MarioWiki:Proposals

Writing guidelines
None at the moment.

Arcade Archives page
With the recent announcement that Nintendo is putting their old Arcade games onto the switch via Arcade Archives, I feel like this is only fair; we gave Virtual Console its own page, and this is pretty similar to that.

Proposer: Deadline: September 22, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) - Well... No duh I support it. I proposed it.
 * 2) Per proposal. I don't see how it differs from the Virtual Console.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Was just thinking the same thing.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) - Per all.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Per all.

Comments
Don't think this needs a proposal tbh 20:14, 15 September 2017 (EDT)
 * Sorry. I'm still new here, and I don't really feel comfortable making whole new pages yet. At any rate, if it's fine, can it be made?  ~Camwood777  (talk)  07:48, 16 September 2017 (EDT)
 * This could probably use a proposal. Currently we have the link to Wikipedia on the main page. I suppose there wouldn't be any harm making one here that mainly focuses on the Mario titles, but I'm not sure if we need the page or not.  12:43, 16 September 2017 (EDT)

Officially repeal the "no support reason" Featured Article nomination rule
The current rule regarding support votes in our featured articles guidelines goes something like this:

"Before doing anything, be sure to read the article completely, keeping a sharp eye out for mistakes. Afterwards, compare the article to the criteria listed above, and then either support or object the article's nomination. If you support, simply sign with your name, without adding a reason (unless you are the first supporter and thus the nominator)."

I used to enforce this rule, removing support reasons whenever I come across them, but now, I currently don't, because I've been thinking, seriously, what's the point of spending effort counter-productively removing reasons for support any more, even if the said support vote is actually constructive towards the article and not merely a fan vote as it once was? Fan votes used to be a particular problem in the past, but today, they are not as much as a problem as they once had them, so bending backwards to remove something....doesn't change anything at all and it wastes time expending effort that could go to something far more productive. The rule is also incredibly inconsistent to every other time we vote in MarioWiki, making this one of the reasons that removing support vote reasons used to be a frequent because the rule is convoluted and confusing to new users of MarioWiki and thus make the mistake constantly.

Hell, at this point, with me refusing to enforce this rule any more, it seems like no one else even enforces this terrible rule too, so now, I'd like to officially get rid of that parameter from our Featured Article ruleset once and for all, because there's no point to having a rule that no one wants to enforce and this would free up time for users doing other more productive edits, and this is especially true for support votes that actually do say something useful or actually praise editors for their hard work, which would encourage them to work harder and happier.

Proposer: Deadline: September 20, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Heck, even I support featured articles with a reason. Per Baby Luigi's reasoning.
 * 2) Why is that even a rule?
 * 3) This rule is outright broken. It overcomplicates the voting process and has no clear reason for its inclusion. Heck, it might even defeat the very purpose of FAs, for the very reasons Baby Luigi mentioned. If fan votes ever do become a problem again, we can just scratch them out, since the "removal of opposes" rule didn't exist before the aforementioned proposal, so, in other words, per proposal!
 * 4) Per proposal.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Giving a reason for the support is definitely nice and actually tends to prevent otherwise unseen fan votes since it "exposes" them, in my opinion.
 * 9) - This feels pretty obvious at this point.
 * 10) - Sure, per all.
 * 1) - Sure, per all.

Comments
@Doc von Schmeltwick: I can try to explain. A lot of support reasons back in 2008-2009 used to be nothing more than "I like this guy he should be featured", so it had to be decided somewhere that they wanted to remove the reasons....because...it would...clutter...less space...and it would ... er...discourage fan voters..? I honestly don't see the logic here at all, in hindsight today. What gets accomplished here? Nothing? Just removal of words. That's it. 14:58, 13 September 2017 (EDT)
 * That logic makes the defining premise behind the movie make sense by comparison. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2017 (EDT)
 * I think part of it was that almost everyone, in essence, was just saying "Per the first guy who already wrote about why the article's good," and they got rid of the support reasons to eliminate the redundancy. This also prevents people from including anything that the nominator missed and allows people to support nominations for entirely personal reasons, so I'm all for requiring support reasons. 16:38, 13 September 2017 (EDT)
 * @Baby Luigi: I think you accidentally forgot to provide the "Per proposal" reason with your vote. Could you do that please? Thanks! 19:17, 13 September 2017 (EDT)
 * tbh, I don't think it's necessary, since I'm the original proposer so you kinda know what my intents are. 00:44, 14 September 2017 (EDT)
 * Eh, the rules say that every vote needs a strong reason. It's not necessary here, but it's useful for, say, proposals with multiple options. 12:30, 14 September 2017 (EDT)
 * You know, I've been thinking. Why exactly do we need a strong reason for voting in the first place? A vote is a vote. It has the same power regardless if there's a paragraph attached to it or if it contains only two words. Hell, the usage of "Per all" pretty much circumvents the "strong reason" rule most of the time it's used, sometimes even as veil to hide laziness or going with the popular side. I mean, fishing for votes is already strongly discouraged in the first place, so it's not like we can easily rig votes in our favor and if there is malicious intent, that's why we have admins (people can also rig proposals and circumvent things with "per all" too, but at least people aren't terrible enough for this to be a huge problem in this wiki).  18:02, 16 September 2017 (EDT)
 * I think it's just a catch-all clause to prevent people from giving insane or nonsensical reasons for voting. 18:09, 16 September 2017 (EDT)

Create articles on all of the Lakitu Info Center missions in Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam
We already separate the missions from the world articles in Super Mario 64, Super Mario Sunshine, Super Mario 64 DS, Super Mario Galaxy, Super Mario Galaxy 2, and Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon, so why don't we do the same for Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam? I can already think of a lot of content to go into these articles, and plus, I can easily create them as well.

''' I also have a draft of one such article that you can view here. '''

Proposer: Deadline: September 21, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Even though they are nothing like the missions of the 3D games. They are like the minigames of Mario Party (series).
 * 3) - Consistency, yay!
 * 4) I personally think we should have as much coverage as we can get.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per all, especially TheFlameChomp's comment in which he brings up New Super Mario Bros. U's Challenge Mode.

Oppose

 * 1) – I'm not so sure. With all the other games you provided in the proposal, the missions are the main part of the game; with Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam the missions are (from what I can tell) a secondary part of the game (though apparently some are required?). We don't split missions for other games where missions are a secondary part (e.g. Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door, Mario Kart DS). Also they seem to have quite similar objectives, especially in the second and third worlds. The draft you've provided is written well, but I can't see why these can't all be covered in one page (or even separate pages for the missions in each world).
 * 2) - Originally supported, but after seeing what MCD said, I agree with him. The missions and levels in the main games are main missions. These are secondary and don't go into as much detail, and other secondary mission pages follow suit.

Comments
Feel free to contact me if you want to assist in the project, should the proposal pass. :) 23:45, 13 September 2017 (EDT)

Before I say anything, are you planning on splitting the Trouble Center info? What makes Lakitu Info Center missions any more deserving than the Trouble Center ones? 00:48, 14 September 2017 (EDT)

As much as I want to support, I also want to oppose (so I'm not voting atm). It seems like a majority of the missions are repeats: "Find the Toads", "Capture Nabbit", "Capture Toads"... The missions in the 3D titles were more diverse, allowing for more in-depth explanations (though there are shared missions, like the Red Coin ones). How exactly are you planning on expanding the missions? (Also echoing Baby Luigi. Not everything with a name needs to be split.) 00:51, 14 September 2017 (EDT)
 * True, the vast majority missions have the same type of objective. But no two missions are exactly alike in terms of layout and structure, and the only missions that are the same are the Hard Mode variants. If you want, I can show you a demo, but that will take time to make. 01:38, 14 September 2017 (EDT)

The wiki's coverage is a bit confusing on how/why the Lakitu Info Center is required: the Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam article notes that "the player must obtain a certain number of them to progress through the story", but never expands upon this (also it mentions Paper Toads in the story and I have no idea whether that's part of a mission or the game's main story). On the other hand, the Lakitu Info Center article doesn't even mention it being required. So if anything I've said is very wrong then sorry :( 18:57, 18 September 2017 (EDT)
 * Ok. I see your concerns (Secondary, others like it that don't have articles, can be covered in one page or each in each world (I will explain why the latter of this wouldn't be a good idea), and no clear way the wiki puts what's required). I will go over your concerns one by one and help you out.
 * Secondary: This is a good concern. They are part of the "worlds", but they seem separate. However, minigames of the Mario Party serues are that way, too. Yes, the two are different, but they are very similar.
 * Others like it that don't have articles: That are what proposals are for. They can help find out whether or not to cover it. I can easily see Mario Kart DS missions get separate articles, but I'm not entire sure about Trouble Center.
 * Can be covered by in one page or each in each world: Hum... Good point... for the first one. The only problem is where will they go or how long it will be. I can see it going into either Lakitu Info Center or a new page called "List of Missions in Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam". But, what about the length. It would be quite long, but that is not a problem unless it takes a long time to load. So, then we should put each in the worlds. Nope. I can tell you one notable problem. The missions are done not as in each world like a chronological order. They may seem that way, but in reality, they are done in many ways. Why will be explained in the last paragraph. As for this, the best way for each of the worlds, it must tell when it is done.
 * No clear way the wiki puts what's required: It is quite complicated, but I will help you out. First, all but three are required for the whole entire game. But, if you clear the last three, you get the last Trio Attack. Second, they are completed in sections. These sections must be done for as a whole in order to advance the game. The sections themselves are the most complicated, so I will not covered them unless you want to know the sections.
 * Hope this helps. 20:06, 18 September 2017 (EDT)

What to do about Paper Jam Shiny articles
Copy/pasted from here with no loss of information:

For the Shiny variation of enemies in Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam, we have them as separate articles from the actual enemies, such as Shiny Paper Dry Bones or Shiny Paper Swoop. and I ultimately found out that the "Shiny" part of their names don't actually exist, the enemies are actually titled "Paper Dry Bones" or "Paper Swoop" and the shiny counterparts are more like how Pokemon is handled; the same enemy, just slightly stronger. We've decided that merging the Shiny variant with the Paper variant would be best, but some don't have pages on their Paper variant either, instead being written into the main article. The main problem here is the nonexistent "Shiny" title, but "Paper" is within the enemy names as well, which gives me three options.

Option 1: Create articles for the "Paper" variant of enemies (that don't already have one) and merge the "Shiny" variants into it

Continuing with the examples above, the information on Paper Dry Bones would be split from the main Dry Bones article (with a in the corresponding section) and the information in Shiny Paper Dry Bones would be merged with Paper Dry Bones.

Option 2: Merge the "Shiny" information to the main article with the "Paper" enemies

"Paper" is part of the enemy names whereas "Shiny" isn't. Most, if not all, of the "Paper" enemies are currently merged with their main counterpart. This option involves moving the "Shiny" information there as well. For example, Paper Dry Bones and Shiny Paper Dry Bones will both be merged to Dry Bones.

Option 3: Split the "Shiny" and "Paper" enemies into separate pages

See comments below. Regular enemies, Paper enemies, and Shiny enemies would each have their own page, with the Shiny variant receiving a (Shiny) tagged at the end.

Option 4: Do nothing

Self explanatory.

To clarify, this will not effect the Shiny enemies found in Paper Mario: Sticker Star, as those enemies do have "Shiny" in their title and are considered a separate enemy.

Proposer: Deadline: September 21th, 2017 23:59 GMT

Option 1

 * 1) - My preferred option.
 * 2) I think that the paper variants should have their own pages.
 * 3) Per proposal, since I helped find some of the information.
 * 4) For consistency with the paper characters from Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam having their own page, all the paper enemies from that game should have them as well, I guess; if Shiny enemies in the game are just shown as variants of the same enemies, we should reflect that as well.
 * 5) - This makes the most sense. We made pages for the shiny versions in Sticker Star, but not for shiny OR paper versions in Paper Jam? This is silly.
 * 6) Per all.

Option 3

 * 1) Shinies are different from regular paper variants in terms of improved stats and appearance. And per Option 1 vote.
 * 2) Different enemies deserve different articles.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) Per Yoshi the SSM.
 * 5) - Not my preferred option, but I suppose there'd be no harm in this.

Comments
If there is another option I didn't think of, let me know. 17:50, 14 September 2017 (EDT)
 * How about an option for creating pages for the paper variants and keeping the shiny variants separate? After all, the same name does not make the same enemy. 17:54, 14 September 2017 (EDT)
 * The problem is that "Shiny" isn't part of the enemy's name. It's more like an additional parameter. 17:58, 14 September 2017 (EDT)
 * Could we have, say, "Paper Goomba (Shiny)"?Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2017 (EDT)
 * I'm fine with that. If they have different appearances and different stats, then it's really no different than the other examples I tend to throw out at times like this. 18:12, 14 September 2017 (EDT)
 * That'd be a really odd identifier considering Shiny Paper Goomba is a different enemy. I wouldn't support it, but I can see this as an option. 19:15, 14 September 2017 (EDT)

Also, why is this a talk page proposal? Aren't these bulk changes the kind of thing best suited for the main proposal page, especially when it (potentially) involves merging? One proposal was even called out for deciding to rename multiple pages in a talk page proposal. 19:19, 14 September 2017 (EDT)
 * I thought having two weeks would be enough time for everyone to go over the different options. 19:22, 14 September 2017 (EDT)
 * "Proposals dealing with massive amounts of splits, merges or deletions across the Wiki should still be held on this page [the main proposal page]." I'm pretty sure this qualifies. Besides, how much time is really necessary to understand "create articles and merge other articles", "merge articles", and "create articles"? 19:25, 14 September 2017 (EDT)
 * Oh, I did not see that... Let me see if I can cancel this and copy/paste this proposal to the main page, or if I need to start a new one. 19:32, 14 September 2017 (EDT)
 * My comment now makes no sense. 21:37, 14 September 2017 (EDT)
 * It's fine. Mine look off, too. 21:38, 14 September 2017 (EDT)

So, now that we've settled on a location, why do you oppose option 3, Alex? 22:16, 14 September 2017 (EDT)
 * Because I see the shinies more as a pallet swap than anything else. Yes, the enemy gets a slight increase in stats sometimes, but as far as the game itself is concerned, they're the same enemy. 22:19, 14 September 2017 (EDT)
 * In the same way that Superstar Saga considers Gritty Goomba and Gritty Goomba to be the same enemy? 22:24, 14 September 2017 (EDT)
 * If the different parameters were the only thing different, then I'd say they're two forms of the same enemy, like how I'm proposing here. However, the Gritty Goomba in Teehee Valley has an additional role the variant in Gwarhar Lagoon does not. 12:57, 15 September 2017 (EDT)
 * So you'd consider Limbo Bro and Limbo Bro to be the same enemy? 13:01, 15 September 2017 (EDT)
 * Yes. I thought they were already, tbh. 13:06, 15 September 2017 (EDT)
 * Why? Because they have the same name? Even though they have different appearances, different locations, different abilities, and different stats? Shall we also merge the two Chaps for being NPCs with the same name? 13:08, 15 September 2017 (EDT)
 * Okay, I get what you're saying. They are different enemies with different just about everything. But for the Paper Jam Shiny enemies, the game (from what I know) seems to regard them as an alternate form of the same enemy. Different parameters, sure, but the same enemy. I'll go back on the Limbo Bros., and the Gritty Goombas and Chaps should remain split, due to them clearly being different enemies and characters. But as far as the game is concerned, Paper Jam seems to regard the normal and Shiny enemies as the same enemy. I'll go through with whatever option ends up supported the most. 13:20, 15 September 2017 (EDT)
 * Can you elaborate on how Paper Jam regards them as the same enemy? It's a genuine question, as I haven't played the game. 13:23, 15 September 2017 (EDT)
 * I haven't played the game either, but what I've been told and have seen, the Shiny enemies are more like an alternate variant rather than a separate enemy. 13:25, 15 September 2017 (EDT)
 * I've asked FlameChomp about it, and going by his explanation, it seems more akin to the Gold Beanies for regular Beanies or the Amazy Dayzees for Crazee Dayzees - a rarer version of a regular enemy (please, correct me if I'm wrong). I'd consider that to be something worth splitting. 13:30, 15 September 2017 (EDT)
 * The thing with Gold Beanies and Beanies or Amazy and Crazee Dayzees is, not only do they look and act different, but their name is as well. But yes, that's close to what I mean. It's simply a rarer version of the same enemy. Whether that's something to be split or not, I'm leaving to the proposal. 13:35, 15 September 2017 (EDT)
 * I played the game. And what makes shiny paper enemies different from paper enemies besides what I mentioned is that they are usually rare (though one can make them less rare) and drop Shiny Battle Cards usually. But, they seem to be in place of regular paper enemies. 13:36, 15 September 2017 (EDT)
 * A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, and an enemy by any other name would still be the same enemy. A single name should not be the only deciding factor when it comes to creating or deleting articles. I'm also not sure what you mean when you say that you're leaving it to the proposal - you're voting in the proposal yourself, and your vote counts just as much as anyone else's. You're free to change it as you see fit, or even vote for multiple options. 13:39, 15 September 2017 (EDT)
 * I'm voting for the option that I think would work best. 13:42, 15 September 2017 (EDT)
 * I think we can have Shiny Goomba separate from "Paper Goomba (Shiny)" since we list the "Paper" enemies from the other paper games with the regular enemies, and if we're splitting the "Paper" versions, we should split those "shiny" versions from the "other" shiny versions for consistency. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2017 (EDT)

Create articles on all of the Trouble Center missions in Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door
I'm proposing this in light of the comment made here(backup link). Same deal as the other proposal, except now we're splitting off info on the Trouble Center.

Proposer: (original concern voiced by ) Deadline: September 24, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) They have in-game names with clear-cut and definitive requirements, with not all of them being simple. Let's give them articles so that the information can be properly expanded. (per all)

Oppose

 * 1) - I feel like the amount of information currently present on the page is enough to satisfy readers and those looking for information.

Double the amount of time a proposer can edit their talk page proposals
Because talk page proposals are less visible than regular proposals, they are given an extra week for discussion. I'm not going to argue against that; though smaller issues occasionally go on for too long, the extra time is invaluable for when large changes are being discussed. With that in mind, why can they only be edited within three days of the proposal's creation, the same amount of time as a regular proposal? So, we want to give people more time to discuss proposals, but we don't want to give the proposers more time to acknowledge the discussion and make changes as needed? There's a clear discrepancy here. I propose to double the amount of time a proposer can change, delete, or otherwise edit their proposals on talk pages, from three days to six. This lines up with the doubled amount of time they take in the first place.

Proposer: Deadline: September 19, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal. I think a week might make more sense than six days though; it seems simpler.
 * 3) This definitely makes sense to me. If TPPs have an increased amount of time for voting, then so should the time that is allowed to edit them. Though I don't necessarily agree with that "they are less visible" argument. Talk page proposals are about as visible as mainspace proposals, and these days, most editors DO check the list of TPPs regularly and as easily as browsing through this page. If visibility is a problem for TPPs, then measures should be taken to be more visible, since these matters are about as important as main space ones.
 * 4) Per proposal.
 * 5) - I may not be 100% on board and can see issues, but they're the same issues we're having currently, so... I'll support the proposed extension.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Since the duration of the time of voting is twice, it makes sense to also allow twice the time to edit.
 * 10) - This feels the most fair. Double the time to vote, so double the time to edit the proposal.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) Per proposal.
 * 13) Per all.
 * 14) Per all, especially Mister Wu and Camwood777. It would only seem fair to allow double the voting and double the changing at once.

Comments
"Talk page proposals may be closed by the proposer at any time if each voting option has fewer than five votes." (Closed means the same as delete.) So are you proposing to double this to ten votes too? Because closing date is not dependent on the number of days passed for TPPs. 13:01, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
 * I don't see the relevance. I'm talking about a discrepancy between the rules applied to both regular proposals and talk page proposals, not a rule that applies uniquely to talk page proposals. Besides, that rule says nothing about letting the proposer edit their proposal nor anything about what happens after five votes. 13:03, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
 * I don't see the relevance. I'm talking about a discrepancy between the rules applied to both regular proposals and talk page proposals, not a rule that applies uniquely to talk page proposals. It is kind of hard to tell the difference between the two statements. What's the difference between them? Besides, that rule says nothing about letting the proposer edit their proposal nor anything about what happens after five votes. Obviously, otherwise it will fall under "All rules for talk page proposals are the same as mainspace proposals (see the "How to" section above), with the exceptions made by Rules 3 and 4 as follows" with the above quote being rule 4 of TPPs. And I know this. Otherwise, I wouldn't make my comment. 13:10, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
 * The first statement refers to rules that apply to both kinds of proposals with the only difference being their timespan, whereas the latter statement refers to rules that apply exclusively to one kind of proposal with no parallel for the other kind. Beyond that, what point are you making? 13:14, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
 * In either statement, there is this to be considered:
 * "Proposals end at the end of the day (23:59) one week after voting starts, except for writing guidelines and talk page proposals, which run for two weeks (all times GMT).
 * For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, the voting starts immediately and the deadline is one week later on Monday, August 8, at 23:59 GMT."
 * "Voting in talk page proposals will be open for two weeks, not one (all times GMT).
 * For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, it ends two weeks later on Monday, August 15, 2011, at 23:59 GMT."
 * So they will be basically the same design. Unless I am reading this wrong. As for point to this, Isn’t it obvious? I want to know if votes are going to double or not or if canceling is going to change like the other two. 13:27, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
 * This proposal wants to change one thing: the time period in which a proposer can change their talk page proposal should be expanded to six days from the current three days. 13:33, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
 * I know this and I want to support this. But canceling a proposal is already different in TPP than in RP. I just wanting to know if you going to keep this difference, double this number, or change it to six days. In either case, I can easily support this. But I want to know before I do support. 13:39, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
 * You say that you can easily support this, but then you oppose. Sure. What specifically are you perring about their comments? sorry got the proposals mixed up 13:53, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
 * On topic, as I said previously, the only thing that will be changed is the time limit for editing the talk page proposals. 13:56, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
 * LOL. Anyways. You seem to imply that canceling will be changed to six days rather than (5) votes. OK. Though I like the 5 vote rule (and theoretically, it could be included as an additional thing to do), I don't know how it came to be. Either way this passes, this will change TPP's rule 4. 14:04, 12 September 2017 (EDT)

@Drago: It's tempting, but I'd rather that it's exactly equivalent to the main proposals. 13:14, 12 September 2017 (EDT)

The problem I'm having with this is that new information can show at any time, even at the final day of the proposal. In which case, a new proposal would be created when able to. There's also the option of getting an admin to cancel the proposal so the new information can be taken into account without actually going through with the current proposal. 13:20, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
 * So should we not allow proposers to edit proposals at all and just have them cancel their proposals whenever new information comes up? Giving the proposers more time to effectively respond to others without having the current discussions and votes being entirely cast aside (at the same time, setting a time limit for the changes prevents proposers from changing things at the last minute, but I don't want to give them infinite time). 13:22, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
 * I'm not saying that. I'm all for having more time, but at the same time, there is a limitation that can screw with the proposal at the last minute, even if the time limit is extended to anything other than "infinite". Additionally, users may have to reconsider their votes after the change, some of which may not notice it (though the proposer can certainly send a message if they wish). 13:27, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
 * The same logic can be applied to the current time limit, but I don't think that it pans out in either case. I'm suggesting that, for a 14-day proposal, proposers have the ability to make changes for the first 6 days (ratio of 6/14 or 3/7), to be equal with a 7-day proposal allowing proposers to make changes for 3 days (3/7). The proposer should be motivated to inform voters of any changes, but I don't see what's different between the two kinds of proposals. If anything, you seem to be suggesting that the current time limit should be shortened, if you're that concerned about voters not noticing any changes until it's too late. 13:33, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
 * I am concerned that voters may not notice the changes, but I definitely don't want the time to be shortened. 13:40, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
 * Another option may be to require proposals to notify voters of any changes (barring superfluous stuff like spelling/grammar corrections). 13:53, 12 September 2017 (EDT)

For a related topic, I have been thinking about the 7-day proposal and 14-day TPP should either be all 7 or 14 days for any proposal. Is there any benefit to having this time rule as we currently have it? -- 13:38, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
 * I think that this was discussed at some point in the past, but I can't seem to find any trace of it... At the very least, it's one of those rules that's been around for a long time and nobody has really bothered to question it. 13:53, 12 September 2017 (EDT)

What is Yume Kōjō: Doki Doki Panic?
Yume Kōjō: Doki Doki Panic is, to make a long story short, a game that was altered to become Super Mario Bros. 2; though it did not originally contain any Mario subjects, Shy Guys, Pokeys, Bob-ombs, Birdo, and others all originate from this game. Due to the impact this game had on the Mario franchise, we cover it on the wiki, and I think we can agree on keeping it that way. At the same time, it currently exists in a limbo where we don't know to what extent we should cover it. There was a proposal that decided that covering the game's characters was too much, but at the same time, the article is a part of Category:Games not originally in the Mario series, with an emphasis on not originally; if it's currently a part of the Mario franchise, then we should cover it to that extent. Coverage doesn't even bring up the game, so there's no help there. Still, if we use the sections of the policy page as a guideline, we may be able to decide for ourselves what is Yume Kōjō: Doki Doki Panic. Here are the logical options:

Option 1: It is a full-fledged member of the Mario franchise. If this option is chosen, the game will be considered to be a member of the broad Mario franchise, albeit one that is not part of any specific series (similar to Super Princess Peach). Though it was not a Mario game at the time, you can think of it as having been retroactively included into the franchise. As such, any unique characters, items, and other subjects will also be given individual articles alongside the game's article.

Option 2: It is a crossover with the Mario franchise. If this option is chosen, the game will be treated as a crossover between the Mario franchise and some other nebulous series (it'll end up in the same section as the Mario & Sonic series and the Super Smash Bros. series). This partially relies on the assumption that the Mario subjects within the game have retroactively become members of the Mario franchise and not something that the Mario franchise appropriated. [edit]At the same time, the characters and motifs of the game can be considered to be from the actual Yume Kōjō event.[/edit] Like option 1, all of its subjects will get articles; this just affects which categories it'll be slotted into and other such details.

Option 3: It only contains guest appearances of the Mario franchise. If this option is chosen, the game will be treated as containing guest appearances (à la Captain Rainbow and SSX on Tour). This is very similar to option 2, except the argument now is that the Mario franchise's impact on the game isn't substantial enough to constitute a crossover. As with other guest appearances, the game itself will be given an article, but none of its subjects will be given an article. In short, nothing much is actually affected beyond categories and other such details.

Option 4: It is part of a group unto itself. If this option is chosen, it shall be deemed that the game is not part of the Mario franchise, not a crossover, and does not feature guest appearances, yet all the same, it is something worth covering on the wiki. Coverage will be updated with a short section under "What the Super Mario Wiki covers" that describes the game's historic role in the franchise while explaining why it is being covered on the wiki. A bit of time can also be spent explaining why similar games, such as Panel de Pon, aren't being covered on the wiki. I don't want this to be the "Yume Kōjō" exclusive section, but rather something that potentially leaves some open space for other games should they ever turn up (or Panel de Pon if we decide to give it its own article again). Since it's not a part of the franchise, the game will be treated like one of the guest appearances: only the game itself gets an article. I can provide a write-up if requested, but I think this is clear enough.

Option 5: It is perpetually in limbo (do nothing). If this option is chosen, nothing happens. Well, this proposal will be archived, but that's it.

If you're questioning why we need to decide where this game belongs, then I'll answer that it's better than having a game wrapped up in contradictions, existing someplace where nobody really knows what to do with it. Let's nip this one in the bud, shall we?

Proposer: Deadline: September 23, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Option 1 (fully part of the Mario franchise)

 * 1) We'll say it's been grandfathered in.
 * 2) The debate reminds me of the whole Donkey Kong kerkuffle in nerd circles debating whether it is a Mario franchise game or not, and yet we do include it as part of the greather Mario franchise as well because of its roots that kicked off the Mario franchise. I think the same logic there can be applied here. The fact that Doki Doki Panic even first started off as a Mario prototype before the people who owned Doki Doki Panic requested that their characters be used should tell you that the game was intended to be part of the Mario franchise to begin with and what they were going with this title. The proposal also mentions the legacy of the game to the other Mario titles and I completely agree with its very strong influence it has on the Mario franchise. I think this option is the best choice for coverage purposes.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) - This generally seems the most accurate to how it's treated nowadays.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per all

Option 2 (crossover)

 * 1) Doki Doki Panic is Super Mario Bros. 2 and could even share the template - but the Yume Kōjō-themed branding and the use of their family characters does make this version of the game a crossover.

Option 4 (entirely separate)

 * 1) Since it's not technically actually a part of the franchise, this is the next best thing.
 * 2) Per Time Turner.
 * 3) Per Time Turner.
 * 4) - It may not be part of series itself, but it still had some impact on at least one game in the main series.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all.

Option 5 (do nothing)

 * 1) It doesn't really fall under any of the aforementioned categories perfectly, and I'm fine with the way it's currently represented.
 * 2) I agree with . I'd rather do nothing because the history of this game is very complicated and very intertwined with the Japanese and North American SMB2 games and Mario franchise in general. I think this will take months of analysis weeks of discussion before we can be more decisive and enforce a category. It fits in more than one category, and this proposal wants to converge into one only. One week is insufficient.

Comments
@Doc: How is it being represented now? There's no consistency to it currently, at least not as far as I can see. 18:46, 16 September 2017 (EDT)
 * It's represented as having a vague relation to the series, which it does have. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2017 (EDT)
 * We're not helping anyone by saying that it is vague and ill-defined and leaving it at that. Besides, just because the game itself is vaguely defined doesn't mean we should also vaguely define it. 19:12, 16 September 2017 (EDT)
 * The problem is none of the proposed categories accurately describe it. What it is is a Mario tech demo turned non-Mario game with a few Mario elements in it, that would later be reconfigured into a full Mario game. That's the most accurate descriptor. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 03:32, 18 September 2017 (EDT)

The history of this game is very complicated, more complicated than Tetris Attack, which makes it very hard to put that information in a satisfactory spot on. Why isn't this on the article's talk page? -- 21:25, 16 September 2017 (EDT)
 * I opted to slot it here due to the potential impact it may have on our coverage policy + it's more apparent as a precedent. 21:26, 16 September 2017 (EDT)

I agree with the notion that Doki Doki Panic can now be considered a full-fledged member of the franchise (it is Super Mario Bros. 2 and released a mere one year prior with Mario elements and influence already in it), but at the same time, I'd also say the pesky Yume Kōjō branding technically makes it something else. I'm considering taking the crossover option, but I also noticed that Dance Dance Revolution: Mario Mix isn't considered a crossover despite the DDR title. Is there a reason for that? LinkTheLefty (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2017 (EDT)
 * I don't rightfully know, to be honest. Maybe because, despite the name, everything in it is decidedly from the Mario franchise (besides the rhythm gameplay, although the franchise is no stranger to that)? 21:49, 16 September 2017 (EDT)
 * Then my guess is that there are no established DDR characters to consider it a crossover - but if that's the qualifier, Imajin being the mascot of the festival is enough for me. LinkTheLefty (talk) 22:22, 16 September 2017 (EDT)

@Wildgoosespeeder: What is exactly is going to be analyzed during those months? 23:53, 16 September 2017 (EDT)
 * We need a lot more discussion time than just a week. That's what I am hoping for. -- 23:57, 16 September 2017 (EDT)
 * What are you hoping to discuss during those months? 23:57, 16 September 2017 (EDT)
 * This proposal seems very complicated what you are hoping to achieve. So many options. -- 00:02, 17 September 2017 (EDT)
 * Please answer the question; I am genuinely curious what you wish to discuss for several months. 00:03, 17 September 2017 (EDT)
 * Then I don't have the answer you are looking for. A one-week proposal with vague options just sounds hasty to me. -- 00:06, 17 September 2017 (EDT)
 * What about the proposal is vague? 00:07, 17 September 2017 (EDT)
 * It sounds generalized. Also, we can vote for more than one option. I agree that a lot of the options apply to the game, but this is looking like you want it to apply to one option only in the end. -- 00:10, 17 September 2017 (EDT)
 * Can you elaborate on what you mean by the proposal being "generalized"? Also, what is the issue with letting people potentially vote for multiple options? The point of a proposa is that the community votes on what to do, and I don't see how the multiple options take away from that. 00:23, 17 September 2017 (EDT)