MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/43

Change the way rule number 9 of the proposal system works
DELETED BY PROPOSER

So, another proposal to remove this rule was made that was just now vetoed by an administrator. The idea in this proposal is not to remove the rule but instead change the way it works to make it more fair and less objectionable. So as of now, this rule is in effect:
 * All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week. Proposals with more than two options must also be extended another week if any single option does not have a majority support: i.e. more than half of all votes cast must be for a single option, rather than one option simply having more votes than the other options.

I think that the rule could use a few changes that could keep much of its original intent intact while making it more accurate towards what the majority of users want. So I propose we replace that rule with this new rule:
 * All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week. Proposals with more than two options must also be extended another week if any single option does not have a majority support: i.e. more than half of all votes cast must be for a single option, rather than one option simply having more votes than the other options, with the change option with the lowest amount of votes and all votes put into it removed each time that happens, and the people who made those removed votes given the opportunity to make a new vote for one of the other options until there is only one change option and the do nothing option remaining when the rules for the proposal basically revert to what the rules for one change vs do nothing proposals are.

I think the changed rule would be better than both the original rule and just flat out deleting the rule for the following reasons:
 * There isn't really that much of a difference in the end than if the original proposal was just between the two options that would have been the last two options in this case.
 * This way, there won't be bogus scenarios where nothing is done because two different change options were both preferable than doing nothing to a majority of people but the majority couldn't agree on which one was the better change option.
 * Since there is always a do nothing option left in the final two, there won't be any problems where two changes both with a different direction in mind that both have more support than doing nothing when both change sides would rather just do nothing than support the other change.
 * Therefore, this only really has the potential to do anything when both changes are ideas for a similar direction that the same users would rather have either of the changes over having nothing done.

Proposer: Deadline: June 28, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) per proposal.

Oppose

 * 1)  Generally, rules function as intended. Proposed change reads like over complicating an already simple system to me. Additionally, per standard proposal rule 7: "No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old." A proposal about a change to the proposal system was closed as "no" less than two hours ago. Further, as precedent was set, I call for administrative veto.
 * 2) The problem with this proposal is that it operates on the assumption that once failed, a proposal cannot be redone or there cannot be a later, related discussion that may refine and better compromise to address the needs for disputing sides. Finally, the proposed rule is difficult to read and understand. Further comments are also included. See below section.
 * 3) - Aping a ranked ballot system, as is being proposed here, is way to complicated and problematic. Also, it's frankly ridiculous that this proposal even exists in the first place, not only because it's unlawfully trying to overturn the "proposal rule changes can't be forced through by proposals" ruling on the last proposal, as Ghost Jam pointed out, but because it's blatantly ignoring that ruling. It wasn't "an" administrator who vetoed the last proposal: it was a decision made by multiple admins, and it'll happen to this one too, sooner than later. Maybe then the message will sink in. The system is fine: drop it and leave it alone already.
 * 4) – Interestingly enough, the current system we have now is a modification of this proposal. I had actually suggested this exact idea in April 2012 and it failed, but  suggested a refined version of it in September 2012 based on Walkazo's suggestions. The current rule works, and requires those that want to make a change to compromise in order to provide a clear path of action.

Comments
Wait, in proposals with three choices or more, if their deadlines are extended, do you propose removing the option with the least amount of votes? That sounds so convoluted. Even the wording in that is hard to read. The bolded part is one sentence! Anyhow, if there are two change options clashing and rivaling each other in terms of votes, proceeding with one change or the other will displease a sizeable group and that's not democratic. Having the proposal fail after breaking through several extended deadlines definitely means "no consensus has been reached, so no changes will be made". It's a failsafe measure at this point, and it gives the opportunity for further discussion and refining the proposal further. Not to mention, it wears on people's patience to see a proposal get extended, like, three times, so casting it off is good, elaborated previously.

In super drawn-out proposals, it's safer to kill them eventually than to take questionable and controversial action even if the outcome is dead tied. It's the reason FAs have a time limit, too. 14:17, 21 June 2015 (EDT)

@Ghost Jam: I tried my best to remove the objectionable pieces of the other proposal that caused it to be vetoed and take into consideration things said by Walkazo in my discussion with her in the other proposal to make it not fall into any objections that she made there. @Bazooka Mario, I specifically said in the proposal that the do nothing option would stay to the final two no matter what and before then, only options suggesting change could be removed so if there is a case of two change options clashing and rivaling each other in terms of votes, and people voting for one of the changes would rather have nothing done, they will always have the chance to just move their votes towards doing nothing. -

@Walkazo, just veto it now then in this case to get it over with. I tried my best to fix the problems that got the other proposal vetoed but I guess in this case, I didn't do enough so I guess you should just veto this proposal now. I'll talk about it more with you in user talk page if I feel the need to. I'm sorry for my mistake. -


 * No, I didn't mean that. During a hotly contested proposal, there has to be a time limit for how long a proposal runs, and once that time limit is exceeded, it is canceled, period. The proposal is done, but the discussion can continue since the canceling suggests more discussion needs to be made before putting it "to the floor". People that vote for change don't like to have nothing done, but "do nothing" is the least of the evils when two votes are hotly contested and the time limit is reached. 14:51, 21 June 2015 (EDT)


 * @Kart Player 2011: Feel free to cancel it yourself, if you now understand that it was an ill-advised move. Just be sure to archive it properly, rather than deleting it outright. - 15:08, 21 June 2015 (EDT)

Lessen Crossover Coverage
DELETED BY PROPOSER

According to the current Coverage rule, crossover games like Super Smash Bros. and Mario & Sonic have full coverage. However, this means that we have to cover all of the content from Super Smash Bros., which can cause us to compete with our NIWA Affiliate Smash Wiki. Look at all the Smash content. Shouldn't we focus more on Mario? So I have a proposal:


 * Games that are 0%-5% Mario: CAMEO - No coverage except for on a list of references.
 * 5%-20% Mario: GUEST - just a page on the game and mentions on Mario pages.
 * 20%-70% Mario: CROSSOVER - All playable characters, original content and Mario based content get pages. However, content from other franchises other than playable characters will not be covered.
 * 70%-100% Mario: MARIO GAME Everything in the game will be covered, no matter what.

Proposer: Deadline: June 30, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) As proposer.

Oppose

 * 1) Regardless of anyone's opinion on the matter, your method of deciding whether or not a game should be covered is really off. How is it decided which games have "5%" Mario or "25%" Mario and so on and so forth? It's incredibly vague and I'm not comfortable with it.
 * 2) - Even if the proposal was suggesting something that was actually usable, the current coverage policy is fine.
 * 3) Umm what? Do we cover all 719 species of Pokémon? Do we cover all of Pikachu's apparences in the trading card game, anime, and whatnot? Do we cover all of Kirby's copy abilities in his games? No. All we cover are Smash Bros. apparences. I don't really get this proposal.
 * 4) Per Time Turner.
 * 5) Our coverage policy is fine and all the NIWA wikis know about it so it's not a problem.
 * 6) Per Time Turner and Pokémon XD: Gale of Darkness.
 * 7) Per all. Every single time anyone's asked to reduce coverage, it always gets shot down, this would be no exception. For a good reason too. I see no good reason to reduce our coverage and I feel it's counterproductive to our goal. We even link to SmashWiki in the end of Smash pages anyway so....
 * 8) Per all. The current policy was written with the goal of making the process as inclusive as possible while not going overboard or otherwise becoming too fiddly. I'm not in favor of anything outside of a justified tweak here or there, this proposal goes will beyond that.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) Per Pokémon XD and Time Turner.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) Strong Oppose. As stated in this proposal: "We cover Smash Bros. fully. We should cover all special moves and Final Smashes, especially since all are major aspects of Smash Bros. that are given a name. Hell, Air Dodge, Shield, and Footstool Jump all have articles.[...] Also, for those who think we're becoming SmashWiki 2.0, actually, that's a slippery slope argument. SmashWiki talks about strategies, character viability, move viability, combo potential, DACUS, wave-dashing, SHFFL, famous competitive players, famous tourneys, palette swaps, Sakurai angles, and a ton other Smash Bros. jargon and nitty bitty mechanics we won't even breahte[sic] on.[...]". Finally, the percentage points defined in the proposal is ridiculous, as if there is a hard-defined method to tell whenever a game is a crossover or guest appearances or cameo and each "element" is treated equally (for example, using these percentage points, Mario being a playable character in a 100-character roster in a Dynasty Warriors game would be deemed less significant than a Mario costume in a Marvel vs. Capcom game of 10 characters, each getting one alternate costume).
 * 13) What is this? The way we do it is fine. We're not competing with SmashWiki, and your calculation system makes no sense. Could you please give an example in the comments? What percent is Super Smash Bros Melee?

Comments
So how do you suggest those percentages are calculated..? --Glowsquid (talk) 23:22, 22 June 2015 (EDT)
 * Also Smash Wiki's coverage is far more technical and fandom-heavy (pages on tournaments, tourney players, memes, using the technically unofficial name "Smash 4" as the default way to refer to the latest installment... etc), so the "we're competing with them!" argument doesn't hold much water. --Glowsquid (talk) 23:25, 22 June 2015 (EDT)
 * Just count how much Mario content is in the game. For a Super Smash Bros. game, count the fighters, stages, music, items, etc. marked with mushrooms, eggs, DKs and Ws and count the total content in the game. Make a fraction with the Mario points on top and the total points on the bottom and divide, and convert the decimal into a fraction. SeanWheeler (talk) 23:32, 22 June 2015 (EDT)
 * are you fucking serious --Glowsquid (talk) 23:38, 22 June 2015 (EDT)
 * And just because they have fandom-based articles doesn't justify us having a lot of content they have. Do we really need all the Pokémon? That's something for Bulbapedia. And I think on the codec conversations and Palutena's guidence, we should just do the conversations about the Mario characters. And the list of trophies should only include the Mario, DK, Wario and Yoshi trophies. Well, at least we'll still have the playable Link, Samus and Pikachu. But I don't think we'll need Ridley, Chansey or Tingle.SeanWheeler (talk) 23:47, 22 June 2015 (EDT)
 * Oh yeah, I'm serious. But if you don't want to do calculations, you can just estimate. SeanWheeler (talk) 23:47, 22 June 2015 (EDT)
 * We don't have "all the Pokémon" though, we have a small table that briefly describes each Poké Ball Pokémon in the context of its Smash appearance alone, and short pages for the Pokémon fighters in Smash that give a very brief description of the Pokémon's concept, and then a brief description of its appearance in Smash, nothing more. The article does not describe the concepts of the individual Pokémon in any detail at all as Bulbapedia would (and does), nor does it describe or even mention Pokémon that appear outside of Smash. Pseudo-dino (talk) 03:17, 23 June 2015 (EDT)

@SeanWheeler, SmashWiki also is very technical about the Smash content. They have tier lists, tourneys, professional smash players, project m, advanced techniques, how viable a character is...etc. If like to learn what wave-dashing, star kos, wall of pains, etc. are, then SmashWiki covers it very well. We don't go that far. We cover like only the official thingamabobs. 03:37, 23 June 2015 (EDT)
 * Well, when I said "all the Pokémon" I wasn't talking about all the Pokémon in the National Dex. I mean all the Poké Ball Pokémon like Chansey, Blastoise and Fletchling. Do we seriously need these Pokémon? SeanWheeler (talk) 11:26, 23 June 2015 (EDT)
 * It's better to have individual articles on them rather than keeping them stuffed all into one page and only that page (along with trophy information). Much akin to putting all Yoshi Eggs in one basket and then eating them, balut style . 17:43, 23 June 2015 (EDT)

"Shouldn't we focus more on Mario?" is a moot point. 5 Smash Bros. games and 9 Mario & Sonic games out of the hundreds of other pure Mario games. -- 16:06, 23 June 2015 (EDT)
 * And that's only if you count the games that have both a handheld and console version, which have a lot of the same content anyway. -- 16:07, 23 June 2015 (EDT)
 * Okay, fine. Could we end this early? I actually like our Smash articles anyway. SeanWheeler (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2015 (EDT)
 * Okay, you can archive it and mark it as deleted by proposer. 21:29, 23 June 2015 (EDT)

Change intro standards for mainspace ex-subpages
DON'T CHANGE 1-7

See this proposal for some background.

This proposal seems a bit minor, but as a Mario Wiki, we strive to inform, not point out the obvious. That being said, the intros for the gallery space and other subpages are very unprofessional, as their only purpose, aside from stating the obvious, serves as filler text (seriously, one big reason we have such text is that "blank space is kind of an eyesore"). The most useful thing it does is provide a link to its main article. Now, I recall proposing replacing the intro text and turning gallery space into subspace, but I wasn't aware that it would violate our subpages policy, and I'm not willing to drastically alter an established policy just for the sake of changing the intro text a bit.

One solution is to replace the current intros with a simple. As for related ex-subpages, we can use. Articleabout, however, is less than ideal, but there's nothing in the way of creating a new template that link to related ex-subpages without saying that a page of images of Mario is a page of images of Mario. Not only does it seem more professional, it simplifies our introductions so users don't have to continuously refer to a policy that specifically outlines how each intro should be worded. Besides, our Subpages Policy is outdated, since galleries now include a few media files (see Baby Mario).

Anyway, another solution is to create an entirely new template which focuses on ex-subpages and links to related ex-subpages only when the related parameters are used. This would make it a combination of and, but altering it to make it more presentable. The new template would be something like this:

Main article:  For information about, see .

Further suggestions and alterations to this template would be appreciated, as it's only a prototype and I suppose more seasoned template makers can have a hand on this, provided they support, of course.

So, to sum it up, the advantages of using a template would be replacing filler text with a more useful and simple link, and it would simplify our Subpages Policy, the intro aspect.

Finally, this applies to mainly the mainspace ex-subpages, which is what this whole Subspaces Policy is about in the first place. Of course, exceptions apply, but if they're rare and not intrusive, the proposed changes wouldn't undermine the wiki.

Proposer: Deadline: July 1, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) It's simpler than memorizing a bunch of one-liner intros that point out the obvious, thus making it look more professional. If there are any major flaws I've overlooked, please state so and we'll see what we can do about those. Any refinements is highly encouraged as I do feel there are some ruffles than can be easily worked here and there. After all, these are just prototypes, but I hope you get the basic premise of the idea.

Oppose

 * 1) - In all honesty, I don't have a problem with the one-liners: unlike articles, there's nothing really to say besides what it is (with maybe an extra link to a port/remake or whatever), and yeah, something is better than nothing or a bare  or an equivalent, so whatever. It's not like readers will notice or care either way anyway. Plus, no one needs to memorize what to put since the policy page is set up for copypasta ease. I'd rather just update the policy page than worry about having to fix this non-issue in all the subpages. Don't fix what isn't broken.
 * 2) - I don't really get why we need to do this. Per Walkazo.
 * 3) Per Walkazo.
 * 4) Per Walkazo.
 * 5) Per Walkazo.
 * 6) Per Walkazo.
 * 7) Per Walkazo.

Comments
Huh, I'd expect someone to say "there's no problem with it, so no change". I think a little change goes some way, though, and my proposal is changing just for the sake of concision and trimming out filler text. As for the copy-paste thing, it's still more of a hassle to access these pages to copy-paste them than inputting a template that generates automated text anyhow. I really don't find those intro texts necessary other than providing a link to the main page, hence this proposal. It's not "fixing what isn't broken", it's improving/refining what we have right now, even if "readers won't care anyway". 22:02, 23 June 2015 (EDT)

Make a page for Rhythm Tengoku: The Best +
CREATE 12-0

Coverage states that pages for "Guest Appearance" games need to be voted on before being created. That rule was broken for the Punch-Out!! page, but revisiting that is kind of a waste so w/e.

Anyway, Rhythm Tengoku: The Best+, the latest game in the Rhythm Heaven series, has two hidden levels that feature all the main characters from the warioware series. I think the game deserves a page for the following reasons.


 * 1) It's a small but significant part of the game. It's the only challenge set which has new graphics and it is advertised on Nintendo's official Japanese website.
 * 2) It's not simply cameos. It's a lot of content that's being rejiged (not just one or two games) and the WW characters are playable (in the sense you press buttons and they react to your input, kinda weird to say this about this about a rhythm gaem, but whatever).
 * 3) The ww characters cannot be handwaved as being similar but different persons, random references, etc. It's a literal "guest appearance".

Proposer: Deadline: August 3, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) - It's pretty much the definition of a "Guest Appearance".
 * 2) Per all.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) Per Glowsquid.
 * 5) Go on.
 * 6) Yeah, this should get a page.
 * 7) Per Glowsquid.
 * 8) – Per Glowsquid.
 * 9) - Per Glowsquid.
 * 10) – Per Glowsquid.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 1) Per all.

Add direct links on star icons for 64/Galaxy/Galaxy 2
DELETED BY PROPOSER

I random'd to a SMG galaxy page earlier today, and rolled over the star icon; clicking would have led me to the file page. So, I got an idea: add direct links to their respective stars. This idea came from the map that exists on pages like this which provide a direct page link to that location. What I mean is that clicking on a star icon in the "summary box," as I call it, would take the reader to the section they are looking for, making the need for excessive scrolling nonexistent.

Proposer: Deadline: August 30, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) As proposer, I support my proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) - You mean the stars in the infobox? Making them section links seems like too much trouble when the table of contents listing the levels is literally right beside them. Plus, a row of stars is not the same thing as a full map, and wouldn't really help folks that are bad at names but good at visuals anyway (not that I even like that the maps are plastered onto every place article to begin with, tbh: it'd make sense for the game pages and maybe a couple other places, but we should just use the regular nav template link lists on the separate articles, imo).
 * 2) – There's already links to them directly above, even directly above in the case of Super Mario 64 and Super Mario 64 DS, the list of stars. This applies to all Super Mario 64, Super Mario 64 DS, Super Mario Galaxy and Super Mario Galaxy 2 level articles. I also don't understand why adding more links to something which is easily accessible by just eyeing a little bit above the list of stars is ultimately going to add to articles.
 * 3) Per all, and I'd even agree with Walkazo about the map links being unnecessary.
 * 4) I don't think it's necessary as stated above, but adding links would be an inconsequential change, which means we probably wouldn't have noticed if you added it without our "permission" or not. Considering that if this proposal passes, though, we need to add the links. I oppose just on those grounds. On a different topic, yeah, I agree with Walkazo about those maps (navmaps, I believe?) since they seem disjointed from the rest of the article.
 * 5) I really see no benefit to doing this. Per all.

Comments
I'm withdrawing; please archive. Thanks!

Add 'Edit' Button To Navigation Templates
PASSED 19-0

Yes, I know, we've already had a proposal about this, but my views on the subject have changed. Sometimes, when I want to improve on a navigation template, like adding a link or fixing a redirect link, I first need to hit edit of the page I find the navigation template at, find the name of the template, then find the name of that template in the list of templates listed when you're editing the page, and that's just plain tedious. The reason it failed was because "you should have multiple steps away from editing a Navitagion Template", and wording which generally reflected on assuming bad faith in edits.

"But if we add this, then there will be too much vandalism to fight." –You, after reading this.

This line of reasoning is nonsensical on so many layers it's not even funny. If we assume there is going to be vandalism just because we make something easier to access, then are we really assuming edits are made in good faith? It's downright disgusting that this is even something that's being thought of. Yes, this is something that other Wikis do. It's something other Wikis do better than the Super Mario Wiki does at this moment. Therefore, we need to step our game up, and upgrade past this "if we make things easier to access then everyone will edit stuff and this is bad"-kind of think that ultimately assumes editing in bad faith. Besides, if someone vandalises a navigation template, and there is an 'edit' button when you view the template as part of a page, it's going to be slightly easier to access the template and revert any vandalism done to the template, even without going to the recent changes. I think that's kind of neat.

Proposer: Deadline: August 26, 2015, 23:59 GMT.

Support

 * 1) – Per proposal.
 * 2) &ndash The reasoning provided in the previous proposal is bad, and it'd save everyone a lot of tedium. If vandalism is somehow more of a concern with this set of wiki features, just autoconfirm them
 * 3) Yeah I don't know what I was smoking when I said "no one uses it". These things get updated like all the time, whenever a new game gets released or so. I've always disagreed with that reasoning in the first place though, so there goes my only oppose I had.
 * 4) The opposition's reasoning in the previous proposal is ridiculous and basically a variation of "if it ain't broke, then don't fix it", which is a really annoying thought-terminating argument. Their argument: it's too much like Wikipedia and it's ugly and distracting and it worked without it before. Rule of thumb: websites should be designed for the convenience of its readers, so "it's ugly and distracting anyway" isn't a strong argument (I don't agree that it's "ugly"). My sister is the most reasonable, but it would be nice to have something so inconsequential as easy template editing.
 * 5) I've always found it a pain to try and figure out what the name of those templates were. Straight forward links leading straight to editing them make things a whole lot easier. Per proposal.
 * 6) Per all; this would be a time-saver like you wouldn't believe.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) - I'd still say a full navbar (like last proposal) would be ugly and unnecessary (most pages don't have talk pages at all and histories rarely need immediate consulting), but just an "[edit]" link seems reasonable and straightforward (no need for code letters and hover-over text), plus it'd balance out the "[show]", so sure.
 * 9) Per Time Turner
 * 10) - Per all.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) Per all.
 * 13) Per all.
 * 14) Yes! I hate this current system. Per everyone.
 * 15) Per everyone!
 * 16) I haven't edited for quite a while, but I really don't want to look through bazillions of long lists of templates just to get another list. Also, per all.
 * 17) Per all! And because this is essential
 * 18) Per all after thinking about it for a while.
 * 19) Per everyone.

Comments
@Bazooka Mario: Don't you mean "websites should be designed for their readers rather than their editors"? You've got that mixed up. Anyway, adding an "edit" template there benefits readers, as it could help point them to the template that needs to be fixed/updated at a convenient time. 23:23, 18 August 2015 (EDT)
 * I got it mixed up, yeah. *blush* 23:30, 18 August 2015 (EDT)

I'm mixed on this. On one hand, I think that we should add something on these templates. On the other hand, I'd rather it be a view link button rather than an edit button. 20:21, 19 August 2015 (EDT)
 * But if you just wanna look at the template, you can do so on the article it's on: most people will only go to the template if they want to edit it, so it makes more sense to have a link to the editing interface, and then from there the few others can just make one more click to view the template. And if you mean you just want the template name, you can already get that from the editing interface - or simply by hovering your mouse over the edit link without clicking it at all, for that matter... - 20:32, 19 August 2015 (EDT)
 * Finally, just another method, you can just pinpoint the template name at the search bar by typing "template:". I don't see the need for a view-only button. 21:12, 19 August 2015 (EDT)
 * As a final addition to this conversation, when you hit 'edit', you'll be immediately taken to a place where the 'view' and 'talk' functions are available by a single click, just by viewing the tabs at the top of the page. It's very convenient that way. 20:33, 22 August 2015 (EDT)

Replace "NTSC/PAL version" with "American/European/Australian/Japanese version"
DELETED BY PROPOSER

It has come to my attention that the current terminology we use for regional differences in Mario games (NTSC/PAL) is obsolete. NTSC and PAL are outdated TV standards. It puzzles me even more when people call, say, the European version of a handheld game the "PAL version", because that doesn't even make sense since it's not on a TV. Also, there could be differences between the American and Japanese "NTSC versions" beyond language, and our current terms would be non-indicative. Same with European and Australian "PAL versions". The Australian version isn't always a direct import of the European "PAL version" anyways. Sometimes it's the US version. Sometimes it's different from both of them. I know this might be confusing, but using more region-specific terminology will curb all this confusion. Proposer: Deadline: September 9, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per above.
 * 2) It would make more sense. Per YoshiCookie.
 * 3) I agree that we must be more specific about this.
 * 4) Per YoshiCookie.

Oppose

 * 1) I have never heard of those terms being obsolete, otherwise we would have changed it before. Prove that the terms are obsolete and I'll support.
 * 2) NTSC and PAL refer to specific groups of countries that share a common region lock (and plenty of other details, but that's not relevant at the moment). "NTSC" is a simpler way of saying "North America, South America (but not this country, this country, this country, etc.), and also this country, this country, this country, etc.", for example. If we want to refer to differences between American and Japanese releases, we already specify it, but NTSC, PAL, and so on are all terms that are appropriate and very relevant to us. There are likely cases when the terms are used inappropriately, but otherwise, it serves a purpose and should not be excluded.
 * 3) The labels "NTSC" and "PAL" refer to the CDs of the games, in which is the terminology that video games are still using and therefore are actually not obsolete. The TVs may have stopped using it, but the CDs haven't. And it's not puzzling to call them "NTSC" or "PAL", since it has become a regular use in our language to refer to regional differences of various CDs, and if you don't understand what they mean, then it's about time you understand some technical words. We could replace that terminology if there are further regional differences with, say, Australia or whatever, but to completely replace those words is something I'm against. Oh, and Time Turner ninja'd me. Fantastic.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Per Time Turner and Baby Luigi. I think that this change wiki just makes things harder.
 * 6) - Per all, especially Time Turner.
 * 7) Per all. Such terms should also be defined in our glossary (which it isn't at the moment).
 * 8) Per TT and BL.

Comments
I think however it is important to note when that term refers to actual 50/59.94 Hz versions of the games, which can be relevant in games such as the Mario Kart series games.--Mister Wu (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2015 (EDT)


 * Agreed. Also, ZonkMario64, look at this.


 * Don't see US, do you mean UK? SM64 Mario Sidekick.png Don't Get Zonked!  Question Block 3D.png (blabbing &middot; what i do) 15:42, 2 September 2015 (EDT)

But what about handheld games? YoshiCookie (talk) 17:33, 2 September 2015 (EDT)
 * Essentially the same deal. 19:04, 2 September 2015 (EDT)

Delete Meaningless Quotes
DELETED BY PROPOSER

Yeah I know we went through this before but it was different because it was going to delete entire pages. I'm tweaking that to say keep the pages, but delete meaningless quotes. For example:


 * Useful quotes: "Oh, did I win?" "Let's go already!"


 * Meaningless quotes: "Yes!" "Woohoo!"

In essence, quotes that are only used by one character (Peach and Waluigi, respectively) will stay. Generic quotes (So many Mario characters say "Yes!" in Mario Party and Mario Kart) will be deleted.

Proposer: Deadline: September 9, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) I'm ZonkMario64, and I approve this proposal.
 * 2) YES PLEASE! It's so annoying having a "quotes" page full of stuff like "yay" "woohoo" and "yeah" to name a few. Per proposal.

Comments
I'm pretty sure there already was a proposal enacted to curb these things? Or I swear there already is a guideline that specifically advocates removal of "YES WHOOOOHOOOO" quotes. 16:15, 2 September 2015 (EDT)


 * Yes, but it was vetoed by admins because it would "strip the wiki of valuable information." SM64 Mario Sidekick.png Don't Get Zonked!  Question Block 3D.png (blabbing &middot; what i do) 16:16, 2 September 2015 (EDT)
 * what. 16:19, 2 September 2015 (EDT)


 * here it is SM64 Mario Sidekick.png Don't Get Zonked!  Question Block 3D.png (blabbing &middot; what i do) 16:19, 2 September 2015 (EDT)
 * That proposal said to delete whole articles of quotes. The one I linked was to specifically delete these. 16:20, 2 September 2015 (EDT)
 * But the proposal from '07 was about gibberish and the like. "Yes" is not gibberish. SM64 Mario Sidekick.png Don't Get Zonked!  Question Block 3D.png (blabbing &middot; what i do) 16:35, 2 September 2015 (EDT)
 * It's not talking about literally gibberish, it's just talking about quotes that are mostly meaningless onomatopoeia. 16:39, 2 September 2015 (EDT)
 * Which doesn't apply to "Yes" either, I don't believe. SM64 Mario Sidekick.png Don't Get Zonked!  Question Block 3D.png (blabbing &middot; what i do) 16:40, 2 September 2015 (EDT)


 * The admin veto summary explicitly says "trim out the unnecessary quotes". The proposal was vetoed because it was using a sledge hammer where a pick-axe would be better, but ultimately, both it and this one were/are unnecessary, since useless quotes that show us nothing about a character's personality can already be removed via common sense and good taste. -

This proposal is not needed whatsoever since it should, on paper, be enforced already as cited by previous proposals above. We can go ahead and delete those "all rights" and "yes" crap but I can imagine people going back and readding those quotes because they're actual words, I guess. If you want to hear character interjections, go to other sites, such as The Sounds Resource, a far better resource than MarioWiki. 20:59, 2 September 2015 (EDT)
 * So are we gonna delete this or what?


 * We need admins to do that, IIRC. 12:28, 4 September 2015 (EDT)
 * They probably will. 15:50, 4 September 2015 (EDT)
 * The hope is that the proposer will ask us to scrap it, since vetoing things is less than ideal, but at this point, it looks like it might just be a NO QUORUM instead. - 12:09, 6 September 2015 (EDT)

@Walkazo: Since I predict that this won't get 2 more votes by tomorrow, I've decided to delete it. Don't Get Zonked!  (blabbing &middot; what i do) 09:40, 8 September 2015 (EDT)
 * Actually, "it's not gonna pass anyway" isn't a valid reason to have a proposal deleted. People try to ragequit proposals periodically, so I'd rather not make any exceptions by granting such a request, even in this case, where the proposal's unnecessary to begin with. But if you'd rather it get yanked now so that you can start on removing the quotes before tomorrow, having learned from the comments that it's already allowed, just say so. - 10:10, 8 September 2015 (EDT)
 * Sold! I am starting school on Thursday so I'd like to delete as many meaningless quotes as possible before then. Thx SM64 Mario Sidekick.png Don't Get Zonked!  Question Block 3D.png (blabbing &middot; what i do) 10:31, 8 September 2015 (EDT)

Restrict (if not remove) ImageMaps
RESTRICT USAGE AND REWRITE THE POLICY PAGE 8-1


 * Draft: User:Bazooka Mario/sandbox (check this revision for any future reference if you ever need it).

ImageMap templates are images you find on articles such as in World 1 (New Super Mario Bros.) that are filled with links, where you click on a specific part of the image to go to a particular article. They're intended to help visual readers navigate the wiki and relevant games more easily, but I find their usage and implementation less than ideal. They qualify as mystery meat navigation, flashy, but user-hostile forms of linking. While the imagemaps in MarioWiki aren't as cryptic as the moon image example in the Wikipedia page, their designs are still confusing for the average reader for several reasons: they are awkwardly placed in articles and look identical to thumbnail images and their low-resolution quality (needed to fit inside the page) and lack of labels or clear borders make distinguishing between places difficult. As Wikipedia put it, "it may not be readily apparent that the image is a clickable map instead of a simple picture". They are even more difficult to use for mobile users since image maps heavily rely on hovering for labeling locations, which mobile users cannot do.

The World 1 example I listed is, unfortunately, typical of most imagemap templates: gaudy, gimmicky, and ultimately useless.

This proposal aims to address the following problems of each individual imagemaps. Deletion is usually preferred, but if you disagree for a particular ImageMap and have reasons to keep them, please state so.

It is also imperative to see comments below as well before you vote since these are not set in stone, and they can be changed even after the proposal has passed.


 * (this one is especially confusing. Extremely user-hostile for those who are not familiar with Luigi's Mansion, but probably still confusing for those who are. It would work better in an article that lists all locations in Luigi's Mansion, but such article apparently doesn't exist. This, at best, should stay in the drawing board.)
 * (see LM Mansion Map. While LM Mansion Map might be a navigational aid for those in the middle of a game (although the Mansion isn't exactly a maze either), this one makes even less sense since the Lab is a small place)
 * (this one is already covered by navigational template. Implementing this into the navigational template would just take up space)
 * (it might have use, but it's very difficult to implement this template in any other spot in the article, and it looks bad the way it is)
 * (see NSMB-W1map. That ImageTemplates are far from complete is troublesome (for the merits of Image Maps, which are already dubious anyway) but it might be good to restrict usage now before it gets out of hand)
 * (see NSMB-W3map)
 * (see PDSMBE-map)
 * (see PDSMBE-map)
 * (this one is even more confusing, and it has to be ultra-low res for it to look barely presentable, which makes distinguishing between worlds very difficult; very user-hostile image-map that should be removed)
 * (already covered in its respective article. Moreover, its location inside the level infobox makes it impossible to discern it from a normal image without hovering over its specific link points)
 * (not great, especially for those who haven't played the game. It might work for Bowser's body, but ideally, it should have labels, but the low-res nature thanks for AlphaDream makes it not worth it. It's still difficult pinpointing each location; case point, it took me, who hasn't played the game (and for those who are in the midst of playing the game, the game already provides labels to each location, if I'm correct) longer than it should to locate Trash Pit. Otherwise, it should be removed from area-specific articles due to its bad placements in those articles.)
 * (at best, it should stick to only to the game article, Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story. Even then, it looks inconspicuous and not very useful, and the in-game map probably already has those labels.)
 * (this one is bad. The low resolution makes it difficult to distinguish between each area, so I think we should just nix this one.)
 * (it's not horrible, but I question its usefulness the same way I question M&L BIS Overworld Map's utility. I'm aware that in-game, the map itself already provides pointers to where you are, making it even more useless for those in the midst of playing the game.)
 * (see M&L:PIT Overworld Map. Its in-game map also has labels and makes this one useless when it comes to wiki coverage. This one is particularly difficult to use due to its low-res nature and that certain major areas including Beanbean Castle Town are difficult to locate. Also, Beanbean Outskirts is located in a specific spot when it should surround Beanbean Castle, but I suppose that's impossible with this system. So, remove it.)
 * (Not good. Its low-res nature makes it difficult to use, as with most Image Map templates. It would work if it were bigger and had labels. Its placement in articles is just as miserable as in most Image Map templates.
 * (again, it's very difficult to distinguish between places without squinting)
 * It would probably work for general overhead articles, but only if it actually looks different from other images. It's still difficult to use since some places are bordering microscopic.
 * Utterly pointless (not to mention gaudy in Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island, and when you have screenshots that have this stuff in it, like in World 6 (Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island), it's also confusing.
 * It might work, but its current implementation is difficult to use and requires a microscope. It still needs to be confined to overview articles rather than area-specific articles.
 * See SMWmap; this one looks identical.
 * It might work, but confine it to general overview articles (Vibe Island in this case) rather than slapping it everywhere. It still needs to be placed in a better spot, but the low-res nature of it makes it difficult for me to think of a method where it doesn't resemble a plain image.
 * Pointless. Names are a good indicator of each place. Actually, this applies to most areas in most games.
 * Utterly pointless.
 * Utterly pointless.

Common issues:
 * Difficult-to-distinguish locations
 * Bad placement, especially within more area-specific articles (placement in overview articles are not great either).
 * Redundant.
 * Aside from a tiny i icon, looks identical to normal images.
 * Due to the over reliance on hover-text, mobile users cannot benefit from Image Maps.

This is a writing guidelines proposal because there is a policy page dedicated to this under the writing guidelines category. Again, some ImageMaps may be worthy of keeping (I have doubts though), but if so, then it must caution users when making ImageMaps and they need to be implemented in a manner that doesn't highly resemble normal images, perhaps a special border around the image with the label "image map", no thumbnail framing, and located in a more conspicuous spot in the article. Either way, all Image Maps have their issues and I can't say I like they way they're implemented here. I prefer if they were deleted and at least placed back in the drawing board so it doesn't look at bad as it is now, but all-out-deletion may be too much, so I'm open for suggestions and objections.

Proposer: Deadline: September 18, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) All Image Maps, in my opinion, are highly flawed design aspects in our wiki. I used to think they are useful for the visual learners (including me), but they have only disappointed me so far for these above reasons. I think deletion or at least a highly confined usage will work for them. This is "Writing Guidelines" because it's a major change in one of our policies if it passes.
 * 2) Per Bazooka Mario.
 * 3) Per Mario.
 * 4) Per proposal.
 * 5) Per proposal.
 * 6) Per proposal
 * 7) I've changed my mind. Through the comments, Bazooka Mario has made it very clear what the goal of this proposal is. I still think this proposal isn't perfect, but I think we've made some decent progress that warrants my vote.
 * 8) - Image Maps are good for orientation in the directory articles (game and overall world/place pages), but not as alternative navigation templates on the specific location/level pages. See my comments about which ones should be scrapped or saved, but overall, a proposal to rehabilitate their use and fix the policy page is one I can get behind, and the draft is well enough along at this point for me to formally support.

Oppose

 * # Okay, hear me out. I agree with what's been said, and I agree that image maps are a mess. However, I don't think removing some without further thought is a good idea. This is the type of thing that can be changed, improved, and fixed. I'm not the best at coding, but I'm sure there's a way to make image maps appealing to everyone. If we try improving image maps and it doesn't work, ah well, maybe then we can think of removing them. But for now, give it a chance. After all, it's not the idea that is flawed; it's the presentation. Also, see my comments below. They are arguebly just as important.


 * 1) Per all, Andymii in particular.

Comments
Not that I disagree with what's being proposed, but if you're going to make a writing guidelines proposal, don't you need to make a draft?
 * Well, I'm not sure what the draft might look like as of yet, but the policy page implies that the process of writing a draft can be done during proposal process (that "writing guideline proposals are given two weeks as opposed to one so as to allow sufficient time to perfect the document.") Also, my proposal aims to either nix or highly restrict their usage, something I don't feel is worth potentially splitting the vote (I can go with either one), so I'm not 100% sure what's supposed to be in the draft yet, or if there is a call for a draft. It was difficult for me to determine if this proposal is about general change, removal, or a writing guideline, but I stuck with writing guideline since it involves potentially (emphasis on potentially) changing a MarioWiki policy or making it moot. In other words, I'm highly uncertain. 18:48, 4 September 2015 (EDT)
 * Okay, I got the draft down. That might be a start. 19:32, 4 September 2015 (EDT)

These are kind of useful. What will we do if they get removed or restricted? (talk|contribs) Kamek Power! 00:23, 5 September 2015 (EDT)
 * They are not useful as I explained above, and for these reasons, they are a user-hostile design that shouldn't be in this wiki in their current state. 15:35, 5 September 2015 (EDT)

Andymii: This proposal is not wholly about removing Image Maps, it's simply restricting their usage at best if in case there are reasons to keep one or two. As I said, "I prefer if they were deleted and at least placed back in the drawing board so it doesn't look at bad as it is now, but all-out-deletion may be too much, so I'm open for suggestions and objections." I'm saying that even at best, we should send Image Maps back to the drawing board to allow them to get improved so we can readd them when needed. Image Maps as they are are abused and look terrible in most articles they are in, mostly scrunched below the infobox, hidden at the bottom of the article, or being redundantly placed directly next to the list of levels. They're the gaudiest part of our wiki and thus, they don't improve our credibility. 15:35, 5 September 2015 (EDT)
 * And even if Image Maps are highly flawed in design, our Writing Guidelines for Image Maps set them up to be low-res and inconspicuous and I already pointed out those problems in my draft. 15:36, 5 September 2015 (EDT)

Good points, but I don't think we really know what we will do next. You've listes some image maps with comments, but most of them are just "this is useless" (okay, more detailed than that, but, ya know.) I'm always open for change, but I don't think this has been completely thought through. Not that I'm saying all our changes should be black and white, but I'm genuinelly unsure here what's going to happen next. --Andymii (talk) 00:13, 6 September 2015 (EDT)
 * I think the likeliest change would be keeping ImageMaps within generic location articles (like Bowser's Body, BeanBean Kingdom) while removing Image Maps from level/world articles. Remember, they can always be reimplemented, but I just don't like their current state right now. I'm emphasizing on "if not remove" part of the proposal title. See, that's what a draft is for, and that's why "Writing Guidelines" go for two weeks, for me to think and allow people to point out suggestions and other comments. 01:15, 6 September 2015 (EDT)
 * Oh, I'm sorry. I had a misunderstanding. You're thinking of deleting the maps from level/world articles and keeping them on generic location articles. I actually think that's a good idea. I wish I supported.

(talk|contribs) Kamek Power! 10:08, 6 September 2015 (EDT)
 * You can remove your opposition vote and support the proposal instead, you know. - 12:07, 6 September 2015 (EDT)

So I finally got enough time to look at this proposal properly (except for the writing guideline draft: I'll try to get to that tonight or tomorrow) and go through the templates one-by-one, and here's my thoughts, grouped by map type / verdict for clarity:


 * - Keep: it'd be good for Luigi's Mansion (place) and Luigi's Mansion. But I'd suggest redesigning it to that all 5 levels are vertically arranged (rather than two columns), with a bit of blank space between each as buffers so that it's clearer that they're different floors.
 * , - Scrap: too small to be worth-while.
 * }},, , , , - Scrap: the labels are in the images already; just have the regular images on the pages rather than all the trouble of a template.
 * ,, - Keep: since there's branching pathways it's not completely intuitive what the numbers always are, and provided all the worlds get them, they could be used in both those articles in the infoboxes (P&D is fine but the NSMB infobox needs to be wider to be legible) and the game pages (i.e. stacked in the "Worlds" sections next to the descriptions, rather than just single world examples).
 * ,, , , , , , , , - Keep: not all the area names are intuitive, and the maps will fit on the game and location pages well enough (in place of mere images, and at large-enough sizes, not scaled down). The only issue is that larger areas should have more than one tiny clickable area (e.g. add multiple link sites for Beanbean Outskirts, and all the NSMBU areas, etc.).
 * - Keep: it's good for Bowser's body and the M&L3 game article since then you can match up the locations to the nodes (otherwise long windy directions are needed since it's not intuitive at all a lot of the time; that'd be fine for individual location articles, but it'd be too much all in one place).
 * - Scrap: duplicate of

Overall thoughts: The overworld maps are good for game and place articles (Beanbean Kingdom, etc.), and the world-specific maps are good for the world articles and the game articles, as long as all the worlds have them. When a template is used on an article, it should be used in place of a mere image of the map; this will often mean putting the template in the infobox, which should be fine as long as the infoboxes aren't obscenely wide (but most templates are only about 400 px or less wide, which would be fine for an infobox, and should be clear enough to be readable and useable). If the names of the places are right there in the level/world select screens, no template's necessary to tell readers what place is what. - 16:45, 7 September 2015 (EDT)
 * I'll get around to some revisions, but do you think how Image Maps are placed are a problem? That ImageMaps aren't immediately discernible from simple images is an issue. I think the infobox might need some revision to let readers better know that these are Image Maps. 18:19, 7 September 2015 (EDT)
 * Just include a "click the level icons/areas/etc. to go to the relevant articles" note as a caption (no  following the template) for the images in infoboxes, and when images aren't in infoboxes, like in game pages, just mention it in the text or the thumbnail notes (depending on whether it's formatted as a thumbnail or not - anything that goes in infoboxes shouldn't be). -  18:55, 7 September 2015 (EDT)

Wow, I didn't realize how terrible Image Maps is... Anyway, I looked over the draft, but there's so many problems with the source material, I gave up on trying to succinctly comment and just did a whole new draft for the policy parts, based on some of your comments on your draft page, and also things that I said here, and extra bits that occurred to me as I was working. Let me know what you think. - 21:55, 8 September 2015 (EDT)
 * Yeah, I was wondering why it seems so... amateur to me, nothing against Megadardery (he's not a native speaker if I recall correctly). Yeah, my draft probably isn't the best, so I just made comments here and there. Well, is it fine if I incorporate the draft soon? I still have yet to look over it, but at a glance, it seems fine... 00:07, 10 September 2015 (EDT)
 * Yep, if you wanna use my draft, feel free to copypasta it (and then make any fixes or further changes if you see fit, but for clarity, I'd use separate edits than the initial moving of the content). If this passes, I can update the protected policy page for you and ensure the appropriate credit is given to both of us in the summary. - 18:39, 10 September 2015 (EDT)
 * Okay, I've done it, and I've included some (not much!) commentary on some points. It's mostly for clarification or other questions. 15:53, 12 September 2015 (EDT)
 * Cool. I updated my page to better explain the default link stuff), and also made the "no fan images" part of the main point rather than a subpoint unto itself (but I think it should still be explicitly said to make absolutely sure people get the point). As for the size/clarity one, the subpoint gives examples already, so more aren't necessary. EDIT: I also made a few grammar tweaks on top of your changes, shown here. - 17:06, 12 September 2015 (EDT)
 * That's what I thought the extra bullet point was meant to hammer in readers, but I think how you merged it is a better idea. One more statement that isn't made very clear to me is the one that starts with "Locations that are widespread in the map[...]". I'm not sure why I haven't commented on this earlier, but later reading it, I kind of go "huh?". 17:43, 12 September 2015 (EDT)
 * Like how in, all the areas are pretty large, yet once the text disappears after you hover-over part of the area, it doesn't appear again as you waver the mouse around the rest of the large area - so I feel like in these cases, it'd be good to break the areas into smaller chunks so the text can come up more than once and show it's all the same place. Plus, as been mentioned before, places like the Beanbean Outskirts are all around the castle, but only have a link underneath in , so multiple links would be good for those as well. - 18:05, 12 September 2015 (EDT)
 * Beanbean Outskirts is a good example to provide for this then. I couldn't find the link for it myself, so I speak from personal experience. Thanks for the clarification! 18:26, 12 September 2015 (EDT)

Okay, so I went ahead and rewrote the bottom half of MarioWiki:Image Maps too - to the best of my abilities, anyway, but I'm pretty sure all the coding stuff is right. - 20:51, 15 September 2015 (EDT)


 * sigh, all my hard "bad" work. Actually, it was a terrible thing I did with the Image Maps. So yea, the draft Walkazo came up with is 100 times better :) Anyway, regarding the actual proposal, I don't agree with removing all the imagemaps as Bazooka proposed, I prefer to go with Walkazo's suggestion, I wasn't very keen on the NSMB and YIDS style map, but since it was made by one of the admins (or a formal admin), I didn't give it much of a thought, I felt it provided a faster way to move if you know which page you are going to go to, saving you the trouble of writing the link in the search bar or something. But now that I think about it, the images looks ugly the way they are. Anyway, regarding the bigger maps, especially Luigi's Mansion. Not only because that I made them (and I make perfect ImageMap templates, mind you :P) . But because they actually help to navigate faster between rooms, and show users a very good layout of the mansion, better than any lengthy description. I could manually add text to the rooms to make them easier to see (because the game doesn't nativally show names, or at least the name of the rooms you are not in). But it's a gray area editing screenshot, so avoiding it is better. Also, hovering over any part of the mapimage will show the link location in almost all modern browsers in the lower left corner of the screen. If not, waiting like 1 second will show you the target name under the cursor. So whatever the imagemap is, it's not worthless. But if it causes troubles or ugliness, then off with it. If the names of the location is the thing that annoys you, I think going over all the games and getting screenshots of the maps with the labels shouldn't be very impossible.-- 07:52, 18 September 2015 (EDT)
 * Don't be too hard on yourself. I thought about you when I made this proposal and I was pretty guilty, but in the same time, their design bothers me. As stated in the proposal title, the "if not" part is only an option if people really do think they should be removed, but my main point is to amend them, and if they cannot be amended, then they should be removed. I'm aware that you can hover over the area to get their names, but it's fairly time-consuming, and mobile users can't do this. I do think labels might work (and it can; Superstar Saga has ingame labels that we can possible screencap off and upload it on this wiki). The problem with my proposals is that my ideas and thoughts tend to be half-baked, and I'm grateful that we're allocated two weeks to sort out those kinds of things. 18:07, 18 September 2015 (EDT)

Add "bugs and" or "and bugs" to "List of glitches in"
DON'T CHANGE 1-0-5

First, my reasoning is bugs and glitches are not the same. A bug is a minor glitch (like a short-lived audio glitch, which would be considered a bug according to this proposal), whereas a full-blown glitch is something that is longterm, causes a game to freeze, and so on and so forth. For example: this is what would be considered a bug, but this would be a full-blown glitch.

Proposer: Deadline: September 20, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Change

 * 1) per my own proposal.

Leave as is

 * 1) - Seems too similar and minor to bother changing all these titles, and mouthful "_ and _" names are less than ideal in general. The only reason we're stuck with "pre-release and unused" is because there's no nice umbrella term, but I feel like the broad meaning of "glitch", like how we currently use it, is more widespread and accepted than "beta" was, with a lot of (if not most) folks using it and "bug" interchangeably.
 * 2) Per Walkazo. Better off staying how they are.
 * 3) Per Walkazo, as well as Baby Luigi in the comments.
 * 4) I think it's totally fine to create a page called Bug and redirect it to Glitch, but beyond that, I feel the definitions here are a smidge pedantic, unlike the far more confusing "subspecies" and "beta".
 * 5) Walky said it better, but I don't see the point. Bugs and glitches are already near synonyms and I doubt anyone's getting confused.

Comments
I'm on the edge with this, but your description is wrong. The term of a bug and glitches is not defined on how damaging of a scale they are (both can cause game-breaking things, it depends on what component of the game experiences that or that), but the processes that caused them. Glitches, I believe, are things that the game developers did not intend/over-looked that are performed by the player, while a bug is a problem in the coding of the software itself. But since we do use "pre-release and unused" for that, I don't see why we can't add "bugs" to the title description. However, most people say those two interchangeably, so I do think it's verging in pedantry. 16:52, 13 September 2015 (EDT)
 * I wasn't talking about the level of damage but the significance of a glitch. And while they are interchangeable, that is only in speaking. On the wiki, however, the two should have different meanings. RoyNSMBU.png Roy Koopa 16:57, 13 September 2015 (EDT)
 * It's still not dependent on the magnitude of the glitch. As I said, the term is defined more of processes that caused the error in the game rather than how significant they are, as both are fully capable of crashing the game or whatever, so it's really hard to define terms that way (like, a minor clip bug could cause the rest of the game to be unplayable, because you cannot advance due to it). And tell why they should? I have said why they should not; because it's for the convenience of searching for these articles and because it's used interchangeably in normal speak. Compared to beta elements, that is. I've also stated why we should, to be consistent with the pre-released and unused content article. 17:01, 13 September 2015 (EDT)
 * About the minor clip bug, that would call for a reset of the system/software. As for the convenience of searching bit, if someone doesn't know we only use the term "glitches" and looked up "List of bugs in," they would get nowhere. As you might be able to see, this proposal is more for the help of readers who have no intention of editing, anons who edit, and new users. RoyNSMBU.png Roy Koopa 17:12, 13 September 2015 (EDT)
 * Exactly, you've proved my point on why we don't define the terms solely because of how big and game-changing they are. There are far too many variables and parameters we have to define; saying the processes that caused this and this error is a better way to define "bug" and "glitch" rather than how significant it is, and "significant" is a pretty loose and relative term. Also, I think we need more redirects in general with the whole lists thing, like List of minigames articles needs more redirects. 17:16, 13 September 2015 (EDT)
 * What if I added an option to say "Redirect 'List of bugs in' to 'List of glitches in'"? RoyNSMBU.png Roy Koopa 17:20, 13 September 2015 (EDT)
 * Maybe? Maybe not. I don't know about this. 14:58, 14 September 2015 (EDT)
 * I don't think anyone would object if you created Bug as a redirect to Glitch although "bug" can mean other things. 15:08, 14 September 2015 (EDT)

I don't think there is a need to split the vote between "bugs and" and "and bugs". Just a simple support would suffice so determining outcomes would be simpler. 17:14, 13 September 2015 (EDT)
 * Do you mean have the voters post their opinion in the vote? RoyNSMBU.png Roy Koopa 17:15, 13 September 2015 (EDT)
 * I mean, you can merge your "bugs and" and "and bugs" choices into one support vote. They're pretty much the same thing, so there's no need to mull over the order of the elements. 17:23, 13 September 2015 (EDT)

@Walkazo Adding two syllables is not a mouthful imo. Six syllables (I counted) is though. Roy Koopa 17:28, 13 September 2015 (EDT)
 * You're not adding just syllables, but extra spaces and characters. It makes the title and links look more clunky. 18:11, 13 September 2015 (EDT)
 * ummmm...how does it make a link clunky? RoyNSMBU.png Roy Koopa 21:12, 13 September 2015 (EDT)
 * In the navigation templates mostly, so you mostly have to resort to piping there. And considering that it's not all that necessary, then I'm not sure if it's worth lengthening the name like that. 14:58, 14 September 2015 (EDT)

MarioWiki:Quotes
DELETED BY PROPOSER

Everything is explained here.

I think, so that people don't come along and say "Well, he said it that makes it a quote" we should have a guideline page to explain real quotes and pseudo-quotes.

Proposer: Deadline: October 6, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) My proposal

Oppose

 * 1) - Just use common sense to remove useless quotes: we already went over this less than a month ago with a different proposal. A policy page is unnecessary, just the same as how "remove stupid quotes" proposals are unnecessary: just remove bad quotes like you would with bad writing, and if there's disagreements, take it the talk page. Plus, it's better to not have rigid rules for things like this, as Bazooka Mario discusses in the comments, so really, the draft is more restrictive than anything else, which is not good.
 * 2) Per. A general rule of thumb is that if there is certain problem easily identifiable and fixable with simple good judgement, then it doesn't require a policy page.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) Per. Just per.

Comments
Why create a policy page when we can simply use good judgement to decide whenever a quote is meaningful or not? Also, some parts of your policy is vague. "Let's go" is technically a complete sentence (subject is invisible "you", verb is "let") with logical words and phrases, but it's a super generic quote. What do you mean by "Is this quote used by multiple other characters?"? Is the answer supposed to be "no" for a quote to qualify? Also, I think the best question to ask is if the quote illustrates the character. Besides, some quotes that do illustrate a character properly would technically not qualify, such as Mario's "Mama mia" since it is generic and not a complete sentence, and Metal Mario's "Mia mama" because it is not a coherent sentence. The first illustrates Mario since it's iconic while the latter illustrates Metal Mario for being a parody of Mario's quote. Also, "Let's-a go!" would also be omitted despite being an iconic quote as well. I think the "gibberish" and "screaming" sections can be integrated into a more umbrella "onomatopoeia and interjections" section (at least that sounds more technical), but again, those two are easily identifiable, so I don't think policy is needed for this.

Even if the policy is needed, it probably needs to be better written. I know it's your first crack at something like this, but the draft strikes me as very incomplete, and the proposal by content itself feels very... brisk and rushed, as if you didn't put a whole lot of thought into this, frankly. For starters, in the draft, you've provided only examples without explaining them. I suggest you actually explain first and provide examples as support rather than making them stand alone. It seems like you really want to push it, but I suggest just jump in the quote pages now rather than use the draggy proposal process. 17:44, 22 September 2015 (EDT)

I would argue that Baby Luigi imitating engine noises does add to his personality unlike the WAAAAAHHHHHs and the HEEEHEEEHEEEES, but eh, can someone else not named Baby Luigi make that argument? 17:46, 22 September 2015 (EDT)
 * Mario imitates engine noises too, you know (wheelie in Mario Kart Wii). Actually, a lot of characters do this, including Luigi in Mario Strikers, and those "zoom zoom" quotes that I can't pinpoint. I don't see Baby Luigi's as particularly unique or defining his character. But if you're desperate, use an .ogg file and put it in Baby Luigi's gallery rather than put it into a quote page. 17:48, 22 September 2015 (EDT)
 * You know, we really need to get a better .ogg sound library around here. It's only barely been implemented ever since, I don't know months or a year ago. 17:55, 22 September 2015 (EDT)
 * Wait, another thought, can we transform the list of quotes page into a gallery of .oggs instead? 17:55, 22 September 2015 (EDT)
 * That, I'm not too keen on, since I don't intend MarioWiki to be a repository of sound files for Viewers Like You™, although I've been thinking about integrating voice effects into quote pages in a separate gallery. I think I actually settled for putting those VFX in media pages such as here, but I don't think it would be a hassle to put VFX in quote pages as well. 18:00, 22 September 2015 (EDT)
 * Maybe the sound files would make sense for the "onomatopeia and intejections" section, while the quote should be in written form (the reader may not be in a situation where a sound output is possible, but of course onomatopeia and interjections in written form are of little use).--Mister Wu (talk) 12:05, 23 September 2015 (EDT)
 * List of Mario Kart 8 media provides a good example of a sample of quotes in audio format: the file names are descriptive enough to tell you what the audio quote is, and the audio table template itself provides an option for a caption. But otherwise, onomatopoeia and interjections serve little use in our wiki since they tell so little of the character usually. 14:45, 23 September 2015 (EDT)

You guys are missing the point. I meant for this to proposal to be aimed at new users and anons who think "Mario says 'Mamma Mia' so it's a quote it should be here." As for us experienced users, we use common sense, but the anons and new users may not know. Roy Koopa 14:37, 24 September 2015 (EDT)
 * But I'm arguing that "Mama mia" should be here in the first place, so that's kind of a moot point? Anyhow, for new users, we have this handy guideline: Don't Shoot Your Foot Off. If they are inserting meaningless gibberish quotes, we can always notify them why they don't qualify (e.g. "The quote page is reserved for meaningful and coherent quotes by so and so. "Aaaaaarrggh" or "ppffffffft" are not quotes in that manner"). Newer users probably don't want yet another policy page to sludge through, too, so just informally telling them delivers the message quicker. I don't think new users and anons add these kinds of quotes often enough to call us into making a policy page either. 15:03, 24 September 2015 (EDT)

Add a 3D render licensing template
CREATE 9-0

We have this proposal for earlier reference. It failed mainly because of legal redundancy. I understand that already covers this issue. Currently, however, 3D renders such as this, this, this, this, this and this are lumped with sprites in this category. This is not good when one of our wiki policies already took pains to distinguish between what's a sprite (including pre-rendered sprites) and a live rendered model. So, the legal argument is not a valid point against creating a template and a category, and it fails to address a more immediate problem, which is an organizational one, in this wiki. This proposal aims to remove this disparity by including a licensing template called and its content will look like this (embedded categories excluded):

Again, the legal issue is not the main point I'm going for; we need this so we can organize such images into a convenient category rather than awkwardly lumping them with our sprites. Our current way of doing this violates the policy I've mentioned earlier, so taking a step to include a separate category (which will have more than enough entries) would benefit our wiki.

One possible alternate option would be to rename the category, but it would be an unnecessary hassle to rename all of those categories, and it wouldn't help with our organization at all. Again, we're supposed to treat sprites and renders as two separate and distinct entities as outlined by MarioWiki:Good Writing. Otherwise, you might as well just lump everything under like it used to be before  was created in 2011. I think just creating a new one to cover the renders is a far better and consistent option.

There is also another option to simply add a new category but that doesn't solve the licensing by itself, so you have to edit the licensing template to accommodate 3D renders, making it more convoluted than what's being proposed.

We can also go with "3D model" rather than "3D render", but "3D render" is much more precise and not too jargon-y. If there is a sudden call to change from "render" to "model", please let me know.

If this proposal passes, it will overturn the previous proposal and will give us one more drop-down option under licensing when you upload an image.

Proposer: Deadline: October 3, 2015 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal
 * 2) Per all.
 * 3) please for the love of god yes, i keep asking for a licensing template that would differentiate between two clearly-wouldn't-be-more-different things
 * 4) They are two different things. I agreed to making a separate licensing template back in that previous proposal. So heck yeah this is a per proposal.
 * 5) Per all. Even though the trouble that will arise from this is not little, it is clear that sprites are not models. "3D render" also sounds a lot better than plain "model".
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) – Per all.
 * 1) – Per all.

Comments
Megadardery: "Even though the trouble that will arise from this is not little[...]". Elaborate? I don't think this will cause any problems other than a little reorganization, but it's not like we haven't done this before. 15:24, 27 September 2015 (EDT)
 * Pretty much the "surfing the wiki and finding all 3D models" is what comes to my mind. Plus the fact that few users would not notice this proposal, and continue marking models as sprites. Plus the fact that some users would still confuse some 3D renders as sprites (NSMBDS comes to mind). It's an inconvenient to say the least.-- 12:00, 28 September 2015 (EDT)
 * Well, that's not stopping us from at least making an effort to reorganize the renders. We've made drastic wiki organizational changes before, such as removing "beta" and "sub-species" terminology. Sure, users will probably categorize renders from sprites, but it's not different from any other type of bad categorization, poor formatting, or even bad grammar. Hell, it's why we have this section in policy. We can't just leave them like that. 20:40, 28 September 2015 (EDT)
 * Which is basically why I'm supporting.-- 12:16, 29 September 2015 (EDT)
 * I don't even know if nsmbds uses sprites or prerendered models. Some enemies are clearly sprites. Even the player models have frames ripped in the spriters resource. 19:22, 29 September 2015 (EDT)
 * Well, they're still technically renders, but I'll give the benefit of doubt and say that Mayro, Loogie, Pitch, Bowz, and Junior are 3D renders. 19:35, 29 September 2015 (EDT)

Make location infoboxes more appropriate for buildings as well
DON'T CHANGE 3-7

I propose us to make location infoboxes more fitting to articles on buildings. That is because the current one uses the terms greater location, ruler and inhabitants, which seem more suitable/common for regions. We could create a switch to a "building" option, that would switch:
 * Greater location to Location;
 * Ruler to Owner;
 * Inhabitants to Residers.

Proposer: Deadline: October 4, 2015, at 23:59 GMT.

Support

 * 1) Per my proposal.
 * 2) Per Mr. Ice Bro. (Though I'd advice changing "Residers" to "Residents").
 * 3) It makes a lot of sense to do so.

Oppose

 * 1) Very vague. Good idea, but too vague.
 * 2) - Simplifying "location" is a good idea, but it would be a mistake to make the other two changes: I'd rather "owner" be added instead of replacing "ruler", and "inhabitants" works perfectly well for both types of places.
 * 3) Per Walkazo.
 * 4) Per Walkazo.
 * 5) Per Walkazo.
 * 6) I'd support if the proposer had responded to feedback in the comments, but given the lack of activity there, I have to oppose. Per Walkazo. We don't and shouldn't need to do replacements in those infoboxes when more options will suffice. Even then, that's not really grounds for a main page proposal.
 * 7) Per Walkazo. This seems like a topic that is going to take more than just a proposal to sort out to the satisfaction of all parties, so I'd suggest Ice Bro take this to the forums for discussion.

Comments
Changing "greater location" to "location" would make sense either way, but "inhabitants" already works for buildings, so I think that one should be left alone. Also, while "ruler" indeed doesn't work for buildings, "owner" would sound awkward for countries and whatnot, so why not just make both variables usable? "Ruler" is already optional, so just add "owner" as a different optional variable, and then both types of situations are covered. -

Roy Koopa: If it's too vague, then what parts of the proposal do you think needs elaboration? Also, I agree with Walkazo, just add more if parameters into the infoboxes. This probably doesn't even need a proposal for such an inconsequential change. We don't need a new infobox, just add it to "location". 15:27, 27 September 2015 (EDT)
 * It's vague because the only reasoning is "this is bad we should change it to this." RoyNSMBU.png Roy Koopa 18:37, 28 September 2015 (EDT)
 * The propositions seem to be fairly specific though, but I do think elaboration is needed for why these propositions are needed, but inferring from the propositions and proposal titles, it seems to be apparent. That "location" as it's currently used also covers "buildings", which is pretty awkward. 20:22, 28 September 2015 (EDT)

I don't know. Some things work in this proposal, others don't. I personally think Walkazo's idea is the best. I'm not voting yet either way as of now.

Create Template: Unfinished
DELETED BY PROPOSER

While going through a few random pages recently, I noticed that many unfinished pages have the Construction template, so I decided to check the page history on them. Oddly enough, many of these supposedly "under construction" pages haven't been edited for years.

In these cases, the pages aren't under construction (at least not anymore, if the page was under construction at some point. You can't just trust the original "constructors" to come back and complete the page suddenly after three years.) Therefore, such a template doesn't make sense. We need a separate template to tell editors that the page is unfinished, and that help is needed to help complete the page to a satisfactory level.

Just to make the distinction, something "under construction" is incomplete, but actively being edited towards completion. Something "unfinished" is incomplete, but not being actively edited towards completion. In other words, it's unfinished and forgotten.

Here is what the template can look like. I deliberately made it look similar to the construction template, since they are relatively similar:  This is unfinished. Please try adding as much as you can to complete this page.

Proposer: Deadline: October 31, at 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per my reasoning above.

Oppose

 * 1)  Per TT's comment.
 * 2) Per Time Turner's comment; We already have templates that serve this purpose.

Comments
So... basically and/or ? They're both used to signify articles that are in need of more information.
 * This. If you find an article with a construction template past a reasonable amount of time and the article still needs work, mark it for rewrite, as a stub or for deletion. It'll be looked at one way or another. -- Ghost Jam[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 06:28, 24 October 2015 (EDT)

You know what, I completely forgot about stubs. (I guess I was sleepy; I made this quickly.) Thanks for pointing that out. I'll cancel this proposal in a few minutes, as there's really no need for it. --Andymii (talk) 11:15, 24 October 2015 (EDT)

Do not consider ports for an article's most recent name
DELETED BY PROPOSER

At the moment, there are a few articles that have had their names changed due to rereleases, including Super Mario Bros. 3's worlds, which was put into place due to a proposal held on a single talk page, and Spiky Gloomba (to Spiked Gloomba), which was put into place after citing SMB3 as precedence (there are likely other examples, but I can't recall them at the moment). To use the Gloomba as an example, it was "Spiked" in Paper Mario, but was renamed to "Spiky" in Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door, and the article followed suite. However, with the Virtual Console release of Paper Mario, the article changed names once again. The logic behind it is that, since the re-release is technically the most recent game, the names of our articles should reflect that. I don't agree with that.

First of all, it'd be incredibly off to only apply this to names, and there are quite a few other aspects that would have to be changed, namely the general order of the games in history sections and every article's latest appearance. It's seems odd to arbitrary exclude everything but the names in our changes. Also, how surreal would it be to see an article with their first appearance listed as "Super Mario Bros. 2 (1988)" and then its latest appearance listed as "Super Mario Bros. 2 (2012)"? It presents the idea that there's a whole new game called SMB2, but it's really the exact same game with minimal differences (I'm not exaggerating). This idea of being misleading is another reason I dislike the idea: having a game carry the same name as it did twenty years ago is not a change; it's an example of preservation. If a museum was commissioning a replica of the Mona Lisa, with the intent of presenting it as it was originally depicted, would you want them to paint a giant clown nose on it? While it'd be a bit funny, it'd completely lose the intent and disappoint a large amount of people looking forward to it. With that said, preserving something is not the same thing as presenting it as something new. Attitudes at Nintendo have not changed by re-releasing an old game, and the wiki's attitude should likewise not change. It's not even as if they're a "new" game; for all intents and purposes, these games are the same games that were once available a few years ago, just for a different platform.

In the case of the Super Mario Land enemies whose names were changed in the Virtual Console, those are different to what's being discussed here. Those names were changed with the re-release itself; it's not a matter of the same name popping up again and clashing with a later game, it's a matter of the same game containing different names than it did previously. One is about staying true to the source, while the other is about a clear change in though. Basically, per what was said by me and Walkazo on the forums.

This proposal intends to revert the Lands proposal and the Gloomba move (and any other ones that may be out there), as well as set a precedent for the future.

Proposer: Deadline: October 28, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Definitely, this makes perfect sense. I'm not sure why they were renamed back to the old ones in the first place.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) Per proposal, Especially because re-releases' modifications are kept to a minimum. The name could have been changed from one game in the series to another, but the developers didn't modify the original game for a re-release. If it was modified to a new name, then this name automatically becomes the newest.
 * 5) I never even knew this was an issue. Per all.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) PP. # - Per proposal and per myself on the forums. If stuff in a a re-release was actively changed to be different from the original (like the SML names), we should update our titles accordingly - like how we'd update the body text to mention the changes between versions. However, if the differences from current names derived from subsequent games are only because the re-release is being authentic to the original, then we shouldn't use the antiquated name, like how we don't mention over and over in the body text how Goombas are the same in every port of SMB, etc. The infobox "appearance" lines are best saved for original games too, since re-releases aren't new appearances by the subjects at all, just the same old original appearances. We also don't make new History sections for re-releases unless there's major differences involved, so again, leaving the names be would be most consistent with how we handle all other aspects of re-releases.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) I think it's dumb to rename a recurring entity only because the predecessor the entity appeared in was released in Virtual Console or as a remake. If I'm correct into thinking this is what the proposal is about, then I agree.
 * 10) Pretty much what everyone else is saying. Per all.
 * 11) Per Walkazo.

Oppose

 * 1) Per comments below, but most importantly - there should be a clear wiki definition of a port if this is to establish a precedent just for that, since one can also technically conclude the Advance series and even All-Stars itself are already ports (the term "remake" is used rather loosely enough around here as it is, last I checked).
 * 2) - While I still support the idea that remakes preserving outdated names for authenticity shouldn't be used to revert pages back to those names (as explained in my original vote), having dug into the sordid history of the SMB3 world names a bit more, it's clear that even if we did ignore the VC version, it would be a mistake to rename those pages to the "creative" names, all things considered (as explained in my comment below). So as long as one of the points of this proposal is to rename those pages, I'm afraid I can no longer support in good faith.

Comments
I think it's dumb a name from a re-release of a predecessor has replaced the sequel's name, but I'm not extremely sure about standalone games, so I'm still iffy on applying a blanket standard to disregard all ports. 16:23, 22 October 2015 (EDT)
 * Could you give an example of what you're talking about? Usually, the newer game would take precedence over the older one, so I'm not sure what it being standalone has to do with. it
 * I was thinking about something like one-off enemies in a game getting a rename in the port version. Or the lands in the proposal getting a rename in the port version. But maybe I'm not clear in this whole issue. 15:27, 23 October 2015 (EDT)
 * I think I had the Super Mario Land issue in mind, but the proposal title seems like applying a blanket standard when it really isn't. 15:35, 23 October 2015 (EDT)
 * If a change is made from the original in the port/remake/whatever, then we would reflect that in the page title/etc. (like the SML names). This is just about not reverting to old names simply because remakes were eventually released with the outdated names preserved for authenticity despite later games (or even different remakes released in the meantime, like SMA4 and SMAS) updating the names. - 16:25, 23 October 2015 (EDT)
 * So maybe the proposal's title should change a bit just for easier reference in the future? Because I think it confused me for a bit. 16:29, 23 October 2015 (EDT)
 * Honestly, this is probably the sort of thing that should be done case-by-case rather than indiscriminately across the board. The Super Mario Land enemy names on Virtual Console would be preferable to the average English-speaker over the original ones since the opportunity was taken to actually localize. However, I'd raise concerns over the other examples mentioned in this proposal: for Spiky Gloomba, Spiked Goomba (plus derivatives) would simply be the more recurring/consistent spelling overall, having so far been used in two of the Paper Mario games over the odd mid one out, so it can be easily predicted that "Spiked" will be used over "Spiky" if it makes another appearance. Regarding the Super Mario Bros. 3 Land names: 1) Pipe Land is referenced over Pipe Maze in both the North American and European versions of the Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS / Wii U Pipe trophy (and keep in mind that a few were adjusted between releases such as Larry), so the idea that they are outright ignored in modern titles solely due to preservation purposes doesn't quite work, 2) the fact of the matter is, the Land names were (and continue to be) the most common versions for more generations of Mario fans since any re-releases of All-Stars & Advance 4 are noticeably rarer than the originals, and has a more "universal" appeal over the unique names since they were used throughout a broader range of various media and supplemental materials, and 3) to go off on that - and I realize this might just be personal preference - but "Bowser's Castle (World)" and "Castle of Koopa" were always incredibly ill-fitting names, especially considering most of the stages take place outside the actual final castle and it's supposed to be applied to an entire kingdom, so it would be awkward to, say, direct The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3 readers to another "Bowser's Castle" article. In the end, it shouldn't really matter which names are used for the article titles as long as everything is still fully acknowledged within the article itself, but I'd argue that the "newer" names for these particular cases will most likely form a strange disconnect or confusion with certain subjects more than the current arrangement. LinkTheLefty (talk) 12:00, 25 October 2015 (EDT)
 * Although I still stand by the idea that we shouldn't mindlessly rename our pages based on the latest remake names, having looked at the horrible name history a bit more, I actually agree that it'd make more sense to leave the SMB3 pages where they are... Both the "__ Land" and "creative" names occurred in different versions of the NES game itself - "creative" names in the first Japanese/NA versions, "Land" in the second NA and International versions, and "Land" consistently in all the manuals. SMAS changed them back to the "creative" names and SMA4 (and SMASLE afaik) copied SMAS, none of them having place names mentioned in the manuals, whereas the VC release copied the second, "Land", version of the NES game. The cartoon also used the "Land" names except "Desert Hill", for some reason, and finally, the use of "Pipe Land" in SSB4 furthermore lends strength to the call to use the "Land" names, since this is out only modern non-remake mention of any of the names afaik (pity there's only the one name out of eight - it'd make our lives so much easier otherwise). While I still think it makes sense to exclude antiquated names in remakes that are preserved solely for authenticity, seeing as the SMB3 names' history are so muddled, to the point where even the original game had two versions, I'd say the choice to use the 2nd version's "Land" names for the VC release over the 1st version's "creative" names is arguably an active one worth reflecting, especially considering the SSB4 "Pipe Land" name drop (whereas SMASLE can be ignored as a carbon copy, which actually takes ammo away from the "creative" name camp). Furthermore, in the main how-to section of MW:Naming, it emphasizes, twice, that the "most commonly used" name is what we go with, and the "Land" names are arguably the more common ones (even without the VC release), when considering regional differences, manuals, and other details like the inconsistencies of the non-"Dark Land" and non-"Water Land" names undermining the "creative" name front. And even going by a "latest name" strategy alone, "Pipe Land" would have to stay put no matter what thanks to SSB4, so for consistency, it'd be better to leave the rest alone too (same reason why we wouldn't rename "Desert Land" to "Desert Hill" despite the cartoon name tipping the scales more in that name's favour: it should be a package deal if we can help it, and we can). Aaaaand as for the Goomba stuff, no matter what we do, there will be inconsistencies thanks to the TTYD-only "Spiky" enemies and PM/SPM "Spiked" ones, so I'd say the latest original game names should take precedence over the remakes, whatever those names may be, as per the proposal. But yeah, as with pretty much all name bsns, one size rarely fits everything, so downplaying remakes should only be one element in the overall discussion. But hopefully, most situations won't be as convoluted as SMB3 world names... -
 * I'll admit to disagreeing with some of the points both of you have brought up, but the overall logic is valid enough. It's a bit too late for me to modify the proposal, however, and it's unlikely that enough of the supporters will notice this before the deadline. Due to just how muddled the whole issue is, I'd be in favor of cancelling the proposal and setting up shop on the forums in order to analyse everything on a case-by-case basis. Would that be possible?
 * Yep, that works, and I think it's the right decision. Something being added to Naming about old named reappearing in remakes not getting automatically considered the "newest name" and overruling names released in the interim would still be a good idea, I think. But that can be discussed and agreed upon on the forums too. -

Template:TooManyImages
DON'T CREATE TEMPLATE 1-8

Long story short, this is for galleries that are stuffed full of redundant pix that need a lot of trimming. I have two possible wordings in mind:  This has too many images. Please help by removing some unneeded images from this article. Or (since the two templates doesn't work for me): There are too many images in this article. Please help by removing some of the unnedded or useless images.

I am open to suggestions on wording and coloration.

Proposer: Deadline: November 1, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) My proposal

Oppose

 * 1) The sentence of the template is quite generic, I suspect it can lead to wrong or hasty actions that then must be reverted, especially because some images that were uploaded are way harder to obtain than, as an example, simple trivia sentences, and in some cases, such as artworks, this Wiki should possibly have all of them (of course if the same artwork is reused in different contexts, just one copy of said artwork should be here), which means that some galleries will surely have many images. If there are multiple versions of the same image, just keep the higher quality one, if there are images of the wrong subject, delete them. If you think that there are too many images of a certain kind (e.g. screenshots of a game), you should use a template that allows to specify what the problem is.
 * 2) - Per my comments below: this is unnecessary.
 * 3) Per Walkazo and Ghost Jam in the comments.
 * 4) Per all; I feel this template's purpose is already served by, which also has a parameter reserved for specific problems such as this one. We don't need an additional color to the rainbow of improvement templates. I don't think other wikis use notice templates like this, so we don't have a lot of good examples to fall back on either.
 * 5) – Per all.
 * 6) Per Ghost Jam below. Cluttered pages aren't good by any means, but it's subjective, so I agree that a talk page discussion is enough.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Per all, further comments below.

Comments
If there's too many images, why doesn't whoever's there just remove some? It's not like trying to add images, which involved hunting stuff down and uploading them, and is even easier than dealing with long Trivia sections or overly crufty prose, which both generally require effortful rewriting (e.g. some Trivia needs to be incorporated, rather than simply removed). And for galleries, the main problems are superfluous screenshots, so already, where to chop is narrowed down for folks to make it easy (shoot, maybe we could just axe those sections entirely and leave it to the game and subject articles to showcase strategic screenshots of gameplay, with only overview-type things like maps or package-deal stuff like cutscene slideshows left in the galleries). It just seems a bit lazy to make a whole template to pass the buck on such a simple issue; if someone really just wants to flag and dash, they can use anyway. Plus, if this is mainly for galleries, ideally, once we finally get rid of the everything-but-the-kitchen-sink approach to screenshots that's bloating them up for the most part, then wouldn't the temple be mostly unnecessary? Finally, even if we were gonna make this template, it should be called "Template:LessImages" and be yellow, for consistency with and  -  is completely unrelated to problems occurring in long-established pages. -
 * So it would look more like this?

 This needs fewer images. Please help by removing some unneeded images from this article. 20:34, 25 October 2015 (EDT)
 * No, #FF6 background, #630 border. -

This seems like a subjective editorial issue that is better served by being brought up on a talk page or the collaboration forum than just inventing a new label slap on. -- Ghost Jam 20:06, 27 October 2015 (EDT)

Names in Other Languages organization for Mario episodes
KEEP THE TEMPLATE AS IT IS 1-6

I've been getting a little tired of seeing the Latin American and Spanish names of Mario episodes in one row, like this:

The same goes for Portuguese names. This also counts for rows like this:

In case of that one, I would edit it in a way that makes it result in this:

So one of the decisions I made about it is to separate the Spanish/Portuguese language rows from one another, in a way that looks like this:

I already did this to most, if not all, of the Mario episode articles. But you can help contribute to this.

Proposer: Deadline: November 11, 2015, 23:59 GMT.

Support

 * 1) I support this, considering that I am the one who proposed this.

Oppose

 * 1) "NOA" and "NOE" are the wrong abbreviations to use, implying that Nintendo of America and Nintendo of Europe played a hand in the localization, and that's not true. The explanations in the section do their jobs well enough. If something like the Latin and Spain language differences are a problem, then we should change the templates themselves. The NOA and NOE parameters were created with the games in mind, and I simply don't think it's a good idea that we stretch it to include cartoon dubs.
 * 2) Per Bazooka Mario.
 * 3) Per Bazooka Mario.
 * 4) Per BM.
 * 5) Using "NOA" and "NOE" would be misleading, so per Bazooka Mario.
 * 6) Per Bazooka Mario.

Comments
But NOA stands for Nintendo of America and NOE stands for Nintendo of Europe,both which are localization and promotion branches for Nintendo. Are you sure they played a part in localizing languages outside of English (since the show is American)? 13:10, 4 November 2015 (EST)
 * Not at all, but I think it feels good because it also tells the language types apart. 18:32, 4 November 2015 (EST)
 * But that would be misleading, since it leads readers into thinking that the abbreviations are Nintendo of America/Europe localizations when in fact they're not. Also, an original dub is different from a redub and has nothing to do with the different localization branches of each Nintendo of country companies. 19:38, 4 November 2015 (EST)

So it's past the deadline then?
 * If it's well past the deadline and you're the first to notice, you should archive it. 14:46, 14 November 2015 (EST)

Replace Remix with Remake on Level Articles
DO NOT SWAP TERMS 1-6

Ive been using this for all the Green Stars and stamps on my Mario 3D World, and I've noticed a lot of the World Mushroom/Flower levels have notes that say "a remix of Level X-Y: Z." For example, this article has a note that says "A remix of World 5-1: Sunshine Seaside." The thing is, dictionary.com says the definition of remix as a noun is "A remixed recording." Are levels recordings? No. Therefore, we are using it the wrong way. Because of this, I believe we should change all uses of remix (which will mostly be in 3D Land/World articles) to remake. If you have another idea for wording, let me know.

Proposer: Deadline: November 16, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) my proposal

Oppose

 * 1) Banning any word is way too strong, because there could always be a case where the word is applicable. Besides the fact that Wikipedia  uses the term rather loosely, what you're proposing would prevent articles from pointing out that, for example, the level's song is a remix of another song. The proposal would have to be modified to be less extreme before I would consider voting in support for it.
 * 2) Per Time Turner.
 * 3) Per Time Turner and Bazooka Mario's comments below.
 * 4) - "Remix" is inappropriate given how most readers will know it from the music usage and be perplexed by its use for a whole level (if not confused entirely), but "remake" would be less than ideal too since it's mainly used for entire games (or other media) being rebuilt from scratch to be very similar to the original. A level could be remade if it's in a completely different game but is otherwise the same level, I suppose, but if it's just reappearing in the same game with some alterations to be a different playing experience, that's not a remake in our usual sense of the word, and it'd be better to use non-jargon words without preexisting misusage baggage for that situation, like "variation" or maybe even "redesign" (in fact, in the example provided by the proposal, the line after the "remix" part already says "The level is a redesign of [the] original level.").
 * 5) I think Remix is fine. Per all.
 * 6) Per all.

Comments
I changed the terminology so that it is not "ban," but rather "replace with." 14:46, 9 November 2015 (EST)
 * That still doesn't account for the term being used in other circumstances.

I think the reasoning for this proposal is wrong all based on the denotation of "remix". Words are flexible and can be used outside its dictionary definition. Making a strict rule on that isn't really a good decision. That being said, I don't like "remix" being abused like this, so I suggest changing it to less vague and ambiguous terms like "variation", "alteration", "similar". Finally, just a side note: "remix" is more often than not used incorrectly not only in this wiki but even in professional games such as Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS / Wii U, which only aggravates the abuse of "remix". 15:40, 9 November 2015 (EST)

To be honest, "remix" and "remake" both are poor word choices. It most definitely isn't a remix, but it's more of a "reprise" than a "remake." My gut says "reprise" isn't the right word either, though. --Andymii (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2015 (EST)

Create a suggestion template
DO NOT CREATE A SUGGESTION TEMPLATE 3-7

I propose the creation of a suggestion template, which would serve to prevent the creation of unnecessary proposal (like make a edit change, add something to the wiki), which is not essentially required to go through the proposal systems. With the addition of this template, users who want to add a suggestion of adding something to the wiki without necessarily go through a proposal could use it and make a general request to the users and it could prevent formatting a proposal via the proposal system that frankly serve no purpose. What do you think about it?

Proposer: Deadline: November 19, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) PP. (PP. is shorthand for per proposal for future reference)
 * 3) This would be good for new users who are unused to our proposal system to share their ideas for stuff that can be added to articles, and we do need to be accessible to new users. I'm not totally convinced that established users would make much use of it, since they'd know to make a proposal when in doubt (or simply add the content otherwise), but creating a template can't exactly do much harm.

Oppose

 * 1) - Completely unnecessary (and poorly formatted). If you have an idea, either make the change yourself if it's minor or following existing regulations (e.g. fixing mistakes and adding info), or just make a regular ol' section on the talk page for it if you think it's major enough that some discussion/help would be good, but isn't a drastic and/or potentially divisive change that would warrant a full-blown TPP (e.g. splits, merges or complete overhauls). If you really want to flag something for feedback, just use : "can we do this?" is still a question of sorts, after all.
 * 2) My gut reaction was to oppose this. We have an adequate amount of venues (including wiki talk pages, user talk pages, and our forums) for making suggestions, asking question, and otherwise participating in constructive wiki-related discussion, and this template heavily, if not 100% overlaps with a more versatile template: . The "new users who are unused to the proposal system" is a silly argument since we have clear instructions and even a nowiki template to fall back on, not to mention, existing proposals that are a valid framework as well (when I was a new user, I used the framework of other existing votes to help me vote on my own). If new users want to ask or suggest something, even a simple unsigned message on a talk page is enough, although it might be fair game whenever you get a response or not, but I believe particularly good questions usually get a response. The best venue for making your suggestions heard are the forums since your comments on a talk page in the Recent Changes may be swallowed by other edits. Making unnecessary proposals is only a minor mistake (which a lot of us has done in the past) and creating a template just for that seems frivolous, especially when we have other existing templates that achieve pretty much the same thing. People may not be aware of the forums initially, but we make frequent references to it, and if users stay here long enough, they'll be curious enough to check it out. Finally, if users really do have trouble formatting a proposal or anything, they are always welcome to ask on our FAQ and talk pages of experienced users, which is common sense and a responsible thing to do in general for a confused new user.
 * 3) Per all. If I have nothing else different to say, well, I won't say it.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all, Walkazo in particular took the words right out of my mouth.

Comments
This template could serve to prevent to make a proposal for every propose of recipes merge in the Paper Mario (series), since some users just think its a little boring to do this all the time.
 * This template could look like this, but before opposing just because of the look of the template, please make a suggestion for improving it.


 * the only thing i have to say is that i would omit the word and. Other than that, i think it's a good idea. 13:36, 12 November 2015 (EST)
 * The word and can be seen on other template. So Its why I let this word on this template.-- 13:38, 12 November 2015 (EST)
 * Trying to help and trying to resolve are, for the most part, redundant. That's why I said that. 13:42, 12 November 2015 (EST)
 * May I ask why this is on the main page talk? IMHO, it would belong on Proposals, since it is a general proposal that has no relation to the Main Page. Chocolate Mario (talk) 13:44, 12 November 2015 (EST)
 * Its because I didn't really know where to put this proposal, so I thought the Main Page was the best place to put this, but since you involved this, I forget this place. My mistake.-- 13:48, 12 November 2015 (EST)
 * I don't really understand how you can just 'forget' about the proposals page when making a proposal. You're probably lucky that the proposal is still here. Chocolate Mario (talk) 14:06, 12 November 2015 (EST)
 * Mistakes can happen to everyone, I 'm not very experienced with the use of this.-- 14:09, 12 November 2015 (EST)
 * It's not a little mistake, it's complete ignorance of the very basic principles of the proposal system. The very definition of a TPP, from this very page, is: "[A proposal] dealing with a single article or a specific group of articles [that is] held on the talk page of one of the articles in question." A proposal about making a template to use on article talk pages everywhere does not fit the TPP criteria at all and has nothing to do with the main page. If you're unsure where a TPP should go, that's a pretty big hint that it's not really a TPP at all, and should just go here as a regular proposal. - 14:15, 12 November 2015 (EST)
 * Thanks for the reminder, I should know this before, but apparently not, now I would know more about this. Its a mistake.-- 14:24, 12 November 2015 (EST)

Create an "Experienced User" panel
FAILED 13-1

This is an idea I've wanted to carry out for a while: New users tend to ask a lot of questions, so I thought there should be an experienced user rank. So I PMed Steve, and he said it would be better as a panel in which people nominate themselves (or others) for this panel. There would be some requirements: This panel would mostly be for two purposes: 1) Give new users a place to go to ask a question. 2) Give the admins some knowledge of the best candidates for patroller (there wouldn't be any admins on the panel).
 * 1) The user must have been a user for at least three years.
 * 2) The user must have at least one thousand edits.
 * 3) The user must pass a "test" to prove they are worthy of this panel.

In case you're wondering, Steve said he is ok with this.

Proposer: Deadline: November 28, 2015, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) My proposal

Oppose

 * 1) Why would admins themselves be ineligible?  aren't they technically the most experienced users and therefore the users who would be best for this.  I know that there are some non-admins that would be eligible but still, almost all if not all admins are super experienced.
 * 2) I'd rather have the new users go through the many channels we already have (talk pages, forum, chat, user talk pages) and potentially get them to learn more than they were expecting than for a system that bases their decision on time and edits rather than content. The "test" is way too vague for my liking, as well.
 * 3) - We already have a list of users who have been vetted as being knowledgeable, experienced and available to new users for providing help and guidance: the staff members. We're even colour-coded so users can simply look on RecentChanges (or anything else with Special:WhosOnline embedded in it) to find someone - or page histories, for that matter, as well as policy pages, Special:ListUsers and even Special:ActiveUsers (although this last one requires sifting through, but with everything else available, users really have no excuse for being unable to track down an admin). We don't need some additional list of self-appointees/nominees who passed arbitrary edit and tenure milestones and some random "test": it'd be way more trouble than it'd be worth for helping newbies, and will have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on who gets made into Patrollers, since the staff already keeps an eye on the community and picks out potential candidates perfectly well on our own.
 * 4) This is pretty useless. Unlike the actual staff, this doesn't provide with any extra tools aside from a shiny badge to give yourself to that all it mostly does is boost your ego. This is not a substantial title in the slightest. And per all.
 * 5) Hopping on-board with the increasing opposition, but I think my sister (Baby Luigi) is most succinct with this, so per her.
 * 6) Per all. Plenty of good options already exist.
 * 7) There are already options for new users to ask questions about the wiki, so per all.
 * 8) What's even the point? If you have a question, just ask a mod. There's plenty of them. It just seems like a way for normal users to feel special. Per all.
 * 9) These rules are too black and white. For example, I consider myself to be an experienced user (I'm a 'Shroom writer, the Poll Committee Vice-Chairsperson, and as of now having nearly 2,000 edits, which isn't too shabby). But just because I've been here less than three years, I don't qualify as "experienced." If such rules are imposed, I'm sure many other perfectly "experienced" users will not be able to qualify because of such technicalities. A "test" is difficult to pull off for these same reasons; for example, I'm not so good at HTML, but I still edit quite a lot on this wiki. Overall, it's actually not a bad idea, but the design can be greatly improved to avoid being so systematic.
 * 10) Per all. Everything was said, but in addition, the Welcome template that welcome the new users to the wiki inform the rules and information about the Wiki for them to learn more and experienced themself. I also think that one thousand edit, is not a lot, I have more than one thousand edit and I don't qualify myself as a experienced user.
 * 11) – This is incredibly poorly defined and even if the definition was more rigorous, it still does not leave out the fact that this is an incredibly poor idea. Essentially, per all.
 * 12) Per all.
 * 13) Per all of the above. A test seems really unnecessary, and we already have enough options for new users to ask things anyways.

Comments
We could also design the autopatrol rank to differentiate which user is trusted/experienced or not (as it was before, I still wonder why it was changed in the first place). I myself find it kind of pointless; I don't know if it's immediately apparent that I'm considered "experienced", but I don't know if a panel is going to let users know or not, and newer users are probably still going to ask the super janitors staff members anyway. 14:58, 21 November 2015 (EST)
 * Oh, and one more thing, there will always be users that are held back from being given a bigger toolbox despite their experience because they probably cannot maintain composure in a sticky situation, so it might be a good panel for them, but again, it might not be. 15:03, 21 November 2015 (EST)
 * It was changed because here. 15:32, 21 November 2015 (EST)

3D Player: Because admins are already admins. An admin doesn't really need to be considered a candidate for admin. What I meant for this was a group of normal users (meaning non-admins) that are very knowledgeable about syntax, rules and policies, etc. 15:01, 21 November 2015 (EST)

Seems to me that if a new user needs more help than our on-wiki help guide provides, they should be directed to either the forums (for discussion and helpful topics) or chat (for live responses). -- Ghost Jam 15:07, 21 November 2015 (EST)
 * I think user talk pages are the best since they're a good place for new users and experienced users to directly provide them with wiki syntax (not to mention, experienced users can fix the syntax on the spot and explain it), and it's also easier to link to helpful pages like Sandbox and the specifics of the help pages if a new user doesn't understand. Nobody really uses our forums for help on how to, say, create a signature. 15:13, 21 November 2015 (EST)

I'd like to add that experienced users (and I know the definition of an experienced user considering I'm erhm, one myself) already tend to answer questions left by users like those in MarioWiki talk:FAQ, so this is pretty much redundant? 15:43, 21 November 2015 (EST)

Even though I'm opposed to this, I'm interested in what this so-called test would consist of.
 * It would mostly be about syntax and rules/policies, not trivial things like "How many admins are there." 21:00, 21 November 2015 (EST)