MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/52

Change the way that recurring Mario & Sonic events are handled, round 2
After the no quorum result of the last attempt at this proposal, I've taken on board the comments from last time and changed the proposal to reflect this. So, at the moment, there's an issue in the way that events that appear in more than one of the Mario & Sonic games are handled, as events that share the same or similar names across games are all put together on the same article, despite the fact that they are very different between games, using different controls, scoring systems, characters, etc.. This isn't only a problem between Wii/Wii U and DS/3DS instalments, which would obviously and understandably have very different controls and slightly modified gameplay, but also between games on similar consoles, for example, the Trampoline event in the first DS game required certain patterns to be drawn with the stylus to perform various moves and the player to slide up with the stylus to jump, whereas in the 2012 3DS game moves are performed automatically and the player must use the circle pad to keep their character within a certain area, pressing the A button to jump. This means that infoboxes are overloaded with excessive information, defeating their purpose, and that the articles are a complete mess of headers and sections. 100m Dash and 100m Freestyle are examples of this, and please keep in mind that they still have a considerable amount of missing information, particularly from the later games. Part of the reason that all of the events are sharing one page seems to have apparently stemmed from the fact that they're currently being treated as generic subjects, which is not really how they should be viewed. They should be treated in a similar way to minigames, with each getting an individual article, even if they share a name, a few controls or subject that they're based on. Just because they're based on a real world subject, it doesn't mean that they should be covered like one (And any that currently have generic subject-like articles will be changed in the future, to give them more of a minigame-like focus, similar to 100m Breaststroke). Additionally, several Dream Events also share this issue (Including Dream Race, Dream Long Jump and Dream Bobsleigh), which are in no way affected by the generic subjects policy, and should be treated as separate minigames, but are currently all placed on the same page for being similar. These should also be split, in the same way as the regular events, as the two are treated as the same thing within the games.

Therefore, I'm proposing that we split each game's version of the event into its own unique article, which only covers the event's appearance in the one game. Only the controls, missions, playable characters, etc. for one game's version of the event would be included on that page, and an About template would be added to the top of name-sharing articles with a link to the disambiguation page for the other events or the events with a similar name. An identifier would be added to any articles with shared names, and I'm currently thinking that it would specify only the game if it only appears in one of the instalments for a specific year (Such as "Pole Vault (Mario & Sonic at the London 2012 Olympic games)", which appears in the 3DS version but not the Wii one), or both the game and console if it appears in more than one version (Such as "BMX (Mario & Sonic at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games (Nintendo 3DS))" and "BMX (Mario & Sonic at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games (Wii U))"). This is just how I think the identifiers would work from what I can piece together from here, but unfortunately, it's not really designed to help out in cases like this thanks to naming in the Mario & Sonic series, so any other suggestions for identifiers are more than welcome. Any shared names would be turned into disambiguation pages, listing all of the separate articles and any with similar names, such as 100m and 100m Dash. If an event has a slightly different name in one or more instalments, it will use that name instead of the similar one that all the other events are named after with an identifier, but will still have the about template and so on. Events such as Balance Beam that only appear in one game will not be affected by this and will remain at the one name.

So, in summary, each version of an event from each game is split and given game-specific identifiers (Or some other form of identifier if a better one is suggested), the shared title is turned into a disambiguation page and About templates are added, events with different names between versions go to the unique names and events that only appear once remain unchanged.

Proposer: Deadline: July 17, 2018, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) Sure. And maybe the original page for each event would be a disambiguation?
 * 4) Definitely. I have all of the games for both consoles each, so I can assist if necessary. Per all.
 * 5) Per proposal.

Comments
@SeanWheeler: Yep, that's the plan, things like Archery (event) would be turned into disambiguation pages, and ones that already share a name like Football will be added onto the existing one. BBQ Turtle (talk) 05:25, 11 July 2018 (EDT)
 * Actually, Archery (event) should undergo a page move instead to preserve page histories, and the Archery page should instead list the two events. 13:11, 11 July 2018 (EDT)
 * That's a good idea, alright, so we'll move the current Archery to Archery (class), Archery (event) to the now empty Archery, convert that into the disambiguation page, and have the separate games' information split off onto the separate pages, which is linked to from the disambiguation page along with the class. If I find any other pages with the same names as their classes, the same thing will happen there too. BBQ Turtle (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2018 (EDT)
 * Additionally, for the Archery events in particular, I'd suggest using and . For the other cases (such as one event sharing its name with another event on a different release of the same game and with yet two other events on different releases of a different game), talk to Porplemontage and he might know what to do.  19:50, 11 July 2018 (EDT)
 * Well, the thing is, Archery is one of those awkward ones- it is appears in every game except 2012 for Wii, even 2016 Arcade. There's not a problem with 2012 3DS, as it's listed as Archery (Individual) and Archery (Team), so it'd go to those names, but if we named the 2016 3DS one that, things might start getting confusing. 100m Freestyle would only be worse too, as it appears in every instalment, and I don't think the name changes at all unlike 100m and Javelin. I don't know really, naming's hard with this lot, the determining the identifier thing doesn't really cover this case. BBQ Turtle (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2018 (EDT)
 * Maybe Porplemontage would like to look at this case. 11:15, 13 July 2018 (EDT)

Split the levels exclusive to the Wii U version of Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker from their Super Mario 3D World counterparts
I edited Super Bell Hill, Conkdor Canyon, Shadow-Play Alley, and Clear Pipe Cruise back in early 2017 under the impression that they were still the same level, albeit with some alterations. However, now that we have those levels replaced with originally-named levels based on Super Mario Odyssey kingdoms, I'm inclined to split these levels by appearance. In fact, I'm surprised that I never thought to do this already, since we already split similar-looking things based on different appearances. Therefore, I propose we split the aforementioned levels by their Super Mario 3D World and Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker (Wii U) appearances.

Proposer: Deadline: July 20, 2018, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per my proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) Per my comments, these seem to be the same levels just with minor differences to account for the new control scheme.
 * 2) The comments have covered just about everything. These are not different levels, they have the same name, appearance, and design, just with slight alterations so Captain Toad can traverse them.
 * 3) Per the comments. These seem to be the same levels, with minor differences to make them work as Captain Toad levels, unlike the Super Mario Odyssey kingdom levels, which all have their own names and are redesigned as miniature versions.
 * 4) Per all, there's a much bigger difference between the Captain Toad Odyssey levels and the original Odyssey kingdoms than in the Captain Toad 3D World levels and the original 3D World levels.
 * 5) That'd be like splitting Super Mario All-Stars/Super Mario World/Super Mario World 2 levels with the Super Mario Advance games' levels because appearances can be slightly different.

Comments
Aren't they still basically the same level though? I don't see what them being replaced with Odyssey-based levels has to do with whether the pages are split or not. -- 12:00, 13 July 2018 (EDT)
 * @Waluigi Time: Read my second point. It's my main reason for proposing this. 12:44, 13 July 2018 (EDT)
 * I think the key difference between those examples and these is that those are similar levels/worlds with the same name, while these are the same levels with minor changes to account for Captain Toad's different controls. I'd also like to point out that we have the worlds from NSMBU/NSLU merged, which seems more similar to the case of the Captain Toad levels than the ones you listed. -- 14:46, 13 July 2018 (EDT)
 * And yet there are other examples, such as Mushroom Kingdom (Super Mario Odyssey), despite it essentially being the same thing as the main article. 15:40, 13 July 2018 (EDT)
 * That's also another case, as the main article refers to the location itself, while the Odyssey level is split because... well, it's a specific level in Odyssey. Bowser's Castle and Luigi's Mansion are both split into several articles for similar reasons. -- 16:03, 13 July 2018 (EDT)

The Super Mario Odyssey-based levels aren't "same level with maybe a ladder or two added," and from what I gather that's roughly what the Super Mario 3D World-based levels are. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2018 (EDT)
 * And what about the Super Mario Galaxy / Super Mario Galaxy 2 missions such as Bowser's Fortified Fortress and Bowser's Big Bad Speed Run? Their basic layout is essentially the same, except they have different attributes that set them apart. 22:37, 13 July 2018 (EDT)
 * Same reason we have a Paper Goomba article, covering only information from Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam. Differences found within one game are treated as more major than between games. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:41, 13 July 2018 (EDT)

The layout in both versions of these levels is the exact same with slightly different elements to accommodate the gameplay. Splitting them would mean copy-pasting, which is against one of the site's rules: Once and Only Once. On the other hand, levels from Donkey Kong Country 2, while sharing the same names as those in Donkey Kong Land 2, have different layouts as if they were new levels. Also, Jumpy Jungle from MvDKMLM is an attraction in an amusement park, while Jumpy Jungle from MvDKTS is not, making them fundamentally different--plus, it's only good to keep them separate like that for continuity. -- 12:44, 14 July 2018 (EDT)
 * True, but we do have multiple articles of World 1-1 ("Super Mario Bros.") despite them all being the same with little differences, including an article I made. 14:00, 14 July 2018 (EDT)
 * Yet we don't split Mario Kart racetracks based on the versions they appear in. The Captain Toad levels are the same case as those. -- 15:26, 14 July 2018 (EDT)
 * To put this point in perspective, the original Cheese Land seems to be on the moon. But when it reappeared in the MK8 DLC, it's based off of the Utah desert instead. A similar situation exists with Ribbon Road. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2018 (EDT)

@TheFlameChomp: Actually, the English version of the Japanese Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker Switch trailer translated that bit as "miniature." Sure sounds like that when I listened to it and my suspicions were right. – Owencrazyboy9 (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2018 (EDT)

Split Switch/3DS ports with substantial new content
This is an inconsistency on the wiki that's been bothering me for a while now. Currently, Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze on Switch is merged with the Wii U version, Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker on Switch and 3DS are merged with the Wii U version, and the upcoming Luigi's Mansion remake for DS is merged with the Gamecube version. After inquiring about this, I was told that games like this are only split if the title is different, or if there are big gameplay differences like the Mario & Sonic games.

However, I think this is silly and arbitrary. Tropical Freeze has a new mode with a new playable character that has his own unique mechanics and Treasure Tracker has new levels while also removing some others, yet somehow these games aren't considered worthy of their own article while a game like Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, Super Mario Maker for Nintendo 3DS, Donkey Kong Country Returns 3D, or Poochy & Yoshi's Woolly World is, simply because they have the same name as the original. Obviously, this should be decided on a case-by-case basis, because if a port/remake doesn't have any new features, it probably wouldn't warrant an article.

If this proposal passes, the following articles will be split and a precedent will be set for the future:
 * Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze (Nintendo Switch)
 * Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker (Nintendo Switch/Nintendo 3DS)

I'd also suggest that future games like Luigi's Mansion will be decided once the game has been released and we can evaluate it properly.

Proposer: Deadline: July 23, 2018, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per my proposal.
 * 2) I personally support this. Even if the game hasn't changed that much, Poochy and Yoshi's Woolly World hasn't changed that much either. P&YWW adds some additional costumes and, like Tropical Freeze on the Switch, an easy mode. What makes Woolly World's port more notable than Tropical Freeze's port?
 * 3) Per all
 * 4) To be frank, this is the same sort of situation as the Game Boy Donkey Kong, as it's an expansion of the game with the same name that came years later on another system. Case-by-case is definitely the way to go.
 * 5) Arguably, I think using simply the title as a precedent to split something is extremely weak to begin with. The content of what it contains is more important than how it's named (the title possibly couldn't even be chosen by a developer to begin with, it could be set by a publisher looking to gain sales rather than establish its own thing based on what it has but don't quote me on that if I'm incorrect) and frankly, as someone pointed out earlier, Poochy's Woolly World's changes are around as minimal as the new Funky mode in Tropical Freeze while something really drastic as Luigi's Mansion for 3DS gets lumped under the same article. While I do agree that something really drastic like Mario Kart 8 Deluxe gains its own article, the line to set of how drastic changes to the game isn't clear but as it stands now, I don't think our current way to do it is the way to go. As others pointed out, I do think case-by-base is a good solution for this.
 * 6) Changing vote, per Baby Luigi. However, I think that for the two mentioned games only, the original release still takes priority over the ports.
 * 7) Per Baby Luigi.

Oppose

 * 1) Per my comments below.  We need more discussion about this.  I honestly think merging is a better idea here than splitting.
 * 2) The current way of handling these is the best. Otherwise, things could get messy and/or unnecessary.
 * 3) Per all.

Comments
I was just going to propose the opposite: merge standard ports. I'd still propose keeping the deluxe ports separate, though. I feel like we need more discussion on this matter before proposing this. I think that these ports should stay merged, but we also merge stuff like Poochy & Yoshi's Woolly World and Super Mario Maker for 3DS. That would give us fewer stubby articles to worry about. But I feel like we need more discussion before proposing something like this or my idea. - 17:15, 16 July 2018 (EDT)
 * These articles wouldn't be stubs though. If an article has all the information about its subject, then it's not a stub. -- 20:28, 16 July 2018 (EDT)
 * I didn't say that they would be stubs. But they would be unnecessarily short, and I feel that we'd be better off giving these ports a single paragraph in the original game's article.  Not just Tropical Freeze and Captain Toad, but also stuff like Mario Maker and Returns 3D. - 21:25, 16 July 2018 (EDT)
 * Um... Donkey Kong Country Returns 3D adds new levels and uses a little bit of a different system, but more so than the current Funky Mode. Super Mario Maker for Nintendo 3DS levels are totally different from Super Mario Maker levels, even those that are based on those. Besides many differences in that game. So much, that even if you can make a case for Donkey Kong Country Returns 3D, it can't be applied to Super Mario Maker for Nintendo 3DS. As for Poochy & Yoshi's Woolly World, I don't know all differences besides the added Poochy levels, but one look at this image, and I can tell that the world layouts are indeed different. 23:20, 16 July 2018 (EDT)
 * I think Super Mario Maker for 3DS is a fairly substantial article and could stand on its own. The list of changes and screenshots help prop it up without bloating the other article. I don't know a clue about the Yoshi game though. 14:24, 21 July 2018 (EDT)
 * Yeah, I can see somewhat what you mean, but P&YWW adds levels, but DKCTFNS doesn't. Content wise, P&YWW is surprising more than DKCTFNS. However, it isn't on the page, unlike DKCTFNS. CCTTNS/3DS isn't worth being created for me. And the NS(/3DS) at the end are just for proposal sake. 14:46, 21 July 2018 (EDT)

It would be better if the pages were actually specified, rather than just being sort of a nebulous proposal. Do you intend this to be a start? 06:19, 17 July 2018 (EDT)
 * I did specify in the proposal that this would split Tropical Freeze and Treasure Tracker, and maybe Luigi's Mansion down the road once it's released. With all the Switch and 3DS ports coming out lately, this seems to be Nintendo's strategy going forward, so I figured it would be best to get it out of the way and set a precedent now instead of down the line with potentially a lot more than just 3 games to take care of. -- 12:01, 17 July 2018 (EDT)

@Toadette That's what this is proposing. To allow for a case-by-case analysis without an obstructive policy getting in the way of that. If I'm reading this right, anyways. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 01:43, 18 July 2018 (EDT)
 * Correct, like I said this proposal doesn't cover Luigi's Mansion because it hasn't been released yet and we will decide later, just like other potential upcoming ports. -- 11:41, 18 July 2018 (EDT)

Changed my vote already. IMHO, the only ports which shouldn't be split from the original releases are the New Play Control! games, since arguably they're the exact same game with different controls added. 14:45, 21 July 2018 (EDT)
 * Um... One is. The other isn't. Although, they seem similar in design to the New Funky Mode of Tropical Freeze. And there's a lot in the one that has an article, but not in the one that doesn't. 15:11, 21 July 2018 (EDT)

Reduce the minimum number of entries for game-specific categories
There are just too many scenarios where there are three or four game specific things: the number of levels in Donkey Kong, the number of levels in Donkey Kong Jr., the number of levels in Donkey Kong 3, the number of minigames in Mario & Luigi: Dream Team, the number of ATVs in Mario Kart 8, the number of minigames in Paper Mario: Color Splash...the list goes on. It's so big of a problem that at least the moves and minigames categories are clogged up, and the problem would have been even more prevalent if not for the franchise-specific categories. Plus, there are gaping inconsistencies all over; why do we not get to create a category on Mario Kart 8s ATVs when we can make a category on Mario Kart 8 Deluxes ATVs? That's not to mention that other wikis, like ZeldaWiki and Bulbapedia, don't even have these kinds of limits. Therefore, I propose that we reduce the minimum number of required entries in game-specific categories from five to three, as that amount makes the most sense to me, though there's also an option for having the minimum at four instead.

And if you're wondering, Porplemontage gave the green light for this proposal.

Proposer: Deadline: August 12, 2018, 23:59 GMT

Three entries

 * 1) My preferred option.

Four entries

 * 1) Second choice, maybe if three ends up being too extravagant.
 * 2) As long as it's game-specific and done to avoid major category clog, I'm fine with this. I just don't want a category for a creature species that has only 3 pages, like some wikis have, clogging everything....(Moving from 3 as this option didn't exist at the time)
 * 3) Three to me is too little. I think four is at least a better minimum.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Sounds good, Per all.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker has four episodes, Donkey Kong Land has four worlds... yeah, this is a necessary change.
 * 9) Four isn't too bad, but if there are useful categories calling for three, then go for it too. No need to enforce such a hard line, so use your common sense if you need to.
 * 10) Per all, especially Bazooka Mario.
 * 11) Per all.

Five entries (keep current limit)

 * 1) - I'm going to agree with the five limit minimum, as if it doesn't have that many entries, the category likely doesn't need to be made in the first place. Having less than five entries just seems too little to me and makes the use of a category unnecessary, especially if there's also a navigation template involved.
 * 2) Per Alex95

Comments
"That's not to mention that other wikis, like ZeldaWiki and Bulbapedia, don't even have these kinds of limits." - I know I've said this several times before, but what other wikis do shouldn't be taken into account for what we do. 20:49, 5 August 2018 (EDT)
 * That doesn't mean that what other wikis do shouldn't be examined to see if and how it fits into what we do. On another note, if you ask me, the glaring omission of feels really inconsistent. Keep in mind, this applies long-term, too, so what you see as a "solution looking for a problem" now might be the exact opposite later on.  21:11, 5 August 2018 (EDT)
 * About the point regarding Mario Kart 8 and Mario Kart 8 Deluxe ATVs, why not just create a category called "Mario Kart 8 and Mario Kart 8 Deluxe ATVs"? Or actually, why do we even need the "Mario Kart 8 Deluxe ATVs" when we already have ATVs as a category? 15:18, 6 August 2018 (EDT)
 * And why is the Inkstriker not in the ATV category? Is it because it's exclusive to Mario Kart 8 Deluxe and would be redundant? If you were to pass the proposal and make the Mario Kart 8 ATV category, would you also remove those Mario Kart 8 entries too (thus the ATV category would still be too small to be its own category, having only two entries, if we're following consistency with how the Inkstriker is categorized) or add the Inkstriker in the ATV category? If not, why create a third nearly-identical category? It makes more sense to me to just have one category called "ATVs" and maybe italicize Inkstriker (if that's possible) and say that italics are exclusive to Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. If a new game comes out with new ATVs, then we can make a new category called "Mario Kart 8 / DX ATVs", something like that. 15:25, 6 August 2018 (EDT)
 * As far as I know, italicizing within categories only happens when redirects are categorized (e.g. Casino Delfino in Category:Casinos). Anyway, I don't see a point to the ATVs category being split either. So far, they only appear in one game and its remake, so it seems really redundant to me. Just because a category can be split doesn't mean it should. 20:26, 6 August 2018 (EDT)
 * I believe the split is to anticipate new games, but for now, I don't see the point in those extra ATV categories. 22:00, 6 August 2018 (EDT)

How about four? 00:11, 6 August 2018 (EDT)
 * Good point. I guess this should be a multi-option proposal then. 00:42, 6 August 2018 (EDT)

Create articles for the various status effects inflicted by Roy in Paper Mario: Color Splash
As it stands, Category:Paper Mario: Color Splash Status Effects is very minimal, and doesn't meet the minimum entries for game-specific categories (more on that in a different proposal (permalink)). Under the current policy, it should be deleted.

However, instead of keeping this category in a grey area, why not add information on the various status effects inflicted in the first segment of the battle with Roy? After all, Poison is one of them, which makes the omission of the other status effects really inconsistent. To break it down for you, here's a full list of the status effects inflicted by Roy:
 * Mario's action command speeds up.
 * Mario can't use cards with blue backgrounds. (conjectural name)
 * Mario's action command slows down. (conjectural name)
 * Mario can only use cards with blue backgrounds.
 * Mario can only use pre-painted cards.

If anyone has official names for the ones listed as conjectural, in the digital manual or otherwise, please feel free to let me know.

Proposer: Deadline: August 13, 2018, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Per proposal.
 * 6) Per all.

Comments
Would that be ? Rage is already a Super Princess Peach vibe. 21:10, 5 August 2018 (EDT)
 * Yes. 21:11, 5 August 2018 (EDT)

I'm curious, why have you given one of the conjectural ones the name of "Rhythm?" Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:15, 5 August 2018 (EDT)
 * Because there isn't really a better conjectural name to give it. If you want the game's description, it's "Mario can't resist the rhythm! Get those blue cards outta here!" Do you, by any chance, happen to have a better conjectural name for it? 00:46, 6 August 2018 (EDT)
 * Nope, I haven't been able to acquire the game yet. I was just curious, as the description in the proposal didn't itself seem to relate. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:24, 6 August 2018 (EDT)

Why not create an article of list of status conditions? Might make more sense if the names are conjectural. 15:28, 6 August 2018 (EDT)


 * I would agree with Bazooka Mario, we should use a list instead.  18:32, 13 August 2018 (EDT)

Stop listing reused artwork as a reference to an older game
Right now, whenever a piece of character artwork is remade/reused, it's considered a reference in the references section. But I say... why? It's a practice Nintendo's been doing for years, and the poses are always very generic. I don't think anyone at Nintendo says "Hey, remember that Mario Party game from 10 years ago? Let's reference it by reusing Bowser's character artwork!". Therefore, I propose we remove any mention of character artwork remakes from the reference sections. (For example, File:WarioGoodQual.PNG vs. File:Wario MP100.png)

Proposer: Deadline: August 29, 2018, 23:59 GMT Date Withdrawn: August 23, 2018, 16:18 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) - Per proposal and comments.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) Per proposal.
 * 5) Reusing artwork isn't Nintendo referencing the source game, it's them saving money.  The artwork rarely even appears in the games!  That said, per proposal.
 * 6) Per all; this has been one thing that has really been a concern for me for years, but not to the magnitude that it is now.

Oppose

 * 1) I liked this proposal better before the change. See my comment below. Furthermore, the change made to the proposal text is waaaaaaay too subtle, to the point that it has the potential to confuse voters; YFJ's vote looks like it was meant for the original proposal.
 * 2) Per 7feetunder, and Mario jc in the comments.

Comments
I'd per support, but that last line gets me. Why not just make it so only actually reused art counts as a reference? 17:57, 22 August 2018 (EDT)
 * The last line refers to "references" such as this: "Puzzle & Dragons: Super Mario Bros. Edition: Artwork of Luigi and Yoshi from this game are reused on one of the smaller banners." What exactly do you dislike about it? -- 19:15, 22 August 2018 (EDT)
 * What I meant was I agree with the whole "this artwork isn't exactly the same as a previous one, so it's not a reference" thing. But why would it be a stretch to say that reusing earlier game artwork in game or for promotional material (the Mario Party and Mario Kart series reuses art on occasion) is a reference? 19:18, 22 August 2018 (EDT)
 * Ah, I see. Yeah, I think that's reasonable. I'll change the proposal. -- 19:37, 22 August 2018 (EDT)
 * Alright, looks good. 19:40, 22 August 2018 (EDT)
 * I disagree entirely. I preferred the original proposal idea and it should still be an option. I completely fail to see how remaking artwork from a previous game is somehow less of a reference than simply reusing it, especially since reusing artwork isn't really a reference to begin with, it's a cost-cutting measure. They don't reuse artwork to reference previous games, they do it because it's less expensive and time-consuming than making new art for every single entry in a franchise that sees the release of such a large number of games. Even setting aside whether or not artwork reuse qualifies as a reference, I don't get how simply remastering the artwork (as shown in the above example) magically makes it completely unrelated. 00:59, 23 August 2018 (EDT)
 * I agree. If anything the remastering is more of a reference than reusing. 02:28, 23 August 2018 (EDT)
 * Yeah, I'm in agreement here. Can I change the proposal now, or would it be better to take it down and start over with more options? -- 12:00, 23 August 2018 (EDT)
 * It's early enough that you have the option to do either. If former, you should message the voters that the proposal has changed. 12:06, 23 August 2018 (EDT)

Would this extend to reusing sound effects and voice clips as well? 02:28, 23 August 2018 (EDT)
 * Not in particular, although I'd like to address that in the future too. -- 12:00, 23 August 2018 (EDT)

Implement "See also" sections in Mario Party minigame and WarioWare microgame articles for related mini/microgames
Since there are so many minigames/microgames, I believe that people who look through them often end up finding one that is similar to what they are looking for but it's not, or they find of and it reminds them of something similar and want to find it. (This happens to me at least.)

I think it would be interesting that to have a "See also" section that we can use to link to mini/microgames that are remarkably similar in concept or theme. For example:
 * Flash Forward: See also Slaparazzi
 * Revolving Fire: See also Hazard Hold
 * Dry Eye: See also Laser Vision
 * Nighttime Allergies: See also Snivel Disobedience and Allergy Attack
 * Hectic Highway: See also Outta My Way and Racing 112
 * Oh, the Irony: See also The Irony
 * Classic Clash I: See also Classic Clash II and Classic Clash III
 * Zero to Hero: See also Bam-Fu and Log Chop
 * Noodle Cup: See also Circuit Path, maybe?
 * Balancing Act: See also Broom Shtick, maybe?

Just to make it clear, we wouldn't do that for microgames that simply have similar gameplay if it's not remarkable, or that simply have a similar character show up as some sort of easter egg (this is more fitting for trivia anyway).

Anyway, having this section would also make it needless to mention the similarities between mini/microgames elsewhere, like in the introduction paragraph or in a trivia section, which is often inconsistent as it is now.

Proposer: Deadline: August 28, 2018, at 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) My proposal, so yeah.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) I also don't think this needs a proposal but it would be really helpful to establish this standard anyway. Though the one concern I have is that are we just going to lump all minigames of this archetype into this list together? Despite having the same concept, Cut from the Team and Cheep Cheep Chance are very thematically differet.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) As long as this proposal is about simply adding the "see also" sections and not removing the existing similarities sentence(s) in the article leads (since there are many different ways to express a similarity between two or more minigames/microgames), I'm all for implementing this. Per all. P.S.: To add to Baby Luigi's comment, Cut from the Team is more similar to Pier Pressure.
 * 6) Adding a "see also" section will be useful for navigation. Per all.
 * 7) This proposal is not needed.
 * 8) I think it is good for organizing the minigames and their similarities, considering that quoting the similarities in the body, in the trivia and in other sections would be confusing. To have it will make the users have a easier way to navigate through the wiki. Supported by me!

Comments
Wouldn't it be better if you also proposed that we did this for Mario Party series minigames as well? 23:59, 20 August 2018 (EDT)
 * Oh, right. I didn't think about that. 00:14, 21 August 2018 (EDT)

I don't really think this needs a proposal. That's pretty much why we include "See also" sections in the first place, to direct readers to other similar subjects. 00:12, 21 August 2018 (EDT)
 * Yeah, but I thought it was just better to see if there were other opinions about it rather than just start mass editing, doing things "my way" without getting any sort of approval. 00:17, 21 August 2018 (EDT)
 * In certain cases (Slaparazzi, for example), it already says it's similar to a previous game. 00:19, 21 August 2018 (EDT)
 * That's right, but it's also about how they are handled. Like, as I said on the last paragraph of the proposal, some articles mention similarities in the introduction paragraph, others in trivia, others in gameplay sections, and others don't mention similar games at all. It's kind of messy. 00:24, 21 August 2018 (EDT)

@Toadette the Achiever It's not; read the last paragraph. It would also be kind of redundant to mention the similarities in the main body and have a "See also" link to that similar microgame. 03:22, 24 August 2018 (EDT)

@Baby Luigi: Yeah, personally I wouldn't list those two minigames together either. When I said "concept", I meant the actions done during the game and the context rather than the gameplay. To be fair, I actually had only microgames in mind when I came up with this, and minigames are just more complicated. But I don't know. I guess that, if this passes, we'll just decide on the go?

Does the movie Pixels warrant guest-appearance coverage?
The thought sparked after reading this statement on the revamped Donkey Kong (franchise) page:

"The original arcade iteration of Donkey Kong appears as the main antagonist in the 2015 film Pixels".

Well, shouldn't it warrant a page then?

After doing some digging, it seems this is most, if not all of DK's screentime in the movie so calling him the "main villain" of the movie is a bit misleading. On the other hand, it still substantial enough that Donkey Kong has some stakes in the plot of the movie (unlike, says, Bowser's cameo in Wreck-It Ralph) and furthermore, according to Wikipedia's summary of the "plot", the Donkey Kong arcade game itself is integral to the movie as it's prominently featured in the oepning scene and it drives one of main character's motivation for the rest of the film. You can split hairs and say the DK in Pixels is not the genuine article but a weird alien recreation of his sprite, but I don't think it's an useful distinction here. Fact is, the use of the Donke Kong intellectual property is more relevant to the plot of Pixels than is Donkey Kong's appearance in the Wii Punch-Out, which squarely meets the current description of what a guest appearance is.

Of course, according to the standards set by Coverage, only the movie itself would get a page and nothing else from it. I don't feel particularly strongly about the outcome either way but I felt this needed to be discussed.

Proposer: Deadline: September 12, 2018, 23:59 GMT

Yes, the movie where Adam Sandler Actually Josh Gad procreates with Q-Bert warrants a wiki page

 * 1) - For the reasons provided above and (mostly) for the sheer absurdity of it.
 * 2) - I have to agree with Glowsquid here. It would be sensible to make an article for Pixels.
 * 3) Personally, I feel Adam Sandler-related content is something that this wiki has been lacking for a long time and I welcome its coverage. Per all.
 * 4) I feel that Donkey Kong is featured prominently enough to have coverage similar to our coverage of The Wizard.
 * 5) Why is it that films centered around video gaming competitions do poorly while films about video game franchises, on the other hand, do much better? Per all.
 * 6) - It wasn't Adam Sandler, it was, jsyk. But yes, per all.
 * 7) Josh Gad is da Devil! Per all, I've been curious about this myself.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) it's spelled "Q*bert", squiddo
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) Unfortunately. Per all.
 * 13) That movie actually had one half-decent action scene with centipedes in the middle fulfills its role as a guest appearance, so per all.

Comments
This proposal is sure to make someone abnormally angry, like an alligator with an enlarged medulla oblongata all them teeth but no toothbrush. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2018 (EDT)

I love the proposal options omg we need more of that. 13:29, 5 September 2018 (EDT)

It would be better if we waited until  also releases, since the film's development team was planning on giving Mario a much larger role than in the. Since the focus on Mario seems roughly equal for both films, maybe...propose both at the same time? Just a thought. 13:33, 5 September 2018 (EDT)
 * Two unrelated medias, two proposals! --Glowsquid (talk) 14:47, 5 September 2018 (EDT)

So, to clarify, we would get a Pixels page, but we would only cover the Donkey Kong information aside from a intro about the movie? 13:33, 5 September 2018 (EDT)
 * We might have to take some queues from the article on The Wizard. 13:35, 5 September 2018 (EDT)
 * Basically yeah. Do a very basic overview of what the film is and what it's about, then talk about what Dong does in it. --Glowsquid (talk) 14:47, 5 September 2018 (EDT)

How about the short film it's based off of? Would it get a section? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2018 (EDT)
 * I don't think it warrants any more coverage than mentioning its existence and status as source material on the movie's page since afaict nothing was licensed. --Glowsquid (talk) 22:11, 5 September 2018 (EDT)

"You can split hairs and say the DK in Pixels is not the genuine article but a weird alien recreation of his sprite, but I don't think it's an useful distinction here."

I guess this is another topic, but does this mean the DK from Pixels gets its own page ala Super Mario Bros. film Mario gets his own page??? 20:01, 9 September 2018 (EDT)
 * "Of course, according to the standards set by Coverage, only the movie itself would get a page and nothing else from it. I don't feel particularly strongly about the outcome either way but I felt this needed to be discussed."
 * It's actually a completely relevant question to ask as Mariowiki:Coverage additionally states " However, if a subject is unique to the game while also being clearly derived from the Mario franchise, they can receive individual articles."

And it's a goond one! Additional discussion would be needed, but my gut reaction is... I s'pose so? --Glowsquid (talk) 08:33, 10 September 2018 (EDT)

Merge Super Mario Land series, Super Mario Maker, Super Mario Run into "Super Mario" series
I know we had this same sort of proposal three years ago, but I feel it's time we bring it back into light, considering there's two more games to consider now, and also just that I feel this warrants a second discussion. To put things simple, as of late, Nintendo has acknowledged the two Super Mario Land titles as part of the main Super Mario series, including them in 30th anniversary material, and listing them alongside the other Super Mario titles on their main website. The distinction between "main games" and "additional games" is a pretty blurred one, if not completely non-existent! But to keep things safe, I'll go ahead and list a few counter-arguments, clarifications, and other additional material I believe may be necessary:


 * Super Mario Land 3: Wario Land would not be counted. It is not listed as part of the Super Mario series in any official Nintendo material, and is more akin to Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island than anything else.
 * Not every game with "Super Mario" in the title will be included. - Again, only things counted by Nintendo in 30th anniversary material and things listed on the official website. No Super Mario Kart, Super Mario Party, and ostensibly Super Paper Mario here.
 * The argument against Super Mario Land & 6 Golden Coins - These titles currently aren't included, as they were not included in the 25th Anniversary material. However, I feel we should consider the 25th Anniversary material in this case the same way we consider Jumpman the Carpenter and Princess Toadstool: something that may have been true at one point, but ultimately is disproven by more recent material. Generally when it comes to a case like this, you take more recent material, especially when it comes from an official source.
 * The argument against Run and Maker - These two titles are currently not included on the account that they diverge heavily from traditional Super Mario gameplay. While this is true, we still should probably take note of official word from Nintendo, by including them alongside the rest. And really, when you get down to it, Super Mario Maker is focused on platforming when it isn't focused on stage-designing, and Super Mario Run could just be considered a traditional Mario game adapted to a new platform, much like how Super Mario 64 adapted the series to 3D.

Relevant pages are Super Mario (series), Super Mario Land (series), Super Mario Land, Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins, Super Mario Maker, and Super Mario Run. While this does affect dozens more, these are the most significant titles.

Proposer: Deadline: September 17, 2018, 23:59 GMT

Merge all four titles into the Super Mario series

 * 1) Per everything I said above.
 * 2) PLEASE. And regarding the "Land games not being in the 25th anniversary book" thing, that's obviously simply because there's no reason to interview Miyamoto, Tezuka, and Kondo about a game they didn't create.
 * 3) It always looked odd that Super Mario 3D Land was part of the Super Mario series but not the other portable game it was named after. Per Nintendo.
 * 4) Changing vote, per LinkTheLefty's comment below. Keep in mind that the Super Mario Land games may still need their own section, given that they appear in the 30th anniversary material but not the 25th anniversary book, and were both developed by a different team anyways. It should also be noted that there were even more opposing arguments in the previous two proposals that may still need to be taken into consideration. Otherwise, per all.
 * 5) I say we merge these titles with the Super Mario series. I've been reading through various articles, and I've noticed many inconsistencies. For example, Sledge Bro's article lists its Super Mario Maker / Super Mario Maker for Nintendo 3DS appearance as a part of the Super Mario series, while Bowser's article DOES NOT list the aforementioned game as one of his Super Mario series appearances. I'm fine if both Super Mario Land games still have a series article of their own, but seriously, we should include said games, Super Mario Maker, and Super Mario Run as part of the Super Mario series, because they aren't all that different from the "main" games. It even says so here. Per all.
 * 6) Per all. Differences in gameplay aren't a substantial reason to discredit a game from the main series. Super Mario Bros. 2 plays very differently from any other main series game, yet it's clearly a main series game. I say, these are too.
 * 7) I do feel this makes sense to do if Nintendo includes the games with the Super Mario series. Something like this is definitely necessary, as I have seen inconsistencies on articles about where these games are listed (sometimes Super Mario Maker and Super Mario Run are listed with the Super Mario games, and sometimes they are alone).
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Per all.

Keep the titles separate, as is now

 * 1) Per the opposes for the last two times this was proposed. Yes, I know Doc von Schmeltwick already tried to clear up the confusion as to why the Super Mario Land titles weren't included in the 25th anniversary book, but that isn't the reason I'm opposing. According to Walkazo's respective votes in this proposal and this proposal, the 30th anniversary stuff leaves out remakes and Lost Levels, while the 25th anniversary book doesn't. Also, is there any official confirmation at all that Super Mario Run is part of the main series? Unless both of these issues are resolved, I'm afraid I'll have to oppose any changes to the series pages.

Comments
To clarify my oppose vote a bit, I'm not opposed to including Super Mario Run in the series page, I just want to know if Nintendo has officially considered that game as part of the Super Mario series. Of course we can't rely on 30th anniversary info since that was about a year before Super Mario Run, but is there anything else? Go ahead, I'll wait. 09:02, 10 September 2018 (EDT)
 * The Japanese and English official websites include Super Mario Maker and Super Mario Run as part of the main Super Mario series, as well as the two Super Mario Land games; admittedly, The Lost Levels was removed from the latter, but given its release history in the west and how it's billed as a "special version of the original" instead of a numbered sequel, it's understandable (also note that Super Mario USA is listed in Japanese release order on the original site, which pushes technical release chronology). As for remakes like Super Mario 64 DS, I'm unsure how that was ever a factor when we already list them in subsections. LinkTheLefty (talk) 09:11, 10 September 2018 (EDT)

"and is more akin to Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island than anything else." But isn't that also regarded by Nintendo as part of the Super Mario series? 20:47, 10 September 2018 (EDT)
 * No, that's why it's not listed on Mario Portal. Miyamoto said years ago he considers it part of the "core series of platformers," but that's a bit vague. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:24, 10 September 2018 (EDT)

Determine whether reused artwork is a reference
Right now, whenever a piece of character artwork is remade/reused, it's considered a reference in the references section. But I say... why? It's a practice Nintendo's been doing for years, and the poses are always very generic. I don't think anyone at Nintendo says "Hey, remember that Mario Party game from 10 years ago? Let's reference it by reusing Bowser's character artwork!".

Because there's several variables, there are a few different options for this proposal:
 * Only reused artwork is a reference: Only instances where the exact artwork is reused will be considered a reference.
 * Only remastered artwork is a reference: Only instances where the artwork is remade will be considered a reference. For example, Wario's artwork from Mario Party: The Top 100 would be a Super Mario 64 DS reference because it's a remake of his older artwork.
 * Neither are a reference: Self-explanatory, all mentions of reused artwork in any form would be removed from the references sections.
 * Both are a reference: Nothing happens, both continue to be considered a reference.
 * Determine on a case-by-case basis: Artwork reuse being a reference would be determined on a case-by-case basis, similar to other elements of games like reused enemies.

Proposer: Deadline: August 30, 2018, 23:59 GMT Extended to September 6, 2018, 23:59 GMT Extended to September 13, 2018, 23:59 GMT Extended to September 20, 2018, 23:59 GMT

Only reused artwork is a reference

 * 1) - Per my original thoughts.
 * 2) - Per proposal.

Only remastered artwork is a reference

 * 1) Remaking an artwork is at the very least giving a specific nod to an element of a game, if not the entire game. Artwork is an element as much as sprites or quotes.
 * 2) Per Baby Luigi's comment. At this point, artwork from the Mario Party games has been reused so many times, it's hardly a reference anymore.

Neither are a reference

 * 1) Per proposal + my comment on the previous take.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) - Per all
 * 7) Don't see why they are a reference
 * 8) - This is my second option, seeing that the first option is automatically failing.
 * 9) - Per all. Maybe with remastered art it should be noted that it's a remaster, but either way I wouldn't call it a "reference".

Determine on a case-by-case basis

 * 1) This proposal is clearly better off as a discussion, but I'm going for this option since it's at least an opener for further discussion.
 * 2) Gonna vote here as well since this option now exists, and I see the merits of both.
 * 3) The context surrounding the artwork is far more important into establishing whenever it's a reference. In many contexts, however, especially related to more general artwork, which are later to be used as stock work, this is not true. For instance, it's silly to say that the artwork that appears in New Super Mario Bros. is a reference to Mario Party 6 since it appeared in Mario Party 6 first (if not earlier). If there is important information about how the artwork is reused, especially if it's reused prominently the point it's associated, it should be instead be noted in the file page as well as be categorized in the file page as artwork for those multiple games (e.g. that Mario artwork should be considered Mario Party 6 AND New Super Mario Bros. art). But there are other instances of art where I'd argue that it would be a reference; Mario & Luigi and Mario Strikers art, for instance, are highly stylized so their appearances in other games are references. Even iconic art like the Super Mario Bros. pictures should probably be recognized as a reference if it appears anywhere else. Another reason context matters much is if hypothetically, Super Mario 64-era Mario artwork gets reused. Back then, it's used in more general promotional advertising so its being reused in similar games would've not really been a reference. But it's no longer getting used, so if one sees it in a newer game, would it be a reference? I'd really say if it's more case-by-case especially if artwork start receiving diminished use in the future as rendering technology continues improving and designs continue evolving. So far, a lot of the GCN/Wii/Wii U era art is getting used, even after being re-rendered, but there might be an interesting argument in the future once the that era art stops becoming stock.
 * 4) Per Bazooka Mario.
 * 5) Per all
 * 6) Some are references, perhaps, like Bazooka Mario's point about unique art styles, but some are stock artwork. Usually the latter. Really, the best course of action is not to make a solid rule and decide for each image as the issue comes about.
 * 7) - Second choice.
 * 8) - Per Bazooka Mario, and the discussion in the comments. It's like how bringing back a Goomba wouldn't count as a Super Mario Bros. reference, whereas bringing back something like a Hooligon might count as a Super Paper Mario reference.
 * 9) - Per Bazookario.

Comments
I think this should be applied in the same mannerism as we already handle references for policy: referencing Super Mario Bros. because Goombas appear in the game is ludicrous, so saying that Baby Luigi's artwork in promotional material are all references to Mario Kart Wii (which in turn is a reference to Luigi's pose from DDR: Mario Mix) is a bit ludicrous. So in that way, I accept remaking/remastering artwork only when it reuses artwork from that specific game instance, such as Bowser's very specialized, dancing artwork that isn't reused all that often to begin with being reused for Mario Sports Superstars. Artwork such as Waluigi's crouching pose, Yoshi's running pose from Mario Party 8, ie any artwork that gets reused very often, should not be labeled as references. 13:25, 23 August 2018 (EDT)
 * Yes, by then it's stock artwork. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:27, 23 August 2018 (EDT)
 * I'll also add that some artwork gets edited without it being necessarily a reference: Bowser Jr.'s artwork in Mario Party: Star Rush is an edited version of his artwork in Mario Tennis: Ultra Smash, but that doesn't mean that they wanted to reference said game. Actually, I frankly don't think that in most cases the artwork which is reused or remastered is a reference to the original game for which the original artwork was made. I'd rather talk about sourcing in these cases, but we don't have any way to make this distinction at the moment.--Mister Wu (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2018 (EDT)

I say that I don't like any of the options in this proposal. My conclusion is this: some reused artworks are references, many of them aren't, but that doesn't mean no reused artworks aren't references to past games. 16:57, 24 August 2018 (EDT)
 * Agreed; it's better if this was case-by-case, rather than catch-all. 17:01, 24 August 2018 (EDT)
 * I've added a fifth option, since this seems to be a popular opinion. -- 17:28, 24 August 2018 (EDT)
 * The problem I have with it is that it's pretty vague. 17:42, 24 August 2018 (EDT)
 * Yeah, it is pretty vague. I like the idea, but since it's too vague, I don't think I can vote for it. For me, most should follow under what I voted for. 17:38, 25 August 2018 (EDT)

Require users with accounts on other NIWA websites to mention their usernames on that Wiki
So while looking at talk pages of banned users, I came across people saying "being banned on one Wiki will hurt your credibility on this wiki" such as this:

I thought to myself that if having a bad record on one Wiki would be a factor in you being banned, promoted, whatever on another wiki, everyone should be required to list all their NIWA usernames on their userpage of this wiki so we would have a better record of your posting history. So I am known as Croconaw2000 on Bulbapedia and Bowser vs Bowser Jr. on SmashWiki, therefore I would list both usernames on my userpage here and anything wrong I do on that wiki would reflect on my behaviour here. Any usernames you list would have to be updated for name changes on that wiki too.

Anyone with an account on the DK wiki would not have to list their username because that wiki will soon be merged with this one.

Proposer: Deadline: September 21, 2018, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal

Oppose

 * 1) Per my comments.
 * 2) Per Bazooka Mario, and i don't think being promoted or blocked in one wiki should affect another wiki - After all, different wikis have different rules.
 * 3) Nowhere (as far as I know) on our policy pages does it mention that a decision to ban a user is even partly based on whether they're blocked elsewhere on NIWA. And why make users update their user page whenever they change their username on another NIWA wiki? It's just an unnecessary hassle.
 * 4) Outside of exceptional circumstances (such as confirmed pedophilia charges), we ban users based on bad behavior in MarioWiki, not behavior in other Wikis.
 * 5) - Listing who you are on other wikis is completely optional, can even be done with . Jurisdiction on banned users is completely up the admins, but their behavior on other wikis doesn't effect their ban here.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all. It wouldn't be fair to anyone at all, and it is indeed true that different wikis have different rules.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Unless there was an actual, verifiable potential for cross-wiki abuse, I see this more as detrimental than beneficial. It's the reason Wikipedia only blocks certain users on their site for bad behavior only on their sites by default, and saving the "global lock" feature for users who cause problems on other Wikimedia projects. Not that this is negotiable anyways, since the admins have the final say in how the rules for blocking/unblocking users are determined, so don't be surprised if this gets vetoed sooner or later.
 * I have to agree with everyone here. There's really no point in having every single user on this wiki list their all of their possible usernames (one on this wiki, and other ones on other wikis). On top of that, not everyone on this wiki can be found across NIWA; there are some users, like me, who've only created accounts for the Super Mario Wiki. Now what does this "security system" do? I don't see much benefit, or even ambivalence, in keeping track of interwiki records, unless, as Bazooka Mario stated, a user has confirmed criminal charges of sorts. Per all.
 * 1) Per all, this is unnecessary.
 * 2) Per all. I'd say something witty here, but everyone else brought up really strong points.
 * 3) The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, nor does it need to. Some users may have legitimate reasons to not WANT to link to somewhere else, particularly given different places will have different standards depending on the primary demographic of the franchise in question, given some other Nintendo franchises may have comparatively violent-ish or sexual-ish content (like Fire Emblem, perhaps).
 * 4) Per all.

Comments
This seems like it would be a lot of effort to enforce with very little benefits. What would stop a user from lying and saying that they don't have accounts on other wikis? Sure, Checkuser exists, but are we really going to bother the admins of every single NIWA wiki to check EVERY user here just to verify that they don't? -- 12:17, 14 September 2018 (EDT)

Well I didn't know of the NIWA template. It's very interesting indeed. And I wouldn't say that your actions on another wiki determine you should be banned or promoted here, but I figured it counts as a good reference. I do remember seeing an user here (don't remember the name) who's actions on SmashWiki had some influence on permabanning the user. 00:16, 15 September 2018 (EDT)

Update the Manual of Style to discourage contractions on the wiki
First of all, I'm aware this proposal might sound pedantic. It's perfectly fine to use in every day speech and writing because it's easier than to use the whole structure when it doesn't matter that much; see, I just did that four times now. However, they do sound unprofessional on a site that is treated as an encyclopedia. Using structures such as "it's" and "don'ts" in main space sentences create the impression of a personal addressing to the reader, much like the use of "you's" would. Therefore, I propose that the manual of style be updated to simply state that contractions are not really welcome on the wiki, and that current instances should be expanded to their full forms when spotted. I'm not saying the manual should downright enforce writing without contractions because that would be a colossal maintanance undertaking. But really, what you do when you contract a structure is basically replace one letter with an apostrophe. I don't think omitting one letter reduces the effort, and frankly, sometimes it's annoying to see that so aggressively put in practice.

Proposer: Deadline: October 20, 2018, 23:59 GMT

Do it

 * 1) This can't, I mean cannot be accepted much longer.
 * 2) I agree. It should not be 'Mario can't do it'. It must be 'Mario cannot do it.'
 * 3) - I've been writing like this anyway when it comes to content pages, so I guess I've already agreed.
 * 4) I’ve recently been removing some contractions when preforming maintenance edits to articles, so I do not have a problem with doing this.
 * 5) I know we aren't (are not) Wikipedia. However, it does do this. And if it works there, it should work here too. As long as it doesn't effect official contractions (quotes and article titles), I am ok with this. Even though, I am part of the problem thus far. So, I per the proposal.
 * 6) *looks forlornly at the glitch pages*
 * 7) This change would definitely improve the overall quality of the writing on the wiki, and saying Donkey kong did not do it sounds a lot better than Donkey kong didn't do it, in my opinion.
 * 8) Contractions are a type of slang, which already contradict most style guides anyway. Support.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) I will admit, I fall a bit short of being able to say I support this fully, however I believe I will cast a vote of approval. While it could propose minor problems for those with less integrity in their sentence form, I do believe it can still be put into effect, especially if every change, major and minor, is examined for contractions. It would take quite an effort, but in the end, I do see this significantly improving the appearance of the Wiki’s pages. You have my approval.
 * 11) I could have sworn this was a rule already, but I strongly support this proposal to make it one.  Per all.
 * 12) I try to not use contractions when possible. In fact, I remember Wikipedia having this in their manual of style.

Don't

 * 1) While I'm not entirely against this proposal, I feel that, as Super Radio mentioned before, it is huge maintenance to remove contractions, and monitor their use on this wiki. It is somewhat contradictory to enforce a rule against the usage of contractions, because the manual of style uses contractions quite a lot for its explanations. We just need to discuss when contractions will not be tolerated, and when they're just fine to use.
 * 2) I think contractions are fine. I do agree that they can get out of hand sometimes, but it's better to just fix a few small instances of contraction overdose than discourage contractions entirely.
 * 3) Changing vote, as this seems unnecessary.
 * 4) I seriously do not see why our not being able to use contractions whenever necessary would be unprofessional. The only thing that's a definite standard is not using the word "you" in mainspace articles since this is to be treated like an "encyclopedia site". So I'm voting no here.
 * 5) While I prefer in most cases that contractions not be used, I feel drawing a hard line is going too far, as there are cases where it actually does make a sentence flow better, in my opinion. It should be a suggestion, not a rule. This is like that coin capitalization debacle from a year or so ago.
 * 6) Per all.

Comments
While I certainly agree, I don't think we should draw a hard line on using contractions, just notify users when they use them, like what we already do for users who forget to use proper italics. 13:01, 13 October 2018 (EDT)
 * True, maybe I should have worded my proposal this way... -- 13:04, 13 October 2018 (EDT)

@MarioManiac1981: The proposal only addresses content in main space articles (Super Mario Bros., Princess Peach, Super Mushroom etc.), not talk pages and project pages, like this one or the guidelines. -- 15:18, 13 October 2018 (EDT)

@Yoshi the SSM: Don't be so harsh on yourself :) -- 16:46, 13 October 2018 (EDT)

Merge most game modes into their respective game articles
There has been some debate over whether certain game modes deserve to have separate articles. I disagree. does too, but he suggested that I still discuss this first. My rationale for proposing this might not be a good CliffsNotes version, however, so I'll use a rather large rationale formulated by here roughly two years ago: "Ok (directed primarily at ), so I keep reverting edits because some people (cough3DPlayer2010coughcough)think Toad Scramble, Coinathlon, Boo's Block Bash, etc. deserve to get their own articles. I firmly don't, and I'll explain why. First of all, your comparisons are very weak. Lab Brats for starters is'' a selectable minigame in the minigame mode alongside the other rare minigames like Seer Terror, Dunk Bros., so that's the reason it gets its own article. Super Duel Mode is far more in-depth and plays a lot differently than any mode of this game, and the only reason it got an article compared to Coinathlon because it has its own set of unlockables, maps, stats, and well, tons of separate content in this mode that can easily make it into a designated article without bloating the page up. Here, Boo's Block Party is a simple side mode in a similar vein to the side minigame games like Treetop Bingo, Battle Bridge, etc and it doesn't have enough content in it to justify its own article without being redundant or information that can be easily stated in this article. For Beach Volley Folley, it's in a similar situation as Super Duel Mode, but it has appeared in more than one game as well as being classified as a minigame rather than its own mode like Coinathlon. All modes easily fit in this article: Toad Scramble is the main meat of the game and the article should cover it without splitting things up. Coinathlon isn't a hard-to-understand mode with tons and tons of its own content, its analogous to Balloon Battle from the Mario Kart games. Balloon Bash plays very similarly to Toad Scramble except there's a different goal and some slightly different mechanics here and there. Rhythm Recital is in the same situation as Coinathlon, it doesn't have enough separate content in there to justify its own article, just like the minigame side modes in Minigame Modes in earlier Mario Parties. Challenge Tower can fit in this article too, everything that is needed to be said about Challenge Tower, this article covers. Hell, the rest of the modes are like that: everything that needs to be said can be said in the Gameplay section of this article and it doesn't look too overly bloated. The only mode that got its own article was the Character Museum, and for good reasons too, because it's a collectible list thing of the game like the Star Bank or something like that."''

That also sums up my rationale for why these should not warrant articles. I should also add that we already don't have articles on Mario vs. Luigi, Free-for-All, Monster Megamix, Wario Interrupts, etc., something to keep in mind. Therefore, I propose we merge any minor game modes into their parent articles. There are a few exceptions, such as Super Duel Mode, Challenge Mode (New Super Mario Bros. U), and Character Museum, as those are distinct modes that are too expansive to include in the parent articles; other than the exceptions, I think we're doing the wiki a favor by merging these game modes into the parent articles.

Proposer: (blocked) Deadline: October 22, 2018, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) As this would improve the overall consistency on the wiki, I agree with this proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal. I also made additional quips here if anyone is interested.

Oppose

 * 1) Not sure I like the honestly rather vague and often opinionated differentiation criteria listed above. The whole thing is honestly rather vague. Personally, I'd prefer anything that isn't an archetypical game mode (ie "single player," "story mode," etc) get separate consideration case-by-case.
 * 2) I’m afraid I cannot say that all minigame-type articles should be limited to their respective games. Rather, would it not be more logical to simply condense all specific minigames and modes of a particular game into another article, with the commonly used “Main Article” link? This would open up a lot of room for more detailed information as well. I believe that would be the ideal compromise...
 * 3) At it's current stage this proposal is to vague. Does it only cover those articles specifically mentioned by the proposer? WHat is the criteria laid out to decide which modes should be merged if they aren't covered in this proposal?
 * 4) I don't see the point in doing this. Per all.
 * 5) We have articles on every minigame and every mission of a game, i honestly don't see why we can't have articles on game modes. Per all.
 * 6) Per Chester Alan Arthur.
 * 7) - Per Doc and myself in the comments.
 * 8) Changing vote, I realize I now agree with the majority.
 * 9) Changing vote. Per all.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Per all.

Comments
We need to set an actual limit we can work from rather than use the weasely "most" game modes. But even if we just do end up have a case-by-case purge, having a list would be useful, and for subsequent game modes, it would require discussion. 22:25, 15 October 2018 (EDT)
 * Yeah, was about to say so myself. In my support vote, I did link to my post of a list on what is expected to be merged as a result from this proposal. Feel free to provide a more comprehensive one than mine. 22:27, 15 October 2018 (EDT)

I'd rather this be done on a case-by-case basis. The mode that brought this up in the first place, Boss Rush, I think has enough content to stand on its own. Modes should start on a main game page, and then separated when it's agreed to split them. 17:25, 17 October 2018 (EDT)

Citing the Super Mario Encyclopedia
To quote the wonderful Super Mario Wiki Twitter, "Dark Horse's English translation of the Super Mario Bros. encyclopedia is out today!.. And it turns out it liberally borrows from the wiki, consistency and accuracy be damned." The link contains quite a few examples and images, but in short, hordes of names are taken from either this wiki or the Mario Wikia verbatim, even if it contradicts the original Japanese encyclopedia, isn't originally from English, or was completely conjectural in the first place. This is different from the oft-cited dubiousness of other guides, which are mostly fine with occasional errors that can easily be set aside. Frankly, if we were to blindly and wholly cite every name in this book, we'd be citing ourselves, and that just seems disastrous for credibility. It's also doubtful, if not outright improbable, that these names were specifically chosen by the authors because they sincerely believed that each and every one of them were perfectly acceptable names in English, especially when they're Japanese transliterations that don't even match the Japanese book. The fact that this book is official is worth considering, but it doesn't mean that it should automatically be accepted without at least taking into account the quality issues that were previously mentioned.

With that said, there are certain names that seem to not originate from the wiki, such as "Sentry Garage" for Jump Garage, and with a lack of an English source, using that seems okay. On the one hand, it'd be like we're picking and choosing what's valid and what isn't, but on the other hand, it's plainly obvious which names were directly borrowed from the wiki, and therefore which names can be easily ignored. Think of it as salvaging whatever parts we can from a trainwreck. EDIT: However, Vent's point about these names potentially stemming from the wiki is also valid, and it's definitely worth considering.

Whether the guide is completely barred from being cited or is only allowed to be partially cited, let me make one thing abundantly clear: we shouldn't allow citogenesis to creep onto our wiki.

Proposer: Deadline: October 30, 2018, 23:59 GMT

Only allow part of the book to be cited

 * 1) - I'm for siting names the book uses for something we don't already have an official source for. If we've found an official source already (such as the Keronpa Ball), then we ignore the name the book uses.
 * 2) - Like Alex95 said above, I'm for citing names of enemies in the book itself which have no other official English sources, like Chibi Wanwan ("Chibi Chomp"), King Bill (Banzai Bill) ("Banzai Bull's-Eye"), but for everything else, it shouldn't be used.
 * 3) Per Alex95.
 * 4) If it weren't so obvious that the names were directly copied from the wiki by Dark Horse (who clearly made no effort to understand how this wiki works), I'd vote for the above option. If it gave us no new names for conjectural subjects, then I'd obviously vote below. But I see no way we can pass up this chance for the King Bill issue (among others) to be cleared up. This was meant to be a translation. Dark Horse gave us English names for some things and totally failed on others. So we take the English names and leave the foreign ones as is. The book was approved by Nintendo, not made by them, making it lower tier in terms of.... well, canon, even though Mario doesn't have one of those. Therefore, I think we can a bit more nitpicky about what names we take and which ones we don't.   Am I making any sense?
 * 5) Per all. Also, if it was part of the naming page, I say the best bet would be current number 4 with margin of new 4 to new 5, as oppose of new 2 or 3 like if it wasn't this way.
 * 6) per all
 * 7) Per BubbleRevolution, Mr. L, and LinkTheLefty. I feel if an enemy otherwise doesn't have an official English name, it's probably best to use whichever one it's given in the book, since otherwise, I don't know if we'll ever get names that are "more official."
 * 8) It's still official material, even if our wiki is the original source for a few of the names.  But the ones that didn't originate from the wiki are perfectly okay to cite.  Not to mention the King Bill madness that drove me crazy ever since I joined...so per all.
 * 9) Per all
 * 10) It's officially licensed material, we'd easily side with this had copyright on our very own site not been an issue.
 * 11) Per Owencrazyboy9. Would it make the actual Skull Box named Torpedo Ted Launch Pad?
 * 12) I’m as disappointed about the copied transliterations as the next person, but in my opinion that shouldn’t stop us from using the other, perfectly fine English names that came out of it, and I don’t expect to see an opportunity for further corroboration anytime soon. Especially for already confusing names like King Bill that will only continue to confuse wiki newcomers in the future.
 * 13) As flimsy as the English translation ended up, this reminds me of the time that Prima directly reused material for their unofficial/unauthorized Yoshi's Story guide in their officially-licensed Nintendo 64 Game Secrets guide, and we cite officialized English names through the latter such as "Shy Guys on Pogo Sticks" that would otherwise never be available. Ignoring it completely would have been counterproductive, and I feel the same about Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia. Either way, Nintendo approved the final product, and you can bet there are going to be very few (if any) opportunities of these old conjectural and foreign names ever getting cleared up, so we have to work with what we've got.
 * 14) Per all. After all, some names in the book (i.e, Targeting Ted Launch Pad), to my knowledge, are entirely new and not copy-and-pasted from the wiki.

Do not allow the book to be cited

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Citogenesis is kinda not cool and stuff.
 * 3) The book should not be cited at all, since it contains unofficial names. But since it is an official book, the book should have its own page, with mentions that some names in it are unofficial names taken from this and other wikis, so it doesn't count as a source. We don't know if the unique names in it are from other unofficial places, so we can't risk having fake information on the wiki. We could make redirects for those fake names (with the reason being that it's in an official book), but since they're mostly fan names, those names shouldn't appear on normal pages. That's just my opinion though. Please don't make this an official source...
 * 4) I had a feeling this would happen. Dark Horse has somehow managed to get worse from Arts & Artifacts.
 * 5) Per all. Many of these names were clearly taken from this wiki, since they use names that were marked as conjectural on here, such as "Soarin' Stu" and "Mandibug Stack", and are incredibly inconsistent.
 * 6) Per Glowsquid and Metalex123, this would not be a good precedent and would generate confusion.
 * 7) Per Anton, Glowsquid, and Metalex123.
 * 8) If you ask me, the fact that citing parts of this book is basically the same as citing ourselves ruins its credibility as a whole.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Metalex made a solid point. And honestly, this is making me question official terms to begin with...
 * 12) I unironically like the idea of the wiki making things canon, but that's a bad idea for non-English names and I'd rather have it all or nothing. So nothing it is. Per all.
 * 13) Per all. Especially Metalex makes the perfect point.
 * 14) Per Glowsquid and Metalex, plus the thing I pointed out in the Discord about even the supposed original names such as 'Sentry Garage' may still be based on mangled information they found on this Wiki. Citing them could be seen as something of an endorsement and I don't believe such sloppy work deserves to be endorsed.
 * 15) I don't strongly support either position, just leaning on playing extra cautious. I just want to see how this pans out in the end. Maybe they will clean up their act, Dark Horse. But I feel this is a huge policy decision, especially now that the book is circulated in the Mario fandom. How are we going to proceed in responding to potential editors who don't realize that the names from Dark Horse aren't to be used for the wiki? Do we use a template? Do we add a refnote at the source? Do we write policy and put that in a template (e.g., containing text that says why it's not a good source) that becomes the automatic response?
 * 16) Hopefully you all still allow very inactive users to vote. I'm going with this option for two reasons. 1) The names are sloppy at best, and unethical plagiarism at worst. It's clear to everyone who has voted for any option thus far that outright using the encyclopedia as a source would be unacceptable, and I agree with that. Similarly, see Metalex123's response. 2) I don't know how we decide what should be cited from the book. Where do we draw the line? What is reasonable to take? Do we take some of the Japanese names, but not all? It's messy, and to me, it feels like an attempt to pick and choose what's official and what's not official. I don't think that should be up to us, and (while this is a slippery slope argument) I can imagine it causing canon and consistency problems in the future.
 * 17) Also, this especially applies if other official or officially licensed material outright contradicts the Super Mario Encyclopedia - it may be officially licensed, but does (potentially) involve the fanmade cooperation of this wiki and has no authority on things that other sources have already given - in fact, that should apply for things that other sources *don't* give as well. It's like, in analogy, how the official English dub of Pokémon has no authority over events in the original dialogue more than any fandub would as it, in many cases, makes crap up and sometimes even outright mistranslates things (such as mistranslating move names and having the characters call out the wrong move), as any fandub could do - just like fansubs and fandubs, the people who work on Pokémon's English dub are referring to source material and have no authority on what the source material unarguably says. But to get off that tangent before I ramble on any further: the same goes for whether the names found in the encyclopedia are sourced from Nintendo or are made up by the third party licensee. If they don't get it from Nintendo, the name can be treated with only the same amount authority as a fanmade name. Likewise, if the first party source does start putting a fan name into official usage (this happened for Shiny Pokémon), then yes it can be used.
 * 18) Per all.
 * 19) They give the names from the wiki, and i realize it isn't Nintendo of America who translated this.
 * 20) The initially known issues don't even begin to scratch the surface. There are countless mistakes that add up to give the impression that the English translation simply ceased over a year ago after steadfast overreliance on the wiki, providing a particular time capsule of factually incorrect and outdated information throughout the book. The wiki itself is a constant work-in-progress, and to say that an officially licensed product looking up to it is unprofessional would be an understatement. While there are outliers, any potential benefit the book might have had is seriously outweighed by the actual damage, and so it doesn't feel right to use it as a source unless a revised edition ever comes to fruition that fixes all of these problems.
 * 21) Per all. I'm so glad the conjectural Super Mario Land 2 enemy names I made up as a kid got replaced, yikes.
 * 22) This discovery has me at quite a quandary. We will never be 100% certain if names are official or not for each and every case in the book. I'm left with voting like this. Maybe if there is a revised edition we can cite it, but for this first edition, no.
 * 23) Per all.
 * 24) Per all, with emphasis on BazookaMario's question. I thought allowing non-Wiki originated names to be cited would be reasonable at first, but if the main justification is "we can't miss this chance" then I'm going to say that it is absolutely worth missing the chance if it means we keep our integrity as a Wiki. Yes, it may be a long time before we get this kind of official source for a lot of things, but this is like selling a broken car that you sort of fixed at full price. We would open up the door to citogenesis even just by voting to pick out only some of the official names, because that leaves so many things undefined and each one of the affected Wiki pages becomes a special case. It's far better to just be patient again and wait for a better and more definitive source.
 * 25) Per all, after further research was made about the encyclopedia.
 * 26) I feared the book might not have been completely reliable, but I didn't expect that it would have quite frequently used wikis to get names, even when said names were conjectural or didn't follow the policies of the wikis themselves. At this point, it's better to just tell the editors not to use this book as a reliable source of information regarding names, since it isn't.
 * 27) It's kind of interesting how no one voted to cite the book (Option 1), and for good reason. But, even though I'm voting for this side, that doesn't mean we can't use the new names from it that we've never used before, like say Bull's-Eye Banzai and Targeting Ted Launch Pad, to name some examples. Almost everything else that hasn't officially been named in Nintendo media; games, music, strategy guides, etc. has to go. Per all.
 * 28) Since we're against citogenesis, and we can't necessarily validate non-Wiki names (i.e. we can't be sure they weren't simply pulled from other fan material), the whole book is cast in too much doubt to be used as a reliable source.

Comments
Yes, they do, hence my fury when the SML2 page was leaked. But Rudy the Clown is still on that name. It's licensed by Nintendo, though, so perhaps it's this trope at play. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2018 (EDT)
 * Maybe we should reconsider Rudy the Clown. Regardless, when the authors of the book are supposed to be translating from a source that already provides a slew of official names, smushing together all of the fan names and other junk reeks more of laziness or complacentness rather than a dedicated effort to ascend the fanon. 17:59, 23 October 2018 (EDT)
 * What about the individual Three Little Pighead names? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2018 (EDT)
 * Hence the middle option (although since those names are transliterated Japanese unlike Sentry Garage, I'm curious to know if those are from the Japanese guide). 18:03, 23 October 2018 (EDT)
 * Same situation exists with the Furiko obstacle. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:05, 23 October 2018 (EDT)

The Super Mario Wiki is neither owned by nor affiliated with Nintendo or the creators of the Mario franchise in any way. I'm mad at Dark Horse right now. Anyway... This is extremely unlikely, but the idea just popped into my head of an entire template being created that somehow informs the reader that the name was officially adopted despite the subject never having an official English name prior to the wiki naming it. (I'm sure that can be worded better.) But that's nothing more than a brainstorm. 18:12, 23 October 2018 (EDT)
 * Per what I said to Doc and within the proposal, it feels unlikely that the writers are genuinely making an attempt to officially adopt these name, especially since this is supposed to be a translation. 18:15, 23 October 2018 (EDT)

If the partial citation option wins, we should clarify the placement of the book among acceptable sources for naming. I suggest either specifying that it gets lowest priority in officially licensed media, or giving it a special sixth place underneath development names. That way, it handles conjectural and foreign names as needed, but we still clearly use older or alternate names in the event of contradictions. LinkTheLefty (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2018 (EDT)
 * Could you give an example of when this would come into effect? 18:46, 23 October 2018 (EDT)
 * It seems like we have some articles that are already in effect when the Super Mario Land 2 page was shown off, like Be. LinkTheLefty (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2018 (EDT)
 * Those are just transliterations of the Japanese names that the wiki was already using, though. Especially since they obfuscate its origins and removes the macrons and other accents for pronunciation, I wouldn't be comfortable citing the book for those enemies. 18:54, 23 October 2018 (EDT)
 * Perhaps, but apparently other cases in separate sections like Red Skull Boxes are now identified as Targeting Ted Launch Pads, which I'm fairly certain is a brand new name (correct me if it's from elsewhere). I don't have my hands on a copy yet, so I can't point out other examples right now. LinkTheLefty (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2018 (EDT)
 * Page 211: "They [Torpedo Teds] swim straight forward through the water. Some are propelled from Launch Pads." It's a bit of a generic name, but I'd accept "Launch Pad". 19:10, 23 October 2018 (EDT)
 * It occurred to me that the possible reason the Super Mario Land 2 names are so literal might actually be for consistency with the original Super Mario Land names. As for Dark Horse taking names online, that is unfortunate but people should be aware that Prima has been caught doing the same so it is not a new phenomenon. I have a copy of the Japanese version, so in advance of the English release, I've also mentioned most of the affected articles here. Even with discrepancies and such (which I imagine should be largely eliminated by forgoing the full citation option), you could see that a fair amount of the wiki's conjectural and foreign tags would still be easily cleaned up with just the partial citation option. Or we can take a more case-by-case approach if it is best. LinkTheLefty (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2018 (EDT)
 * I received a copy earlier, and the first thing I did was flip to the SML section to check the new name of the Roto-Disc-looking obstacle that the Japanese version calls Kaitensuru Honō ("Spinning Flame") only to find, to my great dismay, that it's labeled as ROTO-DISC. In addition to the Kuromame mix-up, there are a lot of other oddities that stood out to me like the off "Game Boy Player's Guide" names reused in the SML section, Para-Bob-omb and Red Spike Top in the SMW section, directly adding that Bubba is the alternative name of Boss Bass in the SM64 section, Sentry Beam getting its Japanese name Laser Pod and Jump Beamer getting the name of Sentry Beam, Spoing suddenly known as "Bouncing Scuttlebug" in SMG yet named properly in SMG2 (Sprangler is intact in both sections), Hefty and Big Goombas in the NSMBU section respectively and erroneously referred to as Big and Mega Goombas in the NSMBW section (as we did), and the general use of certain terms that I'm aware originated from this very wiki from mostly over a year ago such as Pipe Fist, Fire Jumping Piranha, Killer Chair, Fish Bone and Tweester in SMG, Starbag, Rainbow Note, Ghost Vase, Whimp, Mega Grrrol, conjectural Sunshine NPCs, Switchback Platform, and the transliterations in the SML2 section (as I now realize they must be from us outside of the Three Little Pigheads' individual names because the original Japanese version of the Encyclopedia plainly gave the name of "Bomubomu" as "Bomubomu 1・2・3" and also gave the name of "Be" as the alternate "B Fly"). I could keep going, but this is such a surreal doozy. On the other hand, Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia happens to be the only modern source I've found that gives Cape Mario its correct name of Caped Mario. Go figure.
 * I'll admit, this is more unusable than I thought and it's no wonder that no one wants to go for the full citation option, but I do see some instances of passable localization buried in it (seemingly courtesy of the other translator if we're being honest, though regardless it needed tighter quality control as it doesn't exactly inspire confidence in Nintendo for allowing a product's release in this rough state, especially after such a long delay). If the partial citation option passes, I believe we can work with the following: Falling Ceiling, Scenic Course (unique translation!) and other SML2 locations including the Casino, Giant Gringill, Chibi Chomp, Ground Urchin, Remote-Controlled Clown Car, [Torpedo Ted] Launch Pad, Targeting Ted Launch Pad, Piranha Pod, and possibly other names for things we do not yet have any name for (e.g. Lemmy and Wendy's "Decoy Doll" from SMW or the "Innertube Goomba" and "Skating Goomba" from SM3DW).
 * If we go with the no cite option, I'd assume it should at least be acceptable to use Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia for redirect purposes only, since that would otherwise confuse casual readers. LinkTheLefty (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2018 (EDT)
 * Um, "Tweester" in SMG was on a trading card for ages.... Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:21, 24 October 2018 (EDT)
 * So essentially, what Super Mario Galaxy was to "Porcupuffer" then. LinkTheLefty (talk) 20:51, 24 October 2018 (EDT)

Whatever people's thoughts are on this issue, I think this goes to show that making sure wikis are as accurate as possible is important since so many people just assume whatever's on them is 100% factual. And that people should stop treating information on wikis as 100% factual if it's not sourced. BubbleRevolution (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2018 (EDT)

We should probably use their names as redirects. That way, they can't be moved to them. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:45, 24 October 2018 (EDT)

@Bloc Partier: We wouldn't be "picking and choosing" what's official and what isn't. We'd simply allow anything from the book to be cited that doesn't originate from this wiki. And by the way, inactive users are absolutely allowed to vote. - 00:55, 25 October 2018 (EDT)
 * Well, alright, but then would we write in stone somewhere the list of stuff that didn't originate from the wiki? Would we reference that list every time something comes up? My wording was perhaps not the best, but I still see it as a bureaucratic nightmare. Naive users could easily assume that everything from the encyclopedia was official if some of the things were renamed. I don't know, I see where the "allow some" side is coming from, but I'm really not super comfortable with the idea. I felt the same way when we allowed Prima's official "inaccuracies" to fly. And, thanks! I've been following the drama from the SMW Twitter, and I don't edit much anymore, but the wiki holds a special place in my heart. I felt like I should chip in. 01:05, 25 October 2018 (EDT)

One perhaps obvious, but still needed clarification: this is only for the English translation and not the other translations? I think this should be clearly pointed out, as for example the German, French and especially the Spanish translations are each their own case, but the title and content of the proposal might not be specific enough to rule them out.--Mister Wu (talk) 22:42, 27 October 2018 (EDT)
 * The leading paragraph makes it clear that the proposal is only covering the English translation. It's been too many days for me to edit the proposal, anyway, but still, any implementation of this proposal will only revolve around the English translation. 23:31, 27 October 2018 (EDT)

Before this proposal ends, I must ask...the Japanese version (along with other international versions) are still okay to cite, right? - 17:11, 29 October 2018 (EDT)
 * As I said to Mister Wu, this proposal is only concerned with the English version. 18:51, 29 October 2018 (EDT)
 * Yeah, though if the other language versions are found to lack impartiality from fan material just like this English one, those can be individually discussed here in the future. ThePokémonGamer (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2018 (EDT)
 * You'll need to discuss them separately, quite honestly most of the translations are already released (except for the Italian one which is currently postponed to an unknown date) and we didn't spot these issues. Effectively the most comprehensive wikis are in English, so it can be expcted that this doesn't affect the French and Spanish translations, not sure about the German one which might need an additional check (although I didn't find particular problems so far, there was actually a strict control from Nintendo of Europe that even made them rewrite the depiction of the Koopalings in the otherwise faithful-to-Japanese-version Super Mario Bros. 3 story).--Mister Wu (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2018 (EDT)
 * Actually, I've seen someone comment on the Spanish translation of the book. I can't tell whether they're praising it or not, but I wonder if that one in particular should be looked into.  23:12, 29 October 2018 (EDT)
 * That person is a proofreader of the Spanish translation, I had already talked to them before. Essentially, they said that Nintendo gave them an inconsistent and incomplete glossary, and to keep consistent naming they were forced to choose between the terms given in said glossary. As an example, Magikoopas are consistently called Kamek in that book, instead of being called Magikoopa in the early games like in the German translation. In any case, nothing like what happened here, they actually even followed the Japanese convention of the Turtle Tribe in the bio of Bowser--Mister Wu (talk) 04:39, 30 October 2018 (EDT)

New users uploading images
For some reason, non-autoconfirmed users can upload an image from their computer, but cannot upload an image from an URL. I personally think it's ridiculous; If a vandal wants to upload a image, they can easily download it into their computer and upload it. I prefer that either new users will not be able to upload images, or they will be able to upload images from anywhere (as they can download it to their computer anyway).

Proposer: Deadline: November 15, 2018, 23:59 GMT Vetoed: November 9, 2018, 00:40 GMT

Do not allow new users to upload images

 * 1) - Makes the most sense to me.
 * 2) This would help to greatly decrease vandalism, so I support this proposal.

Comments
Not so sure how accurate that is, plenty might just have a quick link to DeviantArt but might not want their parents finding weird suggestive stuff on their own computer downloaded from who-knows-where. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:04, 8 November 2018 (EST)
 * I'm pretty sure they can delete it from their computer after uploading the image to the wiki, if i understood correctly what you're saying. 19:16, 8 November 2018 (EST)
 * There's also the fact that many locations where "vandal" images would be from would potentially be virus-infested, and as such not "worth it" enough to get malware. Or something. I won't pretend to know exactly how their minds work. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2018 (EST)

Merge Category:Personal images in use and Category:Personal images abandoned into Category:Personal images
Hi this is my first proposal. Something that has bugged me is that "Personal images in use" is not under the more simplified title "Personal images" (which is its master category title). The only explanation I can think of is because of the category "Personal images abandoned". If a personal image is unused or abandoned, I believe it is eligible for deletion. Plus there's no images under that category. If this proposal passes, I think its associated template can also be deleted.

Proposer: Deadline: November 13, 2018, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) - I started this proposal.
 * 2) - Per proposal. I was thinking personal-image-abandoned could be incorporated into the personal-image template, but that'd be kind of pointless if we can just replace the thing with.
 * 3) Maybe instead mark  as  (haha, irony), but other than that, it seems that this is a change I can live with. Per proposal.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Per all.
 * Eh, don't see the point of even marking personal images as abandoned as a good old delete/to be deleted template should do.
 * 1) Per all.

Oppose

 * 1) I've found some neat stuff in the personal-image-abandoned category in the slightly longer time frame they'd have before deletion, and as such I believe the template itself has merit. As that's part of the proposal, I'm opposing the whole thing.
 * 2) Per Schmeltwick.
 * 3) Per Doc. Also see my comment below.
 * 4) Per all.

Comments
The personal image limit is five, so even if you did find an image in the personal images abandoned category, that's one of the five personal images. Would not really be useful to keep around anyway, so.. Results May Vary (talk) 10:07, 7 November 2018 (EST)
 * If they get merged, do they at least will be redirects? -- 14:15, 7 November 2018 (EST)
 * Can't say since i'm not an admin. But the main point is that there isn't a need for more than one personal images category. If it's abandoned, it will show up in Special:UnusedFiles anyway (and be tagged simply Personal images if the proposal passes). Results May Vary (talk) 14:57, 7 November 2018 (EST)
 * @Results May Vary: The image only appears in Special:UnusedFiles if it's abandoned for more than a day, which is not likely to happen as admins usally delete things which are marked for deletion in maximum a few hours. 15:06, 7 November 2018 (EST)
 * Just because you don't think it's useful doesn't mean someone else won't. They're personal images for a reason. And you need to stop deleting them just because they've been replaced on the mainspace. That's rude. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2018 (EST)
 * Using the template will just place the image in Category:To be deleted anyway. I don't see a need for the abandoned template if it just does the exact same thing as the standard  template with a reason saying "Abandoned PI".
 * As for personal images being replaced, I look over whether they're worth keeping or not (factors include if other images on their page have been deleted, the user hasn't been active in several years, and/or they've exceeded the limit).  19:46, 7 November 2018 (EST)
 * He was putting images of at least one semi-active user in the deletion category. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:01, 7 November 2018 (EST)
 * At the moment, the guy has six custom images attributed to him (more than the limit), due to the personal image template linking to his renamed account and his original name. The images that were deleted were replaced with a higher quality version of images that can be used in the mainspace, so he can replace those on his pages if he wants. 20:08, 7 November 2018 (EST)
 * I'd still consider this behavior a slippery slope, myself, and encouraging it's just pushing it further. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:11, 7 November 2018 (EST)
 * Probably, but like I said, I do go over the images marked for deletion, as do the other admins. If something should be kept, we'll keep it, but if there's any mistakes, it can be brought up on our talk pages. 20:14, 7 November 2018 (EST)
 * Any accidental deletions can usually be restored (unless the thing itself is entirely purged from the server), so I don't think we even have to worry about accidental deletions. I don't find "but there's neat stuff in there" that compelling of an argument to keep that abandoned template. 21:34, 7 November 2018 (EST)