MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 8

Proposer: Pokémon DP
Deadline: May 5, 2008, 17:00

Remove overly speculative relationships

1. Pokémon DP I am the proposer, and my reasons are given above. Or possibly below, assuming some Users decide to argue. =|
2. Time Questions: Per DP, the relationships section is not the right place for speculation. Uncertain relationships could be mentioned in the trivia section though.
3. Chris per suggestions by DP and Time Q.
4. Cobold (talk · contribs) - Per Time Q.
5. Blitzwing (talk · gnome work) - 'Big duh here. It's like saying "Rewrite Poorly Written articles"
6. Glitchman (talk · contribs) Per Ghost Jam.
7. Wa _T^C_@ | Mi Youtube – Per all. Come on, babies aren't supposed to have romantic relationships.
8. Per all. I had done this, but Fixitup got a section made again. Kodomo no Jikan 4evur
9. InfectedShroom. Per all. Those sections are ridiculous. And people, from my view, the Baby Daisy/Baby Luigi example was just an example. There are more relationships like theirs that are speculative.
10. Stooben^{T · E · C} Speculation is a big no-no around here.
11. Garlic Man Indeed. I removed the Baby Daisy section several times, but got re-added by Fixit several times... gr...
12. Stumpers! Speculation has no place on a Wiki that even suspects the official alternate forms of media as being alternate canon.
13. CrystalYoshi If what we're talking about is baseless fan made-up stuff, I'm supporting this, since this is an encyclopedia; no reason to keep random theories.
14. €zlo The speculative content of the relationships sections come from the opinions from the masses (I mean, people)...
15. Per all. The relationships between Daisy and other characters are uncertain. User:Nothing444^sup? 01:27, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Keep the relationships in question

1. Moonshine- At this point there's no support for the relationship section anymore. But it is worth mentioning. I think a trivia section would suffice though.

Comments

I agree to remove those relationships from the section. However, I think putting them as Trivia items would be okay (that is, if it's not complete speculation, but if there is some indication that it might be true (as seems to be the case with Babies Daisy and Luigi)). Anyway. When you say "remove any relationship [...]", do you mean from the relationships section or altogether? Time Questions 05:30, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

That Trivia idea is kinda good... I'm on board with that. And, when I say "remove any relationship", I mean to remove the certain character relationship section, not the whole Relationships section as a whole. Pokémon DP

Yup, I got that, what I meant was whether you only want to remove the "possible relation" from the relationships section or not mention it in the article at all. But if you say you're on board with the trivia section, I think I can support :P Time Questions 06:36, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

First of all, this was unneeded as we already had solved this issue. Nice job, hur. Secondly, this is worded in a way that is completely wrong. You're making it sound like all relationship sections on the Daisy and Baby Daisy pages have no meaning and as you said are "baseless", That's your opinion, and saying that misleads any users into thinking there really is something bad about the sections. There's nothing more "baseless" about these sections than there are to any other pages. This was solved, you're bringing it back up, and you're not doing so correctly. Fixitup

The purpose behind the proposal is allowing each user to review the facts, discuss the matter and draw their own conclusions, so no real misleading is taking place. Beyond that, the war continued well past repeated protections, so the problem is obviously not solved. -- Chris 08:25, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

I don't give a Rat Funk's squeek about what you think of this Proposal being "pointless", Fixitup. Cos' your little edit war with Toadette 4evur sure proved that the problem WAS NOT resolved. I am not at all saying that everything on their pages is baseless speculation. For example, Princess Daisy's relationship with Luigi is valid, since Nintendo is purposely hinting that relationship in basically every game the two have appeared in together. Stuff like Princess Daisy's relationship with Waluigi, and Mario's relationship with Diddy Kong should be removed... That last one is the most "WTF" of them all. This has been a delightful message from: Pokémon DP - And don't you forget it!

I suggest you calm down. You're starting to sound like you're going off on me again. Anyway, I don't see how you couldn't have explained that already. Also, sections like that don't necessarily need to be removed. They just need to be reworded. Like the Baby Daisy/Baby Luigi relationship. Obviously that has enough information to back it up (meaning it's not baseless) same goes with the Baby Daisy/Baby Peach relationship. (obviously not as much, but still doesn't need to be completely removed or even thrown to a trivia section) Also, the Daisy/Waluigi relationship is backed up by their team names in Mario Party, their chemistry with one another, and their rivalry in Mario Strikers Charged. How is that baseless? I can understand a relationship like Toad/Mario being baseless in some manner, but as long as two people have a history in any manner, there should be a relationship section. Why are proposals always about removing, never fixing? Also, the edit war was over as you saw booster was the last one to revert Toadette4evur's final part in the edit war. He even asked them what reasoning they had, and they disregarded it until a while after. (Hm) Fixitup

Wow great, the information is now two times in the article, once in the relationship section and once in the trivia. What happened to our compromise? - Cobold (talk · contribs) 08:47, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

It went in one ear, and out the other, Cobold. ;) Pokémon DP

WaYoshi... the section wasn't about romance, it was just about a relationship. Regardless, they're not real. Real babies don't talk or drive. I fail to see how an infant having a crush on another infant is impossible, especially under the circumstances. Fixitup

First off, I just see this proposal as a selfish way to get rid of the Baby Daisy section...again. I NEVER would have written the section in the first place if I knew it would spontaneously ignite edit wars and then lead to the deletion of all the other speculated relationships. Going by your definition, anything that is a possibility is merely speculation and should go. All in all, thats EVERY relationship section. Take the Daisy & Luigi relationship section. Clearly Nintendo is hinting at a relationship between the two, but it hasn't been OUTRIGHT CONFIRMED. But still, everyone still thinks of them as a couple. The same can be said with any other relationship, Nintendo hasn't confirmed that Luigi is jealous of some of Mario's abilities, and yet no attention is brought to that about being speculation (you even refer to this section as being fine). The Baby Daisy section was deleted quite literally for having the word "May" in it, and thus being unconfirmed. While yes, it's not confirmed, neither is the regular Daisy and Luigi section, but still it's hinted at. You can't just delete SOME articles for being mere speculation and keep the others while they too are speculation. While yes, other sections might be a little more supported than than others, but Proof is proof and you can't just deny it. -Moonshine

All these proposals just because of the Baby Daisy page! Anyway, my position here depends on exactly what you mean by "speculation". Is this about all ideas that haven't been confirmed by Nintendo, or just ones that seem unlikely and have no official evidence? CrystalYoshi

You DO know who is the cause of all these Baby Daisy-related problems, right? What I mean is relationships that are complete fan-made BS, like Princess Daisy's relationship with Waluigi, or Mario's relationship with Diddy Kong, or Princess Peach's relationship with Wario. Stuff like Mario's relationship with Luigi, or Peach's relationship with Bowser are fine, since they do have backgrounds worth calling official/notable. And Daisy's relationship with Luigi, I do believe that IS official/notable, seeing as Nintendo is purposely implying that in almost every game they appear in together. Even their bios in these games says stuff relating to them being in love with each other. Stuff like Baby Daisy's relationship with Baby Luigi, that should be moved to the Trivia section. Pokémon DP

Are you honestly blaming this on me? You're the one that brought this back up when it had finally settled down again, not me. I already told you how I backed that up, also, if you are referring to specific relationships, maybe you should actually try to fix them yourself before making a big proposal about it? We just had a proposal of someone wanting to remove trivia, and since no one supported it, we decided we should try our best to integrate any information into the article. We don't put things in trivia because someone doesn't find them important enough, we put them there because there is NO place to put them in the article. At the most, the Baby Daisy/Baby Peach relationship should be changed, not the Baby Daisy/Baby Luigi relationship. Why do you think they would be in two GIANT GOLDEN STATUES with each other if they weren't meant to have chemistry? Also, like I said before, sections like Daisy/Waluigi DO have information to back it up. Just because there are sections like Diddy/Mario doesn't mean you have to make a proposal saying we should remove anything considerably speculative. Everyone should know that we would have to consider most sections speculative, and that includes Mario and Peach! This proposal is useless when we could go through articles and fix such things like we had before you made it. Fixitup - Peace

The situation was resolved? Ha... HA... HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! That was the best joke I've heard all week, Fixit. The situation was clearly not resolved. And, what do you do with a big situation like this? You start a Proposal! I can't just remove it all without getting everyone's opinion on the situation. That's what Proposals are for. And regardless of what you think, relationships like Daisy/Waluigi are meaningless, something 11 other Users have agreed on. Even if you think this Proposal is pointless, it doesn't matter. For, you see, I actually MAKE a Proposal to see what OTHERS think, instead of going ahead and getting in an edit war to try and get MY way. Pokémon DP Hmph, fine.

Wow, I'm not going to start calling you immature names or anything, but I can say if I wasn't holding myself back I would. If you refer to booster's talk page, you can see that the edit war was resolved. Also, I didn't start that edit war, I was simply a part of it, and a small part at that. Just because people agree with you, doesn't mean anything. What's their reasoning, that it's speculative? How is stating their past experience with each other to back up a point speculative? That's exactly what the Mario/Peach relationship does. I don't care if people agree with you, I still haven't received any feedback with reasoning that proves how it is more speculative than other relationship sections. Do you realize the Japaneses wikipedia even has a relationship for them? That means it's world-wide common knowledge.Fixitup

I'm going to say this as nicely as I can. You think it was resolved 'cause you got your way. Sorry if I sounded rude to you here, but DP's got a good point. Kodomo no Jikan 4evur

Wow, if you're going to change your comments to make yourself look better, then so will I. Fixitup

I would say that he has more room than you.

Stop pointing fingers and discuss the issue at hand. -- Chris 21:24, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

Do we have evidence of any kind that these freaken babies have a relationship of any kind? And I mean direct, documented proof, not conjecture, not fan crap, not 'Oh, look! They are next to each other on a menu screen! OBVIOUSLY they are bestest frends4leif!!!!!!!'. -- Chris 00:23, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, Baby Daisy's relationship with Baby Peach seems kinda... Fan-made to me. Her relationship with Baby Luigi has SOME proof; a statue of the two dancing in the Daisy Circuit stage. That said, its hardly enough to merit its own section, or even be considered truly official. Pokémon DP

I don't see why the regular statue of Daisy and Luigi get acknowledged to further their relationship, while the one of the Babies get swept under the rug. If people take the one of the adults as a sign of a relationship, why does no one do the same for the babies? Moonshine

Because when people meet, they become best friends forever, with no exceptions, right? -- Chris 19:57, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

That is totally irrelevant. Again, I don't see why this is getting flamed. It is NOT baseless, a giant statue of the two babies dancing has to mean something. Sure her relationship with Baby Peach might be cutting it, but the Baby Luigi one is certainly not. -Moonshine

It is not irrelevant. Your first point was that just because the adults are friends (which is also debatable) the babies should be too. Secondly, you're suggesting that a state of two characters stands for this and that. Can you show me text confirming that? Can you show me pictorial evidence of this, besides one stinking statue? Please don't mistake a heated discussion for a flame war. -- Chris 17:34, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

How come no one is responding to the points being made here? I think you all know why. Fixitup

I know that the Baby Peach one was overly speculative, but the Baby Luigi one is not. I can't prove that Baby Daisy has a crush on Baby Luigi, but nor can I do the same for half the OTHER relationships mentioned in the wiki. Proof is proof, even if it's just one little statue. Just because this isn't as supported as others doesn't mean it should be completely dismissed.Moonshine

Because we have lives. Anyway, while lots of these relationships (i.e. Daisy/Waluigi) have been hinted at by Nintedno (or at least thrown out there by some cheeky team name, or whatever), speculative aspects of any article are best relegated to the Trivia sections; just to clean things up and make us look more professional. - Walkazo

Oh you're cool. Sure, but that doesn't mean that it's baseless speculation. Fixitup

Agreed with Walkazo. And lol at your "we have lives" comment. BTW, how come you haven't voted, Fixit? Pokémon DP

I haven't voted because this proposal isn't worthy of my vote. I'm not going to cast my vote in a section you labeled as supporting baseless speculation when that's not what I am supporting. Also, we don't have to remove anything. You see how the Waluigi/Daisy relationship might say something like, "But their true relationship is unkown". That's what we should be removing, not, "And as shown in Mario Strikers, they have a disliking of eahcother". The second example shouldn't be considered speculation, and you're showing it off as if it was. For example, we could keep the Baby Luigi/Baby Daisy relationship, just take out the part where it suggests that they have more of a relationship then shown with the trophy, same with Baby Peach and the picture. Using factual information isn't speculation as long as you're not speculating anything while using it as back up. Fixitup

That's kinda arrogant of you, but, OK! I don't care if you think it's not worthless speculation, half the people around here believe it is. I see no point in making a section about Princess Daisy's hatred of Waluigi based on gameplay elements. It doesn't make sense. Pokémon DP

That didn't go off as correctly as I thought it would. I don't think I'm too good to vote on this, I think I shouldn't vote on something that doesn't give me an option to support my opinion. Hatred? That's a going pretty far. Also, I haven't actually seen anyone else say they agree with you about the Waluigi/Daisy relationship. And anyway, what does the fact it's a bad relationship have to do with anything? Luigi/Daisy and Mario/Peach's relationships are based on gameplay too. You're not giving any reasoning behind the fact you think it's speculation. How does it not make sense? Elaborate, please. I don't see how facts don't make sense. Also, even if this does end up going through, do you honestly think that means that gives you the right to just get rid of any information like this? You're not allowed to remove information that isn't speculation, regardless of the outcome of this proposal. So far, no one has proven to anyone how the Waluigi sections is baseless speculaiton, same goes with the Baby Daisy/Baby Luigi section. Everyone knows that there is information to be used, we just won't be able to come to any conclusions with them. Fixitup

What we're taling about here is speculation, Fixitup :| You haven't given any good examples of proof that Daisy hates Waluigi, because there aren't any. Glitchman (talk · contribs)

I just said to DP that I don't think Daisy hates Waluigi, and that the section doesn't say she hates him. It was shown in Mario Strikers Charged that they had a rivalry. They have bad chemistry in MarioSBB. Their team names often explain a bad relationship. What more do you need to provide the foundation for a relationship at the least? HUH?... Fixitup

Can we at least agree that the Baby Daisy & Baby Luigi can remain in the form of a trivia section like time q suggested?-Moonshine

You know what I like to do in these situations is this: peel back the speculation and post the fact: Baby Daisy does have a fountain/statue/whatever of her with Baby Luigi, just as their older selves do. Period. You don't have to write any more. Let the reader come up with his or her own theories. Remember: as an encyclopedia, we can, and should, just post the facts. Don't stress yourself trying to think of what Nintendo is saying, just report the hints, and don't conclude. Stumpers! 20:16, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Wow, at least someone can get at the truth here. Fixitup

Thanks. So, I guess what you could say on the article would be to mention the hint in a section about Mario Kart Wii, or maybe just a section on... I dunno... influence on Mushroom World culture? It's a toughie. Stumpers! 00:27, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

That was very rude, Fixitup. I'm-a go now before I get scolded, though... Pokémon DP

What are you referring to? Also, why haven't you responded to the fact I gave you reasoning as to why the Waluigi/Daisy relationship isn't baseless? Fixitup

I was thinking of creating a page dedicated to the characters' relationships. I took the idea from this page, where users can put their evidences about the topic. Why not make such a page, something similar to the BJAODN article? ¢oincoll€ctor ? 23:47, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

For starters, that'd be a fanon page. Stuff like that belongs on a fanon site. Stooben^{T · E · C} 21:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Not really fanon, as you can see, the article shows some evidences about the relationships. However, putting a personal opinion like a fanon comment, could be possible vandalism (my idea is talk about the relatonships, but this time, with facts and theories as references and not speculations or fanatics)

¢oincoll€ctor ? 00:03, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Proposer: Pokémon DP
Deadline: May 8, 2008, 17:00

Merge with Subspace Army

1. Pokémon DP I am the proposer, and... Blah blah blah.
2. RAP... Per DP.
3. Glitchman (talk · contribs) Per DP.
4. Stooben^{T · E · C} Per DP. The less stublets, the better.
5. InfectedShroom. Per DP.
6. Garlic Man Per DP - I already redirected a whole bunch of the enemies before, but now it's starting again... D:
7. Yosh Raptor Per DP but...
8. Green GuyPer DP, Stooben, and the Grarlic Guy^E
9. 1337Yoshi Per everyone else.
10. MarioGalaxy2433g5 {Talk/Contribs} - Per all
11. HyperToad@Proposals/Archive 8 - Per DP.

Keep 'em split

1. Cobold (talk · contribs) - Those are just as notable as Melee Adventure mode enemies, who all have articles undebated last time I checked.
2. Plumber Per Cobold

Comments

Eh, to be fair, they're more major than Condor. At least they have a name. --Blitzwing 06:38, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

And I didn't want that article made. My point being, THERE IS A LIMIT! <_< Pokémon DP

Blitzwing, this proposal could be what you're looking for. I'm sure you've noticed this before, but sometimes one proposal dominoes into another, with the new proposals being supported by the results of the previous one. Stumpers! 20:19, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

At least have one on Primid, please? Palkia47

Yeah, having a Primid one would be nice, IMO. InfectedShroom.

There's always room in lists for a main article template, right? Stumpers! 20:19, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps Primid could be an exception... Ehhhhhhh... That's debatable, I think. Pokémon DP

But articles like Octorok, ReDead and Polar Bear are okay? I don't see them being any different to Subspace Army enemy articles. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 09:22, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Those articles should be merged into their own page as well... Pokémon DP

Which would have a conjectural name. Or simply "List of enemies". I don't think we can put all those Subspace Emissary enemies into the Subspace Army article, I'm not quite sure where they all belong. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 09:54, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Seeing as all the SSE enemies are members of the Subspace Army, they DO fit in that article... And, making a list of enemies... How's that bad? Dude, you make articles on simple ENEMIES, then we'll have to make articles on Assist Trophies and Pokémon... =

Proposer: Tiptup Jr.
Deadline: May 9, 2008, 20:00

Make them/Make a list!

1. Tiptup Jr. So... yeah. I'm the proposer and all. Reasons stated above.
2. Walkazo - A LIST. Not seperate artciles; they'd be stumps and a waste of space. However, since we have that Sponsor list, we might-as-well have one for the stores too. It's all valid information, even if it's just a bunch of easter-eggs.
3. Blitzwing (talk · gnome work) - What Walkazo said.
4. Hangyaku no SnackuSaibu Per Walkazo.
5. Arendwashere!(Besides it is a little bit unneed, it CAN be added. We can add a whole list to the Coconut article)
6. GreenKoopa - Comments or questions?See comment.
7. Glitchman (talk · contribs) Per Walkazo and Arend.

Oppose!

1. Pokémon DP This is the most ridiculous Proposal I've ever seen. They are merely stores and posters; No REAL information is EVER given. They are just easter eggs/minor additions, nothing more. And, Stumpers, play the game first before you assume the stores and posters have information... Uh-oh, that sounded kinda impolite. D= On that note, quite a bit of the information shown on the example given by Tiptup Jr. is kinda false... I don't remember seeing any menus or anything of the sort.
2. Supertroopa Per DP. This way can't work because we can't have seperate articles of every single insignificant easter eggs as said before by DP. This has to be a wiki of more important information rather than more articles about shops that are advertised on a course of like Coconut Mall.
3. The main the you see of the stores is a poster that says stuff you can't read. Like DP said, WHAT info is given about them: nothing. This is just plain stupid. Plus, like 90% of the Coco Burger article is false. Pictures on a wall, that isn't much of a menu. If you don't believe me, I just checked. Kodomo no Jikan 4evur
4. Chris Another stub article we don't need. Just merge into List of Mario Kart Sponsors.
5. Green Guy Talk!^E Per DP. Plus it's rather futile to have articles on things that don't even effect game play.
6. Plumber 20:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT) Merge into List of Mario Kart Sponsors and move that to Mario Kart Advertisements (since the ads themselves aren't sponsors).
7. Stumpers! In my defense it was assuming good faith. Whatever though. Per Ghost Jam.
8. Stooben^{T · E · C} Per DP. These places don't even affect gameplay! K.K. Slider somewhat affects gameplay in Brawl and HE doesn't even HAVE an article. If something doesn't affect gameplay, it doesn't really deserve it's own article.
9. Booster -- Per Ghost Jam. Just put them on the sponsors list, perhaps in their own little section.
10. MarioGalaxy2433g5 {Talk/Contribs}- per all
11. InfectedShroom. InfectedShroom. Per all. LOL, is that descriptive enough? :P J/K
12. Princess Strawberry Why we should make a list for them if they contain no info and no image of the foods. (It like the foods from Paper Mario but they had info.)

Comments

I think making these articles would make the Mario Wiki a more complete guide to Mario's world and would help people find as much information as possible about Mario Kart Wii. We could also put what type of Miis appear in each advertisement, like a female for a certain store, and a male for another. Just a thought.
The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tiptup Jr. (talk).

Tiptup Jr., please always add a reason next to your vote, otherwise it's invalid. Even if you're the proposer. :/ Time Questions 05:53, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Since there is no actual information given on any of the stores and posters in this circuit, any information added to the article will be speculation and fan junk... Pokémon DP

What's about putting info of these things on the List of Mario Kart Sponsors? --Blitzwing 07:37, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Seems like a good idea, Blitzwing. Pokémon DP

Technically, the stores in Coconut Mall are not sponsors of Mario Kart, they're just... there. Maybe we could make a separate article with a list of Coconut Mall stores, instead of one article for each store? Tiptup Jr.

I 99.9% want to say oppose because this seems like a waste of time if theses stores are just random easter eggs in a Mario Kart course-- but I haven't ever played the game yet, which is the 0.1% holding me back from voting. CrystalYoshi 09:44, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Add them to the List of Mario Kart Sponsors. THIS I COMMAND!!! Pokémon DP

“This is the most ridiculous Proposal I've ever seen.”
—User:Pokemon DP

Obviously, you've forgotten a little thing called Pie (otherwise known as Proof there is a God). Also, they can't be merged with List of Mario Kart Sponsors since they aren't sponsors. I think they should be added to List of Mario Kart Sponsors, but only if the page is then moved to Mario Kart Advertisements. Plumber 20:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Agreed with Plumber. The Pie Proposal was at least funny. :( Pokémon DP

It's nice to know that you can't really call something around these parts stupid without referring to one of my creations. XD -- Chris 15:49, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Really, only if there really is enough information. If not, then consider merging it. User:Nothing444^sup? 00:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

DP, are you saying that all the information on the article example given by the proposer was false fanon? That would change things quite a bit, really. Stumpers! 01:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

All that information is false, yes. I don't remember any menus or anything of the sort. Pokémon DP

So why haven't we deleted/removed false data from that article than? Stumpers! 01:16, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

For evidence, perhaps? Pokémon DP

Well, you're heading the opposition so do as you wish, but can you at least make a note of that so people don't get confused? Stumpers! 07:52, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Er, Yoshitheawesome, your vote isn't really valid since Stumpers changed his vote. Stooben^{T · E · C} 15:53, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Once this proposal fails there should be another one concerning lists of stores only. The options could be "No List", "Seperate List", or "Sponsors List". By the looks of it, one of the latter two options would win that proposal, so the information will get onto the Wiki one way or another. And that's what matters, right? - Walkazo

No offense, but the only way I see a list working is if there is enough information. While I do feel the Coco Burger has a fairly decent amount of information for a non-affective store, I doubt that all stores would have enough info for even their own spots on a list. But, I don't own the game, so I couldn't say for sure. Stooben^{T · E · C} 20:53, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

According to DP that whole page just about is fanon. I have no idea, but he doesn't want to take it down for the sake of example... I dunno. If anyone knows what is real and what isn't can you please take care of it? Stumpers! 21:51, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Regardless, it is FAR too minor to get its own article. A... Minor cameo with no significance other than being a minor easter egg, with it's very own article? ...Uhhhhhhh... Logic is lacking in that plan. Pokémon DP

Can you please clarify this: is that article fanon or not? Stumpers! 21:32, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

The general article is true, but the entire menu is fanon. And the Pianta getting angry... Ehhhhh, not so sure about that one. Pokémon DP

Tiptup Jr. should clarify the voting options. What does "Make a list" mean? Make a list separate from the Sponsors list, or make a list and put it to the Sponsors page? Because if you're thinking of the latter, several people currently opposing should better put their vote to the support section... Still, in case the support side wins, the only thing we'll know is that the information is going to be included in the wiki somehow. Whether in a list or as separate articles will still be unsettled... so I don't think it's a good idea of merging "Make separate articles" and "Make a list" into one voting option. Time Questions 13:47, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

To all those saying these Coconut business aren't sponsors, I was playing the game with a friend the other night, who pointed out that the race is taking place in the Coconut Mall, so it, and any business therein, is sponsoring the race. Same with NASCAR. -- Chris 14:55, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Okey, I think we should make a list... and put it in a List of Implied Buisnesses page. We could do that with other small... easteregg... things, like YOSHIKART in other Mariokart titles and those Supa Koopa Sneakers Koopa the quick mentions in SM64. I'm writing this in comments to explain my vote. GreenKoopa - Comments or questions?

I'm fond of this idea. Didn't we have a List of Implied Businesses article at one time? -- Chris 23:32, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Actually... Since the buisnesses are ALL on Coconut Mall, I think they should be added to the Coconut Mall article. Thoughts? Pokémon DP

That works too. -- Chris 23:32, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Oh, the menu in Coco Burger is not false. If you drive up and look closely enough, you can see the menu items. Tiptup Jr.

Uhh, when I mess around I run into walls for no reason, and when I did that on Coconut Mall, I didn't see any menus at all. Kodomo no Jikan 4evur

Question: why was my vote removed? *Is too lazy to look in history* InfectedShroom.

It had no valid reason. I think it was just something like "Hmm... just merge it". Time Questions 04:44, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

Oh kay. Lemme fix it. InfectedShroom.

So... Can we all agree to add all this information to the Coconut Mall article? Pokémon DP

I can't think of any reason why not. Stumpers! 00:42, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

I'll contact the proposer about this. 'cause strictly speaking, currently more voters vote against making a list, and to include the information in the Coconut Mall article would be like making a list, basically. Given that there doesn't seem to be an opposition to this idea, though, we might remove the proposal, with Tiptup Jr.'s approval. Time Questions 04:28, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

We should definitely do that. CrystalYoshi 20:44, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

Proposer: Hangyaku no SnackuSaibu
Deadline: May 12, 2008, 17:00

Merge into "Boards (Super Mario Galaxy)"

1. Hangyaku no SnackuSaibu (As said above)
2. Blitzwing (talk · gnome work) Per Snack.
3. ~Uniju(T-C-E) Per Snack, as long as the images don't end up deleted.
4. Walkazo - Per Snack.
5. Pokémon DP Per Snack.
6. Princess Grapes Per all. (Hey wasn't that the same idea I wrote in on the Talk:Bill Board?)
7. Stumpers! The subjects are too minor for separation (more so than Ashley and Red, for example). Plus, they are stubs, and on one of them, literally half of the text was conjecture (about being related to the other boards, for example). Remove that, as should be done per current Wiki policy, and they are DEFINATELY stubs.
8. Garlic Man Per All.
9. Mushroomkingdom.nl Per All
10. User:Yoshitheawesome. Per all.
11. RedFire Mario Per all