MarioWiki:Proposals

Current time: Friday, June 7th, 10:22 GMT

Proposals can be new features (such as an extension), the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken. "Vote" periods last for one week. Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so (not, e.g., "I like this idea!"). All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options. For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed using the code {{User|User name}}.

How to

Rules

1. If users have an idea about improving the wiki or managing its community, but feel that they need community approval before acting upon that idea, they may make a proposal about it. They must have a strong argument supporting their idea and be willing to discuss it in detail with the other users, who will then vote about whether or not they think the idea should be used. Proposals should include links to all relevant pages and writing guidelines. Proposals must include a link to the draft page. Any pages that would be largely affected by the proposal should be marked with {{proposal notice}}.
2. Only registered, autoconfirmed users can create, comment in, or vote on proposals and talk page proposals. Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available.
3. Proposals end at the end of the day (23:59) one week after voting starts, except for writing guidelines and talk page proposals, which run for two weeks (all times GMT).
   • For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, the voting starts immediately and the deadline is one week later on Monday, August 8, at 23:59 GMT.
4. Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it. Agreeing with a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted (including "per" votes), but tangential comments, heavy sarcasm, and other misleading or irrelevant quips are just as invalid as providing no reason at all.
5. Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may not remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. Voters can remove or rewrite their own vote at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the administrators.
   • Users can also use the comments section to bring up any concerns or mistakes in regards to the proposal itself. In such cases, it's important the proposer addresses any concerns raised as soon as possible. Even if the supporting side might be winning by a wide margin, that should be no reason for such questions to be left unanswered. They may point out any missing details that might have been overlooked by the proposer, so it's a good idea as the proposer to check them frequently to achieve the most accurate outcome possible.
6. If a user makes a vote and is subsequently blocked for any amount of time, their vote is removed. However, if the block ends before the proposal ends, then the user in question holds the right to re-cast their vote. If a proposer is blocked, their vote is removed and "(banned)" is added next to their name in the "Proposer:" line of the proposal, which runs until its deadline as normal. If the proposal passes, it falls to the supporters of the idea to enact any changes in a timely manner.
7. No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
8. Any proposal where none of the options have at least four votes will be extended for another week. If after three extensions, no options have at least four votes, the proposal will be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
9. All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week. Proposals with more than two options must also be extended another week if any single option does not have a majority support: i.e. more than half of the total number of voters must appear in a single voting option, rather than one option simply having more votes than the other options.
10. If a proposal with only two voting options has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail with a margin of at least three votes, otherwise the deadline will be extended for another week as if no majority was reached at all.
11. Proposals can only be extended up to three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, the proposal fails and can only be re-proposed after four weeks, at the earliest.
12. All proposals are archived. The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of an administrator, the proposer can ask for that help.
13. If the administrators deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to remove it at any time.
14. Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation (six days for talk page proposals). However, proposers can request that their proposal be deleted by an administrator at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived.
15. Unless there is major disagreement about whether certain content should be included, there should not be proposals about creating, expanding, rewriting or otherwise fixing up pages. To organize efforts about improving articles on neglected or completely missing subjects, try setting up a collaboration thread on the forums.
16. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the administration.
17. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
18. Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy.

Basic proposal and support/oppose format

This is an example of what your proposal must look like, if you want it to be acknowledged. If you are inexperienced or unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. Then replace the [subject] - variables with information to customize your proposal, so it says what you wish. If you insert the information, be sure to replace the whole variable including the squared brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information", not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but what each voting section is supporting must be clearly defined. Such options should also be kept to a minimum, and if something comes up in the comments, the proposal can be amended as necessary.

---

===[insert a title for your proposal here]===
[describe what issue this proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the wiki handles that issue]

'''Proposer''': {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the proposal was created (14 for writing guidelines and talk page proposals), at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "June 7, 2024, 23:59 GMT"]

====Support====
#{{User|[enter your username here]}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]

====Oppose====

====Comments====

---

Users will now be able to vote on your proposal, until the set deadline is reached. Remember, you are a user as well, so you can vote on your own proposal just like the others.

To support, or oppose, just insert "#{{User|[add your username here]}}" at the bottom of the section of your choice. Just don't forget to add a valid reason for your vote behind that tag if you are voting on another user's proposal. If you are voting on your own proposal, you can just say "Per my proposal".

Talk page proposals

All proposals dealing with a single article or a specific group of articles are held on the talk page of one of the articles in question. Proposals dealing with massive amounts of splits, merges or deletions across the wiki should still be held on this page.

For a list of all settled talk page proposals, see MarioWiki:Proposals/TPP archive and Category:Settled talk page proposals.

Rules

1. All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom) using {{TPP discuss}}. Include a brief description of the proposal while also mentioning any pages affected by it, a link to the talk page housing the discussion, and the deadline. If the proposal involves a page that is not yet made, use {{fake link}} to communicate its title in the description. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links. Place {{TPP}} under the section's header, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{settled TPP}}.
2. All rules for talk page proposals are the same as mainspace proposals (see the "How to" section above), with the exceptions made by Rules 3 and 4 as follows:
3. Voting in talk page proposals will be open for two weeks, not one (all times GMT).
   • For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, it ends two weeks later on Monday, August 15, 2011, at 23:59 GMT.
4. The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.
5. When a talk page proposal passes, it should be removed from this list and included in the list under the "Unimplemented proposals" section until the proposed changes have been enacted.

List of ongoing talk page proposals

• Merge Meat (object) with Meat (discuss) Deadline: June 6, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Re-merge Frog (Yoshi's Story) with Frog (discuss) Deadline: June 7, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Move the chef-based recipe lists (such as List of Tayce T. recipes) to game-based ones (discuss) Deadline: June 9, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Merge the corresponding chef-named recipes (discuss) Deadline: June 9, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Merge Silver Credit and Gold Credit to Silver Card and Golden Card, respectively (discuss) Deadline: June 9, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Move Moo Moo back to cow (discuss) Deadline: June 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Consider Spike Top derived from both Buzzy Beetles and Spinies (discuss) Deadline: June 4, 2024, 23:59 GMT Extended to June 11, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Split Samus from List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. (discuss) Deadline: June 11, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Move attack info from Super Hammer to Spin Hammer and move the latter to Super Hammer (move) (discuss) Deadline: June 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Add Mario Bros. as a related game to the Super Mario series (discuss) Deadline: June 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Move Chain Chompikins from Madame Broode to Big Chain Chomp (discuss) Deadline: June 15, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Move List of Toad Town News in Paper Mario to simply "Toad Town News" (discuss) Deadline: June 18th, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Merge Young Link and Toon Link info to Link's article (discuss) Deadline: June 20th, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Split Mario Kart Tour character variants into list articles, Tails777 (ended May 4, 2022)

Classify the Just Dance series as a guest appearance, Spectrogram (ended April 27, 2023)

Establish a standard for long course listings in articles for characters/enemies/items/etc., Koopa con Carne (ended June 8, 2023)

Add tabbers to race/battle course articles, GuntherBB (ended November 18, 2023)

Remove elemental creatures categories from various Super Mario RPG enemies, Swallow (ended January 11, 2024)

Merge Super Mario Bros. (film) subjects with their game counterparts, JanMisali (ended April 18, 2024)

Remove profiles and certain other content related to the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia from the wiki, Koopa con Carne (ended April 30, 2024)

Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)

Consider "humorous" and other related terms as frequently misused in MarioWiki:Good writing, DrippingYellow (ended May 28, 2024)

• ^Note: Requires action from admins.

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)

Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)

Add product IDs in game infoboxes, Windy (ended March 18, 2023)

Split Special Shot into separate articles by game, Technetium (ended September 30, 2023)

Convert the lists of episode appearances for television series characters into categories, Camwoodstock (ended November 22, 2023)

Split the Jungle Buddies from Animal Friends, DrippingYellow (ended December 22, 2023)

Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)

Split Mario's Time Machine (Nintendo Entertainment System), or the Super Nintendo Entertainment version along with both console versions of Mario is Missing!, LinkTheLefty (ended April 11, 2024)

Remove non-Super Mario content from Super Smash Bros. series challenges articles, BMfan08 (ended May 3, 2024)

Split Cheep Blimp (Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door) and Zeeppelin from the blimp page, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended May 28, 2024)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

Add "Template:Title source"

I propose that the {{title source}} template needs added.

<div class="notice-template" style="text-align:justify;background:#F5F5F5;margin:.5em 2%;padding:0 1em;border:1px solid black;color:black">
The title of this article is official, but it '''needs a citation'''. You can help by adding a reference to the article.
</div><includeonly>[[Category:Articles with titles from other languages]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Category:Notice templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]</noinclude>

Proposer: Woodchuck (talk)
Deadline: November 27, 2017, 21:28 GMT

Support

1. Woodchuck (talk) per proposal

Oppose

1. Alex95 (talk) - {{ref needed}}
2. Owencrazyboy9 (talk) Per Alex95. The template you're trying to propose is almost identical, if not, the same thing as the ref needed template.
3. YoshiFlutterJump (talk) We already have a template for this purpose. Per all.
4. Ultimate Mr. L (talk) I'm not even sure this proposal is valid, since it's just the exact same thing as {{ref needed}} Per all.
5. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all. I don't see a point in creating a new template when a template for a very similar purpose already exists.
6. 7feetunder (talk) 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.
7. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) The only solution to this "problem" is for you to not knee-jerk change "ref needed" templates into "conjecture" templates.
8. BBQ Turtle (talk) We've already got a template for it, we don't need another, per all.
9. Jazama (talk) 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)

A section for passed proposals

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: Time Turner (talk)
Deadline: November 9, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Time Turner (talk) Per proposal.
2. Baby Luigi (talk) Per proposal
3. 7feetunder (talk) Per proposal.
4. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per proposal.
5. BBQ Turtle (talk) Sounds like a useful idea, per proposal.
6. YoshiFlutterJump (talk) Per proposal.
7. Alex95 (talk) - Per proposal.
8. Lcrossmk8 (talk) Okay, this sounds like a good idea, so count me in. But how are we gonna put this into action?
9. Ultimate Mr. L (talk) Why not? Per proposal.
10. Jazama (talk) 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. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 15:28, 25 November 2017 (EST)

We should include those in the first place, so yes. Ray Trace^(T|C) 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)? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 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? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 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. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 22:25, 25 November 2017 (EST)

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

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: Time Turner (talk)
Deadline: November 26, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Time Turner (talk) Per proposal.
2. YoshiFlutterJump (talk) Per proposal.
3. Alex95 (talk) - Never once had a reason to use them. Per proposal.
4. Toadette the Achiever (talk) Per proposal, as well as my exchange with Time Turner in the comments section.
5. 7feetunder (talk) Per proposal.
6. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per proposal.
7. Tucayo (talk) - Per proposal. For the record, I do recommend the images being integrated into the article, possibly in the infobox.
8. BBQ Turtle (talk) They've never appeared in the series in the same form again and they do look quite a mess, per all.
9. Jazama (talk) Per all

Comments

Shouldn't this be a multi-option proposal, since you mentioned maybe working the templates into the infoboxes? ^(T|C) 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. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 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: Time Turner (talk)
Deadline: November 27, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Option 1: Only move the exceptions

1. Alex95 (talk) - Per proposal. This should set a standard as well, with any templates being similarly abbreviated being moved to the games' full name.
2. Toadette the Achiever (talk) Per proposal.
3. 7feetunder (talk) Per proposal.
4. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per proposal.
5. YoshiFlutterJump (talk) Per all. Obviously this is the better option.
6. Mister Wu (talk) 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. BBQ Turtle (talk) Seems like the best way to go around this, per all.
8. Jazama (talk) 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! Hello, I'm Time Turner. 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. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 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... Hello, I'm Time Turner. 23:47, 19 November 2017 (EST)

@Time Turner: You forgot to vote on your own proposal. -YFJ (talk · edits) 09:42, 23 November 2017 (EST)

This was intentional. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 00:06, 25 November 2017 (EST)

Miscellaneous

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 Glowsquid (talk)'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: Super Radio (talk)
Deadline: November 25, 2017 23:59 GMT

Make separate pages for Flash games

1. Super Radio (talk) per proposal.
2. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) Per proposal.
3. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per proposal.
4. Toadette the Achiever (talk) I don't see why we shouldn't cover them, so per proposal.
5. Baby Luigi (talk) Per all.
6. YoshiFlutterJump (talk) They're games. They're official. Hence, we cover them. Per all.
7. Mister Wu (talk) 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. Ultimate Mr. L (talk) Per all. (I had no idea that Nintendo used Flash games.)
9. Niiue (talk) Per all.
10. Yoshi the SSM (talk) Per all.
11. LuigiMaster123 (talk) Per all.
12. Jazama (talk) Per all

Present the games in a comprehensive article

1. Ultimate Mr. L (talk) Considering Flash games are smaller than full-fledged games, this seems like a workable option.
2. YoshiFlutterJump (talk) 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. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 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). -- -- KOOPA CON CARNE 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 {{MarioGames}}. If anything, they should get their own template (again, separate from actual games like Time Machine and Mario's Missing). --™ The 'Shroom 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. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 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... -- -- KOOPA CON CARNE 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 these. What do you think? -- -- KOOPA CON CARNE 07:57, 19 November 2017 (EST)

Maybe something from this list would help? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 23:47, 19 November 2017 (EST)

Yup, I think I'll stick to calling it an action game. -- -- KOOPA CON CARNE 00:41, 20 November 2017 (EST)

I have one concern about this. Should we cover Adobe Flash Player 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 iOS or Android OS? --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) ^{(Stats - Contribs)} 05:54, 23 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: Alex95 (talk)
Deadline: November 30th, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Alex95 (talk) - Per me.
2. YoshiFlutterJump (talk) Per Alex95.
3. Baby Luigi (talk) 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.
4. 7feetunder (talk) 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.
5. Owencrazyboy9 (talk) 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.
6. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per Baby Luigi.
7. Toadette the Achiever (talk) 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...
8. BBQ Turtle (talk) 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.
9. Lcrossmk8 (talk) 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.
10. Ultimate Mr. L (talk) Per all, especially Baby Luigi.
11. Jazama (talk) Per all

Oppose

1. Time Turner (talk) 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. Super Radio (talk) per Time Turner.
3. Wildgoosespeeder (talk) Since Mario Kart 7 and Mario Kart 8 are official names and human psychology wanting to find patterns and apply them, keep the unofficial names as redirects.
4. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 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. Yoshi the SSM (talk) Sorry Alex95, but I can't support. Reason? Per all.

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". -YFJ (talk · edits) 13:36, 23 November 2017 (EST)

ಠ_ಠ -- -- KOOPA CON CARNE 14:08, 23 November 2017 (EST)

Its very unfortunate that you might effect that comment (yeah alex95 it's "affected" redirects not "effected"). Ray Trace^(T|C) 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. Ray Trace^(T|C) 14:25, 24 November 2017 (EST)

clearly i'm just chopped liver Hello, I'm Time Turner. 14:30, 24 November 2017 (EST)

Yes, search traffic and results say that you are. Ray Trace^(T|C) 14:34, 24 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. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 14:36, 24 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. Ray Trace^(T|C) 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. MarioWiki: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. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 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. Ray Trace^(T|C) 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. Yoshi the SSM (talk) 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. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 14:56, 24 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. Yoshi the SSM (talk) 15:10, 24 November 2017 (EST)

I tagged Super Mario Wii with {{delete}}. -YFJ (talk · edits) 16:03, 24 November 2017 (EST)

Why? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 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. -YFJ (talk · edits) 16:25, 24 November 2017 (EST)

Oops, didn't see Yoshi the SSM's comment. -YFJ (talk · edits) 16:26, 24 November 2017 (EST)