MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/40

Rumors Section
DON'T HAVE 1-13

I believe that we should have a rumors section on articles that include rumors. This section could have a notice in it, stating that all it contains are rumors and have no proof. Some of the more popular rumors (like the DLC characters in Mario Kart 8, or the E3 "leak" in SSB4) could be added. A similar section is used on Zelda Wiki, for theories. The rumors section would allow people to see what may be in the game. While it may not be very encyclopedia-ish, it would be more helpful, which is indeed what MarioWiki is designed to be, right? I doubt I'll win this but you never know unless you try. So yeah.

Proposer: Deadline: June 20, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal. I think it would be useful to know what may or may not be in the game.

Oppose

 * 1) We document on what's confirmed, not on widely circulated unconfirmed, unofficial information. According to the Citation Policy, "Rumours and misleading info is commonplace online, so showing readers that we are not fabricating our info and in turn, letting them evaluate the trustworthiness of our sources is especially important." This policy is there to leave out rumors and keep us as a reputable source. We don't want people taking rumors as true just because they're documented here. Finally, there are countless rumors regarding upcoming games, so having to document all of them is going to be impossible. The only type of rumors that may be covered here are those debunked years ago, and even then, it's a maybe.  I see that you're trying to make sections that already inform the reader that the information is dubious, but why add such information in the first place? I don't really agree with fan "theories" on Link Wiki either, but that's another wiki anyway. Anyhow, the best place to discuss rumors would be the appropriate talk page, so really, nothing is lost if this proposal fails; there's just an equally-valid outlet to put rumors and other information.
 * 2) The internet is a chock full place of rumors. Look at Reddit and 4chan, they're basically "Rumors: The Site". We're not gonna site all rumors, and these are as valid as fan content such as fan games, no matter how popular or how well-documented they are. Well-known rumors like the Sonic and Tails April Fools joke in Super Smash Bros. Melee are more suited for Trivia sections. Also, per Mario.
 * 3) Per both. Though I worry that discussing rumours on the talkpage may qualify as forum talk.
 * 4) Per All.
 * 5) If we had a rumours section, Ridley would be all over the SSB4 page and this would the Fanrio Wiki.
 * 6) Simply allowing rumors to be added may allow people to see what may be in the game as you've said. However, it doubts their mind on if we are really covering things from the game or from randomness. Encyclopedias only contains facts, so that they can be trusted. And as what LGM said, our Citation Policy already shows why rumors are not allowed. The Good Writing disallow speculation, which is the rumors are part of. And I agree with Yoshi876.
 * 7) Sorry, but the wiki covers real and comfirmed things, like an encyclopedia. But I guess everyone else is saying that too, huh?
 * 8) Per policy. However, if you feel that a particular rumor might be useful for a particular article and can make a good case for it, feel free to hit up that articles talk page.
 * 9) Nope... in this way we can add any fan-made information and this wiki will be a fanon (or at least in part).
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Just when I thought we couldent think of a more pointless idea....(Facepalm)
 * 12) Not on the page. Keep that kind of stuff to the talkpage if allowed.
 * 13) Mario Wiki is for confirmed things by Nintendo.

Comments
@Yoshi876, it's not really forum talk, imo. We're talking about improving the article, so bringing up rumors and stuff can help us verify and filter information before it's added. We did allow some Mario Kart 8-related rumors on its talk page, usually the well-circulated ones, so we shouldn't remove those. Forum talk isn't really finely defined, so use your own judgement to see if it pertains to the article or not. 16:52, 13 June 2014 (EDT)

Although I expected this to go rather poorly (as mentioned in my proposal), it appears (at least to me) that you think I'm suggesting putting rumors all over the page (like, in the characters section for SSB4 put Ridley as a rumored character). I was thinking rumors would be limited to just a single section (or possibly a page in a similar vein to SmashWiki). These rumors would make no other appearances on the site (except talk pages). Peanutjon (talk) 19:38, 14 June 2014 (EDT)
 * Even if it's confined to a single page, it's still opening the floodgates for kiddies to trip themselves over to add low-quality content and obvious nonsense like ~leaked conference listing sheets~ photographed at an odd angle or w/e. --Glowsquid (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2014 (EDT).

Make a new reference page.
DO NOTHING 4-0-11

Recently I was on the web, and found an article on a Mario reference in Wreck-It-Ralph. However, it was in the Wreck-It-Ralph ride in Disney Land. The Reference was a sign saying SUPER MARIO BROS. PIPES CLOGGED!!! I thought a reference page covering this sort of thing would be a good idea, or the discussions between Disney and Nintendo.

Proposer: Deadline: June 23, 2014, at 23:59 GMT

Make a new reference page

 * 1) If there actually is such a reference, then we make a page entitled something along the lines of . Sure, we have pages of Mario references in many different forms: advertisements, cartoons, films, TV, music, technology, plays, games, and the Internet. Still, good catch,.
 * 2) Now that I think about it, this isn't such a bad idea. Per the hill of stones.
 * 3) – I would have it as something else, but I can't think of one.

Do Nothing

 * 1) Per myself in the comments, as far as this proposal makes it this is the only reference within theme parks, and therefore a page with one thing like that is kind of pointless in my opinion.
 * 2) Put this movie reference in movie references page and on Mario's page. When it's released, of course. No need for a whole new page, like Yoshi876 said.
 * 3) Per my comments below.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) ...No. Per all.
 * 6) Per Yoshi, even if we did make a "references in theme parks" page there would only be one small reference.
 * 7) What do think this page is for? Collecting Cyber dust?
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Per Ninelevendo (actually there is something from Wrech-it-Ralph)
 * 10) Per all. Why would I say yes?
 * 11) Not exactly "do nothing", but just add it as a asterisk in the appropriate section in "List of Mario references in film".

Comments
Where's the none option, because this proposal needs it? It is covered on List of Mario references in film and according to coverage that's all that needed, if we created a page like you propose then we may as well create a page on every single movie, TV show, song, or internet video that has something related to Mario in it.
 * I agree, basically your proposal forces us to pick something you like. Add a "Do nothing" option please. -- 14:27, 16 June 2014 (EDT)
 * I do agree with SuperYoshiBros to add a stalemate option, but I'm convinced as to whether the two have understood the proposal. It said John G found the reference at the Disney ride,  not  the film itself.  At last, the rock fell.

14:50, 16 June 2014 (EDT)
 * My apologies I did misread the proposal, but unless there are numerous references, I don't think one amusement park attraction should get a references page. Unless there are numerous references from numerous places, this should just be mentioned as a sidenote on the Wreck-It Ralph section in the film references.

First off, as noted, there needs to be an oppose option. Secondly, this is covered by the various List of Mario references articles we have. Check to make sure what you want added isn't already there and add it to the appropriate list. I doubt you're going to get any support for a formal Wreck-It-Ralph article, as the movie has nothing to do with Mario outside of a few mentions (this stretches to other Ralph related promotional material). -- Chris 14:50, 16 June 2014 (EDT)

"List of Mario references in amusement parks" sounds way too specific to have its own page. 15:53, 16 June 2014 (EDT)
 * Under the note on the references in film page about Mario in Ralph, subnote in about the reference in further promotional adaptions. Serves the purpose without making a throwaway article. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Chris[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 21:59, 16 June 2014 (EDT)

I just contacted the proposer on the talk page issue about a "Do Nothing" option. I'm still awaiting a response.  At last, the rock fell. 17:28, 16 June 2014 (EDT)
 * As this is not a creative change that alters the goal of the proposal, I've went ahead and added an oppose section. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Chris[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 12:10, 17 June 2014 (EDT)
 * Against the rules, my foot; somebody needs to add an "oppose" section. For the love of god, who cares if it breaks a rule if the proposer doesn't even format it properly? Sheesh. 15:26, 17 June 2014 (EDT)
 * Rules like that are meant to be followed, if the proposer does not add in an oppose within the allowable timeframe, then it'll probably be vetoed for the lack of an oppose section.
 * Rules are just guidelines for bettering the wiki and community. If the user doesn't format a proposal properly, then we should help everyone (including this wiki), rather than hiding behind rulebook and waiting for the proposal to be vetoed. It's better to oppose the proposal so we can resolve it rather than waiting for it to be deleted just because the proposer didn't add a "do nothing" section. If we add an oppose section now, we're breaking the rules properly, and that's what counts. 15:36, 17 June 2014 (EDT)
 * I'm not "hiding behind the rulebook", I want an oppose section in there so I can throw my two cents into the main body of the proposal rather than dilly-dally around saying why I think it's a bad idea in the comments section as it has no outcome on the overall proposal. I think it's better to inform the user that an oppose section is necessary and if they don't and if they do not follow this they face the consequence of their proposal getting vetoed. Hopefully this will get them to learn from their mistakes rather than just thinking that other people will come along and fix what they should do in the first place which would make a better user, and with a better user, the wiki and the community becomes a better place.
 * I don't like assuming this guy has ignored the requests and all; he wasn't active ever since the proposal was made. I don't want to assume it's out of carelessness and he expects us to fix it for him; it sounds unhealthy to make such assumptions. We can oppose the proposal now just so there is a valid reason for it to fail. Sorry, I was just a tad annoyed that people revert (in my opinion) appropriate changes and then cite the rules. don't permaban me and force me to eat chocolate-covered bacon strips . 16:04, 17 June 2014 (EDT)
 * I don't want to assume bad faith in the user, I just cited that reason as it is a common thing, people just being fine with letting others finish what they should have. I'll make you eat normal bacon instead.
 * This is ridiculous. If someone makes a proposal and doesn't make an oppose section, will that proposal get vetoed? no. Adding a "Do Nothing" section is exactly like making an Oppose section someone forgot.  17:12, 17 June 2014 (EDT)
 * No the proposal would get vetoed, as having something with no oppose section is detrimental to the upkeep of the wiki.
 * Consulted with administrative team over IRC, they agreed that the presence or absence of an 'oppose' selection alters the course of the discussion enough that not having it is detrimental. Additionally, the editing rule relates to proposal itself, not standard procedures of the wiki at large (will request this is made more clear in further rule revisions). -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Chris[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 17:37, 17 June 2014 (EDT)

Make a Mario Answers page
DON'T HAVE 1-9

Wikipedia has one, many wikis have them. There is no reason for Mario Wiki not to have an Answers page.

Proposer: Deadline: June 23, 2014, at 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) This page? Our forum? Or the talk pages? Whatever use the proposed page may have, don't these already fulfill it?
 * 2) Do you have any idea how many opinions would clash? Certain users wouldn't actually have real or correct answers, and arguments could happen, such as the 3D World Toad issue.
 * 3) Per LGM, If you need anything Mario-related or not, ask them on our help desk on the forums.
 * 4) I feel that our community is robust enough that answers can be more readily found by posting on the forums or asking in chat.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) We can`t just add an entire section because "Wikipedia has one so we should have one." We should add something because it help the wiki not make it look like the others.
 * 7) Per Mario and the second sentence of my comment.
 * 8) If we're asking general things about Mario, use the forum. Pages on the wiki should be used to improve it, and if you think your question will improve a page, then voice it on the respective article's talkpage.
 * 9) We have the forum for that.

Comments
Answers on what? This is a really vague proposal.
 * I agree with Yoshi876. Please tell us what an Answers page is exactly, then we'll know which side we're for. (Oh, and by the way, could you make suggestions and comments? That would help out a ton.)  At last, the rock fell.

14:44, 16 June 2014 (EDT) What is an answer page anyway?! Besides, we can't copy Wikipedia all the time. 15:49, 16 June 2014 (EDT)
 * I think it's a thing in which you ask questions about Mario stuff 21:31, 16 June 2014 (EDT)

@: You are right. @Mario: Check the Wikisimpsons link I left and see how they make answers.
 * If that's the case then, we have it. It's called the forum.

Delete the age-rating companies articles
DELETE 16-0

This has been on my mind for quite a good time. The age-rating companies (I'm referring to ESRB, CERO, ACB, USK, DEJUS, PEGI) are pages that includes information about seriously nothing related to the Marioverse itself, the first also includes some worthless trivia, and overly big tables including rating that the Mario series games fall only in one or two of them by the maximum. Of course, I only propose deleting the page, the rating will be kept in the infobox of the games. Just the links will be changed to wikipedia's. The pages should be eliminated, they do not serve the wiki's purpose other than filling some links, which can be filled by Wikiedia's links. It includes much more information than us on that specific subject anyway.

The page do not provide lists of games with those rating, I guess It doesn't matter since we can look into Rating Image's usage to check this up.. Anyway, I'm thinking about creating a category for each rating, hadn't sorted my mind yet, but that's not what the proposal is about.

Bottom line: It's a media/related page that do not include much needed information, burn it.

Proposer: Deadline: June 23, 2014, 23:59 GMT.

Support

 * 1) they're about as relevant to Mario as retail outlets and trade shows.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) They won't be missed. Nobody is sane enough to go to a MarioWiki to research ESRB ratings
 * 4) Per all. Agree with the idea of a category. Maybe link the ratings off to relevant sites for more information.
 * 5) Why does it exist in the first place?
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Like E3, and other terms like this, this should only be a note in the glossary.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) What's the point of them here when they're supposed to be Wikipedia articles?? Per all.
 * 10) Per all
 * 11) Per all
 * 12) – I don't really want them to be deleted, but they probably should due to the things mentioned above.
 * 13) If we don't get E3, why do we need ESRB...? Plus, it's really just pointless and doesn't have much to do with Mario.
 * 14) Good idea.
 * 15) Great thinking. I mean seriously, why the fuck do we need a ESRB page. It's fucking pointless on the wiki other than for some shits and giggles. Besides I think the links to the ESRB can be filled with Wikipedia links instead just as the proposal says.
 * 1) Great thinking. I mean seriously, why the fuck do we need a ESRB page. It's fucking pointless on the wiki other than for some shits and giggles. Besides I think the links to the ESRB can be filled with Wikipedia links instead just as the proposal says.

Comments
@Pwwnd123 Watch. Your. Language. Please. 19:14, 19 June 2014 (EDT)
 * He's allowed to swear as long as it's not directed at anyone nor if it's excessive. But, Pwwnd, don't overdo it. 19:16, 19 June 2014 (EDT)
 * Alright but I won't be like the AVGN.

I think to merge all the ratings pages. It's neither support or unsupport
 * I'm not allowed to change the proposal currently, maybe make a proposal about that after this ends. While personally, I don't agree; The pages don't hold useful information to exist here anyway.-- 10:36, 21 June 2014 (EDT)

Separate Featured Crossover Articles from Featured Mario Articles
DO NOT CHANGE THE SYSTEM 3-10

Now some crossover character articles have been featured on the main page in the past. Ganondorf was featured before. And we're currently Featuring Kirby. But what message does it send to new people? It's probably very confusing as to why we have a character that isn't from Mario. So I think we should have a separate award for featured crossover character articles to not confuse people. Maybe there can be two Featured Articles. One is an article from the Mario series and the other can be a crossover article. The crossover article section can have an image smaller than the Mario article's image and at the bottom of the section, small info telling what series it came from, what games he/she met Mario in and a link to the more appropriate NIWA Wiki if there is one, plus a brief disclaimer of our Coverage policy. The Mario featured article section should be bigger than the crossover section on the main page.

Proposer:

Deadline: June 25, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per Proposal.
 * 2) Per SeanWheeler.
 * 3) Per proposal. This is Super Mario Wiki, so our featured article should be a Mario one, not about a crossover.

Oppose

 * 1) This would complicate the process of featuring even further than necessary. The entire point of featured articles is to showcase the best articles in the wiki. There's no need to discriminate the content of the featured article.
 * 2) Per Baby Luigi.
 * 3) This just seems pointless. So, yeah, they aren't Mario characters. It's not about the characters, featured articles show the best us users can really do. Whether it's a character, or an item, a place or maybe even a concept, Featured Articles are featured because of their amazing quality, not for content. Therefore, non-Mario characters don't need to be separated from the rest just because of their universe.
 * 4) This wiki covers the complete Mario series. We act accordingly on this. This is the way that this wiki has always operated, and it's the way that it's operate for the years to come. Besides, you're just making the system more complicated when there's really no need to make it more complicated.
 * 5) I get the principle behind this, but we have it set up the way we do for a reason. As others have noted, the featured articles aren't meant to showcase neat Mario concepts, but examples of excellent writing.
 * 6) – Per Ghost Jam & Per my reasons below.
 * 7) Per all
 * 8) We shoot down proposals on a regular basis for being based on content instead of quality. Why would we start regulating articles using that reasoning now?
 * 9) Articles like Kirby and Ganondorf (especially Kirby) are created because they are relevant to the Mario series. Kirby appears not only in a cross-over video game, but also as a major character in certain Club Nintendo comics. My friend did ask me why Kirby was featured in a MarioWiki, but I told him that it's simply a "good article".
 * 10) – I agree with Baby Luigi, Koopakoolklub, Ghost Jam, etc.

Comments
The reason I want them separated is because they can confuse new users. On Talk:Ganondorf, someone asked why a Zelda villain is on Super Mario Wiki. Yes, Featured Status is based on quality, not the subject, but I don't want anyone feeling confused about a non-Mario character being featured on the Front Page. Yeah, they've earned the Featured Article star, but I don't want any confused people to mark the featured article for deletion or anything. SeanWheeler (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2014 (EDT)
 * As everyone else said: Featured Articles are meant to showcase our best articles, whether they be strictly Mario chars or crossovers. While it may be confusing, the rest of the Wiki blatantly shows Mario, from the name, to just about 90% of the main page, the image up there in the corner, etc. The confusion's probably not gonna be that harmful, it's not like anyone is gonna look and see "Oh it's got Ganondorf, my Wiki must be in another castle". Even if it is marked for deletion, it's not like a SysOp will delete based upon that fact alone, also our users and/or admins can always revert the edit, as well as explain why to the new users why it's here. Afterall being on any wiki is a learning process, and this would be a situation that is quickly fixed. – We could possibly add something like "Why is this a featured article?" in small text at the bottom to further explain everything, if it becomes a huge problem. But I don't think it will. We could also add Coverage into our Welcome Template, but I don't know how many people actually read the template anyways.
 * Okay, so maybe not separate them but in months with crossover characters as the Featured Article, we can have a link to the Coverage page? And I know we can revert edits. I just don't want people marking Featured Articles for deletion in the first place. If someone still disagrees with the article being here, it can cause a revert war, which is not good. We don't need to separate them, we just need a brief disclaimer of why they are here. SeanWheeler (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2014 (EDT)
 * No, there's no need for the link to the coverage page in in the Featured Articles page. We don't need to discriminate Featured Articles based on the content. That's not the point. The point of Featured Articles is to showcase off the best writing in the wiki. If it was content based, badly written articles such as Mario or Mario (series) would get featured while a well-written article such as Ganondorf or Kirby would be ignored. No one has done a revert war in the past, and any oppose comments regarding the content of a featured article in a nomination are immediately shot down and removed by voting to remove oppose vote. It hasn't been a huge problem, and it most likely won't. 15:56, 19 June 2014 (EDT)
 * This hasn't been a problem in any of the years we've been running the FA – if it does become a problem, we can take measures to remedy the situation. But everything seems to be just fine, the measures we could take could cover from autoconfirm protection to as I brought up before, adding something about our coverage page. But this really seems like a non-issue, what's the difference between a FA and just a regular non-featured article, granted one is on the main page and others aren't. But people could still go through and mark any number of articles for deletion before fully understanding our coverage policy, we'd just have to revert anyways. Afterall we can't expect every new user to know all of our policies right off the battle, it's a learning process. We just have to have faith that our new users can learn our policies or take content to talk pages rather than automatically marking stuff for deletion. Besides if someone knows how to use the delete template, it's not far fetched to believe they can understand our coverage policy. I do believe we should add a link the Coverage page into our Welcome Template, but that's just me.

The peoples BJAODN
DO NOT ALLOW USERS TO WRITE BADLY ON PURPOSE 1-8

I like BJAODN as much as the next guy but I think we should remove the rule that prevents people form making original stuff to put into the BJAODN. I think making original stuff for the BAJODN is a safe fun way to get a few laughs and blow of some steam, so who`s with me?

Proposer: Deadline: June 25, 2014, 23:59 GMT.

Support

 * 1) Per me, It`s my proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) That defeats the entire purpose of BJAODN. It is meant to be nonsensical edits made by people that are unintentionally bad, if we create our own things it effectively promotes making these bad edits. And if you mean just coming up with stuff and adding it in normally, then it's not an archive which is its purpose.
 * 2) There are plenty of spaces to post inane shit, and as past attempts to add "original content" to BJAODN demonstrate,  the result would be less chuckleworthy that a documentary on Darfur refugee camps.
 * 3) Per everyone, use the forums, chat or possibly your userspace for original content. The only original content that has made BJAODN, aside from the years April Fools articles, are my pie proposals and, as stated elsewhere, those are due to administrative tomfoolery more than anything else.
 * 4) Copied STRAIGHT from the rules: Don't write badly on purpose. Don't create all-new material just to add to the archives, don't alter existing material to "make it funnier", and definitely don't vandalize actual articles in order to get them into BJAODN, because you will be punished. Another reason? All the others already have stated: professional encyclopedias ACTIVELY discourage writing horribly.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all. This isn't a wiki to vandalize articles, but if you want to copy and vandalize an article on your userspace and not the mainspace, that would be fine.
 * 8) It's not going to be as funny.

Comments
Sorry for the bad quality early on I learned that I should not type my proposal on notepad then copy paste it on the page, sorry for inconvenience early on.

A minor note, but why is this under Removals? Seems to me like it would belong in the Changes section. Vommack (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2014 (EDT)
 * My best guess is that the user wants those rules removed, so he felt that the removals section was best. Any work to be honest, removing the rule does equate to changing the rules.

Cleaning up padding in articles
ENFORCE THE GUIDELINES 5-0

I have absolutely no idea what to title this.

Good Writing is generally what we refer to when we're unsure of whether or not a certain aspect of an article constitutes as "bad" writing, or at the very least improper for a wiki. One of the outlined examples is titled "everything but the kitchen sink", which refers to padding articles with information that carries tenuous or superficial connections to the subject at hand. As an example, the section cites Boomerang, since the article refers exclusively to the power-up that appears in Super Mario Advance 4, and not about any other generic instances of boomerangs at all. If we were to include instances of boomerangs appearing generically, it would not only violate the Good Writing guideline, but also likely overstep on the Generic Subjects guideline, which wouldn't be acceptable at all.

You get three guesses as to what the Boomerang article is currently doing, and the first two don't count.

There are far too many articles that seem to be stuffed with every single appearance of its subject, regardless of what connection it carries to its other appearances and regardless of what's outlined for Generic Subjects (since it tends to go hand-in-hand with the kitchen sink guideline). Mine, Cheese, Elephant, Moon, Cow, Apple, Icicle, Egg... The list goes on and on with no end in sight. Nobody benefits from these articles: editors have to hunt for every minor appearance of a subject, readers have to sift through section upon section of irrelevant information to look for what they want, and neither group is satisfied with the clunky and disorganized setup that almost always arises from these articles.

We have standards for these kinds of situations, but they seem to be so infrequently applied that I have to wonder if they aren't considered outdated or obsolete. Obviously, I am all for maintaining them, but since going against the standard seems to have become the "new" standard, I feel as though there needs to be a consensus among the editors before a swath of changes is made. It'd be rather hypocritical to have articles that go against our guidelines: therefore, two options are available; either override the guidelines and make it acceptable to throw everything but the kitchen sink into articles, or enforce these guidelines and clean up articles that violate them.

Proposer: Deadline: June 25, 2014 23:59 GMT

Enforce the guidelines

 * 1) I'm all for more concise articles.
 * 2) That could actually help in the future! Per Time Turner.
 * 3) It's a rule for a reason. It has to be followed. Enforce it.
 * 4) As noted in the comments, I'm all for following the guidelines, with deviations as the need arises. I want to make it clear, though, that I'm not in favor of a hard and fast application of the rule. Final decisions on effected articles should be made by editorial consensus, not someone slamming a rule book down.
 * 5) This proposal is not needed. Although it does bring up awareness, there will always be a scarce amount of users that will actually enforce it. It's better to do a collaboration thread in the MarioBoards.

Comments
This strikes me as something that we enforced based on the circumstance and that some articles currently require some editing down. -- Chris 00:02, 19 June 2014 (EDT)
 * I would like to agree with you, but there are seriously a gigantic amount of articles that go against it. Most of the food articles, most of the generic animal articles, a lot of the weapon articles... Because so many articles contradict the guideline, I have to wonder whether or not the guideline is being intentionally ignored.
 * I think people are just forgetting about it...maybe you should set up a collaboration thread in the forums instead. 16:00, 19 June 2014 (EDT)
 * In any case, the point of this proposal isn't to question why it's happened: it's to decide that, now that it's prevalent, should it continue to be prevalent? I mean, if it's managed to have been forgotten so easily, maybe it wasn't something worth remembering.
 * I'm for following the guidelines with situational deviations. At a guess, I'd say that's what was happening up till this point, just...no one kept on top of it. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Chris[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 16:27, 19 June 2014 (EDT)

@Mario: the point of this proposal isn't to rally people into enforcing the guideline; it's simply asking whether or not we should enforce the guideline, in accordance with what a large majority of the articles are currently doing.
 * ...we don't need a proposal calling for enforcing a guideline. I'm pretty sure once a guideline is written down, it's enforced unless no one else takes action like what's happening here. Again, I think its much better to make a collab thread in the forums which can grab people's attention for the push 23:25, 19 June 2014 (EDT)
 * ...As I've already said, that's not the point. I am not trying to enforce a guideline, I am questioning the validity of the guideline, since there are an insane amount of articles that go against it. Seriously, if I'm not clarifying something here, please enlighten me.
 * i think the point's is that this proposal is a waste of time, as everyone (including you) is voting for the "enforce it" option. The guideline is supposed to being enforced, but all of the pages you mentioned are older than that section and (like pretty much all of gw) there's been little interest and awareness of the page, which could've easily been remediated via a push. I have no idea why though this proposal was a productive (or good) idea. --Glowsquid (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2014 (EDT)
 * Probably to bring to light the contradiction taking place. There are probably other ways to have done this that would have been just as effective, but I don't see this as a disruptive way to go about it. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Chris[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 18:19, 22 June 2014 (EDT)
 * This isn't disruptive, but the proposal process is lengthy and not the best way to question the validity of a guideline. The voting system doesn't usually encourage elaborate discussion, especially when the outcome is clear and one-sided like this. 19:26, 22 June 2014 (EDT)
 * Then I would say that this has given us some insight into what to expect when a formal discussion topic is started. Won't have to deal with people yelling no from the rafters, as everyone seems to be on board with it, that's helpful to know, going in. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Chris[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 21:24, 22 June 2014 (EDT)