MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/49

Use Lists for the Power Moons instead of Galleries
Porplemontage has indicated that for the Power Moons on the Kingdoms pages, we should use a GALLERY of images relating to the position of the moon, along with the name that links to either a TABLE, or to individual articles, which another proposal will be dealing with. I firmly believe we should use a LIST instead of these galleries, and here's why:
 * Easier to scroll through on mobile devices and desktop.
 * Far less vertical space take up on the page, especially with kingdoms with 50-100 moons.
 * On mobile the entire gallery is one column.
 * The human eye only needs to move up and down the list
 * The galleries require looking all over the screen and can disorient.
 * Many readers will come for help with finding power moons. The list tells them the name and a short description, and if they need more they click the link for the full thing.
 * The galleries have no way of giving a short description about the moon, and can lead readers to jumping all over the site if they are obtaining info moon by moon.
 * Having a single page open and being able to look back at it when needed is a huge help and time saver.

Proposer: Deadline: November 10, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) per my proposal

Oppose

 * 1) See my comments.
 * 2) Having a redundant list on the main body article of, say, Cascade Kingdom is pointless (when things are more easily summed up with Header+Main template+Small paragraph explaining the moon count and other criteria) and unnecessary padding to the article when the information users are looking for is best explained in the list pages itself. The reason we even resorted to using tables in the first place is because some of the moons objectives are short enough to fit in there; we don't need a summary of a summary. Keep the listicle in the actual list article itself, and leave the worse, less useful, less informative list out of the main one. Another point I like to add is that the list also adds a ridiculous amount of redundant links that ALL lead to the main article: we need only one link and that's where the Main template comes in handy. If people REALLY wanted to search for a specific moon, that's why we have Ctrl + F in the first place. My position is to delete the small listings altogether and leave only a header + main template + small paragraph.
 * 3) Switch sides again, per Baby Luigi's comment.
 * 4) I have to agree with Baby Luigi. Having a list on the main Kingdom page is redundant since the table already displays the name and location of the Power Moons. The list also creates 60+ redundant links to the table, which is also linked at the top of the list. All we really need is one link to the table, and the list really isn't needed. People can just use [CTRL] + [F] to look up a Moon that they need. All in all, the Power Moons should just be listed on the table (and not on the main Kingdom page). (Although, I also think that the Regional Coins for each Kingdom should be displayed with a picture and description because that's how the blue coins were listed on the Super Mario Sunshine's level articles.) Anyways, that's what I think about the matter - Power Moons on a table (sub-page) and Regional Coins in a "gallery" (main Kingdom page).

Comments
The purpose of this is to determine which way is better for displaying the moons on the kingdom page. Whether they link to a table or article, there will be far more information on the linked page, including the images AND an in-depth description/walkthrough type thing for the power moon. The list will just take up far less space and provide an easy overview for readers.-- 15:33, 3 November 2017 (EDT)

I was going through your arguments, and decided to put my thoughts to them. Overall, I am not for having them as lists due reasons above. 15:49, 3 November 2017 (EDT)
 * Easier to scroll through on mobile devices and desktop.
 * Not by very much. And if you think about the about of time a section loads (at least on a 3DS (I having the 2DS)), not going to be much difference anyway. Galleries on mobile devices like Nintendo 3DS family in general take long to load, but they usually remain black if there is too many.
 * Far less vertical space take up on the page, especially with kingdoms with 50-100 moons.
 * I compared your mockup on Metro Kingdom layout (81 moons), and your talking about a whole length of the scroll bar on those pages, which is not a lot.
 * On mobile the entire gallery is one column.
 * On which mobile? I use a 2DS, and I don't remember seeing only 1. But that may be due to me using desktop on my 2DS. But, I checked on a desktop mobile view and I only saw one less image per column than in desktop.
 * The human eye only needs to move up and down the list
 * I hear that humans like looking at better looking things. But, it is also something to not overdue.
 * The galleries require looking all over the screen and can disorient.
 * There is still order in galleries. One can easily look at the system and find the one they are looking for.
 * Many readers will come for help with finding power moons. The list tells them the name and a short description, and if they need more they click the link for the full thing.
 * Actually, it's a little quicker finding the moon with a gallery than a list. With a list, readers are going to go to the general area and find it. With galleries, they do the exact same thing. The only difference is that it is found quicker due to there being length. Even in a 1 per column, there are less of the others when this option is done per screen.
 * The galleries have no way of giving a short description about the moon, and can lead readers to jumping all over the site if they are obtaining info moon by moon.
 * Just the moon names may be all they are looking for. I don't know how Talkatoo works exactly due to not having the game. Even still, we should provide the info. But, if they're not looking for the name, they will most likely not go to the kingdom page, no matter if the moons stay in another article or if they all become separated, but instead use the search bar to do it.
 * Having a single page open and being able to look back at it when needed is a huge help and time saver.
 * We already have another page for that. It can even be convinced to keep it even if all are given articles.
 * When I refer to mobile, I am talking about phones. If you're playing the game, it's less likely you have a computer/laptop open next to you looking at the wiki, and more likely you are on a phone. Talkatoo works by only revealing the name of the power moon, not the location, and he only gives you three at a time. If you only want the names to figure it out for yourself, you're fresh out of look with the galleries because you can't avoid seeing the picture. With list it's easier to not read the description. The list is also better suited as it's the exact same way the game itself displays the power moons, as a big numbered list with the names and a minimap to the side with icons indicating the positon on the map of each moon.-- 15:58, 3 November 2017 (EDT)
 * Oh, a phone. But, not everyone has a phone with the ability to look up stuff. You mention that it is hard not to see the image if it is galleries. There are times when galleries don't actually show the picture, but this seems to only happen if there's either low-broadband or takes a long time to load in general. And even if there is a picture, that picture can help them find the moon, but only if the person looking at the picture can tell where it is. They say a picture is worth a thousand words. Compared to descriptions, I have no idea. As for the last point, I don't know how to say something against it and still be in legal grounds. What I do know is that in-game, it shows a picture of the location if you found it. Is there a way to replicate that on the wiki? Or would that be too much? (both questions are only relevant if this passes.) (Scratch that point. I don't think there is especially for long lists. And it would be too much if we found a way to do it.) As of right now, the gallery seem to do the same thing, except in a different way. 16:20, 3 November 2017 (EDT)
 * I mentioned the use of a map to Steve but I didn't really understand his response so I didn't pursue it. Now, be reasonable, you're not looking up the power moons for Super Mario Odyssey if you don't have a switch or plan to get one, that information is useless, and if you have that kind of money, you have a smart phone, even if it's low end. A smart phone is a necessity for life at this point, not because of addiction or obsession, but because of work and family, especially work! Anyways, you would want to avoid the picture because the moment you see it, you'd recognize where that is, and you lose all the fun of working out where it is based on the name. I know we don't worry about spoiler's here, but it makes for a better presentation for people who need some help but don't want to be outright told where it is, and for those that do, we have that information too. Also keep in mind that there are 103 moons for Mushroom Kingdom, a page that has existed on the wiki since 2011 and serves a purpose for multiple games in the franchise. It would be completely overrun if the gallery were applied to it.-- 16:35, 3 November 2017 (EDT)
 * Galleries have visual aspects. This means that people generally find them more attracted. Lists usually have things pretty close to each other. The rest Porplemontage said for me. As for the last point, Mushroom Kingdom doesn't have either. But, it doesn't have a gallery either. But, if you're still not convinced, Porplemontage also mentions that have lists for longer articles. With this proposal, it removes the possibilities of galleries instead of list no matter what, even on shorter articles. 17:00, 3 November 2017 (EDT)
 * That's not how this works. This proposal is only for the power moon lists/galleries on the kingdom pages. The ruling wouldn't effect other situations.-- 17:02, 3 November 2017 (EDT)
 * That's your argument against what I put? Something I already know? If this passes, is guarantees lists for those articles. Since it is support or oppose, the oppose option doesn't necessary mean that we will stick with galleries for all of the articles that are going to be affected. It means that we won't stick with the lists for all of the articles that are going to be affected.
 * As for the point that I didn't cover in my previous comment, you explained it almost exactly as it is, but sometimes standards aren't always what some people do. But, it's hard to know due to preferences of others. So, generally speaking suits well. 17:21, 3 November 2017 (EDT)
 * I misunderstood what you meant. It sounded like you were suggesting that every article would have galleries replaced with lists, not just the kingdoms. My mistake.-- 17:27, 3 November 2017 (EDT)

Why is there no "use tables" option in this proposal? That's the option I'd want to vote for. 13:29, 6 November 2017 (EST)
 * Because they take up far too much space, even more than the galleries would, and are really not mobile friendly at all. Plus, three pages currently already link to a separate page when a table exists. Another proposal will be made soon to figure out how to handle articles for power moons, and I believe the default option is to link to a table.-- 14:23, 6 November 2017 (EST)
 * After looking through this again and understanding where you're going with this, why do we even need a redundant list in the main body Cascade Kingdom article itself? Just delete the list and let the List of Cascade Kingdom Moon article handle all of the work of describing the details of each Power Moon. 14:42, 6 November 2017 (EST)
 * Because we have to wait for the other proposal to go through first. We don't know if the List of Cascade Kingdom Moon article will stay or not. If the decision is to make an article for every power moon, which I now support, then that page will be deleted. The list on the kingdom page itself will not have an in-depth description of the moons, keeping it simple, because the in-depth part will be on the individual pages.-- 15:03, 6 November 2017 (EST)
 * Shouldn't you wait for the proposal to go through before starting another proposal about this matter first? Also, I still don't think a summary is necessary, considering some moons can be explained in only a few sentences, which is why we're even using the table format in the first place rather than giving them separate articles. 19:55, 6 November 2017 (EST)

One thing that confuses me: the way this proposal is worded doesn't say whether the gallery/list is its own page or part of the main page, but the way you were talking would imply that a gallery would have to be separate while a list would have to be part of the main article, which isn't true at all. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:12, 7 November 2017 (EST)
 * The list on the main page doesn't have to have an anchor link for every moon to the separate table. At some point someone added those in and I didn't question their existence. The reason this proposal exists before the other proposal is, to my understanding, due to the fact that the lists of power moons on the main pages have to be finished before the other proposal can be started.-- 10:04, 8 November 2017 (EST)
 * I think what happened was... When the list used to be a gallery, someone made each Moon link to the table because of how the gallery appeared on mobile (one picture per line). Then, the gallery was reverted back to a list, and the anchor links to the table just stuck around. --Legomariofanatic (talk) 19:09, 8 November 2017 (EST)

Make indenting comments during discussions an official rule
You know, when I was just discussing with my good friend Black Lightning when he reminded me to indent my comments, he told me that indenting comments during discussions was an unwritten rule that the wiki abided by. I started to think, why not make this an official rule? So that's the point of this proposal, why not make indenting comments during talk page discussions an official rule? The rule will state that all participants in a talk-page discussion must indent their comments, but after around five to seven colons have been used to indent comments, the bar will reset to zero, and the cycle goes on and on until the discussion ends. This would be a great rule to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of all talk-page discussions. However, unlike most rules, there will be no punishment for violating this rule, as it's more of an official guideline than an official rule, although very occasional reminders will be given. The official rule part is to make it so that all autoconfirmed users do it regularly and get in the habit of indenting their comments early on in their work on the wiki. Proposer: Deadline: November 11, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) I'm sticking with my proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) 1) I strongly disagree with the cycle resetting to zero. It would be better if it just stopped and stayed at seven. 2) It wouldn't really increase the efficiency of talk pages since pretty much everybody follows it anyway. You can't solve a problem that isn't there. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. 3) "Good friend" is really stretching it. "Acquaintance" maybe. Nothing personal, but, as my page says, I don't do internet friends.
 * 2) No. This type of rule works best as a guideline rather than something users can get reminders and warnings for, and I think this veers almost on common sense at this point. To be frank, this isn't something major enough to be addressed, and as Ultimate Mr. L said, most people already abide by it anyway, so there's no point in making this a rule.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) - Per all. In most instances it's just common sense, and making not following it punishable with a reminder/warning does not sound like a good idea.
 * 5) - Just indent your discussions like people have been telling you. No need to shoot your foot off.

Comments
THANK YOU! It FINALLY did what I wanted it to do, which is show up as a black header and not a bunch of code. Anyway, you don't need to apologize, Black Lightning. We've all got our opinions, and no one can take them away from us, even if their life depended on it. In the end, that's all that matters. And by the way, I meant "good friend" as in quite literally, "good friend". I didn't mean to use the specific Internet term. 22:56, 4 November 2017 (EDT)
 * Not sure what's with that glitch, it seems to happen every other time a new proposal is made. Encountered it at my first proposal and its shown up form time to time ever since. It fixes itself as long as there some code under the section. As for the friend thing, I mean I haven't met you face-to-face and therefore do not consider you a friend. But this really isn't the place for this conversation.
 * 23:00, 4 November 2017 (EDT)

Help:List <- Closest thing to a written "rule" I can find. 22:04, 5 November 2017 (EST)
 * By the way, I should point out that while not indenting comments is not currently a warnable offense, it is equally minor as forgetting italics, which is as it is detailed on this user's talk page. Drawing from that user's example, if not indenting comments were to become a warnable offense at all, it should only get serious after the user in question is reminded about it more than ten or so times. 16:28, 7 November 2017 (EST)
 * The difference is, I think user space dealing with formatting are lot more lenient on formatting than writing formatting stuff on actual articles. For example, we encourage people to not copy paste raw signature coding all over the people's talk pages whenever they sign, but that rule is not enforced all that often...indenting is even more minor than that, I say. 21:26, 7 November 2017 (EST)
 * @Toadette the Achiever Non-italicizing is something that shows up on articles random people read, while indenting is a talk page thing. I'm not sure how I can explain it any better.
 * 21:44, 7 November 2017 (EST)

Oh, come on, can I ever get any proposal I make to get off the ground and start running? I always seem to epically fail with every proposal I make. Anyway, don't mind me here, I'm just being good old me. 21:45, 7 November 2017 (EST)
 * Complaining isn't going to help you, if anything it will make you look bad. Sometimes proposals just don't go in your favor. One of the points of a proposal is to see what others think, and this is what they think. 21:47, 7 November 2017 (EST)
 * Proposals pass if they are well-thought out and have a decent point to make. Most of the ones you proposed are usually neither. 22:42, 7 November 2017 (EST)
 * I admit that it's difficult to come up with good proposals every now and then, and let's be honest, it's ESPECIALLY difficult to come up with flaws and counterarguments that could be presented to the proposer when they already made their proposal. Just take the commentary as advice, and it'll flow smoothly. 23:25, 7 November 2017 (EST)
 * Well, that's why I usually discuss things in forums or in Discord chat before I enact anything major. 23:28, 7 November 2017 (EST)

Create a template for proposer and deadline parameters
Yet another measure intended to improve how proposals are added to pages. You can find the details here. Basically, my proposal is that we change the parameters for the "Proposer:" and "Deadline:" parameters from hardcoding into a template. This will also (quite obviously) mean that previous archives must be temporarily unprotected to enforce these changes. Proposals like these have received near-unanimous support in the past; we have all of these, to name a few, so how does this fare?

Proposer: Deadline: November 14, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Templates are for reducing redundant and common markup into an easy-to-use code. We went through it once before.

Oppose

 * 1) Why? This just seems like it unnecessarily complicates the whole process. It's perfectly readable as-is and doesn't take up a notable amount of space.
 * 2) - Per Time Turner. This seems to be trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
 * 3) Templates are annoying to use as-is, and what I saw when I viewed the source of that example didn't make me particularly welcoming of this idea. It's just easier to do it the way we've been doing it.
 * 4) Per all. I don't see how this makes things any easier.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) - Per all.
 * 7) - Thought about it, and nah, current markup is already simple. Really the only thing you need to remember is the   code.
 * 8) The proposal markup is right there, above the TOC. Copying and pasting is not difficult, and it's not like the markup is complicated to begin with.
 * 9) Per all
 * 10) Per all.

Comments
@MrConcreteDonkey: The problem is that I have seen countless poorly formatted proposer/deadline parameters. 17:30, 7 November 2017 (EST)
 * I haven't noticed anything like that, and even still it's much less hassle to just fix them separately, rather than editing every proposal in every archive. 17:39, 7 November 2017 (EST)
 * Your argument is still flawed; all of these, to name a few. 17:52, 7 November 2017 (EST)
 * But this doesn't make things any more convenient, and it doesn't provide any added insight for future readers. How is this better than manually inputting it? 18:24, 7 November 2017 (EST)
 * It's been fixed. 18:44, 7 November 2017 (EST)
 * It has not. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2017 (EST)
 * You've only added the list from your most recent comment to the proposal, and haven't addressed our concerns. How is introducing more complicated formatting going to combat poor formatting? 19:46, 7 November 2017 (EST)

Somewhat related, but I have had a way to streamline calculating proposal deadlines 1 or 2 weeks in advance, but no one responded: MarioWiki talk:Proposals/Header It won't go into the template, but it will replace, found in  (/Header). --

@Wildgoosespeeder: Is our current system not easy-to-use? 09:43, 8 November 2017 (EST)
 * Replacing text is kind of a hassle because trying to preserve formatting. That's why I proposed the template a while ago. Also don't forget . -- 00:32, 9 November 2017 (EST)
 * What text is being replaced? 22:45, 9 November 2017 (EST)
 * This is what is looking to replace with User:Toadette the Achiever/PParameter as a sandbox template.
 * Test:
 * Test:


 * Seems to be working OK. -- 00:19, 10 November 2017 (EST)
 * But is too complicated for the purpose it's trying to fill. The current formula can at least be realistically remembered without copypasting from a different tab. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2017 (EST)
 * But the parameters still need to be explained. Nothing is actually being replaced here. 00:21, 10 November 2017 (EST)
 * Too complicated? Does that mean that and  are too complicated as well ? It's not hard. The sandbox template has documentation how to use . If you want the code to be   instead of , just let  know. Also the name of the template can change later. -- 00:27, 10 November 2017 (EST)
 * It's complicated because there's like 3-4 separate blanks on there, which in my opinion is too many. And again, there is no point to it. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:34, 10 November 2017 (EST)
 * Template coding is possible to make two of the four parameters optional to specify (proposer and deadline mandatory, start and withdrawn optional). I think that the template is like that already. Only thing left to do is to simplify the code by using,  , etc.. See  or  for exact code how things are achieved. -- 00:56, 10 November 2017 (EST)
 * It doesn't matter what's possible for the system what matters is human limitation for a thing that gets used like 3 times per week. And again, it is completely unnecessary. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2017 (EST)
 * I think you are making it more complicated than it actually is. What you will be typing is  (if the template is coded to use ,  , etc. instead). The proposed template page doesn't make it clear what the effects are compared to what I did when  was first proposed. Maybe that is what you are concerned about? -- 01:24, 10 November 2017 (EST)
 * And this is simpler than what we have in place currently how? And why on earth would it be "PParameter?" Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 01:25, 10 November 2017 (EST)
 * Replacing text of the hard-coded copypasta version is a hassle. That's why templates are a thing. Also templates formalize and standardize things. For the name, I said that it can be changed later. Nothing is absolute. That's what a proposal is for. What would you call this template? -- 01:34, 10 November 2017 (EST)

Make "Bestiary" its own namespace
Sure, we have a namespace for galleries, but I don't see why we can't do the same for bestiaries. It's the same kind of "special" article that I would define galleries as as well. Therefore, I propose that we rename every instance of  to.

Proposer: Deadline: October 26, 2017, 23:59 GMT Extended to November 2, 2017, 23:59 GMT Extended to November 9, 2017, 23:59 GMT Extended to November 16, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) Per proposal.  Why not?
 * 5) This is (similar to?) one of the things Zeldawiki does that I think we should too.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Switch sides again, Per Toadette's comment.
 * 9) - Just because we've got fewer bestiaries than galleries doesn't really give much an excuse. This helps keep the wiki more organized than it would be, and that's more than a good enough reason IMO.

Oppose

 * 1) - For galleries it made sense because most major articles had one (there are currently 319); for bestiaries, I don't see the point at all. There are 12 proper bestiaries, I don't think this warrants a namespace by any means.
 * 2) Per Tucayo. I also don't see the benefit of this; it seems like more hassle then it's worth for little payoff when considering the few bestiaries on the page.
 * 3) Per Tucayo.
 * 4) - Originally supported, but considering the number of bestiaries there are, per Tucayo.
 * 5) I don't think we have enough pages of this thing to make it into a separate namespace. Per all.
 * 6) Per my comment below and Tucayo.
 * 7) Per all. I see what's trying to be done here, but it seems overly fiddly considering what is being effected, making this extra work for little reward.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Really?! Per all.
 * 10) - Per all. At least for now I don't see why this is needed.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) Per all.
 * 13) Per all.

Comments

 * I might just be a bit dumb, but I don't fully understand what this means or what the difference is. Could you give an example?-- 12:15, 20 October 2017 (EDT)
 * For example, Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga bestiary would become if this were to pass. -- 12:18, 20 October 2017 (EDT)
 * I can only see one problem with this. On every enemy page where the enemy template is placed, transcluding its info from the bestiary page, they look like this:
 * The bolded part is where we're going to get into some issues. It'll be a simple fix, but we'd have to change the link for EVERY page with an enemy template.-- 12:54, 20 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Sounds like bot work. 12:56, 20 October 2017 (EDT)
 * The bolded part is where we're going to get into some issues. It'll be a simple fix, but we'd have to change the link for EVERY page with an enemy template.-- 12:54, 20 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Sounds like bot work. 12:56, 20 October 2017 (EDT)


 * Could we keep the current names as redirects until all of the transclusions are fixed?
 * 14:05, 20 October 2017 (EDT)
 * @Ultimate Mr. L: Isn't that a standard measure? @Alex95: That was my exact plan for fixing those pages. 17:37, 20 October 2017 (EDT)

@Tucayo: "There's too little" is not an argument in and of itself. It's so that normal readers don't get confused into thinking it's an actual article. 18:00, 23 October 2017 (EDT)
 * They are articles, though?? What makes them any different from quote pages, lists of badges, recipes, assist trophies, etc.? Bold + italics doesn't make it true. -- 22:01, 23 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Those are actual list articles. Bestiaries are not technically list articles; they are rather pages that are there to have individual sections be transcluded onto actual articles. 22:07, 23 October 2017 (EDT)
 * But they are still articles by themselves. I truly fail to see the point here. -- 22:09, 23 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Again, why do you think that they're actual articles? They are not meant to be. 08:25, 24 October 2017 (EDT)

If we gonna have them as separate namespaces I honestly think the category should expand to all list articles since they are the very similar to bestiaries. I honestly think having a separate namespace for just 12 pages for something very specific is inconsistent and unprofessional.
 * @NSY: Again, bestiaries ARE NOT technically list articles; they are relevant sections of a page transcluded onto other articles, and having too few does not make too much of a difference. Also, could you please elaborate on the "inconsistency" argument? I understand it less so than Tucayo's arguments. 15:10, 24 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Well according to dictionary.com a list is defined as "a series of names or other items written or printed together in a meaningful grouping or sequence so as to constitute a record". Pretty certain an article that has a record of every enemy and their stats falls under that. It's inconsistent because these would the only list articles that got their own namespace, what about the articles listing all the mini games in a Mario Party game, would they also get their own namespace.
 * No, because that's an actual list:
 * Balloon Burst
 * Bombs Away
 * Crazy Cutter
 * Where as the bestiaries are tables:
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Name !! Location !! HP !! Items
 * Bowser || Castle || 100 || Key
 * Goomba || Plains || 3 || Mushroom
 * Koopa Troopa || Mountains || 12 ||N/A
 * }
 * We don't list out the enemies on a bestiary like we do for every single list on this site. The lists are spilt up into categories, like the Species list, and they only have a name that links to it's main article, ONLY. Nothing else about that link exists on the page.-- 17:32, 26 October 2017 (EDT)
 * However, there are some "list" articles such as List of enemy formations in Paper Mario that are tables, so the lists are not always simply just a name that links to its main article. I agree that bestiaries are like list articles. -- 17:36, 26 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Didn't know that existed. Is that article necessary? If so, seems like that should be integrated into the Paper Mario bestiary.-- 17:40, 26 October 2017 (EDT)
 * I feel that there is enough information for it to remain separate (a proposal to merge it could be created though). Even if that and the Thousand-Year Door version were merged with their bestiaries, there are still other list articles that are more than just simply names (see Category:Lists for more examples). -- 17:55, 26 October 2017 (EDT)
 * There is also List of Sammer Guys. The only reason why it is kept separate from Super Paper Mario bestiary is that it is a list of Sammer Guys fought in an optional thing (though the first 20 are required) and they are too similar to each other. As for another this bestiaries are, they are compendiums which is "a collection of concise but detailed information about a particular subject, especially in a book or other publication (not really relevant to these bestiaries, but I am quoting this word for word)" -- definition found by searching compendiums on Bing. The list of enemy formations and others listed here may be the only exceptions, though.
 * Didn't know that existed. Is that article necessary? If so, seems like that should be integrated into the Paper Mario bestiary.-- 17:40, 26 October 2017 (EDT)
 * I feel that there is enough information for it to remain separate (a proposal to merge it could be created though). Even if that and the Thousand-Year Door version were merged with their bestiaries, there are still other list articles that are more than just simply names (see Category:Lists for more examples). -- 17:55, 26 October 2017 (EDT)
 * There is also List of Sammer Guys. The only reason why it is kept separate from Super Paper Mario bestiary is that it is a list of Sammer Guys fought in an optional thing (though the first 20 are required) and they are too similar to each other. As for another this bestiaries are, they are compendiums which is "a collection of concise but detailed information about a particular subject, especially in a book or other publication (not really relevant to these bestiaries, but I am quoting this word for word)" -- definition found by searching compendiums on Bing. The list of enemy formations and others listed here may be the only exceptions, though.

Okay, this just doesn't make any sense at all. How and why in the world would we make this thing its own namespace if there are only twelve of it on the market right now? I don't get it. 17:49, 27 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Because it's not really an article. Its main purpose is infoboxes to transclude onto articles. Because it is more than just an article, I feel it warrants its own namespace. It doesn't matter how few of them there are.
 * 19:48, 28 October 2017 (EDT)
 * But why does it need a separate namespace to exemplify that fact? 20:00, 28 October 2017 (EDT)
 * Are you suggesting that the Template namspace might be the ideal home for them? (Yeah, it just now occurred to me.) 13:25, 29 October 2017 (EDT)
 * ...No? 00:11, 30 October 2017 (EDT)

Merge paper characters with the Paper Mario appearances of their 3D counterparts
A few years ago a proposal was made to split Paper Mario appearances from other appearances of Mario. That proposal failed, but that was before we had articles on paper characters. Since we have paper articles now, why is Paper Mario (character) separate from Mario (Paper Mario series)? This is especially important with articles like Sombrero Guy and Paper Sombrero Guy, as this enemy has never appeared outside of the Paper Mario series--and is still separate. Why? I propose that we move the Paper Mario series info for each character to the pages of their paper counterparts. We could just use the for the 3D counterparts. Who's with me?

Proposer: Proposed Deadline: November 23, 2017, 23:59:59 GMT Date Withdrawn: November 17, 2017, 23:59:59 GMT

Move all Paper Mario series info

 * 1) Per proposal.

Move the info only for Sombrero Guy and Paper Sombrero Guy

 * 1) Per proposal.

Leave as is

 * 1) Per the proposal that split the articles in the first place. Also, your second option is overly vague, since it does not list articles that will get affected by your proposal, hence why I'm not voting for it despite also thinking Sombrero Guy and Paper Sombrero Guy should get merged.
 * 2) Some paper articles only exist because of Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam, as the paper enemies and characters are separate from their normal selves.
 * 3) Per Baby Luigi and Eldritchdraaks. I think it's fine how it is.
 * 4) Luigi's diary in the original Paper Mario describes Mario Party and Mario Kart. Showing that the Paper Mario is connected to the Mario series. The Paper characters appear alongside their "3D" counterparts in Paper Jam separating them (Paper Jam specifically). Which is why them being separated is the best solution. The only exeption to this is Tower Power Pokey.
 * 5) - The games generally consider these different from their own versions.

Comments
@Baby Luigi: When I say "like Sombrero Guy", I mean articles about enemies who have never appeared outside the Paper Mario series and Paper Jam. Honestly, though, I think Sombrero Guy is the only one. Also, I want to move the Paper Mario series info to the paper articles, not vice versa. - 18:36, 16 November 2017 (EST)

@Chat Man: I still think Sombrero Guy should be merged. I might cancel this proposal if we agree to merge Sombrero Guy. - 00:30, 17 November 2017 (EST)

@YoshiFlutterJump: Then you could cancel this and make a talk page proposal for them, even I would support that. Also, try to delete the "like" in your second option, it might make it more defined. Chat Man (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2017 (EST)
 * ^ Agreeing with this. I checked, and yes, the Sombrero Guy is the only enemy that this oddity applies to. 00:47, 17 November 2017 (EST)

Delete the categories for the levels that an Animal Friend appears in
The title's a bit unwieldy, but it's a good way of describing the categories I'm talking about, like Category:Levels with Parry and Category:Levels with Winky. Why do we have these categories? It's not like we have categories for every level featuring Orange Yoshi or Goombas or 1-Up Mushrooms or anything else apart from Animal Friends. It's not even all of them: the animals from Donkey Kong Jungle Beat are completely absent from the category deal. If you want to know every level that a certain Animal Friend appears in, their pages already list them. Although the lists are a bit unwieldy, especially when multiple of them are on the same page, the solution is not to make categories. Who would actually benefit from these categories in the first place? Who requires a compact list of every level that an Animal Friend appears in, especially when some of them have less than five entries? As I said with the proposal to delete Category:New Levels, we shouldn't need to cater to every single remote possibility.

Proposer: Deadline: November 17, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal; just having the Animal Buddy pages list the levels is good enough.
 * 3) - Per proposal.
 * 4) Per proposal.
 * 5) Per proposal.
 * 6) Per proposal.
 * 7) Per all
 * 8) Per all
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) This feels like it makes the most sense.

Comments
Affected categories:
 * Category:Levels with Ellie
 * Category:Levels with Enguarde
 * Category:Levels with Expresso
 * Category:Levels with Parry
 * Category:Levels with Quawks
 * Category:Levels with Rambi
 * Category:Levels with Rattly
 * Category:Levels with Squawks
 * Category:Levels with Squitter
 * Category:Levels with Winky

Improve rewrite-expand template
I propose that the needs improved.  It has been requested that this be rewritten and expanded

Proposer: Deadline: November 18, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) Once again, per last time and then some. I don't get it, what is so wrong with the rewrite-expand template anyway? It does the job just fine.
 * 2) - Other than moving the word "to", there's no difference being made here.
 * 3) Why?
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) You can already add specifics if any are needed. This change is nothing but busywork. Per all.
 * 6) The proposal is still failing to reconsider other templates, from last time. Stop pushing this proposal until you "do your homework", for a lack of a better phrase.
 * 7) There's no point, we might as well be moving it to "not dun yet lol."
 * 8) Can't see the difference or any worthwhile or significant impact it may have, per all.
 * 9) Why do you keep trying to fix something that isn't broken?
 * 10) Per all
 * 11) - Per all. Hey, sometimes I can't really add anyhing.

Comments
Just what is the change being made here? The template is exactly the same as the current one. - 22:54, 17 November 2017 (EST)
 * Minor insignificant grammatical change. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 06:58, 18 November 2017 (EST)

Ampersands in Navigation Templates
It's that time again, where we look at inconsistencies in the names of navigation templates! This time, we'll be looking at templates that use (or don't use) ampersands. It's not a given that if the game's title includes one, its corresponding template with also include one. None of the Mario & Luigi include it (Template:MLSS, Template:MLPIT, etc.), but scattered other examples include it (Template:M&SATLOG, Template:M&W, etc.). Three of the templates forMario & Sonic meanwhile substitute it for an A, as in "and", because that's not confusing in the slightest (Template:MASATOG, Template:MASATOWG, etc.). As with last time, I'll stress that having consistency is hugely important, because otherwise editors need to either remember the patterns for all of them, constantly look up the names to be sure they didn't screw up, or just make blind guesses and hope for the best. This is especially problematic when making new templates, and the editors have no idea what they should be doing (Yoshi Touch & Go, for example, still doesn't have a navigation template). Unlike last time, I don't strongly favour one side over the other: ampersands are similar to colons to some extent, and they're very much not necessary to quickly know what the template is about, but the word "and" is still a notable part of the title, and I doubt that anyone would complain if "and" was written in plain text and then included in the name (as with Template:MADKMOTM). At the very least, I'm going to say that using the letter "A" instead of "&" is bad, but otherwise, the choice is up to you.

Proposer: Deadline: November 19, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Include ampersands

 * 1) - Same with how I voted in your proposal about colons in nav templates (which ultimately didn't rule in my favor, but whatever), I think if the name of the title has the ampersand, then the abbreviation should include it.
 * 2) Per Alex. I'm sure a lot of users would refer to names like "Mario & Luigi" as "M&L", not "MAL".
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Very confusing otherwise, per all.
 * 6) With all the arguing I've done, this side appeals to me now. Per all.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) This has been bugging me for a long time, and I'm glad someone finally stepped up!
 * 9) - They're part of the titles, aren't they?
 * 10) My vote is actually very specific. INCLUDE the ampersands in the Mario & Luigi and Mario & Sonic templates, but KEEP the "A" in Mario and Donkey Kong: Minis on the Move, as there is no ampersand in the actual title. Otherwise, per all.
 * 11) Per all.
 * , Ehh, I'll vote here too, as it makes sense.
 * 1) I think it's better than putting and A instead of the & present in the title; if we're including the initial of small words such as simple prepositions or articles in the abbreviations of the names, I'd say it makes sense to also use the ampersand if the title uses it.

Do nothing

 * 1) I think that our current system is fine. We use "and" when the name actually consists of "and", such as Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games, and we use the ampersand when the name has it. The only reason we exclude it from the Mario & Luigi games is because it's easier to distinguish them that way. Other than that, I think that we don't need to change how we write our templates. Call me conservative if you want, but it's been that way for a long time, long enough for me to get used to.
 * 2) The Mario and Luigi games already have very long titles as it is, while Mario and Wario would be two letters if abbreviated without the &. I think the case-by case we have now is fine. As for Mario and Sonic, it's a bit less clear due to them being less, how you say, popular.
 * 3) per Doc von Schmeltwick, case-by-case.

Comments
Uh, bro, did you forget to support your proposal and put a deadline on it? I hope not, this is just a reminder. 21:51, 12 November 2017 (EST)
 * Templates that use an ampersand
 * Template:G&Wario (on a side note, this name is inconsistent with everything)
 * Template:M&SATLOG
 * Template:M&W
 * Template:MM&FaC
 * Template:P&DSMBE
 * Template:P&DSMBE Levels
 * Templates that don't use an ampersand
 * Template:MLBIS
 * Template:MLDT
 * Template:MLPIT
 * Template:MLPJ
 * Template:MLSS
 * Templates that use "A"
 * Template:MASATOG
 * Template:MASATOWG
 * Template:MASATSOWG

@Lcross: the series is titled Mario & Sonic, and all of its games follow suit. I make note of that in the proposal. 22:10, 12 November 2017 (EST)
 * Uh...okay, then. I still don't know if I want to change the Mario & Luigi templates yet, though. 22:13, 12 November 2017 (EST)
 * What's the difference between Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga and Mini Mario & Friends: amiibo Challenge? 22:15, 12 November 2017 (EST)
 * I don't look like the guy who would know. In other words, I don't know. Other than the games themselves and what they are and what they specialize in and so on and so forth, I don't know. 22:20, 12 November 2017 (EST)
 * Votes should only be made when you're confident in your decision. It's fine to change it as time passes, but if you're unsure, perhaps it would be best to abstain for the moment. 22:22, 12 November 2017 (EST)
 * Yeah, I guess you're right, but I vote and do things mostly because I want to throw in my two cents and speak my mind on most of the issues that come abound on this wiki. However, I will keep that in mind. 22:25, 12 November 2017 (EST)

@Doc: What does popularity have to do with names? We're fine with abbreviating every single other name, barring an overlap. 22:57, 12 November 2017 (EST)
 * Because people are more likely to realize what they are with the & than without if it's not popular, but it's just clutter for the more popular ones. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2017 (EST)
 * That's arbitrary and subjective, as if everyone is familiar with every single Mario & Luigi game to the point that they're somehow elevated above other games. What if they're not familiar with the games at all? Also, how does an ampersand help other games be recognized but just act as clutter for other games when all we have to work with is a few letters? 23:04, 12 November 2017 (EST)
 * We're talking about in general. After all, all of the games and series in the Mario franchise get equally proportional coverage to how iconic and famous they are, and judging from that, I think they would get the hint pretty fast. 23:13, 12 November 2017 (EST)
 * That's not true in the slightest. Every character, item, and location from every single game receives an article regardless of where it comes from. That's not proportional coverage, that's equal coverage. 23:19, 12 November 2017 (EST)
 * How is that not proportional coverage? What I'm talking about is, every game and series in the Mario franchise gets proportional prominence, and depending on how iconic and famous it is, it just...shines a brighter light, and its content is more accessed and known. That's what I meant. 23:26, 12 November 2017 (EST)
 * I don't think you know what the word "proportional" means. 23:27, 12 November 2017 (EST)
 * Yeah, that's literally not what the word "proportional" means, and the fact that some games "shine a brighter light" is seriously subjective. Why does that even matter for navigation templates? 23:30, 12 November 2017 (EST)
 * It matters because we're talking about how the popularity of these games affects how their navigation templates should be handled. I'm saying that because the games and series get the coverage and attention equal to how popular and iconic they are in the Mario franchise, their navigation templates should be handled appropriately as such, with the popular ones being left alone and the obscure ones being given more attention. The ampersand does just that. 23:40, 12 November 2017 (EST)
 * "the games and series get the coverage and attention equal to how popular and iconic they are" You were literally just told that this is completely false. And it is. 23:45, 12 November 2017 (EST)
 * Is it? I'm not completely convinced. The Super Mario franchise is the series that just fills the bucket of this wiki. Without it, the entire Mario franchise would have never existed, and not this wiki either. Most of the articles are the Super Mario series articles, and for good reason. And then you have the RPGs and the sports games. They too get a whole ton of coverage and articles on the wiki, but they're only second-best to the all-iconic Super Mario series when it comes to how much of it we have. After that, we've got some of the lesser-known games, such as Mario vs Donkey Kong and some other games that don't get as much attention, and it goes from there. I think there is some sort of social status or some hierarchy on the Mario Wiki that dictates what gets coverage and how much coverage it gets, all based on how popular, iconic, or famous it is, or if it belongs to one of the subseries that has these qualities, all behind the shadows. Call me intricate, call me a conspiracy theorist, call me just a kid who looks into things way too much, but I'm seriously thinking that the coverage of everything Mario franchise-related on this wiki is divided up this way, even if everything gets an article. 23:56, 12 November 2017 (EST)
 * While it is true that articles pertaining to popular games will inevitably see more activity than more obscure stuff simply because more people are playing them and writing about them, that has jack diddly squat to do with our coverage policy. Otherwise every single rock and blade of grass in Super Mario 64 would have a page and our entire coverage of Mario's Time Machine would consist of a two-sentence article. If that. Also, how is any of that relevant to whether or not navigation templates should use ampersands? 00:07, 13 November 2017 (EST)
 * Because this is about how the popularity and attention that each of the series gets affects what we do with their navigation templates, and in an indirect way, the coverage they get. It's what Doc kind of alluded to when he said that nothing should be done with the templates like Mario & Luigi while we should give templates like Mario & Wario a little more time in the ghostlight. This is my point all along. 00:12, 13 November 2017 (EST)
 * Navigation templates don't get treated differently based on the notability or popularity of their subjects. 00:30, 13 November 2017 (EST)
 * Well, just exactly like Doc said, people are more likely to realize what the games are with the ampersand than without it if they're not popular, but for the popular ones, it's just clutter for them. And by the way, let's not put too many indentations in our comments. Make sure to reset the bar at some point, if you know what I mean. 00:34, 13 November 2017 (EST)
 * I've already brought this up: how do you know what's popular? You might think that it's blindingly obvious, but it's extremely possible for someone to encounter the templates with little to no knowledge of the series. And even if you want to be adamant about the series being super popular, why do you want to get rid of something that could only add clarity? The M&L templates are only four to five letters long in the first place; what clutter are you even trying to avoid, especially when that same clutter is perfectly acceptable in other templates? 00:44, 13 November 2017 (EST)

Somewhat off topic, but I think why is labeled as such is so it doesn't get confused with. I'd be for renaming it to "Template:Game & Wario", though, like how we have and. 11:11, 13 November 2017 (EST)
 * In my proposal to standardize template names in general, I actually bring up this up, and I suggested formatting the names like "G&Wario" (i.e. Template:YStory and Template:YSafari). This was later shot down, but it may be worth revisiting the idea. 12:21, 13 November 2017 (EST)

Also @Doc: you do realize that there are plenty of navigation templates with long names (like any of the level-exclusive ones) and there plenty of navigation templates with only three or two characters, right? It's not even like we're writing them in full; at most, one character will be added to them or remove from them. Is that a catastrophically large change? 14:08, 13 November 2017 (EST)

@Toadette: In that case, the "A" would remain, as there is no "&" in the title to fix. 17:10, 17 November 2017 (EST)
 * Yeah, I only brought that up as an example. The list of affected templates is right here, and it's not on it. 17:16, 17 November 2017 (EST)

Super Hornio Bros Page
This is a bit of a controversial one, but here it goes. I think we should incorporate a full page on both Super Hornio films for preservation purposes instead of a mere description. I would like to do this, as the film is owned by Nintendo themselves, and the history behind them are extremely interesting. I've written a draft here: User:Howzit/Sandbox. We have so many other Mario knockoffs properly documented, why not this one?

Proposer: Deadline: November 19, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal

Oppose

 * 1) Okay, since this has absolutely no relation to the Mario franchise whatsoever, I don't think this is a good idea at all.
 * 2) This is a place that kids visit. We have nothing in place to stop people underage from accessing adult only content, even if it is appropriately censored. Swearing is one thing (Bob Hoskins for example), but pornography is just a big no-no for a kid-friendly franchise and an unofficial wiki that is also kid-friendly.
 * 3) The reason this is owned by Nintendo is that they bought it out to prevent more entries coming out, as they apparently hadn't discovered that wonderful "sue" button they've used to take down far more quality-controlled fan games ever since.
 * 4) Not gonna lie, I would love if we had an article on that. It would be pretty funny and interesting. But it's not an official Mario product, despite Nintendo themselves owning the distribution rights. As such, I don't feel it deserves its own article. Rather, just a section in the bootlegs and knockoffs page we already have.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) - I'm going to oppose on the ground that from my understanding, Nintendo only bought the distribution rights and not the actual Super Hornio property (of course in practice, this is not that relevant of a distinction because only Nintendo has controls over wheter that is released). Because of that technicality, I think the way it's currently covered on the knockoffs page is the best (btw "Think of the children!" is a totally invalid reason)
 * 7) I think the brief description's enough, it is just a rip off and isn't part of the Mario series, so it definitely doesn't deserve an article of its own.
 * 8) Per all
 * 9) A) It's a bootleg. B) It is quite easily covered in List of Mario knockoffs acknowledged by Nintendo, so per all.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Nintendo simply owning the distribution rights is not enough for a page like this to be covered in MarioWiki. While it may be tangentially related to Mario, it's around as relevant as Nintendo of America owning that Miami baseball team that I forgot the name of, and it borders on parody levels of content, which is not explicitly Mario (we don't mention Mario parodies on Mario's main article, for example such as Fix-It-Felix from Wreck-It Ralph, the same logic applies to Super Hornio Brothers). Everyone has already said that the best place for it to belong is an entry bootleg article and I agree with them, as it still deserves a mention of some sort by still being related to Mario.

Comments
@Wildgoosespeed: We already cover it on the wiki. Also, the subject matter is irrelevant, as we're a wiki first and foremost (as the point was made on Bob Hoskin's page; we're not about to censor anything). Besides, have you read the draft? It's purely professional. 01:12, 12 November 2017 (EST)
 * The more you know, am I right? Still, I consider such coverage questionable. -- 01:14, 12 November 2017 (EST)
 * Official content is official content, no matter what form it takes. What should be debated here is whether or not it should be covered in full. For the moment, I'm leaning towards giving it a separate page, simply because it was bought by Nintendo and is therefore an official product. 01:20, 12 November 2017 (EST)
 * Legal definitions are messy. I mean, the Mario IP was licensed to those who made the Category:Edutainment Games for DOS, PC, NES, and SNES, but that doesn't mean that the games are owned by Nintendo are official. Maybe I am wrong about that. The point is the original author isn't Nintendo and yet giving credit to them as if they were because they bought the film rights isn't quite right to then label it as "official". Legalities isn't the only measure of being official. I think that Nintendo has long since forgotten those licensed instances of the Mario franchise. -- 01:34, 12 November 2017 (EST)
 * Yeah TT the only way it's official is that Nintendo literally owns it and tell me what does that really mean?

@TimeTurner: Oh. My bad. I had no idea. I should probably think twice before I start shooting my mouth off for no reason. 18:35, 12 November 2017 (EST)
 * Seems nobody actually read my post. If anyone paid attention, yes, I am WELL aware that it is a knockoff which was then bought by Nintendo to stop production. I had even put that in my draft I wrote before hand. I simply wanted to just create a full page for more coverage on the topic, but apparently so many people are "offended" by having a full page on it. (Howzit) 15.11.2017
 * That's very presumptuous of you. Note the various other reasons stated in the opposition. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 04:04, 16 November 2017 (EST)
 * Thanks, I can read. (Howzit) 15.11.2017
 * Well then you know that the opposition is coming from policy due to it not being within this wiki's coverage to support a full page, not due to people being "offended" by its content. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2017 (EST)
 * "This is a place that kids visit. We have nothing in place to stop people underage from accessing adult only content, even if it is appropriately censored. Swearing is one thing (Bob Hoskins for example), but pornography is just a big no-no for a kid-friendly franchise and an unofficial wiki that is also kid-friendly." Also, it is entirely in the wiki's coverage. I wouldn't have made this post if it wasn't. Don't post a comment on a topic you know nothing about. (Howzit) 16.11.2017
 * It is completely outside the wiki's coverage. It is a bootleg parodic film made outside Nintendo without their permission, and as such deserves its own article here as much as Dian Shi Ma Li, Kart Fighter, Somari, Super Maruo, or whatever on Earth this is. Yes, Nintendo bought the distribution rights, but only because they didn't want it to exist. They didn't buy the rest of the rights, including the ones for the film itself. Also, do not insult people by telling them they know nothing about how this works, especially when they have more constructive edits here. While that doesn't describe me personally, it describes many of the others you're essentially yelling at here. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2017 (EST)
 * It's so completely outside of the wiki's coverage that we already have a section of a page dedicated to it? 01:27, 17 November 2017 (EST)
 * Crazy kids. Everyone gets offended over nothing now. I did not insult you. All you're doing is telling me stuff I already know. Stop telling me they bought the rights, I already knew that. It's also extremely obvious that you know nothing about the film. "Oh you're yelling at me here", you take everything as an "insult". Stop crying about it. I've done nothing nor said anything wrong, yet you keep making these half-arsed accusations of me. You are also literally stalking my posts. All of my recent posts, has had a reply from you. Quit it. (Howzit) 16.11.2017
 * You insulted me by saying I knew nothing about this, when in fact I did indeed do research on this film, as well as its plot and history. Rule of thumb: Telling people they're ignorant is generally considered to be an insult. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 01:37, 17 November 2017 (EST)
 * Cant be an insult if it's true. I actually own these films, unlike you. I've been studying them for over a decade. I think I know my stuff. (Howzit) 17.11.2017
 * You just said it is an objective fact that I am ignorant. This, combined with your suspicious recent userpage edits, is really starting to unsettle me. Stop, please. (Also I'm not ignorant, I made a 33/36 weighted average on my ACT the first try). Anyways, by textbook definition, you insulted me. Just because you're losing a proposal. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 01:43, 17 November 2017 (EST)
 * Why would you be unsettled if they weren't even aimed at you? You need to mind your own business. Second of all, It's not because of me losing a proposal. You replied to my comment, so naturally I replied back. After that you started throwing a complete two-year-old fit that I was "insulting you". (Howzit) 17.11.2017
 * And you started using implausible deniability to claim you weren't saying I was a moron who doesn't do research when you outright said "Cant[sic] be an insult if it's true" (which is flawed logic anyways). Anyways, the comment I made was in response to your emo-woe-is-me "Oh everyone's so 'offended,' that's the only reason they wouldn't support this!" comment. If you're going to accuse people of acting like they're of an age that people normally are just learning to speak, make sure you aren't doing the same thing. Also, "my own business." This is a community page, it's everyone here's business. As for your userpage, it's meant to be read by other wiki members, and they are allowed to draw their own conclusions from it. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 01:50, 17 November 2017 (EST)
 * You know absolutely nothing about me, you don't know who I am. What I decide to post on my own user-page is my own business. You can look at it all you want, I don't mind, but don't ask me about it. It has literally nothing to do with you. Look, I'll give you one bit of advice. Don't comment on back or on any of my other stuff. I don't want to see another single comment coming from you on any of my posts. You really need to learn to shut your mouth. Stop trying to just get the last word and let it die. (Howzit) 17.11.2017

This rubbish can stop here, or you’ll both be blocked.

07:08, 17 November 2017 (EST)

what is going on, someone hold me  ~Camwood777  (talk)  11:47, 17 November 2017 (EST)

Discourage use of the singular "they"
I'll start with this: it really annoys me when I see the word "they" used in the singular. In many places I see the words "she" and "they" used in the singular when gender is unknown. This does not annoy me because I am male, but because I know it is grammatically incorrect! I actually had a conversation with the other day on MarioWiki talk:Proposals/Header, and you know what he said? "'Their' is used when gender is indeterminable, so there's nothing wrong here." Look at this Wikipedia article on the singular "they". Notice that not once does it mention that "they" has not been officially accepted as a singular word! Gender and sex are two different things, gender being a grammatical term and sex being a biological term; they are only connected in English. This is a common misunderstanding among society which led to the creation of the informal word "themself"! My computer, in fact, does not like me using that word and underlines it in red! In grammatical terms (don't call me sexist because of what I'm about to say!), masculine is superior and feminine is inferior; hence, we use masculine words for the unknown gender. There is no reason we should use plural, feminine, or neuter words for the unknown gender. However, the Manual of Style encourages such informal grammar! We are a wiki; hence, we use proper grammar. "You" has been accepted as a singular word; "they" has not. So which should we prioritize: grammatical correctness or gender neutrality? Proposer: Proposed Deadline: November 26, 2017, 23:59 GMT Date Withdrawn: November 20, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) As a wiki and encyclopedia, grammatical correctness takes priority.  Per my proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) You want us....to refer to the player.....as "he or she"......every single time? Sorry, gotta oppose. Not to mention all the ambiguously-gendered characters that are just awkward to refer to as "it." Also, see my link below to Merriam-Webster's site. If they say it's OK grammar, it's OK grammar.
 * 2) - We can't determine the gender of the reader, so "they", a mention of the character's name, or "the player" is best used instead. It has nothing to do with offending anyone or not doing so, we just shouldn't assume that everybody that reads the Bob-omb Battlefield article for example is male or female.
 * 3) Your link to Wikipedia literally has a sentence about its acceptance. The singular they is perfectly acceptable and has historical basis, and you ignore it at your own peril. Also, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about when it comes to gender pronouns. "Masculine is superior and feminine is inferior" is junk especially in English, and I'm saying this as someone who's fluent in a language that relies on gender pronouns.
 * 4) Per All, Don von Schmeltwick is a vocabulary whiz, I'm gonna go with him. (You guys too).
 * 5) Although I do agree that "they" does not agree with first person nouns, no matter how "progressive" and people use the "language is changing" argument to assert their still technically grammatically incorrect view, I don't think having a rule against it is a right thing to do nor is it particularly enforceable. I'd encourage writing "the player" into "players" instead (ie changing the awkward use of "they" in "The player must tap their character" to "Players must tap their character" - "The player must press their button" to "The player must press a button") and avoid using personal pronouns as much as possible.
 * 6) Per All; "They/Their" is a much safer and easier way to refer to a character or person you don't know the gender of, and there is precedence for singular "they"; reading "he or she" every time in the place of "they" is just tedious and annoying.
 * 7) Singular "they" has been correct for centuries. Per all.
 * 8) They can be used to refer to all players playing the game, even if it says player earlier. And what about the heroes of Super Paper Mario. They refers to 3 boys and 1 girl. The only time this would be need though would be just to refer to one (ie. the one that the player is playing as, which could be any one of the four). And Wikipedia is not used in some official documents as sources as Wikipedia is an ever changing place. This is similar to Wikipedia, but Wikipedia only partially influences this wiki. I say partially because only the basic format (and not page articles, sentence structures, etc.) is what's relevant it seems. And if your wondering, I know the grammatical rules. However, sometimes my writing can be ungrammatically correct. That doesn't mean I try.

Comments
@Doc: No, I am proposing that we just use "he". Using "he or she" is ugly and wrong; so is "they" in the singular. The word "themself" in itself is especially annoying. - 22:46, 19 November 2017 (EST)
 * And that's assuming gender of players. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2017 (EST)
 * Did you read my proposal...at all? "He" is either masculine or gender neutral, and "masculine" and "male" are two different words. - 22:50, 19 November 2017 (EST)
 * Not in this day, age, and universe it's not. Either way, not everyone reading would be masculine. I'm quite feminine, myself. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2017 (EST)

@BLOF: There's literal historical precedence for the singular they. 22:54, 19 November 2017 (EST)
 * It still sounds awkward and something I want to avoid using as much as possible. 23:03, 19 November 2017 (EST)
 * And I think that it sounds perfectly natural, especially when the gender of the subject is unknown. What then? Along those lines, what would you suggest as a substitute, assuming that the sentence could not be rewritten? 23:05, 19 November 2017 (EST)
 * The fact that there's even a debate surrounding this should tell you that it's not universally acceptable. I haven't come across a single English teacher who thinks that the usage is fine. In my support, I already wrote a substitute, using "players" as much as "the player". I had been doing this for ages and it works completely fine. 23:07, 19 November 2017 (EST)
 * There are many things that are being debated in the world, but that's not a particularly valid reason to outright dismiss a topic. "Players" also sounds off because that implicitly implies multiple people, even in single-player games. 23:09, 19 November 2017 (EST)
 * I have come across some! Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2017 (EST)

On the record: My argument has nothing to do with "progressive" garbage. It's just unwise to use "he" when girls read this place too. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:55, 19 November 2017 (EST)

@Baby Luigi: It's not just that it's wrong, but the Manual of Style supports it! When I say "discourage", I simply mean that the Super Mario Wiki should stop supporting it! - 22:59, 19 November 2017 (EST)
 * I don't entirely want to remove it altogether because some situations it's less jarring than others. 23:03, 19 November 2017 (EST)
 * Why? Beyond giving a reason that "he is neutral", which has been shown to be false by history, and saying that no official sources approve of it, which is plain false. 23:06, 19 November 2017 (EST)

@Time Turner: That very section in the article says that "[the singular 'they'] is still considered ungrammatical in formal writing." A wiki article counts as formal writing. - 23:14, 19 November 2017 (EST)
 * That's literally a quote from a single source. Why are you taking that and broadly applying it to everything? And why are you even using Wikipedia as if they have the final say on this matter? 23:16, 19 November 2017 (EST)
 * I used Wikipedia because you did. Logic experts would say that's a fallacy, but I can justify it. You used one source, and I used the same source for rebuttal. - 23:48, 19 November 2017 (EST)
 * You cited Wikipedia first, and I was specifically citing the references to established sources. And that doesn't answer why you're using a single quote as if it applies to every source. 23:51, 19 November 2017 (EST)

So let's say for a second we do use "he", then girls get mad. I'd rather appeal to everyone because hardly anyone is going to notice that, then block out half the population from being acknowledged on our wiki, grammatically correct or not. Also, why are we arguing, aren't proposals made to stop arguments and come to a decision? Chat Man (talk) 23:15, 19 November 2017 (EST)
 * Well, most proposals are made to protest rules or standards the wiki has set. Occasionally this involves settling arguments, but not in this case; this is a protest to improper grammar. - 23:31, 19 November 2017 (EST)
 * Except according to Webster, it's not improper at all. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:32, 19 November 2017 (EST)

This seems to be a situation like the word "alright," which English teachers will have a fit if you use, but Merriam-Webster, the leading source on English grammar says is perfectly fine. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:21, 19 November 2017 (EST)

I'll just prop this here, also from Merriam-Webster. It say singular they is well-established. If THE English dictionary says it's grammatically fine, then it's grammatically fine. End. Of. Story. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2017 (EST)

Also, this proposal is not in the right place. Writing guidelines require a draft, and this proposal doesn't have one of those. 23:33, 19 November 2017 (EST)
 * What do you mean "draft"? - 00:18, 20 November 2017 (EST)
 * Look at this for more information. 00:21, 20 November 2017 (EST)

"Commonly used" and "well established" do not mean "correct". "Ain't" ain't a word (LOL). "Y'all" isn't either. Regardless, they are "commonly used" and "well established". - 23:48, 19 November 2017 (EST)
 * Actually both of those are words, they are simply frowned upon. But Webster outright states that using a singular they is fine if the gender is unknown. You cannot argue with Webster on this and come out on top. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2017 (EST)
 * But that doesn't mean they aren't incorrect? And "ain't" and "y'all", while slang and informal, are both in fact words. 00:04, 20 November 2017 (EST)

Ah, whatever. Since there is no way this proposal will pass, I'll just cancel it. - 00:28, 20 November 2017 (EST)

Bring back game-similarity charts
Okay, so anyone reading this probably doesn't know what I'm talking about. Let me give you an example. This was my first edit on the wiki. I fixed the chart under "gameplay menus". But now this chart and the other one are both gone. The editor that removed the charts gave a one-word summary: "Unnecessary". It has happened with Mario Golf (series), Mario Tennis (series), Mario Party (series), and several others. Why? "Unnecessary" is an unacceptable reason to remove such charts. As an encyclopedia and a wiki, we should never remove info because we classify it "unnecessary". An encyclopedia includes all obtainable information, necessary or unnecessary. Therefore we should stop the removal of these charts and bring them back.

Proposer: Deadline: November 20, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) Those charts don't give any information, they only show similarities between games. I don't see how they help to convey information and agree that they are (apologies in advance) unnecessary. If you can tell me how they are useful, I'll consider changing my vote.
 * 2) These charts are incredibly unwieldy and they make a shoddy attempt at comparing two different types of gameplay. It's uninformative, a messy way to organize comparisons, and simply writing similarities and comparisons in prose format is far more useful to the leader than creating a confusing table that lists elements that do not have anything in common with each other at all. Our gameplay sections in the way the articles are written are fine and are better than what they used to be.
 * 3) Per Baby Luigi.
 * 4) - These doesn't really seem useful in the least.

Comments
Your edit link is fouled up. To get it to display the word This, remove the  and replace it with a space. Right now, the link not only looks wrong, it doesn't work right. 15:55, 13 November 2017 (EST) P.S. I noticed that your were trying to fix the  issue. That's a glitch that shows up all the time. To fix it, just throw some sort of code under the header. A colon works nicely, since it then doesn't actually show up on the page, but the header works right.

I kind of get why someone would want a quick 'n' easy way to check which Mario Tennis games (for an off-the-cuff example) allow mirro matches, but man, not like this. Ugly, IMAX-wide charts that only get uglier and bigger the more games are released. --Glowsquid (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2017 (EST)

Online Flash games
We currently have little coverage on official Flash-powered games used by Nintendo to promote their games in the past. In fact, the only relevant thing here is the Barrel-Blastapalooza page, which I wrote and nobody seemed to mind, but when a bunch of other games were added to the Mario games nav template, they got removed by someone stating that they need to be discussed first.

Many of these games were listed in a selection on Nintendo's website (link: https://web.archive.org/web/20070911004647/http://www.nintendo.com/arcade).

Under 's guidance, I decided to make a proposal dedicated to the matter. Should we give official Flash games the same treatment as full-fledged games? Should there be a separate template to include them all?

I visualise three options:
 * 1) Each Flash game could receive its own page. I strongly recommend this to be done because I consider these games to be games after all, no matter if they are mere advertisments. Donkey Kong Country: Barrel Maze is an example of a game that seems to stand on its own without a relation to a particular game, and if it is to have an article, the other games should too.
 * 2) Info on Flash games could simply be incorporated in one big article. This would mean merging Barrel-Blastapalooza with said article. I'm not keen on the idea, but it could be a workaround for games that have become unavailable, whereabout information is scarce.
 * 3) The Flash games should not be covered. I obviously don't agree with this option, since we're talking official material.

Proposer: Deadline: November 25, 2017 23:59 GMT

Make separate pages for Flash games

 * 1) per proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) I don't see why we shouldn't cover them, so per proposal.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) They're games. They're official. Hence, we cover them. Per all.
 * 7) Some of them might look simple and thin in content when compared to other videogames, but they're still games licensed by Nintendo and I guess the content there should be anyway enough to make a page for each one of them, as Barrel-Blastapalooza showed.
 * 8) Per all. (I had no idea that Nintendo used Flash games.)
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) Per all

Present the games in a comprehensive article
Why? Just, why??? What is it with Flash games these days? They're not even worth covering because they're so small and don't even have any relation to the main Mario franchise! ...since you seem to be so adamant about this, this is the best I could come up with here.
 * 1) Considering Flash games are smaller than full-fledged games, this seems like a workable option.
 * 2) This isn't a bad choice either.  After all, it still covers the information.

Comments
@Super Radio: My suggestion to make a proposal wasn't over wheter the flash games should get their own pages (it's offishul material and nobody has objected) but rather wheter they should be listed alongside "real" games on templates or rounded up in their own ghetto (personally I favor the later solution). --Glowsquid (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2017 (EST)
 * I'd personally vouch for them appearing on Template:MarioGames and the like. If they're official, we might as well treat them officially (and if the Donkey Kong slot machine is already on the template, I think they'll be in good company). At the very least, we could have a computer games template and lump in the edutainment games with the flash games. 22:00, 18 November 2017 (EST)
 * @Glowsquid: I know, and I did ask in this proposal if web games should have their separate template. However, I wanted a proposal to discuss the whole matter of Flash games, as it was requested by Lindsay151 to happen. I agree with Time Turner; there should be a template with all PC games like Mario's Time Machine and Mario's Missing, which could include Flash-based games. Although Flash is a computing platform in itself, similar to any OS, the games in question were only meant to be playable on a PC via web browser (any sort of emulation notwithstanding). -- 05:02, 19 November 2017 (EST)
 * Since the Flash games are meant as advertising material and not as actual, full-fledged games, I oppose including them in . If anything, they should get their own template (again, separate from actual games like Time Machine and Mario's Missing). -- 22:43, 20 November 2017 (EST)
 * There are other games created for narrow purposes, like Mario's Time Machine (education), the Donkey Kong slot machine (money), and All Night Nippon Super Mario Bros. (advertising), but that doesn't stop us from listing them in the template. 23:02, 20 November 2017 (EST)
 * If it's not overkill, I can create another proposal solely about a template with Flash games. Just as Glowsquid originally suggested... -- 13:59, 22 November 2017 (EST)

One thing I am not sure of is what genres are some of these games fit in. DK: King of Swing -- Hurling for Distance, for example: it plays very similarly to the Yetisports games, if anyone's ever heard of them, but I can't find a professional term to describe this particular genre, other than "distance games". Are they just called action games? Well, you certainly can't compare them to. What do you think? -- 07:57, 19 November 2017 (EST)
 * Maybe something from would help?  23:47, 19 November 2017 (EST)
 * Yup, I think I'll stick to calling it an action game. -- 00:41, 20 November 2017 (EST)

I have one concern about this. Should we cover like in a similar method to that of Nintendo consoles or MS-DOS or Philips CD-i? There are a lot of Flash games that were meant to advertise or promote the main games rather them be a standalone game to be taken seriously. Heck, because we have Super Mario Run, should we cover or ? -- 05:54, 23 November 2017 (EST)

@Lcrossmk8: Um, I think the deadline for this proposal has passed, so I'm not sure your vote is valid. However, some Flash games (like MP7's Bowser's Lair Hockey) do indeed relate to the Mario series. BTW, you should really try that game. It can be found using this link. - 01:17, 26 November 2017 (EST)

Remove the Mario & Sonic header templates
There are seven templates that are used exclusively for events in Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games: M&S-Athletics, M&S-Aquatics, M&S-Archery, M&S-Gymnastics, M&S-Rowing, M&S-Tennis, and M&S-Skeet. All of them are 100% pointless and should be dealt with. For starters, Fencing is completely missing from this deal for no explainable reason. If you say that's because Fencing only has one event tied to it, then automatically, the majority of the templates would also be deleted, since they too only cover a single event. Athletics, Aquatics, and Gymnastics are the only ones that cover multiple events, and even then, Gymnastics has a grand total of two. You don't need an entirely separate template for two articles. This is to say nothing of how none of the other games in the series have these templates or anything that resembles them, and really, they shouldn't. They only add an image to the top-right corner (which also creates ugly overlap with the FA template), which then links to the appropriate event category, and that's it. The categories are already on the pages in the first place, and the infoboxes already mention what kind of event it is. There is nothing to be gained from these templates, especially when they cover so few pages.

The most obvious solution (and most preferable, to me) would be to simply remove them, and have our readers actually look at the article for information rather than a small image in an obtuse location. While it would be possible to merge the templates into one (somewhat similar to Template:Button), which would solve the problem of having a bunch of scattered templates covering so few pages, they would still be wholly redundant and pointless. If someone thinks that the images are crucial to the articles, then they can be worked into the infoboxes, but otherwise, they're just wastes of space.

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

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) - Never once had a reason to use them. Per proposal.
 * 4) Per proposal, as well as my exchange with Time Turner in the comments section.
 * 5) Per proposal.
 * 6) Per proposal.
 * 7) - Per proposal. For the record, I do recommend the images being integrated into the article, possibly in the infobox.
 * 8) They've never appeared in the series in the same form again and they do look quite a mess, per all.
 * 9) Per all

Comments
Shouldn't this be a multi-option proposal, since you mentioned maybe working the templates into the infoboxes? 12:57, 19 November 2017 (EST)
 * I mentioned including the images into the infobox. I don't see why we can't both do that and delete the templates. 13:07, 19 November 2017 (EST)
 * Maybe someone else can :T Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2017 (EST)

Overlapping abbreviations in navigation templates
In the previous proposal about navigation templates, I noticed Template:G&Wario and how its name is totally inconsistent with every other name. It was presumably named that because "Template:G&W" could be confused with Template:Game & Watch, but that's not how we resolve overlaps. For example, since "SMS" could refer to either Super Mario Sunshine or Super Mario Strikers, their corresponding templates are written out in full, as Template:Super Mario Sunshine and Template:Super Mario Strikers. There are very few examples of this on the wiki, but in almost every case besides G&W, each name is written in full (the other exception being Template:WWS). With that in mind, "G&Wario" should be moved to Game & Wario to resolve the inconsistency.

However, a while back (in another proposal that involved standardizing names), I actually suggested doing what G&Wario's doing now, with the last word being written in full while the rest of the name is abbreviated. It was shot down in a later discussion by an admin, but now that we have an inconsistency to resolve, I thought that it would be worth bringing it up again. Using the half-abbreviated approach saves on space while still preventing confusion, but at the same time, it's kind of unwieldy and isn't particularly intuitive. With all of this in mind, there are three options: move G&Wario and the other exceptions (WW and WWS) to follow the other templates' examples (option 1), move the other templates to follow G&Wario's example (option 2), and do nothing (option 3). We definitely shouldn't do nothing, since that would leave us with an inconsistency for no good reason, but beyond that, the other options are open for all.

Proposer: Deadline: November 27, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Option 1: Only move the exceptions

 * 1) - Per proposal. This should set a standard as well, with any templates being similarly abbreviated being moved to the games' full name.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) Per proposal.
 * 5) Per all.  Obviously this is the better option.
 * 6) At this point, it's better to give the full names rather than an half-abbreviated name that isn't anyway as short as a fully abbreviated name and inevitably adds some arbitrariness in how this should be handled.
 * 7) Seems like the best way to go around this, per all.
 * 8) Per all

Comments
Affected templates:
 * Template:Game & Watch
 * Template:G&Wario
 * Template:Mario Sports Superstars
 * Template:Mario Super Sluggers
 * Template:Super Mario Sunshine
 * Template:Super Mario Strikers
 * Template:WarioWare: Touched!
 * Template:WarioWare: Twisted!
 * Template:WWS
 * Template:WW
 * Template:Yoshi's Safari
 * Template:Yoshi's Story

What about Template:WWS? That's for Wario's Woods, and it's also inconsistent with everything (Template:WW is for Wario World). 19:51, 19 November 2017 (EST)
 * I didn't even know about that one. Into the pile it goes! 19:55, 19 November 2017 (EST)

I want to vote option 1, but what about future similarly abbreviated templates in the future? Should this set a standard of some kind? 22:54, 19 November 2017 (EST)
 * However this ends, it'll be a signal for future editors on what they should do, just like my previous templates about colons and ampersands. 22:58, 19 November 2017 (EST)

Option 1 still makes no mention of what to do with WW and WWS if it passes. 23:45, 19 November 2017 (EST)
 * Ah. Right. Because I wrote the proposal when I thought that G&Wario was the only exception. One moment, please... 23:47, 19 November 2017 (EST)

@Time Turner: You forgot to vote on your own proposal. - 09:42, 23 November 2017 (EST)
 * This was intentional. 00:06, 25 November 2017 (EST)

Add "Template:Title source"
I propose that the template needs added.

 The title of this article is official, but it needs a citation. You can help by adding a reference to the article.

Proposer: Deadline: November 27, 2017, 21:28 GMT

Support

 * 1) per proposal

Oppose

 * 1) Per Alex95. The template you're trying to propose is almost identical, if not, the same thing as the ref needed template.
 * 2) We already have a template for this purpose.  Per all.
 * 3) I'm not even sure this proposal is valid, since it's just the exact same thing as  Per all.
 * 4) Per all. I don't see a point in creating a new template when a template for a very similar purpose already exists.
 * 5) What everyone else said. Also, "The title of this article is official, but it needs a citation." How do we know it's official? If it's unsourced, it could be conjecture for all we know.
 * 6) The only solution to this "problem" is for you to not knee-jerk change "ref needed" templates into "conjecture" templates.
 * 7) We've already got a template for it, we don't need another, per all.
 * 8) Per all
 * 9) Why? No reason stated. Just create for no good reason. Per.
 * 10) This is redundant with . I seriously could not have made myself any clearer.
 * 11) We already have one. Per all.
 * 1) We already have one. Per all.

Comments
@7feetunder Sometimes names come from obscure portions of games that some people have seen but others haven't....see whenever Octopus (Super Mario Galaxy) gets a ref needed tag despite the name appearing in the game itself. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2017 (EST)
 * That's just one possible scenario. The suggested template text is assuming that every unsourced name is official. An unsourced name could easily be something someone made up, like Wario Punch. 20:50, 20 November 2017 (EST)

I copied the code for the template here. - 17:08, 26 November 2017 (EST)

Delete certain numbered Mario Kart redirects
Looks like someone went a little redirect-happy since the release of Mario Kart 7. There are several numbered Mario Kart redirects that just don't seem necessary. I get the purpose of them: since MK7 means Mario Kart 7, then MK1 should mean Super Mario Kart, right? Since any Mario Kart title prior to Mario Kart 7 don't actually have a number in their title (other than Mario Kart 64, but that was a system number), these redirects are pointless. The MK64, MK7, MK8, and MK8DX redirects will remain because they do have a number in their title, but everything else should go.


 * Affected redirects
 * MK1 (Super Mario Kart)
 * Mario Kart 1
 * MK2 (Mario Kart 64)
 * Mario Kart 2
 * MK3 (Mario Kart: Super Circuit)
 * Mario Kart 3
 * MK4 (Mario Kart: Double Dash!!)
 * Mario Kart 4
 * MK5 (Mario Kart DS)
 * Mario Kart 5
 * MK6 (Mario Kart Wii)
 * Mario Kart 6

Proposer: Deadline: November 30th, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) - Per me.
 * 2) I don't think I've seen anyone actually refer to these Mario Kart titles as their numbered variations, like ever. No one ever calls Mario Kart Wii "Mario Kart 6", they call it "Mario Kart Wii", because it's far easier for our average player to remember the system it is on rather than the order the Mario Kart games were released on (I'll guess the order Mario Kart: Super Circuit is on, is it the third one or the fourth one?). On this case, knowing the exact order of the Mario Kart title means that you should already have prior information of Mario titles here and thus, you don't need the redirect. These redirects are pointless and I think they should be deleted. On the flipside, we don't call Windows versions prior to 7 like, Windows XP having a Windows 6 redirect or anything, and this shouldn't apply here.
 * 3) Per Baby Luigi. Nobody thinks of the non-numbered Mario Kart games by what number installment they are. If people don't know the actual title, then they are going to remember the game by what system it was for, since none of the games were numbered prior to 7, each system only has one Mario Kart game, several of them are even named after the system, and returning tracks are labeled by system in later games. There is absolutely no reason to expect a newcomer or outsider to be familiar first and foremost with what order the games came in, aside from the ones that are actually numbered.
 * 4) I strongly agree with Baby Luigi's reasoning. No Mario Kart games until 7 were numbered, except 64, but still it refers to the Nintendo 64, not the 64th game in the series. Also kind of agree with 7feetunder's system remark in the vote above mine. In other words, per all.
 * 5) Per Baby Luigi.
 * 6) Even if there was a case where someone remembered the installment number of a game but not the actual name, it shouldn't be too hard to go to Mario Kart (series) and figure it out themselves. Well, there goes the only oppose I had...
 * 7) I get the numbers of them muddled up sometimes, and if people are unfamiliar with the series they are unlikely to know many of the numbers except for the blatantly obvious ones. Per all.
 * 8) I never really thought about it this way, but I did like to think of titles like Mario Kart DS as Mario Kart 5, and Mario Kart Wii as Mario Kart 6. However, I got to agree with Baby Luigi's reasoning here; it only makes sense that we would recognize games by their system and not by the order that they were released.
 * 9) Per all, especially Baby Luigi.
 * 10) Per all
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) Per all on this one. We have Mario Kart 7, Mario Kart 8, and Mario Kart 8 Deluxe.

Oppose

 * 1) To be honest, I only remember Mario Kart DS as the fifth game in the series and not by it's actual title. It's situational, but I do think that these redirects have value.
 * 2) per Time Turner.
 * 3) Since Mario Kart 7 and Mario Kart 8 are official names and, keep the unofficial names as redirects.
 * 4) Per all. Saying "nobody" thinks of them in that manner is like saying "nobody" liked Mario Kart 8 original. It's just not true, and not anyone's position to say.
 * 5) Sorry Alex95, but I can't support. Reason? Per all.
 * 6) I know it's a bit late to switch sides, but I've been thinking about this a long time.  According to Redirects, "If there's even a small chance that a redirect will help someone, it's not useless."  And while there may only be one person in the world who calls them that, that's more then zero; hence, they're not useless.  Per all.
 * 7) If someone doesn't know what the 3rd Mario Kart is, for example, he will type Mario Kart 3 and fall on the page of the 3rd Mario Kart so we should keep this.

Comments
@Time Turner: You used the wrong word in your vote. It's supposed to be "its", not "it's". "It's" means "it is", while "its" means "of it". - 13:36, 23 November 2017 (EST)
 * ಠ_ಠ -- 14:08, 23 November 2017 (EST)
 * Its very unfortunate that you might effect that comment (yeah alex95 it's "affected" redirects not "effected"). 15:29, 23 November 2017 (EST)
 * Fixed. 15:33, 23 November 2017 (EST)

@Doc von Schmeltwick: I stand fairly strong by my statement that because the extremely low amount of people who do use it, to the point it may as well be nonexistent, we may as well create redirects for misspellings of Mario games instead, as they'll be more useful for our readers than these redirects, which has never ever been officially coined by Nintendo, not in their games themselves, and we don't create redirect articles for Super Smash Bros. 1, 2, and 3 either (I just found out that we DID create redirects for Smash Bros. articles and they SHOULD get deleted as well), despite having redirects for Smash 4. Searching "Mario Kart 3" on DuckDuckGo has led to only one accurate result and that's from Wikipedia, who has also created a redirect page that I don't agree with either. In Google search, Mario Kart: Super Circuit isn't listed at all, with the first result directly being our Mario Kart series article and the Mario Kart series article being on Wikipedia. The same story happens with the rest of the Mario Kart games. On the other hand, Smash 4/Super Smash Bros. 4 may not be the official title, but searching it on Google actually yields substantial results that users are looking for, because it's a term that's actually used, unlike Mario Kart 3. 14:25, 24 November 2017 (EST)
 * clearly i'm just chopped liver 14:30, 24 November 2017 (EST)
 * "If there's even a small chance that a redirect will help someone, it's not useless."-Redirects. Ah, I see, breaking the rules. Tsk tsk tsk. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 03:39, 26 November 2017 (EST)
 * Yes, search traffic and results say that you are. 14:34, 24 November 2017 (EST)
 * Rules are meant to be broken and honestly, with a vague interpretation like that, the policy page directly contradicts itself with restricting the creation redirects at the same time. 04:25, 26 November 2017 (EST)
 * I don't see why we should knowingly and willingly make it harder for any number of people to access information, no matter how small that number may be. Yes, there's Mario Kart (series) as an alternative, but that's not immediately obvious, especially with new readers. 14:36, 24 November 2017 (EST)
 * "Meant to be broken," eh? Well then you shouldn't have a problem with me spamming messages making fun of your choice in favorite character on your talk page, because surely the rules in our courtesy policy were meant to be broken! I'm saying that's a weak argument by all accounts. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 04:52, 26 November 2017 (EST)
 * We already do this by not creating every single redirect that we could think of for a particular game simply because we might leave a minority of people who do refer to the game like that (Super Mario Wii redirects to Super Mario Galaxy, but Super Mario Wii U, Super Mario 3DS, Super Mario Bros. 3DS, Super Mario GameCube, Super Mario GCN, Super Mario 1, Super Mario 2 (which redirects to Super Mario Bros. 2 and not Super Mario Sunshine), and more examples not listed do not exist as redirects for a reason, it's because no one refers to the games like that, and frankly, Super Mario Wii should be deleted as well, because there are TWO Super Mario Wii games), and especially what we did with the Leet Hammer Bros. article. 14:44, 24 November 2017 (EST)
 * We don't have those redirects not because nobody refers to them by those titles, but because there's potential confusion as to what the reader may be looking for. Redirects even mentions this: "First mario game" is an unnecessary redirect specifically because there are multiple games that could be considered the "first". These redirects do not have that issue, not when all of the games have a clear, sequential order. Also, pardon, but I don't understand your point about the Hammer Bros. 14:48, 24 November 2017 (EST)
 * That still doesn't explain why we don't have redirects on Super Mario *system name*. Also, the Hammer Bros. example was just an example on why we don't have redirects for every potential combination of name, despite your argument being that there will always be a small amount of people who will use said name and that we will willingly leave them out when we delete redirects. 14:51, 24 November 2017 (EST)
 * Um, Leet Hammer Bros. and Leet Hammer Bros are redirects. Even L33t Hammer Bro. Obviously this is a bad example. 14:54, 24 November 2017 (EST)
 * The redirects for those Hammer Bros. were ridiculous, going beyond anything that a reader would reasonably search. I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to remember a game by its numbered place in the series, again especially considering how the Mario Kart games have an obvious sequential order. Also, "Super Mario 3DS" could refer to New Super Mario Bros. 2 or Super Mario Maker for Nintendo 3DS or Super Mario 3D Land, and so on and so forth. 14:56, 24 November 2017 (EST)
 * How are they ridiculous? They outright call themselves "L33T HAMM3R BROZ." in game. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 03:36, 26 November 2017 (EST)
 * Oh. I see. As for the reason why Super Mario Wii redirects to Super Mario Galaxy, it is because it is actually named that in a book, although it was saying the game was called that in South Korea, but it is that way nevertheless.It even goes as far as mentioning Super Mario Wii on the Super Mario World page. 15:10, 24 November 2017 (EST)

I tagged Super Mario Wii with. - 16:03, 24 November 2017 (EST)
 * Why? 16:05, 24 November 2017 (EST)
 * Because it is an "unnecessary and ambiguous redirect". No one refers to SMG like that, and it can also refer to NSMBW and SMG2. - 16:25, 24 November 2017 (EST)
 * Oops, didn't see Yoshi the SSM's comment. - 16:26, 24 November 2017 (EST)

A section for passed proposals
At the time of writing this, there are 15 proposals marked with "gray"/"grey" in the proposal archives. These are proposals that have passed, but whose changes have yet to be implemented yet. A few of these legitimately go back years, and yet they still remain grey. While the onus is on the proposer to make the necessary changes, there are any number of valid reasons for them not doing it yet. Regardless, the end result is that there are a bunch of changes that should be done. However, it's hard to find them when they're all buried in the archives without any easy-to-notice markers, and even if you occasionally go through the archives to find them, you'll come across some that you simply don't know enough about to properly implement. With that in mind, I propose a simple solution to this: on the main proposal page, create a section that lists every proposal that has yet to be passed. Each entry would provide a link to the original proposal, essentially the same as what we do with passed talk page proposals. On that note, I also propose to move any passed talk page proposals from the "List of talk page proposals" section to this new section to make things consistent and because frankly, it's ugly to have passed proposals mixed with proposals that are still running. The entries may also list the dates that the proposals passed (older proposals should probably take more priority) and the original proposers (to allow for quick communication with them if needed), but that can be discussed later.

In short, I propose make a new section on the proposal page that lists every proposal that has passed, but has yet to be implemented.

Proposer: Deadline: December 2, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) Per proposal.
 * 5) Sounds like a useful idea, per proposal.
 * 6) Per proposal.
 * 7) - Per proposal.
 * 8) Okay, this sounds like a good idea, so count me in. But how are we gonna put this into action?
 * 9) Why not? Per proposal.
 * 10) Per all
 * 11) You can count me in on this one.
 * 12) Per all.
 * 13) Per all.

Comments
Would it be a good idea to include the proposer's name and the proposal's passed date? We don't include either of those with the current TPPs, so I'm on the fence about it. 15:28, 25 November 2017 (EST)
 * We should include those in the first place, so yes. 15:40, 25 November 2017 (EST)

I was honestly thinking about doing a proposal like this myself, but in broader terms. The way the archive is set up is jumbled, even though it's separated by year. I was thinking it could instead be separated by the proposal's outcome, i.e. all the passed are in one section, the failed in another, etc. That way it'd be easier to find the proposal you're looking for, rather than guess and checking through the numerous years. 15:58, 25 November 2017 (EST)
 * Personally, if I'm looking for a specific proposal, I'm doing so by topic (i.e. CTRL+F) with no idea whether it passed or failed, and I imagine that a lot of people use the archive without being completely aware of the proposal's outcome. Besides, how would you handle proposals that themselves failed, but whose changes were later put into effect (and vice-versa)? 16:11, 25 November 2017 (EST)
 * That would be the "etc." thing, every type of proposal would have its own section. But say you don't know if the proposal passed or failed, and you don't know the name of it nor when it ended. You just want to check to see if the proposal exists, to see if it's still in effect or if it needs to be tried again. imo, it'd be easier to sort through a section of similarly concluded proposals rather than a rainbow of randomness. They'd still be sorted by date within the section, however (oldest on top, newest on bottom). 16:43, 25 November 2017 (EST)
 * How are you searching for something if you don't even know its name? Heck, not even any keywords? 16:45, 25 November 2017 (EST)
 * Whoop, meant to delete that because it sounded stupid to me, too. Yeah, CTRL+F would work with keywords, but my color seems like a better assortment to me. I guess it wouldn't make much of a difference, but it'd be easier to look through. 16:48, 25 November 2017 (EST)

@Lcross: Literally in the proposal. 22:25, 25 November 2017 (EST)

"With that in mind, I propose a simple solution to this: on the main proposal page, create a section that lists every proposal that has yet to be passed". This confuses me a bit, by "has yet to be passed" do you mean proposals that have already passed but are yet to be implemented? Maybe it's just me getting confused lol but I wanted to be sure. -- 22:06, 28 November 2017 (EST)
 * Nah, that's my bad. I meant that proposals that had yet to be implemented would be moved there. They have passed, but nobody's gotten around to doing anything about them. 22:30, 28 November 2017 (EST)