MarioWiki:Proposals

http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r149/Deadringerforlove/dessert1.jpg A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed using the code.

This page observes the No-Signature Policy.

How To
 * 1) Actions that users feel are appropriate to have community approval first can be added by anyone, but they must have a strong argument.
 * 2) Users then vote and discuss on the issue during that week. The "deadline" for the proposal is one week from posting at:
 * 3) *Monday to Thursday: 17:00 (5pm)
 * 4) *Friday and Saturday: 20:00 (8pm)
 * 5) *Sunday: 15:00 (3pm)
 * 6) Every vote should have a reason accompanying it.
 * 7) Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the Comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may not remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. The voter can remove or rewrite their own vote at any time, but the final decision to remove another User's vote lies solely with the Administrators.
 * 8) " # " should be added under the last vote of each support/oppose section to show another blank line.
 * 9) All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week.
 * 10) If a proposal has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail by a margin of three votes. If a proposal reaches the deadline and the total number of votes for each option differ by two or less votes, the deadline will be extended for another week.
 * 11) Any proposal that has three votes or less at deadline will automatically be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
 * 12) No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
 * 13) Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation. However, the proposer can request that their proposal be deleted by a Sysop at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it.
 * 14) All proposals are archived. The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of a Sysop, the proposer can ask for that help.
 * 15) There shouldn't be proposals about creating articles on a underrepresented or completely absent subject, unless there is major disagreement about whether the content should be included. To organize efforts about completing articles on missing subjects, try creating a PipeProject.
 * 16) Proposals can not be made about System Operator promotions and demotions. Sysops can only be promoted and demoted by the will of Bureaucrats.
 * 17) If the Sysops deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to remove it at any time.
 * 18) No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters, and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.

The times are in EDT (UTC -4:00), and are set so that the user is more likely to be online at those times (after work/school, weekend nights). If a proposal is added on Saturday night at 11:59 PM EDT, the deadline is the next Saturday night at 8:00 PM. If it is a minute later, the deadline is a day plus 15 hours (Sunday), as opposed to a day minus 4 hours.

Basic Proposal and Support/Oppose Format
This is an example how your proposal should look like, if you want it to be acknowledged. If you are inexperienced or unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. Then replace the [subject] - variables with information to customize your proposal, so it says what you wish. If you insert the information, be sure to replace the whole variable including the squared brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information", not "[This is the inserted information]". - ===[insert a title for your Proposal here]=== [describe what you want this Proposal to be like, what changes you would suggest and what this is about]

Proposer: Deadline: [insert a deadline here, f.e. "5 January, 2010, 17:00". Rule 2 above explains how to determine a deadline]

====Support====

====Oppose====

====Comments==== - Users will now be able to vote on your Proposal, until the set deadline is reached. Remember, you are a user as well, so you can vote on your own Proposal just like the others.

To support, or oppose, just insert " # at the bottom of the section of your choice. Just don't forget to add a valid reason for your vote behind that tag if you are voting on anoother user's Proposal. If you are voting on your own Proposal, you can just say "Per my Proposal".

CURRENTLY: , 27 2024 (EDT)

Talk Page Proposals
All proposals dealing with a single article or a specific group of articles are held on the talk page of one of the articles in question. Proposals dealing with massive amounts of splits, merges or deletions across the Wiki should still be held on this page.

How To

 * 1) All active talk page proposals must be listed below in alphabetical order. All pages effected must be mentioned in the brief description, with the talk page housing the discussion linked to directly via "". If the proposal involved a page that is not yet made, use to communicate its title. The Deadline must also be included in the entry. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links.
 * 2) All rules for talk page proposals are the same as mainspace proposals (see the "How To" section above), with the exceptions made by Rules 3, 4 and 5, as follows:
 * 3) Voting in talk page proposals will be open for two weeks, not one.
 * 4) Talk page proposals may closed by the proposer if both the support and the oppose sides each have fewer than five votes.
 * 5) After two weeks, a clear majority of three votes is required. Without the majority, the talk page proposal will be listed as "NO QUORUM".
 * 6) The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.

List of Talk Page Proposals
''NOTE: Disorganized talk page proposals created before the current system may be running much longer than the standard two week voting period. In place of a deadline, these are marked as "overtime" and require immediate attention and resolution.''


 * Merge Cobalt Shard into Cobalt Star (Discuss) Deadline: 6 January 2010, 17:00
 * Merge Dancing Spear Guy into Spear Guy (Discuss) Overtime
 * Merge Elevator Key (X-Naut) into Elevator Key (Discuss) Deadline: 9 January 2010, 20:00
 * Merge Fiery Bubble into Podoboo (Discuss) Deadline: 9 January 2010, 20:00
 * Merge the Luigi's Mansion elemental ghosts (Discuss) Deadline: 3 January 2010, 15:00
 * Fire Elemental Ghost
 * Water Elemental Ghost
 * Ice Elemental Ghost
 * Merge Gadd Science, Incorporated into List of Implied Organizations (Discuss) Deadline: 9 January 2010, 20:00
 * Merge Mario's Shirt into Mario, or simply delete it and ban the creation of any other page concerning clothing that does not affect gameplay. (Discuss) Deadline: 9 January 2010, 20:00
 * Merge Maude and Flo into a single page, . (Discuss) Overtime
 * Reorganize the "Metal" pages so that all information pertaining to the forms in general are found on Metal Mario, whereas metal characters get stand-alone articles. - Overtime
 * Merge Metal Wario into Metal Mario. (Discuss)
 * Split Metal Mario into and . (Discuss)
 * Move form aspects of Metal Luigi into Metal Mario, leaving information pertaining to the character in Super Smash Bros. Melee on the Metal Luigi article. (Mentioned in above Discussion pages.)
 * Merge Tentacle into Blooper. (Discuss) Deadline: 15 January 2010, 20:00
 * Merge Ultra Shroom into Ultra Mushroom. (Discuss) Deadline: 5 January 2010, 17:00

Miis
I am new here and not sure If I'm doing this correctly, but I propose to extend what this wiki covers to a greatly overlooked part of the Mario universe. Miis.

The reasons for this are, 1) They could be considered crossover from other series. 2) I think that they may play a larger part in the Mario series in the future.

To help back this, I wish to point out that Sonic and DK have numerous pages dedicated to them. These barely make the cut, and so, I think this is precedence enough to add these and other overlooked series characters part of the wiki.

Proposer: Deadline: 4 January 2010, 17:00

Oppose

 * 1) - Our current coverage of Miis is fine; they have all of their appearances listed, and their article is featured. They do not originate in the Mario series, so they don't need any more coverage. And if they will become more important in the future, then the future will be the right time to expand this info. As for now, we live in the present.
 * 2) Per Edofenrir.
 * 3) - First of all, did you know that the Mario Series is actually a sub-series of the Donkey Kong Series? That's why we cover Donkey Kong games and characters. We don't cover, the Sonic Series, except the Sonic characters that appear in Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games. So right there, you know why we have all those articles dedicated to those series. If that's not enough, per Edo.
 * 4) &mdash; Per Edo.
 * 5) Per the fury of Fawful.
 * 6) As said time and time again, our current Miis article covers them enough. Indeed we have multiple pages for DK and Mario characters as they appear in multiple places as different things. We're not dedicated to Miis or any of that such. Until then we don't need any other Mii articles added.
 * 7) - Per EdO!!! and I dont like miis....
 * 8) - per Tucayo.
 * 9) - Per All
 * 10) I am Zero! The coverage of the Miis are fine as they are; all third party characters (Miis can sort of be considered third party) only have info covering there cross over (not including there info boxes), and the information given about the Miis conserning there appearence in the Mario series is just fine. Zero signing out.
 * 11) - Per all.
 * 12) PEr all.
 * Per all.

Comments
Fawfulfury65: Really? I thought it was vice versa regarding the Donkey Kong thing. Still, something that splits off the main series would still be allowable on the Mariowiki, such as the Yoshi games.
 * Well, Mario first appeared in Donkey Kong so...

What are we even voting on? What would happen if the proposal passes? Have a list of possible Mii faces? That's not even realistically doable. -

If the proposal does pass, we will probably have to make articles on things like Wuhu Island and all those games featuring miis.

@Zero: Miis were made by Nintendo. Thus, they are not third party.
 * I'm pretty sure he was just using "third party" as a way to refer to character originating outside the Mario series (is there an actual term for those? "Third party" nor "Crossover" seem like accurate titles). BabyLuigiOnFire and Fawfulfury65: the original Donkey Kong titles are not considered part of the recent Donkey Kong series (i.e. Donkey Kong Country, DK: King of Swing, Donkey Konga, etc.), and are usually organized so that the emphasis is on their relation to the Mario series (see and ). At most, the two series are equally spun-off of the original Donkey Kong, but that does not make Mario a spin-off of the ongoing Donkey Kong series. -

Mario Wiki Pulse
I suggest to put a new section on the main page, it shall be called the "Mario Wiki Pulse". Basically it's just something that shows either the top five or twelve articles most seen in that week.

note: if this is not possible to do then remove this proposal.

Proposer: Deadline: 7 January 2010, 15:00

Give it a Pulse

 * 1) I am Zero! Well there wasn't that much to say since it is so simple but it is a good idea. Zero signing out.

Let it pass....... away

 * 1) A really bad article may end up getting on the front page which may give the wiki a bad reputation. There is a reason why we have featured articles, it's to make us look great. But having bad articles on the main page isn't so great. Besides, there may be a possible repeat of the featured article on the list. And I don't see any point on what article gets seen the most. We are here to provide information, not to showcase what articles were the most viewed this week or whatsoever.
 * 2) - The basic idea is good, but there might be a slight problem. I think most people come here for, well, the main content. What would we do to prevent articles like Mario, Luigi, Bowser, Wario, or the most recently released game from occupying the list overly long? I'm gonna think aloud for a moment: Perhaps we could take on this matter the other way 'round. Instead of highlighting the articles that already have tons of attention, we could highlight some really obscure and overseen articles. It could even benefit the wiki itself, if our editors come across these articles and improve them. My (weird) thoughts to that subject.
 * 3) Changed my mind. Per BLOF.

Comments
Fawfulfury65: Sorry, but "I like this idea" is not a reason why you should support. Please list your reason why you support this proposal.

I think I like this idea, this could be interesting. BLOF, I don't think there's a problem with having bad articles on the Main Page. There's already the "Pages Seeking Contributors" section where we list bad articles, after all. Also, our most important article, which may be the most-viewed one, is quite bad actually. It may help to improve those articles, so why not? There's still one problem though: We already have a lot of stuff on the Main Page. A way to solve this would be to get rid of the Featured Image section. We hardly had any new nominations recently, looks like we're running out of good images, so I think it's time to say good-bye to it. If you modify your proposal so that we replace the Featured Images with the "Pulse", and if it's realizable technically, you have my vote.

@Edo: Not a bad idea either. Another idea that comes to my mind is to put articles on the Main Page that have the most increasing number of views compared to the previous week (so we wouldn't have articles like Mario that always have a large number of views but rather articles about current topics of interest). But I doubt this is possible technically.

Talk Pages Needing Answers
Not the best name for it, but that's all I can come up with. Anyways, this proposal is to add a little part in the MarioWiki Community section that addresses two. Some of these questions have been on the Mario Wiki for at least a year now, and I'm pretty sure somebody will be able to answer these questions. The thing is, there aren't many talk pages with the talk template, and it's hard to figure out which ones have a question. So, since we already address articles that are stubs, I feel that without this, more and more questions will come-and stay-unanswered.

Proposer: Deadline: 8 January, 2010, 17:00

Add Feature

 * 1) Per proposal.

Comments
Y'know, theoretically we already have Category:Unresolved talk pages, which lists talk pages with open questions. The practical problem you mentioned, concerning that many of talk pages with questions lack Template:Talk, can hardly be solved by a Proposal. You need to encourage the users themselves to use this template with more confidence. -
 * I know about the category. But the thing is, a lot of people don't know about the template and as a result, don't know about the category. My proposal would bring more awareness to them. And I'm not saying that my proposal will answer the questions. I'm just saying it would address them in a more visible fashion. And how do I encourage users? What, I go up to their talk page and say "Hey, if you have a question, make sure to use Template:Talk"?

I don't think another link to unresolved talk pages is necessary, since as far as I know they're already linked to on the Wiki Maintenance page. I do agree that the template is probably not used enough though. Not sure how possible this is, but maybe it could be mentioned in Help:Communication; the help page is linked to in the welcome template and tells people how to use talk pages, but as far as I'm aware does not currently mention the Talk template. It wouldn't seem out of place imo for the template to be mentioned there; just a suggestion though.--
 * I think this is a good idea.
 * And about the whole issue itself: I don't think a Proposal about this subject is necessary (yet). Everything you've addressed could also be put into a suggestion on the respective talk page. If a Sysop sees your suggestion and likes your idea, it might get realized shortly after. We (including myself) tend to hold a lot of Proposals for such things that easily could be suggested otherwise lately. -
 * I felt free to apply vellidragon's suggestion to this page. I hope it looks appropriate for everyone this way. -

We could get rid of the "... have at least one section under construction" line on the MarioWiki Community template and replace it by unresolved talk page questions. Naming articles under construction on the Main Page makes no sense at all IMO, since usually someone is working on them and they do NOT need other contributors at the moment.

Removals
''None at the moment.

Splits & Merges
''Please note: From here on out, no new splits or merges will be accepted in this area. All splits and merges must be done on talk pages, as this section is reserved for talk page proposals. The below proposal is allowed to stay because it was initiated before the new rule was put into practice.''

Split Category:Special Moves
While patrolling, I found that tehre is no such category as "Moves", so all of the things that will clasify as normal moves, are listed as special, so I propose we choose which from the Special Moves are not special, and are just "moves". Since when is Jump something special? It is the most common and ordinary thing in the Mario series. You can post in the comments section which Special MOves you dont think are Special. For example, some things as the Baby Drill is special, because it is something that is not commonly done, while something as Baby Toss simply isn't, because it is just throwing the babies. How will they be separated? I think that most of the SM are found in RPG's, moves like the Green Shell, Copy FLower, and those. Normal Moves are the ones you can "Normally" do, like jumping, baby tossing, high jumping, perhaps.

Proposer: Deadline: 3 January 2010, 15:00

Create the Moves category

 * 1) - Per me.
 * 2) - I don't consider Jump to be a "special" move.
 * 3) Yeah I was just thinking about that category today. Jump isn't a special move at all!
 * 4) - Per all.
 * 5) - I just browsed Category:Special Moves, and there seems to be enough material to warrant the creation of a new Category. When splitting however, please take into account what I said in the comment section.
 * 6) I am Zero! I notice that a few months back I didn't really care, but that is a good idea. Since hen jump considered a special? Zero signing out.
 * 7) There's nothing so special about "Jump" and "Gulp" concerning with the main series so why list them under the Special Moves Category? I agree with this proposal, make a normal moves section. Why isn't there a normal moves category yet?
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) - Per all.
 * 10) - So it would be just Moves and Specials (or Special Moves)? That sounds excellent and more organzied than the constuction zone we have now...
 * 11) &mdash; Per all.
 * 12) Per All.

All moves are special

 * &#124; I agree completely, but this needs to have 3 or more votes to pass because it has 10 "agree" votes

Comments
Please consider that the term "Special Move" comes directly from gameplay jargon and is not determined by how out-of-the-ordinary the action in question is. Wheter something is a normal move or a special move depends on how it is accessed and executed, not what exactly it is. In an RPG f.e. special moves are those moves that are an alternative to the plain "attack" command. They usually, but not necessarily, consume a certain source of power, like FP. Basically, everything action different from a character's normal way of attack is a special move.

If we split this category into two, then the Jump you mentioned would be in both categories. It is Mario's normal way of attack in most games, but in SMRPG gameplay, it qualifies as a special move. Because of this ambiguation, I cannot make my decision solely on the base of Jump. Do you have any other examples? -
 * I tried to clarify it :) Feel free to comment. And yes, in the way you put it, i think Jump should be in both.
 * Reading some of the comments above, one has to wonder if anybody actually reads the comment section... -
 * Um...Shy Guy: Why did you vote oppose without a reason except "I fully support"?

I willget to this the 3rd or the 4th, if I cant. user:Tucayo

Create Gallery Pages
The merchandise pages have been in a mess for a while. I propose a change to the current system by merging together merchandise pages into gallery pages. The only merchandise not affected by this proposal are books, publications, and Mario themed games since there is a lot of information to be covered. The gallery system has worked on a few pages like Figurines and Toys. Of course, the galleries won't be exactly like those pages. The descriptions will be more neutral and organization will be by manufacturer or type.

Reasons why this change would benefit the wiki:


 * 1) Many stubs and short pages would be removed.
 * 2) Many dead-end pages would removed.
 * 3) Easier to read about multiple merchandise objects at once.
 * 4) More organization and easier for editors.
 * 5) Fan-made or fan-named products won't have separate articles.

The gallery pages to be created are as follows:


 * Clothing – Anything that is designed to be worn.
 * Food – Anything consumable or used in consumption, like Mario themed gummy worms or Mario themed plates.
 * Toys – Anything that can be interacted with, like yo-yo,r McDonald's promotional item, or plushiess.
 * Miscellaneous – Things that just don't fit anywhere else, like a Mario Neon Sign.

Things that will be done if this proposal passes:


 * 1) All the merchandise images will organized by the above categories.
 * 2) All the previous merchandise pages will be deleted since the redirects will serve no purpose.
 * 3) New merchandise pages will be deleted and any images will be relocated to appropriate galleries.
 * 4) The Merchandise page will be organized like this.

Proposer: Deadline: 4 January 2010, 17:00

Support

 * 1) – Per my proposal.
 * 2) - Per Knife.
 * 3) I am Zero! When I looked at the merchandise article you are right, it is a mess, it will be a good idea to do that. Zero signing out.
 * 4) Per Knife.
 * 5) - Per Knife.
 * 6) There's nothing to say when it comes to merchandise, so placing this on a gallery page is needed. I deem this proposal necessary.
 * 7) - Per proposal
 * 8) Per Knife

Comments
Um...what is that proposals thing in the draft?

Ignore that part.
 * I know, I was just letting the general public know

I think Toys and Collectibles should just be one page (as "Toys"), since it's hard to draw a clear line between them; some people collect anything and everything, while others simply play ("interact") with it all, especially kids (when I was little, I didn't care if my dinosaurs were "models", "figurines" or "action figures" - they were all just toys to me). Board games could probably fit in Toys too, and then anything that absolutely could not be played with (like neon signs or collector's cards) could go in Miscellaneous. Also, will Nintendo Monopoly be merged into the galleries? It seems substantial enough to keep its own separate page. -

Points taken.-- 23:47, 29 December 2009 (EST)

Listen, while this idea may be good on the short term -- in the long term, we will realize that some of the items like Nintendo Monopoly, and possibly other notable items may have enough info to create their own article. Info would have to include: the official name (if it has one), how it was promoted in some way, which company did they make this product, when it was released, and all that info that is good for creating an entry for a merchandise item. I had some plans that have to do with merchandising, but I'm focusing on the following things: Userspace, and the Mario Party 1, 2, and/or 3 mini-game articles. 02:18, 30 December 2009 (EST)

Use Present tense for In-game elements/events
As I edit articles, I see in-game events being told in past tense(ex. "Level 4 consisted of these enemies..."), present tense(ex. "The boss of Level 4 is..."), and even future tense(ex. "The player will then encounter Donkey Kong..."). Some articles use multiple tenses in the same paragraph which, obviously, is grammatically incorrect and looks unproffesional. Of course, actual events in real life that happened in the past or will happen in the future should be their respective tenses. But in-game events, which happen each time somebody plays the game, should be in present tense.

To enforce/clarify this, creating a policy may be a good idea as well should the proposal pass. (Read EDIT below) This would help people to write articles in present tense when creating a new one, as well as edit existing articles to match the policy.

EDIT: Should the proposal pass, a guideline will likely be added to the existing Manual of Style policy, rather than a separate policy.

Proposer: Deadline: 6 January 2010, 17:00

Support

 * 1) - I have waited a long time for such a proposal! Splendid! Per Garlic Man!
 * 2) - I was thinking about making this exact proposal earlier today, but I wasn't sure if there was already a guideline like this. I've come across unfitting past tense phrases in a lot of articles, mainly those about recurring enemies. Using past tense to describe how an enemy acts in a game makes it seem as if that game didn't exist anymore, or nobody could play it anymore, which is obviously not the case. I've been fixing some of it here and there, but there's a lot more of it still. If no guideline like this exists yet, there definitely should be one.
 * 3) - I admit that I wrote several articles in past tense (especially when related to the WarioWare cutscenes), but my views have changed. Pure fiction should be handled as such and there really needs to be a guideline.
 * 4) I'm always wondering what tense should I write in when it comes to revising articles (most of the time, I use past tense, because I probably think that the game event already happened). This proposal is necessary.
 * 5) I am Zero! Hmmm I never notice that, but you are correct, using a combination of past, present, and future ghost tense is very unprofessional. Zero signing out.
 * 6) per LeftyGreenFatMan (not an insult, I know my sister, she won't take that as an insult). No variety is allowed when it comes to tenses, according to the grammar rules. I was pondering what tense to write in, and this is the solution.
 * 7) - Per my annoyance at in-article tense-jumping and not knowing which way to standardize it.
 * 1) - Per my annoyance at in-article tense-jumping and not knowing which way to standardize it.

Comments
I don't see what's wrong with the future tense example in your proposal description. IMO, some variety can't hurt.

Look at the talk page for Lou Albano. Apparently, with real life people, if they die, then the article must be changed to the past tense.

Time Q: Grammar doesn't allow variety when it comes to tenses. If it's present tense, for example, then the whole article has to be present tense.

Well, I think we should use the tense that is used here. I rewrote that article because it was in present simple and sounded really bad. I think that some sentences as :"The MEssage Block provides" are correctly written in present, but some other as "The fourth Dragon coin can be found" should use that tense. Present perfect, IIRC. ANyways, both are presents.
 * "...can be found" is simple present as well, it's just a passive construction. Present Perfect is a construction with "has/have", i.e. "has been found". Present Perfect can also be used in a Simple Present text quite well; "after Mario has [done something], he can" etc. It's mostly a matter of how tenses are used really; "Mario has completed the level" etc. could not be used in a Simple Present text. I guess the guideline/policy/whatever shouldn't limit the tense to Simple Present (that would actually exclude Present Progressive as well, which can be useful in some cases), but simply require that the overall text should be in the "present".--
 * Nice, thanks. And also, the article said before things like :"After a couple of more Rex and the second Dragon Coin, a Super Mushroom pops out of a bush when the player passes. That sounds really bad, as well as unprofessional. Wll those things be allowed?
 * The fact that that sentence sounds bad doesn't seem to have much to do with the tense. It should go without saying imo that articles should be well-written; the proposal's point appears to be that in-game events should be treated as such, taking into consideration they're going to occur everytime someone plays the game.--

Reversinator: Biographies and such that describe real life events that happened in the past should be past tense(ex. "Brawl was released the following year...").

But what would you put if you want to say Mario will fight a boss after going through an area full of spikes?
 * "The player then must fight a boss after going through an area full of spikes".
 * I used "will" several times in the last articles I wrote. For example "They will not leave their place until Wario comes near", "When the treasure hunter does so, Shieragutchi will quickly move up", or "For defeating a Yukiotoko, Wario will be rewarded with a Bronze Coin." Would these sentences have to be rewritten as well? --
 * Yes. They would become something along the lines of these: "They do not leave their place until Wario comes near", "When the treasure hunter does so, Shieragutchi quickly moves up", and "For defeating a Yukiotoko, Wario is rewarded with a Bronze Coin." A good example of what the proposal is aiming for is the plot section of the Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door article. -

The proposal has a minor change. I just remembered about the Manual of Style policy, and that's where this rule would go, not a policy in itself.