MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/50

Template for computer games
A decent amount of articles on Flash web games have been written, thanks to the previous proposal, and there are more to come. Now they need their own template. Seeing as how neither do other computer games ("Mario's Fun Preschool", "Mario's FUNdamentals" etc.) have an assigned template, I think herding them all together into one single template is the best solution -- see this mock-up on my sandbox page. Computer games have long yearned a template of their own.

There are five ways this could go:
 * 1) Look up to the mock-up: we respect the layout and content of the mock-up. Those Flash games were intended to be played on computer browsers, after all. I support this.
 * 2) Split the Flash games from other computer games: we make two separate templates for both. This would be a waste of memory in my opinion...
 * 3) Computer games no, Flash games yes: organising computer games into one template might be awkward due to so many ports, so this can be grounds for not creating them a template. We create one for Flash games, though. This is my secondary option.
 * 4) Flash games no, computer games yes: this option here is a no go for me. At least the Flash games are on a league of their own and need a nav template.
 * 5) Do nothing, or just add the Flash games to the Mario Games template: what it says on the tin.

Also, if you vote, please let me also know if you think Flash games should be listed with their complete names (e.g.: Diddy Kong Racing DS -- Timber's Balloon Pop) or just their essential title (e.g.: Timber's Balloon Pop). I personally find the latter option less confusing.

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

Option 1

 * 1) per proposal.
 * 2) Flash and PC games fall into the same category IMO, so per Super Radio.
 * 3) Per Radio and Toadette. As for the title used, I think the essential title should be used as it would make the template less crowded and confusing.
 * 4) Per all.  Also, I think only essential titles should be used, with the full title stated in the article.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per proposal.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Per all, this seems like a useful template.
 * 9) I like the mock-up generally, but I feel that browser games should be titled Flash instead, unless there exists like a, , or  game for some examples.

Option 3

 * 1) also good.

Option 4

 * 1) makes scence. Super Radio!

Comments
Out of curiosity, are all of the browser games run with flash? 20:06, 15 December 2017 (EST)
 * Yes, at least the ones in the Nintendo Arcade. (This thing, though, which I don't even know if it's official, which is official, looks like isn't powered by Flash.) I called them browser games just in case. -- 03:46, 16 December 2017 (EST)

@Wildgoosespeeder: Donkey Kong Country: Barrel Maze (see my comment above for details) is a browser game and definitely not made in Flash. -- 14:34, 17 December 2017 (EST)

Create a new template for file revision deletions
So we don't have to keep bothering Shokora about this stuff, I thought of creating a new template specifically to alert admins on image revisions that need to be deleted, not the image itself. Here's what I had in mind:

 It has been requested that revisions of this file be deleted.

An optional reason can also be included. Was thinking this could go under a new category, Category:Revisions to be deleted. has Category:To be deleted and has Category:Deletion requested, so this would make it a sub-category of To be deleted. This would be the full coding of the new template :

Proposer: Deadline: December 24, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Create "delete-revision"

 * 1) Why not?
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) Well, it's ok by me!
 * 4) Per proposal
 * 5) This seems like a useful idea. Per all.
 * 6) Per proposal. Also, this could potentially help admins delete inappropriate images that were uploaded on an existing image if they didn't see the image (rare, but you never know).
 * 7) I often felt guilty bothering  about this sort of thing and thought about creating a template. This is way quicker.
 * 8) Awesome!
 * 9) I mean, the second option is way more enticing and well written, but I'm too lazy to even bother Shokora about this stuff, so...
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) – Yes, please stop bothering me :) Per all.
 * 1) – Yes, please stop bothering me :) Per all.

Comments
I don't think I missed anything, but if I did, let me know. 13:23, 17 December 2017 (EST)

Just to be clear, this is to be used on FILES ONLY, correct? I don't want articles to have things like these on them, as that simply calls attention to the fact that they exist. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:27, 18 December 2017 (EST)
 * Yeah, just files. Don't see a reason to make one for articles. 17:28, 18 December 2017 (EST)

The Secret Courses of Remix 10 in Super Mario Run
In Super Mario Run's Remix 10, there are three kinds of levels: regular courses, Secret Courses (labelled with question marks), and Special Remix Courses (labelled with exclamation marks). The Special Remixes are wholly based on existing levels, so they're not of particular interest, but the Secret Courses are completely unique. All of them ( 25 27?) even have individual names, and although those names may be generic, that hasn't stopped us with World 1-1, World 1-2, and all of the rest. Considering our new article policy that strives to give articles to every level, it seems like we should make articles for the Secret Courses. However, they're short, and noticeably shorter than the other Super Mario Run levels. All of them are certainly distinct from each other, but considering the last level-based snafu, it'd probably be best to settle this by proposal.

If this proposal passes (i.e. if you support it), all twenty-five Secret Courses would receive individual articles (I'd make a mock-up, but I don't have enough information on-hand to do so). If this proposal does not pass, they would be concentrated into a single table (ditto).

Proposer: Deadline: December 26, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) - They are levels, and we have plenty of short articles. As long as the information given is as accurate and as much as we have, then I think it's fine. Before anyone uses that information against me to describe the Power Moon articles, I'll repeat that I think they are more along the lines of collectables (albeit important ones) than actual levels or missions, sans a few story-relevant ones. In this case with the Super Mario Run levels, they are full levels, at least as far as I can tell.
 * 2) - per Time Turner and Alex
 * 3) Per proposal
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Per all.

Oppose

 * 1) We may or may not have seen all of the Secret Courses' layouts. And considering the mode it is in, it would be very difficult to write these levels. For now, a table would work best for these if we want to include them. I'm saying if due to how they are. Like regular and Special Remixes, they are short levels (parts of levels even) with variety of different set ups, but usually repeatable throughout the Areas. Considering their current state, they can't be level articles, yet. If Nintendo decides to add those levels in where we can actually play the whole thing and all of them without going to Remix 10, then they will be worth having articles.
 * 2) per SSM.
 * 3) Per Yoshi the SSM.

Comments
You forgot to vote in your own proposal. 11:43, 19 December 2017 (EST)
 * No, I did not. I want to see how other people vote first. 11:48, 19 December 2017 (EST)

@Yoshi the SSM: To paraphrase Alex, every level or mission, no matter how short, is required to have its own article. And there's a video compilation of all Secret Courses on YouTube, so problem solved but apparently no compilation with "!" courses. Maybe separate gameplay videos will help? -- 04:21, 20 December 2017 (EST)
 * We should find them out. I think they're likely going to be one possibility of the whole level (and they can actually be compared with the levels, these can't), but I could be wrong. 10:12, 20 December 2017 (EST)
 * The "!" courses aren't a priority for this proposal, but they're something that we should definitely look into for the future. 17:10, 20 December 2017 (EST)
 * But seeing them will help me out on this. 17:12, 20 December 2017 (EST)

Do not require main templates to be placed on pages alongside auxiliary templates
MarioWiki:Navigation templates § Game-specific templates: These auxiliary game-specific templates only need to go on the articles of subjects that concern them (e.g. the NSMB2 level articles) and the game page itself, however the main template has to go on the subject pages along with the auxiliary template.

My problem is with the bolded sentence (emphasis mine). What's the point of placing a navigation template on an article if the article itself isn't in the template? It's not as if the opposite is true, where, for example, needs to be placed on every non-item page. What's the point of even splitting subjects into separate templates if we're just going to throw them all together anyways? It's extraneous and self-defeating.

Proposer: Deadline: December 29, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) - The Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels level articles all have the  template, despite the levels themselves not showing on it. Conversely, the Super Mario Sunshine missions do not have the main  template, creating an inconsistency. Considering I worked on both of those, I suppose that would be poor planning on my part, but regardless, per proposal.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) Per proposal.
 * 5) Per ALL
 * 6) Per all

Comments
"What's the point of placing a navigation template on an article if the article itself isn't in the template?" The missing article could always be added to the template if it's relevant. 16:20, 24 December 2017 (EST)
 * That's not relevant for this case, as the link should have been there in the first place. Here, however, the links are being specifically placed in another nav template. 19:53, 24 December 2017 (EST)

Add anchor links to Power Moon lists
Recently, I've had a small talk with on the removal of anchor links from the Power Moon lists for each kingdom in Super Mario Odyssey. Some lists actually had anchor templates, but Legomariofanatic removed them because someone suggested that anyone looking for a specific Power Moon can use the CTRL+F function to find it in a list. Here's my discussion with Legomariofanatic.

Thing is, I think it's less probable that a user will look up "List of Power Moons in whatever Kingdom" and then do some search on that page to find the location of a Power Moon, than they will simply search that name of the Power Moon. In the game, Talkatoo tells you the names of uncollected Power Moons, so there's how someone could learn their names. The Hint Toad locates them directly on the map, although in some cases the locations may not be exact--that's where the Internet comes to help.

Because this might spur a quarrel, seeing as how someone saw anchor links as useless, I think a proposal is necessary to settle it. Should we use anchor links or not?

Proposer: Deadline: December 31, 2017, 08:53 GMT

Support

 * 1) per proposal
 * 2) - I think the anchor template was created for this sort of thing, so sure, per proposal.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) Clearly a no-brainer, per all.
 * 5) Per Mario jc's comments
 * 6) Give me one reason not to.  Per all.
 * 7) Per my comment below.
 * 8) per ALL
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) Per all.

Comments
I honestly think this is a no-brainer. Like other pages with a list of searchable names like the Things from Sticker Star and Color Splash, obviously it'd be faster and more convenient for people to be taken directly to the specific Power Moon they're looking for (this applies to both searching and linking to Power Moons on other pages). They shouldn't have to use CTRL+F to find the name themselves in this situation. It's better to have the anchor links than to not have them at all. 00:29, 25 December 2017 (EST)
 * There are many lists that use anchor links, like the treasure lists from different Wario games. So yeah, the proposal is apparently a no-brainer. But I thought someone could step forward and argue why those links wouldn't be needed. We need to be cautious! -- 06:55, 25 December 2017 (EST)

@YoshiFlutterJump: Please give a reason as to why you're supporting, even if it's "per all". Your vote doesn't seem valid, as it doesn't appear to be based on anything. 10:10, 27 December 2017 (EST)

The format of the statistics in the main pages of Mario Kart 7, Mario Kart 8 and Mario Kart 8 Deluxe
While the statistics shown in the menus of Mario Kart games have been notoriously inaccurate and sometimes even outright wrong, since Mario Kart 7 the vehicle customization screen finally shows statistics in a way that at least is directly correlated with the underlying in-game statistics: internally the games use points that are summed to determine the final values of the statistics, with each character or part contributing their own points to each statistics, and in the vehicle customization screen every time there is an increase of 1 point in a statistics, the corresponding value shown by the bar increases by 0.25. This direct correspondence between the length of the bar and the underlying sum of points in each statistics led to the main pages of Mario Kart 7, Mario Kart 8 and Mario Kart 8 Deluxe exclusively reporting the statistics in the format used by the games' vehicle customization screens. It must be noted that said format is actually used by the games to display the final statistics of a certain combination of character, vehicle, tires and glider, while in the main pages it is being used to display the statistics of the individual elements (characters and vehicle parts). This mismatch first of all leads to different criteria used for the characters (the final statistics obtained when using said characters with standard parts) and the parts (how the tatistics of each part compare with respect to standard parts), furthermore when discussing a redesign of the tables of statistics thanks to an automated script with, other aspects emerged: Therefore, since the current format has both advantages and disadvantages and the games actually use an alternative format, the points, which is still simple and thus could be used in the main pages I propose to review and decide which format to use for the statistics shown in the main pages of Mario Kart 7, Mario Kart 8 and Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, between those two: In short, those are what I think are the main advantages of each format:
 * the differences between various parts and how much characters and parts contribute to the final stats are potentially more difficult to evaluate, since fractional number that, in the case of the parts, can be both negative and positive are being used to display the stats in place of integers
 * standard parts can have values which are not average in some statistics, leading to the numbers being skewed as a result, this being the case of Standard Tires in Mario Kart 8 which have maximum water speed
 * comparison between games can be more difficult, as the statistics of the standard parts are different in each game - as an example, the Standard Kart has different stats in each game, but the current format doesn't show this
 * more importantly, the current format can be misleading when trying to make considerations in the individual parts' pages, such as the ones on the Standard Kart that didn't reflect the actual statistics of the kart nor the actual contribution of the characters to the final statistics in Mario Kart 7.
 * 1) values actually used by the game (called points)
 * 2) values shown in the vehicle customization screen (what I'll call bar values)

MAIN ADVANTAGES OF POINTS
 * They are the values actually used by the game and, as such, they are not misleading
 * They allow for an easy comparison between characters and parts and between games using the points system, while allowing to easily see how much a character or part contributes to the final stats

MAIN ADVANTAGES OF BAR VALUES
 * They are the ones shown in the vehicle customization screen and, as such, they are the ones most readers are familiar with and the ones mainly used by the competitive Mario Kart community as well
 * They tend to be useful for statistics which are tiered on the integer part of bar values, in particular acceleration in Mario Kart 8 and weight in Mario Kart 8 and Mario Kart 8 Deluxe

As a final note, a revision of the pages of the individual parts will have to be done regardless of the outcome of this proposal, to add the actual statistics of the parts and to see if there are other considerations which need to be corrected in light of the actual statistics of each part.

Proposer: Deadline: January 2, 2018, 23:59 GMT

Use points

 * 1) - While bars are more familiar to players, points show the statistics more accurately, which I think is what should be used.
 * 2) the idea that most readers are already familiar with bar values is not really correct. most readers are familiar with the in-game system of bar values, which they might assume is identical with the wiki's system. but that is not a correct assumption, and cannot be. the in-game system is used to rate a combination of a character and three vehicle parts, while the wiki's system is used to rate each character or part individually. the mapping between the two is based on some fairly arbitrary decisions that readers can easily gloss over without understanding their implications for interpretation of the reported values. the upshot is that although the bar value format feels familiar to readers, because it resembles the in-game system, this feeling is inaccurate and misleads readers into believing that they understand the system when they actually do not. we have already seen the result of this: the claim linked above that the standard kart "doesn't offer any stat changes due to the main stats relying more on the weight class of the character and is shared for all characters" is completely wrong, and this is a direct result of an editor attempting to reason about the bar values system while having misunderstood it. this is a weakness that the point system lacks: because it does not falsely seem to be immediately familiar, users are less likely to incorrectly assume that they understand it when they do not, and more likely to read adjacent explanations of how to properly interpret the data as it is presented regardless of which system the page uses, it will need to include some such text to explain the system to uninformed readers, and readers who opt to ignore this text are likely to come to inaccurate conclusions regarding part statistics. since readers must read and understand this text to correctly use either system, it makes sense to use whichever of the two systems is most helpful to those who do understand it. this is clearly the point system, which allows users to easily understand how each individual part affects the overall stats of a build, cross reference the stats of a part with the translation tables here, and compare parts between mario kart 8 and mario kart 8 deluxe to see how their stats have changed. none of these tasks can easily be done with the bar values system. meanwhile, the main presumed advantage of the bar values system is that it's likely to feel familiar to readers. but as i've shown, this feeling does not mean that most readers actually understand it, and may actually be harmful to their ability to learn to use it
 * 3) Accuracy should take priority over familiarity. Readers would be better off with a foreign yet accurate display of information than a familiar yet flawed display, and it would be better to take the time to learn how to read it than simply go with what they already know, especially if the latter is inaccurate. Using the bar system would defeat the purpose of us being a wiki -- a reputable source of information -- due to said system having inaccurate data. Per 2257.
 * 4) Point values are better because they accurately measure the statistics of a certain part. It's also advisable that the maximum value should be present as well, so that the bar charts are truly obsolete. Per 2257.
 * 5) - Per 2257.
 * 6) Per 2257.
 * 7) Per 2257.
 * 8) per 2257
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Per all, especially 2257.

Use bar values

 * 1) You know, if readers are familiar with the bar values, and if the competitive Mario Kart community uses them, then I'm going with bar values. Anyway, that is some of the most detailed in-depth stuff I've read yet on this wiki. I'm gonna have to take a look at it again to make things a little clearer for me.
 * 2) Per Lcross.  The games use bars, and bars are easier for players to understand, so we use bars.

Comments
Why not both, like how we have for the Mario Kart Wii vehicles like Standard Kart M (but done better)? 17:55, 26 December 2017 (EST)
 * Dingo-DONGO. I like that idea. The problem is, how are we going to implement thatt? 18:07, 26 December 2017 (EST)
 * I personally tried that, and I was asked to just report one set of stats. We can of course include two sets of tables, but that would be additional vertical scrolling. In short, unless you can come up with a new layout that manages to do that more clearly, this simply isn't going to happen again.--Mister Wu (talk) 18:33, 26 December 2017 (EST)
 * If only one set of stats is what's been asked, then we may as well just use one for now. 19:30, 26 December 2017 (EST)
 * I was thinking putting the number inside the bar. Just needs proper CSS. See Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games (Wii) or Mario & Sonic at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games (Wii U) for great examples. -- 15:54, 2 January 2018 (EST)

@Wildgoosespeeder: You can't vote for both options when there are only two. Please choose just one of them. 15:46, 2 January 2018 (EST)
 * You're right. What was I thinking? Retracted. However, this proposal should have had four options: Values, Bars, Both, or Do Nothing. I would have voted for the both option. -- 15:54, 2 January 2018 (EST)
 * Both was already done and it was asked to be reverted due to difficulty in reading the tables, so it was not a feasible option. Using bar values has the same effect as Do Nothing, since we currently use bar values in the pages.--Mister Wu (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2018 (EST)

Allow the coverage of distinctly Mario aspects from guest appearances
According to Coverage, Nintendo Land is "not a crossover" and is therefore a guest appearance; since the game constitutes a guest appearance, it should only receive one page and the minigame pages (Donkey Kong's Crash Course, Luigi's Ghost Mansion, Mario Chase, and Yoshi's Fruit Cart) should be deleted, per the rules on MarioWiki:Coverage. However, why not change the rules? Instead of having these pages exist in a grey area, why not change things so that they, and any other subjects from guest appearances that are clearly baked in Mario iconography, can have articles? To be clear, this is not a proposal to give articles to every subject from a guest appearance: LeBron James and Psymon would still not have articles, but, for example, Nintendo Village might be eligible. These are subjects that use the Mario IP with Nintendo's express approval, if not because Nintendo themselves created them, and they're arguably more related to the franchise than some of the stuff that the wiki already covers. I don't see why we shouldn't allow them here.

Proposer: Deadline: January 4, 2018, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) I'm with you on this one. Sounds like a good idea to cover Mario-only elements of any non-Mario game. And plus, why even bring up LeBron James in the first place? Come on now, I don't want an article on that, because then we might have people yelling out constantly about how the stupid Warriors blew a 3-1 lead. Jesus, man, can we just not do that?
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) The summary above sounds convincing. Per all.
 * 5) Policy needs an overhaul for these cases, and this is a step in the right direction.
 * 6) Per all, it leaves a gap in our coverage otherwise.
 * 7) - I honestly thought this was a crossover already. Per proposal.
 * 8) Per proposal.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Per all. Yeah, I don't think LeBron James or Mooshroom need an article, though I think subjects such as Tetris DS Puzzle Mode are deserving of one.
 * 12) Per all.
 * 13) Per all.
 * 14) Per all.

Does Tetris DS count as a guest appearance?
Once upon a time, a proposal deemed that Tetris DS was irrelevant to the Super Mario Wiki, and should therefore be deleted... except that was four years ago, and the article still remains. Now it just sits in limbo or something, and that's not satisfying to me. To me, Tetris DS is about on par with Nintendo Land in terms of Mario content. From the six games, half of them prominently feature Mario characters and integrate them into the gameplay, especially with the Standard game's multiplayer items and the Yoshi's Cookie Puzzle game. If you say that the Mario aspect only affects the visuals and not the gameplay, and therefore shouldn't be covered here, then I'll ask why Nintendo Badge Arcade and Minecraft are covered at all, or even why Nintendo Land is covered when its line-up includes a game of tag and moving a cart around. Also, that clearly ignores the multiplayer items. Simply put, this game has more than enough Mario-related content to justify its coverage on the wiki.

Proposer: Deadline: January 4, 2018, 23:59 GMT

Yes, it is a guest appearance (and therefore, keep the page)

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) I guess I will support this one, but holy smoke, are you a proposal machine or what? You keep belching these out like factory goods on the conveyor belt every day.
 * 3) Should be a no-brainer, per all.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) - Per proposal.
 * 6) Per proposal.
 * 7) Per proposal, to me Mario content in Tetris DS is no different from Mario content in Smash Bros.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) Per all, but SmokedChili especially.

No, it is not a guest appearance (and therefore, delete the page)

 * 1) The games mentioned besides Tetris DS are governed by a very black and white policy. I have also wanted to stir up discussion to no avail. I don't think the game is the issue. It's how we cover crossovers, which isn't satisfactory, because we end up covering non-Mario things. It's a very hard call due to the current complexity of the Mario universe intertwined with other video game universes.
 * 2) Per Wildgoosespeeder.

Comments
@Wildgoose: What are you talking about? What's so black-and-white about the policy that it completely annuls Tetris DS from having an article? 00:30, 28 December 2017 (EST)
 * Watching playthroughs of Tetris DS, NES games are used as a background theme as you play Tetris, which Super Mario Bros., Super Mario Bros. 3, Donkey Kong, and Yoshi's Cookie for some examples. This sounds like a guest appearance to me. -- 00:46, 28 December 2017 (EST)
 * Yes. That is the point of the proposal. 00:47, 28 December 2017 (EST)
 * But wanting to allow it anyways (at this time 3-1 vote to keep) means the policy is very black and white about this, but not just with Tetris DS. Policy needs to be reworked for these instances. NES Remix, Tetris & Dr. Mario, and others all have issues with policy. Not just Tetris DS. -- 00:56, 28 December 2017 (EST)
 * I think I knew where I confused myself. I want Tetris DS to be considered a cameo. I just looked at Densetsu no Starfy 3 and that makes a little more sense to cover levels where Wario makes a physical appearance. In Tetris DS, you don't interact with the themes, but in Densetsu no Starfy 3, Wario interacts with Starfy. -- 01:08, 28 December 2017 (EST)
 * And what about the multiplayer items? 10:40, 28 December 2017 (EST)
 * List of Mario references in Nintendo video games
 * List of Mario references in Nintendo video games
 * List of Mario references in Nintendo video games
 * List of Mario references in Nintendo video games
 * List of Mario references in Nintendo video games
 * List of Mario references in Nintendo video games
 * Just some examples found in List of Mario references in Nintendo video games. There's likely many more. Does that mean these games deserve their own article? -- 11:38, 28 December 2017 (EST)
 * How are they relevant to my point? 11:43, 28 December 2017 (EST)
 * I read the section about multiplayer items, and there is a level of interaction with the Tetris universe. My point was we have many games that don't have articles and there are physical appearances of Mario universe people or things in them that has influence in those universes. This supports my other point that policy is very black and white, leaving people to grasp at straws to cover either by separate article or merge contents in list articles. -- 11:50, 28 December 2017 (EST)
 * You still haven't explained how the policy is black-and-white in the first place. And frankly, what if I say that those games should have articles? What then? 11:55, 28 December 2017 (EST)
 * It's either full coverage (mainstream or crossover) or some coverage (guest appearance or cameo). I don't think this is satisfactory for crossover or guest appearance. Instead of two "modes" of coverage, we need four. Also, you have another proposal going addressing issues with this policy as well, so I think you understand somewhat of what I mean that I think policy is very black and white. -- 12:05, 28 December 2017 (EST)
 * Seriously, what are you talking about? 12:23, 28 December 2017 (EST)
 * Can you elaborate what's not clear to you? -- 12:41, 28 December 2017 (EST)
 * Go basic here: what do you mean by "black-and-white"? 12:48, 28 December 2017 (EST)
 * No grey area. The games in question don't fit the full coverage or partial coverage policy completely. -- 13:40, 28 December 2017 (EST)
 * How so? 13:57, 28 December 2017 (EST)
 * We've had multiple discussions before, like with the creation of Minecraft that I can immediately recall. -- 14:57, 28 December 2017 (EST)
 * And yet Minecraft is being covered on the wiki. What are you talking about? 15:29, 28 December 2017 (EST)
 * Yes, it was covered. I wasn't trying to outright stop its coverage. However, the current way it is being covered just doesn't feel right compared to other games. The point is just because it features Mario characters or references it doesn't mean it is a Mario game. If that were true, the List of Mario references in Nintendo video games shouldn't exist and should be split into separate articles. -- 15:38, 28 December 2017 (EST)
 * The point isn't that it's a Mario game. The point is that it has content that is relevant to the wiki. 15:56, 28 December 2017 (EST)
 * Not arguing that it has relevance. I am arguing the presentation just isn't quite right. -- 16:00, 28 December 2017 (EST)
 * What would be right for you, then? 16:02, 28 December 2017 (EST)
 * A merge to the references list or a general guest appearance article. Since guest appearance, link to the appropriate NIWA wiki article, or Wikipedia article if the game is not a Nintendo property. In the case of Tetris DS, it's a reference and not a guest appearance, although policy isn't definitive on that. -- 16:17, 28 December 2017 (EST)
 * Why shouldn't we give them individual articles? 17:01, 28 December 2017 (EST)
 * It feels like we are giving these games the same precedence as regular normal releases. -- 17:15, 28 December 2017 (EST)
 * One page and dedicated coverage of clearly Mario aspects, versus every single subject within the game getting an article. They are not the same. 17:34, 28 December 2017 (EST)

Shouldn’t this be a TPP? - 17:57, 28 December 2017 (EST)
 * Hypothetically, if Tetris DS didn't already have a page, then the proposal would have definitely gone here. I think this kind of stuff is better suited for here, anyways, as it sets a visible precedent for what future games may or may not be considered as guest appearances. Besides, my other guest appearance proposals have all been here. 18:08, 28 December 2017 (EST)

Create a page for Luigi's Mansion (series)
I am honestly surprised that this page does not exist, as I believe it once did. In short, there are three installments to this series: Luigi's Mansion, Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon, and Luigi's Mansion Arcade. Though it might seem to some that only three games won't be enough to warrant a series page, keep in mind the DK series and the Mario Baseball'' series pages. There is plenty of information for this page, as we have a main protagonist (Luigi) and many other supporting characters and reoccurring enemies such as King Boo and Boos. It only seems logical to create a page for a series within the Mario franchise that features two games for consoles and one arcade game.

Proposer: Deadline: January 9, 2018 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per my proposal.
 * 2) Good Idea! :P
 * 3) - A series page did exist before, but it was deleted back in 2011. That was before the arcade title, however, so I don't see a reason to not make one now.
 * 4) Per proposal.
 * 5) Per proposal. Since other similar series pages exist, I don't see an issue with creating this one.
 * 6) Per proposal.
 * 7) OH YEAH! I KNEW this was supposed to be a thing. As a person whose favorite video-game character is the man in green, Mr. Number Two, I think this proposal is just great. After all, don't we hear people talk about the Luigi's Mansion games as a series? I think we're on a roll, boys. Per proposal. This thing should have been created when Dark Moon was released.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) If we have articles on series with only two games, then clearly this subject merits an article. Per all.
 * 10) Per all. It may seem strange to have an article on a two-game series. However, this one has three.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) Per all. It'd be weird pre-Arcade game, but three seems enough that the article could be useful.
 * 13) There's an article for DK (series), which only consists of two games, so having one for a three game series seems more than logical. Per all.
 * 14) Per all.

Comments
Is there a policy page/section about what qualifies as a series and allow for a series article? -- 15:00, 2 January 2018 (EST)
 * Not finding one, but I think the unspoken rule is about three games? I remember reading that somewhere. 15:13, 2 January 2018 (EST)
 * Thought there would be so that way proposals don't need to be created. Would the admins be in favor of a policy to bypass the need for a proposal? I wouldn't know how to define the prerequisites. -- 17:38, 2 January 2018 (EST)
 * This page was previously deleted, so I understand the need for this proposal. But, imo, a policy for it doesn't seem necessary. As long as there is more than one game in the same series and a decent amount of information can be written, then proposals shouldn't be necessary either. Something can probably be added to Glossary though. 17:50, 2 January 2018 (EST)
 * Just thought of something else. Series vs. Franchise. We got both those types of pages that are similar-ish in concept. -- 23:24, 2 January 2018 (EST)

2011 was even before Dark Moon was released so I see why the original page was deleted.
 * Whoop, forgot when Dark Moon was released. That makes the original page even more pointless :P 15:19, 2 January 2018 (EST)

Lcrossmk8: I do not think you can just support this proposal just because you like Luigi. Please, look rule #4.-- 16:40, 2 January 2018 (EST)
 * I'm not supporting the proposal just because I like Luigi. I agree with all the other reasons the proposal is on here, and that's why I voted for it. 16:42, 2 January 2018 (EST)
 * You just say in your reason for voting: "As a person whose favorite video-game character is the man in green, Mr. Number Two, I think this proposal is just great." This is not a valid reason to support a proposal. Rule #4 says: "irrelevant quips or comments are just as invalid as providing no reason at all. But now, I saw you put "Per proposal." so your vote is now valid."-- 16:50, 2 January 2018 (EST)

What is Alleyway?
Once upon a time, a proposal deemed that Alleyway was irrelevant to the Super Mario Wiki, and should therefore be deleted... except that was four years ago, and the article still remains. Now it just sits in limbo or something, and that's not satisfying to me. Frankly, I consider this to be a clear-cut case: the game itself shows Mario to be the player character (as well as the life counter). As also seen in the box cover, he's the one piloting the paddle. The rest of the game isn't bereft of Mario images either, as every single bonus stage features something from the franchise to destroy. And "it doesn't play like a Mario game" isn't particularly valid in a franchise that spans so many different genres, and especially not when the wiki already covers Pinball and Golf (really, if you're against Alleyway on the wiki, you should also explain what you think about this game). Heck, Mario's Picross shows that the franchise is no stranger to seemingly esoteric playstyles. How can Mario be cameoing in this game when he is the one and only playable character?

With all of this in mind, there are two options: either Alleyway is properly a member of the Mario franchise, in which case the article would be kept, or it only features cameos from the franchise, in which case the article would be merged to List of Mario references in Nintendo video games.

Proposer: Deadline: January 11, 2018, 23:59 GMT

It is a part of the franchise (and therefore, keep the article)

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) - Having played Alleyway, I noticed there are too many Mario things for it to not be a Mario game. Mario paddles the paddles, there are brick structures in the shape of various Mario characters. So, yeah, per proposal.
 * 3) This is even more clear than Tetris DS. Per all.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) was wrong.
 * 6) Mario is literally the playable character it's more then a simple cameo.
 * 7) It's clearly a guest appearance at the very least, because not only is Mario the sole playable character, there are also countless patterns that pertain to Mario. Wildgoosespeeder's vote comment is also a meaningless technicality (no offense), so per all.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) Keep it
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) Per all.
 * 13) Per all.  Besides, the official Nintendo website qualifies it as a Mario game.
 * 14) Definitely more than a guest appearance or cameo, per all.
 * 15) Per all.
 * 16) If the official Nintendo website classifies it as a Mario game, then we should take it for its word.

It only counts as a cameo (and therefore, merge the page to List of Mario references in Nintendo video games)

 * 1) This option is a bit misleading because if you read the proposal, this option is for merging, not deleting. Merge with references, just like every other time I voted in similar proposals. It feels weird to give it the same attention as say Super Mario Land and Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins because of the core gameplay. It's a, not its own game series. Some videos why Mario is in these games:   Alleyway is noteworthy, but not as a separate article.

Comments
Since I've been looking back at that proposal, might as well start a tangentially related discussion: what's the difference between Pushmo and Rhythm Heaven Megamix? 21:55, 4 January 2018 (EST)

@Wildgoosespeeder: I literally make it a point in the proposal to talk about how the gameplay means nothing. 22:02, 4 January 2018 (EST)
 * Also, in a series like Mario, "canon" means nothing either. This isn't a franchise like Zelda or Metroid where some things are "canon" and others aren't. The rule of making Mario games is "We have a bunch of concepts and characters, let's do something fun with them." Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2018 (EST)
 * Case in point: that's literally policy. 22:12, 4 January 2018 (EST)
 * Gameplay should mean everything to article creation because simply slapping Mario on any game doesn't make it a Mario game right away. Let's debate the game's merits, not arbitrary rules you define. That's my argument with every similar proposal I voted on. -- 22:24, 4 January 2018 (EST)
 * So Mario's Picross isn't a Mario game? 22:26, 4 January 2018 (EST)
 * Let's focus on Alleyway instead of changing the subject. -- 22:27, 4 January 2018 (EST)
 * It's entirely relevant. You're talking about how gameplay defines a Mario game, and I'm providing an example of a game that clearly does not fit the standard Mario mold. 22:29, 4 January 2018 (EST)
 * I insist we keep talking about Alleyway, since this is a proposal about it. If you created a proposal to talk about all the games that are questionable relating to policy and List of Mario references in Nintendo video games, then we can discuss that game further. If you have no other arguments for my oppose vote, then we are done here. -- 22:35, 4 January 2018 (EST)
 * For one thing, you certainly seemed fine discussing other games, but that's neither here nor there. What's most important is that you're adamant about the core gameplay of the Mario franchise, but you're completely unwilling to discuss it. This is relevant when you're using it as a reason in your vote. Don't just brush it aside. 22:38, 4 January 2018 (EST)
 * I realized that being so easily derailed didn't help my argument for my oppose vote last time. My mistake. This time, I'll try to be more focused on the proposal's topic of What is Alleyway, and for future proposals in general. -- 22:48, 4 January 2018 (EST)
 * Please don't brush aside my query and tell me how the "core gameplay" denies Alleyway from being allowed an article while other games are perfectly fine. 22:50, 4 January 2018 (EST)
 * The first game was, which was a hit that inspired , which are very common. We got , , and for just noteworthy ones and also come to mind. There's many more. I've come across a lot of Breakout clone  on Steam and the Google Play store. Also, I said earlier that  simply slapping Mario on any game doesn't make it a Mario game right away. Also, the videos in my vote show how Mario ended up in games like that. As far as I am concerned, it's a reference, probably to have driven the sale of Alleyway (brand recognition) more than to be considered a Mario game. It's not an uncommon business tactic either. -- 23:03, 4 January 2018 (EST)
 * Why does it matter how Mario ended up in the game? How does the historical context change anything about the game itself? 23:20, 4 January 2018 (EST)
 * You are only looking at his physical appearance in the game. I am looking at more than that, such as gameplay, historical significance, etc. to decide if the game deserves an article or be merged with that one page. -- 23:25, 4 January 2018 (EST)
 * Again, why does that matter? 23:25, 4 January 2018 (EST)
 * Those factors all contributed to the game's production and market performance. -- 23:37, 4 January 2018 (EST)
 * ...Why is that relevant when it comes to this matter? 23:38, 4 January 2018 (EST)
 * I already told you, but you refuse to accept my answer. -- 23:41, 4 January 2018 (EST)
 * You haven't actually explained why the game's context matters in the slightest. 23:42, 4 January 2018 (EST)
 * Yes I have. Reread my comments. -- 23:48, 4 January 2018 (EST)
 * "Because it's a clone." So? How about how Donkey Kong relates to Popeye and how Super Mario Bros. relates to Pac-Land? "Breakout clone" is a bit of a misnomer, as it's a genre. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2018 (EST)
 * Popeye, that is based on the love triangle trope. We got two men in love with a woman: The brutish fiend (Bluto and Donkey Kong) vs. the hero (Popeye and Mario) and their love interest (Olive and Pauline). So what you are saying because the themes are similar, that means one is a clone of another? No. Breakout clone is not a genre. The genre you are looking for is brick breaker, or something like that. That would be like calling or  a genre for all s. It's just become a term synonymous with that genre, so I can understand the confusion. -- 00:37, 5 January 2018 (EST)
 * "A Breakout Clone is a sub-class of the 'ball-and-bat' genre" according to this. Making it less of a "clone" deal and more of a specific type of game, which there's only so much you can do with, although the aforementioned Arkanoid proved that it really can be more than a clone, what with fighting a giant holographic red Moai with the same name as Homer Simpson's "catchphrase." So yes, it's still a misleading term, and not a good reason to say it doesn't belong here. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2018 (EST)
 * The proposer is not wanting to delete the entire contents of the article for the oppose option. Just merge with List of Mario references in Nintendo video games. No, don't delete contents of the article. Just merge contents and make the title a redirect or something. -- 01:29, 5 January 2018 (EST)
 * Except there'd be no neat way to include all of the information on the page into the article. There would definitely be something lost in the transition. 01:32, 5 January 2018 (EST)
 * We cover where the bonus levels are featuring Mario references, we got pictures (incomplete), we got Mario getting into the spaceship, the cover artwork, and the Wikipedia link. What else is there to cover? Everything else is just filler not related to Mario. -- 01:35, 5 January 2018 (EST)
 * I mean, look at any independent page, then look at the sections, and you'll see plenty that isn't there, like an infobox that consolidates information, an intro, subpages, critical reception and media sections, and I could go on if you'd like. 11:05, 5 January 2018 (EST)
 * But it's not a reference. As shown on the cover art, Mario's piloting the ship. ie, it's a similar situation to Famicom Grand Prix II: 3D Hot Rally, where in-game, Mario isn't seen within the vehicle, but he officially is there. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 01:36, 5 January 2018 (EST)
 * I think I already covered that part of the argument above why it is a reference. Also, we are sticking strictly with Alleyway this time. No other games we are currently covering on the wiki should be discussed at this time. -- 01:38, 5 January 2018 (EST)
 * Stop trying to railroad the conversation. Articles on the wiki serve as examples of what to do. Don't treat this as if we're arguing in a vacuum. And no, all you've done is talk about how Mario made lots of miscellaneous appearances. That does not demonstrate how the sole playable character is only making a cameo. 01:42, 5 January 2018 (EST)
 * Don't "we're sticking solely with Alleyway" me, I'm showing an example of the same situation to support my point, while your saying that I shouldn't comes off as whining about how I have supporting evidence and you don't. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2018 (EST)


 * Careful, Doc. Keep it civil.
 * 09:48, 5 January 2018 (EST)
 * is right. I never said or implied anything of the sort ., it's clear you don't want to see my arguments as supporting evidence for Mario being a cameo. However, I see your point that because there is physical appearance of the man himself, that means it is good enough justification for being a separate article. I just don't think that is good enough. I also see this argument going nowhere. Best to stop this because we have made our points. -- 10:52, 5 January 2018 (EST)
 * No, seriously, you're missing a step. "Mario made a lot of random appearances" is not logically followed by "therefore, he is making a cameo in this game". I've read your argument plenty enough; don't just accuse me of ignoring them. If context mattered as much as you're saying, Super Mario Bros. 2 wouldn't even be on this wiki. 11:01, 5 January 2018 (EST)
 * Nope, never implied you were ignoring my comments. I'm saying you disagree with me, implying you didn't ignore my comments. Anyways, what missing step are you talking about? -- 11:05, 5 January 2018 (EST)
 * You're supposed to be telling me that. The premise that you've set up isn't immediately demonstrative of the argument you're trying to make, and that's why I've been saying that you've yet to explain to me how one necessarily leads to the latter. I'll stand by Super Mario Bros. 2 as a counterexample. Also, "you don't want to see my arguments" implies that I'm ignoring them, but regardless. 11:12, 5 January 2018 (EST)
 * I guess my phrasing didn't translate well, not to another language, but the intentions behind it because I really didn't intend any malice. I just should have said you disagreed with me. As for the missing step, I thought it would have been obvious that the random appearances implies the developers of those games wanted Mario in their games as a cameo, likely to help drive sales, which I said earlier. It's not like they were building the game with Mario in mind but rather using Mario for brand recognition. -- 11:31, 5 January 2018 (EST)
 * Just to make sure we're on the same page, how do you define a "cameo"? Because the one and only playable character would never be a cameo for me no matter how you defined it. 11:46, 5 January 2018 (EST)
 * Referential, that's how I define cameo. Alleyway is referencing the Mario (series), which is what List of Mario references in Nintendo video games is. -- 12:13, 5 January 2018 (EST)
 * Why would the company want to add Mario to a game when (if it counts as a Mario game) it is their first Mario game? And should Wario's Woods not be counted in the Wario series? Should we keep Mario Paint? DO NOT say that these aren't what we should talk about. They were made by the same company that made this game, only later did they made the others and they all were even made before they made Paper Mario. 11:49, 5 January 2018 (EST)
 * The first problem I see is "Mario game". We are just declaring it is a Mario game right off the bat without analyzing it first. I don't think this was the original intent behind Alleyway. It's a game that features Mario, but not a "Mario game" per se. I guess what I am saying is what defines a "Mario game" is how much does it influence the game's core mechanics? Alleyway, Mario is there and he breaks brick patterns in bonus rounds that represent things found in Super Mario Bros.. Not very Mario like. Since my more focused arguments of staying strictly with Alleyway are pretty much done and I feel I got my point across better than the last proposal, Mario Paint, it's the overall presentation and impact it had on future games, such as Super Mario Maker, Mario Artist, and WarioWare: D.I.Y.. When was the last time you saw an Alleyway reference in a later title? Wario's Woods, I feel that is an argument for a future proposal, similar to that of Yoshi's Cookie and Yoshi. -- 12:13, 5 January 2018 (EST)
 * that's like saying Mario's Early Years isn't a mario game because nobody talks about it 12:18, 5 January 2018 (EST)
 * True. This is why I wanted to stay strictly with Alleyway to begin with. Not everything will fit in neat categories. Some games blur the line. In the case of Alleyway, when you take a deeper look, it's not a "Mario game" but rather "a game that features Mario" or just references things from Super Mario Bros. and should be merged. -- 12:22, 5 January 2018 (EST)
 * Wait, you can't just introduce a definition like that but only apply it selectively. That's completely arbitrary. 12:34, 5 January 2018 (EST)
 * Just like it's arbitrary to give some games article treatment and others to be put in a list? -- 12:37, 5 January 2018 (EST)
 * (I am put something in s for a good reason.) Anyways. Why would the company add these "cameos" to this game when it was 3 years before Mario Paint? 12:31, 5 January 2018 (EST)
 * I don't understand how Mario Paint is relevant to this particular question. I already said the cameos are put in because it was likely for brand recognition to drive sales, maybe through association. -- 12:36, 5 January 2018 (EST)
 * Why would they do that when the company hasn't done anything Mario related before? And Mario Paint is Intelligent Systems' first game mentioned on its article, which Alleyway would be before it on the same list. 12:42, 5 January 2018 (EST)
 * Edit: Wait there is Tennis, but that's the only game before Alleyway to have Mario (and Tennis was their first game ever). But, why would they have Mario as the only playable character when they haven't before? 12:46, 5 January 2018 (EST)
 * At the time, Mario was the biggest icon in gaming. It makes business sense to ask permission from Nintendo to use Mario's likeness to help drive sales to an otherwise likely obscure title by an otherwise likely obscure company. We now know Intelligent Systems as the masterminds behind the Paper Mario (series) and is a loved company for it, but it wasn't like that pre-Paper Mario, or at least I don't think so. I know that was the case for HAL Laboratory before Super Smash Bros.. -- 12:51, 5 January 2018 (EST)
 * You can clearly see that just by even looking at all Mario games before Paper Mario (whether or not including this). 13:01, 5 January 2018 (EST)
 * I Binged (same as Googled, but with Bing) for cameo and got some definitions.
 * a piece of jewelry, typically oval in shape, consisting of a portrait in profile carved in relief on a background of a different color.
 * "a short descriptive literary sketch that neatly encapsulates someone or something"
 * "a small character part in a play or movie, played by a distinguished actor or a celebrity"
 * It is the last definition that I want to highlight. It works very well with what we have. Mario is not a "small character" in this game. 13:44, 5 January 2018 (EST)
 * I really mean reference since I am looking to merge, not delete (see my vote reason), the supposed reference in Alleyway with List of Mario references in Nintendo video games. That's how I am arguing my point across. I guess I confused myself yet again, as mentioned to when he was asking how I was defining cameo. But then again, why does the option say cameo to begin with? I think that help to confuse the terms even more. -- 13:51, 5 January 2018 (EST)

@Wildgoosespeeder: Please stop being so stubborn. This conversation was very unpleasant to read. 19:15, 6 January 2018 (EST)
 * I think it was just the way and I were debating. I think we both lost our cool instead of keeping a level head. I've noticed this before. It's not unique to this proposal. Hopefully, this situation won't happen again. It wasn't too pleasant to respond though. Replies were flying. All because I disagreed with the proposal. -- 19:40, 6 January 2018 (EST)

How to order navigation templates
According to MarioWiki:Navigation templates, navigation templates are to be ordered as such: "species templates should come first, followed by game-specific and series-wide templates, which are arranged in pure chronological order." I'm fine with species coming before game and series, but I have a problem with the bolded section (emphasis my own). The purely chronological order helps nobody: readers definitely don't know when every game came out, and editors are especially inconvenienced by having to look up every single game until they find exactly where each template fits... or they might just guess where it fits, and if you don't believe that's not being done, look at any large page and count how many templates are out-of-place. This may not be that much of an issue on smaller pages or with new games, but good luck trying to slot in a new template for an older game on Mario's page. The fact of the matter is, the date that a game came out is not obvious to anyone. Why not change it, then?

Option 1: Purely alphabetically

This matches how our categories are currently ordered (including how species go at the top). The templates would be ordered by the first letters in their name and nothing more.

Option 2: By series, then chronologically

This matches how the history sections of the pages themselves are currently ordered. The templates would be grouped together by their subjects' series, then subsequently ordered by their date of release.

Option 3: By series, then alphabetically

An amalgamation of options 1 and 2. The templates are grouped by series, then ordered alphabetically.

Option 4: Purely chronologically (i.e. do nothing)

Everything stays the same, and no changes are made.

Examples of all of the options can be seen here. I'm personally partial to the purely alphabetical option, because it mirrors the categories and it doesn't involve any digging around with dates, but the choice is yours.

Proposer: Deadline: January 20, 2018, 23:59 GMT Date Withdrawn: January 18, 2018

Option 1

 * 1) Per proposal.

Option 2

 * 1) - I'm fine with either option, but I often order things chronologically when able over alphabetically. Preferred option
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) I like this option best because it only makes sense if most articles are formatted this way. Per proposal.
 * 5) I think this is the best way to go about it as it is in line with most other things that require similar ordering, per all.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) This is how the history sections are ordered and thus the navigation templates should be ordered the same for consistency. However, it is entirely possible the organization of the history sections needs an overhaul. But until that happens, this is my preferred option.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) Pretty sure this is how the articles are structured anyway, so yeah.
 * 11) Ordering them the same way as the history sections seems like a good idea.
 * 12) Per all.

Option 4

 * 1) - I'm fine with either option, but I often order things chronologically when able over alphabetically.
 * 2) This fixes potential arbitrarity regarding what series should go first, particularly with the game Donkey Kong being both in the Mario and Donkey Kong franchise.
 * 3) Chronological ordering is fine as well, as it provides users with an alternative to the alphabetical ordering of the categories.
 * 4) "This navigation doesn't help anyone in the slightest"?! I concur. Greatly. The problem with arrangement by series is that there's just too much ambiguity. Sure, Super Mario 3D World is clearly part of the Super Mario series, and Mario Party 8 is clearly part of the Mario Party series. But, as I believe I have previously mentioned here, what happens if we consider games that are ambiguously part of a series, such as Golf, NES Open Tournament Golf, Super Mario Maker, and Super Mario Run? We consider Golf and NES Open Tournament Golf part of the Mario Golf series, even though both games released before the N64 Mario Golf, and are technically considered predecessors anyways. It only gets worse with Super Mario Maker and Super Mario Run; how can we truly confirm that they are apparently part of the Super Mario series despite having gameplay not necessarily similar to other games in the series, and that Nintendo has considered them (and the Super Mario Land games) part of the series despite the aforementioned differences? On top of that, all of the "Option 2" votes except Mario jc's and Magikrazy's (exception also applies to Porplemontage's comments) are lousy (no offense). Even for their votes, I've found that there are several inconveniences with the History sections throughout each page. Mario, for example, first appears in Donkey Kong for the arcade. He then appears in Donkey Kong Jr., Donkey Kong Circus, Donkey Kong Hockey, Saturday Supercade, and Mario Bros.. So far, so good, right? Well, tying into one of my previous examples, he then appears in Golf, which automatically makes it so that all of the Mario Golf series games appear before the Wrecking Crew games, and in turn before the Super Mario games. I’m sure that many readers browsing the navigation templates would be confused by this. Lastly (and most importantly), enacting this proposal defeats the purpose of navigation template coloration. According to this proposal, navtemplate colors were added specifically for the purpose of series navigation explicitly so as to provide better organization. I’m sure the (now deceased, sadly) proposer would have opposed this proposal on sight, given her rationale. Hopefully you can digest this long enough to at least reconsider you votes. (PS: Porplemontage's suggested course of action is my preferred second choice.)
 * 5) While I believe it's best that the templates are consistent with the history sections, Toadette the Achiever makes some valid points.
 * 6) As easily as I could have voted for 2 and 4, Toadette the Achiever has shown me how disastrous Option 2 would turn out.  Per Toadette.

Comments
Dear everyone who picked 2: What about the game Donkey Kong? Should the first several templates on Mario's page relate to his involvement in the Donkey Kong franchise? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:59, 13 January 2018 (EST)
 * The series would be ordered as they're ordered in the history pages. Not particularly arbitrary. At the very least, you should be having a problem with a lot more of the wiki, then. 16:00, 13 January 2018 (EST)
 * Do you mean the history sections? The only reason I don't complain about those is that we have tables of contents for that. The current template ordering, makes sense, unlike the other options. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2018 (EST)
 * How does a table of contents make a difference? They're being ordered the same way. Also, what's so nonsensical about alphabetical ordering? 16:08, 13 January 2018 (EST)
 * Sigh I can see where things are ahead of time and jump to them in a table of contents. Alphabetical ordering is inadequate due to some games having different names depending on region, including English regions. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2018 (EST)
 * Games having different names is a moot point when every other aspect of the wiki is using those names. Someone looking for information about whatever game would see that name, and they'd then know what name to search for afterwards. Nobody is going to the navigation templates first. 16:17, 13 January 2018 (EST)
 * It's still far less helpful than the current ordering, IMO. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2018 (EST)
 * My main point is that the current ordering helps nobody in the slightest. Who is so familiar with every game's release date that they can navigate the templates with ease? 16:20, 13 January 2018 (EST)
 * The person you're speaking with? It just makes more sense to me to see Donkey Kong or Super Mario Bros in the front than, say, Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker, or to have Hotel Mario be the first for Wiggler. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2018 (EST)
 * I'm sure your knowledge applies to every single one of the wiki's readers. 16:55, 13 January 2018 (EST)
 * AGAIN, Hotel Mario and Captain Toad would become the foremost templates on several articles. This is a bad idea. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2018 (EST)
 * You realize it's "By series, then chronologically", right? The only way Hotel Mario or Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker would be the first template on an article is if that was their first appearance in the series overall. -- 22:11, 13 January 2018 (EST)
 * Yes, but I still see the pressing Mario series vs. Donkey Kong series. I'm talking about alphabetical here. I'm saying the way we currently have it has no judgement calls, which the "by series" one would require in some cases. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 02:23, 14 January 2018 (EST)
 * I disagree. If something appeared in the Donkey Kong series first, then it's logical that their templates would come first. No judgment calls necessary. -- 16:56, 14 January 2018 (EST)
 * But the game Donkey Kong is in both the Mario and Donkey Kong franchise. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2018 (EST)
 * @Doc:The first game-related templates on Mario's page are Donkey Kong-related already, but in any case, if you refer to this chart, you'll see that a judgment call has already been made based on their coloration. The arcade games and the Mario vs. Donkey Kong games are Donkey Kong games first and foremost. The implementation of option 2 wouldn't change that.
 * That wouldn't affect the templates at all, though. There wouldn't be a "Mario series" template. I think you're confusing the Mario and Donkey Kong franchises (which wouldn't have templates on character pages) with Donkey Kong the game and the Super Mario games. -- 12:26, 15 January 2018 (EST)
 * I'm saying that, as the All-Star mode for Super Smash Bros. Brawl demonstrates, Donkey Kong is both of the Mario and Donkey Kong franchises. So which would come first is a judgement call. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2018 (EST)
 * Series, not franchise. The only Donkey Kong templates affected by that would be the ones based on the original game, not Donkey Kong Country or anything else. -- 15:54, 16 January 2018 (EST)

Whoa, start over the indents, guys! - 16:51, 16 January 2018 (EST)
 * Porplemontage supports option three. 16:50, 18 January 2018 (EST)
 * No, what I said is different from option 3. I support option 2 (chronological game order), but with a different way of how the series are ordered. My preference is to order them alphabetically, with the titles of games not in a series treated as a series title (see here). Technically, what I support isn't an option in the proposal. -- 16:59, 18 January 2018 (EST)
 * From what Porplemontage is suggesting, this would eliminate all problems with Option 2 except the last about color. Now this will lower the importance of color, but there will be some variety of color and color will help determine when a series begins and ends. And grouping series helps readers navigate between games in the same series a little faster. Just look at Mario's page and see how far Super Mario Bros. is from Super Mario Odyssey. 17:47, 18 January 2018 (EST)
 * I have a follow-up idea: Why not customize the way the game-specific navigation templates appear, rather than just relying on only one option. I'm pretty sure we can use the "sortable" table call argument for sorting the templates. It will definitely take some time to fully implement, but it might work. See for more information.  17:59, 18 January 2018 (EST)

Give the Wario: Master of Disguise episodes their own pages
I don't really no where else to put this proposal, as none of the episodes have their own page. They are just briefly mentioned in the article about the location in which it takes place. Simply put, there are ten "episodes" which serve as the levels for the game. Each episode is rather extensive and can easily be formatted to substantially include the episode's happenings in their own respective page. The game's article, as a whole, seems to be underrepresented, and I have made it a goal of mine to improve it. I would have created the pages myself, but I feel this is too big a change to just implement on my own, so I created a proposal just in case. And to further clarify, each level will get their own page if the proposal passes, not one inclusive page with all the levels.

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

Support

 * 1) I think it is only reasonable for a game's levels to have their own pages
 * 2) - According to New_articles, all levels should have their own article anyway
 * 3) - Per proposal and policy.
 * 4) Per all
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) - Per all.

Oppose

 * 1) If a game has only ten episodes, then it's better off to represent them all on one page. If you want some precedents, then the World 7 (New Super Mario Bros.) page should give you some if you look carefully in the revision history.

Comments
What could be covered in these pages that couldn't be covered in the existing location pages? Or alternatively, why should these episodes be separate from the locations? 20:18, 16 January 2018 (EST) edit: the important link is visible now

@DKPetey99: Would you mind showing an example of how these level articles would look like on your project/sandbox page or somewhere? 21:17, 16 January 2018 (EST)
 * @Time Turner: Some of the levels take place at the same location. Besides, look at the location articles. They briefly mention a description and a summary of the episode and fail to go in depth of the actual events/encounters that Wario experiences. They only talk about the cutscenes to my understanding. The gameplay itself takes about 30-40 minutes per episode. That's including secrets/minigames.
 * @Alex95 Yea, I will work on an example tonight. I'll do the first episode, which is the quickest one. The next levels are far more extensive.
 * @Lcross: I failed to mention that there are also special episodes, I think five to be exact.

To those wondering, here is my completed draft for the game's first episode. Keep in mind that this episode is the shortest one, so the subsequent ones would have even more information.

Implement the ability to remove support votes in nominations for featured articles
After seeing that people can't remove support votes in featured article nominations...why is this necessary? If we can remove both support and oppose votes in unfeatured article nominations, then why can't we do the same for featured article nominations? After all, no matter what, all you're really voting for is whether the article should be granted featured status or if it should be unfeatured, so being only able to remove oppose votes in featured article nominations sounds inconsistent.

In the policy page, the rule will look like somewhat approaching this:

''Users may vote for the removal of a support/oppose vote if they feel it is invalid or not specific enough, but have to give reasons for their choice. Three users, including an administrator, are required for the removal of a support/oppose vote. This is how it should look like:''

==== Removal of support/oppose votes ==== Name of a specified user
 * 1) Reasons the support/oppose vote should be removed

''After the required amount of votes is met, users must wait 24 hours before removing the vote. Any vote that has per'd without providing any additional reason will also be removed.'' Proposer: Deadline: January 28, 2018, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) It doesn't hurt to be consistent on the wiki.
 * 2) After seeing your recent edit be reverted on the Super Mario Run Nomination page, I was just about to propose this myself. Implementing this would only enforce consistency and weed out any illegitimate votes. I'm not looking to single anyone out, but the two support votes on the current Super Mario Run nomination are not legitimate and should not be allowed to stay. This new system would be implemented to strictly remove any support votes that shouldn't be there. Why let them stay if we all agree that there has been cases as mentioned. Per Lcrossmk8 and my comments below.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) If the nomination only has one support vote, then that vote carries weight. If that vote is being held up with faulty reasoning, then I see no reason to keep it there. Per all.
 * 5) There's really no reason not to do this. If the only support vote is clearly invalid then it should be able to be removed. We shouldn't have to wait out the process if the whole nomination is invalid.
 * 6) Per all.

Oppose

 * 1) &mdash; The reason that the wiki does not allow for the removal of support votes from Featured Article nominations is that such a process would not have a real impact on the progress of the nomination. The job of the support is not to outnumber the opposition by a particular margin; rather, it is to completely satisfy any legitimate concerns that the opposition might have. Even if one hundred people flooded in with illegitimate support reasons, one oppose vote would disallow the nomination from being passed. Because oppose votes hold much more weight than support votes and are difficult to remove if they are justified, it is pointless to design a process to remove illegitimate support votes. Additionally, the comparison of FA support votes to Unfeature support votes falls flat when one considers that they are inherently different; whereas the burden falls on the support to pass a Featured Article nomination, the burden falls on the opposition to fail an Unfeature nomination. This means that in the Unfeature process, support and oppose votes are more equal in importance and must both be backed by strong reasoning for the process to actually work.
 * 2) - Per SMB. Support votes are moot if there are any opposes anyway.
 * 3) Per SMB and Alex.
 * 4) Do we actually have to do this?  It seems useless.  Standard proposals do not work the same way as FA nominations.  Per SMB.
 * 5) Was originally going to support, but didn't know that a Feature nomination failed with any number of opposes, so per all.
 * 6) Per SMB.
 * 7) - Per SMB.
 * 8) Per SMB.
 * 9) Per SMB.
 * 10) Per SMB.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) Changing vote. Opposition has really good points.
 * 13) Per SMB and Baby Luigi's comments.

Comments
This doesn't hurt anyone either. If we can remove opposition we should have the same guidelines to remove supports. Good idea.

You need to create a draft for writing guidelines. 17:22, 14 January 2018 (EST)
 * ^Before anyone else votes, the proposal should be drafted so we know what this new guideline would look like. 17:30, 14 January 2018 (EST)
 * To clarify, you need to include a draft of what the rule will look like in the policy page. 17:51, 14 January 2018 (EST)
 * May I suggest instead of saying "not specific enough" in your draft change in to something like "insufficient." I feel that word is used better to describe it.

@SMB: We do have a process to remove any kind of fan vote, support or oppose, so it's not an entirely novel concept. Also, I'd say that support votes can carry weight if they convince other users to support it regardless of any erroneous reasons, and the users then proceed to spend their time arguing with the opposers rather than anything productive. 19:04, 14 January 2018 (EST)
 * @Time Turner: I overlooked that and modified my vote to reflect the policy change. Even still, the reasoning applies to any other sorts of illegitimate or poorly-supported support votes. Of course, support votes can carry a symbolic weight if they are well-constructed, but that does not change the fact that when it comes down to pure policy, an oppose vote has much more weight than a support vote. 19:14, 14 January 2018 (EST)
 * I don't disagree that a single oppose vote does more than any number of support votes, but personally, it feels weird to allow poorly constructed votes to stay just because they're not strictly impacting the nomination. They could contain false or just plain bad information and reasoning, and you yourself brought up the potential symbolic weight of them. Even if they're worth a single drop of a near-full bucket, I don't want to disregard it, because that still means that it constitutes something. 19:20, 14 January 2018 (EST)
 * Eh, it sounds like the burden falls on the opposition to fail both featured and unfeatured article nominations. And also, @SMB, the removal of support votes does have as much impact on the progress of the nomination as much as the removal of oppose votes, especially in most of the cases when you see only one reason being given by the first voter and everyone else giving it a "per all" secondary vote. It happens in both support and oppose votes. The burden falls on the supporters to support the nomination and the opposition to fail the nomination in any nomination. After all, what's the point of voting in the first place if there is no burden on your side? 19:22, 14 January 2018 (EST)
 * Regardless of how many support votes there are, if there's even one oppose vote, then the feature nomination won't matter anyway. There's no need to have a "Removal of supports" because voting against the nomination does more than enough already. 19:47, 14 January 2018 (EST)
 * @Time Turner: I also don't disagree that faulty support votes constitute something; rather, I believe the process already handles these situations adequately by virtue of giving a single opposition vote more weight than any amount of support votes. If the support offers weak arguments, then the opposition will simply have a strong counterargument. It is then up to the support to revise its standpoint or edit the article to eliminate these concerns. The process is designed to handle the very concern that the proposal attempts to combat.
 * @Lcrossmk8: The burden absolutely falls on the support in the case of Featured Articles. A single support vote will not make a technical difference as long as the FA nomination meets the five vote threshold; however, a single oppose vote will completely stall the nomination from being accepted. The opposition does not have to make any real attempt to improve the article for their viewpoint to be officially accepted, whereas the support must address the concerns of the opposition if they want the nomination to succeed. Of course, there is some sort of "burden" on both sides; however, the process heavily favors the opposition, which means the support must work harder to succeed in their goal. 19:57, 14 January 2018 (EST)
 * And for some reason, oppose votes don't face the same burdens? If the opposition doesn't want the nomination to succeed, then it's up to them to give all legitimate reasons as to why the support is wrong and the nomination should not succeed. It's not that complicated for any nomination, both the support and the opposition must give legitimate reasons as to why their side is right. You can say that more support votes don't make a difference in the progress of the nomination, but I can turn that around and say the exact same thing for the oppose votes: more of them don't make a difference in the progress of the nomination. The opposition must have legitimate reasons to not support the nomination for featured articles, because there is absolutely no point to them voting at all if they don't give good enough reasons. After all, my point is this: why are you voting at all if you don't have any burden to support or fail the nomination? 20:17, 14 January 2018 (EST)
 * Oppose cancels support. End of story. - 20:26, 14 January 2018 (EST)
 * It's unnecessary to have the oppose votes cancel the illegitimate support votes. This is about consistency and balance. Support can cancel out oppose. 20:29, 14 January 2018 (EST)

Support does NOT cancel oppose. That's why we have "removal of support". - 20:32, 14 January 2018 (EST)
 * Exactly my point. You just proved my point right there. That's what we should have. 20:36, 14 January 2018 (EST)
 * Uh, no. I meant to say "removal of oppose".  You might call it a typo.  But a "removal of support" is pointless. - 20:56, 14 January 2018 (EST)

@all opposers: I think you're all looking too deeply into this. Yes we understand that oppose votes carries a lot of weight against support votes, understandably. But you're all acknowledging that in some cases, there are support votes that really shouldn't be there. I think this new system will force any vote, regardless of support or oppose, to have legitimate reason. You're all acknowledging that there is a problem sometimes with faulty support votes, so why let that continue? Force the voters to put thought and dedication into their votes, instead of illegitimate ones that, frankly (and bluntly) stick out like a sore-thumb.
 * Well, fan votes can be deleted on sight anyway. - 20:33, 14 January 2018 (EST)
 * @Lcrossmk8: The burden of proof is on the support side to demonstrate why an article should be featured. The reason for this is quality control: by design, it is harder to feature an article and easier to prevent its being featured. That is why opposition is tasked with providing legitimate reasons for opposing. You cannot say that more oppose votes don't make a difference, because that's simply wrong: more opposition votes do make a difference in the progress of the nomination, provided there are a variety of concerns with the article. No matter how many reasons there are to support an article being featured, just one point against it can derail the nomination; two or more reasons to oppose absolutely creates more roadblocks to the nomination passing. Also, it is not unnecessary to have an oppose vote "cancel" illegitimate support votes (which is not the term I would use... "counteract" would be better in this case), it is literally what the system is designed to do. Support absolutely cannot cancel out opposition, because the system is skewed toward the opposition for quality-control reasons.
 * @DKPetey99: There is no "problem" with faulty votes. As I said above, the system is already designed to deal with the circumstance. The voters will be forced to put thought and dedication into their votes when they get met by a well-supported opposition vote. 20:38, 14 January 2018 (EST)
 * Well I feel this proposed system furthers that principle for the better.
 * @SMB, and the burden of proof is on the oppose side to demonstrate why an article should not be featured. In theory, you might be right about more oppose votes making a difference, but in reality, all I see is the first oppose voter giving the reasons for why the article should not be featured and everyone after him or her just saying "per all", and once the issues get fixed, why should the oppose votes be there anymore? All it really shows is how inherently weak the oppose side can really be at times. And plus, why just keep the support votes there if they are not legitimate? It's the same with oppose votes--if they are not legitimate, then get rid of them. If you look at it, there's a clear reason why I designed the system to be exactly like the system used to get rid of bad oppose votes. 20:46, 14 January 2018 (EST)
 * Nobody is arguing with removing opposition votes if the initial concerns have been remedied. Just because a concern has been fixed does not mean it was "inherently weak," it means that the support actually rose to the occasion and improved the article. The main responsibility of the opposition is to critique and suggest improvement, whereas the main responsibility of the support is to act on these suggestions to ensure article quality. In the end, it does not matter why the supporters want the article to be featured; the implied idea behind supporting is that they believe it meets the requirements set out for featuring and that they will take action to ensure it gets featured. It absolutely does matter, however, why the opposition votes the way they do; their job is to critique the article and control the quality of the FA process. That is why their vote is given much more weight and power, and why they are more accountable for their votes; on the other hand, that is why the support is not held as accountable for their vote, but must produce results if there are legitimate concerns with the nomination. 21:18, 14 January 2018 (EST)
 * And with the implementation of this feature, does this mean that the power of the oppose votes will be diminished? Not really, all it does is ensure that the support votes are making sure that they are sure in what they want and that they are being entirely legitimate in their reasons for wanting the article to be featured--it does matter why they want the article to be featured, because what they say will reflect off of the quality of writing on the wiki as much as the oppose voters' criticism will. In other words, we are holding these support voters more accountable for their actions. That is exactly what we need to see here on this wiki, and plus, we cannot give the constructive criticism of the oppose voters more power and weight than the positivity and idealism of the support voters. Both positive feedback and negative feedback are of equal importance, and with the ability to remove support votes, we are basically saying that we will hold the support voters to the same standard we hold the oppose voters to. Also, this is going to hold the entire wiki to a higher standard, because if people want more articles to gain featured status, then they are going to have to work harder to make the articles and the content more high-quality and well-written. If we want to be the world's best database and research center on the Mario franchise ever found, then we're going to need to keep pushing ourselves to make better articles and more high-quality content. 21:49, 14 January 2018 (EST)

I urge all users to look into the history of the Featured Articles system, specifically historic proposals and decisions that are similar in nature to the current one:
 * Reformat Featured Articles...again! – Introduced the Featured Articles system to the Super Mario Wiki after several failed attempts. Notably did not specify that supporters provide a reason for supporting, just that objectors provide their reasons.
 * FA Support – Failed due to not meeting quorum. Interestingly, the designer of the FA system,, directly stated that "it doesn't make sense to have to provide a reason to support, cause all your reasons are already listed on the FA page."
 * Fanvotes – Failed due to tie. Again, Son of Suns argues that "a support vote does not mean the article will become an FA - it is simply a pledge" to work on the article.
 * Featured Article Voting Modification – Passed; allowed for users to remove both support and oppose votes through the removal process.
 * Repeal "Featured Article Voting Modification" – Passed; partially repealed the previous proposal, specifically the provision to allow for the removal of support votes. It is noteworthy that, the sponsor of the previous proposal, supported this repeal and stated that he regretted including the provision in question.
 * Change FA removal of votes rules – Passed; allowed for administrators to remove fan votes (although it is worth mentioning that support reasons themselves were not required).
 * Change FA rules part 1 – Rejected; would have re-enabled the process for users to remove fan votes.
 * Allow Support Votes to be Removed on Nomination Pages? – Rejected; essentially the same idea as the above proposal. It was deemed unnecessary due to the previous proposal by allowing for Sysops to remove fan votes.
 * Support Votes – Official community compromise reached to replace Tucayo's rule. Only the nominator was allowed to post an official support reason; otherwise, all other votes could remain but be stripped of any comments following the vote. This did not apply to oppose votes or any functions of the Unfeatured process.
 * Require FA Support Reason – Rejected; attempted to overturn prior decision and force users to post support reasons.
 * Require Support Reasoning for FA Nomination – Rejected; essentially the same proposal as the one listed directly above.
 * Automatically Removing Fan Votes from FA Nominations – Passed; reintroduced the removal of all fan votes and expedited the process, requiring automatic removal. However, when it was implemented, support votes for FA nominations were specifically excluded.
 * Officially repeal the "no support reason" Featured Article nomination rule – Passed; overturned the "Support Votes" community decision to end the practice of arbitrarily removing support reasons.

This proposal isn't anything new; on the contrary, I think it fails to account for over a decade of intense debate on the very topic and numerous community discussions and decisions to try and resolve the issue. Not only has this idea been implemented before, but those that were once the strongest proponents gradually became the strongest opponents of the measure. If you check through the proposals I have linked to, you might notice that I actually supported this idea many years ago; however, I have since come to realize that I was wrong. Son of Suns (creator of the FA process), and all other objectors to this idea were absolutely correct: it is not a good idea to demand a "legitimate" reason of the supporters of FA nominations as their vote is an implicit acknowledgement that they believe the article meets the requirements to be featured. 00:55, 15 January 2018 (EST)
 * Well, I think it's time we implement it again. We cannot give the oppose voters more credit than they already deserve, and plus, why do we have the ability to remove support votes in unfeatured article nominations? Again, it is inconsistent, and plus, if the burden falls on the oppose to fail the unfeatured nomination and on the support to pass the unfeatured nomination, then why are we removing both support and oppose votes for unfeatured nominations and only oppose votes for featured nominations? In reality, we should either be removing only support votes for unfeatured nominations and only oppose votes for featured nominations, OR we should be removing both support and oppose votes for both nominations. Again, the burden should fall on both sides to progress the nomination in their favor. Also, having the ability to remove support votes in featured article nominations will make any vote, support or oppose, have legitimate reason. With this ability, no one will be able to exploit featured article nominations for any illegitimate reasons, and the nominations will have to be more rigid and strong to succeed. I'm starting to think that this is more than just a debate about whether we should implement the ability to remove support votes in featured article nominations---this is a debate about the general writing standards we have for the wiki and ourselves, and I'm starting to think that with the small amount of featured articles on the wiki, it might be time to raise the standards and push everyone to work harder to make the articles more high-quality and better. 16:36, 15 January 2018 (EST)
 * It's not that oppose votes are given "more credit than they already deserve," it's simply that the support and opposition have inherently different roles in the process. The opposition critiques the article based on the standards required for featuring and the support acts to resolve these concerns; the former requires a solid reasoning and the latter requires pure action. I will not address this again, as I have done so exhaustively in my vote, subsequent comments and resources linked above. Please do not distract the debate by pivoting to "general writing standards" or implying that those who oppose your proposal are voting against higher standards for the wiki, because your proposal actually does nothing to modify any writing standards on the wiki and deals purely with a voting mechanism of the Featuring process. That being said, I would like to request that proposal be recategorized under "Changes" and that the deadline be moved forward by a week. 23:52, 15 January 2018 (EST)
 * I don't see it that way. I don't see the inherent difference in the process of featured and unfeatured article nominations, because it's that simple--if you don't have any motivation or burden to vote for your side, then you shouldn't be voting at all. And no, I'm not implying that the people who oppose my proposal are voting against higher standards on the wiki, because I know that the users all have different ideas on what higher writing standards means--heck, I am not even calling out anybody in general. What I am saying is that we are consistently giving negative feedback some more "value" than positive feedback, and that we are holding the support voters to a higher standard because we are forcing them to think twice about if any article really deserves to be featured with the ability to remove support votes. We simply are holding the featured article nominations to the same standards we hold the unfeatured article nominations to, and we need consistency and balance to do this. Featured article nominations deal with writing standards because what the support voters say will matter in the long run. Positive feeback and negative feedback must be treated equally. 00:18, 16 January 2018 (EST)
 * Lcross, we only allow removal of support on unfeaturing nominations for a reason. When featuring, any oppose vote will kill off any supports, as a legit oppose says that the article violates FA standards.  When unfeaturing, however, it is the supporters that are critiquing the article, but an oppose will still kill off all supports.  I honestly don't know why that's the case when unfeaturing with an oppose, but if you want to change that rule, you'll have to make a separate proposal.  Ultimately, there is no point in eliminating weightless votes.  And please, move this proposal to "changes" and make the deadline a week earlier. - 01:10, 16 January 2018 (EST)
 * This proposal is the right spot, according to this guideline. And if a vote is "weightless", why would it matter if it is removed then?
 * I'm opposing because we already have a "removal of support" system that goes by the name of "oppose". Why implement a system we already have? - 03:03, 16 January 2018 (EST)

Here's the gist on why I agree with Super Mario Bros. on why the opposition carries more weight and is generally of more importance than a support vote in a Featured Article nomination and why the same cannot be said about an Unfeature nomination. It's far easier to describe an article's flaws than it is to talk about what it does to meet the guidelines; an analogy it's easier to describe what causes a computer to stop working than it is to describe how your computer works fine. The same sorts of praise have always been given to when an article is nominated to be featured: it follows these established guidelines, it is well-written, it is well-formatted, etc. It's the same reasons across any nomination. Hell, many times, the nomination also lists problems that it doesn't have to justify its appearance as featured: no red links, no bad writing, and all of that stuff. When an article does have problems, it's arisen from specific problems the article may have. You can go deeply in-depth into reasons Super Baby Luigi Armageddon can't be featured, because it talks about the plot too colorfully and flowerly, there's no images in X section or the images are captured in a terrible quality, there is a lack of this standard that this article doesn't have, and you can list specific sentences and link these sentences to specific guidelines that outlines. Opposition votes is also akin to proofreading an article: you don't know there are problems within your own work or nomination until another person with a different perspective takes a look at it and says what needs to be improved.

A reason I even instated support reasons back is because there's absolutely no reason to get rid of them in the first place, and praise for the article is most certainly something that should be given to deserving editors when they actually work hard on the article to get it featured on the main page because most of the time, the person who nominated an article to be featured worked on it to a degree in the first place (that doesn't happen all the time and I'm not ignoring it, but it still means that someone somewhere saw it and liked it and wanted to thank editors for their work). Support votes aren't entirely pointless either, but I don't like how some people here would like to throw the support reasons or votes under the rug because they're not "important" or that they're "meaningless" when they actually are meaningful in their own way, just not as much as oppose votes nor as constructive. Positive feedback is a good thing, people.

For an Unfeature nomination, I say that the process of the removal of support votes should be removed there instead of removing support votes in a Feature nomination, because oppose votes there act pretty much like Featured nominations, with some key differences of course that SMB already addressed that I can't really describe well outside of "well the oppose votes are trying to keep a nomination that was already passed so they have to prove themselves and..." well blah that reasoning sounds very flimsy and massive amounts of ad hoc to me myself. 17:16, 16 January 2018 (EST)

Manually manage Featured Article nominations
For some years, I personally had a problem with how Featured Articles nominations, both active and archived nominations are handled, especially at Featured Articles. We currently just link to an archive via categories when I think it's a very messy, cumbersome, and frankly lazy way to do this. No other processes in the wiki let categories organize and link to their pages; the equivalent is letting categories organize implemented proposals and nothing else. What's especially bad for the category system is that unregistered users mostly cannot even see the active nominations in the category page, as it often requires a manual refreshment of the browser cache to see the active links. I propose to organize the following processes:

I would like to implement a sortable wikitable in the Nominated articles/lists and FAs proposed for unfeaturing header. This table is something we would manually have to update ourselves, which shouldn't be a problem with our active editor community and some effort for some oversight. The table would list a link to the active Featured Article/Unfeature nomination, piped with the article name, the time it was nominated, the deadline, and the time it was passed in. If there exist no parameters, the table would be left blank, filled with a ---. We add cells as nominations go up, and delete cells when nominations pass/fail, and the minimum amount of cells is one row with dashes if there are no active nominations at the time.
 * Active Featured Article nominations

The headers regarding the archives at Featured Articles would be reorganized under a big header, Archives, with two smaller headers: Feature nominations and Unfeature nominations. Both failed and successful archives would therefore be merged together. These archives would also be handled through a sortable table format that we have to manually update, but again, this isn't any skin off our nose, as we can easily archive and document past proposals. The table format cells would use a color system similar to how we archive MarioWiki:Proposals, with a color denoting how the process goes: passed, failed, passed at the time but unfeatured today, and failed at the time but passed today. The cells would link to the archive of the Featured Article with a piped name for the name of the article, which user nominated the article, the time it was nominated, what number of nominations it has (N1, N2, etc.), and the time the nomination passed/failed.
 * Featured Articles archives

If you want a more visual picture of how I want things to be organized at Featured Articles, you can check out my sandbox below. Any refinements, suggestions for improvements, or any correction of possible errors are encouraged and should be noted in the comments section.
 * References


 * User:Baby Luigi/Featured Articles

I hope this proposal would smoothen and refine the process of Featured Article nominations and make it easier for the end user to access past featured article nominations as well as guide them around links easier as they explore our Featured Article pages.

Proposer:, giving huge special thanks to for a lot of effort helping me develop my sandbox page. Deadline: February 8, 2018, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal. This is something I wanted to see implemented for a long time, so I specially logged in to vote. Please, be sure to add the first nomination of DKCTF to the list ;)
 * 3) Per proposal. This is a much nicer and well organised method than before.
 * 4) Aside from still needing to create templates specifically for the sake of archiving, it's a workable system that helps organize any FA nomination of any kind. Plus, we use the same colors for the proposal archives, which makes it even easier to find articles specifically for that purpose. I simply cannot agree enough with the proposed action, and would like to give my thanks to Baby Luigi for allowing me to co-contribute to and expand upon her proposed system. All in all, per proposal.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) Having a cleaner and clearer organization is positive, although easily archive and document past proposals is true up to a certain point, as it definitely requires time and effort - especially for newcomers - when it comes to figuring out how the archival system with summary and archive page works, finding the pages to edit and checking that everything is ok.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 1) Per all.

Comments
@Super Radio: Yeah, blah, I knew I probably left something out. Thanks for the correction! 15:05, 1 February 2018 (EST)

This likely isn't practical, but for the sortable tables, would it be possible to have the status column sort by colour or by day, rather than the time at the front? 17:22, 1 February 2018 (EST)
 * If you were to sort by color, what would you choose? 17:16, 2 February 2018 (EST)
 * I meant more the colors that were already present, i.e. all the the green ones would be stacked next to each other and so on. 17:29, 2 February 2018 (EST)
 * I think it's a good idea, but I don't know how it would be implemented. 21:47, 2 February 2018 (EST)

Restrict which sockpuppet talk pages get deleted
According to MarioWiki policy on sockpuppet talk pages: While I'm fine with blocking sockpuppets (why should I even be here if I'm not?), I'm not entirely sure why all sockpuppet talk pages need to be deleted on sight. Some (like this one, this one, this one, and, most recently, this one) actually have extensive page histories, and considering that we usually keep some pages to preserve page histories. I've narrowed down this proposal to three options:
 * "A user creating more than one account is known as, and is not allowed. Extra accounts should be blocked indefinitely and their talk pages should be deleted."


 * Option 1: Stop deleting all sockpuppet talk pages. This option would cause admins to stop deleting every single sockpuppet talk page, regardless of age or page history, as well as restore any and every sockpuppet talk page that was already deleted. This is my second choice.
 * Option 2: Stop deleting only the sockpuppet talk pages with extensive history. This option would cause admins to stop deleting sockpuppet talk pages with extensive page contents and/or histories, but allow them to keep deleting sockpuppet talk pages with any or all of the following if no other meaningful content is visible in the page history:
 * A template
 * A template
 * A message from a patroller or admin asking why the account shared an IP address with another
 * Gibberish, spam, or pure vandalism
 * This option also ensures the restoration of any sockpuppet talk page that meets (or rather, does not meet) the above criteria. This is my preferred option.
 * Option 3: Do nothing. This is what it says on the tin. I suggest we don't do this.

Let me know in the comments if there are any workaround solutions you have in mind.

Proposer: Deadline: February 17, 2018, 23:59 GMT Cancelled: February 11, 2018, 02:00 GMT

Option 2

 * 1) Per my reasons above.
 * 2) Assuming this doesn't overstep admin boundaries, this is the option I prefer. Per proposal.

Option 3

 * 1) - There's no reason to keep them, and if there is, that'll be up to the admins. Not sure if a proposal like this is allowed, since it effects how the administrators work...

Comments
Is there a reason to not keep them, especially if they were involved in numerous discussions? It's more information that'll become inaccessible. 14:03, 10 February 2018 (EST)
 * The only reason I can think of is that the sockpuppet is a dupe account of another user that's used to ban-evade and sometimes they just go unnoticed because they use proxies or whatever. 15:12, 10 February 2018 (EST)

@Time Turner: Yeah, that's the intent. 14:21, 11 February 2018 (EST)

How to order navigation templates (2)
Following the proprietor's veto of the previous proposal, this proposal will determine how our articles' navigation templates should be ordered using the plan that he laid out. Steve's option involves ordering the templates alphabetically, except series are compiled together and ordered chronologically; see this (the one labeled option 5) for a visual example of this. You're free to look at the previous proposal for exactly why the templates' order should be changed, but to put it simply, the current purely-chronological ordering helps nobody. With this in mind, this proposal only has two choices, per the proprietor's request: either Steve's option (i.e. supporting the proposal), or do nothing (i.e. opposing it).

I'm still adamant about some change being necessary, but the choice is up to you.

Proposer: Deadline: February 11, 2018, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) Even though colors would be grouped, it would be good that way (explained during last propsal). Per all.

Oppose

 * 1) While Porplemontage's option seems like a workable solution, there are still many, many things that need to be fixed before it can be properly implemented. First of all, series ambiguity still has not technically been resolved. (And how do we even consensually order miscellaneous games that don't necessarily fit into one series? Some readers might consider Super Mario Maker to be grouped with Mario Paint, since the two are similar in theme.) Second, how can we be certain that all readers will understand an alphabetical setup of templates in the exact same way? (Some may consider Mario's Early Years! to come before Mario Clash, for example.) Lastly, even if series is the most recognizable format, structuring it like this leads to unnecessary  and in turn may lead to needless conflicts between users, whereas the current format is clear-cut and well-defined, and as described here, the coloration does much of the real work. In short: while it's a good idea in theory, the proposed system needs lots of work before it can be put into practice.
 * 2) Don't get me wrong, it's a great idea.  But it has problems too.  Per Toadette, in addition to the fact that the proposed option groups colors.  If we group colors, why have them at all?
 * 3) Per all, especially Toadette the Achiever.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) I personally believe the current way works the best. Having the colors potentially separated as they are now eases navigated as it doesn't muddle them together, and also lacks the trouble of people in PAL regions looking in the wrong place for a differently-titled game that alphabetically would present.
 * 6) I think the addition of any alphabetical element is more detrimental to the system than the current ordering, as though it may be hard to establish, when it's up and running the current way is a piece of cake to work with. I think chronology, whether ordered by series or not, is the most important, per all.
 * 7) - Same vote I had last time, I see no problem with how it is now.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) I still prefer Option 2 on the original proposal. Alphabetical by series seems like it would just jumble things around too much, while chronological by series feels like a more logical order. With all due respect, I don't think the veto was a good idea.

Comments
I'm not sure how "series ambiguity" is an issue when we already have series pages that clearly document what goes where. We can't be expected to reasonably account for every potential assumption from the readers. I'd also say that it's much more of an assumption on our part that our readers are so familiar with the chronology of every game that they can easily navigate such a list. 01:16, 4 February 2018 (EST)
 * @Time Turner: All the same, it's true. Nonetheless, regardless of whether this proposal passes or not, I'll look into whether there is some wiki syntax for allowing the sorting of navigational templates. Like I said, it'll definitely take time to figure it out, but I'm determined to give it a try. @Yoshi the SSM: How does your vote help anything? You're supporting because "grouping colors together is good"?! Either elaborate on why grouping series together on navigation templates helps navigation, or simply change your vote to a simple "per all". 22:26, 5 February 2018 (EST)
 * Saying simply that "it's true" isn't actually a response to what I said. 22:29, 5 February 2018 (EST)
 * Yeah, I now realize my mistake saying that. 22:38, 5 February 2018 (EST)
 * I said in the last proposal, but I will give it again. Color helps start and end the series. 22:49, 5 February 2018 (EST)

Removing bolded text from image captions
The names of articles are bolded in their intros to draw attention to the beginning of the text; everything starts here, to put it simply. With that in mind, why are page names also bolded within image captions at the beginning of the article? It's certainly not an official rule: the Manual of Style just mentions bolding the name in the intro and not including a period in image captions if they don't form a complete sentence. Even if it's just a piece of tradition that's become widely used, there's no reason we should do it. The readers' eyes shouldn't be drawn to the image caption as if it's the same as the intro text: after all, one signifies the beginning of the actual information, whereas the other is a short description of what's literally happening in the image. It's redundant, to say the least, especially if the page has an infobox that already repeats the article's name at least a couple of times. It's redundant, to say the least. It's not as if any actual information is gained by bolding the text, it only serves to distract readers with nothing gained in return. So, why do we do this?

There's no practical reason that page names in image captions should be bolded; therefore, I propose that they should be removed.

Proposer: Deadline: February 11, 2018, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Doesn't seem particularly useful, per proposal.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) Per proposal.
 * 5) Per proposal.
 * 6) Per proposal.
 * 7) Per proposal.
 * 8) Very redundant, and most readers would just assume that the intro image on the right is the subject. Per proposal.
 * 9) While I was originally going to oppose, I just saw it on the Mario article, and it just seems redundant and pointless.  Per all.
 * 10) I have to wonder if this mutated from linking the article to itself in those locations. Either way, redundant and doesn't make a lot of sense.
 * 11) Per all.

Comments
Can you link me to an article that does this? - 23:34, 5 February 2018 (EST)
 * I'd say the vast majority of our articles do this. Whether with infoboxes, like Mario or Luigi, or without, like Sistine Chapel or Ladder, if there's an image at the top (usually the top-right) that has a caption with the page name, that name's getting bolded. 23:51, 5 February 2018 (EST)

Create articles for the Mario Party 4 hosts: Revisited
I think it's time I revisited this topic again. Two years back, I proposed we created articles for the hosts of Mario Party 4, Goomba, Koopa, Boo and Shy Guy (with the likes of Whomp and Thwomp being debatable). It ended with "No Quorum" due to there being only three votes total. I want to revisit this topic and hope that we can get a few more opinions out there. I reread the past proposal to study the points made and I can see the disagreements with these articles; yes, they are technically traditional enemies dressed up and yes, there are a lot of NPC characters who do the same deal or even less. In fact, there are a lot of generic enemies who play hosting like roles, but do not have their own articles (such as Lakitu's hosting role in Mario Super Sluggers or the other various characters throughout the Mario Party series. But the way I saw it was the game was treating these four characters as individual characters for the game, leading to their hosting roles on the boards to possible playable status in the Beach Volley Folley mini-game, which I view is a bit bigger than hosting battle mini-games or popping up at a bank to snag five of your coins. On top of that, they displayed slightly more unique personalities, something was kind enough to help me with, as he was able to get prima guide bios for the hosts, which sheds a bit more light on their character (shown here). Another point of interest is the credits scene, which does back up that they are just generic enemies dressing up, but I feel that is more of their backstory and how they became said characters. In my eyes, there are solid points on both ends, but I want to settle the matter in a better way than last time.

Proposer: Deadline: February 11, 2018, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) - I still support this idea. For at least Shy Guy, Goomba, Boo and Koopa Troopa. Whomp and Thwomp are still up in the air, but that's what the comments section is for.
 * 2) I think the uniquely designed outfits make a case for these characters, since other generic versions of them still appear in the game as shopkeepers and whatnot, as well as the end cut-scene of the game all hinting their individual status. But just keep the creation to just Shy Guy, Goomba, Boo, and Koopa Troopa, since they're the only ones who get to have this sort of distinction. I think it's speculation to say that these characters are playable in Beach Volley Folley though, since they're not dressed there and could easily just be a generic character playable.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) Per Baby Luigi.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all.

Expand Featured Articles writing guidelines
Currently our writing standards regarding what constitutes as a Featured Article at MarioWiki: Featured Articles is a vague list of short phrases and one-liners, which makes it far too loose to interpretation to my liking, especially for a process where quality control is key and enforcing these guidelines is a pivotal step to picking out only the best articles in MarioWiki. I propose that we expand these guidelines into small little paragraphs, detailing what exactly we want out of a Featured Article. This will follow the model similar to how we write out our good writing policy, where key points are organized under a header as a list first, and a paragraph detailing what we want under the header will be elaborated on.

If you want the specifics on how exactly I want the writing guidelines to look like, I have worked on it in the following sandbox page, where most of my proposed points is detailed out and worked on


 * User:Baby Luigi/Featured Articles guidelines

If you suggest any improvements to the writing or any further clarity, please comment on the proposal!

Proposer: Deadline: February 15, 2018, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Everything looks nicely policy-oriented, clear-cut, and not too confusing for the average reader. Per Baby Luigi.
 * 2) Strong support. While I'm not usually very worried about the whole featured article thing, I have seen cases where a nomination does not pass simply because the list of prerequisites was not clear, either because the nominator believed the article was ready when it was not or because the opposition believed the article wasn't ready, even though it may have been. There it is. That phrase. May have been. The current policy is so vague that it doesn't answer users' question about what an article should look like and leaves them thinking "Well, I guess it could be ready. Maybe, maybe not." You shouldn't have to actually nominate an article to find out if it's ready, the policy should tell you all that. Frankly, I'm surprised it's stayed as long it has. No question, that whole section needs a rethink. Per all.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per all, though I feel the first sentence of the "Be sourced with all available Mario-related appearances." section should say "All appearances of the subject need to be present in the article."
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Having a well written and detailed explanation of the various points is always good.
 * 9) Per all
 * 10) - Elaboration never hurts. A lack of it has prevented at least a few articles from getting a deserved feature. You get the idea.
 * 1) - Elaboration never hurts. A lack of it has prevented at least a few articles from getting a deserved feature. You get the idea.

Comments
Shouldn't there be a draft of this beforehand? Rule #11 especially comes to mind: "An article must be of reasonable length and not be marked as a stub." At first glance, it's hard to know where to start. Only if we put a little more thought into the actual content (such as adding information on how certain sections should be formatted, and not to mention between certain types of subjects) would this proposal actually be clear-cut and easier to implement. (Not that this will cause me to cast a conditional oppose vote, just making sure .) 15:41, 1 February 2018 (EST)
 * Never mind, didn't see the subpage. I'm apparently a little hasty. 15:42, 1 February 2018 (EST)

For the sake of proper grammar, can you change "An article must be..." to "An article must..."? It just bugs me to see "be...be" or "be...not be". - 21:49, 1 February 2018 (EST)
 * Noted. 17:15, 2 February 2018 (EST)

Create articles for Super Mario Odyssey minor objectives
Back when Super Mario Odyssey was released, many users were confused as to which missions get articles. A discussion started on Porplemontage's talk page, and Porplemontage said that only major objectives merit articles, and minor objectives are included with the most recent major objective. However, this creates a problem with the Cap Kingdom objectives, as all three are minor with no major precedents. As such, these three objectives have no coverage on the wiki, and that's a problem. I brought it up on the wiki collaborations board on the forums, and told me to ask, who told me to attempt to counter his rule with a proposal, and that's exactly what I'm doing now. Here are all the options, explained in detail:
 * Create articles for all minor objectives: This option would completely overturn Porplemontage's rule, and all objectives would be treated the same, major or minor. This would create all articles listed below.  This is my preferred option.
 * Create Cappy of the Cap Kingdom only: This would leave everything as it is now; however, the Cap Kingdom objectives would all be covered in a single article. As such, "Cappy of the Cap Kingdom" would be considered a major objective, while "To the Top of Top-Hat Tower" and "The Kingdom Next Door" would be considered minor objectives of the first.  Other than a single new article, everything remains unchanged.  This seems to be a workable option as well, as it still gives the Cap Kingdom objectives coverage.
 * Only major objectives get articles: Do nothing. Minor objectives are included with the article of the most recent major objective, and the Cap Kingdom objectives get no coverage.  I strongly oppose this option, as the Cap Kingdom objectives are as worthy for coverage as other minor objectives.

Articles suggested by this proposal: Cappy of the Cap Kingdom To the Top of Top-Hat Tower The Kingdom Next Door Getting the Band Together Powering Up the Station An Invitation from the Mayor The Glass Is Half Full!

Proposer: Deadline: February 16, 2018, 23:59 GMT

Create articles for all minor objectives

 * 1) Preferred option, per proposal.
 * 2) - Hey, if we're gonna do one, why not do all of them? A bit of consistency is all I really ask for.

Create Cappy of the Cap Kingdom only

 * 1) This is a workable option as well, per proposal.
 * 2) This is the choice I'm going with. It's an exception mostly because as stated in the proposal, the objectives in the Cap Kingdom don't even have an article like this to begin with and therefore is the most justifiable into receiving one. It's also the first cutscene in the game anyway that kickstarts the entire story of the game into motion, so I say that's important enough for this mission to get its own article. I'm not a fan of splicing off separate articles for minor objectives simply because of a small title change in the mission like "round up three guys because it's one of the objectives" or "this is the same objective but since this small portion has you fight a boss it's suddenly different" like in the Ocean Kingdom's The Glass is Half Empty!'s mission.
 * 3) Per Baby Luigi.
 * 4) Per Baby Luigi.
 * 5) Per Baby Luigi.
 * 6) Baby Luigi has really good strengths about her argument, so I'm going with this option. Per all.
 * 7) Per all.

Comments
Hm, I might make a proposal for giving the secret branch-off areas their own articles, the ones that are comparable to the ones in Sunshine...they consistently have two moons each. I'd like to finish the game before I make any decisions on that though. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2018 (EST)

Since the community seems to be in favor of creating Cappy of the Cap Kingdom only, I’ll be starting a draft soon. - 16:59, 16 February 2018 (EST)