MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/39

Change the MarioWiki:Signature rules

 * See: Draft

I'm proposing a change to the current Signature policy, the changes help reading and reduce the distracting signature does. The following are the rules that got changed, all other rules are unchanged..

First of any thing: Reduce the height of the signatures, The current signature is awfully very tall (See this for example: User:Dashbot/Sandbox). I'm proposing this for multiple reasons, the strongest reason is that signatures higher than 20px in height disrupt the normal spacing between rows of text. Adding ugly unnecessary spacing. This applies for text and images, thus you cannot use any html tags that increase the text size, including but not limited to,   and. The second reason I'm proposing this is that the bigger the signature is, the much more it would be disruptive catching the eye out of the message itself.

Second: You want to use image, as you wish.. but don't use mainspace images, simple! Just use any external or any personal image. That is because the unnecessary linking in the file page.

Third: Use whichever font you want, as long as it is not higher than normal font. It must be easily readable, also.

Fourth: A minor change, you are now required to link to your talk page, instead of requiring you to link to your userpage. 98% of the time I click on a signature is to visit the talk page. You still can have links to your userpage, contributions, etc

Fifth: Another minor change, You are no longer allowed to link to real articles directly.. Most of you guys are already not doing that, just adding that for the record. If you really must link to a real article, use an external link.

Sixth: No External Links such as advertising or any other websites are allowed, Use your userpage for such things. Like the current system, you are allowed for maximum of five word links.

Last and most importantly: Don't make your signature very disruptive.

You can use disruptive, long, anything signature as raw code in other user's talk pages, ONLY if they say okay. If this passes, there will be a week-to-month time until get issued.

Proposer: Deadline: April 5, 2014, 23:59 GMT.

Support

 * 1) We are an encyclopedia, we don't host fancy signatures. Signature should only be used for personality identifications, However, you can still have some good designs, if you adhere to those rules.

Oppose

 * 1) I'm fine with everything except the height rule; it seems okay as it is and you would hardly be able to see the pictures of Rosalina in my signature if you made the height requirement tighter.
 * 2) I don't think this would be great, many people will receive a sigfix warning. Per Epic Rosalina.
 * 3) I think the rules are fine the way they are.
 * 4) - While I am somewhat irritated by how spacing gets screwed up by sigs, I just shrug it off as something that can't be helped. Making images (and text) no taller than 12pt font is too draconian, and given how long the old dimensions have been established for, it's a bit late to try and change them now. Besides, we're an encyclopedia: messy talk pages aren't the end of the world as long as the mainspace and policy pages are solid. And on that note, the proposed MW:SIG draft is way too bulky; even if some things get changed to the policy down the road, the page should stay nice and compact like it is now.
 * 5) Awful. The rules are good as they are. Also, why not use mainspace images?
 * 6) Per Why Bother.
 * 7) Per all, it would be a hassle to get everyone to fix their signatures quickly.
 * 8) I strongly disagree with the second rule. I like the appearance of my signature very much, and I don't want to waste potential personal image slots and possible go over it just because of that rule. And using external links is not the best idea because you can't resize them. In all, this proposal creates more problems than it solves, I don't really hate the spacing and such. I just kind of ignore it.
 * 9) I think the current rules are fine and I don't see any problems with the spacing.
 * 10) I personally thought they were too strict as they are at one point. Per all.
 * 11) This crap is WAYYY freaking stringent for my tastes. Per all.
 * 12) No no no, absolutely not. There's no reason we can't have these. Per all.
 * 13) &mdash; Per Ghost Jam's comments and Walkazo's vote. The overall impact of this proposal is too extensive and the current policy page is neater and concise. While some of the individual ideas might have merit, they should be discussed in the Wiki Collaborations board on the forum so that there is more time to make them into workable policies.
 * 14) Per Super Mario Bros.

Comments
I agree with parts, but I see no reason for why mainspace images can't be used.

I agree that our current signature policy could probably stand a to be reviewed in some parts, and I do like some of your suggestions. However, this isn't like moving an article or banning something everyone is sick of, this is a site wide policy that a large section of our userbase takes advantage of. I feel that the proposals section is the wrong venue for this, you're not going to get the level of discussion really needed for a change of this scale here. More likely, it's going to fail because it only has a week get it's point across (and this is a fairly involved point) and proposals function less like discussions and more like "yes or no" affairs. My suggestion? Move this to the General Discussion forums (perhaps even the Wiki Collaborations sub-forum), get a discussion rolling. Once it's been narrowed down what people like, don't like and the compromises therein, bring it back to proposals as "yes or no" type of thing. --
 * Actually, writing guideline proposals last for two weeks, however, seeing as they can only be rewritten within the first three days and there are probably a few points that need to be ironed out and as Ghost Jam said the discussion for that probably wouldn't happen within that timeframe it would probably be best to discuss then propose.
 * Even at two weeks, I'd put money on this snowballing to the "nope" side.

I don't see why we can't use Mainspace Images, i don't see anything wrong with them.
 * Look at the file usage for File:Booboo.gif, you can still normally use an external link by using something like  http://www.mariowiki.com/images/a/ad/Booboo.gif -- 04:59, 22 March 2014 (EDT)

@Ghost Jam: That's a pretty good idea, I think.. When this proposal reaches the deadline, We will have four weeks to discuss and settle this.. @Epic Rosalina: If you used another image, maybe this, this, if cropped, or this. It would appear better. @Walkazo: The draft can be changed anytime. While it can be too draconian as you said, the talk pages are pretty disrupting, catching my eye out of the main message. The spacing looks ugly, I can't just throw this idea out myself.
 * -- 04:59, 22 March 2014 (EDT)

Pie for Everyone (revisit)
Roughly seven years ago, I came to this very proposal page with an idea. Well, a hope, really. A hope for a better tomorrow. A hope for a more complete wiki. A hope for a happier editor. A hope....for pie.

Now, the idea was (and still is) simple. Basically, a pie button would be coded into the top bar that would send a signal to one of our sysops (the original proposal had Wayoshi being the baker of these pies, but I feel that we have sufficiently talented staff now that the work can be evenly divided with no issues), who would then prepare and deliver a piece of warm pie.

As one might expect, there were issues with this idea. Some people liked it (in fact, the proposal passed 12 to 10), others didn't (I recall at least one administrator at the time having a bit of a fit over the whole thing). And I understand. Change is a hard thing to swallow sometimes (unlike pie) and we are a bit of an argumentative bunch. Not to mention that there are some legitimate concerns with this plan. It'll be hard to code, hard to coordinate and could get fairly expensive fairly quickly. On the other hand, if executed with the level of precision and expertise we've developed over the last seven years, I believe that it's well within our current abilities. In fact, this may be something we can eventually take to NIWA and help other wikis grow. So, I bring this proposal back here today because we are a much different MarioWiki than in 2007. We've grown, in more ways than one and I think it's time to reconsider.

The actual division of labor of the idea will be discussed among the administrative staff come the passing of the proposal, but the basics read as follows:


 * A single editor may only make use of the pie button once every 72 hours, due to time constraints on part of the administrative staff.
 * Each piece of pie will cost $3 American. This is to cover basic delivery services. This price may need to be adjusted as the project fleshes itself out.
 * Third point to help make proposal look less like I just suddenly decided to do it at 3am and am basically bull$*@!ing it as I go.
 * Flavors of pie can be decided upon (via community input) at a later date, but the current plans are for cherry, blueberry, freedom and Randy Savage.

I encourage discussion and am more than willing to answer any design related questions the community might have. All I ask is that we keep it civil and work towards a better, pie filled tomorrow.

Proposer: Deadline: April 8, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Delicious Pie

 * 1) as the proposer.
 * 2) IT'S PIE DAY, PIE DAY, GOTTA GET DOWN ON PIE DAY.
 * 3) I'd per YoshiKong but due to an intense hatred of that song I'll per the proposal.
 * 4) &mdash; Ghost Jam has clearly come up with a workable system that will be extremely beneficial to the community. My only concern is where we will get the money to start the program, but I assume we can either borrow some from the MarioWiki's ad revenue or take out a loan. The Super Mario Wiki has always prided itself on being one of the premier Mario resources on the Internet, and implementing this project will solidify our status once and for all. The "Pie for Everyone" feature will increase editor productivity and community morale, (eventually) increase the Super Mario Wiki's revenue, and allow us to expand our appeal. I urge everybody that cares for the future success of the wiki to support this proposal.
 * 5) Let them eat pie.
 * 6) I support because I feel this will bring Randomyoshi back.
 * 7) Pie is a great idea, we shouldn't keep the users from their pie. Pie for everyone!
 * 8) - I have regretted opposing the first pie proposal every day of my life. Never again. Pie for everyone, forever!
 * 9) - Pie is superior to all other desserts.
 * 10) PIEPIEPIEPIEPIEPIEPIEPIEIPEIPIEIPIE
 * 11) Give me pie or give me death.
 * 12) I retired a while ago, then I heard the the pie button was returning... PIE FORE EVRYONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
 * 13) You convinced me SMB. BUT IT MUST BE CHOCOLATE PIE, OR I WONT HAVE ANY.
 * 14) Let them eat pie.
 * 15) Pie will keep productivity up, and people can edit longer without having to worry about fainting from hunger. Plus it's pie. What more could you ask for?
 * 16) I do have a particular craving for chocolate cream pie...
 * 17) - The flaws of the original proposal have been vastly improved upon. This will definitely bring both a greater sense of democracy and also a greater sense of echantment with the MarioWiki administrative staff.
 * 18) I. Think a pie dilevery service would be yummy and delicious!!!
 * 19) Per all, pie for all.

No Pie for You

 * 1) - No delicious fruit pie = no per.
 * 2) If the members of the administration are responsible for making and delivering the pies, then the flavors of pie to be offered should be determined via an administrative consensus and not via community input. The only way I can see that changing is if we accept minimum monetary donations of $20 for every pie flavor that is not currently offered.
 * 3) Cake is better.
 * 4) Per Mario!
 * 5) Pie gives me indigestion
 * 6) Per Mario and Glowsquid-o.
 * 7) Don't like pie,
 * 8) I didn't have pie for my birthday on 5 March, I had CAKE! I WANT CAKE! I WANT CAKE!
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) I've never eated pie *-*
 * 11) Per Mario, chocolate cake FTW.

Comments
Additionally, as this has proven to be something of a hot button issue, I'm further suggesting that, should this proposal fail, the overturn rule (point #7) be extended for this topic alone from four weeks to a full year. That will basically give everyone a year to discuss and then reconvene on April 1st. --

I think there should be a rota for which admin delivers the pies.
 * Definitely workable. --

@Glowsquid The proposed list of flavors includes a few fruits. However, if you're suggesting we replace baked pies with those little packaged fruit pies.....that would certainly be cheaper and easier to deliver, but I'm not sure how the community would react to that. Anyone else have an opinion? --
 * It depends if you use real fruits or not. 13:34, 1 April 2014 (EDT)
 * I'll support if you can hook everyone up with a free sample first. -- 13:49, 1 April 2014 (EDT)
 * Free samples require $2 for shipping and handling.
 * This is a scam! 14:11, 1 April 2014 (EDT)
 * The admin team does scam, we are 100% truthful the entire time.
 * So wait, why is everyone trusting scammers to bake the pies? How do we know they won't poison them or something? -- 14:53, 1 April 2014 (EDT)
 * Oops, looks my random miss out a word thing happened again :/. Besides why we would poison you?
 * Hey, if you guys want to handle the production and distribution of pies, be our guests, though I should mention that transferring responsibility also incurs a monetary fee. It's less work for us.
 * Is this proposal an April Fool's Joke? Today is April 1st and I don't find it likely to order pie from a wiki. In fact, pies in the face have been used a lot in comedy. SeanWheeler (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2014 (EDT)
 * It'd be passing a lot better if it was an April Fool's joke.

@YK It's do a hop. 17:43, 1 April 2014 (EDT)


 * Aye? Dafaq you talkin bout Willis?! 07:17, 2 April 2014 (EDT)

Now how long will this take until it moves to the BJAODN?
 * Aw, don't ruin the fun! 09:17, 2 April 2014 (EDT)

YoshiKong, why have you voted twice?
 * Because he wants to! There's no rule against it, after all. 14:33, 2 April 2014 (EDT)
 * Rules, schmoolz, I don't give a hoot about 'em. 14:36, 2 April 2014 (EDT)
 * Really, I don't either. Sometimes. 08:30, 3 April 2014 (EDT)

@Bluetoad63: Forget the cake: the cake is a lie. 12:48, 5 April 2014 (EDT)
 * It's still delicious just thinking about it. :) 14:28, 5 April 2014 (EDT)
 * That's what I'm counting on. 15:34, 5 April 2014 (EDT)
 * But i like cake! WHAAAA-*shot* 11:13, 8 April 2014 (EDT)

To address opposing votes, I hereby suggest the Vommack Amendment to the Pie for Everyone Act: Vommack (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2014 (EDT)
 * Any flavor of pie may be ordered; however, pies not currently listed as an available pie will be considered a "custom pie" and extra money will be charged, depending on availability of supplies, etc.
 * The Administrator Bakery will be expanded to allow for the baking of cakes. All restrictions relating to ordering of pies extends to the ordering of cakes. Cake may or may not be a lie.
 * Does it adhere to current government regulations? 17:52, 5 April 2014 (EDT)
 * Which regulations are you referring to? Vommack (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2014 (EDT)
 * Wiki Manual, Section B, Paragraph 19, Subheader 4. 11:14, 8 April 2014 (EDT)
 * Why yes, yes it does, Mr. Toad.--Vommack (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2014 (EDT)

I am so confused. What do you mean by administrators delivering pie? This may sound stupid, but I don't really understand. Could someone please explain? 20:05, 8 April 2014 (EDT)
 * Explanation: seven days ago was April 1, seven years ago was fun times, and pie is awesome. -

Create an "Regional Differences" Page
As far as I know, some games series like Mario Party, Mario Kart and sports spin-offs have some/lots of regional differences in all the world. An example is myself: Ashley in Japan is 8, but in USA she is 15. Also, the majority of the Mario games released on hand-held consoles have differences. Sawaru Meifo in Wario (WarioWare Touched!) has LOTS of differences between all the releases: The american one is totally different from the Japanese's one. I suggest to these pages be called like: List of (name of the game) Regional differences.

Proposer: Deadline: April 13, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal

Oppose

 * 1) Per Walkazo in the comments.
 * 2) Per Walkazo.
 * 3) Per Walkazo.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) - Per me (in the comments). Make the pages someday, but keep the priority on getting the info down in the sections for now.
 * 6) Per Walkazo.

Comments
I honestly think it would be better if we merged it with the article itself, unless the regional differences is very substantial or something. 13:16, 6 April 2014 (EDT)
 * We already have a policy for version differences, including regional differences (a broader scope is better, since more info can be covered). The policy only talks about the creation of sections for now; I suppose it could be expanded to have another class of ex-subpages, but perhaps not until we have more information of the sort built up: right now, I feel like we'd only have a few pages, and most of them would be small. -
 * Yes. Games that has lots of differences (e.i WarioWare games) should have an subpage like Quotes. Games with only a few of differences (e.i Super Princess Peach) should have only a section. What about?
 * Eventually, that would be ideal, but again, I feel like we should try to build up the information first and then start making subpages, rather than adding provisions for a whole new subpage class now, only for it to be sparsely populated for the longest time. You cite the WarioWare series as having tonnes of differences, but none of those pages even have sections yet. It would be best to make a Wiki Collab to try and generate more interest in making sections, with the goal being to make enough coverage to move a handful of those sections onto subpages. -

Create separate articles for Standard Kart and Standard Bike
Looking back at my last proposal of splitting the Pipe Frame and Gold Standard from Kart, I was thinking we should give the Standard Karts and Standard Bike their own articles. The Kart and Bike articles can cover Karts and Bikes as a whole. This is how I think it can be laid out: I feel this should be done for consistency sakes, as all other karts have their own article and the Standards should be no different. I know most of the info is just covered in Kart and Bike, but those can cover the vehicles as a whole instead.
 * The Standard Kart page would cover the information and stats of the Standard Karts from Mario Kart DS, Mario Kart Wii, Mario Kart 7 and the upcoming Mario Kart 8.
 * The Kart page can simply cover Karts as a whole, not necessarily the stats of each one. We can also add pictures of karts from the various MK titles much like how the Double Dash!! section does.
 * The Standard Bike page would, like the Standard Kart, list the stats of said bikes from Mario Kart Wii and Mario Kart 8 while the Bike article covers bikes as a whole, such as showing pictures of each bike from Mario Kart Wii and bike part from Mario Kart 8.

Proposer: Deadline: April 14, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per me
 * 2) Per...you? (Tails777)
 * 3) The standards are their own parts/karts, so they should get a different article rather than being lumped into the generic kart article.
 * 4) They are 2 different vehicles; per all.
 * 5) Per proposal
 * 6) Per All.
 * 7) The term "Kart" is a umbrella term for all the 4-wheeled, car-like vehicles used in Mario Kart games. It shouldn't exclusively mean the go-karts. Sure, the article should definitely cover the karts used in the first few Mario Kart games, but it should stop covering just the go-kart-like karts post Mario Kart Double Dash. This applies to "bike" as well. The term "Bike" should apply to ALL bikes, not just the Standard Bikes.
 * 8) Having seen an example of the proposed end result, per Tails777.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) - Per all.

Comments
Shouldn't this be a TPP? 20:06, 8 April 2014 (EDT)
 * It could be, but it covers 2 different topics so I put it here.

It seems unnecessarily fiddly to break down Kart just to copy and paste the same information to another article, not really seeing the benefit here. And just going off the information currently up in Bike, we'd be breaking it down into a stub to create another stub, when the current host article seems to serve the purpose well enough. I'm not going to vote until someone explains to me what the end goal really is here, what is the actual benefit of breaking these two articles down further. --
 * The goal is to basically move the stats and information on the general Standard parts into their own article while the Kart and Bike articles cover the 2 vehicles as a whole. The current kart page covers the Karts from all games (looking at the Double Dash!! as it has a picture of all the karts in the game) while covering the information about a single kart/part. Why keep the information on the Standard in the generic kart article when we can have a separate article for said part like all the other karts/parts have?
 * @Ghost Jam, short articles are NOT stubs. I'd rather have short articles organized nicely w/o padding than large articles that a large, bloated, and are padded out on this wiki. 22:30, 10 April 2014 (EDT)

--
 * @Tails777 I follow the reasoning and the logic, and in principle I believe I agree. What's bothering me is the creation of stub or fluff articles. Can you guarantee that there is enough information available to make this worth the trouble? If yes, then I guess I'm behind it.
 * @Baby Luigi The line between "this article is short" and "this article is a stub" is pretty thin and has been something editors have argued about since the start of this wiki. A bloated article is just as bad as a sparse one, both can be dealt with by stepping in before it happens.
 * I've written down here what the Standard Kart article would look like, basically a draft of it.
 * Ok, you've got my support. --


 * Actually, there's a pretty notable difference between a stub and a short article. A stub is an article that lacks sufficient information. Most stubs are short articles, yes, but not all short articles are stubs. They're short because that's all that can be said about them without having to pad the articles out. An article about the level that does not have any further information other than basic information would definitely be classified as a stub because it lacks sufficient information to get an understanding of the subject. Sufficiency and completeness is the key, not the length of the article. 23:07, 10 April 2014 (EDT)
 * Correction, all stubs are short articles (and/or sections, although we see far less of that on MarioWiki than, as an example, Bulbapedia), which is why we have more peer review for short articles and subjects that lack more than passing information. Additionally, you're thinking too hard about the precise words I'm using here. I'm not insinuating that any and all short articles are stubs, rather that they are more prone to becoming stubs, either at creation or due to over specialization. It's not about padding an article (in fact, if you have to pad an article to reach a point where people aren't going to start slapping "fix this" templates on it, it either needs to be merged into another article or dropped), it's about proving that a subject is worth having a separate article. You prove this by supplying context and showing relevance. If that can be done in a few sentences, well done, but that can't be and shouldn't be blanket applied to everything.


 * As we are very quickly moving off subject, I'm going to ask that we end this here and move it to either the forums or talk pages. --

The Fate of WFC Glitches
I know it's a bit early, but might as well clear the air now. As we all know, support for Nintendo WFC is ending May 20. That means no more online features for basically every game on the Wii and DSi. The question is, what are we going to do about glitches that we have listed on glitch lists of a certain game that happen only in wi-fi? No one will be able to do a glitch for themselves anymore, nor could anyone add any glitches, so I'm not totally sure if we should keep them all, or delete them on May 20.

Proposer: Deadline: April 19, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Delete them

 * 1) I honestly don't see much of a point in keeping them.

Keep them

 * 1) – Once a glitch, always a glitch.
 * 2) Seriously? This is like Wikipedia deleting a page on Windows XP because support has been dropped. There is absolutely no reason to delete these glitches.
 * 3) There are modders who are working to set up their own servers in Mario Kart Wii so it won't be 100% eliminated. There's absolutely no reason to delete history of them, though they may be questionable if they lack evidence we cannot acquire.
 * 4) Per All.
 * 5) It's not an uncommon practice for encyclopedias to keep a historical record of otherwise outdated information, so I don't see keeping them as a problem. The only issues I see arising are the provability moving forward, as mentioned by Baby Luigi above. But we'll cross that bridge when/if we come to it.
 * 6) - Per all. If anything, preserving this info is becoming more important now that the official sources are being taken away. You don't burn your history books.
 * 7) - Per all.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) - Per YoshiKong and Vommack.
 * 10) Per all. Maybe we could move them to their own section on the page though.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) Per all
 * 13) Per all, especially Walkazo.

Comments
Since it seems that many are in agreement to keep them listed, it might be a good idea to further our coverage a tad. Make sure we have images or videos of our soon to be inaccessible glitches (perhaps suggesting same to the rest of NIWA as a courtesy). We have a rare opportunity in knowing in advance that sources are about to vanish, best to document what we can while we can. --

Disambiguation minimum
I have noticed many of the orphaned pages on the wiki are disambiguation. These pages have only two pages on them, and those pages have links to each other already, making the disambig page useless. What I think is that disambiguation pages should have at least three instead of two page links in order to be made and as for the ones that have less, they should either have another page link added or be deleted.

Proposer: Proposed Deadline: April 30, 2014, 23:59 GMT Date Withdrawn: April 24, 2014, 21:31 GMT

Support-Change limit

 * 1) Per my own proposal.

Oppose-Keep it as it is

 * 1) Per Vommack's comment. There needs to be a default term for people to be linked to. Removing these could potentially make it harder for people to navigate the wiki.
 * 2) Per Yoshi. Which makes it per me in a way, I suppose.
 * 3) If I look up 'Luma', what would it go to? Species, or character? This is why we need those pages.
 * 4) Per all. If a term has two equally prominent uses, a disambig page is the only way to go. There is nothing wrong with disambiguation pages being orphaned: they're for helping searches, after all, just like redirects.
 * 5) System works fine and as intended as is.

Comments
And what would you default to if you searched for a term with two meanings?--Vommack (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2014 (EDT)
 * I see your point. Now, how do we make them un-orphaned if the two pages already have links to each other? 17:33, 23 April 2014 (EDT)
 * I'd say they don't necessarily have to be. While there shouldn't be normal pages lying around in the orphanage, some disambiguation pages will inevitably end up there. There's not really anywhere to link to them, but they need to stay for the sake of navigation.--Vommack (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2014 (EDT)
 * Basically what we're saying is that these pages don't need to be un-orphaned, they have a use in the search bar. - 17:56, 23 April 2014 (EDT)

It's unsurprising that a disambiguation page would be orphaned as well. Orphaned pages are pages that no other page links to. Due to the nature and use of a disambiguation page, it makes sense that nothing would link directly to them. Adding more to the page itself won't solve that, although I'm sure linking back could be jury-rigged into existing articles (IE: "To read more about [TOPIC], see here: [LINK TO DISAMBIGUATION PAGE FOR TOPIC].). I don't see it as a necessity, however.--
 * Names with more than two meanings often/usually link to the disambig page in the articleabout (rather than listing everything there), but if there's only one other meaning, it makes more sense to link directly to the other article: cutting out the middle man, and all. -
 * Figured we already did it, just couldn't think of any examples off the top of my head. :D -
 * Try things like Yoshi and Luma, and everyone should get the point. Searching Luma will put you on the disamxhjdujbc page, whereas the Yoshi page sends you to the disamxhjdujbc page. - 21:30, 23 April 2014 (EDT)

Course, Courts and Tracks
I've noticed a bit of an incorrection ( or so I think ) with things such as Mario Kart courses, which should be called tracks, as in 'Racing Track'. 'Course' should refer to 'Golf Course', because we do say that Golf areas are courses, not racing areas. Therefore I propose that pages, articles and sections with an incorrect reafearal to 'Course' s should be moved or changed to 'Tracks'.

Proposer: Deadline: April 26, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Support - Change to 'Tracks'

 * 1) per proposal
 * 2) per proposal

Oppose - Keep as 'Courses'

 * 1) I've seen a number of articles that use "course" and "track" interchangeably. People know what is meant regardless of the word used. To go through and change one to the other is just nitpicking and doesn't really affect the accuracy of any particular article.
 * 2) Per Mario4Ever. This wouldn't really have any constructive effect.
 * 3) Per Mario4Ever. An Track is a Course.Even in Golf Games, you can call, for example: "Peach's Golf Course" as "Peach's Golf track". We understand that in the same way.
 * 4) "Course" can mean the track on which a race is run. Per Mario4Ever.
 * 5) - The official game manuals call them "courses" (at least the MK Wii and MK:DD ones do - it's even a header in the Table of Contents for the latter one).
 * 6) - Per Walkazo.
 * 7) The two words can be synonyms. Per all.
 * 8) They are the same thing!

Comments
Meh, the proposal is a bit vague for my liking. What exactly constitutes as an "incorrect" referral to "course" anyway? I'd like some more clarity on that. 11:42, 19 April 2014 (EDT)

This is like making a proposal to change capitals to lower case in subsection titles. There's no point in making it universal, and the effort we have to concentrate to enact such minor changes is not very productive. Courses have been nomenclature for a while; its being correct or not isn't really clear-cut since it can be used interchangeably. 12:19, 19 April 2014 (EDT)
 * So basically your saying that this isn't important enough, do it yourself? And 'incorrect' refers to any Mario Kart reference to course that should actually be called tracks. If you oppose, just oppose, that's why it's here. - 16:45, 19 April 2014 (EDT)
 * You made the proposal today, and since this isn't a Writing Guideline or Talk Page Proposal, the deadline is in a week, not two, so I fixed it for you.
 * My saying that this is way too trivial to warrant a proposal. 20:26, 19 April 2014 (EDT)

This isn't something that requires input from the entire community, it's a minor editorial dispute at best. Might be better to bring this up on individual talk pages or on the general discussion forums. I have no opinion on the subject itself. --
 * Yeah, didn't really know where to put this, this was the only place I could think of. I wouldn't describe this a nitpicky, more if just getting a bit of order to pages, but anyway if this doesn't really makes anyone else a slight bit confused/annoyed, there isn't a real propose to keep this up, but we could just wait and see. - 05:16, 20 April 2014 (EDT)
 * While it might've been better as a discussion in the Wiki Collabs forum board, seeing as the term is used on large numbers of pages (including templates and categories), it's not a minor change being suggested here, so the Proposals isn't a bad place to go with the issue: it's certainly better than trying to host it on one or more talk pages. - 19:43, 21 April 2014 (EDT)

The two words can be synonmyms. I honestly don't think it makes the biggest difference. 18:30, 22 April 2014 (EDT)

McDonalds
Nintendo has had a couple of licenses with McDonalds for about 20 years, but there is no official page/pages about these licenses on the wikipedia. I propose that a page be made on the Happy Meal Lines.

Proposer: Deadline: April 29, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Support - Create Page/Pages

 * 1) per my proposal

Oppose - Don't do anything!

 * 1) Firstly, they are listed here. Second, unlike the K'NEX sets, there really aren't enough of these to justify creating an entire new page on them.
 * 2) Per Vommack.
 * 3) Seriously, we don't need a page on cheap merchandise that doesn't have any real purpose or function aside from being thrown in the garbage by parents. Also, per Vommack.
 * 4) Per Vommack and Ninelevendo.
 * 5) Per Vommack. Feel free to add to the articles mentioned if you have new information, though.
 * 6) Per all.

Comments
If you have enough info, go ahead and create it. There is no need for a proposal in tgis case.

This should be a TPP.--Vommack (talk) 14:18, 22 April 2014 (EDT)

This doesn't need a proposal. If the merchandise is official and real, then go add it to the merchandise page. 14:51, 22 April 2014 (EDT)
 * It's actually already on this page. He's saying it warrants an entire new article.--Vommack (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2014 (EDT)

Merge 9-Volt and 18-Volt
So, first of all: These two guys from yhe WarioWare series should be considered as only one charactwr, and have only one page for they, much like it does in Kat and Ana, Me and Red, Dribble and Spitz... Considering that 18-Volt's page is little, I think that this should be merged with 9-Volt.

Proposer: Deadline: May 1, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) I feel that 18-Volt has more that can be said about him. More of 18-Volt's personality has been shown. Now I've only played 2 WarioWare games and I've seen more about both Red and 18-Volt than I have about Spitz in total, but even with the one game I've played that 18-Volt has been in, I still see he's shown more about himself. Plus his article isn't that short, pretty big if you ask me.
 * 2) Red is practically always seen with you, whereas 18-Volt is a bit like Wario in the sense of characters.
 * 3) Per Tails and Nin.
 * 4) 18 Volt's not particularly short for a WarioWare character page so I have no idea why you.re saying that. Anyway, 9-Volt and 18-Volt aren't an ensemble the way Ashley & red or Kat & Ana are; they're shown acting separately plenty of time (most notably D.I.Y and D.I.Y Showcase where the two have separate stages).
 * 5) - Per all.
 * 6) - Per standard procedure. As was mentioned in the comments, this should be a TTP.
 * 7) - Per Glowsquid.
 * 8) Per all.

Comments
This should be a TTP on 18-Volt's page.

Move Rosalina to Princess Rosalina
So, I know that lots of users had proposed that, but once again I will propose it: Move Rosalina's page to "Princess Rosalina". I would say that because she is a princess, and I'm not saying this because of her crown or even her dress. Her Super Mario Galaxy's bio states:"Not much is known about Rosalina, the lonely princess who wanders the cosmos in the Comet Observatory, a giant starship that travels the celestial expanse. She is a great friend of the Luma, taking them in and caring for them as if they were her children. But there is a sadness behind her eyes. What has she lost out among the stars?"

Also her Mario Kart 8's bio (that is shared with Pink Gold Peach bio)states:"Baby Rosalina and Pink Gold Peach. Hit the road as a bouncing baby princess or a metallic mystery woman!"

Proposer: Proposed Deadline: May 8, 2014, 23:59 GMT Date Withdrawn: May 2, 2014, 17:42 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) Per standard procedure. As was mentioned in the comments, this should be a TTP.
 * 2) Per the supernatural jelly.

Comments
This should be a talk page proposal 11:57, 1 May 2014 (EDT)

Change the design of Species infoboxes
So, I've been checking out some other NIWA wikis an I noticed that many of them have more informative and organized species templates than this wiki's. I thought of this design that, besides separating the informations by type, it also avoids irregularity.

Just some notes. In the draft I linked above, the right one is for species that appear as enemies and don't live in a single land (like Goombas and Pokeys). The left one is for other species (mostly friendly NPCs) that are shown to be a population of one or more determined areas (like the Flip-Flop Folk and Pi'illos). In this infobox, the headers would not show up if there is not any info under them. I'm also trying to come up with a better word than Location. If anyone's got any ideas, we can change it if the proposal passes.

Proposer: Deadline: May 10, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Change it

 * 1) - Per my proposal.

Don't change it

 * 1) Per Mario in the comments.
 * 2) Also Per Mario.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) - Per myself and Mario in the comments.
 * 5) I'm surprised people perred me because I thought it's just a little nitpick. Oh well, I'm not liking the new design. Per myself and 'kazo.
 * 6) } &mdash; Per all.
 * 7) Per Walkazo and Mario (that pun by the way) in the comments.

Comments
Infoboxes in general could probably benefit from some work: making blank sections not show up would be a plus, but I think our current row-by-row approach is good (it just needs to be set-up so that the rows always alternate colours, but if it can be done for nav templates, I'm sure infoboxes can be automated like that too). Having sub-headers just adds unnecessary area (extra lines, and more blank space), and the location stuff seems more like speculating or otherwise interpreting the info, rather than just presenting hard facts at a glance. The "related" and "subspecies" also shouldn't be collapsed by default, I think, since having long lists that need collapsing is the exception, not the rule. -

As 'kazo said earlier, I don't like the way the "location" aspect is handled. The article content itself is already adequate to give readers a clue where enemies are typically located. And we have Goombas, which occur nearly everywhere. 14:28, 3 May 2014 (EDT)

The "Type" part is also quite ridiculous. This isn't Pokemon...--Vommack (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2014 (EDT)
 * I suppose it's not very effective. http://forum.mariowiki.com/Smileys/default/dk.gif 16:57, 9 May 2014 (EDT)
 * This change doesn't affect this user.... Why do you want to change it anyway? We can have our own, unique species box. -  17:04, 9 May 2014 (EDT)

Change Page Names for Mario Kart Courses
Recently, due to the release of Mario Kart 8, I have been looking over and creating links for retro courses (courses that originate in one Mario Kart game and are brought back in another) and courses based off of another stage in a Mario game. Here are some page names: As you can see, all these names are differently formatted, and I only pulled 6 examples. My proposal is to create a uniform page name for all race courses to keep it consistent and spare confusion. All race courses from Mario Kart will have the same format; even new courses from Mario Kart 8 like Water Park: This would be Course (Game abbreviation). Here are what the previous examples would look like: Here are the abbreviations that would be used if this proposal is passed: This would avoid confusion and keep everything orderly.
 * Tick-Tock Clock (race course) - First appeared in Mario Kart DS; Retro course in Mario Kart 8
 * Dry Dry Desert (course) - First appeared in Mario Kart: Double Dash!!; Retro course in Mario Kart 8
 * Moo Moo Meadows - First appeared in Mario Kart Wii; Retro course in Mario Kart 8
 * DK Jungle (Mario Kart) - First appeared in Mario Kart 7; Retro course in Mario Kart 8
 * Sherbet Land (GCN) - First appeared in Mario Kart: Double Dash!!; Retro course in Mario Kart 8
 * Water Park - First appeared in Mario Kart 8 (New course)
 * - First appeared in Mario Kart DS; Retro course in Mario Kart 8
 * - First appeared in Mario Kart: Double Dash!!; Retro course in Mario Kart 8
 * - First appeared in Mario Kart Wii; Retro course in Mario Kart 8
 * - First appeared in Mario Kart 7; Retro course in Mario Kart 8
 * - First appeared in Mario Kart: Double Dash!!; Retro course in Mario Kart 8
 * - First appeared in Mario Kart 8 (New course)

Proposer: Deadline: May 24, 2014, 23:59 GMT.

Support

 * 1) Per proposal and it would make everything a lot more organized.

Oppose

 * 1) - Identifiers (in brackets) are only for cases where multiple things share one name, which isn't always the case with Mario Kart courses, hence some don't have anything. Other times, a name's only used for a course once, but is used for other things elsewhere, which is why things like "(course)" are used for some titles. As for the course names that are recurring in the series, the official policy (see the last bullet of Point 2) is that the identifier is the console abbreviation, which matches retro course names and also avoids inconsistencies in the game abbreviations (everyone calls it "SNES", but different folks might want to use "MKDD" or even "MK:DD!!" instead of "MK:DD"). I think it's better for the courses to be consistent with the overall naming policy, rather than get their own specific set of rules.
 * 2) Per Walkazo.
 * 3) Per Walkazo.
 * 4) Per Walkazo, although I think we could do with establishing a standard on (course) vs. (race course), looking at the first two examples in that list.
 * 5) Per Walkazo, and per Porplemontage in the comments section.

Comments
I don't think a proposal is necessary. The naming policy's section on shared titles already says that for Mario Kart games, console abbreviations are used to be consistent with the retro course naming convention, so this is something we'd end up doing automatically.

Can you use instead of having these red links? 08:36, 18 May 2014 (EDT)
 * I'm not really sure how to do that, but if you want to, you can change it. 10:45, 18 May 2014 (EDT)

@Vommak: That is the whole reason why I satrted this proposal, and I just grew that idea, so if this doesn't pass, I still want there to be uniformity like you said. 16:49, 18 May 2014 (EDT)


 * That is an example of 1-bullet here. In general, course is good. But Super Mario 64 identifies maps as courses, so Tick Tock Clock and Tick-Tock Clock (race course) are both courses. Which is why "race course" is used to differentiate one from the other. Also see my comments here about console abbreviations making the article relevant to multiple games. -- 17:18, 18 May 2014 (EDT)

Separating confirmed and possible generic-looking character appearances
This proposal is based on discussions on Toad's talk page, where expressed concern about the page covering games where it is only assumed that THE Toad is involved, but not confirmed. Assumptions are best avoided on a fact-based wiki like ours, but assuming things like the briefly playable Toad in Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga is THE Toad isn't unreasonable, and outright removing the information is likely to make it look there's gaps in our coverage, confusing or even frustrating readers. Furthermore, moving the info to the overal species page would be less than ideal when we're talking about specific Toad individuals, and making new articles for every not-THE-Toad character is also far less efficient than simply leaving the information on the perfectly good page we have for our established recurring specific Toad individual (whom everyone assumes is all the unnamed Toads anyway).

Fortunately, we are allowed to make interpretations as long as they are "straightforward and logical [...] and explicitly stated to be "implied"", so as long as we're clear about what's confirmed and what's not, it's perfectly within current regulations to leave that info on the Toad character page. It just needs to be reorganized a bit, and for that I propose the creation of a Possible appearances section, which would come after History and start out with a brief discussion about the confusion over appearances and then cover all the unconfirmed stuff in fully fleshed-out sections with headers (just like History; as opposed to using a table, although could still be used in addition to some text to link to the species page depending on the exact situation). For Toad, this would mean moving a number of sections from History to the new section, and merging any extra info found in the current "Confusion with appearances" section.

And the reason why this is a mainspace Proposal and not a TPP is because Toad isn't the only generic-looking character with confused appearance history: numerous other characters like Kamek or Yoshi could potentially benefit from "Possible appearances" sections. So rather than just proposing this new organization for Toad's page, I'm seeking approval for the system as a whole as a way to deal with this sort of appearance ambiguity, past, present and future.

Proposer: Deadline: May 31, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) - Per proposal and the Toad talk page. Keep the information on likely yet unconfirmed appearances on the character page, but move it to a new "Possible appearances" section, rather than leaving it in the regular History.
 * 2) Per Walkazo
 * 3) Per proposal. THE Toad character is always just an ambiguous thing: I've heard somewhere that the playable Toad in Mario Kart and whatnot is actually never intended to be a standalone character but localizations characterize and singularize this one Toad. Same with Yoshi and Kamek. I think making a "Possible Appearances" section would clear up some of the cloudy mess that are in this characters and possibly resolve any conflict regarding if this Toad that appears is THE Toad or not.
 * 4) The Possible Apperances section would help heaps. The Blue Toad from 3D Land or SMB2 is a prime example.
 * 5) Per proposal.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) If only Nintendo would bother to give these kinds of people a less generic appearance. Sounds like a plan, though, 'kazo.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) Per all. Only concern is that this might open up articles to certain degrees of unreasonable yet difficult to refute fantheories. Even as I type that, I can't think of any specific examples off hand, but it's something to keep in mind while building these new sections.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) Per everyone.
 * 13) I agree with Ninelevendo and Walkazo.

List Mario Party Minigames in which a certain enemy appears
I've been looking at the Mario Party: Island Tour subheading for the Goomba page, and yet it only states that they appear in various minigames. That was a real bummer to me, because I wanted to know what minigames Goombas appear in other than Git Along, Goomba!, Match Faker, Starring Artist, and Tap Dash.

The only reason why this is a Writing Guideline Proposal and not a TPP is because the Goomba isn't the only page with this problem. This is the same reason why I proposed this in the first place. Pages such as Koopa Troopa and Shy Guy have the same coincidence. Therefore, I would like to propose that, for enemies that appear in excessive minigames for just one game in the Mario Party series, either a list is made for all minigames in which the enemy appears in with a lot of detail as to the role of the enemy, or simply state that "it appeared in various minigames".

Should the proposal pass on one option, users may take action accordingly, but must ask for permission to do so.

Proposer: Deadline: May 31, 2014, 23:59 GMT.

List the minigames the enemy appears in with detail

 * 1) In my opinion, the whole purpose of the wiki's Mario Party subheadings is to list exactly which enemies appear in certain minigames, since these pages themselves don't provide that info. Per the proposal.
 * 2) Just as long as it doesn't unfeature articles in the future, I won't mind more comprehensive coverage on Mario Party minigames, just so the details aren't excessive.
 * 3) Even though I don't see why we need this proposal, it's the right thing to do.
 * 4) Per Mario.

Make No Standard

 * NO, they would both be pointless and confusing, it looks fine the way it is.

Comments
The way I'm interpreting it, you want a literal list of minigame appearances? 21:14, 24 May 2014 (EDT)


 * Yes, exactly the way you mentioned it, but still feel free to make suggestions. Stonehill (talk) 21:31, 24 May 2014 (EDT)
 * The way Chain Chomp does it is pretty much a list of appearances, but with more detail. What do you think about it? 21:37, 24 May 2014 (EDT)


 * Okay, I understand. Let me reword the proposal. Stonehill (talk) 22:21, 24 May 2014 (EDT)

Okay, I'm settled: I don't believe this has to be a standard. It's just that people aren't willing to document every appearance for each enemy for every minigame. I fear that, enacted or not, this proposal won't change much, so maybe it's not needed, and you can start adding information right away. 01:57, 25 May 2014 (EDT)
 * I don't know that it's an unwillingness so much as it's a big job that no one has really taken the initiative to tackle yet. Or that it might not be obvious that it needs to be done, given that Chain Chomp is currently the only article that does it to any volume. In either case, I agree with a twist on the notion of it not needing to be a standard. It should be standard to look into if adding a section detailing appearances is feasible, given either the abundance or lack of appearances. The "not be a standard" part happens on either end of the spectrum. I think Stonehill's proposal is a decent way to explain this middle ground. Not (currently) going to submit a formal vote, as I don't see an option that really covers this middle ground, the voting options are currently "yes, yes kinda and no". -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Chris[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 06:44, 25 May 2014 (EDT)


 * Okay, I see where you're headed. Anyways, I'm creating test pages for the enemies to make it look as detailed as the Chain Chomp one. Once I'm finished, you can view them here, here, and here. Maybe then, you can understand the direction I'm going. Stonehill (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2014 (EDT)
 * "No one has really taken initiative to tackle yet" is basically an euphemism for "not now, I don't feel like it, I don't have the time" a.k.a. not willing. Look, I'm not willing either, I'll straight up say it. But again, you can do what I did to Chain Chomp, and nobody is going to bat an eyelid. 16:45, 26 May 2014 (EDT)
 * Why didn't you just DIY instead of making a proposal? People later on will copy you. - 16:58, 26 May 2014 (EDT)
 * Precedents aren't that powerful. 17:34, 26 May 2014 (EDT)
 * I prefer to assume the best of our userbase when making assertions about why this or that hasn't been done. All evidence suggests that this hasn't happened due to a lack understanding that it needs to be looked into for articles, rather than a mass shrug from editors. I agree that, at this point, we can safely skip the proposal and just add the sections, then go from there. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Chris[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 22:16, 26 May 2014 (EDT)

I'm confused, do you want to do it like: Goomba appears in this game, this game, this game, this game, and this game, or did you want to do a bullet point list? -- 17:47, 26 May 2014 (EDT)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's like Goombas also appeared in Mario Party: Island Tour in five minigames; Goomba Tower Takedown you get the point. - 18:00, 26 May 2014 (EDT)


 * I see.... Stonehill (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2014 (EDT)

Create mother articles for Mario Kart tires & gliders
Looking back at a nearly 2-month-old proposal by, I noticed that there's no mother articles for tires or gliders. Therefore, I propose that we create the said articles, so that they have a little info, as well as direct links and photos of the tire and glider customization from 7 and 8.

Proposer: Deadline: June 12, 2014, 23:59 GMT.

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) Does this really warrant a proposal?
 * 4) I think it will be useful! Good idea!
 * 5) This is a great idea! I have been thinking about doing this for a while, but never got around to it, but now it is in a proposal, we can actually do it! It would also keep all the parts much more organized. Per proposal.
 * 6) We have kart articles, so we should have tire and glider articles.
 * 7) Ditto.
 * 8) I agree with Mario7's comment.
 * 9) Per proposal.

Comments
@Stonehill In your proposal, could you add creating a page entitled ? I think this would also help with your idea and it would keep all parts on one page. 13:47, 5 June 2014 (EDT)

What Ninelevendo said. For the most part, a proposal isn't necessary to create and article, just make it if you think you can pull it off. If it doesn't work out, people will step in and it'll be handled. -- Chris 17:10, 5 June 2014 (EDT)

@Mario7 The problem with this is, the wiki may have had such a combined page, but it was probably removed or split.  At last, the rock fell.

Oh well...At least it's a step in the right direction!!!  At last, the rock fell.


 * Actuallu, I think a page called "Kart Parts" would be better. - 17:05, 6 June 2014 (EDT)


 * Actually, I'm not so sure about making that page. It doesn't really stand out to me, and if you want to make a proposal about it, it's fine, but you'd have to wait a month.  At last, the rock fell.

Hey guys...Sorry I'm so late about this...The test pages can be viewed here and here.

Write quotes with ambiguity in a more formal manner
That is to say, for example, a quote written like this:

He told me to follow you around this place.

Is instead written like this:

'' [ Bowser ] told me to follow you around [ World 1 ]. (said to Mario)''

Proposer: Deadline: June 12, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Oppose

 * 1) Why would you change quotes to incorrect and confusing quotes?
 * 2) Nope, in this way quotes lose all their fashion! Completely supporting Ninelevendo!
 * 3) I see your point, and while it is more formal to do that in some instances, the way they are done now are considered correct under the right circumstances, which they are.
 * 4) Per myself in the comments, we'll be supplying false quotes if we follow this.
 * 5) - Best to just leave listed quotes exactly as they were in the source material, otherwise it makes the information less authentic and useful, even if the changes are marked with square brackets (which is already done when using quotes in articles to back up statements and whatnot).
 * 6) - Per all, our current method serves our needs better.
 * 7) That's not what the quote is, and... it's kinda strange, so Per everyone.
 * 8) There would be a policy against this already. Per Ninelevendo, Mario7, Yoshi876, Walkazo, and Koopakoolklub.
 * 9) The links, while sometimes kind of dumb, clarify who or what the speaker is referring to, so it's NOT ambiguous as it is claimed here. Altering quotes just makes it more confusing, not less.
 * 10) - We are here to quote everything as is and we think it is defying a rule that everything must be taken from the original content and it is incorrect. That just makes everything fabricated. Per everyone.
 * 11) - This doesn't even make sense...?
 * 12) - Per me in the comments, as well as Ninelevendo, Walkazo, and Mario.
 * 13) - What the other saids. If a quote *really* can use context, I just put it in brackets before the quote proper, like [Upon seeing (something) or "[In reaction to _]".
 * 14) Per all.

Comments
What is this trying to accomplish exactly? And since when do we write You? - 01:53, 5 June 2014 (EDT)

I need this explaining, because it looks like you're changing the example quote to something different, which means that it is no longer a quote from that game.

In general this would only be needed in cases where the subject isn't clear, but we generally don't use quotes like that where quotes are needed, in fact I can't think of any off the top of my head. Can you provide me with a link to any articles where this is going to make a difference? -- Chris 03:41, 5 June 2014 (EDT)


 * I knew this would happen. :P But anyway, here are some examples of what I'm talking about:  RickTommy (talk) 04:19, 5 June 2014 (EDT)
 * My issue is that looking at that, you have changed some of the comments by removing "he's" and replacing them with "Bowser" or whatever, thus changing the quote and making it incorrect.
 * The thing is, that's the formal way of writing quotes with ambiguity - by changing pronouns to the name of the character they are referring to, and putting them in square brackets. RickTommy (talk) 04:24, 5 June 2014 (EDT)
 * The thing is though, that is how the quote is said so if we transcribe it like your way we'll be supplying false quotes.
 * Not precisely. A quote is still fundamentally correct if all that is changed is a "btw, context" to the reader, court documents and reporting outlets use this method, as clarity is more important than keeping a few He's and She's. That said, I wanted an example because I didn't think we had many articles that used quotes that would need and our current method of just linking indicators off to relevant articles seems to be working fine with less visual clutter. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Chris[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 17:05, 5 June 2014 (EDT)

@RickTommy I have another solution for you. Try taking cues around the links of the quotes. They should tell you which context is which. Stonehill (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2014 (EDT)

I guess we should reproduce the quote as much as possible.. In case of the undefined subjects, we have one of the two options: If we have an article on that subject, we can use pipe-linking to remove any doubts about who exactly is that subject? [e.g: Bowser : "I hate him very much."]. There, we kept the quote and identified the subject.. Otherwise, If we don't have the subject as an article (I cannot think of use of that here), we can add something about who the character is talking about [e.g: Guy1 : "If I didn't return by 11:00, he is going to kill me for sure." (About his father)] or if that is not acceptable, we can use something like that. (i.e: "If I didn't return by 11:00, is going to kill me for sure.) In all cases, we don't have any reason to change the quote.-- 07:27, 6 June 2014 (EDT)
 * I have a template in my sandbox that would assist with that if it was ever needed. That aside, I would agree with this proposal if the quote is in the article body text, rather than the actual quote/LLQuote template. 18:15, 10 June 2014 (EDT)

Formality is good, right up to the point where it starts interfering with communication. This is well past that point. In actual formal writing, e.g., a newspaper, I don't recall ever seeing any bracketed info that made it unclear what the person's exact words were. It's always something like the first part of the example sentence, replacing a pronoun with the name of the person it's referring to, when that context is removed. I've never seen anything as egregious as the last part of that sentence. If I'm reading the bracketed substitution, my guess would be that he said "here", not "this place". Even by the given example, this proposal would remove information, with no obvious benefit. Plus, we have an advantage over printed newspaper. Here, a reader can hover over a word and get an explanation if they so desire, which is exactly what the current method does in a concise, elegant way. To this request for an absurdly high level of formality, I can only echo the words attributed to Winston Churchill, when an editor mangled a sentence of his to remove a preposition from the end: "This is the type of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put!" --Steve470 (talk) 08:50, 11 June 2014 (EDT)

Yeah,besides the Wiki requires everything to come from its original source. That is defying a rule of the Wiki.That is not how we do things around here. We're here for keeping everything accurate as possible no matter what. Our wiki will continue till the end of time possibly and it keeps on growing and we're not complete as far as we are 95% complete but new games are being announced and are released each year. Our wiki will last till the final Mario game is released maybe.

Changes to the sub-series sections
On the Mario (franchise) page, we separate the Super Mario Land games into their own series. The third game might've been Wario Land: Super Mario Land 3 in American, but originally in Japan, it is Super Mario Land 3: Wario Land. The Mario & Luigi, Paper Mario, and even Mario Advance games are in their own sub-series sections, too. All the games with New in the title also either have Bowser Jr. or Bowser Jr. AND the Koopalings ever since the first New Super Mario game for the DS and Wii respectively. So obviously there are elements limited to the New Super Mario Bros. games only in-line with each-other, and it goes without saying the Super Mario Bros. games are different from the Super Mario games.

Right now what we're doing is grouping all the Super Mario Bros. games in with not only the New Super Mario Bros. games, but also all the Super Mario games that have only one or two entries in their respective series. So doesn't it make sense to bundle any Super Mario games separate from these two series, but with each-other until at least three games of a kind are released, as we have done with Super Mario Land?

This would change the current one list to three:

Super Mario Bros. series:
 * Super Mario Bros.
 * Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels
 * Super Mario Bros. 2
 * Super Mario Bros. 3
 * Super Mario World

Super Mario series:
 * Super Mario 64
 * Super Mario Sunshine
 * Super Mario Galaxy
 * Super Mario Galaxy 2
 * Super Mario 3D Land
 * Super Mario 3D World

New Super Mario Bros. series:
 * New Super Mario Bros.
 * New Super Mario Bros. Wii
 * New Super Mario Bros. 2
 * New Super Mario Bros. U

Super Mario World would go into the Super Mario Bros. series because of its original name and heavy ties to Super Mario Bros. 3. Super Mario Bros. 2 would go into the Super Mario series because of its original name and weak ties to Super Mario Bros. 3. While as far as the names go this is confusing at first look without prior knowledge, the name itself is not the reason for grouping these games, as again, is the case with Super Mario Land already. The Galaxy and 3D games would not get their own sub-series sections until there is a third game in either series respectively.

As it is now, this also causes for the history sections on character pages to have a broken flow. We initiated the sub-series in the first place so that for example Super Mario Sunshine wasn't paced in-between Mario Party 4 and Mario Golf Toadstool Tour, but now a game like this might be placed in-between Super Mario Bros. 3 and its sequel Super Mario World. It wouldn't actually but this is an example of how it can and does happen in the currently stuffed Super Mario sub-series containing all the games appropriately separated above.

Finally, my major reason for this proposal is because this is totally in line with what the wiki is already doing in regards to this subject, it's just no one ever bothered to consider the context of the games instead of what they're named. This new way only considers the names in a way that makes sense with the context in mind.

Since this might be confusing even with the three sections written out above, I'll reiterate: If you support, you're supporting the creation of a Super Mario Bros. sub-series, and a New Super Mario Bros. sub-series, which removes those respective games out of the current Super Mario sub-series into the two new sub-series respectively, leaving only the Super Mario games with one or two games at this time in the Super Mario sub-series.

Proposer: Deadline: June 14, 2014, 23:59 GMT.

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) A definite yes though Super Mario Bros.2 USA was originally at one point supposed to be a Mario game till Nintendo converted the original prototype to DDP and the NSMB series is a rebirth of the old 2D genre.
 * 3) Completely agree.
 * 4) This seems like it would work better. Each of the series are indeed separate... at least in my opinion.

Oppose

 * 1) - It's better to have one main series of platformers: it's simpler and more intuitive to keep all these games together, and it's better for organizing things besides History and Stats sections - namely nav templates, but also categories. Having everything together also keeps all the iconic platformers up top, rather than burying the NSMB games down below tonnes and tonnes of spinoffs. While there's clearly a New Super Mario Bros. sub-sub-series, getting that layered is not worth it for organizing pages, templates and categories, and separating them into a subseries apart from the grab-bag Super Mario games just begs the question of why not have Galaxy and 3D series, especially when the alternative is grouping them together in "series" made out of miscellaneous Super Mario games we couldn't fit into any other group, which looks horribly sloppy and is not something we want to do to the flagship games of the Mario franchise. The three games thing is arbitrary: just look at Luigi's Mansion, the baseball games, Strikes and more; no, it's far better to just not open that door at all and keep them all together. And as for leaving Super Mario Bros. 2 out of the Super Mario Bros. subseries, that's just going to confuse people who reasonably trying that a subseries that name would carry all the games that share that naming scheme; the argument that the name has no effect on how we logically present out information is plain wrong. Besides, just because SMB2 started out as Doki Doki Panic doesn't make it any less of a Mario game now: Nintendo fully embraced everything it brought to the series (Bob-Ombs, Birdo, etc.), bundled it in Super Mario All-Stars alongside the original SMB:LL and the other two Super Mario Bros. games, and included it as part of the Super Mario History booklet released with SMAS Limited Edition for the Wii, making the overall Super Mario series canon, and something we must preserve. (And speaking of SMAS, where would this game even fit according to the proposed changes? And what of the Super Mario Advance ports? And I'm only guessing that all the random SMB rehashes would fit with those games.) Changing the organization of the games forming the backbone of the series and the wiki alike is not something to do lightly: countless pages will be affected by this proposal, and allowing it to pass would be a terrible mistake.
 * 2) Per Walkazo.
 * 3) Per Walkazo.
 * 4) That's a lot of writing. Per Walkazo. Yes, I did read it all.
 * 5) Per Walkazo.
 * 6) Per Walkazo.
 * 7) Per Walkazo.
 * 8) Per Walkazo.
 * 9) Nope, except for New Super Mario Bros. the other games are parte of the Mario series. I support Walkazo.
 * 10) The list brings up more questions than answers from me; although the proposal appears to organize the games better by splitting the platformers into three categories: "Super Mario Bros." platformers (which happen to be all retro), 3D platformers (a.k.a. Super Mario taxonomical dumping ground), and New Super Mario Bros. games, I think keeping "mainstream" Mario platformers into one sub-series is a better idea. Comments below.
 * 11) – per walkazo
 * 12) Per all.

Comments
Why is SMB2 in the 3D platformer section? - 18:30, 7 June 2014 (EDT)
 * I mention the reason above: "Super Mario Bros. 2 would go into the Super Mario series because of its original name and weak ties to Super Mario Bros. 3." Additionally, Super Mario isn't serving as a 3D platformer section. It's serving as a section for Super Mario games that don't have more than two entries like Super Mario Land does. UhHuhAlrightDaisy (talk) 18:34, 7 June 2014 (EDT)

@Pwwnd123: Correct. Don't forget my mention of the Mario Advance games already being a sub-series, though, so this is in line with the wiki, I believe. UhHuhAlrightDaisy (talk) 18:34, 7 June 2014 (EDT)
 * I'm sure that they called Super Mario Bros. 3 it's name because it was a sequel to Super Mario Bros. 2 which was a sequel to Super Mario Bros., so I don't really see why it's in a different category. - 19:17, 7 June 2014 (EDT)
 * I'm positive that they called Super Mario Bros. 3 its name because they called Super Mario USA - Super Mario Bros. 2 in America for the sake of it selling better and the American team having nothing else yet to base why the two games weren't a part of the same series sub-types the wiki uses. I already went over this though. The change has greatly to do with the fact that right now the list goes by only the names of the games, which is what you're defending, when what this makes up for is the current lack of taking into consideration the games are not tied by name alone due to the regional differences pointed out. The context of Super Mario Bros. 2 has nothing to do with any of the following or preceding Super Mario Bros. games. That's why it's called Super Mario USA originally, and is very similar to the game it's made from. As I also already pointed out, names like this ruin the flow of the context of the order the current sub-series set-up causes on History sections, which again, we created sub-sections to fix the flow. Unless something genuinely confuses you, please try to actually read all what is described in the proposal before asking. UhHuhAlrightDaisy (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2014 (EDT)
 * Further, if your defense for keeping Super Mario Bros. 2 in the Super Mario Bros. sub-series section is because Super Mario Bros. 3 has its name, you automatically contradict yourself in that by that logic Super Mario World should be in the new Super Mario Bros. sub-section as well, as the Japanese name is Super Mario World: Super Mario Bros. 4, which is named as being the fourth installment. Your contradiction is casued by the fact if you think Super Mario Bros. 2 belongs in the Super Mario Bros. section, you therefor suggest Super Mario World doesn't; which with what I just explains follows your reasoning as why it would. The only difference is Super Mario World actually is related to the other Super Mario Bros. games in more than name, which aaagain, is the whole point of why its in the proposed new sub-section and Super Mario Bros. 2 isn't. I think that should clear up the points you're bringing up more validly now. UhHuhAlrightDaisy (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2014 (EDT)
 * No no you're completely wrong with SMB2.Doki Doki Panic was created from the original SMB2 prototype as for a quick deal with Fuji TV however Doki Doki Panic was converted back to the originally intentionally planned Super Mario Bros.2.So in a nutshell,Super Mario Bros.2 was first created with the intentions as a Mario game but was turned in to Yume Kojou Doki Doki Panic and released as that first before being converted back to the originally intended Mario 2 and released in America as the game we know today and released in Japan as SMUSA.Besides,Nintendo decided to take the original SMB and make it harder for the Japanese audience and release that as the original SMB2 while the original SMB 2 prototype was being transformed into DDP.Hope this made a lot of sense. - Pwwnd123
 * I think you misunderstood what I said? Regardless of what Doki Doki Panic started out as, it was released years before Super Mario Bros. 2. And actually, in regards to why Super Mario Bros. 3 is called so in Japan despite Super Mario Bros. 2 in America, I realized it's actually called 3 because Japan considers Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels to be it's 2nd game. Still backs up my original point; funnily enough! UhHuhAlrightDaisy (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2014 (EDT)

@Walkazo: "Having everything together also keeps all the iconic platformers up top, rather than burying the NSMB games down below tonnes and tonnes of spinoffs." But as the wiki states, there is no canon. And putting it before a spin-off game is a simple matter of making it that any platformers series section goes before a spin-offs.

"And as for leaving Super Mario Bros. 2 out of the Super Mario Bros. subseries, that's just going to confuse people who reasonably trying that a subseries that name would carry all the games that share that naming scheme; the argument that the name has no effect on how we logically present out information is plain wrong." It does have an effect, but this wiki also tends to take original Japanese context ahead of things that come after. The name does have an effect, it's just that this considers the original name and the context of the game.

"Besides, just because SMB2 started out as Doki Doki Panic doesn't make it any less of a Mario game now" Then why do we separate Super Mario Land?

"And speaking of SMAS, where would this game even fit according to the proposed changes?" It could go in the Super Mario Bros. sub-series section, considering it shares most ties with that. Super Mario 64 DS already goes after or with Super Mario 64 on history sections. This is along the same lines as a remake.

"And what of the Super Mario Advance ports?" They already have their own sub-section, which I mentioned.

@UhHuhAlrightDaisy However,we will still have to include SMB2 because it is still a Mario game from the original history of development before the original prototype was turned into DDP. It makes a lot more sense and actually this SMB2 IS THE ORIGINAL SMB2 AS ORIGINALLY PLANNED BY NINTENDO and it came first history wise in development and anyways the Japanese SMB2 was developed after the original SMB2 prototype was being turned into Doki Doki Panic.It doesn't make any goddamn sense at all when you say that the SMBTLL was the original SMB2 when rightfully the original SMB2 prototype (DDP) was the original SMB2 in development history.That is why a lot of people are opposing to the proposal.Besides the development history is all what fucking matters. Sorry if I do sound a little bit pissed off. - Pwwnd123

"Changing the organization of the games forming the backbone of the series and the wiki alike is not something to do lightly" I know, but with all I pointed out, it merely goes in line with the way the sub-series already works, it just organizes it more appropriately. UhHuhAlrightDaisy (talk) 21:58, 7 June 2014 (EDT)
 * I still stand by my proposal, but I figured I should bring some other points to you. Since you are against separating these three sections, are you then in the mindset that Super Mario Land games should be merged to it? Or how you mentioned the Super Mario Advance games, merging them to it? Heck, even the Paper Mario and Mario & Luigi series? I know you can point out the differences, but I believe I pointed out that the series I'm suggesting to be separated are different in their own right. UhHuhAlrightDaisy (talk) 22:05, 7 June 2014 (EDT)
 * So how exactly do I contradict myself if I never agreed with this system in the first place? - 23:10, 7 June 2014 (EDT)


 * Organization =/= canon (it says as much in bold in Canonicity); most readers probably care more about Super Mario tiles than Mario Tennis or whatever, so it's easier for them if it's near the top; keeping everything together also makes it easier: that's the goal of the wiki - to be a reader-friendly database. The Japanese stuff doesn't actually overrule English: everything is equal, and when things conflict, we're supposed to use what makes the most sense and try to report all of the sides of the story objectively. For SMA S , I meant in Histories and with respect to the Super Mario games, not the overall "Mario (series)" page, since in practice, they work nothing like the other subseries you listed there (currently, since they're essentially ports, they're usually just listed with the parent game, which works fine imo), and your proposal didn't really address them or the random All Night Nippon Super Mario Bros.-type games, and thoroughness is very important with stuff like this. As for Super Mario Land, that was the center of a rather hairy proposal back in 2012. You can have fun reading all the big essays in the comments and on the forum posts linked to if you want to, but basically, the SMASLE booklet doesn't include them as part of the Super Mario series and doing what Nintendo does is better than making things up, and while SMB2 has been completely integrated into the Super Mario series, SML has not, at all: they're not comparable. -
 * As I said, and as that backs up what I said, you could simply make it so that the platforming games are listed before any sort've spin-off. Heck, you could even just make it so that they came before the already subbed-series like Mario & Luigi in case they didn't come out first. The order of that seems less important than how the current Super Mario grouping where most other games are just shoved in cause they're platformers or considered "main" in a canon grouping that doesn't exist. This better disregards a fan idea of canon and simply groups the games that are tied together in apparent contexts. If that's the reasoning you might as well just call it Mario platformer series. So if what a booklet is what this comes down to, did that group Super Mario Sunshine or Super Mario Galaxy or any of the New Super games with those other games? Whatever past-proposals there were, if you're going to argue that Super Mario Galaxy or Super Mario 64, even, go in the regular Super Mario series sections, so should a series like Super Mario Land, because with how I group it in the proposal, it's pointed out that those two new sections are justifiably different in terms of what follows what. UhHuhAlrightDaisy (talk) 23:33, 7 June 2014 (EDT)
 * And I didn't address a game like All Night Nippon Super Mario Bros. because as of now it wasn't listed in the Super Mario series section anyway, so whatever new section it may best apply to is simply where it would go, and would've obviously been addressed if the proposal was passed. I didn't group the games as they are currently, that's why I'm making this proposal in the first place. UhHuhAlrightDaisy (talk) 23:37, 7 June 2014 (EDT)
 * Games are organized by release date since that's the most objective way to present information. The presence of a Super Mario series (which is canon, not fan theory, thanks to that booklet: one of the few times Nintendo's given us concrete organizational info to go off of besides names alone should not be ignored or diminished) allows us to keep later games up top without breaking from the release-date order, but to do so without the justification of a subseries would be nothing but value calls on our part, and we can't do that, because that is drifting into fanon territory. I.e. we don't put other platformers like Luigi's Mansion, SPP, WL or Yoshi's Island up top: they slot in where their release dates let them go. The booklet included SMB, SMB2, SMW, SMAS (wherein the SMB:LL info is covered), SM64, SMS, NSMB, SMG, NSMBWii, SMG2, SMB Deluxe, SMA, SMA2, SMA4, SM64DS, and Classic NES Series: SMB (it only goes up to 2010, hence nothing more recent); no SML, just the core Super Mario games and the remakes (besides the old, random, SMB rehashes like All Night Nippon, but we can include them because they are unarguably just alternate versions of the original game: it's not a value judgment or anything, it's bald fact). I gave reasons why SML shouldn't be part of the SM series: it's not in the booklet so Nintendo doesn't consider it part of the SM series, and there's no strong ties to the rest of the SM platformers so all that's linking it is the name and genre, and there's lots of completely unrelated "Super Mario" games (SMRPG, Super Mario Bros. & Friends: When I Grow Up, SMK), and lots of unrelated platformers (LM and whatnot). There's more reasons in the old proposal: I'm not getting into them now because I have very little time and it's very muddled and it's tangential to the main problems with the proposed changes, which I already went through at length in my vote. -
 * You still never addressed if then you think the Super Mario Advance games should be included in the Super Mario games instead of their own sub, and why they currently aren't. UhHuhAlrightDaisy (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2014 (EDT)
 * Again, this is tangential to the main changes being proposed here... Anyway, I did, but I made a typo and said "SMAS" when I meant "SMA": it's the part where I said "since they're essentially ports, they're usually just listed with the parent game, which works fine imo". I also think it's good to list them with other remakes on Super Mario (series) and things like to keep things less cluttered. (Mario (franchise) needs an overhaul in general, so I don't even use it as a reference for anything anymore.) Of course, in all cases, it's only SMA, SMA2 and SMA4 that belong in the Super Mario series, since SMA3 is a remake of Yoshi's Island, which is not part of the series, so it's actually too general to say the SMA games as a whole are part of the Super Mario series anyway (and Nintendo backs me up here too: the booklet also omits SMA3). -

In regards to what was said I moved SMB2 into the Super Mario Bros section, even though it's obvious after Walkazo's input this isn't getting passed. lol UhHuhAlrightDaisy (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2014 (EDT)
 * So much for me "contradicting" myself, huh? But yeh, this is probably a lost cause. You only find out if you try, though. - 21:55, 8 June 2014 (EDT)
 * I still don't honestly think it should be, but I do get a feeling that there would've been more support votes if I dumbed the proposal down and just put it there to appease the majority. Still, voters flock when it comes down to things. UhHuhAlrightDaisy (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2014 (EDT)
 * @UhHuhAlrightDaisy You are already on thin ice with your SMB2 screw-ups. Pwwnd123

So, you want to split the Super Mario subseries, creating three subseries (Super Mario Bros., Super Mario, New Super Mario Bros.)? Like below?

It's likely not as you imagined it, but the table here, extracted from the Mario (franchise) article, would look something like this, no? Maybe you have three more rows, each with their own paragraphs and pictures? I don't know. This is just for the sake of simplicity.
 * Mario sub-series

I... I don't understand why the games in the middle belong with each other. Sunshine is a sequel to 64 and happens to be made by similar developers. Nintendo Tokyo took over for Galaxy, which is supposed to be the Super Mario game after 64, since, after all, it has a health meter, coins that heal you, an underwater meter, a variety of jumps, and Power Stars, just as the previous games. Then, Super Mario 3D Land came along, which also happens to be developed by Nintendo Tokyo, even though the gameplay is much, much different from the first four. So, it's grouped here because it's a 3D platformer, I guess?

So, it's on a 3D plane. The gameplay is drastic, but why New Super Mario Bros., a 2D platformer?

"All the games with New in the title also either have Bowser Jr. or Bowser Jr. AND the Koopalings ever since the first New Super Mario game for the DS and Wii respectively. So obviously there are elements limited to the New Super Mario Bros. games only in-line with each-other"

Bowser Jr. didn't even exist prior to Super Mario Sunshine; New Super Mario Bros. is a good opportunity to readd Bowser Jr. after Super Mario Sunshine. The Koopalings just received a revival, and they have appeared since Super Mario Bros. 3 in 2D platformers; saying New Super Mario Bros. is different from Super Mario Bros. 1, 2, 3, using these examples is a weak argument. New Super Mario Bros. does have its own style, with its recycled music and ugly art style, but the name implies it's a continuation of those 2D Mario platformer, so I'd group those New Super Mario Bros. games inside the Super Mario Bros. series.

Nintendo Tokyo's works, of course, don't have their own sub-series in the Mario (series) article either. Neither does Luigi's Mansion. It's kind of weird, really, how Luigi's Mansion doesn't have its own series entry in that article, especially when the baseball games and the Strikers game do, but maybe it can be added in the future.

Finally, this begs the question: what if there's a new Mario platformer that doesn't quite fit with those three groups, in name and gameplay? Oh, and it's developed by Nintendo Tokyo. Where would it go? Do we create a new group or do we put it in the middle because it's by Nintendo Tokyo? 22:00, 9 June 2014 (EDT)

Anyways the list will do just fine with the layout and it works now that you mention it. -

Actually, the New Super Mario Bros. games are best seen as the rebirth/revival to the old 2D Mario platformers and it deserves it sub series very well.


 * Question is, where does Mario Maker go? Spin-off? - 19:38, 14 June 2014 (EDT)

Creating Separate Pages for DIC Cartoon Characters
Right now the characters that appear in these cartoons have sections for the DIC cartoons they appear in. Some of these sections are quite large. Some would be even larger if there weren't numerous links in place guiding the users to a page of their appearances in the shows. The first point of this proposal is because there's so much information on their appearances in these cartoons, simply because as a cartoon there's a large number of varying appearances to take note of, that for example the Koopalings pages actually list each episode they appear in and describe their role in each episode right in the section on their page. That makes for sections larger than almost any other on their page. And yes a solution to this is linking to a list of their appearances, but that gets rid of a lot of info. Plus there are other reasons for this proposal.

We already create separate pages for characters appearances in the live-action film. These appearances are really no different. The setting is different, literally most of the characters have different names and different appearances, which is something that's not going to change and become established like it does in the games, the characters have different personalities, even, and with all these differences arises the need for a lot of comparison between the games that we wouldn't have to make if they just had their own pages. The Princess Daisy that appears in the film has her own page, so does the Bowser character, Iggy, and others. The way that works is, the new page is made, all info pertaining to that goes on the new page, and the page is added to the already established disambiguation lists linked at the top of the game characters pages. The cartoon characters are definitely disambiguously different from their game counterparts, it is stated on most of the cartoon pages how they are "loosely" based on everything from the game. None of this is to suggest that they aren't official, they are, that's why information for them is on the wiki in the first place. Unlike similarly based depictions of the characters outside of the games like most of the comics, the characters that appear in the cartoons have much more information to go-off of and therefore much more that distinguishes them from their game counterparts.

If you're familiar with these cartoons, you might have a nostalgic attachment to them, but that just means you already know how unique they are as far as even just the characters go. You should also know that this isn't a means to make them lesser, it's a means to give them the space they need on their own and the space they need to simply state what they are instead of compare them with every little detail to the game content they're based on. A good example might be the Baby Characters. Baby Mario is totally a form of Mario, and even though he too is a game character, there's a separate page for him because of all the different things he does. So it's not just the name or the look, though those do help, it's that it's a character on its own based on the other.

If the characters name by chance isn't different, simply putting (DIC) in the page name just as we have put (film) for the live-action characters seems good.

Proposer: Deadline: June 15, 2014, 23:59 GMT.

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) - See comments. Unlike the film characters, there's far less large, fundamental differences between the cartoons and games, so there's less justification for the splits. Plus, if the DIC characters are split, then the DKC cartoon characters might be said to need splitting too, and then it could snowball into splitting all the non-game media depictions of characters, plus there's ambiguity about what to do with comics that sometimes base themselves ojn the games, sometimes the cartoons, and sometimes do their own thing entirely. Seems like a rather slippery slope, and I'm leery about starting us down it.
 * 2) Per Walkazo.
 * 3) Like 'Kazo said, there aren't enough differences, and we'd get a whole bunch of "splits".
 * 4) Per Walkazo. Agreed that the differences are small and with not wanting to open Pandora's box on this one.
 * 5) This unnecessary splitting could cause unnecessary clutter. Per Walkazo.
 * 6) Deviations occur within the video game series as well. This proposal also, indirectly, advocates splitting non-video game media, which can encourage those pesky canon arguments. At least the cartoons and Super Mario-Kun had a whole lot of source material incorporated (sound effects in the show; Super Mario-Kun has game-accurate depictions of their characters; you instantly recognize them if you played the game), unlike the film, which has nary a shred of source material. To add on: it might sound like a weak argument to advocate splitting film information because the film is terrible, but the reasons (why the film needs to be split and why the film is terribe) are scarily the same; no source material.
 * 7) I'm against any splitting of the medias.
 * 8) I agree with Walkazo and Marshal Dan Troop.
 * 9) Per all.

Comments
This seems like something that would do better first as a TPP, then brought here once a precedent was set, but I digress. Likely these pages haven't been made because the sections were created at a time before making an article for every little thing was standard practice. Any editors who are familiar with the subject matter want to chime in? I'm curious if that was the case or if there was a specific reason for not splitting. -- Chris 17:38, 8 June 2014 (EDT)
 * Gold Mario (character) is another example. But what exactly do we do with BOTH series, Super Mario Bros. 3 and Super Mario World, put them into the same page, I'm guessing? It would seem logical. The thing is with this change, Mario is still Mario, not an alternate form or human that resembles him. For this proposal to work, the Super Mario Bros. Super Show! would need its own character page created. - 17:43, 8 June 2014 (EDT)
 * I wanted to try a TPP, but it needs to be done for pretty much all the game characters who are in the cartoons, so I didn't know how to go about that. And Ninlevendo, yeah I think both series would pertain to these pages. Both cartoons are grouped under a DIC cartoons section on character pages right now, even sharing introductory information before separate information. And in regards to the live-action show, that ties in with the DIC cartoons, right? I figured we would just include information on the couple of live-action portrayals on the new (DIC) character's pages. Unless they too are very unique portrayals on their own with enough info to warrant their own pages as well?
 * I believe the reason we never created separate character pages for Mario and Luigi for the film was because unlike Princess Daisy and Bowser and others character's in the film, they didn't differ as much as these characters and as a film, a poor film even, there wasn't much to say in the way of them like there is the cartoon characters. If the live-portrayals for Super Mario Bros Super Show don't have as much to separate them, it could be appropriate to include that info on the DIC cartoon character pages proposed, right?UhHuhAlrightDaisy (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2014 (EDT)


 * @Ghost Jam: This proposal from 2009 resulted in the film characters being split, after an earlier proposal just about Daisy, which was removed and never properly archived; the decision was reaffirmed by this 2012 proposal. The argument was that (some of) the film characters were so different from the ones in the games, it would be easier to just treat them as separate characters. Eventually, all the other characters got split, although I don't think that was done by a Proposal: it was just done and no one protested, maybe because it was being consistent with the film characters that did have pages. While there are tonnes of differences between the film and the games (Iggy is Koopa's idiot cousin not his nerdy kid; Daisy is the princess of the "mushroom kingdom", Dinohatten; Big Bertha is a bouncer, not a fish; Toad is a delinquent busker), I feel like there's a lot more similarity between the games and cartoons (Toadstool is still the princess; Koopa is still an evil king with seven kids; the Mushroom Kingdom is the setting...), and most of the differences aren't as radical as the film (i.e. Toadstool and Bowsers' different designs are based on the game sprites; Mario & Luigi's origin story is the same as early games, before Yoshi's Island, etc.), so it's a lot harder to justify splitting them. The fact that the comics borrow from both game-like and cartoon-like designs and portrayals further muddles the two, and if this passes, it could snowball into wanting to split things like the Donkey Kong Country cartoon characters, the offbeat Super Mario-Kun portrayals, and then maybe all comic and alternate media appearances, and this way of thinking has been strongly discouraged as a way of organizing the wiki in the past, one reason being that it makes it look like different medias are held as being more-or-less important or canon by the wiki, which isn't true. (I'm not even comfortable with the fact that everyone's hatred of the film is part of why those characters got separated in the first place, but ah well.) -
 * But I did point out that one of the major reasons is because of the vast amount of content to be said with their cartoon appearances. And Bowser actually doesn't have seven kids any longer. The koopalings designs are also vastly different. Some of the same character traits apply to the major characters, but with their appearances in numerous episodes, again, there's a lot to say in the way of the cartoon characters that doesn't apply to the game characters. So there's a lot that could be included on separate pages for them that right now you can't include everything, but there's still too much info for a lot of the characters to be put into a measly section for them. Also, I thought one of the cartoons took place in Dinosaurland? With cavemen and everything. I also did mention how there simply isn't as much to say about comic appearances in comparison to the amount there is with the cartoons in regards to what can be grouped together, so just because this proposes separate pages for the cartoon characters, doesn't mean it would be enough to justify separate pages for any other non-game media appearance. UhHuhAlrightDaisy (talk) 19:21, 8 June 2014 (EDT)
 * Also with your comment on being uncomfortable with people's feelings towards the film and them being separated already, I think you might be letting your feelings get in the way of how this could actually be a good thing for the information we provide on the cartoons. Again, part of the reason of this proposal is to provide a better more appropriate space to provide information on the characters as they appear in the cartoon. Bowser's page is a good example of how there just isn't a good outcome to keeping every form of the character on one page.UhHuhAlrightDaisy (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2014 (EDT)

re huge sections: Sizable, episode-by-episode summaries on character articles are "supposed" to go on separate pages (like this). The format hasn't caught on, but there's no there couldn't be a push to make the format viable. --Glowsquid (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2014 (EDT)
 * The very opening of my proposal addresses that, so this has already been covered by me, even.UhHuhAlrightDaisy (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2014 (EDT)


 * Yeah, someone should make a Collab about that someday... Anyway, @FD09: Bowser has seven kids in the games back then (and their looks aren't "vastly" different, not like, say Iggy and Iggy (film character)), so that's a moot point, and SMW the game is set in Dinosaur Land which is where SMW the show gets its prehistoric setting, so again, your argument falls flat. Actually, Super Mario-Kun is even more extensive as the cartoons, but I digress. Even if the floodgates of splits doesn't open, separating out the cartoon information orphans the print media stuff that's based on the cartoon depictions - unless that stuff gets moved too, but then it's not just "DIC" or even "cartoon" anymore, and there's comic stuff on both sets of pages, and just getting messy. Also, my comment on people hating the film was in direct response to your earlier "a poor film even" aside; even though I do like the film, that didn't stop me from objectively voting in favour of those splits then and it has nothing to do with my vote now. I don't even have "nostalgic attachment" to the cartoons (I never watched them as a kid or even as a teen), so rest assured, my vote is purely from a wiki organizational perspective. -
 * When the lead actor's biggest regret in life is the film and it is generally panned, it's easily described as poor without much personal opinion involved, but that's whatever. We don't have that much info on Super Mario-Kun, though, do we? Nowhere near as much as the cartoons. I genuinely thought I'd kill two birds with one stone with this proposal, providing a better space for the cartoon depictions and one that could allow for all the info it has, on top of making the original characters pages less stuffed up and filled with constant comparisons of the never-ending differences between depictions, but if the concern that it lessons its importance is your biggest reason, I think you're overlooking those plus-sides in favor of something less important when it comes to providing information on everything. And I hardly think my argument falls flat just because the setting shares its name. That's the same as how I pointed out that even though some of the characters names might not differ, the depiction itself does. And it's not the same thing as how settings in the games warp appearance, it's obviously a new world with the same name in the cartoon. UhHuhAlrightDaisy (talk) 23:07, 8 June 2014 (EDT)

"The very opening of my proposal addresses that, so this has already been covered by me, even"

I don't see how describing the by-episode appearances on a separate page is "losing info", though..? --Glowsquid (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2014 (EDT)


 * @FD09: (We actually have lots of Super Mario-Kun info, it's just untranslated, but that's another story.) I only meant your specific "cartoon's dinosaurland setting =/= games" argument doesn't work because the general setting is from the games, and while it's not exactly the same (i.e. it's called "Dinosaur World" in the show), neither are the settings simply going from game to game, so that's not a strong argument either. Practically every new title gives us a new version of the Mushroom Kingdom, for example, and sometimes it's called the "Mushroom World" instead, but is still the same place (or it's the kingdom and its neighbours, for added inconsistency). Bowser's Castle is also constantly changing, and Peach's Castle, and Toad Town, and every other place that appears more than once: with the Mario series, you really can't sweat the details: the film had radically different points, but the cartoons don't. That's my biggest point - that and the "setting a dangerous precedent" point: I'm not saying we'll lessen the importance of alternate media through splits, just that readers might read too much into divisions by media and think we are, which is different and more of a side-note. -

Well I just created the list of episodes for each of the cartoons for Lemmy Koopa. I didn't know to call them list of episodes featuring Lemmy Koopa or Hip Koopa, so right now it's Lemmy Koopa. On top of that I realized there's a separate page for the Super Mario World cartoon then the game, which if you think about it is the exact same thing as creating a different page for the character. UhHuhAlrightDaisy (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2014 (EDT)
 * It's not the same at all: they're different physical (i.e. IRL) things. The characters being the same or different is arguable, but a game is not a cartoon, and RL matters of distinction are not comparable to in-universe stuff like this. Very good point about the Lemmy vs. Hip thing, however. I think the cartoon name should be used for the cartoon info, like how we have King Koopa's alter egos, not "Bowser's alter egos", and (are supposed to) call Peach "Toadstool" in cartoon sections and pages. - 02:43, 9 June 2014 (EDT)

Add a Game Design History and Innovations section to the Shroom
It is a section about where we take a look at the games that were creative in their design and as well as pay tribute to some game designers that made some of these games. It can be any game at the top of your head or any person that comes to mind. It can be any kind of game that revolutionized the industry or innovated on it. It is different in design than the History of Video Games section as it only talks about original ideas and implementations.

Proposer: Proposed Deadline: June 23, 2014, at 23:59 GMT Date Withdrawn: June 16, 2014, 21:02 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal

Comments
This is completely unnecessary, and I suggest you withdraw this. If you want that section, just write a normal application and if the staff accept it, then it will be added to the newspaper with the person who applied for it as the writer.

I don't think these kinds of proposals should go here. Instead, maybe you should talk to some of the 'Shroom people on MarioBoards; make a thread or something like it. Threads encourage more discussion than proposals. 16:59, 16 June 2014 (EDT)

Allow an E3 page
Recently I created a page for the Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3) [You can view a backup of the page here], which had a brief background on what E3 is and Nintendo's role in it. It then went on to list Nintendo hardware and Mario-related software that had been announced or covered by Nintendo at E3 each year (up to 2004, when I stopped to create this proposal). I was then going to go bak and add a short paragraph overviewing Nintendo's press conference (or Direct) and what demos were available. However, A delete tag was placed on it with the reason: "We don't cover this." However, this wiki does cover it because I was only talking about Nintendo's consoles (all of which are on this wiki) and Mario-related games (which are obviously on this wiki). I dod not mention any other companies or developers, or any games that were not strictly from the Mario Universe. According to this wiki's coverage policy (see here), there is no statement or even suggestion forbidding this page (or page similar to this) to be created. A page for E3 should be allowed to be created, as it would only cover the Mario series and Nintendo, and there is no policy forbidding it.

Proposer: Deadline: June 16, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) I think it's okay but we can maybe call it ??
 * 3) I don't see why not. After all, we have a page for Nintendo, which is just as Mario-related, and (possibly more accurately) the Wii U and 3DS.
 * 4) I think it should. After all, I started creating pages for the E3s themself. This, we shouldn't:
 * 5) Per proposal.
 * 6) A definite yes for me as well. It would do just fine.

Oppose

 * 1) Coverage says Mario related media, I don't see E3 as Mario related just because it has Mario games. Now my mine problem with this is reasoning for having this page. Only reason I can see us thinking to cover this is because it has Mario related media in it, so do demos. We're not going to be creating an article on every single demo that has featured a Mario game. And also why only E3? Games can be announced through a Nintendo Direct, something not covered by the wiki. They can also be announced through other gaming conferences, and possibly even interviews, and creating an article on an interview seems illogical. Also, as aforementioned, what about the other gaming conferences, and even arguably VGX (considering Cranky Kong was announced as a playable character for Tropical Freeze and this arguably gives some relevance to it)? Personally I think it'd be better to put this in either the glossary, a subsection on Nintendo's page, or create a page on major videogame conferences, but creating a page solely on E3 I don't think is a good idea.
 * 2) Per Yoshi876. (Yes, I read everything word for word.)
 * 3) Per Yoshi. Maybe all conferences combined would get a page, but E3 getting one alone is ridiculous.
 * 4) Per Yoshi and standard practices. We've always added games as they are announced and listed "announced at E3" or some such, but creating an entire page to cover something we already do is a waste of resources.
 * 5) Per everyone.
 * 6) Per everyone.
 * 7) Per Ghost Jam.
 * 8) Per Yoshi876 and Ghost Jam.
 * 9) The page will be pointless.
 * 10) I think an E3 page would be more appropiate on the nintendo wiki.

Comments
@Yoshi876: However, this article is only talking about the Mario-related aspect of the conference. If we did decide to create a page for VGX, then it would only cover Mario-related things (which would be Cranky Kong). For your second point, I am actually working on a Nintendo Direct page, which will be on this wiki soon, so we will cover that. And on your last point, I would not be opposed at all to creating a page on Video Game Conferences, and if you think that woud be the best course of action I would be happy to do so. 11:26, 9 June 2014 (EDT)
 * I don't think we should cover Nintendo Directs just like I don't think E3 should be given that coverage. As my main stands, the reasoning for the creation is weak, "It's related to Mario", so are demo events at game stores, so are game stores that sell those games, those would not get article so I don't see why this should. Personally I think the best course of action may be a page for major gaming conferences, and if not mentioning E3 in the glossary and Nintendo Directs getting a sub-section on the Nintendo page.
 * Since the page will not be deleted until this proposal passes, should I go ahead and move it to a page entitled Video Game Conferences or wait? 11:33, 9 June 2014 (EDT)
 * Seeing as it's not on coverage policy, like I said in my oppose, it's already open to deletion. I'd wait until the end of proposal and if it does pass move it to something like "List of major videogame conferences".

Aren't ESRB, CERO, ACB, USK, DEJUS, PEGI the same deal?-- 18:09, 13 June 2014 (EDT)
 * All Mario games have some sort of rating and having a page here to explain the rating is fine. That's my opinion. 18:12, 13 June 2014 (EDT)
 * I know but possibly a "List of games by rating" would suit it better.-- 18:13, 13 June 2014 (EDT)
 * Possibly but I have no strong opinion on this. 18:21, 13 June 2014 (EDT)
 * Either way, I feel these are kinda related. Both are media-related, that Mario series has some information regarding it. I don't have an opinion on the proposal itself one way or another .-- 18:52, 13 June 2014 (EDT)