MarioWiki:Proposals

Writing guidelines
None at the moment.

New features
None at the moment.

Removals
None at the moment.

Remove Zelda Wiki as an interwiki link
Before I continue, please note that I am not trying to insult anyone or ask to unlink from Zelda Wiki's articles entirely. I'm just proposing to remove  as an interwiki link, and am curious to hear what the others think of this idea. If the consensus is oppose, like my proposal on allowing link to Fandom wikis, then at least we know, and it could perhaps set a precedent (like my aforementioned proposal set the precedent of a case-by-case basis for possible follow-up proposals).

While it is true that many of us here do not like Zelda Wiki, I feel that, regardless of opinion, it is redundant to have a specific interwiki link for ZW, primarily because Wikia/Fandom itself has an interwiki link, and their specific wikis can be linked to from the Wikia template. Zelda Wiki has been on Fandom for three years ever since the Gamepedia acquisition, and are just as much owned by them as the other wikis on Fandom. The only difference is that Zelda Wiki is in NIWA (they pass themselves off as independent when all of us know that's not true), and NIWA itself originated from Zelda Wiki if you look into the history.

However, at the same time I have a few reserves about them being removed as an interwiki link. My main reserve is over the NIWA template, which would need to be edited to have ZW specifically change to Fandom. Another thing is that Mario Wiki is a part of NIWA (might not be on the best of terms at this point), and there are editors here who edit on other wikis, especially WiKirby and Nookipedia, so having Zelda Wiki as an interwiki link would be a way to acknowledge that it is still a member (and the original founding member) of NIWA.

What would be an ideal way to acknowledge that Zelda Wiki is a part of NIWA, which Mario Wiki is in, but that Zelda Wiki is no more "independent" than other wikis on Fandom itself? If this proposal does not pass, I still wonder how we can address such a distinction. Also, like I said, Zelda Wiki has been owned by Fandom for a few years.

Proposer: Deadline: April 28, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per reasons listed above.

Oppose

 * 1) I really don't see any benefit to this. The whole thing is a lot of work for what will be visually and functionally be the same, and seems more like it's just trying to make a statement than anything. Similarly, you could argue that we don't need Wikipedia interlinks because of Template:Wp (or vice-versa), but the amount of effort involved in swapping things out is very high compared to the benefit which is practically zero. Also, what if ZeldaWiki ends up moving off of Wikia in the future? Unlikely, admittedly, but then we'd have to go back and reverse all the changes instead of an easy swap of just changing the destination of all ZeldaWiki links.

Create an article for Classic Mode
I am proposing the creation of Classic Mode, the main mode of the Super Smash Bros. series in each of its installments. Generally, I've noticed with Super Smash Bros.-related modes that if they only appear in one game, they're covered on the page itself, which is understandable (although a separate talk page proposal of mine gives reasons for recreating Adventure Mode: The Subspace Emissary, exclusive to Super Smash Bros. Brawl). There are articles for some modes, such as Break the Targets and Home-Run Contest, which are featured in several Super Smash Bros. games. Home-Run Contest is no different for each fighter, including Mario ones, whereas Classic Mode has differences per fighters, or even a set path, in most of the Super Smash Bros. installments. I'll make a paragraph for each Super Smash Bros. game, highlighting their Mario-related content in Classic Mode (including differences for fighters).

In Super Smash Bros., the mode is named 1P Game. It features three minigames, Break the Targets, Board the Platforms, and Race to the Finish!, with the former two having a different layout for each fighter. Metal Mario is a unique fighter in this mode, as Metal Boxes would only debut in the second game, and is even given his own stage to fight on. The stages are always accessed in a consistent order, with the Mario franchise-related battles being the Yoshi Team (stage 2), Mario Bros. (stage 4), Giant Donkey Kong (stage 6) and, as aforementioned, Metal Mario (stage 9), so four of the battles take place against Mario fighters, with one of them specifically featuring Metal Mario and a unique stage for him (Meta Crystal).

In Super Smash Bros. Melee, the mode is named Classic, and while the characters and stages are now randomized, the set up remains the same (like how Master Hand is fought at the end or that Snag the Trophies is the sixth stage). The opponent fighters are always fought on a specific stage representing their franchise (e.g. Mario is fought at either Princess Peach's Castle or on Rainbow Cruise & Luigi is always fought in one of the Mushroom Kingdom stages). A majority of the Giant battles have more than 50% chance of fighting a Mario character (Mario, Yoshi, Dr. Mario, Luigi, Donkey Kong, and Bowser), and they make up 6 of the 10 possible opponents (the others being Jigglypuff, Captain Falcon, Link, and Young Link). There is a Metal battle, and the scripted fight with Metal Mario has been moved into Adventure mode (something that can be noted on Classic Mode article if it's created). A few of the unlock rewards are Mario-related (like the DK Jr trophy or Dr. Mario) and, of course, the fighter-specific trophy won from completing the mode. The congratulations message at the end is different for each fighter as well (and Adventure even has their own congratulations message for each of the fighters).

In Super Smash Bros. Brawl, Classic Mode's layout is randomized per franchise (e.g. a Yoshi or a DK battle always occurs on stage 2). Just like in Super Smash Bros. Melee, there are a few Mario-related unlock rewards (aside from the character-specific trophies), such as the Paper Mario trophy or Luigi in an unlock match if no continues have been used. As usual, with Mario having several series and a few related franchises, the Yoshi, Wario, and Donkey Kong franchises are also part of the randomization (Wario is randomly selected in Stage 10 between either it, Metal Gear, or Sonic however).

In Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS, Classic mode has paths, many of them being marked by a random franchise symbol, giving more control as to which path to take. For instance, if one were to take the path with the DK symbol, the opponent and stage from that franchise is selected. In Super Smash Bros. for Wii U, Classic is set up like a tournament, and while the game randomly selects the fighters, one can see whom they can fight before starting the battle (and a faint preview of the stage where the battle occurs is shown beneath them). Also take note how the opponent and stage are not always from the same series, even in single-opponent battles (e.g. there's a possibility of fighting Mario on a The Legend of Zelda stage).

In Super Smash Bros. Ultimate, every fighter has their own predetermined path in Classic Mode and even their own titles (e.g. Donkey Kong's Classic Mode path is "Journey to New Donk City"). A majority of the fighters fight Master Hand at the end. In the case of Mario and Captain Falcon, the final boss is Giga Bowser.

So yeah, as demonstrated above, Classic Mode is different between each of its appearances, and when I listed the differences and instances of when the game randomizes things, I used Mario-related elements as an example. Let me know if I've missed anything Mario-related in this proposal.

Proposer: Deadline: April 23, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per reasons stated above.

Oppose

 * 1) Classic Mode is so wildly different between games that I just think it's covered better on the individual game pages. Also, the amount of Mario content doesn't really matter, given that there are recurring modes in Mario games we don't split such as Time Trial.
 * 2) Per Hewer
 * 3) Per Hewer. It's rare for game modes to warrant separate articles as is, so a game mode from Smash is even harder to justify an article for.
 * 4) I'm leaning towards Hewer on this one.
 * 5) Per all, plus, given we're trying to limit Smash content on the wiki a bit, this seems like a step in the wrong direction.
 * 6) Per all, since directly Mario-related modes often do not even get articles, and I also prefer to limit Smash content rather than expand it.

Comments
Keep in mind that Funky Fishing is very different between Donkey Kong Country's Game Boy Color and Game Boy Advance releases yet they share an article, although one could make the case that it's for a Mario-related game. Results May Vary (talk) 15:32, April 16, 2022 (EDT)
 * To be fair, I think Funky Fishing (GBC) / Funky's Fishing (GBA) is a prime candidate for a split following the expected pass of the Donkey Kong Country remakes proposal, and it's a minigame instead of a main game mode. LinkTheLefty (talk) 15:54, April 16, 2022 (EDT)

Also, if the information cannot be presented in Classic Mode article, does it get presented on the SSB series article (assuming this proposal fails)? Results May Vary (talk) 15:44, April 16, 2022 (EDT)
 * It would be presented on each of the individual game articles, considering how different Classic Mode is between games. 15:53, April 16, 2022 (EDT)

Time Trial is listed as an example of a mode that doesn't have its own page, but Battle Mode does appear to be split (it has seen also one drastic variation being the Mario Kart 8 one, but you can argue Battle Mode, at least Balloon Battle, doesn't differ as drastically as Classic Mode); Super Duel Mode also has its own page but I do agree that it has enough content and would weigh down Mario Party 5 more than Classic Mode in those respective pages. As BBQ Turtle said, I'd still not really support this proposal on grounds that it's a creep on Super Smash Bros. and I just don't think Classic Mode is quite notable enough for a MarioWiki article. 20:45, April 16, 2022 (EDT)

Create a Smash Bros. DOJO!! images category and/or an Official screenshots category
So something that I've been trying on the SSB Wiki is a category of the official Smash Bros. DOJO!! images (as well as their higher quality press variants), which is categorized within an Official screenshots category. Smash Bros. DOJO!! was a notable official website where people would get official information and updates on SSB Brawl before and some a bit after its time of release. This proposal is not asking to extend the SSB coverage, but there's a large number of screenshots on the website that feature Mario characters and stages, including ones of them using items (such as the Cracker Launcher). Even if it's not SSB Brawl, it would be useful to keep a record of all the official screenshots from either press kits or from Nintendo directly and then include them on this website (even if some may inevitably be JPG files).

Even if there were subsequent proposals to further simplify/trim SSB content (hence the reason why I made the wiki), we could at least emphasize the Mario-related content within the SSB series (for instance, in the Adventure section of the SSB Melee article, I noted yesterday how the first two stages represent the Mario and Donkey Kong franchises respectively and that the final boss, Giant Bowser, is from Mario and even its exclusive form, Giga Bowser, being exclusive to the SSB games), and the Smash Bros. DOJO!! images category would keep a record of all the Mario-related images on the SSB DOJO!!. There have been times when there have been different screenshots between the different languages of Smash Bros. DOJO!! (such as the Home-Run Contest; although the screenshot features Lucas and Pikachu, neither from Mario, it shows how the American English screenshot uses the imperial system whereas the British English screenshot uses the metric system [ft and meters respectively]).

There might be more that I'm missing, but I think these are at least the basic points, and more can be noted within the comments. Keep in mind I did note how even if there were proposals to further simplify the SSB coverage (which I would oppose personally) the Smash Bros. DOJO!! images category would at least keep a record of the multitude of Mario-related images posted on that website (including the higher quality press variations). In fact, it could even be used as a point for others to simplify SSB coverage (which, again, I'd oppose) to point out the Smash Bros. DOJO!! images with Mario-related elements within them.

On a side note, SSB Melee's Japanese website was called Smabura-Ken, which is Japanese for Smash Bros. DOJO!!, so if we are to make an image category from that as well (this can be decided after the proposal), would it be called [https://smashbroswiki.com/wiki/Category:Sumabura_ken!!_images Sumabura ken!! images]?

Proposer: Deadline: April 22, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Create both

 * 1) Per reasons stated above.
 * 2) Per proposal.

Create only the Smash Bros. DOJO!! images category

 * 1) Though only relevant to one game, it bore somewhat more of a reputation compared to the average promotional website, in no small part due to it hosting Sakurai's update feed. Therefore, making a category for images that specifically originate from it conforms to a previous, passed proposal. I'm not sure about making an "Official screenshots" category, however, largely because it would entail the huge undertaking of going over each screenshot, hunting down some press kit and whatnot that it's sourced from, and dropping it into the category accordingly. It's not a bad idea--I believe that it wouldn't conflict with the fair use screenshot categories--but I reckon the process should have already been in place long ago to make it viable.
 * 2) Per Koopa con Carne.
 * 3) Per Koopa con Carne.
 * 4) Per K the C.
 * 5) Per Koopa con Carne.

Create a The Legend of Zelda series article and/or a "Related series" category
This proposal is a follow-up to my The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening proposal below and possibly a fallback option in the event that The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening does not get its own article. Currently, it and other non-Mario franchises exist in the form of a category (such as Category:The Legend of Zelda series), especially if they have been featured within the Super Smash Bros. games. None of these categories fall under "Related series," which list the franchises and/or series that have crossed over with Mario before but are otherwise not a part of the overall Mario franchise (perhaps Porple can make a distinction for Related series categories and articles for like Super Smash Bros. series respectively). If Related series isn't created but The Legend of Zelda series is (I'll still leave the option below, as Related series would apply to more series/franchises), then it would go under Category:Game series as if it were part of the main Mario franchise when it is actually not.

The Legend of Zelda is a specific case, given how many times it has featured Mario-related elements within its games (like Mario enemies having guest appearances within The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening), often shares a development team with those creating a Super Mario series title around the same time (e.g. Super Mario Odyssey and The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, although this does not signify any relation to Mario but just adds to my point of how Zelda is often developed concurrently with Mario), or even a complimentary release (such as how Game & Watch: The Legend of Zelda released a year after Game & Watch: Super Mario Bros. and is parallel in how it is created).

The degree of how The Legend of Zelda-related media is connected to Mario has varied; for instance, the television series has some direct connection to the Super Mario Bros. Super Show!, particularly in the form of advertisements and mentions within the Super Mario Bros. Super Show!, but is made clear that the two are separate, whereas Nintendo Cereal System has both Mario and The Legend of Zelda within the same box. Some publications, such as Nintendo Adventure Books and the Game Boy Advance book series, while they are not Mario-specific, feature both Mario and Zelda books within the series, so both franchises have often been outsourced together (perhaps most famously, the Philips CD-i games or the aforementioned DiC Entertainment cartoons of Zelda and Super Show!). I'll get to describing some of the game-specifics in another paragraph, but the short explanation to this paragraph is that Mario and Zelda have been outsourced to third-parties on different occasions, especially in the 1980s & 1990s.

It would be convenient to have a History section in a The Legend of Zelda series article that lists every time when The Legend of Zelda has been outsourced alongside Mario or when ideas from Mario games were reused/used instead in Zelda and vice versa, although the finer details to the The Legend of Zelda series article can be worked out if this proposal were to pass (and yes, per the ZD Wiki/Triforce Wiki External links proposal, we'd add link for both of those alongside the usual ZW link in the NIWA box as well as in The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening article, provided that proposal passes), as there are several ideas and ways of how one could go about it and would probably require a group effort to really put the article all together.

Link's Awakening aside, there are other instances of guest appearances within the Mario franchise, as early as the first The Legend of Zelda itself (with Manhandla), especially with enemies and sometimes even hazardous objects (like Fire bars). However, creating an article for every The Legend of Zelda game with a guest appearance and/or derivative would be possibly going overboard (at least for the time being), so they would fall under The Legend of Zelda series article itself (particularly under a Games section or something). Again, finer details can be worked out after this proposal, but we could possibly have infoboxes for some of the other Zelda games with guest appearances (like The Minish Cap) to reflect that these are still games with a guest appearance whereas if a Zelda game only consists of cameos (Ocarina of Time comes to mind) it would not have an infobox, possibly as distinction between cameo & guest appearance, but again, the details can be worked out later. I probably mentioned this in the Link's Awakening proposal, but Capcom games (Oracle of Seasons/Ages, Four Swords, and The Minish Cap) have had a tendency to reuse Mario enemies or even introduce them (such as Lakitu in The Minish Cap). Hyrule Warriors, which is not a part of the main The Legend of Zelda series, features a derivative of the Ball & Chain item that features Chain Chomp). In this case, should we call the article The Legend of Zelda (franchise)? This can also be decided after the proposal.

Oh, before I forget, Mario & Zelda Big Band Live also features both Mario and Zelda like the Nintendo Cereal System.

Proposer: Deadline: April 21, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Create both

 * 1) Per reasons listed above.

Create only The Legend of Zelda series article

 * 1) We know that the developers exchanged a fair amount of concepts between projects in the early days, such as Fire Bars and Chain Chomps originally being designed for Zelda but ending up in Mario games first, and while the latter is more recognizably Mario, the former became just as much of a Zelda element. As this is/was a recurrent practice, having one general article makes much more sense to me than a particular game.
 * 2) Second option

Create neither

 * 1) No offense, but this is going a teensy tiny massive amount of distance too far. The "Related Series" category you're proposing just sounds like an attempt to stretch our coverage barrier as thin as it can. Where does the line of "Related Series" and "Mario Element cameos in it" end under this proposed idea? Same Development Team? Uses elements from Mario? Some sort of dialogue hinting at it? It can be stretched as far thin as it can under these circumstances, and I feel like our current "List of Mario References in X_MEDIA_SUBGENRE" pages handle this situation better than any supposed "Related Series" category could. Also, how is the SMO point valid? Nintendo EPD just makes anything Major Nintendo, and I feel like us making pages for every non-Mario thing they made would just be a million miles overboard. And besides this, I feel like this is the start(or heck even mid-start considering recent proposals) of a super slippery slope; if we make articles for everything that's even 0.00000001% Mario related, why don't we make articles for everything ever? Making pages for the LOZ series for crossing over with Mario and having some ideas from it would lead to us doing the same for things like Sonic, which has a closer connection to Mario during the 90's "war" and shares a spin-off with Mario, and we'd just be pushing and pushing the border of "what qualifies as Mario?" until it breaks. Why not make articles for all the series that are costumes in SMM? or all the franchises in SSB? Or on other series that have similar scenrios to Zelda but a lesser extent(ex. Desentsu no Stafy with its assets in SPP and Wario in one of its games, Rhythm Heaven for being more and more prominent in the Warioware series, Duck Hunt for being grouped with SMB back in the NES days, and so on)? And why not franchises related to those related franchises? Why not make articles for every series Mario cameos in? It goes on far too long. We don't need to make full-fledged articles for everything with nods to Mario in it.
 * 2) per Somethingone.
 * 3) Per Somethingone. Of course Nintendo's two most popular franchises will reference and promote each other on occasion, but this is going overboard.
 * 4) Per Somethingone. I'm not sure what new I could add the conversation that hasn't been said.
 * 5) Per Somethingone.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all. Recent proposals have been made with the intent to place restrictions and cut down on the wiki's Super Smash Bros. content, which suggests an intent within the community to cut down our coverage of topics that are less directly-related to the Mario franchise. There is no problem with having limited coverage of games with Mario-related aspects, such as Densetsu no Starfy 3 or even the proposed The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening article. There are defintely plenty of references to Mario in The Legend of Zelda series as well as other Nintendo series, but I feel that covering those stretches our coverage policy and I feel that a line should be drawn there. Articles related to those series generally have links to outside coverage of the series, and honestly I feel that that is enough for series that are not directly connected to Mario.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) Per.
 * 11) Per all. Zelda is a completely different franchise from Mario only connected through Easter Eggs and Smash Bros.

Comments
I understand that a "The Legend of Zelda (franchise)" article would detail convergent points in the developments of both it and the Mario franchise, but what distinction would there be between a "Related franchises" page, as delineated by the proposal, and the current List of Mario references in Nintendo video games? I don't recall there being as much overlap in the development histories of Mario and other franchises as much as there is between Mario and Zelda (both have largely been the responsibility of a few internal divisions), and outward, fictional references (e.g. DK barrels appear in whatever Kirby game) are already covered by the aforementioned list. 14:22, April 14, 2022 (EDT)
 * Very good point. The way I imagined it is like, with Legend of Zelda, the cameos are specifically listed on List of Mario references in Nintendo video games, the guest appearances moved to the Zelda franchise article, and being added directly beneath the The Legend of Zelda series section on that references page. The distinction would be "what makes a cameo and what makes a guest appearance," so if Mario only ever cameoed in a game or its series, it would not count as "Related series/franchise." Results May Vary (talk) 14:32, April 14, 2022 (EDT)
 * To Somethingone, I know we don't need article for everything with slight nod to Mario (makes me think of Generic subjects as well), but I was noting how The Legend of Zelda series has GUEST APPEARANCES of Mario enemies within their games (not to be confused with CAMEOS), and doing a series approach rather than individual games (for time being) could concentrate/organize the information better. Related series in NO WAY implies that Zelda is a part of Mario -- it just highlights the Mario-related aspects, primarily the guest appearances, whereas cameos,while also mentioned, are an added bonus (as the References page is for that). Results May Vary (talk) 14:39, April 14, 2022 (EDT)
 * And that's also an issue. Who's to say that Mario-franchise enemies and characters have never and will never appear in other series? Going back to my vote and under this proposal's reasoning, Wario makes a Guest Appearance in DnS and has an impact to the gameplay, so why not make an article about its entire series? Rhythm Heaven shares many characters with Warioware (like how Young Cricket is the star of one of its games), so why not make a page for that entire series? The Sonic franchise has its own spinoff shared with Mario, and has a much more eventful history with Mario than Zelda, so wny not make a page for the Sonic series? What about the franchises that made Guest Appearances in Mario Kart 8, or all the Mario elements added recently to Animal Crossing? These things can go on and on forever, and I feel like pushing our coverage specifically for Zelda would not only stretch our coverage, but be inconsistent with every other series that have had/made guest appearances from/with the mario franchise. Somethingone (talk) 14:55, April 14, 2022 (EDT)
 * I get your concern. As for Guest appearances of like Animal Crossing in Mario Kart 8, that could be noted on the Animal Crossing series category, as there's nowhere near as much history between guest/cameo appearances within Mario. Also, Mario and Sonic, yes they were rivals, and Olympic Games aside, there's little direct connection between Mario and Sonic, especially within the other games (also consider Nintendo and Sega are diff companies). The Mario vs Sonic in the 90s was a sub-war of the main console wars of that era as well. Also, Densetsu no Starfy 3, while did have Wario as guest appearance, I think the rest had just cameos. Results May Vary (talk) 15:02, April 14, 2022 (EDT)
 * Here's the problem with those examples you listed: all of those guest/crossover appearances are pretty much basic 1:1 representations of how they appear in their original series/games; Zelda appearances, on the other hand, tend to "Zelda-ify" the Mario enemies and make them their own interpretation (some of them, like Fire Bars and Lava Bubbles, go under alternate names, even in Japanese). Link's Awakening might have one of the most Nintendo IP references, but it's far from the only game to do this; it doesn't even have things like Podoboo Tower or Head Thwomp, which evolve the distinctly Mario-derived concepts further. The Switch remake does, however, mostly preserve the original Zelda-twisted nuances inherent in their designs, i.e. it does not "modernize" them like in, for instance, the Mario & Luigi remakes. In my assessment, this is not comparable. LinkTheLefty (talk) 15:59, April 14, 2022 (EDT)

Side note, I also seem to recall that one of the early games (I'm thinking The Legend of Zelda or The Adventure of Link) was tentatively pitched as "Mario Adventure" (not the "Death Mountain" working title), but I can't seem to find that info at the moment. If true, that must've been very early on in development, when Shigeru Miyamoto wanted Mario to be his signature "Mr. Video Game" character and before the themes got finalized. LinkTheLefty (talk) 14:47, April 14, 2022 (EDT)
 * And Miyamoto also pitched Splatoon as a Mario game at one point, doesn't mean we make a Splatoon series page. Somethingone (talk) 15:15, April 14, 2022 (EDT)
 * This wasn't the main basis of the argument -- it was just a sidenote that he gave (to all the other points that I made within the proposal above). Results May Vary (talk) 15:21, April 14, 2022 (EDT)
 * And I'm allowed to refute their side note just like a normal argument point. Somethingone (talk) 15:30, April 14, 2022 (EDT)
 * Sure, but I did stress that it's according to memory. It comes across like you have an axe to grind here. LinkTheLefty (talk) 15:59, April 14, 2022 (EDT)

Opposers - By all means, please elucidate why a series article is out of the question but Link's Awakening below apparently is not. LinkTheLefty (talk) 06:25, April 15, 2022 (EDT)
 * Link's Awakening in particular has a lot of specific references to Mario for it to count on the same level as, say, Captain Rainbow, but I don't think some cross-promotions and shared developers are enough to extend that to the whole series. By this logic we could also have an article on the Punch-Out!! series because of Mario as the referee and Donkey Kong as an opponent, but instead we only cover the Wii game because it's the most relevant to Mario. 06:35, April 15, 2022 (EDT)
 * Again, though, Zelda has had recurring Mario elements for such a long time that it's practically to be expected, especially the 2D games. Link's Awakening is notable, sure, but it also has more references to other Nintendo properties than other games in the series on top of that, including Kirby's Dream Land, The Frog For Whom the Bell Tolls, and even the SNES version of SimCity. If anything, that's the game with the so-called cross-promotions (though I wouldn't really call it that outside of maybe the side-scrolling sections trying to be reminiscent of Super Mario Bros.). That's why I don't particularly agree with a specific game being covered, but would instead prefer a generalized solution (which would include said game). Further, I don't buy the presented earlier for the reasons I explained. LinkTheLefty (talk) 07:09, April 15, 2022 (EDT)

Ignoring that I think "follow-up/fallback" proposals shouldn't run concurrently with whatever they're related to, I think the focus of this proposal is misplaced. Unless it was already done in the past, it should be on deciding where the series fits as outlined in the coverage policy. That would not only make future action clearer, but it would also alleviate concerns about where the line is drawn. 12:43, April 15, 2022 (EDT)

Just also going to note that I'm tired of seeing The Legend of Zelda within the source text mainly because of the uppercase identifier (ZW does uppercase for section header & identifier), so another perk of this passing would be that there could some less of that. Results May Vary (talk) 15:48, April 15, 2022 (EDT)

Another thing is that, Link's Awakening aside, the Zelda games (specifically some of the earlier 2D ones) are not "references" with their inclusion of Mario enemies, so if if a series page isn't going to be made, would individual articles be made then (if List of Mario references in Nintendo video games were to cover ONLY cameos)? Would seem redundant, or would there be a smaller-scale article? Not sure. Results May Vary (talk) 18:23, April 15, 2022 (EDT)

Overhaul the no quorum proposal rule (#8)
The current rule no quorum proposals is vague, flawed, and counterproductive. Per rule 8, if a proposal has three votes or less at deadline, it NQs, ending with no action taken. In other words it needs at least four votes overall to pass. I have two major problems with this.

Problem #1: A blanket minimum number of votes means that opposition can actually cause a proposal to pass.

Take these hypothetical proposals, for instance.
 * Proposal A reaches its deadline with 3 support and 0 oppose votes. That's a total of 3, exactly one shy of the minimum 4. Therefore, the proposal NQs.
 * Proposal B reaches its deadline with 3 support and 2 oppose votes. That's a total of 5, enough to avoid NQ. Since there are too few votes for rule 10 to apply, and there's more support than opposition, the proposal passes.

See the problem here? Proposal B has the same amount of support as Proposal A, but more opposition, yet Proposal B passes while Proposal A does not. If Proposal B did not have those oppose votes, it wouldn't have enough votes to avoid NQ. Therefore, the opposition actually causes the proposal to pass. This should not be possible. Proposals should only ever pass in spite of opposition, never because of it.

Three-or-more-option proposals have the same problem, especially since you can vote for more than one option - the rule does not clarify whether or not multiple votes from the same user counts toward quorum. This proposal is a good example - it only met the minimum four because one of the voters picked two options.

Solution: Instead of a minimum total of 4 overall votes, make it so at least one option must have a minimum of 4 votes.

This retains the current minimum number of supports necessary to pass a proposal where no other options receive votes, but eliminates the "opposition backfire" issue mentioned above. Under this new rule, Proposal B would NQ, just like Proposal A. This rule would also apply to proposals with three or more options - at least one option would need at least 4 votes to avoid NQ.

Now for the other problem.

Problem #2: No quorum proposals just end immediately upon reaching their deadline, when we could be extending them.

Imagine the frustration. Your TPP has three supports and no opposition. If just one more person would vote, you'd be golden. But before it can happen, that deadline comes. Your proposal's over. You waited two weeks for nothing. Hey, at least you have "the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion", even though that's an extremely vague statement that is not clear at all about what it actually means. I guess it just means "redo the proposal from scratch", but why should you have to do that?

Solution: Apply the three-week extension rule to no quorum proposals.

Why do no quorum proposals have to end right then and there? Why not just extend them, like we do with proposals that do not reach a consensus by deadline? This would help give vote-starved proposals more of a chance to gain attention and reduce the number of frustrating NQs. I'm not sure if we should apply the four-week waiting period for proposals that do NQ under this new rule, but I'm leaning towards no. If you think it should, feel free to comment on it.

Proposer: Deadline: April 14, 2022, 23:59 GMT Extended to April 21, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Apply both solutions

 * 1) Preferred option.
 * 2) Per proposal; I especially support enacting the first problem's solution since it would sew a blatant policy loophole.
 * 3) Per proposal. I think both solutions can work. I do support the idea of the first solution, but the second solution is also a good idea, especially if it concerns a topic that's easy to miss or can easily duck under the radar.
 * 4) After thinking a bit more, I might've misinterpreted what solution 1 would do.
 * 5) Per. Also, yes, I do feel that the four-week moratorium rule need only be applied to proposals that have several votes but remain without a clear majority.
 * 6) Second choice.

Apply problem #1's solution

 * 1) Second option.

Apply problem #2's solution

 * 1) Better than nothing.
 * 2) Per proposal (I was actually thinking of this problem recently after this proposal).
 * 3) While I disagree on some points in problem #1, namely the proposed solution, I do believe extending the NQ proposals is better than relisting them.
 * 4) I'm not sure if the first proposed solution is great in how it would affect proposals with more than two choices, but the second seems fair enough to me.
 * 5) I feel like a better solution to problem #1 would be to modify rule 10 so that it applies to all proposals, not just ones with >10 votes, and/or maybe reduce its margin from 3 to 2. That said, I do think solution #2 is a good idea.

Leave the rule as is

 * 1) I'm admittedly working from vague memories at the moment, so I apologize if anything I say is flat-out wrong, but my understanding is the portion of the rule about relisting NQ proposals is there because there isn't always enough information in them for users to make an informed decision and cast a vote. Other times, what information is there might be at odds with the stated goal. Maybe a proposed solution wouldn't adequately address a problem raised. Maybe someone points out (or realizes) the problem itself is larger in scope than originally outlined or an entirely different problem altogether. Since these sorts of discussions tend to happen after the deadline for editing the proposal has passed, it's an opportunity to incorporate whatever comes out of those into the next iteration of the proposal (in part because of rule 5). The initial deadline is usually enough time for those sorts of discussions to take place, and there are ways of getting people to weigh in if the specific issue is a lack of attention (an ever-present one regardless of what the deadline is). That said, sometimes, unfortunately, there aren't a significant number of people concerned about/invested in a particular thing, and I think the proposed more-votes-per-option solution could therefore result in more NQs or failed proposals.
 * 2) This sounds too convoluted just to get rid of a loophole; I'd prefer keeping NQs and applying the 4-vote minimum condition to rule 9 so that if a proposal with three votes, all for one option, gets the fourth vote for an opposing option, it will be extended until consensus is reached or not.
 * 3) Per all.

Comments
Another problem with no quorum is that it also means that the proposal is treated as failed, as if it was a clear opposed result. I disagree; I think it should be treated as if the proposal didn't happen, opening the door for resolution to occur via discussion. LinkTheLefty (talk) 10:32, April 8, 2022 (EDT)

@Somethingone: I'm not going to say I'm against a rule 10 modification, but such a thing would require a separate proposal, since it would need different options for reducing the voting margin or not reducing it (or only reducing it for proposals with ten votes or less). Additionally, rule 10 only applies to two-option proposals, so it would not solve problem #1 for proposals with more than two options like the one I linked. I would also like the know the issue with implementing my solution so I can improve it or come up with an alternative.

@Mario4Ever: You completely misunderstand the purpose of NQs. It is merely to prevent proposals from passing with too few votes. That's it. It is not a defense mechanism against poorly-written proposals as you seem to be claiming. The proper response to such proposals is inform the proposer in the comments why their proposal is flawed so they can either improve it, or in the event a complete overhaul is needed, cancel it and make a new one (or request an admin cancel it if 3/6 days have already passed). Plenty of proposals that NQ don't have issues at all, they just aren't getting the attention they need, and extending them would help with that. Additionally, proposals with the issues you mentioned don't always fail to obtain votes - depending on what the issue is, voters may just outright oppose it until their problems are addressed. Alternatively, the proposal might gain support before the issues with it are fully realized (example), so the idea of NQs as a defense against flawed proposals is a flimsy excuse at best. 13:50, April 8, 2022 (EDT)
 * I'm not saying that NQs are a defense mechanism against poorly-written proposals. I was just explaining that a lack of attention isn't necessarily why the minimum vote threshold isn't met, since that's one of your main points of contention. 15:36, April 8, 2022 (EDT)
 * The vast majority of proposals that end with no quorum only do so because they don't get enough attention, and there are plenty of poorly written proposals that don't get no quorum. Besides, I don't really see how your argument relates to the proposed rule changes, as waiting for flawed proposals to NQ isn't really how you're meant to deal with them anyway. 15:45, April 8, 2022 (EDT)
 * I think part of the disconnect is that the proposal references and directly links to TPPs, which do tend to get less attention than proposals on this page (or at least, they did). Most of the proposals I've weighed in on have been in the latter category, where the things I've mentioned are (were?) more likely to come up. 00:57, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
 * Your point? The majority of proposals made nowadays are TPPs, and issue of whether or not the proposal is on a talk page is irrelevant. You have yet to justify your opposition in any way. 12:47, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
 * It's relevant to my argument to the extent that it informs my perception of proposals, but getting to the point, I don't see the proposal's problem #1 as such (and don't believe effectively redefining what constitutes a quorum would benefit them if it were). I also don't think more time would necessarily give TPPs more attention because my general approach involved prioritizing things like the scope or the information I had/needed over the deadline. 14:41, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
 * How can you possibly think that problem #1 isn't an issue? You're saying that oppose votes actually causing proposals to pass is entirely logical. It's not. Imagine you oppose a proposal. It has 3 supports and 1 oppose - namely, you - near the deadline. This encourages you to game the system by removing your oppose vote at the last minute to stop the proposal from passing. How is that not completely asinine? 18:44, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
 * Let's say the proposed solution to problem #1 is implemented. You create a proposal that's set to pass with four votes to one. At the last minute, the fourth supporter decides they're ambivalent toward the outcome and removes their vote, or maybe they get blocked for some reason, and their vote is removed. Now, let's say the extension solution is also in effect, so the proposal doesn't get relisted. In the worst case scenario, another three weeks go by with no additional votes to give either option the four-vote minimum, so at the final deadline, it fails with a 3-1 ratio. Is having your proposal not go into effect at all preferable to the scenario of it getting potentially overturned later?  22:09, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
 * You're missing the point. Let's take your hypothetical proposal, but remove that one oppose vote. What happens under the current rules? It NQs, since it doesn't have enough votes. Meanwhile, your version of the proposal would pass because it does, despite having the exact same amount of support. Why should that happen? Why should it be possible for opposing a proposal be counterproductive to actually stopping a proposal from passing? Like I just said, this encourages the opposer to game the system by removing their oppose vote at the last minute so the proposal will NQ and therefore not pass, which is ridiculous. Simply put, if a 3-0 proposal doesn't pass, then a 3-1 or 3-2 shouldn't pass either. 22:38, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
 * I don't think it's counterproductive to vote in opposition to something even if it's not likely to (or doesn't) prevent the proposal from passing. My hypothetical scenario demonstrates that "gaming the system" is technically possible under the proposed new system. Since that's therefore not the problem being solved, I don't think it's a relevant justification. 23:37, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
 * Your hypothetical scenario demonstrates nothing of the sort. A supporter removing their vote because they changed their mind isn't gaming the system, it's normal. An opposer removing their oppose vote at the last minute to deliberately cause an NQ for a proposal that would otherwise pass is absolutely gaming the system - a form of which my proposed solution would render unnecessary. Opposition not preventing a proposal from passing is not the problem, it's opposition actively causing a proposal to pass because of the current NQ rule. Stop misinterpreting my posts. I'm still waiting for you to justify why a 3-0 proposal shouldn't pass, but a 3-1 or 3-2 should. 13:04, April 10, 2022 (EDT)
 * Community input is as or more important than a proposal's outcome, the impact of which is neither permanent nor irreparable. Ignoring that I never encountered a single instance of someone doing what you describe in 12 years, I think, depending on the proposal, four or five votes is an adequate reflection of that input. 14:19, April 10, 2022 (EDT)
 * That's just flat out wrong. Community input is what causes a proposal's outcome. You can't just lump supporters and opposers together under the banner of "community input" like they're the same thing. When someone opposes a proposal, it's because they don't want it to pass. Therefore, it should never result in it passing for any reason, ever. While proposals can be overturned, it requires another successful proposal, which means just one or two people wanting the overturning aren't going to cut it. If a proposal with those one or two opposers should pass, then a proposal without those opposers should also pass. If a proposal with three supporters shouldn't pass, then a proposal with three supporters and one or two opposers shouldn't pass either. I don't get why that's so hard for you to understand. 15:39, April 10, 2022 (EDT)
 * I haven't been following the discussion too closely but I think the idea is that a proposal with five votes, even if some of them are opposition, has had adequate community participation to move forward. Honestly, I think you're focusing way too hard on the issue of people potentially "gaming the system" by not opposing to deliberately force a no quorum. I've never seen that happen and it seems like assuming bad faith to me. -- 15:53, April 10, 2022 (EDT)
 * I don't think concern over a potential issue equates with assuming bad faith in the userbase. It's still a loophole and the system's better off without it. 16:47, April 10, 2022 (EDT)
 * Precisely. It doesn't matter if this loophole isn't exploited regularly, the mere fact that it's possible to exploit it warrants fixing it. It doesn't matter if you've seen it happen, not voting is a non-action, so you can't produce evidence of it happening or not happening. There's no reason not to fix this; I should never have to consider not voting on a proposal I actively oppose (or removing my existing oppose vote) just because of this loophole. 17:15, April 10, 2022 (EDT)

@LinkTheLefty: I don't understand what the problem is with how it would affect proposals with more than two choices. Be more specific so I can maybe improve it or come up with a better solution. 12:47, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
 * I feel like an issue one might have with solution 1 is that it could result in situations where proposals with many options could have many votes but still NQ because no option has >3 votes. Proposals with 5 options could take up to 16 votes before they aren't called NQs in situations like that. Somethingone (talk) 13:31, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
 * Basically. It just makes it needlessly harder for multiple-choice proposals to pass, also considering option results sometimes overlap with each other. LinkTheLefty (talk) 14:21, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
 * "Proposals with 5 options could take up to 16 votes before they aren't called NQs in situations like that." Not necessarily. A proposal with 5 options may have accrued only 4 total votes and still pass, provided all those votes are for one option in particular. If not one option has more than 3 votes, it's a NQ period, regardless of how many available options there are. 16:22, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
 * That still doesn't factor when choices overlap, which more often than not do in multiple-choice proposals. Say this hypothetical proposal: 1) do X only, 2) do Y only, 3) do Z only, 4) do X & Y, 5) do X & Z, 6) do Y & Z, 7) do X, Y & Z, and 8) don't do anything. Let's say the X & Y options are generally unpopular, but votes are accrued for options involving Z. Let's say #3 gets 3 votes, and #s5, 6 & 7 get two votes each. And for the sake of argument, let's say that all the votes are from different users. That's at least nine total, with the remaining options having zero-to-two votes. Under the current system, #3 passes, and everyone walks away somewhat pleased because they at least agreed to do Z. Under the first proposed solution, the proposal becomes a no quorum, despite the fact that virtually everyone had Z in mind, making no one happy. That's another reason why I think no quorums should be considered non-proposals rather than opposed/failed ones. LinkTheLefty (talk) 16:50, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
 * You seem to have forgotten about rule 9, which would force an extension on your hypothetical proposal anyway. If there were nine voters, three votes wouldn't be enough for the option to win. It would need more than half, in other words, at least five. 17:26, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
 * Then that might be another technicality with the system, but I digress. Fudge the specifics a bit if you like; the bottom line is 100% support on one action minimal (Z) and a lot of multiple-choice proposals are structured this way. LinkTheLefty (talk) 17:37, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
 * Are you saying that you oppose rule 9 or want it changed? Because that's what would get in the way of your hypothetical proposal. It doesn't matter how many votes there are, if the voters are spread across four voting options and they're too close, rule 9 won't let it pass. Anyway, a simple solution to the "overlapping options" issue is, once you've established that everyone wants to do Z, make Z a standalone proposal. 18:28, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
 * That seems cumbersome. You could just note in the above proposal that overlapping choices (e.g. "Z", "X&Z", and "X&Y&Z") will count votes together towards the common goal "Z". I agree with LTL insofar as it doesn't make much sense to treat these as mutually exclusive. 18:51, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
 * Is that allowed? There isn't anything about it in the proposal rules, and I've never heard of such a thing happening. 18:58, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
 * Rule 14 states: "Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation". I assume "rewritten" implies you can bring in any modifications, including additions--I've done it before in my proposals and nobody minded. It's been 2 days and ~6 hours since the proposal was published, so I think changing it as of this comment's writing is still ok. If your question refers to the matter of overlapping options, I'd say that, since the proposal at hand already sets out to amend the rules, you may indeed add any further stipulations if you see it fit. 19:18, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
 * I wasn't talking about my own proposal, I was asking if a rule about the overlapping options thing already existed (which I'm pretty sure it doesn't). 19:32, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
 * It doesn't, that's why I was suggesting it's offhandedly taken care of in the current proposal. Adding such a rule could and should have been made through a separate proposal, but what the current proposal advocates makes way to the issues described above by LTL (although I still support the amendment per se), so I was thinking you could kill two birds with one stone by taking care of it in the same proposal. 19:49, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
 * The problem with deciding on the addition of such a rule here is that this proposal already has four options, and that would require adding additional variants of those options that include adding the new rule. If there turned out to be disagreement on whether it should be added or not, this would cause division amongst the current options' votes (which are already rather close between two of them), thus increasing the risk of this proposal stalemating. Anyway, I already mentioned that the issue described in LTL's hypothetical proposal is already present due to rule 9, so as long as rule 9 exists, problem #1's solution doesn't cause any issues that don't already exist. 20:07, April 9, 2022 (EDT)
 * Yeah, ultimately, it might be better to address that matter in a future proposal. 20:19, April 9, 2022 (EDT)

@SmokedChili: If I understand correctly, what you have described is precisely what this proposal is trying to implement. 09:12, April 13, 2022 (EDT)
 * No, the difference is that with the solution 2 in effect NQs will be null because the rule will be altered from the less-than-4-votes proposals getting cancelled by NQ to them being extended instead; I want to keep the NQ condition as-is. If a proposal can't gather enough votes before the deadline, I see no point to drag it on. SmokedChili (talk) 12:13, April 13, 2022 (EDT)
 * Solution 2 will not render NQs null, just make them take longer to happen. I'm only proposing that NQ proposals be extended for up to three weeks, not indefinitely. If a proposal is 3-0 by deadline and just needs that one more vote, there's a good chance it will get that one more vote if it's given that extra time, so yes, there is a point. Even if it isn't just on the verge of reaching quorum and never does, there's no harm in extending it; it's not like we're constantly having a problem with too many ongoing proposals at once. AFAIK, we've never once had it. 12:51, April 13, 2022 (EDT)
 * NQ is specifically a proposal not meeting the minimum number of votes required before deadline. You're mixing it up with no consensus. So yes, solution 2 will render NQs full. SmokedChili (talk) 14:45, April 13, 2022 (EDT)
 * I'm not mixing anything up. Solution 2 is specifically applying the same three-week extension rule to NQs that we do proposals with no consensus, as stated right there in the proposal text. Meaning an NQ is still possible if three extensions go by and the proposal still does not have enough votes. 22:49, April 13, 2022 (EDT)
 * That's just turning a NQ into a no consensus by another name. SmokedChili (talk) 15:11, April 14, 2022 (EDT)
 * So? You say that as if NQ and no consensus functioning similarly is an actual problem, which I fail to see how it is. You've also been focusing entirely on solution 2; you have yet to explain what your problem is with solution 1 other than inexplicably calling it "convoluted". The only difference I see between my solution 1 and your proposed alternative is that my version would cause 3-1 and 3-2 proposals to NQ, while yours would treat them like a no consensus and extend them (honestly probably a better idea now that I think about it, but that only matters if we don't apply solution 2, and a solution 1-only outcome is looking unlikely at this point). If that's your issue, then say so, but that's an entirely different problem from being "convoluted". 16:07, April 14, 2022 (EDT)
 * It's the proposal process I'm calling convoluted. It's split into two parts where the first raises the bar for passing the minimum requirement before the initial deadline for consensus/extension to patch the loophole (4 votes needed is reasonable enough while I don't agree with which rule should be implemented with it), the second lowers it slightly as the alternative to also patch the loophole, but their combination drops it straight to the bottom so that all NQ/NC proposals are given the same mercy to extend (too far). Sounds too cumbersome in execution. I wanted a more condensed process while still keeping that minimum requirement pass somewhere at the initial deadline. SmokedChili (talk) 13:11, April 19, 2022 (EDT)

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.