MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/34

Remakes
I think something needs to be done about the way we treat remake games. We have articles for games such as Super Mario 64 DS and Donkey Kong Country Returns 3D, but the whole Super Mario Advance series are all merged with their original games. While those remakes aren't nearly as different as their original games, they still have their differences and should still be treated as other remakes are in the wiki. I propose that we either split all remakes from their original games and give them their own articles or merge all remakes into their original games.

Proposer: Proposed Deadline: June 1, 2013, 23:59 GMT Date Withdrawn: May 26, 2013, 14:14 GMT

Split all remakes into individual articles

 * 1) I say split

Comments
Sorry, it's already an official policy. It just hasn't been enforced everywhere yet. -- 09:53, 25 May 2013 (EDT)


 * So remakes already get their own pages?

Yes, they should. But not all of them have as of yet, as there's quite a bit of work involved. Splitting the article does not just mean to create a separate page. There are individual categories that need to be created, character/enemy history entries to add, templates and (many) links to update. And the article can't just be a cut-paste of the "#Remakes" section of the original article. -- 10:02, 25 May 2013 (EDT)


 * Alright, then I guess I should withdrawal this proposal since there's already the policy.

Note that SMA games are more ports than remakes. A general term would be "reissues" (but that doesn't really matter). 13:55, 25 May 2013 (EDT)


 * Yeah, withdrawing would be best: it's early enough that you can remove/archive it yourself. -

Write "Glitches" Section for levels
I think that if a person knows of a level glitch, but forgot how to do it, they should not have to go down an incredibly long list to find it. This would make the process a lot less tedious as well.

Proposer: Deadline: May 28, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per reasons above.

Oppose

 * 1) Why is this restricted only for levels? Doing so breaks consistency for the rest of the articles. Besides, if they're searching for a glitch, they should use Crtl + F and keywords. All glitches should stay on their respective pages.
 * 2) That would be pointless; there are already glitch pages for almost every game, and as Baby Luigi said, you can just user the "Find" tool to look for certain glitches.
 * 3) Per all. And what if a particular glitch appears in many levels, not just one?
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) - Per all.
 * 8) • Just type "Glitches of " in the serch box and click Search. It's not that hard.
 * 9) Per Once and only once it will be found on the level and on the glitches page, and per Baby Luigi.
 * 10) - Per all.

Comments
I have to say I am in no sides on this one, it sounds like a great idea, but baby luigi IS right, every computer can use ctrl+f to find glitches. Robecuba (talk)

@YoshiKong: Then it would be put in as ex.: this glitch also appears in [insert level(s) where glitch appears here]. MegaDigga3 (talk)

We can add a "See [insert glitches link here] for glitches" or something like that.-- 10:42, 25 May 2013 (EDT)

Change Main page rotation to Mondays
The Main Page is very important on the wiki, so why is it that we rotate every Sat.? Mondays are better I think because of the fact it's the beginning of the week. This makes for easier remembering to rotate items.

Proposer: Deadline: May 31, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per above.

Oppose

 * 1) How do you think people remember stuff better on Mondays? Kinda unnessecary (tell me if I misspelled that.)
 * 2) This change is unnecessary and the reasoning for the change is pretty weak. It all boils down to preference, and I don't think we need to change anything here. Sunday, Monday, Tuesday...it doesn't matter at all.
 * 3) And what's the difference? Unnessecary.
 * 4) I see no logical reason for this, it is perfectly fine the way it is.
 * 5) No point.
 * 6) - Well, I don't think it would make that much of a difference, so yeah, per all.
 * 7) I don't think it matters.

Comments
It's Unnecessary so I wouldn't even vote 17:09, 26 May 2013 (EDT)

Merge the DK: Jungle Climber navigational templates
Merge all of the DK: Jungle Climber navigational templates into one template (with a separate template for the levels)

The way that the templates for DK: Jungle Climber are set up is just... odd. The characters, the minigames, the worlds, and the levels in each world all have templates made specifically for them, and I am just confused as to why. There are only nine characters in the game (including major and minor) seven minigames, six worlds, and thirty levels in this game, and that's not including the enemies that we never decided to list and the items that were haphazardly listed. At most, we have (or at least should have) an individual template for anything that has a lot of entries for it (levels, minigames, items, etc.), and then one for everything else. However, the individual templates usually have around 50 or more entries in them, whereas here, we have at most, nine, and that's for the characters. So, I propose to merge all of these templates (Jungle Climber for the characters, DKJC-Minigames, Worlds in DKJC, Sun Sun Island, Lost Island, and Chill 'n' Char Island) into two templates; one for the six worlds and thirty levels, and one for all the other templates, as well as including any other elements that are not included in any of these templates, such as enemies and items. Since I'm only able to work with what the wiki currently has (and I'll presumably be the one creating this all-inclusive template), the template might not be entirely complete, but in my opinion, it'll look a lot better than what we currently have.

Proposer: Deadline: June 2, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Merge templates

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal, and if I'm correct all the games do this anyway so it keeps it consistent.
 * 3) Per Yoshi876.
 * 4) Per proposal.
 * 5) &mdash; Per all.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per policy.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Per all.

Comments
I think put in "DK: Jungle Climber Places" for the first of two templates mentioned.

You don't need a proposal for this: policy already states that games should only get single all-inclusive templates (although they can leave levels separate, as well as other sprawling groups of pages that will make the template unwieldy if they're included). -

Delete quote sections/articles that don't have any meaningful quotes
Delete quotes articles and sections in the sporting games and Mario Party series, if they are composed of meaningless ones i.e. "Hooray"

These sections/pages are not needed. People do not need to read "Let's-a-go" or "Congratulations" as these are just simple words. The quotes sections should be for character development not "Here I go!". And most of these have been under construction for many years, List of quotes in the Mario Kart series has been under construction since 2008, so people aren't contributing to it. I think these pages are unneeded should therefore be deleted.

Proposer: Deadline: June 3, 2013, 23:59 GMT Date Vetoed: June 6, 2013, 19:56 GMT

Delete pages

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal. No-one needs to read short and stupid things like "congratulations" or even Lakitu signs.
 * 3) Per proposal. This has been on the back of my mind for a while.
 * 4) I look at the list of Mario Kart Quotes and under Mario's section for Mario Kart 64, it lists what he says on the main menu. Him saying "Data" or "Options" don't really count as quotes. In short per all, we don't need quotes of characters saying what mode your in.
 * 5) Per proposal.
 * 6) - Per all.
 * 7) -- Per all, people don't need to reading short and dumb things like "Peach!".
 * 8) Per all.

Keep the pages

 * 1)  This isn't the right decision. While most of these quotes are inane and pointless, we should delete the inane and pointless quotes instead of deleting the entire page. Believe it or not, some sporting and Mario Party games DO contain meaningful quotes (see: List of quotes in Mario Super Sluggers) and therefore, if this proposal passes, we delete not only the short, pointless ones, but also the ones where the proposal EXPLICITLY STATES that it should support. So it's very contradictory.
 * 2) They are quotes nonetheless. It's not because it's not very meaningful that it's less canon or something. However I think we should add specifications (i.e.: when they say the quotes; some articles already do this)

Comments
@BabyLuigi I see your point, and that was one thing that worried me, so I'll change it to the ones that are entirely composed of stupid "Yahoos" and so on.

Shouldn't we reset votes? Because this proposal got altered, making my oppose vote pointless
 * I did, but Walkazo said that even though it's been changed, I can't remove the votes. You might be able to remove your oppose, or you'll just have to put the line through it.
 * Yeah, you can't remove comments and votes like that - although if the users don't check back in on their own, you can contact them and let them know the proposal changed and their votes are no longer applicable. Also, since Baby Luigi's original vote was addressed in the comments, it would be best if she'd slash it out, rather than remove it - and then re-cast or rewrite her vote, if she so chooses, of course. -
 * My only concern with getting rid of those two, is that they'd probably still agree. I mean the proposal only changed to keep the meaningful quotes and so I highly doubt they'd say 'No, let's get rid of those ones as well'.
 * Well, you don't have to let the users know there was a slight change: it's ultimately up to a voter to check back in even after they vote. If a proposer wants to let them know, they can, but if they don't, they don't; like you said, they'll probably keep supporting, so if you want to just leave it, that's perfectly fine. If there was a major change, it'd be best to archive and restart the proposal, that way the voting is reset, but that'd be unnecessary here. Don't be concerned about something you don't have to do anyway. -

Empty sections templates
We have the Trivia page, and the Template:Trivia page to warn contributors about overly long trivia sections. Since we have the Empty sections page, I think we should create a Template:Empty page. It would look like something like this:

 This section is empty. Please add a short description of the main article.

We would also:
 * add this template in every empty section;
 * create a category to find every empty section in an easy way;
 * add this category in the Maintenance page.

Proposer: Deadline: June 4, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) This is my proposal.
 * 2) From what I understand, I think it is a good idea.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) Per proposal, except make the template a different color than the trivia one.
 * 5) Per Baby Luigi.
 * 6) Per Baby Luigi. I also think that it should be just a tad more descriptive.
 * 7) &mdash; Per Baby Luigi and MegaDigga3.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Per Banon and Baby Luigi.
 * 10) Per all.  A different colour would be better though, like maybe a dark blue or purple.
 * 11) Per proposal.
 * 12) Per all.

Comments
I agree for your criticisms about the template. Feel free to make your own version of the template! —


 * What about this:

 This section linking to another article is empty. Please add a short description of the main article.


 * Also, I'm not very good at coding so someone should probably look at it... 09:54, 30 May 2013 (EDT)
 * It looks too much like the image template. I suggest

 This section linking to another article is empty. Please add a short description of the main article.
 * 18:18, 30 May 2013 (EDT)
 * That one looks similar to Template:more images. Also, I'm pretty sure you can't use your custom sigs here.
 * Yeah yeah, I'll change my sig. It's a nasty habit I have. But thanks for notifying me of that. I'll think of another color:

 This section linking to another article is empty. Please add a short description of the main article.
 * Black... I believe no other template uses that color. That could work, but how about we just give it the same/similar colors to Template:Trivia?
 * Black... I believe no other template uses that color. That could work, but how about we just give it the same/similar colors to Template:Trivia?

 This section linking to another article is empty. Please add a short description of the main article.


 * I agree that it would be best to make it look like . This is dealing with the same sorta issue as Trivia (a section of the page needs work because it's not up to current standards), so consistency makes sense. Plus it's not a huge, pressing issue, so brightly coloured templates would be unnecessarily eye-catching; they're also a bit of an eye-sore, and if anything, might make the page look worse than it would with latent empty sections. -
 * I dunno why, but I like black for referencing something empty. But whatever floats your boat.

Hey, why do you absolutely want that this template be different than any other? I think consistency is best. Actually I think every notice or navigation template should be of the same color (maybe it's worth a proposal, I don't know).
 * That would cause more confusion than it's worth.
 * Consistency shouldn't apply to notice templates. It would be pretty confusing to see all templates as a different color. A standard may be all right, but not making them all the same color.
 * I don't get it: you say it's confusing if they're all in a different color, but then you say you don't want them to be all the same color.
 * Sorry for the contradictory statement. I meant it would be confusing if it was all in the same color. I don't know how that ended up on the screen.

Mostly, all those sections with each other in one page are empty.. I mean probably no one fix a single section without fixing the other. The trouble is: We will need to put the template everywhere on the page.. and one page would have up to 5 of the same templates. I really know this template is Important but before we do anything we have to discuss this problem first. Probably changing the wording (for ex: The following sections are linking to other article are empty. Please add a short description of the main article ) or something like that, and then add the template to the top of all the sections. Here is an example image see here.04:26, 1 June 2013 (EDT)
 * You're right, but I think we should do it anyway. We can't just add one template if there are five empty sections. IMO we should add the template everywhere, and then a category in the Maintenance page. If we do this, there would probably be a fewer number of templates soon (contributors would most likely write short descriptions and remove the templates).
 * We can also change it to "The page contains Empty Sections. Please add a short description of the main article" so only one can be incorporated.

Y'know, instead of many templates, or one template, one could always simply add stuff to the empty sections... You're already seeking them out, so why not just fix them as you go instead of adding ugly templates and coming back "later"; at least when the sections are simply empty, random readers won't know that's a bad thing, whereas they'll certainly notice the template(s). I've been mulling it over since the proposal was first made, and I am still failing to see how this is the best way to go about the issue... -
 * The only problem I have with this is that not everyone knows about the Empty Sections Policy, and putting a hideous template there notifies them about the problem
 * What about this:

 This article contains one or several empty sections. Please add a short description of the respective main articles.
 * I agree with you, except that your point is valid for every notice template, as Trivia, Construction, Image, or Image-quality. The only difference would be that it's shorter, but it's still long in the long run. The point of these templates is to seek them out for us and other contributors. —
 * I agree with you, except that your point is valid for every notice template, as Trivia, Construction, Image, or Image-quality. The only difference would be that it's shorter, but it's still long in the long run. The point of these templates is to seek them out for us and other contributors. —


 * I have the same issue with the Trivia template, tbh: just take an extra couple minutes to remove or incorporate some stuff, rather than slapping on a template and hoping someone else does the dirty work. Construction (and Rewrite) is for pages that require a lot of work and will obviously look incomplete in the meantime, so that template makes sense; Image is also a bit more involved, especially if the images need uploading, which not everyone can do anyway, hence the validity of using Image-quality to try to get the attention of someone who can improve the image. However, removing Trivia, adding a sample image gallery, or making a quick blurb about beta elements or glitches or whatever is something that anyone should be able to do in a reasonably short amount of time. As for the draft, the second sentence might be better if it read: "Please add short previews of the separate pages that are linked to by these sections." ("previews" seems more accurate to what we want than "descriptions", afaik). -
 * Agreed. So maybe I should withdraw my proposal and replace it by a collab thread on the forum? 16:51, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
 * There actually is a collab thread for this issue, it's just dead - but you can bump it if you want, I suppose. Whatever you feel is best: it's your proposal, after all. -

Uh... Is it too late to withdraw my proposal? I should have done it yesterday but I couldn't. —
 * It has already passed.

No you's, no I's
Ok, here goes. Yesterday I came upon a little something not-so-pleasent. So, I deleted it and said it happened on that article's talk page. It was Super Mario 64 DS glitches Chill Bully Suicide. That certain glitch has a template that warns people about corrupting or permanantly damaging their system. Now for the bad part. I found the words "I MEAN IT" exactly like that at the end of the section. My point is, we should change the "no you's" rule and add "no I's". This makes sense as to that people who do that break a writing rule and are (maybe, depending how much they do it) blocked.

Proposer: Deadline: June 5, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) It's my proposal, and I agree with it.
 * 2)  We should add this new rule here.

Oppose

 * 1) Whilst I agree, most people do this anyway and it'd only be new users or IPs who wouldn't know what they were doing and would only need a friendly nudge in the right direction.
 * 2) The policy applies to second person, which includes the use of "I".
 * 3) Per YoshiKong. This proposal is completely redundant.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) - Per all, including Baby Luigi's comments below.

Comments
This proposal is unnecessary because it's already our policy; that proposal wouldn't change anything :/ —

Using any second person word not only violates the "No You" rule because it applies to first person as well, but also are completely nonstandard and unprofessional, thus violating another universal rule about standard writing, which this wiki definitely uses. This proposal is not necessary in any way since there will not be any change regardless of which side gets more votes.

I did not know that Baby Luigi...
 * Well, this is an FYI thing, so yeah.

Remove all unsourced information from glitches and beta elements pages
This was first discussed here.

It is extremely easy to put a glitch or a beta element on it's corresponding page without providing any proof. Therefore, I am suggesting that we remove all unsorced information from these pages, though they can be brought back if someone gives actual proof about these (an image, a source from a reliable external site, or a YouTube video is enough), because these "glitches" or "beta elements" can just be a random user typing random things.

Proposer: Deadline: June 8, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Remove unsourced information

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal, but I also want to add that sourcing the glitch from an external, but reliable site will suffice as well.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) I've seen extremely absurd glitches (such as ), which could provide false information. Having to provide a reliable reference will ensure that the glitch is real. Per proposal.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per all, we don't need stuff like "There was gonna be a portrait ghost who was removed in the final product because he would have had frightening dialogue" that isn't sourced
 * 7) Per all.

Keep unsourced information

 * 1) I agree that some glitches are ridiculous, however sometimes contributors add a real glitch but can't provide a source. If we got rid of all the unsourced glitches, we would lose these glitches.
 * 2) Yes, well some glitches are completly bogus, there is a very small amount of bogus glitches in pages. Also, I have tested unsourced glitches that work, making no sense to remove all unsourced glitches. If I can, I would help to get a reference for them.
 * 3) – I believe that removing unsourced glitches would mean that their would be less than half left over. Not all unsourced glitches are bogus: instead of removing potentially legitimate information, we should add a request for reference tag. I strongly disagree with this proposal.
 * 4) - Much better than outright than removing them.
 * 5) Per Tucayo's comments below
 * 6) Per All
 * 7) This seems like a very extreme way to go about this. Per all.
 * 8) - Per all.
 * 9) - Per all: removing them is shooting first and asking questions later. It's always best to avoid scrapping potentially good info, and until we find the desired proof, we can just use  to let readers know that stuff's unverified.
 * 10) &mdash; Actually, Tucayo does have a good point, so per him.
 * 11) Per all
 * 12) Per all.
 * 13) Per Walkazo.
 * 14) When I think about this, this would remove a crapload of info here. Per all.
 * 15) Some glitches occur very rarely and the cause for them is unknown. One time, in Super Smash Bros. Melee, some CPU opponents grabbed a warp star, got hit, and was walking around with a warp star on his feet (if you check the beginning animation of grabbing the warp star, the character is standing on the warp star before ducking; it's probably a glitch involving that frame). This glitch, I don't know how that happened, and naturally, I had no video capturing device. This glitch never happened again, but it seems plausible to happen. The point it, some glitches are difficult to verify, and I don't see why anyone would make a mock glitch anyway. Maybe a "Get 100 lives" glitch that ends up crashing the game and damaging the disc? Even then, people can verify those bad ones or at least warn about it. Per all.
 * 16) Per Walkazo and LeftyGreenMario.
 * 17) What if all the glitches are gone? I won't know how to do them if they're not on this wiki.

Comments
@Baby Luigi; I added your suggestion to the proposal.

Actually, how about requiring a reference for every glitch?
 * Isn't removing unsourced material basically already covering that?
 * I can't imagine all those unconfirmed sources to be thrown away at all. Some of the glitches may have legitimate results if inputted correctly. I suggest creating a group that dedicated to: confirming the glitches by providing references found on the internet, or reproducing them on their on and making references of their own. Of course, it'll be tedious for everyone involved because it requires someone to play the game in it's original fashion, and that the former is probably more easier to do than the latter in terms of time commitment. 22:28, 1 June 2013 (EDT)
 * @RAP, some people may need help from a youtube video or image and couldn't understand the inputted text without it, or the image/video could be used as proof to the glitch. I don't think we need a group based on glitches.
 * This is just like confirming elements for an upcoming game: you can't prove it exists without a reliable source, and too many of these entries are questionable. It's like saying I work for Nintendo.
 * I forgot to insert that I would prefer implementing a group dedicating to this task if this proposal passes. So far the majority of the tally votes oppose this proposal.

I'm really torn about this. I do feel we have to remove unsourced content, but I feel it would be far better to add a template similar to the one the Fallout Wikia uses on unverified glitches/bugs. It's simple; when a bug hasn't got a source, they add the template, indicating a four week period in which a source for the bug should be mentioned. If the four weeks pass and no source was indicated, the template will indicate the verification is overdue. I feel that's a good compromise, as we wouldn't be outright deleting stuff that could be valid, but we wouldn't be keeping unsourced glitches. --


 * If this passes, I'm going to try my very best to overturn it. The proposed action really isn't the right way to go. -- 09:49, 3 June 2013 (EDT)


 * Or a template like the Wikipedia one? 16:48, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

I agree with YoshiKong, this proposal is outrageous, it makes no sense, no one here seems to me that adds fake glitch has never happened and never will happen to me, even if there was a low probability to happen it would not be a drama I think it's that easy to recognize a true glitch a glitch invented on the spot, and then there are numerous glitch without sources, but that can be easily found on youtube. --Sonic98 16:54, 3 June 2013 (EDT)


 * @Banon: We already have such a template: . -

Intro standards for subpages
This has been discussed here and here.

First of all, when I say "subpages", I mean pages that were previously subpages, and current subpages. This includes the glitches, media, quotes, staff, beta elements pages, as well as galleries.

So basically this proposal is "let's have a standard for subpages intros!". Why?

There are so many variations in how the intro is worded: a standard write-up would be great. — YoshiKong

I would also like to add a clarification:

''It's still a good idea to have a slug line up there, rather than leaving the top of the page blank.

''Consistency is good, but the intro could be changed up a little for different types of galleries - to provide a little variety.

''Like "This is a gallery of images pertaining to the game ." (which could, when applicable, be followed by "For a gallery of images pertaining to the remake,, see .") for games, and then substitude "show"/"movie"/whatever if it's part of another media. Then "This is a gallery of images featuring (the) X(s)." for specific subjects (characters/species/items/forms/gaming systems). Specialized subjects may also need specialized intros to work (i.e. "This is a gallery of the images from Rosalina's Storybook, featured in Super Mario Galaxy.").'' — Walkazo

Proposer: Deadline: June 8, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) This is my proposal.
 * 2) – Per Banon.
 * 3) &mdash; Per proposal.
 * 4) Per Banon.
 * 5) Per proposal
 * 6) Per Banon.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) - Per me, per proposal.
 * 13) I would like it if all we had was a simple link like this in the top of the gallery, much as in Featured Articles: <(name of the article). It would avoid redundancy and pointing out the obvious in the gallery descriptions. Of course, exceptions apply, including Rosalina's Storybook. If we can't do this, then the standard gallery descriptions will suffice.
 * 14) I am definitely for this; for the most part we should aim for consistency in subpages, including what's mentioned here.

Comments
Just to be clear, are you proposing we have something along the lines of Walkazo's example or something else entirely?
 * I think the Walkazo's example is great. —

So are we going to create templates for intros of each type of page, or do users have to write it themselves?
 * Unless we can get the templates to cover every potential difference in wording for a type of page, manual write-ups would probably be easier. -
 * We could have a template working like this: if we write it would display: This is a gallery of images pertaining to the game Super Mario 64. For a gallery of images pertaining to the remake, Super Mario 64 DS, see here. Is that possible? Also, I'd like to change one thing about Walkazo's examples: "remake" → "reissue" (wider meaning including remake, ports, re-releases...)


 * No, don't muddle things up with gratuitous templates. Just write it out. As for what term to use, rather than using a catch-all, just use whichever term is appropriate; usually, that'll be "remake", but if the other gallery is for a port, say "port", etc. Just like how you'd say "show" or "movie" or whatever instead of "game" when the situation calls for it for the appearance-based galleries. -


 * You're right, that would cause too much trouble. I thought that if we write it ourselves people wouldn't know about the standard but, nah.

Template:Clear
I think there should be a clear template just like on other wikis. I know its been deleted three times already, but we need it. And can't do anything to the images.

Proposer: Deadline: June 13, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per Proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) If the template has been deleted three times already, the third of which was a few hours ago, then it seems clear to me that we don't need it - especially considering the template was deleted due to being redundant. Also, just because other wikis use it doesn't mean we automatically should.
 * 2) – Per Superchao.
 * 3) Per Superchao.
 * 4) - Per Superchao.
 * 5) - serves the exact same purpose. Per Superchao.
 * 6) Per Superchao and Gamefreak75. And If I'm correct, The Template  does the same thing as the
 * 7) Per Megadardery.
 * 8) Per all, especially GameFreak75.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) No purpose, like Gamefreak said, <br clear=all and  already do the same thing. Per all.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) .thetemplateyoumentionedalreadyexists
 * 13) Per Megadardery.
 * 14) - If it already exists, no point creating another template.
 * 15) Per Superchao

Organize Help pages with a Navigation template
Basically what the title says: It's hard to locate all the help pages and if a user who is figuring out the wiki is reading them, they should have a quick and easy reference to get to all (or most) of them.

Proposer: Deadline: June 13, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per Mariotime11.
 * 3) It's a good idea to include navigation templates dealing with all help pages and put it in each help page. Sure, we have a category dealing with all help pages, but the main help page should include all links to every help page in the first place, not just the ones in Category:Help. and the rest are in another category. The names "MarioWiki Policy", "MarioWiki Writing Guidelines" and "Manual of Style" sound similar, and I shouldn't have to guess which category the link falls in. Overall, it's not difficult in the first place for users to find these help pages, but inserting a navigation template in the main help page makes things a lot easier if you're trying to search for a "how-to", but can't find it on the main help page (like Categories). Bottom line: it's easier to see everything in one template than trying to find things in three different pages.
 * 4) Per proposal and LeftyGreenMario.
 * 5) When I was new, I was having a hard time navigating help pages and templates would help out a lot with that. This method would make it easier for everybody to navigate them. Per all.
 * 6) Per all, this would still make things much easier and organized, per se.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Per King Pikante.

Oppose

 * No, this just does not make sense. It's just another thing to keep up with. Also per Turboo's comments below.

Comments
Help:Contents is on the sidebar with a list of help pages and a link to the categories they're in, though. I doubt making a nav template would be detrimental, but I don't see how it's too difficult for users to find them. -
 * I think it would ease navigating the help pages if a navigation template is found at the bottom or side of a help page, as in WiKirby. It would be better than reading through the page, going back to Help:Contents, then clicking on the next page, and so on. The categories are easily overlooked, and it would be much easier if we can see everything in one page instead of having to click on these categories and guess where the page you're looking for is.
 * Gonzales Kart Inc.: What do you mean by "it's another thing to keep up with"? It's an annoying template? I don't see how navigation templates at the bottom of a page "need to be kept up with", and they are easily added to pages.

What color should the template be? I was thinking this, maybe?


 * Nah too cyan. Maybe something more generic? 11:51, 9 June 2013 (EDT)
 * Do you have a better idea....? For some reason I've always associated the word "help" with that shade.
 * #CCF, perhaps? Or to match the color scheme of the wiki, #FCC ? 01:24, 10 June 2013 (EDT)
 * @GBAToad: I'll give those a shot, but they're too hard to see on a white background, IMO.

In addition to Help:Contents, there's also Rules, which does list all Writing Guidelines, Help and Policy pages (if any are missed, it's an oversight). Any template made should follow this page's examples, not Help:Contents, which is more of a just-the-basics list. The template should be grey: subdued and professional (washed-out red is best to be avoided). -
 * Should this template cover policy pages as well, or just Help pages?
 * All three types of pages are closely related and overlapping at times, so yeah, it'd be best to have 'em all in the template. Just like how MW:Rules has everything, hence I said it's the example we should follow. -
 * Even though this proposal still has a few days, I've made the template here. I'll apply it to wherever I can after the proposal ends (most of the policies are protected). Also, I was trying to have the policy pages before the Writing Guidelines, and the template box glitched up, could an admin fix that?
 * Maybe it'd be better to just let an admin make the template altogether... -
 * Wait nevermind, I
 * Good job with the structure, though I suggest piping all of the links to remove the 'MarioWiki:' part; just to remove some of the clutter. The template already makes it clear that they are policy pages. 19:19, 10 June 2013 (EDT)

Good articles
This was proposed earlier, but failed due to the lengthy process of the Featured Article process, which has now been lowered. However, the point is, some articles like this are too short to be featured. Good Articles would follow all the rules for an FA apart from 10 and 11, and if we decide not to have them on the main-page point 6. The proposal process would be exactly like the one for a Featured Article i.e fails after 2 months, 5 supports and no opposes etc and these templates would be used, but feel free to improve them, especially with the word 'Ungoodified'. To identify a Good Article I'm thinking something along the lines of a green star, but again, feel free to come up with your own ideas.

   has been nominated to become a Good Article!  If you want to support or oppose, go here.

  , a Good Article, has been nominated to become Ungoodified.  If you want to support or oppose this change go here.

Proposer: with help from Proposed Deadline: June 24, 2013, 23:59 GMT Date Withdrawn: June 17, 2013, 16:16 GMT

Have Good Articles

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) This would be a great addition.
 * 3) Per proposal. I thought maybe a lighter red or white text would work for un-nomination. And what about this: [insert page name here], a currently good article, has been nominated to be taken off the good articles list. To supp... instead of ungoodified?
 * 4) Per proposal and Yoshi876.

Don't have Good Articles

 * 1) This entire thing seems completely unnecessary. Wouldn't it be simpler to just look over the featured articles that currently exist?

Comments
So wait, it this like a simpler version of Featured Articles?
 * Yes, but it's meant to highlight articles that are good, but not good enough to be an FA

@Time Turner I don't really understand, could you please expand.
 * For one thing, you're proposing a system that's nearly identical to another system that's already in place with only a couple of differences between the rules, and even then, those rules tend to be enforced solely under extreme cases. I mean, what's the point? Why should we bother to have an article labeled as "good" when we could just simply try to make it better than good? Why should we bring notice to articles that are good, but not good enough? I may be misunderstanding your point, but if I'm not wrong, you want us to recognize articles for essentially being mediocre, and that's just... dumb.
 * I thought the rules, were enforced over size and there some very good articles but aren't long enough for FA standards. And some articles can't be better than good because they're not long enough, and also those rules are always enforced, in fact there are only 2 articles that may not follow all the points and that is List of shops in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars and that is for not having images in all applicable situations and List of Paper Mario beta elements for not having a long starting section.
 * Wouldn't it be simpler just to propose a change to the current FA rules?
 * You have a point, I'll withdraw this and propose that.

Get rid of pointless Mario Party Minigames beginnings and endings
Well, it's pretty simple. I propose to scrap the beginnings and endings in minigames that are just "the camera zooms in on the winner and they do their victory animation" which are epicly pointless and stupid.

Proposer: Deadline: June 17, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per me since it's my proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) — Per Walkazo's comments. Even if it seems pointless, we should cover it and thus, not remove it. However, it would be best to incorporate them into the intro.
 * 2) - Per my comments. If an option is made for incorporating the sections, rather than vaguely calling for the deletion of potentially good info, I'll switch my vote.
 * 3) Per Walkazo's comments.
 * 4) Per Walkazo's comments.
 * 5) – Per all.
 * 6) Per All.
 * 7) Per all
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Per all
 * 10) It's good to have it, even though it is somewhat unnecessary.

Comments
I agree that giving these one-liners whole sections is a bit much, but wouldn't it be better to try and incorporate the info into the intro, rather than simply call for it all to be deleted? -
 * It would be best, unless all minigames have the same ending animation (but I don't think so) —
 * @Walkazo: That would be hard to do, right? there isn't much to incorporate... @Banon: It would only be ones like the example that I put.
 * No, it's easy. It only took me a moment to do this, for example, and that was for something that wasn't just a mere one-liner: the less info there is, the easier it is to stuff it into the intro. -
 * Well, I said stuff that ispointless.
 * But what is "pointless", exactly? You give an example in your proposal, yes, but calling for the deletion of anything can lead to a slippery slope of judgement calls. It would be better to simply ask for these sections to be incorporated and give the voters no reason to worry about potentially good info being lost as a result of this proposal. -
 * It's stuff like this and this that would be kept.
 * Stuff like that would actually be better off merged with the introduction; the two-sentence endings in particular are not worth full sections. -
 * This proposal is not about two-liners though: it's one-liners.
 * This minigame could easily be incorporated into the main section.

There's a reason why those things are added: I think I'm the only one who added them, since I was probably the only person who worked on the early Mario Party series mini-game articles back in 2007-2008. There's so much potential to expand the mini-game articles that it's ridiculous to leave them be in my opinion. Both of the sections will definitely be revised or fleshed out more.
 * 1) There are mini-games that require the introduction to  to the game mechanics. For instance, Ground Pound (Mario Party)'s objective is to ground pound the flat logs the butterflies are residing. The mini-game requires input from the player to memorize the flat logs in the beginning before the butterflies land on them. Other examples I pulled out include: Stacked Deck, Messy Memory, and Slap Down from Mario Party 3. They are great examples of having the introduction section of the mini-game to be integral with the game mechanics. (Applies to "Introduction".)
 * 2) They reinforce how the game mechanics work through by showing those actions. It gives a nice nudge for those who are trying to understand what the mini-game is about. Examples include: Bob-ombs Away from Mario Party 8,  Quicksand Cache from Mario Party 2, and  Tick Tock Hop from Mario Party 3. (Applies to "Introduction".)
 * 3) The mini-games the staff worked on show personality of being a party game. It'll stick like a sore thumb and feel clunky without those brief but personality-induced mini-game cutscenes. Examples include: End of the Line from Mario Party 3,  Manta Rings from Mario Party 4, and  Logger Heads from Mario Party 9. (Applies to "Introduction" and "Ending".)

Remove conjecture for names of glitches
Honestly, it's pointless and looks sort of bad, and besides, Nintendo probably won't ever release official names for any of these glitches, so what's the point? Also this is my first proposal, so please tell me if I did something wrong.

Proposer: Proposed Deadline: June 26, 2013, 23:59 GMT Date Withdrawn: June 20, 2013, 21:48 GMT

Oppose

 * 1) Horrible idea, dude. Nintendo wouldn't even give out the names of the glitches because Nintendo doesn't develop the glitches.
 * 2) It's the same reason we give conjecture names on subjects that have no official names. As a wiki, we have to cover everything Mario-related; nameless subjects are not exempt from this rule. As Pinkie Pie said, Nintendo usually doesn't find these glitches: if their debugging team did, it would have been fixed by now. Of course, there are some acknowledged glitches such as the Minus World, but the vast majority of glitches are overlooked by the debugging team. A conjecture name is therefore the only way we can name these glitches other than calling it a really wordy and unprofessional "the glitch where the player falls through the bridge in Frappe Snowland".
 * 3) The conjecture templates are not pointless. They tell us that the name of the glitches are not official and that these glitches can fall under any other name. Also, having these silly names without the conjecture titles sound equally silly. The lack of a conjectural title makes it more... formal and official. You ask, "Nintendo probably won't ever release official names for any of these glitches, so what's the point?". Conjecture titles are exactly the point.
 * 4) Everyone else has explained it perfectly. Per all.
 * 5) Per all, can I do this or just cancel the proposal?

Comments
@Pinkie Pie: I know, that's why I proposed to remove the conjecture titles. Why put conjecture on it if it's unofficial (in a way) and therefore, Nintendo won't make an official name for it? 19:22, 19 June 2013 (EDT)
 * Because Nintendo doesn't care about glitches' names, so now you can understand.
 * No, that's not what I said. I meant, why bother to put on the conjecture thing if the glitches won't receive an official name anyway. 19:35, 19 June 2013 (EDT)
 * Because Unoffical names has to go with the conjecture template.

You're asking why we put conjecture on glitches that will never receive an official name, right? Well, isn't that the point of conjecture templates in the first place? @SuperYoshiBros I can archive it if you want.

Add no bullet point to any trivia that has only one thing
I don't think we need a bullet if there is only one thing in a list. If there is more then one, then it does need it, but just for one, ii don't think so.

Proposer: Deadline: June 21, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per Proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) - It'd be inconsistent with the other pages' Trivia sections and it's not like the lone bullet looks horrible or anything. Besides, if there's only one Trivia point, the best thing to do would be to try incorporating it into the body text: problem solved.
 * 2) Per Walkazo.
 * 3) Per Walkazo.
 * 4) Per Walkazo.
 * 5) Per the bureaucrat that voted on this. (A.K.A. Walkazo)
 * 6) Yeah, but that would turn the Trivia into a mess and will vandalize articles. Per Walkazo.
 * 7) Per all
 * 8) Per Walkazo.
 * 9) Per everyone.
 * 10) -Per everybody.
 * 11) - Per Walkazo.
 * 12) Per Walkazo.
 * 13) There might be more trivia.
 * 14) Per Walkazo.
 * 15) Per Walkazo's comment.

Comments
This proposal is not needed: if there is only one thing in trivia, put it in the main sections where it can go.

This reminded me of a little problem: should we have bullet points in the "List of references" articles? I know it's not really related to the proposal, but since it's about bullet points... —


 * While having the odd one-bullet Trivia section is fine, on the Reference pages, the act of dividing the information into separate points is already accomplished by the headers themselves: bullets would be unnecessary. They'd also be out of place considering that a lot of the sections have full paragraphs containing multiple points (which is preferable to broken-up lists anyway), and they really wouldn't work with the few sections that have multiple paragraphs. -
 * Thanks, I think I'll get rid of those sooner or later. —

@PinkiePie I fail to see how it would vandalize articles.

Change FA size requirement
What I am proposing is simple, we decrease the size an article needs to be to become an FA. Koopa Cape is a quality article, but is too short to become an FA so is Grouchy Possessor. Articles like these are quality articles, but because of the size limit they can't be one, so the size requirement should be lowered so articles like these (as I'm sure there are many others) can be featured.

Proposer:, original idea Deadline: June 24, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) I liked good articles better, but per proposal.
 * 4) Per proposal
 * 5) Per proposal.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per proposal.
 * 8) Quality not quantity.

Comments
Okay, you want to reduce the size required for the FA. My question is this: what's the new minimum requirement you're asking for? It doesn't have to be specific, sure, but say, what is your view on what article is too short for an FA? Baby Donkey Kong was unfeatured because it's so small. Koopa Cape has a similar size.

By the way, I'm also wondering if we should add some margin of incompleteness to featured articles as well. That is, if the article fails to cover appearances from obscure, difficult-to-obtain sources, we shouldn't unfeature it based solely on that. But that's probably another proposal.


 * I'm thinking of a decrease in maybe character limit i.e. 4000-2500. And I think your idea is probably more suited for another proposal.
 * I don't think character limit is the whole story, though, so that's why we should speak in relative terms. If this proposal passes, how are we going to enforce it? It's already hard enough to draw the line between too short and just right.
 * FA's were always about quality, so that is a hard question and I'm sorry that isn't really specific, but an article where its quality would outweigh its length. But of a reasonable length, my examples provided would probably be the minimum allowed.

Loosen FA Requirements for Coverage
"This article doesn't cover details from the Super Mario-Kun (both versions). It can't be featured." "It doesn't have details about the appearances from those Satellaview games."

Nowadays, our requirements for nominations for Featured Articles have tightened. It's a great thing, since we are following the mantra of "articles that represent the best the Super Mario Wiki has to offer."

I still have a problem, though.

Number 8 on Featured Article requirements state that articles must "have significant information from all sources and appearances, especially a biography for character articles." My problem is that we interpret this as including all appearances including from obscure media, especially the difficult-to-access ones. The biggest problem is how extremely tough it is to acquire information, especially detailed, adequate information from such media. Lacking detailed information from a few obscure, limited availability games, such as those from Satellaview and Japanese-only comics such as Super Mario-Kun shouldn't be the difference between a quality article and a crap article.

I'm not saying that we disregard the obscure, difficult-to-find media. I am suggesting, however, that such media should be treated as the "above and beyond" and the "extra credit". We should at the very least acknowledge such media exists and that the character made an appearance, but if there is anyone out there that is willing to add detailed information to the acknowledgement, more power to the article and the person.

I'm not saying either that we should feature incomplete articles. I'm suggesting instead that if an otherwise excellent article covers the vast majority of information while leaving out some detailed information from those "holy grails" out, we should let it be featured. In other words, we shouldn't prevent an article from being featured just because it doesn't have the intricate plot details from stuff related to St.Giga. On the other hand, we should prevent an article from being featured if it lacks information from Super Princess Peach and Dance Dance Revolution: Mario Mix.

Also, if something is relatively obscure, but highly accessible via emulators, YouTube videos, and the like, then it is mandatory for the article to have this coverage.

Proposer: Deadline: June 26, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) This loosening requirement should help establish a bit more leeway in featuring articles. We also shouldn't attempt to unfeature an article just because the Super Mario-Kun section is a one-liner.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) Per proposal
 * 4) Per proposal.
 * 5) Per proposal.
 * 6) Per all; my stance is that as long as all angles of said content in question for the article are covered, length should not be an issue. The professional standards would still be a must for any article to be in featured territory, regardless of size.
 * 7) - see comment below. If hunting down St.Giga's archive is required to feature the Mario page, there's something wrong.
 * 8) Per Glowsquid.
 * 9) Per proposal and Glowsquid's comment.
 * 10) Per all. I hate it when I work especially hard on an article (eg Baby Mario) and found out it had some hard to acquire media I couldn't access, which was the one and only reason it couldn't be featured, despite its other FA quality. Nothing is perfect, and if we set our standards this high, nearly every article in the wiki will be unfeatured because of it.
 * 11) Per all
 * 12) Per all.
 * 13) — It's not the right way to go.

Oppose

 * 1) I oppose for several reasons:
 * 2) This set up would make certain info more important then others which I believe is wrong because all info should be treated equally because everything is of the same importance to the wiki.
 * 3) FA's are supposed to be the best of the best when it comes to quality how can you tell me that it is a quality article when it either lacks or only has incredibly vague info on a certain subject?
 * 4) This proposal is basically meangigless because even if you loosen the FA standards by allowing sections like "Daisy appears as a prominent character in the Japan-only Super Mario-Kun manga. Daisy first appears in the Sarasaland chapters, where she is again Tatanga's captive. Tatanga plans to force Daisy to marry him. After the Sarasaland chapters, Daisy's role switches to that of a heroine. She then appears alongside her close friends Mario, Luigi, and Peach. Daisy is a consistently reoccurring character in the Super Mario-Kun series." to fit rule 8 you still have to deal with rule 5 which states that any article with an improvement tag can't be featured. Therefore articles with sections like that couldn't be featured because they are sections stubs because they lack adequate information since they only tell the literal bare bones and don't go into detail about what the character does only saying that they appear.
 * 5) Per Marshal Dan Troop.
 * 6) - Per Marshal Dan Troop.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) - Per MDT, especially for the 2nd reason he gave. There are plenty of FA, so it's not like the FA standards are messed up.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) Per all
 * 11) - Per Shoey.
 * 12) Per Dan.

Comments
Would this also include very obscure Japan-only games as well?
 * I'd say only if they have an adequate amount of quality information.
 * Yeah. I stated that we should at least mention the game, but when it's extremely difficult to find the details of the said game, it shouldn't be the difference between a featured article and a regular or bad article.

I feel there's a difference between obscurity and availability. For the former, take the example of Virtual Boy Wario Land and When I Grow Up. Both games may be obscure, but they were released in the west, are widely available via online shopping and Perfectly Legal Means, and have plenty of writeup and video footage to go around (the wiki's When I Grow Up page pretty much has the content of the entire game short of the coloring). As such, there's not really an "excuse" to not have information from these games.

On the other hand, some subjects are simply not available. Games on the Satellaview were distributed via radio broadcast from a closed source, which closed shop quite a while ago. While fans had a limited success recreating the content of some Satellaview games via magazine scans and vintage videos, a lot of it (including the Mario games) is not accesible and can only be consulted via blurry youtube or niconico videos. With the current "complete info or gtfo" standard, anything that's known to appear in a Satellaview game essentially can't get featured, which is pretty dumb. And while Mario Artist: Communication Kit (to take one example) is not lost to time like the Satellaview stuff is, it's still hardly accessible to the English fandom; the game was only released in Japan, on a rare add-on (only 10.000 unit) that's yet to be emulated, and there's little footage or writeups about it online. As such, it's not unreasonable to expect sections about that game to lack information. --Glowsquid (talk) 08:32, 21 June 2013 (EDT)


 * Indeed, there's a difference between obscurity and rarity, but sometimes, it goes hand-in-hand. You have said, "With the current 'complete info or gtfo' standard, anything that's known to appear in a Satellaview game essentially can't get featured, which is pretty dumb." I'm trying to address that problem, exactly, but I fear that it is poorly worded. Maybe I need to reword my proposal here. I'm trying to address the difficult-to-access ones here the most. Not only the Super Mario-Kun is Japan-exclusive, there are barely any translated versions, so it's out of reach for most of us.


 * Do you think it's a good idea to reword the proposal? I mean, I should change the subject on "availability" rather than "obscurity". Again, I thought the two often go together.

Marshal Dan Troop, I have several rebuttals against your argument.


 * Treating all information as equals shouldn't be the right way to go when it comes to covering all information. If that's the case, then games from the discontinued Satellaview need equal treatment, but the elusiveness of those games make it extremely difficult to get such coverage. If an article gets unfeatured simply because it lacks some information for a difficult-to-access game, then we have a flaw in the system.
 * The best of the best doesn't mean it is flawless. It simply means it's the best of the best. The coverage is outstanding, the pictures are adequate, and the writing is well done, but by no means is it perfect. And how many times do I have to repeat this: the difference between a quality article and a crap article shouldn't be determined by the detail and length of a section of BS Super Mario USA.
 * Such sections shouldn't get rewrite-expand templates in the first place. Many featured articles, such as Baby Luigi. Baby Peach, Wario, Doopliss, Fawful, Koopa Bros., and Goomba deal with Super Mario-Kun appearances in a one-liner or bare-bones manner. Technically, by going by our standards of the time of this writing, then all of these could be unfeatured simply because it lacks information on those sections. I fear many more articles simply don't list the comic. And that's just Super Mario-Kun. Basically, by going by our standards, any article related to a character that appears in Super Mario-Kun can't be featured.


 * Yes, the Satellaview games need equal treatment.
 * Okay, why should we expect as much extensive coverage from Satellaview games as we expect extensive coverage from Gamecube games? Did you read Glowsquid's comment?
 * I know the information is hard to find, but I meant that since it's as canon, it deserves equal treatment. But yeah, not featuring an article because of this is not the right way to go. I changed my vote. —

Split characters like Koopa, Shy Guy and Wiggler into a character page from the species
I feel the rule with characters like Koopa and Shy Guy should be a whole species article should change. Characters like them make appearances in spin off titles like the Mario Tennis and Mario Kart series and they shouldn't be in the article of their species. So I think we should split characters like Koopa, Shy Guy, Wiggler and Boo from their species articles and into their own character articles. Because I'm sure the Koopa in the Mario Kart series is a notable one from the Koopa species.

Proposer: Deadline: June 27, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Oppose

 * 1) Nothing suggests that the random playable enemies like Koopa are always the same character. A "Koopa Troopa" character hasn't been established, unlike with Yoshi and Toad for example. Also per Turboo and Yoshi876's comments.
 * No, the method that we're covering these cases are as fine as it is. No need to split them into specificed character articles just because they participated in spinoff installments. I'm sorry, but I say no on this case.
 * 1) Per comments below, I'm sorry but all I see is pages that are completely composed of small sections with minimal detail.
 * 2) After a lot of thinking, I now have to go against my proposal since I have no proof to back my point up.
 * 3) - If it can be proven that certain generic enemies are being represented by a recurring individual, yeah, make pages for them, but it must be done on a case-by-case basis, not with one blanket proposal.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Per all
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per Aokage.
 * 8) Per All

Comments
I don't really get the point of this; I guess you could make an article if you really tried, but... wouldn't it just be simple details of the Koopa's appearance in the games? It doesn't even appear different from a normal green-shelled Koopa. -
 * And wouldn't this make quite small articles that are composed of mostly 1-liners. 'Koopa appeared in the Mario Kart series, his karts are ...'?
 * No cause Koopa appears in multiple Mario Karts, he's a host in Mario Party 4, playable in Mario Party 9, there is plenty of information about these characters because they've made many appearances as either playable characters or important characters in other games. The amount information for the Mario Kart series would be no different than that of any other character.
 * Yeah, a Koopa appears in those games. What makes you think it's always the same one? A Koopa Troopa character named Koopa Troopa hasn't been established. Same thing for Shy Guy, Wiggler and Boo. Aokage (talk) 12:13, 20 June 2013 (EDT)
 * Then why does the specific Koopa in Mario Party DS get an article? A Wiggler appeared in the same game and didn't get an article.
 * From what I remember, that Koopa had characterization that set him apart from the generic Koopa(s) we see in Mario Kart and the like. -
 * But what about the Wiggler? And the Magikoopa?

@Yoshi876: Most of Koopa Troopa's spin off information are already one or 2 liners anyway. Most of the information there is given about the species appearance in the mainstream games. Koopa has made important appearances in spin offs and I don't find it fitting to describe all that in an article that talks about the various Koopas that have appeared.
 * What's the evidence that the Koopa Troopa in all the spin off's is the same Koopa Troopa?
 * This lets me bring up something that I've always wanted to bring up: what's the evidence that the Toads that show up in various games are one character (Toad)?

Add images unrelated to games in the subject's gallery
According to our coverage policy, "all content from such sources is allowed on this wiki, without speculating on what content from what source is "more official" than other content from other sources."

Somehow, this doesn't translate to a subject's, specifically, a character's gallery. The only thing we have in the galleries are images related to the games. What I don't understand is how we don't include images from other media including the TV shows, the anime, and other screenshots, including scans from published comics. Merchandising is probably another territory, though, so I'm excluding images pertaining to merchandise. The same thing goes for the "Super" "Mario" "Bros." "film" (it's not Super, it's not Mario, it doesn't have any brothers, and it's not what you call a film). That means, the "Super" "Mario" "Bros." "film" won't be covered.

Anyway, my proposal simply states that we should include images from the aforementioned sources so we have a wide range of images covering from Donkey Kong to Mario Kirby Meisaku Video, from Super Mario Bros. 3 to The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3, and from Super Mario World to Super Mario World. I think that makes sense. We just have to create a section for these images. It can go below video game screenshots and the caption shows the link to the show or the episode title.

As for comics, perhaps it should go in a separate section, as in "scans" or something like that. It should be the last, but not least, section, after the screenshots from video games and television. I don't know where else it should go without breaking the consistency.

If this proposal passes, in other words, that means we don't have to search in many, many pages to find a picture of Luigi scoffing tacos and animation errors as a side from the episode  in the website. We just have to find it in the gallery.

If there is anything I overlooked, please say so!

Proposer: Deadline: June 27, 2013 23:59 GMT

Support

 * I, for one, had to search for many pages to find an appropriate picture for Toad from the show, while I can simply look in his gallery to find an appropriate picture for Toad from the games.
 * 1) Fully support this. Per proposal.
 * 2) I agree, except the movie. That's totally different from the games, so I don't think they belong there (Toad is someone completely different, Bowser is actually a good guy's name etc.).
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) Per proposal: I thought it was already the policy. Also, I agree with SuperYoshiBros: our wiki doesn't consider that Mario and Mario (film character) are the same person.
 * 5) - Per LeftyGreenMario. And yeah, the movie characters are considered separate from the main characters, so they should definitely stay off the galleries, however, I think it'd be a good idea to have a line in the gallery intro saying something like: "For images of the Luigi character from the SMB movie, see [here], for images of Baby Luigi, see [here]."
 * 6) Per all, this would make finding images much easier.
 * 7) Per all
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Per SYB and Walkazo.
 * 10) Per all.

Comments
While we're at it, perhaps we should call for scans from comics and other printed publications to be added to the character galleries too... -
 * Yeah, I was thinking about that as well. I'm not sure if we should scan whole pages or just crop one panel with that character, though.
 * More focused images would probably be better, but a lot of the comic scans are already one or two panels, so that works. Either way, not every image that has a character in it has to go on the gallery, so any scans or screenshots that don't really fit or bring anything worthwhile to the gallery need not be included. That'll help keep the size of the page reasonable, too. -

@Walkzao: I agree with the new lines for the intros. I added it on the forum thread.

What should we call the heading for these images if this passes? I was thinking maybe Media, but that could include video games too, so maybe two sections, for Printed Media and Television.
 * I was discussing about it with GBAToad, so here, you can have a look.
 * In short, the "Screenshots" section will have two subsections: "Video Games" and "Animation". A new section dedicated to printed media ("Scans") will be placed after "Screenshots" to contain scans from comics, game manuals and other publications. 20:43, 23 June 2013 (EDT)

Semi-protect Glitch List pages
Often, glitch pages have become a target of, , and information, as well as just. And most of this is done by either accounts created very recently or anonymous users. Therefore, I am suggesting that all the glitch list pages be protected (so that only autoconfirmed users can edit them), to prevent this sort of thing.

Proposer: Deadline: June 27, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per my reasoning above.
 * 2) – Strongly agree with the proposed action. If I had a dollar for every time I witnessed an anon writing an unreferenced, slack effort at writing a decently written paragraph, clogged with the usage of second person, I'd have like fifty bucks and no sense.
 * 3) It's true some anons add real glitches, but they also add what they want, so per proposal.
 * 4) - Per all, especially YK.
 * 5) Per all. I have to disagree with YoshiKong, though, since I think it's closer to one hundred and thirteen dollars with twenty-two cents.
 * 6) Per all, especially YK and LGM. Forget dollars, if I had a candle for every time that's happened, I'd have a considerable amount of scents.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Only trustworthy users that have tested the glitch themselves, and puts a reference to for ex. A Youtube video should be able to edit those pages.
 * 9) I replaced a glitch with one that works because I tested it. So, Per YohsiKong in the way that I would have a billion dollars for vandals that come around.
 * 10) Per all and YoshiKong.

Comments
Whilst I agree, sometimes anons add valid glitches, so there needs to be someway that they could inform us and it'd also allow us to test it to make sure it isn't false.
 * @Yoshi876: That's true, but see YoshiKong's reasoning above; the probability of anons adding crap to glitch pages is much higher than them adding legitimate glitches.
 * They could ask someone to add the legit glitch, on the talk page, maybe? —
 * @Banon: Are you talking about if this proposal was in effect, anons could request it to be added?
 * I;d say so, because obviously there are anons out there out who do have a valid glitch to add and that would be the only way.
 * Yeah, they could add it in that way if they're actually planning to make constructive edits, but
 * Some anons do actually make constructive edits (such as adding legit glitches), but they reason I'm proposing this is because the vast majority of anons who edit glitch pages vandalize them. So yeah, anyone who wants to add in something would have to request it.
 * Yes, I meant that.
 * All of those money estimates are wrong, it would definitely be around $384.62
 * Not including taxes.

Should we do the same thing with beta pages?
 * No, since they're usually not as screwed up as Glitch pages.