MarioWiki:Proposals

List of Talk Page Proposals

 * Create the page: Drilldigger (Discuss) Deadline: January 17, 2016, 23:59 GMT
 * Split the sections Attackathlon, Toad Quiz and Lakitu Info Centre into and  (Discuss) Deadline: January 18, 2016, 23:59 GMT
 * Split Gold Bar and (Discuss) Deadline: January 18, 2016, 23:59 GMT
 * Split Banana and (Discuss) Deadline: January 19, 2016, 23:59 GMT
 * Split from Rope (Discuss) Deadline: December 29, 2015, 23:59 GMT Extended: January 5, 2016, 23:59 GMT, January 12, 2016, 23:59 GMT , January 19, 2016, 23:59 GMT
 * Use only when pages clearly have an informal appearance (Discuss) Deadline: January 15, 2016, 23:59 GMT Extended: January 22, 2016, 23:59 GMT
 * Decide if Scorchit should be moved to (Discuss) Deadline: January 28, 2016, 23:59 GMT
 * Move Baby Dragoneel to . (Discuss) Deadline: February 1, 2016, 23:59 GMT

Writing Guidelines
None at the moment.

New features
None at the moment.

Removals
None at the moment.

Require short detail of change in future Support/Oppose/Comment/etc proposal headers
The reason for this is similar to the proposal above - when adding a vote or comment on a page that has a prior (usually settled) proposal, you get sent to the equivalent section for the first proposal. Similarly, the section link from RecentChanges will also send you to the wrong section in the same way (in either case, you're sent to, e.g., when the section you're looking for has an anchor along the lines of, even though the header is just ====Support==== ).

It wouldn't have to be long or complicated (e.g., this proposal could have headers of something like "Support/Oppose requiring short detail"/"Comment on requiring short detail"), the point is just for it to be unique on the page (although simplicity of rule-writing means that it would be better to include the first proposal on a page in it). Headers in past proposals wouldn't need to be changed; this would only apply to proposals, including Talk Page Proposals, started after the new policy would come into effect.

Proposer: Deadline: January 17, 2016, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) . Per own proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) - Too much screwing around for something as superfluous as where you appear in the page after saving. The Table of Contents brings you to the right header, and when you try to edit, you're in the right section, so there's really no problem. Maybe someday the MediaWiki bug will be fixed, but in the meantime, it's not worth complicating basic header stuff.
 * 2) Aside from per Walkazo, since the page load bug is a bug, it's not something we can really fix.
 * 3) Per Walkazo and the comments below. It's a MediaWiki glitch that most likely won't be fixed in the near future. All this does is add unneeded tedium to the process of proposal creation; even though  does this, it doesn't mean we should all be required to do this. I get that we're trying to work around something the can possibly get very irritating (I actually talked to Porple about it because at that point, I didn't know it was a well known MediaWiki glitch), but like I said, all this rule (for lack of a better word) would do is add unnecessary and unwanted tedium to creating proposals; and besides, the only thing it would really be absolutely necessary for is TPPs because on this page, it doesn't take much effort to go from one proposal to the next, because scrolling from Proposal A over Proposal B to Proposal C does not take much effort at all. To sum up, it really should just be an option, not a requirement.
 * 4) Per all. I'd rather ignore the bug than go through an extra step in making creative proposal headers.
 * 5) Per all.

Comments
Ghost Jam: Isn't this what this proposal is all about, though? Circumventing a bug? 19:05, 11 January 2016 (EST)
 * Exactly. We can't fix it (it's more or less baked in - the only ways to technologically fix it would be [a] prohibit more than one section with the same name on a page by throwing an error when someone tries to save it as such or [b] make section anchors something like a random alphanumeric code with no connection to the actual header text. The former is a more extreme version of what I'm suggesting, and no-one anywhere wants the latter), but we can work around it. - Reboot (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2016 (EST)
 * Or just ignore it. It's a minor bug: not worth bending over backwards over and adding another, confusingly fiddly step to proposal-making - one that promotes inconsistency and needless wordiness, at that, which will then look terrible in the archives forever. Both the long-term and short-terms costs far outweigh any benefit from avoiding a glitch that causes a second's worth of inconvenience at a time: we've shrugged and carried on for over 8 years, and we should continue with that path of least resistance. - 01:12, 12 January 2016 (EST)

Split the Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga and Partners in Time badges into separate articles
'''Note: This proposal is not advocating to split the lists from the Badge article into separate articles. It is advocating for every single badge in those lists to have their own, respective articles (excluding Bowser's Inside Story and Dream Team). This is to prevent any confusion.'''

Please, put away your snap judgments and hear me out.

The tables in the Badge article are not adequate as fully comprehensive sources of information. At best, they can be used to summarize the basics of each badge, like the tables in various game articles, but they would benefit greatly from having individual articles. The locations of each badge beyond "this entire area", as well as when they can be obtained in shops as the story progresses; a more detailed description of each of the badges' effects, and while this may not apply to several badges in Superstar Saga that only increases stats, every badge in Partners in Time has a secondary effect, and there's no reason to drag them down just because of a few outliers; each of the badges' names in other languages, and no, I don't consider the giant and garish list to be a suitable alternative; both their base buying and selling prices; and this is just what I cam come up with off the top of my head. In theory, several of these elements could be stuffed into the tables, but at some point it'd just become bloated to the point where it'd be better to split the badges out of convenience. The tables are already showing signs of bloat: frankly, a table that requires ten footnotes and two sets of asterisks on top of that is laughably inefficient. Even if they don't have a unique sprite, they're still clearly unique items with unique attributes. There's also another recent proposal from me that wants to split some items that also share appearances, so that alone is not strong enough to keep them merged. If the game treats the items like individuals, we should do the same. From where I'm standing, this is a natural follow-up to my last proposal that involved splitting the Paper Mario badges. This can only increase the wealth of information on the wiki and limit the need to rely on an imperfect list.

As there are notable differences between the use of badges in the first two and later two games of the Mario & Luigi series, this proposal only covers said first two games.

Proposer: Deadline: January 24, 2016, 23:59 GMT

Split

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal.

Comments
Wait, but don't we have these articles on the two subjects already? 00:14, 18 January 2016 (EST)
 * You thought the same thing with the last proposal. This proposal is not about splitting those lists into individual articles, but giving individual articles for every item in those lists.
 * Sorry. I'm probably too tired and too stupid to read things through before farting something out of my trap. But is there something the Partners in Time list misses? Only the Superstar Saga list seems convoluted as hell unless I'm being mistaken (being the dumb person I am to repeat the same comment) and even so, why don't the Bowser's Inside Story and Dream Team badges need a split? And what about the battle cards from Paper Jam? What will you do about those? Do those even have names? 00:36, 18 January 2016 (EST)
 * One step at a time. As I described in the proposal, the lists miss out on detailed locations (exact drop rates as well), names in other languages, specific buying/selling prices, and more detail for a badge's effects. While the PiT table isn't as convoluted, it's still missing a wealth of information that could be easily added if the Badges were given individual articles. The BIS and DT Badges were left out due to their radically different nature than the SS and PiT Badges. If this proposal goes well, they can be covered in due time, alongside the Battle Cards (which I, admittedly, don't know much about).

We could make the same case for Equipment. Specific ones make several effects and can be explained in detail, some are obtained specifically (although most are random if I recall correctly), and all have completely different foreign names. Yeah, equipment are more "generic" than badges but their function is quite similar to badges in many cases. Overall, I'm skeptical of this proposal. 15:19, 18 January 2016 (EST)