MarioWiki:Proposals

Proposals can be new features (such as an extension), removal of a previously added feature that has tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action(s) are done. Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so, not, e.g., "I like this idea!" "Vote" periods last for one week. All past proposals are archived.

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}}.

This page observes the No-Signature Policy.

How To

1. Actions that users feel are appropriate to have community approval first can be added by anyone, but they must have a strong argument.
2. Users then vote and discuss on the issue during that week. The "deadline" for the proposal is one week from posting at:
   • Monday to Thursday: 17:00 (5pm)
   • Friday and Saturday: 20:00 (8pm)
   • Sunday: 15:00 (3pm)
3. Every vote should have a reason accompanying it.
4. 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. The voter 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.
5. "# " should be added under the last vote of each support/oppose section to show another blank line.
6. All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week.
7. If a proposal has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail by a margin of three votes. If a proposal reaches the deadline and the total number of votes for each option differ by two or less votes, the deadline will be extended for another week.
8. Any proposal that has three votes or less at deadline will automatically be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
9. No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
10. Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation. However, the proposer can request that their proposal be deleted by a Sysop at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it.
11. 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 a Sysop, the proposer can ask for that help.
12. There shouldn't be proposals about creating articles on a underrepresented or completely absent subject, unless there is major disagreement about whether the content should be included. To organize efforts about completing articles on missing subjects, try creating a PipeProject.
13. Proposals can not be made about System Operator promotions and demotions. Sysops can only be promoted and demoted by the will of Bureaucrats.
14. If the Sysops 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.
15. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters, and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.

The times are in EDT (UTC -4:00), and are set so that the user is more likely to be online at those times (after work/school, weekend nights). If a proposal is added on Saturday night at 11:59 PM EDT, the deadline is the next Saturday night at 8:00 PM. If it is a minute later, the deadline is a day plus 15 hours (Sunday), as opposed to a day minus 4 hours.

CURRENTLY: 12:09, 25 May 2024 (EDT)

New Features

Rules and Regulations for Specific-Article Proposals

Since Redstar (talk) has (perhaps unintentionally) brought up the issue of proposals on specific pages (see Talk:Earth Crystal or Talk:Straw) and Walkazo (talk) has said that "talk page 'proposals' do have a habit of going unnoticed for months," I thought that a specific set of rules and regulations pertaining to talk page proposals. I'll give you a few ideas of what we could do, my solution, and then multiple options for voting.

We need a specific name for these proposals. I propose (no pun intended... really) "talk page proposals." I am open to other suggestions, but this is the name that I will use.

I believe that these talk page proposals should get at least some mention to the whole userbase via this article (MarioWiki:Proposals) or a page linked to it (possibly MarioWiki:Proposals/Talk Page Proposals). This page will link to all pending talk page proposals and explain the rules of talk page proposals.

Which leads to the most important part of this proposal: the rules. Now, I will give you all my rules for these pages; in my opinion they are fair and better for their purpose. Here they are:

1. All rules for talk page proposals are kept the same as mainspace proposals, with the exceptions made by Rules 2 & 3.
2. Voting in talk page proposals will be open for two weeks, not one.
3. Talk page proposals may closed by the proposer if both the support and the oppose sides have fewer than five votes.
4. The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on. (Sounds like a dumb rule, but it's best not to have loopholes.)
5. After two weeks, a clear majority of three votes is required. Without the majority, the talk page proposal will be listed as "NO QUORUM."

The format for the listing of talk page proposals should be as Walkazo (talk)'s example below.

If you vote to create a specific place for talk page proposals, you are also supporting the following three things:

1. Eliminate "Splits & Merges" section on this page.
2. Use "talk page proposals" to split and merge articles.
3. Have the templates {{Mergeto}}, {{Mergefrom}} and {{Split}} used on the articles to display a talk page proposal on the article.

As you can see in the voting section, I have given you a few options. Each should be explained sufficiently, but, if it is not, I will try my best to help you understand.

Note: Only if Part 1 passes will Part 2 be viable.

Proposer: Bloc Partier (talk) with additions from Walkazo (talk), Redstar (talk), and Marioguy1 (talk)
Deadline: December 25, 2009, 20:00

Part 1: Link to Talk Page Proposals

Link to Talk Page Proposals on MarioWiki:Proposals

1. Walkazo (talk) - It seems excessive to create a whole sub-page for a handful of rules and a bulleted list of links and small descriptions (assuming we format the list similar to the way I showcased in the General Comments below). It'd be easier to just create a new "Talk Page Proposals" section after "How To" with two sub-sections: one for the rules and one for the list. Also, people don't always bother with sub-pages, so this would ensure the list does get seen.
2. Edofenrir (talk) - Per Walkazo.
3. Bloc Partier (talk) - Per Walkazo, as long as MG1's addition is agreed to be added at some point.
4. Supermariofan14 (talk) - Per Walkazo, too.
5. Marioguy1 (talk) - Per BP :P
6. Redstar (talk) - Wonderful proposal. Supports everything I'm trying to do here.
7. Ralphfan (talk) – Per all.
8. Stooben Rooben (talk) — Per BP.
9. Tucayo (talk) - Changed vote, again. I support JUST if we make it like the example 22 did.
10. Cobold (talk) - per all.

Part 1 Comments

@Walkazo: I'm not sure if it would be a sub-page at all. The proposal is still new, so perhaps we could discuss it and Bloc could add a third option? New page, sub-page, and right here on this page... I would prefer the first option, since it would give equal attention to this general proposal page, though you're right. If the list were formatted as you've done (which I think is the best means of presenting the information), it probably wouldn't merit a page of its own, though I'm still wary of how and where it would be placed here without being ignored or taking up too much room. Discussion, I suppose. Redstar 22:07, 18 December 2009 (EST)

"MarioWiki:Proposals/Talk Page Proposals" is a sub-page. Also, we don't want to create too many options - that spreads the support votes rather thinly, whereas the outright opposers only have one option and could defeat the proposal even if the total number of supporters is greater. - Walkazo (talk)

Good point. I'll wait until Bloc puts in his thoughts, see if he revises anything. May change my vote over then. Redstar 23:20, 18 December 2009 (EST)

Yeah, it would be a sub-page. Marioguy1 gave me a great idea on my talk page; I'll copy and paste it here.

1. Eliminate "Splits & Merges" section on this page.
2. Use "talk page proposals" to split and merge articles.
3. Have the templates {{Mergeto}}, {{Mergefrom}} and {{Split}} used on the articles to display a talk page proposal on the article.
4. I can wire something up that will automatically update the proposals page where you list all of this (no matter where you list it) with all the new talk page proposals.

This would format it perfectly. We could replace the Splits & Merges header with either of the options above (Link to "MarioWiki:Proposals/Talk Page Proposals" or put the list right under the header), and it would regulate the practice of S&M's much more. With all this discussion, I'll revise the proposal while I still can. I'd just like to see your thoughts on MG1's stuff first. Bloc Partier (talk)

I like MG1's stuff for some reason :P Marioguy1 (talk)

As you can see here, 2257 has wired up a list of all things with {{Mergeto}} and what they are to be merged to Marioguy1 (talk)

Part 2: Rules

Use Bloc Partier's Rules

1. Bloc Partier (talk) - Per me.
2. Tucayo (talk) - Per BP
3. Redstar (talk) - Per BP
4. Ralphfan (talk) – Per BP.
5. Stooben Rooben (talk) — Per BP.
6. Cobold (talk) - considering that talk pages are not as easy to monitor than the Proposals page, the extra time is helpful. Also we shouldn't decide merges by just one vote more or less.

Part 2 Comments

Can you elaborate on your second rule? Redstar 19:40, 18 December 2009 (EST)

No putting a proposal to merge Mario with Luigi (don't ask me why I chose these two) on the Bowser page Marioguy1 (talk)

That's the third rule, I believe. I should clarify: I meant the rule headed under the third bullet (the first bullet doesn't seem to be describing a rule, so not sure why it's there). Redstar 19:50, 18 December 2009 (EST)

To clear up confusion, I numbered them and removed the specific bit. And now to answer your question: actually, the addition was somewhat arbitrary on my part. I sort of thought that since the proposer may change their mind or give up, they should have the power to delete their proposal. I dunno, just my thought process. What if I added a bit that says "...may delete their proposal if both the support and the oppose sides have fewer than five votes"? Oh, and I feel like I should add that if you (or any other users reading this) have a different suggestion for rules, just post them on my talk page and I'll put them right into the proposal with a new option for voting. Bloc Partier (talk)

I would prefer that amendment. If a proposal was per only an individual user's whim or personal taste, than it probably doesn't hold any merit. Even if they don't agree with it anymore, that doesn't change the fact it still garnered discussion and votes. If, however, the votes are fewer than five (three sounds better to me), then the proposal probably is something worth ignoring and not an important issue, so I would say the proposer should be allowed to delete, or, better yet, "close" the proposal. Redstar 20:13, 18 December 2009 (EST)

Great suggestion. I'll go add it right now. Bloc Partier (talk)

I may be too late to ask for an addition, but perhaps a rule on "clear majority rule"? If the given two weeks have passed, and no attention has been given to an individual article's proposal save the proposer's vote, that should not be counted as "majority in favor", and the proposer should not be allowed to act under that impression. While I'm not sure how many votes are fair enough to be counted for "significant attention to implement the proposal", three sounds fair because it's the lowest amount of votes needed to arrive at a majority-difference (two-to-one for either support or oppose). Thoughts? Redstar 02:28, 20 December 2009 (EST)

Hmmm... Yes, good idea. I think I should be allowed to add it, it hasn't been three days since posting it yet. Bloc Partier (talk)

Just create {{User:Bloc Partier/Proposal}} and then use that; it's an easy way to edit forever :P Marioguy1 (talk)

True... But it wouldn't be official lol. Bloc Partier (talk)

What I mean is, make that page and then on this page type {{User:Block Partier/Proposal}} - when they want to archive it they just have to copy/paste the coding from that page and you can edit it all the time (loopholes for all rules :P) Marioguy1 (talk)

Wow... That's pretty tricky. I kinda like it. But... I could potentially lose votes because of it. Bloc Partier (talk)

@Cobold: From what I'm reading in Bloc's rules, a three vote-difference is needed to determine a majority-ruling. My previous suggestion seems to have been misinterpreted, but done so in a way that the presumed rule actually kills two birds with one stone. Redstar 06:58, 23 December 2009 (EST)

Your previous suggestion about what, where, when? I just read Bloc's rules and voted for them. I did not have the time to read lengthly discussions about it. What do you want to tell me, that what I said isn't covered by Bloc's rules? - Cobold (talk)

@Redstar: Ah, my bad. Is that a good thing? Bloc Partier (talk)

Yeah. Like I said, the rule you put down covers two things rather than my initial one. I was about to suggest it, actually, but it worked out in the end. Redstar 17:34, 23 December 2009 (EST)

Oh, good. Just making sure. Bloc Partier (talk)

General Comments

Hmmm... This is a bit confusing. Oh well. If anyone needs help, I'd love to assist. Just ask. Bloc Partier (talk)

This proposal is allowed...Marioguy1 (talk)

Since Redstar's proposal is gone, here's a version of his list of pages that need attention. It's organized so that all the pages concerned have a bit of background info (except the Merging pages, since we've talked about them to death already and I'm feeling lazy right now; I don't understand the Yoshi baby one, so I couldn't talk about that one either). All the pages concerned are linked to, with the page who's page contains the proposal in bold. In the future, I think it would be best if the proposals were staged on a common page (i.e. Culex instead of one of the Crystals, seeing as they're all going into his page; the major articles' talk pages also have a higher likelihood of getting read than the more minor aspects). There should also be a note in the rules that the proposals shouldn't be staged on redirect talk pages, since they'll never get read in that case (it's a pretty "well, duh" rule, but Bloc Partier was right to make sure we minimize loopholes by stating the obvious as much as possible).

• Merge Crystal Bit with Crystal King.
• Mere Straw with Durmite.
• Merge Tuff Puff with Huff N' Puff.
• Merge Lava Piranha substituents with the parent plant.
  • Lava Bud
  • Petit Piranha
• Merge other members of the "Big Bad Brute Bros." Glitzville team with Hamma Jamma.
  • Bamma (the discussion for both characters is held here)
  • Flare
• Merge Tubba Blubba's Heart with Tubba Blubba
• Split Blue Toad into an article concerning only the blue Toad in New Super Mario Bros. Wii, with information concerning any other blue Toads being moved into Toad (species).
• Split Yellow Toad into an article concerning only the yellow Toad in New Super Mario Bros. Wii, with information concerning any other yellow Toads being moved into Toad (species).
• Merge Baby Yoshi into the Yoshi (species) article per previous proposal on differences between "baby" and "infant" characters/stages.
• Reorganize Metal pages.
  • Merge Metal Wario with Metal Mario.
  • Split Metal Mario into two pages: one concerns Metal forms in general, such as those appearing in the Super Smash Bros. series and Metal Wario from Super Mario 64 DS; the other concerns the character, Metal Mario. The final titles of these pages has yet to be determined.

The following proposals have been settled

• Merge Crystals with Culex or into a grouped "Elementary Crystals" article.
  • Template:Fakelink (the discussion for all the Crystals is held here)
  • Template:Fakelink
  • Template:Fakelink
  • Template:Fakelink

- Walkazo (talk)

Would you mind if I expand on the descriptions myself, since I'm aware as to what the purpose of each is? Redstar 22:00, 18 December 2009 (EST)

Be my guest =) I still get to fix any wording or gammar I see fit after you make your additions, though. - Walkazo (talk)

I believe that covers it more specifically. Redstar 23:16, 18 December 2009 (EST)

I reorganized the Metal Mario stuff to make it a bit more clear and succinct; between the naming issues and Metal Wario, however, I think that particular situation is muddled enough to merit a full-on proposal. That way, the discussion can be started fresh in a single location, and be sure to garner attention. Talk Page Proposals really should be limited to basic yes/no decisions on matters that are significant enough to require multiple users' approval before any action is taken. - Walkazo (talk)

I've been leaning towards that myself. I'll put together a general proposal that trims how muddy that one is, cutting it down to the basic one of Metal Wario being merged into it. Redstar 23:44, 18 December 2009 (EST)

I may be a little late, but I love the format, Walkazo. Also, I edited a new "rule" in. Bloc Partier (talk)

NOTICE TO ALL WHO HAVE ALREADY VOTED: I have added a few things to the body of the proposal. Please review these edits and revise your vote if you wish to do so. Thank you. Bloc Partier (talk)

Featured Image Rules

Many of you may be wondering why I put this in the "New Features" section and that is because we currently have no rules for Featured Images (except "must be in a mainspace page" and "no fanart". Everything needs rules and FIs are no exceptions. Here is my ruleset:

1. No re-nominating an image for a month after it has failed.
2. You can vote for an image to be unfeatured in the new "Unfeatured Image Nominations" section.

Proposer: Marioguy1 (talk)
Deadline: December 27, 2009, 17:00

Use this ruleset

1. Marioguy1 (talk) - Per proposal
2. Ralphfan (talk) – Per MG1.
3. Baby Mario Bloops (talk) That sounds fair, FA's and FI's are very alike. The rules stated above partly involve rules like such in FA's. Those two rules are very simple, and can really help the FI nominations...

Use current ruleset

1. Time Q (talk): I don't think those rules would be harmful but I don't think they are necessary either. If an image has failed only by a margin of 1 vote, then I see no reason why it shouldn't get nominated again for a month. Also, I really don't think we need to introduce a new Unfeature system for FIs. Once an image was featured, it won't be featured again (which is different from FAs), so no need to worry.
2. Stooben Rooben (talk) — Per Time Q. The current system is perfectly fine; there's no need to change it.
3. GalacticPetey (talk)::Per Time Q and stooben rooben The rules are perfectly fine

Comments

This ruleset should be easy to agree on considering it is composed of rules from the FA system... Marioguy1 (talk)

I dont like rule 3, as it is kinda pointless, why would you remove votes if they dont need to have a valid reason? Tucayo (talk)

You're right, that's redundant and I don't want to create a big ruckus by trying to change the current rules, I have removed it from my proposal. Marioguy1 (talk)

Sorry if this is kind of off-topic, but I have a different suggestion for a new rule: If the image with the most "positive" votes (i.e. support votes minus oppose votes) has less than 10 positive votes, it should stay nominated and instead one of the previous FIs should be featured again. Just wanted to throw that in. Time Q (talk)

Good idea but 10 may be a bit too much... Marioguy1 (talk)

Time Q: So what happens when we run out of images to feature? I'm just wondering. Marioguy1: In your proposal, you wrote "No re-nominating an article for a month after it has failed." Don't you mean "image"? Just to avoid confusion. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)

Sorry, you can tell what frame of mind I was writing this in :P Marioguy1 (talk)

Removals

Categories: List of Implied ...

I propose that the following rategories be removed without replacement:

• Category:List of Implied Characters
• Category:List of Implied Entertainment
• Category:List of Implied Events
• Category:List of Implied Items
• Category:List of Implied Locations
• Category:List of Implied Organizations
• Category:List of Implied People
• Category:List of Implied Species

Here are my reasons:

1. Each of those categories has only one article entry total, the respective List of Implied Characters etc. It doesn't look like those lists need to have their very own category each. They can just have both Category:Implied and Category:Lists.
2. Some have subcategories. Those subcategories are Category:Implied Characters etc. I don't see how those can be categorised as "List of ..." because an implied character is not a list. Just remove the List category and add Category:Implied, as above.

So overall I see no reason for them to exist. They have no possible entries. If you want to categorize the redirects, Category:Implied Characters is the way to go, but this is pointless.

Proposer: Cobold (talk)
Deadline: Saturday, December 26th, 2009, 20:00 EST

Support Removal

1. Cobold (talk) - per above.
2. Edofenrir (talk) - Per Cobold. I think I understood what the meaning behind this categories is, but I also think that this sort of organization is not necessary.
3. Baby Mario Bloops (talk) - Per all stated above!
4. Dry Paratroopa (talk) - Oh definitely.
5. Walkazo (talk) - Per Cobold. Each list does not need a category unto itself, and categorizing the redirects going to that list is equally pointless because the list page's Table of Contents already works as a built-in index to these subjects.
6. Tucayo (talk) - Per Cobold.
7. Stooben Rooben (talk) - Per Cobold.
8. Marioguy1 (talk) - This is like a merge :D, Per Co-Bald
9. Coincollector (talk) - since implied elements' info are being gathered into single articles, using these categories is, therefore, unnecessary.
10. Vellidragon (talk) - Per all.
11. Ralphfan (talk) – These implied things are rarely even mentioned; why do we need them?
12. GigaMetalLuigi (talk) - Support removal of Implied Characters, Entertainment, Items, Locations, People. Honestly, if the main category already has these already mentioned and covers it in the main article then no need to post it again on another page, just a waste of space.
13. Gamefreak75 (talk) PEr Cobold.
14. Zero777 (talk) I am Zero! We are a wiki not a wikia so the categories should be removed and put into one category; there is only one implies location, character, events, etc. Zero signing out.
15. Fawfulfury65 (talk) Per all.
16. King Bean (talk) Per all.

Comments

I'll support this as well, but I also feel we should do an overhaul on the categorization system in general. Redstar 00:01, 20 December 2009 (EST)

I fully agree, but I've been to busy to concept anything about a new category system lately, while the rest of the staff has been focused on overhauling navigation templates and user pages for now. It's definitely on our list. - Cobold (talk) 14:05, 20 December 2009 (EST)

Splits & Merges

Split the colored enemies

It has come to my attention that while articles for each of the differently colored Yoshis exist, other colored variations of enemies, such as Toads and Shy Guys, do not. I know there's exeptions, but ignore those. Anyways, I ask this one question: why? For the Yoshis, there is very rarely a difference between them, as with the rest, yet they still get articles. If they get articles, so should the other characters.

So I'd like to see some character articles be created.

Proposer: Reversinator (talk)
Deadline: Wednesday, Dec. 23, 2009 (5:00 EST)

Create articles for colored characters

1. Reversinator (talk) What I said above.

Leave as it is

1. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk) The Yoshis get their very own artwork and some get their very own, distinguishable stats such as Super Mario World, Mario Super Sluggers, and Yoshi's Story. The Yellow Yoshi article even had a personality section and some colored Yoshis have notable Yoshis. The other colored characters that are not Toad or Yoshi do not have distinguishable traits other than the color.
2. Gamefreak75 (talk) In Yoshi's Story the Black and White Yoshi like chilis while the others dont and per BLOF.
3. Marioguy1 (talk) - Are there significant differences between the different color Toads? I don' think so, the Yoshis have many differences, per BLOF.
4. Redstar (talk) - Each differently-colored Yoshi has a different ability, which implies they are all varieties or sub-species of some sort. Different color for other species rarely means anything, so they shouldn't merit their own article unless they are as different as the Yoshi are. I do, however, while we're on the subject, feel the differently-colored species of other races should be merged within their main article. No difference besides skin color/clothing color, no need for own article.
5. Walkazo (talk) - We don't have enough information on differently coloured members of other species to create decent articles: all we'd be left with is hundreds of mostly speculatively-named stubs that essentially say the same thing ("X Y is a X coloured Y appearing in Z games."). At least differently coloured Yoshis have slightly different abilities, but then again, so might Birdos (depending on whether or not Super Mario Bros. 2 featured one recurring, colour-changing Birdo or many individuals - that's not entirely clear in itself), so I can see where this proposal's coming from. However, if a change has to be made, I say merging is the better option.
6. Grandy02 (talk) - Per all. It needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis.
7. Time Q (talk): Per all.
8. Stooben Rooben (talk) - Per all.
9. FunkyK38 (talk) - Per you guys. Multicolored Toads and Shyguys don't have much difference from each other (Hope that makes sense), while the Yoshis had a whole game dedicated to them. Those articles would be stubs anyways.
10. Ralphfan (talk) – Per all.

Comments

@BLOF: In the Baseball games, tons of other colored characters appeared, all with different stats, so that's null and void. With Yellow Yoshi, it describes him as brave, but aren't all of them? All right, the hungriness of them is ok, but how about other Yoshi? You know, the ones that don't have any significant differences between them, such as Brown Yoshi, Light Blue Yoshi, Pink Yoshi, Purple Yoshi and Orange Yoshi? Very few differences between them.

@GF75: That information can easily be merged with the article. "All the Yoshis in Yoshi's Story posess the ability to eat the food and enemies in its path, although Black Yoshi and White Yoshi are able to eat Spiky Fruits, Peppers and Black Shy Guys". Of course, it'd be a lot more detailed.

@MG1: It varies between games. Also, what about the Yoshis I mentioned above?

@Redstar: Again, what about the Yoshis I mentioned above? Reversinator (talk)

I'm sorry, but I don't know how I'm supposed to vote. Your proposal is about two things: merging the Yoshi pages and/or creating individual articles for differently-colored species. I think you should revise your proposal so I know if I'm voting for one thing or two things. Redstar 09:33, 17 December 2009 (EST)

All right. Reversinator (talk)

I almost want to support merging all the different Yoshi colors to the Yoshi (species) article, but there's just so much much information that I couldn't bear cutting it to make it fit. I'm going to have to continue opposing unless you can provide a specific example of a differently-colored species that has enough differences between them attributable to their color that would warrant splitting. Redstar 10:37, 17 December 2009 (EST)

This proposal is pretty vague. If you give specific examples, it would be much more clear as to which exact articles you want split. Bloc Partier (talk)

Reversinator: Yes, the different colored enemies did have different stats, but it's only in the baseball games. Same thing goes for Pink and Light Blue Yoshi, because they have distinguishable stats only in the baseball games as well. However, Red, Blue, and Yellow Yoshi have different stats in other games such as Super Mario World, and all Yoshis have likes and dislikes of fruit in Yoshi's Story. We can't merge just Pink, Brown, Orange, Purple and Light Blue Yoshi because this breaks consistency. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)

There's a million different Shy Guy colors and some only appear once. For example, here's an article that will be created if the proposal were to pass:

Cyan Shy Guy

The Cyan Shy Guy is a cyan colored Shy Guy (obviously) that only appears in Mario Kart Wii as an audience member.

Then the stub template will be placed here.

It doesn't make sense. Gamefreak75 (talk)

Changes

Change naming convention for power-up form articles

Currently, we define the articles for various forms of characters upon power-up with the title of "Form Mario". This is ultimately misleading because many characters besides Mario have been shown to make use of different power-ups and wear the same form, yet we choose to use Mario as the catch-all despite him not being the official name for such a form, only the original user and most widely-known transformer.

While this practice isn't necessarily bad, it has resulted in some confusion on how exactly to merge and split the articles relating to the metal form. For example, Metal Wario is currently being proposed to merge with Metal Mario due to the shared nature of those characters under that form. However, the Metal Mario page is also being proposed to be split with information on Metal Mario the character (as seen in the Super Smash Bros. series and other media as a playable character). The problem resulting from this is that there would be two "Metal Mario" articles, or at least two very similarly named ones, with one being "Metal Mario" and covering the form, and the other being "Metal Mario (character)", which are both too similar to avoid confusion.

Another problem arising from this standard in naming convention is the placement of alternate name tags at the top of the page. While these tags certainly serve their purpose, they are also an eye-sore. Seeing boxy tags of any kind at any point on a page makes me think the article is incomplete or under construction of some kind. It just pulls me out of the right mindframe of reading and enjoying an article.

What this proposal is hoping to achieve is to change the current naming standard to one that more clearly and generally explains the contents of an article, as well as remove the need for the above explained tag. Any form a character can become upon use of a power-up, such as Frog Mario, Metal Mario, Fire Mario, etc. will be re-named to "X Form".

Proposer: Redstar (talk)
Deadline: December 26, 2009, 20:00

Change Naming Convention for Forms

1. Redstar (talk) - Per proposal

Leave Naming Convention as it is

1. Fawfulfury65 (talk) To be honest, I'd rather have it all x Mario, instead of x Form. I really never minded the templates on the page. Mario is the main character, so he should be the main names of the form. At least in my opinion.
2. Walkazo (talk) - As vellidragon mentioned in the comments, the games default to "X Mario" even if Luigi (or other characters) can power-up too, and going with actual names is much better than making stuff up ourselves, as would be the case with "X Forms". At least the duality templates don't look as bad as speculation templates gracing our articles. Also, in the Wario games, only Wario powers-up, so changing those to "X Forms" would be folly, but leaving them as "X Wario" while "X Mario" gets converted would look inconsistent.
3. Gamefreak75 (talk) Meh, it sounds weird. How would Fire Form or Fat Form (LOL) sound. Bomb Form, Snowball Form, Burning Form, there's millions.
4. Vellidragon (talk) Per my comment below. The way it's currently done is the most official.
5. Stooben Rooben (talk) — Per Vellidragon. Besides, as long as {{diff}} is used properly, it's easy to keep everything organized.

Comments

What about merging the forms with the items that cause them? That way, we can avoid the unofficial "X Form" names. The only possible problem with this is if different items are used to make the same form in different games. The only example I could think of off the top of my head, however, is Dragon Wario, and I think Wario-series forms should remain unchanged anyway, seeing as those powerups aren't exactly the same as in the core Mario series (and they're always unique to Wario, so the arguments about duality don't apply to them). - Walkazo (talk)

Mario becomes Metal Mario upon use of a Metal Cap, while Wario does so through use of a Power Flower... While I do support the idea, and have thought about it myself before, I'm not sure if that type of merge would sit well with the majority of people. It does make sense, however to have a single comprehensive on a power-up, followed by a second half detailing its use in different media. Not the most controversial merge-idea, but I'm sure some people wouldn't like it. Discussion, as always, and we'll see. Redstar 00:58, 19 December 2009 (EST)

I disagree with merging them with the power-ups; like Redstar pointed out, the forms can sometimes be caused by different power-ups. IIRC, the Fire/Super Mario transformation in the cartoons could be triggered by a Starman or even pasta. Not sure what to think about the renaming atm; it would get rid of the "alternative title" template thingy, but I'm not sure I like the "... Form" title very much. As far as I'm aware, manuals and strategy guides (at least older ones) have always used the "... Mario" naming scheme which we have on the Wiki right now (and if they didn't, they still used "... [character name]"); I'm not sure if "... Form" has ever been used in official sources. Imo, official terms should be used wherever they are known.--vellidragon 10:44, 19 December 2009 (EST)

@Vellidragon: I don't like the term Form that much either, but it carries far more general areas than "X Mario", when clearly any number of characters can hold such forms. In any case, we already categorize the forms under [Category:Forms], under sub-category [Category:Mario's Transformations]. The main category at least acknowledges that they're forms, but the sub-category is pretty narrow. Again, Mario isn't the only one to use these forms. Redstar 16:31, 19 December 2009 (EST)

@Walkazo: The thing is, saying that "Fire Mario" is the proper term is just as much "made-up" as "Fire Form" would be... Fire Mario, Frog Mario, Cape Mario, etc. were never names for the form itself, but for Mario himself when using the power-up. Assuming the name applies to the form as well is just stretching it too far. If we're going to "make-up" a term, I'd rather it be "form" so we can avoid confusion and using a tag that says "also known as" five times. Redstar 22:27, 19 December 2009 (EST)

I disagree: since things like "Fire Mario" appear in games and manuals, I think people will remember that term more easily and use it when they browse the Internet long before "Fire Form" occurs to them. Perhaps regular Users of the Super Mario Wiki will learn to use "X Form", but random guests probably won't, and they're the people we're trying to reach most of all. To the uninitiated, which is more welcoming, the familiar "Fire Mario" or an ambiguous "Fire Form"? That's what I mean my making stuff up: "Fire Mario" is straight from Nintendo, whereas "Fire Form" is taking a step beyond where they have gone, and if it's not canon, it's speculation, which is to be avoided at all costs. Nintendo is fine with using "X Mario" as a catch-all, and so should we. As for the Diff template, I think it's merely a matter of personal opinion on how it impacts the pages; myself, I've always thought it was a nifty way to handle these issues, and if anything, they make me more interested in the following information and its duality. - Walkazo (talk)

Well, I agree with "Form" being less official. Personally, I'm fine with the naming convention as it is now, but I was suggested to make this proposal just to get the issue settled so we can continue on with the proposals concerning Metal Mario and Metal Wario. I'm just playing Devil's advocate, you realize. Redstar 23:50, 19 December 2009 (EST)

The way I see it, the Metal page issue isn't because of the name, but because of the form vs. character debate. I posted another possible solution on Talk:Metal Wario to that end. - Walkazo (talk)

Your exact solution is being discussed on the Talk:Metal Mario page, on whether or not we should split it into "Metal Mario (form)" and "Metal Mario (character)". Feel free to add your opinion there. Redstar 23:57, 23 December 2009 (EST)

Change Gate Keeper back to Piranha Plant in the Generator

Somehow, Piranha Plant in the Generator is not the name of the creatures because apparently one person read in some unnamed guide that their name was Gate Keeper so that obviously was their name. This Proposal was made to see if people think the name is Piranha Plant in the Generator or Gate Keeper.

Proposer: Dry Paratroopa (talk)
Deadline: Saturday, December 26th, 20:00 (8:00 pm)

Change back to Piranha Plant in the Generator

1. Dry Paratroopa (talk) - Per Proposal.
2. Zero777 (talk) I am Zero! Although Gate Keeper will be easier to type down, you are right, just because a guide book in one language said Gate Keeper it could be an error or they are called like that in only one language, so that doesn't mean to change the name of the article because of an error or name change. Zero signing out.
3. Gamefreak75 (talk) Where the hell did Gatekeeper come from? It doesn't even guard gates! Per DP and Zero777.
4. Fawfulfury65 (talk) Per all.
5. Redstar (talk) "Gate Keeper" makes absolutely no sense. Change it back.

Comments

If it doesn't cover a general issue, only a singular one, I think this proposal would make more sense on the actual article's Discussion page. Redstar 19:51, 19 December 2009 (EST)

It would, but I'm kind of against talk page Proposals, because no one ever votes to those. For example, in the very talk page we're talking about there's a Proposal there and no one's voted yet as far as I'm aware of. Dry Paratroopa (talk)

If the name "Gate Keeper" is unofficial, there wouldn't even be a need for a vote and we could just move it back to an official name. Not everything needs to be decided by proposals. - Cobold (talk)

Yes I know but I'm not a sysop so I can't delete the pages so I can move it back (You can't move to an existing page). And besides no one else said anything on the talk page about moving it back so I was just checking to make sure I wasn't doing anything illegal. But of course, if I was so was that other guy... Dry Paratroopa (talk)

Remove Minus World from Category:Glitches

While I was looking at Category:Glitches I notice Minus World was in the list. I propose to remove Minus World from that list, reasons:

1. It is part of the Super Mario Bros. Glitches.
2. It is only one glitch and itself is an article.
3. It looks very out of place with it being in that list.

Proper: Zero777 (talk)
Deadline: Monday, December 28th, 17:00

Remove Minus World

1. Zero777 (talk) I am Zero! The three reasons apply. The real big reason is that it is already part of the Super Mario Bros. Glitches so why does it need to appear twice? Zero signing out.

Keep Minus World their

1. Redstar (talk) - It's a glitch. Not sure why it shouldn't be in the category for glitches.
2. Marioguy1 (talk) - Whether or not it is a glitch in other games, it was a glitch in that game and should stay categorized as one. Just like Mario is categorized as an enemy thanks to Donkey Kong, this should stay categorized as a glitch thanks to Super Mario Bros. and should stay that way.
3. Stooben Rooben (talk) — Per Redstar. If it's a glitch, it only makes sense to keep it in the glitches category.
4. Ralphfan (talk) – Per all.
5. Edofenrir (talk) - A glitch is a glitch. oô
6. Fawfulfury65 (talk) - Per all.
7. Walkazo (talk) - Per all.
8. Gamefreak75 (talk) Per all.
9. Reversinator (talk) A glitch is a glitch.

Comments

Can this be removed? We have many, MANY proposals and this one will clearly not pass? Any toughts? Tucayo (talk)

Yes it should be removed. It feels more like a joke proposal to me... Fawfulfury65 (talk)

No, I don't think it is within the rules to remove it any other way than to veto it...admins can veto it but it is not a joke proposal; though it is also not a properly thought out one. Marioguy1 (talk)

Even misguided proposal ideas can be valuable archived material: we can point to this in the future if anyone tries to demote Minus World from being a glitch again, saving us the trouble of phrasing out counter-arguments anew, and maybe even making the next proposer back down when they see their effort will be in vain. - Walkazo (talk)

Miscellaneous

Allow up to 8 Personal Images

Currently, a user is allowed up to four personal images (plus one in their sig). I think it would do no harm to allow a few more. It wouldn't cause users to upload a ridiculous number of pics and turn the site into Photobucket. There aren't many users who even have one PI, so it wouldn't take up a lot of server space. I see no reason not to allow a few more PIs.

Proposer: Ralphfan (talk)
Deadline: December 29, 17:00

Support

1. Ralphfan (talk) – Per above.

Oppose

1. Vellidragon (talk) - As the proposal states, there aren't many users who even have one PI, so I don't see why anyone would need that many.
2. Edofenrir (talk) - We are the Mario Wiki, not MySpace. If you are here, your goal should be to improve the content of the site, not to showcase your images. There are enough means around the internet for those purposes.
3. Cobold (talk) - Per Edofenrir, also you can just hotlink external images if you're in desparate need for them.
4. Bloc Partier (talk) - Per all.
5. Walkazo (talk) - Per all.
6. Stooben Rooben (talk) — Eight? That's really excessive. Our current number of allowed PIs is fine. It allows enough room for a user to express themselves on their userpage, and even in their sig. It's no more of a hassle to upload your pictures to Photobucket or whatever and link to them here, than it is to upload your pictures here and link to them. That's what image-hosting sites are for; that is not what the Super Mario Wiki is for.
7. GalacticPetey (talk) WHOA! 8! per Edofenrir
8. Reversinator (talk) Who'd need eight personal images?
9. Tucayo (talk) - Per all.