MarioWiki:Proposals

List of Talk Page Proposals

 * Merge 5 Gold Coin and 50 Gold Coin with Coin (Discuss) Deadline: January 13, 2016, 23:59 GMT
 * Use only when pages clearly have an informal appearance (Discuss) Deadline: January 15, 2016, 23:59 GMT
 * Create the page: Drilldigger (Discuss) Deadline: January 17, 2016, 23:59 GMT
 * Split the sections Attackathlon, Toad Quiz and Lakitu Info Centre into and  (Discuss) Deadline: January 18, 2016, 23:59 GMT
 * Split Gold Bar and (Discuss) Deadline: January 18, 2016, 23:59 GMT
 * Split Banana and (Discuss) Deadline: January 19, 2016, 23:59 GMT
 * Split from Rope (Discuss) Deadline: December 29, 2015, 23:59 GMT Extended: January 5, 2016, 23:59 GMT, January 12, 2016, 23:59 GMT , January 19, 2016, 23:59 GMT

Writing Guidelines
None at the moment.

New features
None at the moment.

Removals
None at the moment.

Require short detail of change in future Support/Oppose/Comment/etc proposal headers
The reason for this is similar to the proposal above - when adding a vote or comment on a page that has a prior (usually settled) proposal, you get sent to the equivalent section for the first proposal. Similarly, the section link from RecentChanges will also send you to the wrong section in the same way (in either case, you're sent to, e.g., when the section you're looking for has an anchor along the lines of, even though the header is just ====Support==== ).

It wouldn't have to be long or complicated (e.g., this proposal could have headers of something like "Support/Oppose requiring short detail"/"Comment on requiring short detail"), the point is just for it to be unique on the page (although simplicity of rule-writing means that it would be better to include the first proposal on a page in it). Headers in past proposals wouldn't need to be changed; this would only apply to proposals, including Talk Page Proposals, started after the new policy would come into effect.

Proposer: Deadline: January 17, 2016, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) . Per own proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) - Too much screwing around for something as superfluous as where you appear in the page after saving. The Table of Contents brings you to the right header, and when you try to edit, you're in the right section, so there's really no problem. Maybe someday the MediaWiki bug will be fixed, but in the meantime, it's not worth complicating basic header stuff.
 * 2) Aside from per Walkazo, since the page load bug is a bug, it's not something we can really fix.
 * 3) Per Walkazo and the comments below. It's a MediaWiki glitch that most likely won't be fixed in the near future. All this does is add unneeded tedium to the process of proposal creation; even though  does this, it doesn't mean we should all be required to do this. I get that we're trying to work around something the can possibly get very irritating (I actually talked to Porple about it because at that point, I didn't know it was a well known MediaWiki glitch), but like I said, all this rule (for lack of a better word) would do is add unnecessary and unwanted tedium to creating proposals; and besides, the only thing it would really be absolutely necessary for is TPPs because on this page, it doesn't take much effort to go from one proposal to the next, because scrolling from Proposal A over Proposal B to Proposal C does not take much effort at all. To sum up, it really should just be an option, not a requirement.

Comments
Ghost Jam: Isn't this what this proposal is all about, though? Circumventing a bug? 19:05, 11 January 2016 (EST)
 * Exactly. We can't fix it (it's more or less baked in - the only ways to technologically fix it would be [a] prohibit more than one section with the same name on a page by throwing an error when someone tries to save it as such or [b] make section anchors something like a random alphanumeric code with no connection to the actual header text. The former is a more extreme version of what I'm suggesting, and no-one anywhere wants the latter), but we can work around it. - Reboot (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2016 (EST)
 * Or just ignore it. It's a minor bug: not worth bending over backwards over and adding another, confusingly fiddly step to proposal-making - one that promotes inconsistency and needless wordiness, at that, which will then look terrible in the archives forever. Both the long-term and short-terms costs far outweigh any benefit from avoiding a glitch that causes a second's worth of inconvenience at a time: we've shrugged and carried on for over 8 years, and we should continue with that path of least resistance. - 01:12, 12 January 2016 (EST)

Split the Mario & Luigi and Super Mario RPG consumables into separate articles
Remember back in the day when the word "stub" was thrown around like it was going out of fashion and everything smaller than Bowser's article was a stub? This resulted in a lot of articles being clumped together into one superarticle, which is kind of like Superman if he had to wear Kryptonite. What I want to bring up today involves several articles merged during that period, including Super Syrup, Ultra Syrup, Max Syrup, Super Mushroom, Ultra Mushroom, Max Mushroom, and plenty more (including subjects that were affected long after the merges). Every article that I want to split will be listed in the comments. So, the reason I want to split these articles is because there's no reason for them to be merged in the first place. They're individual items with individual names, individual effects, individual buying/selling prices, and individual locations that the games treat like individuals. In some cases, they even have individual appearances, and no, some items having the same appearance is not enough to keep them merged when everything else about them is different. The clumped articles themselves aren't all that pleasant, trying to hop from several topics in rapid succession when that information would be more easily presented in separate articles. Also, having a bunch of Foreignname templates stacked on top of each other is not good in the slightest. I was one of the people who supported those proposals, but looking back, I simply cannot see how the articles are "clearly not working seperate". In light of the recent splits, I thought this would be appropriate.

Proposer: Deadline: January 17, 2016, 23:59 GMT

Split

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) – Consistency is key. Per proposal.
 * 4) - Per Time Turner.
 * 5) Per proposal.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Should've happened earlier.
 * 8) - Per TT.
 * 9) - Cautious support. I agree with the general thrust of the proposal, but there does have to be a threshold below which two things are similar/minor enough to go on the same page. One-sentence pages, even if notionally complete, don't help anything. (I presume that last sentence doesn't apply to any of these specific splits)
 * 10) Per all
 * 11) Per proposal

Comments
Full list: I'm tempted to thrown in the Peppers alongside this proposal, but they're not quite in the same boat as the other ones. There's also the Mushroom that the Triplets give, which has a completely different effect to a regular Mushroom, but I don't know how the article would be properly identified if split.
 * Mushroom - Super Mushroom, Ultra Mushroom, Max Mushroom, Mid Mushroom, Bad Mushroom
 * Syrup - Super Syrup, Ultra Syrup, Max Syrup
 * Nuts - Super Nuts, Ultra Nuts, Max Nuts (on a side note, shouldn't it be "Nut"?)
 * Nut - Super Nut, Ultra Nut, Max Nut
 * 1-Up Mushroom - 1-Up Deluxe, Double 1-Up Mushroom
 * Drumstick - Hot Drumstick, Fiery Drumstick, TNT Drumstick
 * Candy - Super Candy, Ultra Candy, Max Candy
 * Any others that I've missed
 * It most definitely should be Nut instead of Nuts. It shouldn't be renamed right away, but it should be renamed after you've made the different Nut articles. You're allowed to link to just even if that would generate a red link.  20:17, 9 January 2016 (EST)

@Reboot: We're not giving articles to every subject under the angry sun (see: Fan (souvenirs), Lightwand), but the articles that I've listed all have more than enough information to support themselves individually.
 * I'm not sure if I understand the plan for the mushrooms. Is the intention to give the Super Mushroom from the various RPGs its own article(s), or merely move the information around to the existing one? Either way, it should be noted that the Mid/Super Mushroom and Max/Ultra Mushroom had identical Japanese names. It would appear to be another example of a translator – Ted Woolsey in this case – providing one-off separate names which would later be changed or reverted. The mushrooms in Super Mario RPG do heal different amounts of health, but those values are also inconsistent within the Mario & Luigi series itself. Mid/Super Mushroom definitely seems straightforward enough, but there is confusion with the Max Mushroom since it was actually introduced separately from Ultra Mushroom in the Mario & Luigi series, and it performs just like the original Super Mario RPG version in Superstar Saga and Partners in Time. That's not even considering Super Shroom and Ultra Shroom from Paper Mario (albeit colored differently). How does that all work out under this proposal? LinkTheLefty (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2016 (EST)