| All past proposals are archived here. This page is protected to maintain the discussion as was.
|
Splitting the Jump page
ACCEPTED 6-0
The Jump page has many officially named jumps with enough content for an article on the page. Should they all be split?
Proposer: Cobold (talk) (started by Plumber (talk))
Due Date: Thursday, August 2, 2007, 17:00 EDT
Support Split
- Cobold (talk) - The Super Mario Wiki has its own section for special moves, so it is pointless to put masses of them on the same page.
- Plumber (talk) They all have sufficent content.
- Xzelion (talk) theres enough info for them to merit there own articles.
- YellowYoshi398 (talk) – Most of the jumps seem worthy of articles and have enough information.
- Knife (talk) they do have enough content, thank me for that :). I propose we at least keep a short list of Jump related moves however.
- Max2 (talk) Read Plumber's comment below (the first one)
Oppose Split
We'll just use {{main}} Plumber (talk) 14:45, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
MERGING 5-0
The PMTTYD chapters article was merged with the game's article, so should we merge these articles for consistency as well?
Proposer: Knife (talk) (started by Plumber (talk))
Due Date: Thursday, August 2, 2007, 17:00 EDT
Support Merge
- Knife (talk) – we did this for PMTTYD, so what makes Paper Mario's chapters any more special enough to remain separate?
- Plumber (talk) same as Knife
- Cobold (talk) - The storyline is the main part of a game. It's unreasonable to split exactly that from the article.
- Max2 (talk) I agree with Knife.
- Beanbean (talk) I agree with Max and Knife.
Oppose Merge
You are offering Support Split and Oppose Merge. That's not fair. :P - Cobold (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
Hmm, what a weird mistake I made.Knife (talk) 15:02, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
Merging Macho Grubba
KEEP SEPARATE 5-2
We have a separate articles for many forms, but should Macho Grubba get to keep his article? We have articles on simple forms like Fire Mario or Cape Mario, but we do not have articles on Mr. L and Rookie (Bowser's alternate alias in MLSS). Does Macho Grubba deserve the same fate?
Proposer: Knife (talk)
Due Date: Thursday, August 2, 2007, 17:00 EDT
Support Merge
- Knife (talk) – Macho Grubba is only a form encountered in a boss battle once. I'd say Mr. L deserves an article more Macho Grubba since he antagonized Mario's crew almost half of the game (though I'm not saying we should split Mr. L either).
- Xzelion (talk) - What Knife said.
Oppose Merge
- Max2 (talk) Macho Grubba is a boss with a unique moveset, as well as being a tranformation of Grubba.
- Plumber (talk) We can't be inconsistent. Rookie and Mr. L are merged because they have no different powers from their normal forms. But Macho Grubba has different powers than Grubba, warranting an article. Plus, we must be consistent, as you don't see Fire Mario merged with Mario, do you?
- isyou (talk)Macho Grubba is a boss, and also progres's the story line. Macho Grubba should deserve his own article.
- Pokemon DP (talk) He is a seperate form. If you merge this with Grubba, then just merge Sheik with Zelda, or Zero Suit Samus with Samus.
- Paper Luigi DS (talk) as fire mario has its own, macho needs its own, fire mario is a level up, while rookie is just a different identity.
Merging Conjectural Minor NPC articles
MERGING 2-1
Do each of the conjecturally named Minor NPCs deserve an article? Are the NPCs in the Paper Mario series more special than other NPCs in the other RPGs just cause they have tattles? You decide.
Proposer: Knife (talk)
Due Date: Thursday, August 2, 2007, 17:00 EDT
Support Merge
- Gofer Having article on Unnamed, unimportant character is rediculous.
- Pokemon DP (talk) Merge them into one page. It is pointless to have articles with such low information.
Oppose Merge
- Max2 (talk) It was already decided, Knifey Needle.
Wasn't this decided long ago? Plumber (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
KEEP SEPARATE 4-0
Are Luigi's NPC Partners in PM2 considered important enough to be added with the playable partners of Mario's Partners?
Proposer: Knife (talk)
Due Date: Thursday, August 2, 2007, 17:00 EDT
Support Merge
Oppose Merge
- Knife (talk) this doesn't make much sense since they are more like NPC than partners and have never helped Mario.
- Plumber (talk) Even the person who put the template on (me) agrees with Knife.
- Cobold (talk) What Knife said.
- YellowYoshi398 (talk) – Like Knife said, these are only partners in the loosest sense. They don't fit in with the partners on {{partners}}.
KEEP SEPARATE 3-0
Essentially, the Piranha Plant in Generator is part of the Goop Generator, so does that mean they have to be on the same article?
Proposer: Knife (talk) (started by Stumpers (talk))
Due Date: Thursday, August 2, 2007, 17:00 EDT
Support Merge
Oppose Merge
- Max2 (talk) They are only inside the generator. If we kept that tradition, we might as well merge everything into the Earth article, which would be merged into Outer Space, which would be merged into the Marioverse.
- Plumber (talk) It is not the Generator, it lives in the Generator. Should Earth be merged with everything?
- Cobold (talk) - Species do have a high ranking. Objects like the generator do not. If anything, Goop Generator should me merged with Piranha Plant in the Generator. But I doubt it's necessary.
Species do have a high ranking. Objects like the generator do not. If anything, Goop Generator should me merged with Piranha Plant in the Generator. But I doubt it's necessary.
Why did the above vote by me get removed? What's wrong with it? I have a reason. Please explain yourself. - Cobold (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
Mario is a part of the Mario Bros, shall I merge them? And shall we merge the Koopalings into Koopaling? Max2 (talk)
Ummm... sure? I didn't even vote and I'm being attacked...Knife (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
You're the one that proposed it. Max2 (talk) not me.
- He didn't propose it, he just moved it. There was an ongoing discussion on the talk pages of the related articles. Also, you cannot compare things like that. - Cobold (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
Proposing it doesn't mean I support... sheesh.Knife (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
Sorry. And, the plant is part of the generator. Not THE generator. Max2 (talk)
KEEP SEPARATE 3-1
Do the colors of Yoshis deserve articles? Most are color variants of the Yoshi (species). Does this mean we have to mere them all?
Proposer: Knife (talk) (started by Ultimatetoad (talk))
Due Date: Thursday, August 2, 2007, 17:00 EDT
Support Merge
- Knife (talk)There can be a section about the colors of Yoshis, similar to Toads. I don't see many distinctive properties about the Yoshi colors and they should be merged into this article.
Oppose Merge
- Plumber (talk) They deserve articles with Category:Sub-species.
- Max2 (talk) different personalities, major differences in Yoshi's Story (So 've heard), and they are much different then the Toads, who are pretty much all the exact same.
- YellowYoshi398 (talk) – In games such as Super Mario World, Yoshi's Story, and Yoshi Touch and Go, colors of playable Yoshis have affected gameplay, and while Yoshi colors such as Blue Yoshi have been officially named, Toad colors have not. Yoshi colors strike me as worthy of articles.
"Major differences in Yoshi's Story (So 've heard), " Actually, the only diferences is that they like better (Read: They gain more health when they eat one.) the fruit that matche their color. Really, Only the Black & White yoshi stand out of the crowd. And where the Yoshi with different colloration showed a different personality? I played SMW, SMW2 and YS, and they din't seem to act different.
Gofer
I am waiting for a response, where did indivual colored Yoshi showed different personnality?
Gofer
- I don't really think they ever have (not that I've played every game out there), save for some individual Yoshis (like Yoshi and Boshi and the PiT Yellow Yoshi) who seem to have personalities regardless of their color. The SMA2 manual did give its Baby Yoshis personalities based on their color, though, by applying adjectives such as "hotheaded" to the baby Red Yoshi. YellowYoshi398 (talk)
Actually, Yellow ones have always had that personality *no offence YY* Max2 (talk) Lazy and hungry.
DON'T MOVE 2-0-4
The flying Koopas are currently under the article name of "Koopa Paratroopa", their official name from Super Mario Bros. However, I believe that we should use a name from more recent games, such as Paratroopa or Parakoopa as the article name.
Proposer: Cobold (talk)
Due Date: August 17, 2007, 20:00 EDT
Move to Paratroopa
- Cobold (talk) - It's their most-commonly used name.
- Xzelion (talk) - Per Cobold
Move to Parakoopa
Leave at Koopa Paratroopa
- Walkazo Changing it to Parakoopa could be just as silly as changing Pink boo, the name used in several games, to Red Boo, the name used in Mario Party 8.
- Phoenix Rider (talk) It sounds more official this way.
- Stumpers (talk) It's the full name. The fact that the abbreviation has been used in its place in later games really doesn't mean that the name has been changed. I would say that something like this would only be applicable in the case of Bloober's name change to Blooper.
- Plumber (talk) per Stumpers
Parakoopa should still be a redirect, at least. Max2 (talk)
- Of course. Just like Peach should redirect to Princess Peach, etc. Stumpers (talk)
- And Mario should redirect to "Mario Mario"? Xzelion (talk)
- I don't think so: that was his name only in other media. Rather, I would put Mario Mario as a redirect to Mario. Here's the thing: they're called the Mario Bros., but that doesn't mean their last names are Mario. It's just an assumption we've made based off of information from the Real World. Who knows how it works in the Mushroom Kingdom? Besides, remember how Wario and Waluigi are called Wicked Bros.? Perhaps the ___ Bros. thing doesn't even signify brotherhood. Stumpers (talk)
- In Yoshi Island they are brothers as they were delivered to the SAME Parents Walkazo
- I wasn't saying they aren't brothers. Simply that relying on the whole ___ Bros. concept to work as it would in our world isn't trustworthy, though, you see? All I'm saying is that we don't know their last names. Stumpers (talk) 13:42, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
Merging Wario Treasures
MERGING 7-0
Template:Llquote
- From with Grodus said on the template talk page, I'd like to add a bit more. First off all the articles state are:
- Number of the Treasure
- Description
- Retail Value
- Episode
- All which would be covered in the table, this would very much be like the Badges page. Any thoughts comments?
Proposer: Xzelion (talk) (started by Sir Grodus (talk))
Due Date: August 17, 2007, 20:00 EDT
Merge
- Xzelion (talk) - Per Above
- Gofer Theyy are too minor to warrant an article.
- Wayoshi (talk) – there's 130, right? And they each have the same info? Sounds like a job for a table page.
- Cobold (talk) - Too minor objects, and too many of them.
- Knife (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2007 (EDT) too many orphaned pages appearing.
- Plumber (talk) Per Cobold.
- Stumpers (talk) I find it ironic that my support was deemed "unsupported" by someone who writes "per so-and-so" after all of his posts. Please don't get rid of my vote. All I said was that we should do this only if we have a way to link readers to the part of the page where the item is, and not just to the top of the page. Here, I'll through in some good, hard boiled support. "Too many pages is nasty." Yay... it's been said before!
Keep Separate
Also all of these show up on the Orphan Pages. Xzelion (talk)
- Because of a bug. Plumber (talk) 14:21, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
- No actually I linked them to the MOD article and they're all gone :P Xzelion (talk)
OK, this proposal already ended!!! Yeah; and I finished working on the table; but it needs more infomation about the rest of 130 Wario's Treasures! *goes moving this part* RAP (talk) Let's get a move on to the tables I MADE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Removal: Glitch Articles
ARTICLES MERGED 10-0
Glitch articles are a problem, as we could have thousands upon thousands of them, although none of them have been officially named. I am proposing that we eliminate all conjecturally named glitch articles and either merge them to a "List of Glitches" article (similar to the Beta Elements page) or just erase them completely. If this proposal goes through, someone can take action to create a List of Glitches page. If no one cares, the articles will simply be removed. Either way would be fine. However, the Minus World article should be kept, as it has been referenced in Mario games and has an official name. A list of glitch articles can be found here.
Proposer: Son of Suns
Deadline: August 31, 2007, 20:00
Delete or Merge Glitch Articles
- Son of Suns I am the proposer and my reasons are given above.
- Sir Grodus I had this idea a while back, but forgot about it. And yes, putting the glitch articles all in one place seems best; though I'm not opposed to just getting rid of them completely, since I see no real use in having them anyways.
- Wayoshi (talk) – 1000s of minor errors in programming are better put on 1 good-sized page
- Lario (talk) I think they should be deleted, but also keep the Small Fire Mario page because it appears in a few more games.
- SpikeKnifeNeedleSword (talk) 23:09, 24 August 2007 (EDT) glitches are unintended results of the developers, thus they are non-canon. I don't even think they should get a list page.
- YellowYoshi398 (talk) – Most glitches aren't notable enough to merit their own articles, and, as Wayoshi said, there are just too many of them. A List of Glitches page is a good idea.
- Purple Yoshi (talk) - I agree with YY
- Plumber (talk) I agree with PY
- Max2 (talk) Agree with YY, Knife, and Wayo.
- Walkazo - I agree with YY, Knife, Wayoshi and Max2. Also, lots of glitches don't even have their own articles, being mentioned in the "Trivia" or "Glitch" sections of their games' artciles only. It's a pain to find these glitches in the Wiki, but they don't have enough info to be anything more but stubs. Lump all the glitches together and it will make everyone's lives faster and easier, deleteing them will just make the people who want to read about them angry.
Keep Glitch Articles
SPLIT 4-9
We've had list of Microgame pages, like WarioWare, Inc.: Mega Microgame$! Introduction Microgames and individual Microgame articles. This proposal is to finally set whether we should go by list of Microgames or make an article for each Microgame.
Proposer: Knife
Deadline: September 1, 2007, 20:03 (EDT)
Go by Lists
- SpikeKnifeNeedleSword (talk) Since microgames tend to be 5 seconds long (unlike mini-games), I don't see why we should give each one of them an article. I think we should keep boss microgames though.
- Paper Luigi DS (talk) i've played a little micro-games before, and there really short, i go with knife here.
- Purple Yoshi (talk)Microgames don't have enough information to make it one article.
- Phoenix Rider (talk) - Per the three above. They're just way too insignificant.
Make Articles for Every Single Microgame
- Moogle (talk) I think they do deserve an article.
- Son of Suns - Every single microgame is officially named I believe, and it is my personal wiki philosophy to support an article for any officially named game element. Also, microgames change a lot based on the difficulty. New challenges are added, as well as new characters and backgrounds. One microgame soemtimes feels like three microgames in one with a common objective. There is a lot to be said about each microgame.
- vruet1 (talk) What Son of Suns said.
- Uniju :D (talk) They should each get their own article...
- Plumber (talk) I must say that I have shared Mr. Anakin's thoughts on this subject.
- Max2 (talk) They all have enough info. The problem is no one will ever take the time writing them.
- RAP (talk) Keep them as full articles. I believe they could be created in a infomative way since I started writing the microgames starting with the first WarioWare game. Here are some examples of microgame articles written by me: Crazy Cars, The Maze That Pays, and Super Wario Bros..
- Pokemon DP (talk) Dude, if you are gonna put them on one big list, put all the Mario Party Mini-Games on one big list.
- Luigibros2 (talk) I all ready started to make Micro game articles I don't my work to go to waste.
I just want to say that any micro-game article will probably have more information than many of our item articles, especially Paper Mario items (This item can be cooked with this item and another item. This item heals 25 HP. vs. This micro-game was developed by this character. To play the game, the player must do this. On higher difficulty levels, more enemies appear.) Some articles don't have a lot of information, but that does not mean they don't deserve to be articles. Also, I don't think we should split up any current lists of micro-games until the articles are created (and not be created as stubs). -- Son of Suns
Everyone seems to think a microgame article would be like this:
"(name) is a microgame where you must (whatever)"
But they wouldn't. They could have info on all difficulties, levels, a few of them have cheats, and the like. Max2 (talk)
Although (most) Microgames do have more to write about than their name and what you do (as Max2 pointed out), they still don't have enough to be full articles. It's a pain to have to go from tiny little article to tiny little article, it would be faster and easier for people to learn about the Microgames if they were all together in one big article instead of 1000s of little ones. And this same mantra should be applied to other stub-esque articles, like Paper Mario items (as cited by Son of Suns), glitches, and many, many more. - Walkazo
- I believe a "full article" is relative term. To me, I feel anything that is officially named is worthy of an article, regardless of size. Although the article may be small, it shows the world that we feel everything officially recognized by Nintendo should be recognized by us. Everything is important, and everything official deserves an article. Categories and list pages can organize this multitude of articles. If someone wants to read all the Microgame articles, they can go to the Microgame category. Although this takes a few extra clicks of the mouse, this tiny effort is symbolic of the effort Nintendo went through to create the subject. Now I am not going to start any flame wars over this, and I will agree to merges if the community does. But ultimately, the philosophy I just mentioned will be one I will always advocate and hold on to. -- Son of Suns
- I can respect that. - Walkazo
My comment is directed toward Pokemon DP: The difference is that the Mario Party ones are mini-games, whereas the WarioWare ones are micro-games. The ones from the Mario Party series have much more bulk to them and therefore warrant their own articles. Microgames on the other hand, are small and rapid-fire, over in seconds. Not worthy of their own article if you ask me. Phoenix Rider (talk)
- Mini-games from Mario Party and microgames from WarioWare have the same amount of "bulk". The only difference is that mini-games last longer. Both have players repeating the same action over and over - mini-games just make you do the action over a longer period of time. -- Son of Suns
KEEP SEPARATE 1-11
Both species were once on the same page, however, Plumber splitted the page in two without asking anyone first. I say the twop page should be merged since the two species have the same name.
Proposer Gofer
Deadline September 1, 2007
Merge
- Gofer
Keep it that way
- Vruet1 (talk) They are different and deserve different arcticles.
- Plumber (talk) They are completely different species.
- 3dejong (talk) totally different. I agree.
- YellowYoshi398 (talk) – Per above; they're different species.
- Uniju :D (talk) They are DIFFERENT...
- Purple Yoshi (talk) Yep, they are different enemies. You can't merge them just because they have the same name.
- Walkazo and PP Different enemies! One is a Bandit, the other is a snifit! Different species for crying out loud, mergeing them because they have the same name is crazy!
- Pokemon DP (talk) Keep, they are differant enemies. Although, Plumber should've asked someone before spliting them.
- Paper Jorge (talk) They're two different species with the same name.
- Phoenix Rider (talk) - Separated like this, it's easy to avoid ambiguity and thus, confusion.
- Luigibros2--There different keep them apart
If then, I guess we should split the Merlee (aswell as the other shaman) article to the various PM incarnation, they are different.
Gofer
Gofers got a point, and they are both called zeus guy. but i'm staying neutral.
Paper Luigi DS (talk)
- That is only assumed, not officially stated. - Cobold (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
- But then, so is the Zeus Guy thing. They act different, look different, but have the same name.
Gofer
Reformat Featured Articles...again!
ADD POLICY 9-0
Featured Articles are an important part of any wiki, and I think it is about time we get users excited about featured articles again. I am propsing we do away with the new PAIR system, and institute a new, simpler system I developed (but heavily based on the successful Wookiepedia FA guidelines). By making the nomination process open to more users, and making it simpler, we will encourage people to get involved in the FA process. This new system will be like the original, but stagnant nominations will be removed after a month of inactivity. That way, we can avoid having huge lists of nominations if no one is working on the articles. All new featured article nominations would have to be recast. If we do not have a featured article by the time the new main page is up, we should invite users to help the Super Mario Wiki find its first featured article. Here is what the featured article nomination page will look like:
The featured articles of the wiki are articles that represent the best the Super Mario Wiki has to offer. This is not a way to showcase the articles of your favorite characters, items, or the like.
An article must…
- …be well-written and detailed.
- …be unbiased, non-point of view.
- …be sourced with all available sources and appearances.
- …follow the Manual of Style, and all other policies on the Super Mario Wiki.
- …not be tagged with any sort of improvement tags (i.e. rewrite, expand, etc).
- …have a proper lead that gives a good summary of the topic and can be used for the front page featured box.
- …have a reasonable amount of redlinks.
- …have significant information from all sources and appearances, especially a biography for character articles.
- …not have been previously featured on the Main Page. Otherwise, it can only be restored to featured status.
- …include a reasonable number of images of good quality if said images are available.
- …be notable and have significant content – some complete articles like Spiny Shroopa do not have enough information to become FAs
First, nominate an article you find is worthy of featured status, putting it at the bottom of the list below; see criteria above. Note that a previously featured article cannot be featured on the Main Page again; however, it can be restored to featured status if there are no other featured articles in queue.
Others will object to the nomination if they disagree that the article is good enough; they will then supply reasons for doing so, and ways to improve the article (errors, style, organization, images, notability, sources).
Supporters adjust the article until the objectors (with reasonable objections) are satisfied.
The article is placed on the featured article list and added to the front page queue.
Also, if, at least a week after the article's nomination, that article has five supports and no objections, it will be added to the queue, and will be officially known as a "featured article".
How to vote:
Before doing anything, be sure to read the article completely, keeping a sharp eye out for mistakes.
Afterwards, compare the article to the criteria listed above, and then either support or object the article's nomination.
If you object, please supply concrete reasons for doing so, and how it can be improved. Please cite which rule your objection falls under. Failure to do so will result in your objection being considered invalid.
As stated above, any objections will be looked upon by the nominator, supporters, and anyone willing to improve the article, and action will be taken to please the objectors.
Once all objectors' complaints have been solved (or the article has five supports and no objections after at least a week), the article will be added to the queue and be officially known as a "featured article".
Also remember to add nominated at the top of the article you are nominating.
Every Sunday the next article in the queue will be highlighted on the Main Page as featured, marked with the featured template and removed from the list of nominations. The beginning of the article then appears on the Main Page via the featured articles template. Nominees that are inactive for a month will be eliminated from the nominations list.
Proposer: Son of Suns
Deadline: September 4, 2007 17:00 (EDT)
Use this New System
- Son of Suns - I am the proposer and my reasons are given above.
- Sadaharu (talk) - PAIR was a flop.
- Wayoshi (talk) – I guess it's the old system with more checks for validity. Fine with me, it always seems templates like {{PAIRreview}} are hours of work eventually wasted for me :P.
- Cobold (talk) - This is a good system for featured articles. However, the PAIR system helped me to improve the article a lot, helping me to get it into a status in which I can nominate it. I'd like it to stay as a non-compulsory feature, if it's okay.
- Plumber (talk) Yes, a simpler system would be used more often.
- Max2 (talk) I agree with SoS's reasons.
- Purple Yoshi (talk) I like it.
- Phoenix Rider (talk) - See Comment below.
- Xterra1 (talk) I guess.....
Use the Old PAIR System
To Cobold: I can keep the templates in existence so people can review freelance. Wayoshi (talk) 13:11, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
- PAIR reviews can still be used to help people improve articles, but they will have no effect on FAs. We can use any system that helps people get articles to the highest quality! =) -- Son of Suns
The system is good, but whatever we decide, we need to get a system and lock it in. As of right now, rules governing FAs have been all over the place. Phoenix Rider (talk)
Unused Image Deadline
ALLOW MORE TIME 9-0
Recently, a user uploaded an image at 23:07, 29 August 2007. Said image was marked for deletion as an unused image at 23:13, 29 August 2007, six minutes later. While I believe the tag was placed there in good faith, it was still a case of jumping the gun.
A while back, I made a note that an image should be used as soon as it is uploaded and was backed by Wayoshi. Now, however, I feel that I was a bit to hasty. I'm seeing more and more images that are being marked for deletion as unused images very shortly after said images where uploaded. I know from experience (as do a great many of you) that sometimes dropping images into articles doesn't always work out, for various reasons (a bit of wikicode is malformed, said images looks like crap in chosen placement, etc.). For these reasons, I'm thinking we should extend the limit a bit. Lets say one day for personal images and 12 hours for everything else. What say you all?
Proposer: Chris
Deadline: September 6, 2007, 17:00
Allow More Time
- Wayoshi (talk) – reasonable time limit, though I feel if a bit of investigation were done to the contribs of the uploader, less issues would come up, as we may discover errors in wikisyntax. Btw, I may be able to list all such images in DPL, not sure
- Max2 (talk) seems fair.
- Cobold (talk) - I argued on this already, it's needed especially when a used image gets removed from a page. We don't know who removed the image, and if everyone agreed to do so.
- Pokemon DP (talk) - I Agree with every single word being spoken on this.
- Purple Yoshi (talk)-They need more time. Besides, they might find a way to put it in. This has happened to me before.
- Jaffffey (talk) - It should be left more time, he probally was starting to use it, then got sidetracked.
- Paper Jorge (talk) Half-an-hour is fair. Six minutes is not.
- Phoenix Rider (talk) - It's rather unreasonable to delete an image right away if they see it hasn't been used for a couple hours, for example. I'd say give at least a day.
- Master Crash (talk) what pj said.
Delete Right Away
- Well, seeing as this is now a proposal, I'd like to note that this, as a guideline, would govern people who mark images more than the uploaders. -- Chris 20:35, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
Split Bowser and Bowser Bones
KEEP MERGED 3-8
I think Bowser Bones deserves his own article on the Wiki, seperate from Bowser.
Now before anyone gives me that "but they da same person omgz" stuff, let me just say that Mario is also the same person as Raccoon Mario, Metal Mario, Superball Mario, and Fire Mario. But then again, they all managed to get their own articles.
Oh, and don't tell me that he doesn't deserve an article because he was in one game only. That's Superball Mario's case as well, and, excluding remakes, Raccoon Mario's.
Proposer: Dodoman
Deadline: Sept. 6, 2007
Split the Articles
- Dodoman
- Lario (talk) Per guys whose name are Dodo
- Max2 (talk) no reason not to, I agree with the claims above completly.
Keep them Merged
- Son of Suns - They shouldn't be merged because Bowser Bones is an unofficial name. The skeletal Bowser is just named Bowser. It's the same character and the info seems more important in the Bowser article itself - I would rather read about Bowser's death and afterlife in the Bowser article than have to go to a entirely different article.
- Cobold (talk) - No need for an additional conjectural article.
- Gofer|Gofer Per SOS.
- Xzelion (talk) Per Son of Suns
- Pokemon DP (talk) Per Son of Suns.
- Walkazo - Per SOS. Besides, for all we know Bowser's been a skeleton plenty of times already (NSMB's not the only time he was dumped in lava, after all). His many deaths and afterlife experiences are better placed within his article, not a conjecturaly named one based on only one of those instances.
- Phoenix Rider (talk)Per Son of Suns and Walkazo.
- Uniju :D (talk) Per all of the above :P.
I don't think you can argue that because forms of characters have their own articles, all different forms of characters should have their own articles. I don't think, for example, that we need an article for Mario's paper airplane form from PM2. If you want to argue for Bowser Bones having his own article, you have to point out that he is important enough to warrant it. (I don't know, haven't played the game.) Is the name even official? - Cobold (talk) 16:42, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
- Well... he's a boss, that seem notable for me. I don't think he has an official name, I have the official strategy guide, and he's only reffered as "The skeletal version of Bowser."
Gofer
Anyway, I find kind of funny that we have a proposal for splitting a conjectural minor form, but we don't do the same for the officialy named Super Show alter-Ego that cluter up the article.
Gofer
As Cobold said, just because some characters have artciles concerning different forms doesn't mean they all have to. I think it should be based on how much can be said abouit the different forms. In the case of Raccoon Mario (for example) you can talk about how Mario becomes a Raccoon and how that enhanses gameplay, as well as out-of-game stuff like how Raccoon Mario is practically the mascot for Super Mario Bros. 3, and how much the Raccoon suit was featured in the TV show based on the game. Meanwhile, for "Bowser Bones" all we can really say is that Bowser falls into the lava, becomes a pile of bones that behaves like a Dry Bones before getting smashed by Mario and dumped into a potion by Junior forming Bowser one again. That's not enough info for a whole article. - Walkazo
Super Mario Sunshine "Secret" Areas
KEEP 2-5
Pages such as The Shell have been created as pages in their own right. I don't think that they are special enough to be credited in their own right simply because they are "Secret" areas. Besides, you actually need them to finish the game. I'm a little put off by the existence of PipeProject: Levels, however, because they are technically levels.
Proposer: Phoenix Rider (talk)
Deadline: September 9, 2007, 15:00
Delete them
- Phoenix Rider (talk) - As above.
- Xzelion (talk) Per Phoenix Rider
Keep them
- Son of Suns - For now, I am saying keep, because these levels appear to be officially named (The Shell article does not have the conjecture tag). As an officially named sub-area, these should be given their own articles. Also, sub-levels such as the Princess' Secret Slide and the Secret Aquarium from Super Mario 64 have their own articles.
- Plumber (talk) Why would we delete stage articles? They have every right to deserve articles.
- Walkazo - I don't see why they should be deleted, they're actual levels after all, and the whole point of Super Mario Wiki is to get as much Mario information available to people as possible, including stuff on all the tiny little levels, sub-areas and worlds of the Mario series. Since it takes slightly more effort to get to Secret Areas, it makes sence to give them articles seperate from the main areas they're found in. For now, anyway.
- Luigibros2 (talk) as per above
- Pokemon DP (talk) Per above.
The Shell is a place, and while the corresponding mission is called "The Shell's Secret", it's not actually a "Secret Level", which is what I think all the confusion is about here. And while we're on the subject of Super Mario Sunshine places, I think there should be a category for Super Mario Sunshine Places. That way the sub-areas and the normal areas can be viewed along side each other. - Walkazo
Cool User Lists
DELETE 12-6-4
Many users have a section on their userpage listing other community members they like. Often there is unnecessary conflict and even (pardon) stupid flaming when a user removes someone from this list. I say we get rid of all of these sections – there's no need to hurt anyone's feelings over any one of these. True friends – online or offline – can't be simply added or removed from your life on a list. We have a good group dynamic overall in our community, so let's not wreck it. Another option is to rename & rephrase all these lists so they are neutral, such as "User Neighbors I Know", though removing users could still bring questions and trouble.
Proposer: Wayoshi (talk)
Deadline: September 19, 2007, 17:00
Delete Them All
- Wayoshi (talk) – reasons in description above.
- Xzelion (talk) saying some people are cool and leaving some out is a recipe for bad blood.
- Bastila Shan You guys are right,
- Pokemon DP (talk) Agreed, I removed my Cool Users list already.
- Ghost_Jam (talk) If the wiki had a few hundred active members, then I could see sections like these working. The way it is, no.
- Walkazo - Per Xzelion and Ghost Jam.
- Uniju :D (talk) - After reading the above... Per all the other dudes... *Goes to delete his*
- User:Fixitup - Makes perfect sense to remove them.
- Plumber (talk) Even a neutral one will one day cause a problem somewhere.
- Toadbert101 (talk) Wayo is right. You couldn't believe how long I wiated to be in one,seems right not to make people do that like me.
- WarioLoaf (talk) - i will remove mine right now. I agree fully.
- The K (talk) I agree. These lists might hurt someone's feelings.
Rephrase for Neutrality
- Master Crash (talk) - per my comments.
- Zach121- I think that they should change the name to wiki friends
- King Mario (talk)-I'll just descibe if I met/talked to them and how I helped them or how they helped me.
- Lario (talk) Change name like alll guys above
- 3dejong (talk) no need to totally DELETE it. Dude.
- Purple Yoshi (talk)-What's wrong with having one. Look at mine! Mine is neutral.
Keep As Is
- Max2 (talk) The only people who flame about these things are the people who don't edit.
- Luigibros2 As long as it ain't flameing or swearing at another user it's fine.
- YellowYoshi398 (talk) – Cool User lists were made simply to list friends and make others feel liked. It's silly to start flame wars over them, and that seems like something very few people here would do.
- Peachycakes 3.14 (talk) Per Yellow Yoshi
Could we do something like, users we've come across? or at least something like that. Master Crash (talk)
- That would be the option "Rephrase for Neutrality". - Cobold (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
oh.....Master Crash (talk)
While I agree that we should nuke the cool user list, I have the impression it would create a flame war as bad as the one over the removal of featured article. Thus, I'm kind of neutral on it.
Glowsquid
I havn't seen a flame war, yet, but its stupid to fight over something like this!
Master Crash (talk)
- Fg flamed Glowsquid in chat. Xzelion (talk)
- To be honest it doesn't matter if we rename it or not, everyone knows what is it, no-mater what the name, at this point renaming it would be useless. Xzelion (talk)
- Agreed. For something like this to work and not be a problem, we would need a far larger number of active users than we currently do. -- Chris 17:46, 13 September 2007 (EDT)
can i do two? 0_o Master Crash (talk)
- What? Xzelion (talk)
MAKE THIS ARTICLE 14-0
Some day ago, Wayoshi deleted an article about Wario Mall, an organization briefly mentioned on a spot in Mario:Kart DS. The Mario Kart series is FULL of random sponsors. I thought we could create a list of these organization of one page, since they do exist, but aren't major enough to have their own articles.
Proposer: Glowsquid
Deadline: September 19, 2007, 17:00
Create that list
- Glowsquid
- Xzelion (talk) Per Glowsquid
- Bastila Shan What gofer Said
- Cobold (talk) - Too minor to warrant articles.
- Walkazo- Good idea.
- Uniju :D (talk) - Sounds like a neat idea!
- Aipom (talk) Per Glowsquid.
- Snack Sounds like a great idea. Like Cobold said, they are way too minor to have their own articles, but one big list of them would be great.
- Plumber (talk) I think I was going to do this a long time ago, but wasn't sure if they should be on a list or not. Now I've made my decision.
- YellowYoshi398 (talk) – This is a great idea; Mario Kart sponsors aren't worthy of their own articles, but a list would be fine.
- Master Crash (talk) Ya, i've always wanted somethin like this.
- Minimariolover10 (talk) Why go through article after article? Plus, I have slow internet connection. I mean, whoever known Wario was a maller? I'll help because I have all Mario Karts except for Wii (duh), Super, and Super Circuit.
- User:Lario Per everyone above
- Ghost_Jam (talk) - As long as it's kept to only a list, I see no problem.
Nay
I've gathered up most of the things. Though, I probably missed some, including Wario Mall. But a huge in order (except for Nintendo and Mario Kart) is:
- Super Mario
- Shoot!!
- Dangerous!!!
- Peach Grand Prix
- Yoshi's Egg Grand Prix
- Super Mario GP
- Super Mushroom
- Luigi Tires
- Wario Waluigi GP
- Yoshi Kart
- Sunshine Parts
- Mario Kart
- Daisy
- Delfino Fruits
- Koopa Shop
- Nintendo
- Waluigi Pinball
- Waluigi Sport
- Wario Racing
- Snowman
- Skating Rink
- Koopa Kart
- Super Star!
- Wario GP
- Koopa Sport
- Moo Moo Farm
Is this most of it? I went trough EVERY course and try looking for them.
Minimariolover10 (talk)
Do'h! I forgot. These are the only ones I found in Mario Kart DS. Sorry! I know they're more! Minimariolover10 (talk)
I could try looking for adds in Mario Kart: Double Dash!! (I already do it for fun anyway), but that's the only Mario Kary game I have other than DS. - Walkazo
Do it! And don't pic random order, do it in order, because the past stuff in Mario Kart DS don't advertise. Maybe my bro SonicMario and I can do race to double search in Mario Kart 64. Does anyone have Super Circuit or the first one? Minimariolover10 (talk)
I have the original, and it don't have any kind of sponsor in it. I have Super Circuit (And pretty much every games in thes series except GP, infact.
Glowsquid
OK. Does someone live near an arcade that has Mario Kart GP? There's gotts to be at least one! This is pretty big, and if someone makes the article add
{{construction}}
because there have got to be more.
There's no adverts in Super Circuit b/c the stages are flat, just like the original. I just wanna say thanks for going through all of this :) Stumpers (talk)
O rly? OK. Now Double Dash, 64, and finish Mario Kart DS. Minimariolover10 (talk)
I've seen one thats not on that list in mario kart 64: koopa air.Super Yoshi 10.
Should I add it?Super Yoshi 10
That's not a list of ads in all the Mario Karts. It's just DS. Start another one on the comments if you feel like it, not add to list! Minimariolover10 (talk)
- Actually, it is.
Glowsquid
What? You mean Mario Kart DS has almost all the ads? Minimariolover10 (talk)
Recipes Pages
DO NOT MERGE 3-9
Almost all of the Recipe Articles are short and state:
- What Game
- What Effect
- How to get the item
- Picture
All which would be included in a table. Table shown here, Credit to SpikeKnifeNeedleSword for the design. This would work such as the Badges page. Lets face it they're too minor and too many of them.
Proposer: Xzelion (talk) (started by SpikeKnifeNeedleSword (talk))
Deadline: September, 19, 2007, 17:00
Merge
- Xzelion (talk) My Reasons are stated above.
- Bastila Shan Xzelion is right
- Cobold (talk) - Though items which can be gotten without cooking, such as the Boo's Sheet, should still have their own article.
Keep Separate
- Son of Suns - As officially named items they should be kept. They have just as much info as any other item in the series. They are exactly the same as regular items: what game, what effect, how to get the item, and a picture. Look at the Strange Leaf article, a normal item used for recipes. It is exactly what is in a recipe article, or any other item article for that matter.
- Moogle (talk) - We have articles for other items, dont we? D:
- Uniju :D (talk) All items should get an article, since a lot of them can be gotten by cooking, AND by finding them somewhere not to mention some other reason... *Talks for hours*.
- Aipom (talk) Per SoS.
- Plumber (talk) Per that Pokemon
- YellowYoshi398 (talk) – Per SoS.
- Booster - Per SoS. They qualify for seperate articles, as they are officially named, and they have different effects, unlike say Wario game treasures.
- Glowsquid - Per Booster.
- Minimariolover10 (talk) Bad idea to merge them all, because they have each have a chart, and some don't causing it to be rather messy and would even longer then the Jump article!
Son of Sun: Your example would be a little more convincing if you didn't purposely choose a stub. For normal items, you can talk about were they are found, if they are revallant to the plot (Like the Dried Shroom) ,how you can obtain them apart for beating up random enemy, and how they can be used for cooking. For a recipe, you simply say which item can be used for cooking them and their effects, deffinately a table job IMO.
Glowsquid
I think there's been some confusion between recipes and food items. As far as I know, Recipes are "Item 1 + Item 2 = Item 3", not the food items involved, which is what seems to be the common belief (Food Items are even categorized as Recipies, which makes no sence). I'll use the Dried Shroom article to highlight my point: The text part is about the item Dried Shroom, and the "Recipes" secion is a list of the recipes it's used in. Make a list of the recipes, but keep the articles about the items. - Walkazo
Look at the Shroom Steak article. There's numerous ways to make one. If we were to list all possible ways of making each item, the chart would be huge. Also, a list makes it harder to describe items in detail, such as is it worth the money to cook, or is it unworthy, and should only be made once just for the recipe log? Booster
There are problems on with both solutions. The current way, we have a high number of articles that are just a few words shy of stub-status (EX: Fried Shroom). The other way, we end up with a handful of very, very long articles (EX: Shroom Steak). We need to find a middle ground. -- Chris 20:01, 17 September 2007 (EDT)
Mario Cartoons: Split Multiple Episode Pages
SPLIT ARTICLES 9-1
Some of The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! cartoon articles are seperated by what cartoon episode they appeared with, such as the article King Mario of Cramalot / Day of the Orphan. This proposal would split these articles into two independent articles. Each episode is independently named, and in re-releases of the series, such as on video and DVD, the episodes are often grouped differently from the original television release, showing that the pairings are rather arbitrary. While it should be noted what episode each one originally appeared with, I feel each cartoon should have its own article. It's strange having an article that is split in two sections that are basically completely unrelated.
Proposer: Son of Suns
Deadline: September 21, 2007, 20:00
Split these Articles
- Son of Suns - I am the proposer and my reasons are given above.
- Xzelion (talk) Per Son of Suns;
- Pokemon DP (talk) Agreed. They are two entirely differant episodes, with nothing to do with each other.
- Plumber (talk) Per all the ones on my side
- Walkazo - Per everyone above.
- YellowYoshi398 (talk) – Per SoS.
- Sir Grodus – Per Son of Suns; The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3 articles are seperate, so I guess these should be too.
- Booster - Per everyone else. The two stories are unrelated. I'd be willing to fix things up a bit once this proposal goes through.
- Toadbert101 (talk) Sounds good.
Keep them Merged
- Minimariolover10 For "cartoon-learners", I think the should only spend half the time, and I find it fine.
Minimariolover10: Could you expand on your comment about cartoon-learners. Most of the Mario cartoon episodes were "half-episodes" (half of the half-hour show), but they all have plots and deserve their own articles. I couldn't even find an episode called cartoon-learners... - Walkazo
If this proposal goes through (and it probably will), I think that we should integrate the live-action segments from The Legend of Zelda cartoons into the chronology of the segments from the Mario cartoon episodes, like so:
- Neatness Counts
- Day of the Orphan
- All Steamed Up
- Marianne and Luigeena
- Slime Busters
- The Mario Monster Mash
And so on, meaning that every fifth segment would be from the Legend of Zelda, for a total of sixty-five segments. -- Booster
- I just want to state this is not part of the proposal, but users can debate this issue on article talk pages (or here - whatever; I'm just saying any consensus reached on this issue is distinct from the actual proposal). -- Son of Suns
