MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/57

Use a unique archive color for proposals that fail to reach a consensus
This is something that's been bugging me for a while now. Currently, we don't have a unique color for proposals that fail to reach a consensus (i.e. proposals that get extended three times and end without any option properly "winning"). Currently we just mark them red, the same color used for proposals that straight up fail. This isn't totally illogical, since the result of both outcomes is similar (the proposed changes are not implemented and there's a minimum 4 week wait to propose again). However, I still feel that this needlessly obfuscates the archive, making it impossible to tell which proposals failed by consensus and which ones stalemated without clicking on each and every proposal link in the archive marked red, especially since there is no text in the archive that clarifies this. As a result of this, people browsing through the archive are forced to do extra work just to determine which ones are which for no good reason. Stalemates are common enough that it would be useful to be able to tell them apart easily.

As for what color should be used, my suggestion is white. It's a fitting color for stalemate proposals, and it isn't too close to an existing color (closest is gray, the color used for passed proposals awaiting implementation, but I think it's distinct enough). I'm open to other suggestions though.

Proposer: Deadline: June 1, 2021, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Makes sense to me. Per.
 * 3) &mdash; This is a nice little improvement. White should be fine, as both it and black are the only colors left unused without getting into different shades of the existing ones (lavender, navy, etc.)
 * 4) This always kinda bugged me. Per all.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per all
 * 7) Sure, why not.
 * 8) Absolutely.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) Per all.

Comments
I noticed in the proposal archive that there is already a colour used for ties, brown, but it only seems to be used for a handful of old proposals, and it isn't on the TPP archive. Is this just because of changes in the proposal rules, and do you plan on replacing it with whatever colour you decide on here? 02:48, May 25, 2021 (EDT)
 * Ties are an artifact of Super Mario Wiki's early years, long before I even joined. Back in the day, proposal extensions weren't a thing, if it reached its deadline and the votes were tied, the proposal simply ended in a tie. Eventually, the rules were changed the current ones, and "failed to reach consensus" replaced ties completely, which is why brown is only used for old proposals. Honestly, the legend should state this and clarify what a "tie" is and why they don't happen anymore, since it's not something that's readily obvious to users who weren't around back then. 16:19, May 25, 2021 (EDT)

Listing changes on articles for ports, remakes, and remasters
Recently, the Changes section of Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury has been discussed while the article is being nominated for Featured status. The biggest issue right now seems to be whether to write the list of changes to 3D World as prose or a bullet-pointed list.

Some examples of other articles with a similar section: Super Mario Advance, Super Mario Advance 3, Super Mario Advance 4, Super Mario 64 DS, and Super Mario 3D All-Stars split the changes into sections, but otherwise use only bullet points. Mario Kart 8 Deluxe instead uses short paragraphs of prose, with each paragraph focusing on a different small aspect of gameplay or design.

Super Mario All-Stars and Super Mario Advance 2 blend some sections of prose with bullet lists in others. On the Discord server, Glowsquid recommended a different hybrid model: starting subsections with short prose paragraphs about general changes, and using bullet lists for the smaller details. The full post is in the Comments section below.

I am in support of exclusively bullet points. I think in this specific context, where there can be very minuscule details that might get their own paragraph when using prose, it is more effective to use bullet points. There seems to be more of a standard set with them than with prose, and I think that's because it's more convenient to read the changes when in a bullet list, especially because you can create sub-bullets to highlight groups of changes.

Proposer: Deadline: June 5, 2021, 23:59 GMT

List changes with a hybrid of prose and bullet points

 * 1) I don't really see a problem with the way we have it now since it still conveys all the relevant information and using one over the other depending on the page may be preferable to effectively convey the information in each case. Since that's what we're doing right now and it doesn't actually cause any problems I see no reason to change it.
 * 2) My real opinion would be "Use bullet points unless there's a broad enough patterns of changes you can introduce them in prose". See my comment below.
 * 3) Per Hewer and Glowsquid.
 * 4) Per Glowsquid.
 * 5) &mdash; While I can appreciate the organizational approach this proposal is going for, I feel like limiting our writers to one option or the other is an unnecessary restriction that will cause more harm than good in regards to article flow and readability. Since ports, remakes, etc, don't all follow a standardized set of rules in their production, each one should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine the most appropriate way to document the information.
 * 6) Per Glowsquid.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Seems like the best option to me.

List changes in entirely bullet points

 * 1) Per proposal.

Comments
I'll post the discord comments I made when the topic was brought up (also the proposal main text made it sound like i recommended the bowser's fury page to be like SMA2's when what happened is that BLOF brought it and the Super Mario All-Stars as examples of how those sections should be written and I opined I don,t think they work very well, and then brought up my own idea on how those sections should be done)


 * "I don't think there's actually a policy about wheter bullet vs prose is preferable, and to be honest I prefer bullets in most forms. Like, if you want to have some elaboration on the kind of look super mario all-star's revamped graphics go for vs the original game, a paragraph of prose may be fine but most of the articles might as well just be a list of bullet honestly.  For example super mario all-stars, for the graphic section you could start with a prose paragraph that says "all-stars overhauls the graphical presentation of its component games redrawing sprites, adding paralax scrolling that wasn't there before", etc etc and then you have the bullets listing the specific "snifits are now green instead of red" stuff. I don't feel the two examples you gave as they are now are really all that preferable. right now you just a bunch of short paragrahs sandwiches between tons of rogue line breaks."

So for the above-cited example of SMA2, instead of the current appealing wall of text the gameplay changes section is now, it would be more like:

"Super Mario World: Super Mario Advance 2 gets rid of the 2-player mode and instead overhauls Luigi as a distinct player character with his own abilities. He can be played by pressing R on the world map.
 * Stuff Luigi does different 1
 * Luigi difference 2
 * Luigi difference 3

[paragraph break]

The 100% Completion events have been overhauled, featuring different requirements and new events for triggering Fall.
 * New completion requirement description
 * New fall content
 * New fall enemies"

etc etc. Hopefully you get the gist. --Glowsquid (talk) 09:37, May 22, 2021 (EDT)
 * Sorry about that. I didn't actually see the conversation on the Discord server, so I misunderstood the intent. I've edited the main text.

However, couldn't these short prose introductions also be fit into a bullet list? I mentioned sub-bullets because when the Bowser's Fury page had bullets, it did something similar to this hybrid model by using them. For example:


 * As in Super Mario Odyssey:
 * Save files are saved, loaded, and copied in the same manner.
 * Characters can now roll in midair, similar to the dive.
 * Characters can perform a roll or Ground Pound Jump immediately after landing from a Ground Pound.
 * Characters now fall through upright Warp Pipes when performing a Ground Pound through the center from above. Similarly, characters now enter sideways Warp Pipes immediately when rolling through the center without their momentum being interrupted. The sped-up variant of the Warp Pipe sound effect from Odyssey is reused upon entering Warp Pipes these ways.

If those main bullets would work better as prose, then I could be OK with that as long as the minute changes are bullet points. 0blivion 11:39, May 22, 2021 (EDT)

How to handle Super Mario Odyssey sub-locations
Here we go. After years of development hell, it's finally time to do this.

Super Mario Odyssey did something rather new for this franchise - it named every single Checkpoint Flag in the game. Somehow this convinced people that every single one should have its own article, and by now nearly all of them do, along with a few other landmarks. This is quite excessive. While some of them do deserve article because they're major structures or otherwise notable landmarks (we have articles on things like Shine Gate and Surf Cabana), many of them are just random, nondescript level sections that aren't notable in any way. The way we handle it now is basically like giving every planet in Super Mario Galaxy its own article.

There was a proposal about this years ago which the proposer ended up canceling. The problem with this proposal was that it wasn't clear enough about exactly which locations should get articles and which shouldn't. After that, the issue went unaddressed for years. So I went over them and organized them into groups: what we should keep, what we might want to keep, and what we should definitely merge.

KEEP: These are the areas that I think should stay. It includes three different kinds of areas.
 * 1) Towns with unique music from the rest of the kingdom (e.g. Tostarena Town, Peronza Plaza).
 * 2) Sub-areas that cause the name of the area to appear in big white text when entered (e.g. Underground Power Plant, Underwater Tunnel to the Lighthouse), or large, defined structures that contain such areas (e.g. New Donk City Hall). The only exception is New Donk City Hall Interior, which will be merged with the hall itself.
 * 3) Well-defined structures and major landmarks that don't already meet the previous criteria (e.g. Tostarena Ruins, Mayor Pauline Commemorative Park, Glass Palace). Any checkpoints that are just an "entrance" to or part of one of these greater structures (e.g. Tostarena Ruins Entrance, Tostarena Ruins Sand Pillar, Water Plaza Entrance, New Donk City Hall Rooftop) will be merged with them.

BORDERLINE: Ones I'm not quite sure about. These locations are notable to varying degrees, and may or may not deserve articles in the long run. I'm leaning towards keeping them for now since the main point of this is to weed out the really bad ones.

MERGE: Everything not listed above should be merged, but here are some specific examples:
 * Any of the "islands in the sky" that paintings lead to (Southwestern Floating Island, Diving Platform). They're just platforms with a Power Moon on them. Not notable enough.
 * Meaningless, nondescript checkpoint locations that don't stand out in any way (Tostarena Northwest Reaches, Ocean Trench East/West, Top of the Peak Climb).

'''Here is a list of sub-locations in the game (not all of which are checkpoints), and whether or not I think they're split-worthy. Note the scrolling bar on the right - I put that there to save space on the page, since this proposal is already long as it is. If that bothers you, you can look at my sandbox instead.'''

Cap Kingdom
 * Central Plaza: Borderline, kind of noteworthy, but generically named and not that distinct from the rest of the kingdom since there are hat houses in other parts and it's generically named.
 * Glasses Bridge: Keep, minor landmark mentioned in the brochure.
 * Sometimes Bridge: Borderline, context of the name is that the brochure calls it 'The "Sometimes" Bridge', meaning it's not really a name and should probably be merged later, but whatever, it's not high on my priority list.
 * Top-Hat Tower: Keep, it's a major landmark with a sub-area in it.

Cascade Kingdom
 * Waterfall Basin: Merge, insignificant checkpoint location, and the checkpoint goes away once the Odyssey takes it's place.
 * Stone Bridge: Merge, it's just a strip of land with nothing notable about other than it has a bunch of Burrbos on it.
 * Fossil Falls Heights: Merge. It's basically just refers to the upper portion of the kingdom, which includes Madame Broode's battle arena. It doesn't really stand out geography-wise.
 * Top of the Big Stump: Merge, it's just a tree stump.
 * Island in the Sky (Cascade Kingdom): Merge, painting exit location.

Sand Kingdom
 * Tostarena Town: Keep, it's a town.
 * Tostarena Ruins Entrance, Tostarena Ruins Sand Pillar, Tostarena Ruins Round Tower: Parts of a greater structure, merge together as.
 * Moe-Eye Habitat: Borderline, arguable minor landmark.
 * Jaxi Ruins: Keep, notable structure with a sub-area in it.
 * Tostarena Northwest Reaches: Merge, nondescript checkpoint location.
 * Desert Oasis: Keep, landmark that stands out from the rest of the area.
 * Southwestern Floating Island: Merge, painting exit location.
 * Inverted Pyramid: Keep, major landmark and major sub-area.
 * Underground Temple: Keep, major sub-area.
 * Deepest Underground: Keep, technically qualifies as a major sub-area. I think it should be merged with Underground Temple, but I'll decide that with a different proposal.

Lake Kingdom
 * Courtyard (Lake Kingdom): Borderline. Generically named, but it's semi-notable I guess?
 * Water Plaza Entrance, Water Plaza Display Window, Water Plaza Terrace: Parts of a greater structure, merge together as.
 * Viewing Balcony: Merge, painting exit location.

Wooded Kingdom
 * Iron Road: Entrance, Iron Road: Halfway Point, Iron Mountain Path, Station 8: Parts of a greater structure, merge together as.
 * Sky Garden Tower: Keep, major landmark and sub-area.
 * Forest Charging Station: Merge, it's just a place where Steam Gardeners get charged. Not exactly hugely notable and the existing article has very little content.
 * Merge, nondescript checkpoint location.
 * Part of a greater structure, merge with.
 * Observation Deck: Merge, generically named and not too distinct, existing article has little content.
 * Iron Cage: Merge, painting exit location.
 * Deep Woods: Keep, major sub-area.

Lost Kingdom
 * Swamp Hill, Mountainside Platform, Rocky Mountain Summit: Merge, insignificant checkpoint locations.

Metro Kingdom
 * Main Street Entrance: Merge, insignificant checkpoint location.
 * Rooftop Garden: Merge, it's just the top of some building that happens to have grass and a few bushes on it.
 * Construction Site (Super Mario Odyssey): Borderline, arguable minor landmark.
 * New Donk City Hall Plaza: Borderline. It's actually kind of nondescript outside of the New Donk City logo in the ground in front of the hall, and could maybe be merged with the hall, but BL just to be safe.
 * Part of a greater structure, merge with New Donk City Hall.
 * Mayor Pauline Commemorative Park: Keep, major landmark.
 * Outdoor Café: Borderline. Generically named, but at least it kind of stands out.
 * Heliport: Merge. It's just a heliport.
 * Isolated Rooftop: Merge, painting exit location.
 * Keep, major sub-area.

Snow Kingdom
 * Shiveria Town: Keep, it's a town.
 * Icicle Cavern, Hollow Crevasse, Wind-Chill Cavern, Snowy Mountain: Keep, they're all major sub-areas.
 * Snowline Circuit: Keep, race track and major sub-area.
 * Keep, race track, currently not on template but should get an article.
 * Snow Kingdom Clifftop: Merge, painting exit location.

Seaside Kingdom
 * Lighthouse: Keep, generically named, but it's still a notable landmark.
 * Underwater Tunnel to the Lighthouse: Keep, major sub-area.
 * Glass Palace: '''Keep, major landmark.
 * Rolling Canyon: Keep, unique area that stands out from the rest of the kingdom.
 * Hot Spring Island: Keep, minor landmark.
 * Keep, minor landmark with a minigame inside.
 * , : Merge, insignificant checkpoint locations.
 * Above Rolling Canyon: Merge, there's a Power Moon near here, but it's not a landmark or anything.
 * Diving Platform: Merge, painting exit location.

Luncheon Kingdom
 * Peronza Plaza: Keep, despite having "plaza" in its name, it's more of a town having unique music and everything.
 * Path to the Meat Plateau: Merge, nondescript checkpoint location.
 * Meat Plateau: Merge, it's just the spot where you capture a piece of meat and Cookatiel takes you to the top of the volcano.
 * Start of the Peak Climb: Merge, nondescript checkpoint location.
 * Top of the Peak Climb: Merge, nondescript checkpoint location.
 * Salt Pile Isle: Merge, just a tiny platform in the lava that isn't noteworthy in any way.
 * Floating Sky Island: Merge, painting exit location.
 * Remote Island in the Lava: Merge. It has a painting to the Mushroom Kingdom and a couple of Power Moons, but it's generically named and not geographically distinct.

Bowser's Kingdom
 * Souvenir Shop: Merge. It's basically just a floating island with a Crazy Cap on it, but there's a back door with a secret room inside. And there are seats and stuff... Anyway, it's generically named, and we already have a Crazy Cap article.
 * Island in the Sky (Bowser's Kingdom): Merge, painting exit location.
 * Third Courtyard (Front), Third Courtyard (Rear),, Main Courtyard Entrance, , , , Beneath the Keep: Merge. They're basically different islands and parts of the castle. The Main Courtyard Entrance is where Hariet and Topper and are fought. They're generically named, and they're not really landmarks, just different parts of the level. They're exactly the sort of thing I would compare to SMG planets.
 * Merge: The RoboBrood battle arena. Some New Donkers show up and decorate it a bit later. Otherwise, same as above.

Moon Kingdom
 * Ringing-Bells Plateau: Merge. Nondescript checkpoint location, despite the fancy name.
 * Quiet Wall: Merge, it's just the entrance to the.
 * Ever-After Hill: Merge, totally featureless path to the Wedding Hall aside from a red carpet.
 * Wedding Hall: Keep. Major landmark, important story location.
 * Keep, major sub-area.

Mushroom Kingdom
 * Yoshi's House: Keep, already a notable subject before SMO.
 * Peach's Castle Main Entrance: Merge, it's just the entrance to Peach's Castle.
 * Mushroom Pond: Borderline, it's kinda small and the article has little content, but it's not generically named and it's distinct from the rest of the area.
 * Goomba Woods: Keep, geographically distinct location.

Dark Side
 * Rabbit Ridge Tower: Keep, major landmark and sub-area.

There are three options: keep the "keepers" only, include the "borderlines", or everything. Every kingdom article will have a "checkpoint locations" section added to it, sort of like how we handle planets from SMG, with most of the unnecessary articles' content being merged there. Note that this proposal is preliminary - if we keep the "borderline" articles, we can always weed out the ones we don't want with later proposals. Conversely, later proposals can call for the recreation of articles previously deemed unworthy. There is absolutely no perfect solution to this problem, since in several cases, what qualifies as "notable enough" to have a page is subjective. However, we need to draw a line, and I don't want to make 50 proposals just to merge SMO checkpoint flags.

Proposer: Deadline: September 28, 2021, 23:59 GMT

Only split the locations marked "keep"

 * 1) Per proposal.

Split "borderline" locations as well

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) - Seems the best idea to me for now.
 * 3) I think Fossil Falls Heights, Rocky Mountain Summit, Path to the Meat Plateau and Ringing Bells Plateau shouldn't be merged. Same with most of the locations in Bowser's Kingdom.
 * 4) Per Proposal.
 * 5) I believe this is the best option, as I agree that several of these articles cover areas that are not really notable. I do feel, however, that it makes sense to cover the "borderline" areas, as I feel the ones listed still have some importance. I am a little bit conflicted on the idea of merging every single location in Cascade Kingdom and Bowser's Kingdom, though.
 * 6) Per all. Also, having a list of checkpoints on their respective kingdom's page seems to be a good fit for the long-overdue coverage on each kingdom's Odyssey location.
 * 7) Per proposal

No checkpoint left behind

 * 1) Seems like the most consistent option to me. Even if some of these places aren't too important, they still make for decent articles. I also feel that a lot of information would be lost if these articles were to be merged.

Comments
Let me know if I missed anything - there's a lot to cover here. 00:53, September 21, 2021 (EDT)

@Hewer: Quite a few of them really don't make for decent articles. Most of the "island in the sky" articles are just "It's a platform in the sky. You get there through a painting in [other kingdom]. There's a Power Moon and a Checkpoint Flag. The end." While there's nothing inherently wrong with short articles, I think it's much more logical to just cover them on the kingdom articles like we do with SMG planets. A lot of these are really trivial, just being featureless platforms and random nondescript chunks of level no one would dream of splitting if SMO didn't name every checkpoint. Even then, a lot of the names are generic. Nintendo probably only named them all for player convenience; I seriously doubt they intended things like "Heliport" and "Top of the Big Stump" to be seen as very important locations. Not everything with a name deserves an article (e.g. the Banana Bird caves in DKC3). 18:28, September 21, 2021 (EDT)

Categorizing minigames
In Mario Party Superstars, there are several "Bowser Minigames". These minigames aren't categorized as Bowser minigames in-game, but these minigames can be played when landing on a Bowser Space and by getting the Bowser Minigame option. Current examples include Face Lift, Dark 'n Crispy, and Pit Boss. So, should they be their in-game minigame types, Bowser minigames, or should they be both?

Proposer: Deadline: November 16, 2021, 23:59 GMT

Use their in-game types

 * 1) I think this is better, as they are categorized as such in-game.

Use both

 * 1) These minigames do not appear as end of turn minigames in party unlike all other free-for-all minigames. Furthermore these Bowser minigames in party mode are treated pretty much exactly how they were in the GameCube Mario Parties and they were categorised as Bowser Minigames, for these reasons these should be categorised as Bowser minigames and also separated from the other free-for-all minigames. That being said they are listed as free-for-all minigames in the minigame mode therefore I see this as the best opinion.
 * 2) Seems best to me. Not calling them either would contradict what the game says in minigame mode and/or in party mode. If it’s given 2 minigame class types, then it gets 2 minigame class types.
 * 3) My second option. I forgot to add it here.
 * 4) We should be presenting all the information the game gives and not choosing to ignore either of the two categories.

Define the scope of "Other appearances" sections
It's basically a done deal that the Mario Wiki organises most appearances of its wealth of subjects by relevant fictional works. However, some appearances, whether they are in-franchise cameos or third-party licensed appearances, are pigeonholed into an "Other appearances" section, and this is a fairly inconsistent approach that is to be discussed in general terms before any particular cases are decided upon as an "other appearance", so to speak.

Degrees of a subject's appearance in a fictional work can be delineated as:
 * Significant, in-franchise appearance: Those appearances where a subject has a perceptible effect on the viewer's or player's experience--as a character, enemy, item, or setting.
 * Cameo appearances: Those appearances where a known subject shows up but does not affect the course of a story or the gameplay, instead serving as a small distraction or piece of fan-service for the viewer or player. (Simple mentions of a subject, without said subject making any physical appearance, are taken to be "cameos" in the context of this proposal, for the sake of brevity.)
 * Appearances outside the home franchise: What it says on the tin: subjects appearing in media outside of their franchise or universe of origin. Many such appearances can be of a parodical or referential nature and not necessarily enabled or endorsed by the proprietary entity, and for those the wiki has already established coverage in the form of Lists of Mario references. However, some of these appearances, third-party as they are, are indeed licensed for use and, where applicable, warrant being covered in some form on subject articles.

Coverage for the first one, again, is firmly set in stone and disregarded by the proposal. As it's been well-established, if a Goomba kills you in a game, we make a section for that game on Goomba's article. The second and third ones are relevant here, with the third one commanding perhaps the most attention. As it stands, third-party appearances can be further assigned two scenarios: one in which we give the relevant fictional work "guest"-type article coverage, and one in which we do not.

The goal of this proposal is to draw a concrete line over which type of appearance warrants being put under an "Other appearances" section--or even to decide whether such section is necessary at all. If certain appearances are excluded from the scope of this section, they are given their own sections outside of it.

NOTE: For now, the outcome of this proposal would not overturn the decision of this proposal. Unused appearances will continue to be covered under "Other appearances" in addition to the subjects that are to be decided upon here.

Proposer: Deadline: November 18, 2021, 23:59 GMT

Integrate in-franchise cameos and third-party media
Example of in-franchise cameo: Bullet Bill block formation in Alleyway. (Relevant "Other appearances" section)

Integrate only appearances from third-party media, whether said media is covered here on its own or not
Example of appearance from a third-party media we give partial coverage to: Sledge Bro appearing as mobs in the Minecraft Super Mario Mash-Up Pack. (Relevant "Other appearances" section)

Integrate only appearances from third-party media we don't cover
Example of such appearance: Chain Chomp appearing as a weapon in Bayonetta 2. (Relevant "Other appearances" section)
 * 1) My choice.
 * 2) This seems like it would be the most consistent and logical approach.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) Per Waluigi Time.
 * 5) Seems logical to me.
 * 6) Per all.

Comments
There's two specific uses of other appearances section that doesn't seem like are covered here so I might as well bring them up. First, some other appearances sections have included merchandise (i.e. Mario Chess, Gamer Monopoly), and second, a proposal a while ago made it so that unused appearances of subjects are supposed to be covered in the other appearances section as well, though this has been poorly enforced since the proposal passed. How would those cases be handled under this proposal? (For my two cents regarding unused appearances at least, I wouldn't be opposed to adding dedicated subsections for those at the end of history sections.) -- 18:00, November 9, 2021 (EST)
 * Honestly, I think the merchandise bit would require a proposal of its own, one that would complement the current proposal. It was a bit difficult to find a proper way to handle the options in this proposal, and I wouldn't like to muddy the waters by adding more to the mix. Regarding the unused content, let's say the proposal here isn't concerned with it and, in consequence, has no bearing on the decision taken in the other proposal; I should prolly add a stipulation or something. This is the proposal, right? I took a gander, and I don't really see any explicit talking about an "Other appearances", but rather about "adding indicators" where applicable--which I can't really decipher the precise meaning of, even with the offered explanation. (Would that take the form of image captions? A move to "Other appearances"? A highlight of some sort?) 19:29, November 9, 2021 (EST)
 * This one, actually. -- 19:42, November 9, 2021 (EST)

There's one thing that this proposal does not address: mentions. That is, when a character does not appear in the game at all, but is referenced either directly (e.g. Princess Peach in Luigi's Mansion) or indirectly (e.g. Wingo in Super Mario Odyssey). Where do those fit in this equation? 19:30, November 9, 2021 (EST)
 * Ah, I forgot. That would fall under "cameos". Added that to the proposal at the "Cameo appearances" description. 19:37, November 9, 2021 (EST)

I removed the "Remove section altogether" because it conflicts with the decision of the proposal brought up by. 19:54, November 9, 2021 (EST)

This is something really minor, but Bullet Bill's link doesn't actually link to other appearances. It should be Bullet Bill, not Bullet Bill. 22:44, November 9, 2021 (EST)

Decide if obscure media filenames from Nintendo's websites qualify as sources for subject names
In my efforts to cover Nintendo's diverse promotional online material on the wiki, I've come across a number of images whose filenames provide unique spellings of a subject's name, or even new names altogether. I am aware this wiki, by and large, has allowed the citing of internal filenames as sources for the names of certain subjects, such as Uckykong and the Super Mario Galaxy planets, but I find the aforementioned website filenames to be of a different nature: in-game filenames originate from a game's developers, who have arguably much higher authority over how a subject is called than the person who mistypes the filenames in a press kit, officially endued as they may be. Furthermore, these website filenames can be rather poorly formatted. Take this image from Play Nintendo, for example; the subject it depicts, the Ice Hockey minigame from Mario Party Superstars, is mispelled as "Ive Hockey" in the picture's filename. An official mispelling for sure, but a mispelling nevertheless, and I have my doubts on how well it would reflect on the wiki to acknowledge Ive Hockey as an alternate name for that minigame on its article, given the "source".

I believe we should draw a hard line on whether we can acknowledge any and all of these website filenames, or none at all. I've listed several subjects concerned by this proposal:
 * Metal Mario -- referred to as "Gem Mario" in a Play Nintendo filename
 * Professor Elvin Gadd -- referred to as "Professor Edgar" in a Play Nintendo filename. The file itself is hosted on cloudfront, but is embedded as a thumbnail for Professor E. Gadd's Research Journal in the search suggestions on Play Nintendo, so it's official media.
 * Mario Party: The Top 100 -- abbreviated as "MPTOH" (Mario Party Top One Hundred) in a Play Nintendo filename
 * Bumper Balloon Cars -- referred to as "Balloon Cars" in a Play Nintendo filename
 * Hot Rope Jump -- referred to as "Hot Jump Rope" in a Play Nintendo filename
 * Rocky Road (minigame) -- mispelled as "Rockey Road" in a Play Nintendo filename
 * Cat Goomba -- referred to as "Munster" (possibly a mispelling of "monster") in a Nintendo Kids Club filename
 * Crazee Dayzee -- referred to as "Blume" (German for "flower") in a Nintendo Kids Club filename
 * Shy Guy -- referred to as "Ghost" in a Nintendo Kids Club filename
 * Flutter -- Japanese name ("Hanachan") was mispelled as "Hanachyan" in a filename on the official Mario Party: Island Tour website.
 * Gooigi -- written as "Guigi" in a filename on the official Luigi's Mansion website.

From taking the liberty to refer to an established character as "Professor Edgar", to bum writing mishaps like "Rockey Road", I think it's clear now that these filenames are a horse of a different colour. This is why I am calling upon other editors to help assess their quality as sources. I myself am leaning towards using them, purely because they are official, but I sense others may have objections given the things I've stated above.

Proposer: Deadline: December 28, 2021, 23:59 GMT

Acknowledge these names/misspellings in articles and use them as redirects

 * 1) First choice.
 * 2) Assuming that 'acknowledge in articles' means put them as trivia points (like we already do on Gooigi), per proposal.

Only use these names/misspellings as redirects

 * 1) Second choice.
 * 2) Might as well document them somewhere, but I think treating obvious mistakes like these as actual, official names on par with any other source would make us look ridiculous. The same could be said for Prima's countless gaffes, but at least those were in published material that are more likely to be seen by the general public. These are just filenames that would only be seen when digging through obscure Play Nintendo games. See also my thoughts on Talk:Gooigi.
 * 3) Second choice.
 * 4) I understand the points against the first choice, but I still think this approach is better than the alternative below for now; if and when other-media filenames can be used in place of a conjectural or foreign name (which to my knowledge hasn't happened yet), this makes it more acceptable over the precedent that would be set by choosing not to cite them at all.
 * 5) Second choice if we really want to use them in any way.

Do not cite these filenames at all

 * 1) Nobody is going to see these, and they're blatant mistakes. We know that Cat Goomba isn't named "Munster", and nobody's going to call it that. Creating a redirect from "Ive Hockey" to "Ice Hockey" because some obscure filename did it seems excessive. This is reminding me of Ahehehauhe.
 * 2) Per Scrooge.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) Most users won't search for these filenames anyways, so per all.
 * 5) Per Scrooge.
 * 6) Per Scrooge.
 * 7) Personally I believe the names in other languages are more fit for a redirect material than these but yeah, no one will search these characters by their filename in all honesty, you'd really have to go out of your way to dig these up to find them to begin with.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) – Per all, most of these are just too obscure to be informative or of any help.
 * 10) See my comment.
 * 11) Ahehehauhe. Enough said.
 * 12) If Play Nintendo had an image of a Grindel and the file name was something like "Puscia cartoon with these runners and pass of the evening", would we make a redirect for it? No, because LITERALLY NOBODY would think a Grindel is called that. File names are prone to weird renames, we don't need to document all of them.

Comments
@Scrooge200: Well, not many people are going to encounter these filenames, that's for sure, but I believe their sheer obscurity in and of itself shouldn't be used as a point against documenting them. "Ahuehuehuea" originated from a place of dubious status which we have discounted as a source, whereas the filenames at hand are unequivocally official. 20:00, December 21, 2021 (EST)
 * They're official, but they're still clearly mistakes. Noting that an obscure website like Nintendo Kids Club once misspelled an enemy's name seems excessive. 21:18, December 21, 2021 (EST)
 * At what point do we deem a source of information “too obscure” to be cited, though? I don’t think we ought to if it has any semblance of an authority. We also have precedent of documenting typos and mistakes, as is the case of the Piranha Plant article, which has a name misspelling documented in its very lead paragraph; doesn’t that qualify as “excessive” as well? 05:21, December 22, 2021 (EST)
 * That same sentence states that it's from "early manuals", which people would come across more often that these filenames. 05:36, December 22, 2021 (EST)
 * It’s still “clearly a mistake” and, going by what was said above, it would decidedly be “excessive” to document. 05:41, December 22, 2021 (EST)
 * This happened twice in official manuals for two important games (SMB and SMB3), so I could chalk it up to being an alternate spelling back in those days (like "Starman" instead of "Super Star"). Plus, it's a plausible typo that I can see someone who might not know the proper name accidentally typing in. "Hanachyan" or "Munster" are much more obscure, and I've never seen them actually used before. 15:52, December 22, 2021 (EST)
 * I still don't see how a source's obscurity, or perception thereof, should factor into a case against using that source. If the "source" is just an individual exercising their creative muscles or making a typo then, sure, that's reason enough not to use it, as is brought up by the proposal and Glowsquid (although such situations may need to be judged on a case-by-case basis since published guides and magazines are rife with such material, and the wiki is already making note of some of these situations in spite of the arguments brought up here); however, how "obscure" or "inaccessible" a source is really shouldn't jeopardise its validity so long as it's official. 13:26, December 23, 2021 (EST)

Also, I thought it'd be worth bringing up "Morty Wrench", which has also been discussed here. 23:42, December 21, 2021 (EST)

I feel about these the same way I feel about citing closed captions on streaming services as sources for official names. The public-facing material on these websites may be official, but that shouldn't extend to arbitrary judgement calls and typos by the people putting those websites together. --Glowsquid (talk) 11:38, December 22, 2021 (EST)

Make new templates for frequent reminders
Apparently, some have been using the copy-paste reminders/warnings I have on my sandbox since I first started writing them down in April 2019. I wrote them down for a quick thing to pull from, but they're being used frequently enough that, hey, maybe I should put them somewhere useful.

The reminders mainly revolve around basic mistakes we keep having to remind people about, such as first-person writing or italics. When giving such reminders, we usually just type out a message. Let's turn these messages into templates. The wording will be moved to a new template page as-is, unless something about the wording needs changed. Doesn't need the code box that's around it all, as that's only there to easily copy-paste the text and keep the coding intact. A template doesn't need to do that. The signature coding should be excluded as well. Three of these reminders are meant for staff-only business, since staff are the only ones that can check IPs.

Templates added will be, in the order on the sandbox:

Should this pass, I will format the coding I have to be able to be actually used as a functioning template.

Proposer: Deadline: December 29, 2021, 23:59 GMT

Make new templates

 * 1) - Per
 * 2) Sounds good to me.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) Sure, per all.
 * 5) Per Proposal! 🥶
 * 6) Absoloutely.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Per all.

Comments
Wait, how would the "use specific ones" one work if it wins? Would we use the most-voted one? The top two? The top three? The top half? All the ones that make it above a certain score? All but the least voted? Would it go into a run-off vote? I'm kinda confused. Somethingone (talk) 14:10, December 22, 2021 (EST)
 * I'm an idiot who thought that would work lol
 * I guess the criteria for which should be excluded would be completely arbitrary, so now it's all-or-nothing. 14:15, December 22, 2021 (EST)

Allow an external link to Zelda Dungeon Wiki and/or Triforce Wiki in the External links section of some The Legend of Zelda-related articles
Before you comment, I want you all to know that this is not an attack on Zelda Wiki. I merely made this proposal to reflect the fact that there are two other independently hosted The Legend of Zelda wikis, Zelda Dungeon Wiki and Triforce Wiki, both with their own community, with the former having a larger one. This proposal is NOT asking to change interwiki links to other The Legend of Zelda wikis either, as NIWA wikis take priority, especially to reflect how they are also listed on the Main page.

This can be handled similarly to the Sonic wiki situation. Take the Sonic the Hedgehog article for example—there is an external link to both Sonic Retro and Sonic News Network, presumably because Sonic Retro is a lot more behind on coverage than Sonic News Network. Triforce Wiki doesn't even have 1,000 articles yet whereas Zelda Dungeon Wiki has over 10,000 articles. Similarly, on the Link article, what this would mean is that there would be an External links section listing the Zelda Dungeon Wiki article first and then the Triforce Wiki article below it.

As many probably know, I am the founder of Triforce Wiki, although I handed it over to grifkuba for hosting (they host a couple of other NIWA wikis, so this gives it some credibility) & it is under new leadership. However, adding links to Triforce Wiki might come across to some as a conflict of interest, as a majority of its userbase is from the Super Mario Wiki itself. Because of this, the proposal will have an option to only allow a Zelda Dungeon Wiki link in the External links section of The Legend of Zelda-related articles.

Proposer: Deadline: January 3, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Both

 * 1) As per reasons stated above.
 * 2) I think it's a great idea. Zelda Wiki, Zelda Dungeon and Triforce Wiki all have different styles, so readers could enjoy more than just one Zelda-related wiki. Per proposal.
 * 3) This has my full support.
 * 4) Per proposal.
 * 5) This is probably incredibly biased due to Triforce being effectively a pet project of mine, buuuuuut per proposal. ZD needs more recognition as it is.
 * 6) I'm completely for cutting ties off Zelda Wiki altogether, make no mistake, but small steps like this is a good start.
 * 7) Per proposal.
 * 8) Per all. I was never a fan of how Zelda Wiki works anyways.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) Per all.

Comments
I have a concern regarding this proposal. I like the concept of linking to other Zelda wikis to give off choice, but what does Triforce Wiki and Zelda Dungeons Wiki have to offer to be used as external links? Are they vastly superior to link over Zelda Wiki? I feel like this might be a "conflict-of-interest" regardless of what it is said on the proposal. 19:29, December 30, 2021 (EST)
 * If readers are given extra choices then it's not a conflict of interest -- what would be a conflict of interest is like replacing all of the ZW links with Triforce Wiki links just because the wiki styles are nearly identical. The average reader doesn't know about the Zelda situation, and it wouldn't make a difference to them. Like I said in the proposal, Grifkuba hosts Triforce Wiki for one, and two, Zelda Dungeon is a long-standing Zelda fansite & its wiki has been around for at least a decade. There is no conflict of interest in acknowledging the existence of these two wikis. Results May Vary (talk) 22:43, December 30, 2021 (EST)

Create "Unused appearances" sections in history
Unused appearances are currently covered in the "Other appearances" headers in history sections as a result of this 2019 proposal, however a more recent proposal refined the scope of other appearances sections to mostly cover third-party media that is otherwise outside of our coverage, while still retaining the unused appearances due to the earlier proposal, which seems very weird, in my opinion. So, I'm proposing to add an additional Unused appearances section which will go at the bottom of history sections and cover all unused appearances.

If the create with headers option is chosen, unused appearances sections will be divided by game and series, like normal history sections. If the create without headers option is chosen, there will be a single header where all information is kept. If do nothing is chosen, well, that's self-explanatory.

Proposer: Deadline: January 11, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Create with headers

 * 1) Per the proposer, who, might I add, seems like a very neat person.
 * 2) It makes sense to separate this information from the “Other appearances” sections if they are generally only for third-party appearances now, and I feel that using headers would make it more organized.
 * 3) Per all, this sounds like it would make coverage of unused appearances a lot more consistent.
 * 4) Per all, this sounds like a good idea, especially by putting it at the bottom of the history section as mentioned in the proposal to reflect how it went unused and therefore are more of a footnote in that subject's history.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per proposal.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Per TheFlameChomp.

Create without headers

 * 1) Second choice.
 * 2) I feel this would be better suited for "edge cases" (Beach Koopa, Scorchit, Yoshi Cookie, Fishing Boo, leftovers, etc.).