MarioWiki:Proposals

Current time: Tuesday, June 11th, 00:35 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 11, 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

• 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
• Move Baby Donkey Kong to Baby DK (discuss) Deadline: June 21st, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Consider Grifty to be a Little Mouser (discuss) Deadline: June 22, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Consider Whacka to belong in Category:Moles (discuss) Deadline: June 24, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

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

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)

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 26, 2024)

^ Note: Requires action from admins.

Discourage "([Title] for [system])" disambiguation format when "([Title])" alone is sufficient to identify the subject, JanMisali (ended June 9, 2024)

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)

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

Move the chef-based recipe lists (such as List of Tayce T. recipes) to game-based ones, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended June 9, 2024)

Merge Silver Credit and Gold Credit to Silver Card and Golden Card, respectively, Blinker (ended June 9, 2024)

Unimplemented proposals

#	Proposal	User	Date
1	Decide how to cover recurring events in the Mario & Sonic series	BBQ Turtle (talk)	July 17, 2018
2	Reorganize and split Gallery:Toys and other Merchandise galleries	Results May Vary (talk)	July 30, 2019
3	Split all multi-items in the Mario Kart series	Archivist Toadette (talk)	October 12, 2019
4	Include information on Construction Zone for the rest of the Mario vs. Donkey Kong series	Koopa con Carne (talk)	November 24, 2019
5	Split backwards somersault info and merge it to Backflip	Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)	February 26, 2020
6	Split the attacks from Paper Mario: Sticker Star and Paper Mario: Color Splash	Scrooge200 (talk)	July 4, 2020
7	Split the enemy variants from Wario World	Koopa con Carne (talk)	July 11, 2020
8	Split the item lists from Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars	Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)	July 12, 2020
9	Clean up Category:Undead and Category:Deceased	Pokemon (talk)	August 6, 2020
10	Reorganize images in levelboxes pertaining to games with remakes, remasters, etc.	DarkNight (talk)	September 30, 2020
11	Create articles for minor locations in Super Mario Sunshine	The Mansion (talk)	October 30, 2020
12	Create an article for Cheese the Chao	BBQ Turtle (talk)	November 25, 2020
13	Create an article for Froggy	BBQ Turtle (talk)	November 25, 2020
14	Split the tour appearances of Mario Kart Tour courses	Koopa con Carne (talk)	March 5, 2021
15	Use indicators for pre-release images	Scrooge200 (talk)	March 27, 2021
16	Merge Birdo (species) with Birdo	Hewer (talk)	April 23, 2021

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Apply usual naming rules to Mario Kart course names

According to MarioWiki:Naming, this is how we handle the naming of Mario Kart courses that share a name with other subjects:

• For Mario Kart courses, console abbreviations are used as the identifier whenever possible to match the retro course naming convention (e.g. Daisy Cruiser (GCN)).
• Due to the Mario Kart 8/Deluxe multi-console situation, the identifier "MK8" is used until confirmation of anything else (e.g. Rainbow Road (MK8)).

The guideline enforces a compromise between our general naming rules and Nintendo's own in-game convention of affixing a console abbreviation to classic courses. In the case of Mario Kart 8 courses, it specifically requests using a game abbreviation as an identifier, whereas another rule states we should generally use the expanded form of the game's title. Neither part of this guideline appears to be justified, they contradict other rules, and read like a remnant of the wiki's bumbling pre-2010 days.

This proposal aims to make our naming rules consistent across the board, applying a "race course" or expanded game-of-origin identifier to Mario Kart course articles instead of the aforementioned. Doing this would prevent confusing situations such as the article for the Donut Plains 1 racetrack from Super Mario Kart being notated “SNES” despite the other Donut Plains 1 subject also originating from an SNES game.

Proposer: Koopa con Carne (talk)
Deadline: May 21, 2021, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Koopa con Carne (talk) per proposal.
2. Archivist Toadette (talk) It wouldn't hurt to at least try. Also, using the normal identifiers for the GameCube and DS battle courses feels like it's too rigid of an exception.

Oppose

1. Hewer (talk) I don't really see anything wrong with the way we do it right now, I think having an exception in the policy to name things like how Nintendo does is fine and I would prefer it to using generic identifiers. Also, I don't think it matters if this contradicts other rules, since the page itself addresses this by making it very clear that this is an exception aiming to match the way Nintendo does it. The way I see it, this is the least confusing because it uses terminology found in the games themselves. As for using 'MK8', I think it's a decent compromise since the games haven't given an official console identifier to those tracks yet, though I would consider changing it to 'Wii U' or something similar, or just using normal identifiers specifically for the Mario Kart 8 tracks since we're not trying to replicate Nintendo's way of doing it in that case.
2. Keyblade Master (talk) Per Porplemontage's comment.
3. Duckfan77 (talk) Per all.
4. Waluigi Time (talk) Per Porplemontage. If anything, we should probably wait until MK8 retro tracks actually appear to see what Nintendo calls them to see if there really is an "inconsistency" here.
5. HappyToad (talk) Per Hewer & Porplemontage. It would be too confusing for anyone unfamiliar with the names of Mario Kart games looking for more about a retro course in particular, and so it seems best to keep it as is (there's no current issue anyway).

Comments

@Hewer: The current naming scheme is confusing by all accounts. The proposal was updated to address your statement. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 11:25, May 15, 2021 (EDT)

It is the way it is because Nintendo is essentially providing an identifier for us when they do retro courses. If a person is playing a newer game and look up a retro course, they will probably search how it is shown in the game (e.g. "SNES Rainbow Road") and if they see the article title as "Raindow Road (SNES)" on Google, that makes a lot of sense. "Raindow Road (Super Mario Kart)" isn't great because it doesn't match that extra piece of info Nintendo is attributing to the course, the user might not even know the title for the SNES game, and the course isn't just appearing in Super Mario Kart - it's appearing in the newer game as well. --Steve (talk) 11:40, May 15, 2021 (EDT)

This sounds like trying to fit a square tile into a round hole. Nintendo’s own convention isn’t compatible with our rules and trying to integrate it as such leads to situations like the Donut Plains article doublet I mentioned in the proposal. Also, the “these courses are not exclusive to one game” justification can be extended to electronic systems too; SNES Donut Plains 1 appears on SNES, DS, and mobile systems, so it’s not exclusive to one system like the identifier implies. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 13:14, May 15, 2021 (EDT)

If their conventions weren't compatible with our rules then we probably wouldn't have incorporated them into our rules. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:17, May 15, 2021 (EDT)

And yet, here we are. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 14:36, May 15, 2021 (EDT)

One thing worth mentioning is that Nintendo GameCube (battle course) and Nintendo DS (battle course) are somehow exceptions to this rule. I still vividly remember contacting Porplemontage about this three years ago, and while his response was adequate enough (it would be "too dumb" to use "Nintendo DS (DS)"), I don't find it a good excuse to keep the policy exception. And there's also Mario Kart Live: Home Circuit race course layouts which also have their own articles; so would World 1-1 (race course) become "World 1-1 (MKLHC)"? Like Koopa con Carne keeps saying, there's too much confusion with this policy. ^(T|C) 14:47, May 15, 2021 (EDT)

I think using normal identifiers for Mario Kart Live: Home Circuit specifically is fine, since there's nothing official to try to match there whereas there is for the other games besides Mario Kart 8. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 16:02, May 15, 2021 (EDT)

I don't want to lose the "SNES" element in the article title for retro courses since I definitely consider that to be part of the official title, as well as for purposes of SEO and people finding the article they're looking for. Here is my counter-proposal: For tracks which have appeared as retro courses, move them to "SNES Donut Plains 1" format. That doesn't conflict with the level since it's a different title. For the rest, use traditional game identifiers. This creates an inconsistency from track article to track article, but I believe it is the most technically correct solution based on how Nintendo names them, and it eliminates the "MK8" guess. --Steve (talk) 15:23, May 15, 2021 (EDT)

I would support that, it stays consistent with how Nintendo does it and technically goes with our policy of using the most recent English name. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 16:02, May 15, 2021 (EDT)

Combine the four pages on Mega Pi'illos into one "Mega Pi'illo" page and change the original four pages to redirects

The four pages about Mega Pi'illos (Cush, Shawn, Phil, and Lowe) are currently quite redundant. With the exception of just a few words (and the "Names in other languages" segment) , Cush and Shawn's pages are currently near-identical. Besides having a piece of trivia, Lowe's page is largely a shorter version of Phil's. The main body of all 4 pages consist of a single paragraph detailing the climb up Mount Pajamaja with regards to the Mega Pi'illos, to varying degrees of detail. Additionally, all four pages use the same artwork and claims it to be of the page's subject, despite the actual artwork being unidentified as to which Mega Pi'illo it is.

I propose the four pages be combined into one page titled "Mega Pi'illo", rewritten to accommodate all four of them, and the four existing pages changed into redirects to "Mega Pi'illo."

Proposer: Casual Koopa (talk)
Deadline: May 25, 2021, 23:59 GMT

Merge the four Mega Pi'illo pages

1. Casual Koopa (talk) Per my proposal.
2. The Mansion (talk) Lowe's article states he is encountered under circumstances nearly identical to Phil. That says pretty much everything.
3. PanchamBro (talk) Per proposal.
4. Hewer (talk) After looking at the pages I realise how similar they are, per all.
5. Scrooge200 (talk) Repeated articles. I've also been wanting to work on Pi'illo species pages, such as Deco Pi'illo.
6. Keyblade Master (talk) Per all. I should point out that as of now, Pi'illo Master also has yet to be made into its own article.
7. RHG1951 (talk) Much like the WarioWare duos, the Mega Pi'illos don't do anything without their counterpart.

Miscellaneous

Citing WildBrain

A while ago, a proposal was made about using closed captions of the Super Mario cartoons from third-party contractors hired by WildBrain, which we opted to decline because A) WildBrain has been notorious for stealing chunks of information away from us without attribution, B) WildBrain has been entirely unprofessional with their handling of the Super Mario cartoons, and C) closed captions were unreliable compared to the actual script.

However, although we may have disallowed using the closed captions as a source, we still have areas of information that directly source themselves to WildBrain. Similar to how we prohibited using the English Super Mario Encyclopedia over similar issues, we should disallow the usage of WildBrain as a source for these reasons I listed above, and therefore our sources for the Super Mario cartoons should only pertain to the staff involved with the cartoons and DiC Entertainment themselves.

Proposer: PanchamBro (talk)
Deadline: May 23, 2021, 23:59 GMT

Allow some parts of WildBrain to be used as a source

1. Hewer (talk) See my comments. I think we should allow WildBrain's names to be redirects, but otherwise we can ignore their names.
2. Niiue (talk) Per Hewer.

Do not allow WildBrain to be used as a source

1. PanchamBro (talk) Per proposal.
2. Waluigi Time (talk) Per proposal.
3. Keyblade Master (talk) Per pretty much everything that was said in the aforementioned proposal.
4. Power Flotzo (talk) We don't need redirects like the now-deleted "Ahehehauhe." Per all.
5. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) Yes, per what I said then
6. Scrooge200 (talk) Evil Dinorsaur should say it all, really.
7. AlexBot2004 (talk) Per proposal.
8. Archivist Toadette (talk) Per.
9. Ray Trace (talk) Per all.
10. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.
11. TheDarkStar (talk) - per all
12. The Mansion (talk) No sourcing. Redirects don't seem necessary either.
13. Alex95 (talk) - Per my reasonings in the previous proposal. I'm indifferent on redirect creations, but Ahehehauhe can stay off our wiki.
14. Stooben Rooben (talk) — Looks like a no-Brainer to me. We shouldn't be citing sources that are known to copy content directly from our wiki. Per all.

Comments

I think we should allow WildBrain's names to be redirects since the whole point of redirects is to be helpful to readers and there might be some readers who would find those redirects helpful. For example, someone might see the 'Ahehehauhe' clip on YouTube and search it up here in search of information on the clip without knowledge of the episode name. Otherwise, I understand why we decided not to cite WildBrain, but I think that we should adjust our naming policy to specify that WildBrain can't be cited after this proposal (depending on its result) like we did with the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 15:02, May 16, 2021 (EDT)

I see your point, though I do question if we have to therefore include hundreds of redirects for any particular clip made of any episode, especially since clips can named by anyone, WildBrain included. I should also point out that the 'Ahehehauhe' clip only attached 4k views on YouTube, which doesn't justify the demand for these redirects. -- PanchamBro (talk • contributions) 15:24, May 16, 2021 (EDT)

According to MW:REDIRECTS, a redirect is justified if there is a chance someone would find it helpful, which I feel there is in this case. This policy also states that redirects should only be deleted if they are too general or too silly, and redirects like 'Ahehehauhe' don't fall under either of those categories since it's clear what they're referring to and what a reader searching it is most likely looking for, and they come from a source that is, by at least one definition, official. Also note the policy says alternate names as redirects are fine. So going off of our policies there doesn't seem to be a good reason for deleting these redirects, and there's not really a downside to creating a large amount of redirects anyway. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 15:43, May 16, 2021 (EDT)

How, precisely, does that not fall under "too silly?" Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:27, May 16, 2021 (EDT)

What the policy seems to mean by 'too silly' is joke redirects and borderline vandalism, judging by its example 'Game with luigi and ghosts 2'. 'Ahehehauhe' has a legitimate reason to exist, and according to the policy, it should exist, since it has some potential to clear up confusion even if we aren't going to use WildBrain's names as page titles. It's comparable to how someone might see the name 'Soarin' Stu' in the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia and search it here, and we have a redirect for it even though we do not use it as a name. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 16:57, May 16, 2021 (EDT)

I don't find it feasible anyone would search that specific convoluted and inaccurately-spelled laughing onomatopoeia, personally. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:07, May 16, 2021 (EDT)

"Soarin' Stu" is also a fan-name, originating from this wiki, that was used for multiple years. There's a realistic chance that people who don't know the proper name of the enemy will search it up. Nobody thinks that "Flatbush Koopa" is called "Ahehehauhe," and WildBrain has uploaded the episode under its proper title as well, which has more views (100k vs 4k). Scrooge200 (talk) 17:26, May 16, 2021 (EDT)

There is a possibility that someone would see the 'ahehehauhe' clip on YouTube and, not knowing the actual name of the episode, search for it here. MW:REDIRECTS states: ' If there's even a small chance that a redirect will help someone, it's not useless'. Also, while I've been using 'ahehehauhe' as an example, there are things like the alternative spellings seen in the subtitles, including 'Obi-Wan Toady', 'Light Plunger', and 'Red hot pepper detector', which aren't redirects even though they may be helpful to certain people, there would be no downside to having them and MW:REDIRECTS says alternate name and spelling mistake redirects are fine. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 17:39, May 16, 2021 (EDT)

Agree with Doc con Schmeltwick's comment above. I sincerely doubt someone will look up WildBrain's channel, find an obscure, 14-second clip, then come to this wiki and input said name. They likely wouldn't even recognize the episode. Green Star 20:02, May 16, 2021 (EDT)

The name of a short clip on YouTube doesn't seem like the sort of thing that would warrant a redirect either way. Nightwicked Bowser 20:39, May 16, 2021 (EDT)

@The Mansion: My whole point is that they wouldn't recognize the episode, and thus would search for the clip's name. That's the purpose of redirects.

Even if we refuse to make 'ahehehauhe' a redirect, I think we should at least make the alternate spelling redirects since it is feasible that someone might think they are the correct spellings. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 02:37, May 17, 2021 (EDT)