thing is that Mario Wiki is a part of NIWA (might not be on the best of terms at this point), and there are editors here who edit on other wikis, especially WiKirby and Nookipedia, so having Zelda Wiki as an interwiki link would be a way to acknowledge that it is still a member (and the original founding member) of NIWA.

What would be an ideal way to acknowledge that Zelda Wiki is a part of NIWA, which Mario Wiki is in, but that Zelda Wiki is no more "independent" than other wikis on Fandom itself? If this proposal does not pass, I still wonder how we can address such a distinction. Also, like I said, Zelda Wiki has been owned by Fandom for a few years.

Proposer: (banned) Deadline: April 28, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) If we have to start somewhere, let's call a spade a spade.
 * 2) I agree. I really don't care if it's "a lot of work", because if that mattered we'd be over-turning every unfinished proposal for being "a lot of work".
 * 3) I would refrain from voting as my obvious bias in the situation could cause conflict-of-interest, but using  for what is now a wikia subsidiary only makes sense.

Oppose

 * 1) I really don't see any benefit to this. The whole thing is a lot of work for what will be visually and functionally be the same, and seems more like it's just trying to make a statement than anything. Similarly, you could argue that we don't need Wikipedia interlinks because of Template:Wp (or vice-versa), but the amount of effort involved in swapping things out is very high compared to the benefit which is practically zero. Also, what if ZeldaWiki ends up moving off of Wikia in the future? Unlikely, admittedly, but then we'd have to go back and reverse all the changes instead of an easy swap of just changing the destination of all ZeldaWiki links.
 * 2) Per Waluigi Time, doing this wouldn't really result in anything.
 * 3) This is generally more of a NIWA responsibility than MarioWiki, so I think this proposal falls out of scope. I do not think it'll be a lot of work as claimed, however, as I believe a bot or something similar can take care of any repetitive tasks like this. As for the possibility of readding links, it'll help if we could instead redirect links, but this requires finding a new Wiki for the Legend of Zelda to associate anyway, which this proposal doesn't concern with.
 * 4) Per Waluigi Time and Bazooka Mario. I agree that the argument it would be a lot of work is fairly weak due to access to bots, but I still feel that it is unnecessary work that is more symbolic than actually having real benefit to the wiki.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) This removal is disruptive, not only on MarioWiki, but also for the rest of the NIWA, whom hasn't even started on any proposal regarding Zelda Wiki within NIWA. It would mean one wiki doesn't link to a particular wiki member while it is still a member of that alliance.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Per Waluigi Time and Bazooka Mario. This proposal seems to me out of scope and more a statement than anything else.
 * 9) - Per all

Comments
I did try to make this proposal not look like a statement, although it might have inevitably creeped its way in. Part of why I did the proposal is to see others' thoughts on this idea. Results May Vary (talk) 15:06, April 21, 2022 (EDT)

Admittedly (talking to Bazooka), I wanted to make a proposal to replace all the ZW interwiki links with Zelda Dungeon Wiki interwiki links, although ZW is a better wiki name as the latter attaches their fansite name. If anything I hoped ZD Wiki would inherit the Zeldapedia name at this point. Results May Vary (talk) 07:45, April 22, 2022 (EDT)

@Somethingone: The issue isn't that it's a lot of work in and of itself, (and that may not even be the case, I may have overestimated the situation and/or underestimated bot capabilities here) the issue is that there's essentially nothing to gain from doing this. More importantly it could actively make things more difficult in the long run if the ZeldaWiki situation ever changes. -- 16:24, April 22, 2022 (EDT)

@PanchamBro: The proposal is not disruptive to the Mario Wiki as I did ask an administrator for permission to create this proposal. There are those who support this and then those who oppose it. Results May Vary (talk) 16:53, April 22, 2022 (EDT)

I was not going to comment further on this proposal, but as the proposer obviously cannot, I feel like someone has to. First, let me give a very brief recap on the history of the Zelda Wiki situation just to make sure that we are all aware of its position over time. On April 24, 2005, Zelda Wiki opened. On February 14, 2010, the Nintendo Independent Wiki Alliance (NIWA) was jointly launched by Bulbapedia, Zelda Wiki, and the Super Mario Wiki, with the express mission statement to support wikis independent of large corporate wiki groups (Wikia named chief among them, but mention of them or corporate wikis is now deleted). On March 8, 2017, Zelda Wiki moved to Gamepedia, a large corporate wiki group then-owned by Amazon/Twitch. On December 12, 2018, 's media assets, including Gamepedia, were acquired by (formerly Wikia, Inc.), meaning that Zelda Wiki would become part of the very structure that NIWA openly defied. On June 15, 2019, Zeldapedia made the historic motion to merge its community/wiki with its longtime rival, Zelda Wiki, freezing Zeldapedia as an archive site. As of April 2022, this is where things stand (I could go on, but those events are open secrets and proposal-relevant). For disclosure, this is not a pro-ZD/TW proposal; to be clear, from my understanding, this proposal is not about removing Zelda Wiki's status or even all that significant, but rather an extremely minimal, simple acknowledgement among editors of the reality that things have changed for a while and are poised to stay that way. Frankly, the word I would use to sum up the opposing arguments is, to be blunt, hollow. I will paraphrase the sentiments raised so far and try to explain why each of them so far has rung hollow to me. "It's a lot of work." Not really. Even if it was, not only do you have bot assistance (as mentioned later), but that has literally never stopped us before. We would never get anything done with that excuse, much less something that should be as superficially under-the-hood as this, nor would we have half the wiki we do today, if that. "This is more of a symbolic gesture that won't change much." So? I admit that the action that the proposal is asking for is a remarkably small one that should not change the outward presentation to readers at the moment, but it would be a tiny step in that direction should bigger measures be taken in the future. A late baby step is better than actual years of doing nothing about it. "We'd need a new wiki to fill the  void." Since when was that necessary? It is not as though we lack alternatives that could be used in place one day. That could reasonably be a concern for a future, more in-depth proposal, rather than something that is required to be immediately decided on the spot, if needed. "NIWA should make this proposal, and if ZW leaves Wikia, we'd have to reverse course." I must say this is plain wishful thinking. Discussions on ZW's NIWA status and the integrity of its continued membership have existed since the Gamepedia move, and have noticeably stonewalled in public. If ZW is perfectly content where they are with no signs of changing or fixing themselves for us, it is well within the capability of the Super Mario Wiki, which might I add is also a co-founding NIWA member, to set an example by giving a little push to get the ball rolling if it should so choose. Let me conclude by stating that I have little reason to put my hope in projects that have compromised their own principles. I do, however, believe in the Super Mario Wiki community. I urge the opposition to rethink their stance, or at least, by all means, please start to think about putting other ideas out there towards addressing what is now a half-decade elephant-in-the-room. Thank you for your consideration. LinkTheLefty (talk) 19:00, April 28, 2022 (EDT)
 * Effort aside (again, the argument seems to be misunderstood, but I concede that it's not very relevant), I just don't see how this is supposed to provide any benefit other than sending a message to Zelda Wiki/the rest of NIWA. Nothing changes beyond code being replaced with other code that does the exact same thing. If anything, it'll actively hinder us down the line if we need to change things, whether that's Zelda Wiki moving back off of Wikia (more realistically being forked off, a wiki is never really able to leave Wikia, unfortunately) or being replaced entirely with another independent wiki. You say it's unlikely, and it probably is - but it's still a possibility and we have to be practical. Even as a small step towards NIWA doing anything about Zelda Wiki, I really don't think this is it. Are they really going to care whether our code is a direct link or a Wikia template, moreso than any arguments that may have been made about it? Doubtful. I don't care for the Zelda Wiki situation either, but this just seems pointless. -- 19:25, April 28, 2022 (EDT)

Split Mario Kart Tour character variants or merge kart/glider variants: Take 2
Okay, so I'm gonna try re-visiting this again. Having discussed it a bit more with others and going over things in my head, I would like to try this idea again. I would like to start with Mario Kart Tour content simply because it is a more glaring inconsistency between having the character alternates merged with their normal selves while kart and glider variants get their own articles, despite all three sharing the same differences. If we deal with this first, perhaps that could open options to other topics with similar situations to Tour. So I would like to represent the similar options along with a few additional options:
 * Splitting character variants: This would give character alternates their own articles, making them consistent with kart and glider variants. However, this does boarder on a more convoluted topic regarding characters with palette swaps (mainly Yoshis, Shy Guys and the Roving Racers) and is a much bigger topic overall that probably requires even more discussion. So I likely wouldn't recommend this option.
 * Merging kart/glider variants to their base articles: We would merge kart/glider variants to their base articles, covering them in a similar way to how we cover character variants, making the karts and gliders more consistent with characters, as well as how we handle other palette swaps, as karts such as the Blue Biddybuggy, Sky-Blue B Dasher Mk. 2 and Green Cheep Charger all share the same special skill as their parent karts, but are just different colors. However, doing this would also mean we'd likely have to consider similar approaches to several karts in Mario Kart: Double Dash!! and Mario Kart DS.
 * Merging character/kart/glider variants into lists: This one is similar to the above option, but rather than merging them to their base karts/gliders, we'd merge karts and gliders and split character variants into lists based on what they're variants of. Consider this a similar idea to how we list off track appearances across tours; listing each variant of a topic (example: List of Mario variants in Mario Kart Tour or List of B Dasher variants in Mario Kart Tour etc). This would provide information in a similar way to how the individual articles cover these topics while also cutting down on how many individual articles we have for reskinned karts and slightly reducing the Mario Kart Tour sections for characters with a lot of alts (such as Mario and Peach). However, the one thing I noticed about this and that would be topics with only one or two alternates so this one might require more discussion too.
 * Splitting character variants into lists: As per what said, some of the karts/gliders feel different enough to have their own articles. After a bit of thinking, I can see that, but it can also relate to how tricky it is to really pinpoint the "original variant" for karts/gliders introduced in Tour. So this new option would be similar to the above option, but only apply to the characters, who are much easier to pinpoint than karts/gliders. While it still leaves a bit of an inconsistency, it at least helps de-clutter the articles of the original characters and still gives these variants a similar way of coverage to that of the karts and gliders.
 * Do nothing: We don't do anything and I hit the drawing board again to see if I can find other options or iron out the problems in the above ideas.

All this considered, I still feel we can cover Tour's variants in a more consistent way. I'm open to further suggestions or opinions, but for now, these are my ideas and possible solutions.

Proposer: Deadline: May 4, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Merge kart/glider variants and split character variants into list articles

 * 1) Primary option. I feel this could work if we made it similar to our "List of Track tour appearances", but gear them towards the information for each variant of a topic.

Split character variants into list articles

 * 1) I feel like the karts and gliders are different enough to be their own articles. They also have different sizes which are never noted in-game, which makes the hitboxes bigger. Minor detail, but I think this is still important. The main problem I have with this proposal are the merges. The Pumpkin Kart is a variant of the Apple Kart, but it doesn't share that many similarities. Some of the variants aren't just palette swaps, they're items with different designs which bears some resemblance to the original. I think the current way of handling these is okay and won't cause too many issues. You could also argue what is a variant of what if they are in lists. The list also features a lot of sections, and pages like these can become really long (B Dasher MK.2, the Hanufadas, etc.). I'm ok with splitting the character variants into lists though.
 * 2) I can agree to what WildWario's saying and I feel it's a good start at the very least.
 * 3) Per WildWario
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) This is the most efficient and effective option in my opinion, bar none.

Do nothing

 * 1) -- I agree with  insofar as the karts and gliders should be allotted articles individually, because it's tricky to make a concrete differentiation between variants or construe one kart as the "base" kart without looking into the game's files. I'm also opposing the creation of list-type pages for driver variants, on the one hand because there isn't any valuable information they could register beyond what the base driver's article and "Profiles and statistics" rubric already do, and on the other because they would be quite barren to begin with--picture a page that only lists Baby Rosalina and Baby Rosalina (Detective) in its entirety. Perhaps some Mario Kart Tour sections, "Mario"'s especially, could benefit from enumerating driver variants in a bulleted list rather than prose format, but I otherwise think the current arrangement works more than fine and any more additions would lead to cluttering the wiki's main space for no reason.
 * 2) Per Koopa con Carne, the current setup works fine in spite of any inconsistencies.
 * 3) Per Koopa con Carne.

Comments
The recolored karts in Double Dash!! and DS shouldn't be anything to worry about, as all such karts have different stats from their base karts. ShootingStar7X (talk) 16:15, April 27, 2022 (EDT)
 * That is primarily what I think too, but it was brought up in the past so I thought it was worth mentioning, mainly because Tour doesn't follow the same stat rules that traditional MK titles do, but they still feature differences between karts through skills, rarity and favorite/favored courses, which are kinda like Tour's equivalent to "stat differences". If it poses no issue in the future, then it's nothing to worry about, but I brought it up just in case it could be a factor.

While I agree with the need to be consistent with the Characters, Karts and Gliders, but regarding the Karts and Gliders that are brand new to Tour, it becomes hard to pinpoint which of the articles need to be merged with which ones. For instance, this wiki regards Butterfly Wings as a variant of Butterfly Sunset purely because Butterfly Sunset was released first, yet the name Butterfly Wings sounds more like that's actually the original Glider while the name Butterfly Sunset sounds like a variant of the Butterfly Wings (we know that variants can appear before the original: Dasher II came out way before Cucumber, for instance). Additionally, does the Dozer Dasher count as a bulldozer-attachment variant of the Firefly (which in turn is a yellow variant of Dragonfly), or is it its own thing? Arend (talk) 16:53, April 27, 2022 (EDT)
 * I did talk about this on Discord and while it's hard to "officially" pinpoint some of the karts and gliders introduced in Tour, I feel the steps are to look at theming. Yes, the Dasher II came out before the Cucumber, but the Cucumber is an established kart from before Tour so I feel that's easy to explain. As for the Butterfly Wings, well sure it was introduced second, but it represents the most basic theme of the idea: butterfly wings. The Butterfly Sunset feels like a sunset themed version of the Butterfly Wings. The way I see it, we can either deduce by basic theming, though that would boarder on speculation and can't really help if a themed variant debuts before any knowledge of a "base" version or we can treat the first debuting variant as the base, even if some cases (i.e. the Butterfly Wings or the Sushi Racer) feel obvious on which is the base. As for the Dozer Dasher versus the Dragonfly, I personally don't think the Dozer Dasher is a variant of the Dragonfly. It has a similar design, sure, but a distinct difference in what it's based on. Looking at almost every kart variant there is, the only differences rest in their color scheme or their wheels. Despite the similarities, the Dozer Dasher has a more distinct visual difference from the Dragonfly in the fact that it's based on a bulldozer rather than a tractor and has a scoop on the front instead of a plow on the back. That being said, I don't believe the Dozer Dasher is intended to be a variant of the Dragonfly, more or less being it's own thing with the Dragonfly's design in mind. But if that boarders on speculation, then I can reason with treating it as a variant of the Dragonfly.

What would an example of an entry in a list article be? 19:12, April 27, 2022 (EDT)
 * I can definitely make one to give an idea of what I’m thinking of. I’m kind of thinking of using what the articles currently have and making them more of sections rather than full on articles.
 * @Bazooka Mario: Here's an example of what I had planned for list articles. It basically does merge all the information present on the articles themselves, which I think could help avoid large paragraphs on the main pages.
 * I see, and yeah this does seem very feasible. Though I didn't expect it to look the way it is. I was kind of expecting more like a compact, but useful enemy table from the bestiary pages. 21:13, April 28, 2022 (EDT)
 * A thought of mine did gear towards some sort of template akin to the bestiaries, I think that would work even better. I'm just wondering how to go about that. Maybe I could try exploring with that, but I still gotta learn more about how to make those kinds of templates (haven't really had to make one yet so I gotta figure all that out). 22:37, April 28, 2022 (EDT)

There's obviously a certain risk when covering a mobile game, especially now with recolor variants popping up, and on a wiki that cover everything and anything Mario. You want to cover any nook and cranny (no pun intended) as possible, but at the same time containing information so that it doesn't overflow. I haven't yet decided, but merging the kart and glider variants has me conflicted. If we merge those variants together, the page will become so long that if Mario Kart Tour continues on for a another couple years editing these pages could be a nightmare, especially to mobile editors that have to add this information in.

And that's the risk of covering a mobile game: they throw literally everyone at you and you have to cover whatever they throw, resulting in large content of bloat. The navbox for Mario Kart Tour perfectly demonstrates this problem; so much of the navbox content is filled with vehicle parts, courses, and drivers, not to mention the large chunk dedicated for "Notable landmarks and areas".

I believe in the long-term we should consider splitting content as to be easier for the editors to distribute information and for the reader to gain a perfect understanding of that content. It's also very important that we balance what information we want on these kart/glider pages, so that it may not become too overbloated. I could also suggest using the Cargo extension for MarioWiki, though I feel like using the extension may become a headache for editors that had not gained experience with using Cargo (like I did with Nookipedia). 21:08, April 28, 2022 (EDT)
 * The thing is, keeping all the variants merged does look cluttered. Like look Mario's article for example. The man has over 20 variants, more if you really want to include Metal Mario, Ice Mario and Builder Mario. That entire paragraph listing his variants looks kinda cluttered from my point of view. But at the same time, splitting them could open a few other potholes in the form of other palette swaps in other games. Something that was noted in my first attempt is that some of the variants are palette swaps, Yoshis and Shy Guys, and the question was why should we just split off the Tour variants? Cause especially in the case of the Yoshis, who have had several appearances, many of which with notable differences as an individual playable character, it would look weird to have a Red Yoshi page, but not include any of the other times that a Red Yoshi appeared distinct from Yoshi himself, as well as the overall debate over whether or not they should be split or merged. I do strongly think that list articles, while they do have a lot of sections, are still more organized than how the character pages cover them and would still cover them in a similar way to how the currently split articles do. 22:37, April 28, 2022 (EDT)
 * My comment was in regards to the karts/gliders being merged. It had nothing to do with characters, which I agree that splitting may work in their favor. My original comment was concerned over how this may go in the long-run, since mobile games only end when the developers or publishers tell it to end. With Mario Kart Tour the third-highest grossing mobile game by Nintendo only behind Animal Crossing: Pocket Camp and Fire Emblem Heroes, I feel like this game may last possibly into 2024, its five year anniversary. But from there, how will these list pages for variants be with all the new content being added? Because while your idea here looks great on paper, what will this look like long-term? My major concerns are long TOCs that are the result of the number of variants for each Kart/Glider, how mobile editing will go following the merger, and if the merger will have any impact on the page loading times in part thanks to the number of images having to be rendered. That's what I'm conflicted on, if Karts/Glider variants should even be merged with their original other in the first place. 23:46, April 28, 2022 (EDT)
 * It's true that the game is constantly updating and adding new things and it's inevitable that any lists regarding individual content in this game are going to be long. But from the way I see it, these variant lists will likely be little to no different than how we handle the List of "Track name" Tour appearances. As of currently, DS Waluigi Pinball has 28 appearances across MKT's life, the most out of any track and that number is only going to get bigger too. Kart/glider lists could get that long too, but that's kinda what the comparison is; almost any list for individual topics in MKT will likely end up being long. Thinking about it, if we do end up making list of character variants, Mario's own list is going to be massive too. But I feel that, regardless, it's still a better step forward in finding better and more consistent ways of covering this content. Now I don't use mobile all that much for this site, so I can't really say much for loading times for images, but if I may ask, how would this be any different than the track appearances across each tour?

@WildWario: Would I be able to add that option now? I forget if I'm allowed to alter a proposal after making it or not or if I have a set amount of time where I can do so. Because to some degree, I'd like to do something about how character variants don't get articles, but kart and glider variants do, as that's the main inconsistency I'd like to deal with. I personally still believe that most of the kart/glider variants are still just palette swaps. I haven't noticed a size difference between variants unless it's being used by characters with a clear size difference (like Toad to Bowser or something like that, as their frame size does change based on character). 22:37, April 28, 2022 (EDT)


 * I think you can do that during the first three days of the proposal. About the kart sizes, some of the variants have different sizes. I'll upload an image to your talk page later.  22:49, April 28, 2022 (EDT)
 * That would be much appreciated. An example would help. And thanks for the suggestions too, I appreciate it.

@Koopa con Carne: Okay, if we decide to do nothing, I have a suggestion for that too. Perhaps we can list off the variants in a similar way to how we do the Mii Racing Suits? Images along with their special items (and perhaps their Tour debut). I feel that could be reasonable for cutting down on the otherwise bloated paragraphs. 16:50, April 29, 2022 (EDT)
 * Provided this is the proposal's outcome, I personally think it would work that way. This is just my opinion, though--I sense other users may prefer other set-ups, so another proposal may need to be motioned on particular ways to itemise these variants on the same article as their base subjects. (Again, only in the "Do Nothing" scenario.) 17:22, April 29, 2022 (EDT)

Add an Internal Name syntax to Template:Foreign names
This has been on the back of my mind for a while, but now I have time to bring it up. Our current practice regarding internal names is to put it in the Japanese section of the Foreign names template if a page has a NIOL section, effectively treating all internal names as Japanese ones. But the thing is, internal names aren't always Japanese. Usually, an internal name that isn't just numbers and unreadable utilitaristic code falls into one of these three categories:

A. It's a romanization of a Japanese word. For example, Ustubo is a romanization of ウツボ (eel).

B. It's an English word. For example, Crawler is an English word meaning "thing that crawls".

C. It's a mix of A and B. For example, Slave Basa is derived from the English word "slave" and the romanization of バサバサ (fluttering sound).

There can be instances where a language other than English or Japanese is used for internal names, but I can't think of an instance where that has happened in something under this Wiki's scope.

Of course, Japanese names can be English loanwords converted to Japanese kanji, which has happened before (like with many Donkey Kong enemies), but it feels wrong/is just speculation to say that all fully-English-derived internal names are meant to be romanizations of a loanword-written-in-kanji equivalent, especially when the localized names of enemies have been used as internal names before.

As for the syntax, I was thinking to just use |Int= and |IntM= for consistency's and simplicity's sake.

EDIT: SmokedChili suggested another way, by putting Internal Names in a separate table instead of grouping them with the NIOL template. I will be adding this idea.

Proposer: Deadline: May 14, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Add the syntax

 * 1) Per Proposal. Also, the three categories I made are just generalizations, we also have more weird blend cases like with Raidon, which is a case of Japanese words being used for an English-derived pun.
 * 2) - Seems like a good compromise to me.
 * 3) I don't mind this in theory.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Well the Japanese do like using nonJapanese names to sound cool, and not all Mario games are developed by Japanese people (I mean would Luigi's Mansion 3 internal names be Japanese or Canadian or something, yes, Canadian is a language, roll with it, we should have a parameter just for general internal names, yeah.
 * 6) Additionally, by sorting internal names to the top of the cell, we make names seem official that the Japanese-speaking public was never intended to recognize. I'm fine with documenting internal names in these tables, and with chronologically sorting other dated names. This combination just interrupts the tables' legibility. A separately labeled row would fix it.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Agreed, especially now that we have cases in which the localized names are based on the internal name rather than the Japanese one

Use a separate table for internal names

 * 1) Second choice.
 * 2) Per SmokedChili, since we can't really say that internal names are a language.
 * 3) This can work as well, provided the table is properly placed (e.g. before the table of the names in other languages)
 * 4) Per my comments.
 * 5) This might be better in a few ways.
 * 6) The idea's good, but can we have a preview on what it'll look like?
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) - Yes.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) Per all.

Comments
By the by, where exactly would this be placed if the proposal passes? For the past year now, the foreign names template keeps Japanese at the top but has reordered other languages alphabetically (not sure if I agree a set order is best in terms of future-proofing but, well, I suppose that bridge can be crossed when more material originates from non-Japanese or English-speaking creators). It'd look awkward if "Internal" was in alphabetical order. I'd personally put it above Japanese since it should predate the finalized Japanese name, where they differ. LinkTheLefty (talk) 16:57, May 7, 2022 (EDT)
 * Yeah I agree, I was thinking that it would be placed above the Japanese section of the template too. Somethingone (talk) 17:00, May 7, 2022 (EDT)

Honestly, I think the better solution would be to give internal names their own (sub)section from NIOL since the internal names can be English names and/or by English developers and thus questionable as NIOLs in the first place. A section like that could be also used to cover all the internal names found in the games. SmokedChili (talk) 08:56, May 8, 2022 (EDT)
 * Y'know that's actually a really good point. But how would we do that? Would we need to repurpose the NIOL template / make a smaller copy of it just for internal names, or just write it in plain text? Somethingone (talk) 09:25, May 8, 2022 (EDT)
 * A new template based on the foreign names template may work well enough with parameters like "General" and "General2" (for grouping recurring names) and game specific ones like "SM64" (if the game is the only case where the name appears in the code). SmokedChili (talk) 13:33, May 8, 2022 (EDT)
 * I like that idea, though I think it would be better if we just left the game-specific abbreviations out and instead just put the game-origin of the name in manually (like |IntG=Super Mario 64 or something). Somethingone (talk) 15:11, May 8, 2022 (EDT)

The Italian Mario Wiki (Mario's Castle) has something like this. It has an "Internal" parameter that's placed at the top, above Japanese. You can see an example of it here. But my question is, what if filenames aren't very usable? For example, Paper Mario: Color Splash and Paper Mario: The Origami King always use three-character shortenings, sometimes adding extra to indicate variants: "KUR" is Goomba, and "KURB" is Bone Goomba. And sometimes it isn't obvious, like Tangerino Grill Chef being "CKNP" in CS -- we don't know if this would be "Chef Kinopio" or "Cook Kinopio". Do we add them and explain them? Or just leave them out? 01:48, May 10, 2022 (EDT)
 * There are multiple cases in which the portmanteau of the foreign name isn't one way either, plus we'll have cases like Raidon where they likely went with a double pun and we'll need to explain both of them, so it's fine to cite the various possible meanings (plus Paper Mario: Color Splash usually features a more complete name in the strings related to the scripted behaviors or to the enemy data, so you might want to do additional checks there).--Mister Wu (talk) 05:12, May 10, 2022 (EDT)

@Bazooka how's this look? Somethingone (talk) 08:16, May 12, 2022 (EDT)
 * Just one suggestion: put the internal name as-is, and when it's part of a longer string, put the substring. Changing the order of the words is arbitrary and could be misleading, when we don't really understand the internal name.--Mister Wu (talk) 05:52, May 13, 2022 (EDT)
 * Noted and corrected. Somethingone (talk) 06:13, May 13, 2022 (EDT)
 * Looks good but is there any way to reduce white space? I thought maybe it could be an extension of the language template and then some switcher can enable it and then we can add information to that template. 03:24, May 14, 2022 (EDT)
 * I don't think I'm that advanced in HTML yet to know how to do that but Porple/Steve did make a newer version of the template. Does it look better? Somethingone (talk) 07:10, May 14, 2022 (EDT)
 * Looks more visually consistent. Could we use that "origin" part to show a file address (e.g. "romfs/wariosbuttyworld/model/pinkdkjr.bfres") rather than use a reference? 15:56, May 14, 2022 (EDT)
 * That could work! Somethingone (talk) 16:00, May 14, 2022 (EDT)

Prioritize "data-rendered model" images
Right now, pretty much across the entire wiki we have two types of model images. "In-game models", which are actually just screenshots of the game with the backgrounds edited out to focus solely on the model, and "data-rendered models", which are assets ripped from the game and rendered in a 3D modeling program. For an example of what I mean, see Gallery:New Super Mario Bros. Wii, which shows both types.

The problem with these "in-game models" is that, again, they're not ripped models, just screenshots of those models in action. This can create multiple problems, particularly with lighting, where two different images of what is otherwise the exact same model can appear different just because of the screenshots they were taken from, or you can have "models" that have an underwater filter over them. Also, while not necessarily a problem inherent to the images themselves, a lot of these tend to be low-quality, and I've noticed 3DS games being a particularly egregious offender. Up until now we've kept them around to show what these subjects look like in-game, but by their very nature, they don't do anything that gameplay screenshots don't do already.

Therefore, what I'd like to do is prioritize data-rendered models (which is a clunky name that we won't need anymore if we do this, woohoo!) over in-game models. Note that this doesn't completely remove or outright forbid in-game models. This is meant to be more of a guideline to encourage going forward than a hard and fast rule, because I admit, sometimes there's a good reason for a cropped image of a subject, and we need some wiggle room to accommodate that. In a table of enemies appearing in a game, for example, you're going to want to have a clear image of the subject. That's perfectly fine, but let's not be falsely passing off these cropped screenshots as actual models.

Proposer: Deadline: June 1, 2022, 23:59 GMT Date Withdrawn: May 25, 2022

Support

 * 1) Down with them!
 * 2) If I could think of another reason why this proposal is a good idea, it's Yoshi's Story. That game squashes, scales, and wriggles it's sprites so much that these "in-game models" would actually worsen their quality. Let's phase them out before someone turns Bumblebee into an incomprehensible pile of pixels, please.

Oppose

 * 1) - Per my comments. Also, variety is the spice of life.

Comments
Same can be said of sprites, though, and some games/systems are difficult to rip from anyways. In-game is useful for showing native res anyway. Story is actually a good argument against this, since unless you are specifically and deliberately scaling too a screenshot (like some of my PM64 animation uploads), the result will likely look very untrue to how the game actually has it. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:33, May 25, 2022 (EDT)
 * The same really can't be said of sprites. Sprite rips generally look the same as they do in-game, sure, but the issue with in-game model images isn't purely that they're redundant with screenshots - it's that they're redundant with screenshots and cause several issues that can be fixed by a better alternative. And just because something is difficult to do doesn't mean we should be doing it poorly, but I'm curious of how much an issue this actually is. We have proper ripped models from N64, Gamecube, DS, Wii, 3DS, Wii U, and Switch games on the wiki, and the Models Resource has them in spades. I'm also confused why you think native res is important when it comes to models, because unlike sprites, you're not really getting native res from an in-game screenshot anyway (barring 2.5D games, I suppose), since "native res" of the model can be vastly different depending on how close or far away you are from it. A screenshot of a Goomba in Mario's first-person mode in Galaxy and a screenshot of that same Goomba from the other end of the platform are both native res, after all. How do you address the other inaccuracy issues that "in-game models" cause that I pointed out? I'm not saying we need to get rid of them entirely, they have their place, but we don't need to rely on them as heavily as we do when there's so many issues and better alternatives, and we certainly don't need to pass them off as models when they're just glorified screenshots. -- 20:07, May 25, 2022 (EDT)


 * If the point was to show an image true to how the game actually has it, a simple cropped screenshot would suffice. If the point was to show the model as it is, a "data-rendered" model image would suffice. "in-game models" are stuck in-between those two other groups while not fitting in either. It doesn't truly represent how the game shows the model due to the context of environment, lighting, effects, etc, lost when removing the background, and it doesn't truly represent how the models actually look due to also keeping native resolution and possible warping effects from the games as well.


 * That said, while I personally believe "data-rendered" models should be used in place of "in-game" models whenever possible, your point about some games being difficult to extract models from is very valid. I am torn on this as I'd prefer superfluous "in-game" renders to be removed (or at least have their backgrounds and original context returned) whenever a "data-rendered" equivalent already exists (See: Dry Bones here and here). LadySophie17 (talk) 20:17, May 25, 2022 (EDT)
 * I should point out that, while I'd prefer not having images like these at all for games that are hard to rip models from, generally this is more about replacing in-game model images in cases where the replacement either already exists on the wiki or is fairly easy to get (i.e. via Models Resource). I don't have any plans to go around purging images without replacements. -- 20:24, May 25, 2022 (EDT)
 * Then you shouldn't say "phase out," you should say "prioritize." And while noclip is providing a great middle ground for certain games, I still stand by my variety point. Also, there's games with flat textures as part of the model like Super Mario 64 and its remake, where "data-rendered" ones typically have those flat-as-paper at an awkward angle due to relying on the game's engine to display them right. NSMB series' are also preferable in-game for the enemy tables for display size/angle reasons. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:37, May 25, 2022 (EDT)
 * (edit conflict) "Data-rendered" needs a rename. No one in modeling really uses it. Call the in-game stuff "screenshot crops", and call the stuff rendered in 3d programs "rendered". Yes, in-game assets are technically rendered but this is pedantic. 20:39, May 25, 2022 (EDT)

I'd rather vet case-by-case. Some do illustrate some game assets in ways the others don't do as well, especially if game art is lacking. However this is probably the most time consuming one and we probably have to shoot a talk page discussion if we find any objectionable crops, whether it is blurry, cropped poorly, poor lighting, and so on. 20:39, May 25, 2022 (EDT)
 * I agree with Bazooka Mario in that this needs to be done case-by-case. Though to solve the issue of what can be done on a case-by-case basis, we could set up several guidelines.
 * That an in-game model is presented cropped as is w/o transparency. I'm not for users trying to present unofficial transparency especially since doing so can be time-consuming and can leave some mess.
 * That an in-game model accurately and precisely represents the entity in question. A climbing Koopa would probably not accurately represent Koopa Troopas in New Super Mario Bros. Wii at all.
 * 20:51, May 25, 2022 (EDT)
 * And just as I as looking at the image more, it appears as if it does represent Climbing Koopas. Oops. 20:53, May 25, 2022 (EDT)
 * (edit conflict) Cropping for clarity and not to remove the background is something we already practice, though, such as this crop of Fire Toadette or the various cropped pictures we have in the obstacles sections of articles such as Mario Kart and Mario Party(see Mario Kart Wii for example). I don't think it's controversial and I don't think this proposal is aiming to remove those images. I do think there's benefit to cropping images especially if in-game models can't be obtained; even if they CAN be obtained, there's no guarantee the animations can also be obtained as most animations are not included in Models Resource. There is a lot of hoops to jump through to get a nice posed picture that can replace in-game quality stuff, and this includes competency of model programs, competency of angling, competency of lighting, and competency of color management (which includes knowing the image editing programs like Photoshop/GIMP). 21:00, May 25, 2022 (EDT)
 * If the general consensus is that we'd rather do this on a case-by-case basis I'm fine canceling the proposal, I was mostly doing this just to be safe since it seemed like a fairly significant change. -- 21:16, May 25, 2022 (EDT)
 * Sure. If you want to get started with one image, this awkward crop of Luigi is a good place to start. I know you want to have an excuse to destroy a Luigi. 🧹 21:23, May 25, 2022 (EDT)

Change Monobook's background image to the one used on our Vector skin
For nearly a decade now, we've been using this background with the text "Super Mario Wiki" as our default background for Monobook, and subsequently the rest of the wiki. However, as our wiki continues to change, it can be argued that our look should change to better represent the Super Mario franchise, as we have done with our logo. Our Vector skin, for its part, has been using this nice background with various Mario-related symbols. As such I would like to suggest making the Vector background the default background for the Monobook skin.

Proposer: Deadline: May 27, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal
 * 2) Today the wiki background, tomorrow the editing field! Per proposal.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) Per proposal.
 * 5) That proposals background is just a mishmash of logos and crap. Can we change that too? [[File:SM3DW BF Loading Bowser Jr.gif]]
 * 6) Sure!
 * 7) Sure feels more in line with what one would expect from a wiki themed around a certain franchise. On Bazooka Mario's note, the source editing background feels dated as well, and should likely be changed to 2D vector art.
 * 8) Per proposal.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) I only support if the Wario, Yoshi and Donkey Kong series can have some representation on that background, instead of it being exclusively Mario-themed. Why not for example replace the current stars with logos from Wario, Yoshi and DK, and replace the question marks with the stars? I think it would represent Super Mario Wiki better that way. If those series are not represented on the future background, then consider my vote to be opposing instead of supporting.

Comments
@Metalex123: Honestly that's a tricky question. Sure, this wiki represents the Yoshi, Wario, and Donkey Kong franchises, but it's apparent that Mario is represented in the theming of this wiki, whether that be from the editing background, the proposal, 'Shroom, or Anniversary background, or the wiki's logo itself. Not to mention that those franchises had their foothold in the Mario series in a way. I wouldn't be opposed if the background was changed though, but I do think replacing the icons with the franchise's logo doesn't sound right. 13:41, May 27, 2022 (EDT)
 * I wouldn't support that, personally. We have to remember that this is first and foremost a Mario wiki. Yeah, the spin-off franchises are part of it and we do cover them, but we have to remember that Yoshi, Wario, even Donkey Kong are comparatively much smaller parts of the franchise, and it's not like imagery from those is really used elsewhere in the wiki's design anyway. I'd also like to avoid having too many different images on it, especially since a lot of it will be obscured by the actual wiki content. But it's not like the background can't be changed again later, and it's certainly better than a generic "super mario wiki" over and over, so I don't see the need to oppose on such a small detail. -- 14:14, May 27, 2022 (EDT)

Remove the dktable-brown class
This is a really minor issue, but something that's been bugging me for a while. Most articles around the wiki relating to the Donkey Kong franchise use a unique brown coloration for their tables (see example). This contrasts with the rest of the wiki, which generally uses white/light gray tables (see example). Apparently, this is something we got as a result of the DK Wiki merge, though I can't find any evidence that it was ever actually used there.

I have two problems with this. First of all, it seems strange to single out Donkey Kong with these. Yoshi doesn't have it, Wario doesn't have it, none of the Mario spin-offs have it, Smash doesn't have it. Because of that, it's kind of jarring, and I don't see why we need a visual indicator like this to separate just one area of the franchise. Second, it just clashes with the aesthetic of the wiki in general (that's why I'm not proposing to fix the first issue just by adding more). We have a pretty clean, Wikipedia-esque look that focuses on whites and grays, with splashes of color used sparingly and when necessary. The alternating browns don't even match the conventions of our other tables, which have the same, consistent coloration for all cells of the same "priority", so to speak.

If this passes, all tables using dktable-brown will be switched to the standard wikitable class used everywhere else on the wiki.

Proposer: Deadline: May 27, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per myself.
 * 2) I like adding color myself to some tables and I'm not opposed to some flair to basic formatting (see Dr. Mario World, Super Mario World, and Yoshi's New Island) but I think the coloration for the dktable is excessive, and I don't think a class specifically designed for a particular series of games is necessary. Wikitable colors for video game articles should at least be consistent with the nav template their series is based off of (ie Mario Party using yellow, Mario RPGs using blue, etc). If we were to color tables, I'd limit it to just the title headers on the top and make sure it matches the nav template color. Super Mario Land is a bit guilty of this so I think we should also establish some sort of standard for wikitable coloration, not just removing the dktable class.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) Yeah, sure.

Oppose

 * 1) - per LGM in the comments. Also, we need to avoid bleeding white from sprites into the backgrounds (Super Mario Land being the exception since in-game "white" is transparency). This is a good thing we have going, for consistency make more like it, not get rid of the one we do have so far.
 * 2) - Per Doc
 * 3) - Per Doc too, I really don't get what's wrong with DK-related templates being brown. Some Yoshi articles have green templates, Dr. Mario World has that too, I don't really see what's wrong with the DK ones personally. It just gives more color to the articles and it's nice.
 * 4) Honestly, the more I look at it, the more I feel like I am not bothered by it. The browns look fine, it's not an eyesore like this.
 * 5) There are times I feel that it couldn't hurt to have a little flair to certain designs for articles. I fear that if this is done, people would criticize us for becoming "too boring" like with the Lubba situation.
 * 6) It's better to adjust the colors to be less irritating to the eyes than just outright removing the class.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) The class can and probably should be improved, but I think we should instead expand the use of classes, if this helps in achieving a quicker coloring of tables to follow some kind of theme (e.g. the series the game belongs to). Within the respect of accessibility guidelines, in my opinion the coloring can make the wiki more engaging to look at and thus to read, while gray might make the text and tables of the pages... true walls the readers crash into!

Comments
I don't mind the series styling, but what do you think about how some Yoshi's Island tables are handled? See Yoshi's New Island and Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island. Dr. Mario World does the same. Are you saying we should remove styling all together or just remove that particular CSS class? Why not just change the css class to both avoid repetitive styling text in the wiki and also change the colors a bit to fit the aesthetic of the wiki? I'm no css expert, but what are the advantages of these styling classes? 16:31, May 20, 2022 (EDT)
 * One immediate advantage I can think of is that you don't need to manually input colors every time you make a table: just insert "raytraceclass" and you'll get the colors you want. 16:37, May 20, 2022 (EDT)
 * Didn't realize it was done there too. I don't care for the Yoshi table styling either for similar reasons, though I don't dislike it as much as the DK one. Maybe it's because the lightest green there is actually pretty subtle, while all the browns on the DK table stand out? Dr. Mario World's is fine but seems a bit unnecessary, but then again I've never played the game so the coloration could very well make more sense there. Personally I'd just prefer to do away with the styling altogether and leave it for cases where it's actually warranted by what's in-game (i.e. characters being associated with specific colors), but if it's going to stay I wouldn't mind either toning things down a bit or doing something closer to what's done with Dr. Mario World. -- 16:41, May 20, 2022 (EDT)
 * The color in Dr. Mario World's table is based on the nav template colors we currently employ for series articles. 16:44, May 20, 2022 (EDT)
 * Ahh that makes a lot more sense. That's not a bad idea, though the way the colors are picked for the navboxes in the first place is pretty arbitrary, so I don't know. -- 16:48, May 20, 2022 (EDT)
 * (edit conflict) The table colors match the navigation templates, which I think is a neat touch (though I'd personally choose another color for Dr. Mario series rather than... sewage yellow, see Navigation templates). I do think probably the headers should be restricted to the color, but it really depends on the context; I don't find the world tables that bad; also the alternating colored row do help guide the eyes around the table. As for what color is determined, I'm seeing a rainbow pattern, with series grouped with each other with appropriate color (Peach is Pink, Mario is red, Wario is purple, Luigi is dark green, Yoshi is light green, DK is brown), and maybe the other colors were up for grabs, with the yellows and blues being the most arbitrary ones. Buuut, that's another topic.  16:54, May 20, 2022 (EDT)

I do find it useful for Donkey Kong Land since so many sprites use white (which bleeds into the background), but I am just a tad miffed that this is being run when I am in the process of an extremely lengthy splitting process of DK games. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:32, May 22, 2022 (EDT)
 * Well I think there's room for discretion in those specific cases, I wouldn't support changing, say, the Costume Mario table either. That's a great example of this, actually, as the coloration is only used where it's absolutely necessary, which I've been saying this whole time re: using colors. The proposal isn't about prohibiting it entirely anyway, it only affects a single class (though would likely set a precedent). I don't think every single Donkey Kong-related table across the wiki needs to be fully colored in contrast with everything else just because of some sprites. (Not sure what the DKC splits have to do with this though, it'll most likely just be a very simple bot process.) -- 13:55, May 22, 2022 (EDT)
 * Some subheaders needed specifically colored in. But as LGM said, the banding helps to guide the eyes regardless. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:04, May 22, 2022 (EDT)
 * Yeah, but as Waluigi Time said, I don't think the proposal forbids styling but more of just discontinues using the css class. Though my concern is that maybe we can redesign the css class instead; our wiki already practices some sort of series-consistent styling with example articles, so why not introduce new classes to make it easier? 14:39, May 22, 2022 (EDT)
 * That's about what I'm thinking. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:09, May 22, 2022 (EDT)

Determine when {talk} templates can be removed
Now that we're cleaning up some of our talk templates from inactive and resolved discussions, I feel like I should bring this up to prevent further disagreement.

So basically, I'm proposing for us to decide when a talk page discussion becomes inactive & when we can remove it. I feel like a set time limit that separates "active" from "inactive" would help us in knowing when discussions become inactive, and when they require more talking about.

If there's another time limit anyone wants please let me know.

Proposer: Deadline: June 4, 2022, 23:59 GMT Date Withdrawn: June 4, 2022

1 year after the last comment

 * 1) Preferred choice

Only when they're resolved (no inactivity time limit)

 * 1) I'd be cool with this too

On a case-by-case basis (do nothing)

 * 1) I don't like the idea of removing discretion in these cases, and would this then apply to all talk page messages? The current removals are more for issues of organization and presentation of the content itself, such as proposals for splits, merges, renames and the like, but I wouldn't want to be removing the template from legitimate questions and requests for information that are still unanswered. The whole point of these removals is to draw more attention to the latter by not having a category clogged with 500 talk pages, after all. Frankly, I don't really think this needs a strict regulation anyway since it's so inconsequential. If a discussion goes inactive and you want to revive it, then revive it, or enact the proposed changes yourself if there's consensus, or just start a proposal.

Make tables, templates, and other areas in the mainspace compliant with WCAG 2.1
Going off from Waluigi Time's proposal to remove the dktable-brown class, I've noticed that there are currently plenty of tables, templates, and other areas within our mainspace that have glaring accessibility issues in accordance to the Web Content Accessibility Guidlines (WCAG) from the World Wide Web Consortium. For this instance, WCAG is split with two levels: AA and AAA. WCAG Level AA mandates a contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1 for normal text, 3:1 for larger text, and 3:1 for any graphical object and interface. WCAG Level AAA is also recommended, with a contrast ratio mandate of 7:1 for normal text, and 4.5:1 for larger text (it is still 3:1 for graphical objects and user interface components per WCAG 2.1).

When looking at our articles, some of these tables or templates with colors are below this contrast ratio mandate. For instance, these table headers fail with a contrast ratio of 1.88:1 (calculations done on this website). Then as Bazooka Mario pointed out, there are tables on the Yoshi's New Island page with headers that also fail with a low contrast ratio. We also have Template:AppealOutcome, and the "amended" category shown in the last example is hard to read with a contrast ratio of 1.33:1.

These are the type of issues we need to address. We can either go with Level AA, as with a lower ratio requirement it means we can still have access to plenty of colors. We can also decide to go with Level AAA, but it would mean we would be a lot strict with what colors to choose from and many tables or template could lose stylizations as a result. This will not be an easy task to make, as we would need to go through each mainspace article and fix this problem up. But I do hope that we are able to make our text more easier to read if this proposal passes.

Note though, I do not want this applied to anywhere other than the mainspace and templates. Other namespaces can be decided on its own, but I think it's more important to address this for the articles that our readers will look at.

Proposer: Deadline: May 29, 2022, 23:59 GMT

WCAG Level AAA

 * 1) Second option, though it mean we have less colors to work with in general.

WCAG Level AA

 * 1) Preferred option since it means we can keep much of our stylization, but still be accessible for readers.
 * 2) I think getting things AA-compliant makes the most sense at this point in time. Transitioning to AAA-compliance could always be done later on an as-needed basis.
 * 3) Per Mario4Ever.
 * 4) Yeah we need to make sure our wiki is as accessible as possible.
 * 5) Accessibility is important, though I would like to have more color choices available.
 * 6) At least having a starting point in terms of accessibility is important, in my opinion.

Do nothing

 * Eh, I don't really see the problem with those examples. They all look fine and readable (except the aforementioned last warning amended thing that yellow needs to be fixed), and I'd rather us not have to check if every new color we try to add is acceptable to an arbitrary contrast limit. It just seems like a bit of an unnecessary hassle.

Comments
Somethingone: People with more issues with seeing contrast may not, however. 14:41, May 22, 2022 (EDT)

I'd say this should be a guideline for userspace as well, as I've seen several talk pages that are difficult to read. 14:56, May 22, 2022 (EDT)
 * I agree. Some user's talk pages are known to be a nightmare to read in some instances. 15:00, May 22, 2022 (EDT)

Discount resized enemies from Mario Kart Tour as "big" variants of the base enemy
The wiki currently regards upscaled enemies from Mario Kart Tour as distinct, "Big" derivatives of the template enemy, e.g. the large Piranha Plants from SNES Choco Island 2T, SNES Ghost House 1R etc. are taken to be "Big Piranha Plants". Admittedly, I was the one who made this distinction back when I set up the "course elements" table on the game's article, listing large-sized Piranha Plants separately from normal-sized counterparts; later on, an article for Big Sidestepper, an upscaled Sidestepper that only appears in Mario Kart Tour, was created and a corresponding entry was added to the aforementioned table.

One issue with the above is that, regardless of their size, Piranha Plants all share a "Piranha Plant" label on the in-game action display. The other enemies to appear with upscaled models, namely large Goombas and large Sidesteppers, are not labelled at all since they only appear in bonus challenges, where player actions are typically not displayed (except for Combo Attack, which to my recollection has yet to feature any instances of the latter two). Another issue stems from the fact that these enemies may not have been rescaled at a consistent size: for instance, RMX Choco Island 1R/T features an exceptionally humongous Piranha Plant (youtube.com) that visibly tops other already large-sized Piranha Plants appearing in other courses (youtube.com). If there isn't one specific "L" size these enemies comply with, is it warranted to have the larger enemies lumped together as the "Big" variant considering larger-but-still-intermediary-sized enemies, such as Hefty Goombas from New Super Mario Bros. Wii, are considered separate from their maximum-sized counterparts despite having a few shared names? In addition to everything said here, an enemy always behaves the same regardless of its model's size, as opposed to, say, Super Mario Maker big variants which, while not specifically labelled in-game as "big", may feature distinctive quirks from their normal counterparts.

In light of these points, I propose the following two courses of action as options:
 * 1) remove any listings of these rescaled enemies as distinct counterparts for Mario Kart Tour (i.e. remove their entries from the "Course elements" table, the MKT template, and the Mario Kart Tour enemies category), and restrict any mention of them appearing in different sizes to the base enemy's article (i.e. purge such information from the "Big [enemy]" articles);
 * 2) remove any listings of these rescaled enemies as distinct counterparts for Mario Kart Tour (i.e. remove their entries from the "Course elements" table, the MKT template, and the Mario Kart Tour enemies category), but retain/allow mentions of them appearing in different sizes on the "Big [enemy]" articles.

In either scenario, the Big Sidestepper article gets deleted, since Big Sidesteppers have yet to actually appear in a game where they are acknowledged as such or behave differently.

Proposer: Deadline: June 9, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Option 2

 * 1) I prefer this option myself. Despite the game's stance, a large enemy should have a passing mention where size is of interest.
 * 2) Per proposal. Even if both sized Piranha Plants appear, it’s worth mentioning as much at least.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) Per proposal.

Comments
This may be an issue for the Mario Kart series in general as several guides don't use the "big" distinction. What about cases like Mega Rabbit from Super Mario 3D World, which is referred to as just a "Rabbit" in Bowser's Fury missions (main article is currently mistaken)? LinkTheLefty (talk) 11:00, June 4, 2022 (EDT)
 * I feel like that's just be a case of "If one design of an enemy is officially called larger and big designs of that enemy are used in later games, leave it on the big page", similar to how the Big Amps from MP5 are just called amps and are only slightly bigger than normal amps, but they're still on the Big Amp page. Somethingone (talk) 11:19, June 4, 2022 (EDT)

@LinkTheLefty: Enemies in the Mario Kart series typically appear as larger than normal, but in the absence of other sizes within the same game they are taken to be the standard size, hence probably why those guides don't use said "big" distinction for them. Other than Mario Kart Tour, there are only two games I know of to feature enemies at different scales: Mario Kart: Double Dash has big Pokeys appearing as obstacles alongside regular Pokeys, while Mario Kart Wii features an individual big Pokey and a larger-than-normal Thwomp. I don't know if the Double Dash big Pokeys are brought any official distinction from the ordinary ones (if you have access to relevant material, please provide information on this), but the giant Pokey in Wii was specifically billed as such and is a boss which requires a different approach to battle, while the Thwomp was, according to the Super Mario Wiki, once called a "giant Thwomp" on the game's European website. (Though, as if hearkening back to the website's blunder years, efforts to source and archive this information have been bush league, and Wayback Machine proves unhelpful here as it more often than not excludes European Nintendo links.) In Mario Kart Tour, not only are enemies of different sizes described as if they are all the same size, but they act completely identically and grant the same number of points when taken out (something important that I forgot to mention in the proposal). Indeed their size differences merit being covered in some form on the "Big [enemy]" articles, but what I'm advocating is removing any listings that distinguish big enemies from Mario Kart Tour in this way. Regarding the rabbit sitch, is the Mega Rabbit article mistaken in the sense that regular rabbits do apear in Bowser's Fury, or that internal data/a perfunctory look may suggest they aren't the same thing as Mega Rabbits from the main campaign? 13:03, June 4, 2022 (EDT)