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. At any time a vote may be rejected if at least three active users believe the vote truly has no merit or was cast in bad faith. However, there must be strong reasons supporting the invalidation.
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: 15:47, 5 May 2024 (EDT)

New Features

Make bestiaries or not?

Ok so users have been arguing on if there should be a bestiary for enemies or not(like a collection of all the enemies from a game in one article). Really, why do we need a bestiary? I'm not the best at explaining, but my reasons on why there shouldn't be a bestiary are below.

1. First of all, bestiaries are worthless because you're just deleting a list of enemies from a main article , and then putting that content into a new sub-article and adding stuff, like where the enemies appear. But why don't we just keep all that in the main article and not have a whole article on enemies and where they appear? In fact, writing about where enemies appear in main articles or bestiaries, as you can just click on the link to that enemies page and read about where they come from there!
2. Some users made a huge table for the BiS enemies. I can tell that it took them a lot of work, and if the BiS enemies are put in a bestiary, than those tables have to be deleted! And there's no point of erasing great work!
3. Bestiaries can make some stubs. How? Some games such as Mario is Missing, Yoshi's Cookie, Super Mario Bros., and Mario Bros. have very few enemies. Making their list in a bestiary will make a short list, resulting in an unwanted stub.
4. Why do we need bestiaries when we have categories about enemies? You can just go to category:Paper Mario enemies or category: Mario and Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story enemies, then click on the link to their article, and read about where they appear.
5. Wikipedia doesn't even have bestiaries! We may not be Wikipedia, but it is a much more experienced wiki. The users they probably know better than to put in bestiaries.

So yeah, no need for bestiaries. Happy voting!

Proposer: Fawfulfury65 (talk)
Deadline: 5, December 2009, 15:00

Get rid of all bestiaries

1. Fawfulfury65 (talk) Per above.
2. Baby Mario Bloops (talk) - Keep it!!! Bestiaries are for Paper Mario stuff, since it actually tells about the enemies in the game. The Mario & Luigi series have RPG enemies, but don't describe them in the game. Easy choice.
3. FunkyK38 (talk) - I'd have to go with you guys on this one. I know how hard you all worked to finish the whole thing. Per FF65.
4. Dry Paratroopa (talk) - Per BMB.
5. Gamefreak75 (talk) Per my comments below.
6. Coincollector (talk) - Per all. Another thing really unnecessary. Most of bestiaries are small, poor and so-simple lists that can be created within main articles without any complication. Why making those simple things harder?
7. MATEOELBACAN (talk) - Per all,we don't need this,they make the pages of their respective games shorter and make the pages of the "bestiaries" a stub,Really not necessary!.
8. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk) Well, considering the fact that I think the gallery is stupid, at least I don't have to go to another article just to read info on the enemies.
9. Supermariofan14 (talk) - No, it's all right in the game article. However, in RPG games we may put them in alphabetical order.
10. Frostyfireyoshi (talk) - Per all. Only the Paper Mario series actually requires bestiaries.

Oppose

1. Redstar (talk) - Okay, you changed the proposal 'and apparently removed the Oppose section after we had voted. I was under the impression Bestiaries would remain for only the four main RPGs, Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars, and the three Paper Mario games. Now that you changed that, my vote is back on opposing.

Comments

Is this proposal supposed to delete all bestiary articles or only those pertaining the M&L series? Lists of enemies should belong on the game's article (Paper Mario games shouldn't get any special treatment). I'd support preventing all bestiary articles.--Knife (talk)

Uhm... Does this Proposal actually intent to change anything? If so, then the header of the second paragraph is misnamed. If not, then what's the point? - Edofenrir (talk) 20:12, 29 November 2009 (EST)

I think it's only gonna change the newly added bestiaries of M&L series. I've gotta disagree with you Knife, though. Mario and Luigi series have no bestiary, while the Paper Mario series have bestiaires (Tattles, Catch Cards, and whatever the heck they are).Gamefreak75 (talk)

No this counts for all articles on games. Not the Mario and Luigi series. So if the most users think that there shouldn't be a bestiary, than we will only have any, unless it is really needed(like for PM games). But if the most users want there to be bestiaries, than we'll put bestiaries for all games. Fawfulfury65 (talk)

I'm not really too fond of bestiaries for the M&L series, but if this proposal passes, do we have to create bestiaries for SMS and NSMBW and other games?Gamefreak75 (talk)

Yes but I honestly doubt we'll have to make any bestiaries. A lot of uses didn't like the idea of bestiaries, but I made this proposal to solve an argument. I hate when people fight on the internet. Fawfulfury65 (talk)

Yeah, but I think the bestiaires for PM games should stay.Gamefreak75 (talk)

Yes, because PM has tattle info and stuff needed for bestiaries. Just for the PM series. Fawfulfury65 (talk)

Perfect! I shall vote now.Gamefreak75 (talk)

Uhm... I just want to inform you, that, should the Proposal pass in favour of the site who is leading atm, absolutely nothing will happen, because the header says "Keep as is". - Edofenrir (talk)

FF65, when you mentioned the BiS table stuff, I think that one user made it, while another user fixed a grammar problem (not trying to be selfish, just stating that fact) :) - Baby Mario Bloops (talk)

So do have to change something because the header says "keep as is"? Fawfulfury65 (talk)

Wait, I have a question, does that mean that the PM bestiary will cease to exist if this is heading in the direction the atm side is on? Baby Mario Bloops (talk)

The Proposal should probably be rewritten. It seems to cause much confusion. - Edofenrir (talk)

Ok ok I fixed it a bit! Does it make more sense? Fawfulfury65 (talk)

Well, it's more straight forward now, so I guess yes. - Edofenrir (talk)

There seems to be some confusion as to what a bestiary is. A bestiary is a complete list of all enemies found in a particular game, as well as the places they are located. It has absolutely nothing to do with tattle information, and in no way ends up as a stub. Really, Fawful is misleading you all as he apparently hasn't even read the current bestiary for the Paper Mario page. The intent of bestiaries are to avoid crowding main articles and expand on information that would otherwise be a list. Please, look at all the information before casting your votes. Redstar 22:23, 29 November 2009 (EST)

Ok forget about the stub parts. Yes, I read the bestiary for PM, a list that can be added to the main PM article but isn't. And if bestiaries don't include tattle info, than that just makes bastiaries more worthless. And putting all that in the main article won't clutter up anything, in fact, if you really want to know where certain enemies appear, than just check out their article, that simple! We don't need bestiaries, Wikipedia doesn't even have bestiaries on games! Fawfulfury65 (talk)

We're not Wikipedia. If we were, we wouldn't even be covering half the article as it is. And bestiaries aren't worthless... The entire point of them is to clean-up the main article, because no one wants to read a list of enemies found in that game. It takes up space for more important information. Splitting that list off into its own page, as well as expanding it to include location information, both cleans up the main article and keeps information presented in a more specialized location. Really, the only reason against this is because it's a little more work. The only reason you brought it up is because you don't like the things needed to be done to make the Mario & Luigi page worth Featuring. Laziness does not excuse professional standards. Redstar 22:46, 29 November 2009 (EST)

If you want to continue this discussion, then do it without accusations! Everyone, maintain a mature standard of debating please! - Edofenrir (talk)

I would like to, but I don't approve of someone going behind my back and lying about what something constitutes just so they can avoid doing it. This entire proposal is based on personal misconception, which implies Fawful didn't even look at the bestiary page as an example. I just hope we can both resolve it and get people looking at the facts. Redstar 23:06, 29 November 2009 (EST)

CoinCollector: Bestiaries are not meant to be simple lists. They are a more thorough amount of information detailing locations in-game found, stats, and in-game tattle or player's guide information. These are things that should be there anyways, but if they were would take up too much room and so are moved. Several articles already do this and it's supposed to be done for all of them, but hasn't already. The only reason this is up for proposal is because Fawful and MATEO don't want to do the necessary work to make their articles worthy of Featuring, so are attempting to side-step it by creating a proposal to undermine current standard. Redstar 02:20, 30 November 2009 (EST)

Making a bestiary in that way is similar to create an article for each enemy found in the game. Adding too info for enemies in the game's article makes the enemies' articles themselves redundant and useless, even making an attachment on that issue. In other words, you would like to "merge" (or "copy" or whatever) the info seen from multiple articles into one... Coincollector (talk)

It's not similar to that at all. Enemies stats differ from game to game, so in actuality this splits that information from the main articles to the related game articles, thus saving space. There is no merging at all. The main articles, such as a Goombas, for example, shouldn't be swamped with technical information from each game. It should only cover the history of that enemy throughout the games. Stats and such is better suited for the bestiary related to each game. An example of what a basic bestiary is would be the Paper Mario/Bestiary, which simply lists each enemy and the location they're found at. A more extensive bestiary is the one for Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Tattle Log). This information is individual from game-to-game, specifically the RPGs, so the RPGs are the only games affected to such a degree. Other games, such as Super Mario Sunshine, only need to be filled out in the basic way. Redstar 03:10, 30 November 2009 (EST)

That info fits without problems in the main article, so, why move it? in fact, I see there is no official descriptions (eg: in-game info) or something like that as to fill the "missing space" for those lists, just technical information (HP, Attack, Defense, etc) and that's fairly short. Changing over the info for the character articles will look them more formal but less dynamic - and maybe is by the fact that looks like we abused the purpose of the information tables, but that's other tale. The tattle log of Paper Mario looks like for me a walk-trough than real information... Well, that's just my opinion. Coincollector (talk)

It should be moved because it's supposed to have all that essential information filled out, but if it did it would take up too much space. That's why bestiary pages are warranted. The problem is that the Goomba page, for example, used the correct table for an enemy while the Amazy Dayzee page does not. It uses the box associated with the RPG game. These main character pages shouldn't have all that technical information and should focus on the history, appearances, etc. The technical information should be moved to the corresponding game bestiaries, where they provide better focus and clean up the various related articles. Also, the Paper Mario bestiary looks that way because it's unfinished... It's supposed to look like the TTYD one. Redstar 03:53, 30 November 2009 (EST)

Hey, I made this proposal to solve arguments you know! And stop it, Redstar, here, you're calling me and MATEO lazy, you called me a liar(which I am absolutely not!), and you're telling everyone that I'm misleading them! And now you're arguing with a sysop! Just wait until Dec. 5th when more users decide. Until then, I'm done with this, I'm going to fix up my proposal's description and wait for other users to vote on which they want. I hate arguing! Fawfulfury65 (talk)

It's called discussing, not arguing. I have perfectly valid reasons for believing you both lied and are lazy. For laziness, I discussed many points on why I felt the Mario & Luigi page wasn't yet ready for Feature-status, including splitting off the enemy list into a bestiary. Rather than give reasons not to do it, or simply split it (which was all I asked, was to split it and we could work on expanding it later) you came here and formed a proposal that, if passed, results in you not having to do it. How is avoiding work or discussion not lazy? As for lying, your initial proposal stated that forming a bestiary would delete work already done and create nothing but a stub. Both are untrue because moving all this work to a new page as-is does not delete it, and if it would become a stub, then that's because it's already a stub. Splitting it doesn't change a single thing. It can't become something unless it already is that thing. You may not have lied, but you obfuscated the facts. Redstar 09:02, 30 November 2009 (EST)

I made this proposal to stop the endless chat going around on those nomination pages. That's not lazy at all. My reasons on why we shouldn't make bestiaries are stated above. Therefore, we will wait for others user to make up their mind. Fawfulfury65 (talk)

That was not chatting, that was discussion on issues relating to the article that you could have easily argued there. Instead, you formed this proposal. If you didn't like the proposed work to make the article fit for Feature-status, then you should have provided legitimate reasons against it. Instead I find this proposal a means of sidestepping professional discussion for a chance to not do the work. I don't want to argue over this, but I would like you to admit to what is obvious. Wikis take compromise and collaboration, not finding ways to get around work or discussion. Redstar 09:23, 30 November 2009 (EST)

Fawfulfury65 recently re-wrote his proposal to better explain reasons against forming bestiaries. I will now write a rebuttal to each point explaining why bestiaries are both a good idea, and why his reasons are misinformed. Here we go:

1. Fawful asks why we can't just have the information on the main page. Well, truthfully, we can, but the reason why we shouldn't is because there are simply so many enemies that by naming them all, it becomes nothing more than a list. Even if they are fitted into tables, that list becomes much larger and, while more "pretty", takes up space. Splitting it to a new sub-article saves space on the main article as well as allows the information to be presented to its fullest where it won't distract from the main information. He also suggests simply clicking the enemy links to read on their main articles where they're located... Well, the problem with that is that enemies appear in more than one game. Any information on how and where they appear in this game simply won't be provided. The bestiary would provide actual locations in the game where they are found, giving far more information than can be found otherwise.
2. Fawful's second point is that the current list of enemies are presented in a table, which took "hard work". I can personally vouch that the tables are very badly-written and lack in-depth information. I cannot see much of any work having been put into them at all. Regardless, these tables won't be deleted on splitting. There's no reason to, so there's nothing to fear.
3. He suggests that bestiaries would create stubs for games that don't have a large amount of enemies. This is false thinking because bestiaries are only necessary for the RPG games, which both have a large number of enemies as well as a plethora of statistics for those enemies. No game articles besides the RPG ones are affected by this, because only the RPG articles need it.
4. We need bestiaries because they provide quick and easy information for enemies found in a game. Categories are not a legitimate substitute because people don't often look up categories, and categories only list articles. Categories provide just as much information as using the search-function does, which simply does not work.
5. Finally, Fawful points out that Wikipedia doesn't use bestiaries, so why should we? Well, Wikipedia also doesn't create articles about specific enemies, so I think that explains why Wikipedia does not apply here.

I hope all those points explain why I feel bestiaries are both necessary and logical. Perhaps a few people will change their votes, but if not, I hope you all feel you have the correct facts and are making an informed decision. Thank you.

Just to point out, my proposal goes for all games. Also, be aware that I am a she, not a he. Fawfulfury65 (talk)

Sorry. I don't know how I would have known, but sorry for the presumption. To respond to the clarification of your proposal, bestiaries are currently only meant to be for RPG articles, and since your proposal is to not have bestiaries, than technically your proposal wouldn't extend past RPG games anyways. Redstar 09:40, 30 November 2009 (EST)

MATEO: Did you even read any of my points or look at any of the bestiaries there already are? They're nowhere near being a stub! Redstar 21:23, 30 November 2009 (EST)

BabyLuigiOnFire: What Gallery do you mean? And the Paper Mario/Bestiary isn't exactly something that can fit on its main page. Redstar 22:45, 30 November 2009 (EST)

I think she(BL on fire) meant the separate page of images (such as artwork and screenshot) found in articles like Wario or Luigi because I'm not too fond of it either. LeftyGreenMario (talk)

I changed my vote because I realized this proposal changes nothing already done, and actually agrees with my initial position. It was just so badly presented I had no idea what Fawful was trying to get at, but in the end I realized we can both benefit from this proposal. Redstar 00:55, 1 December 2009 (EST)

Half of you need to re-vote, seeing as how this proposal is now changed to remove Paper Mario bestiaries.--Knife (talk) 14:20, 1 December 2009 (EST)

I was actually thinking we could change the PM bestiary to Paper Mario/Tattle Information because most of it is tattle info. Then all the hard work going into the sub article wouldn't get deleted if the most users decide to get rid of all bestiaries. Fawfulfury65 (talk)

Removals

None at the moment.

Splits & Merges

Merge Traps and Obstacles pages to super-article

These pages are usually quite small and would be better suited if merged to a super-article. This would allow them to be better located as well as cut down on needless articles covering every minor aspect of the games.

Proposer: Redstar
Deadline: December 1, 2009, 17:00

Support

1. Redstar (talk) Proposer

Oppose

1. Coincollector (talk) - That's really unnecessary. Not ALL traps-and-obstacles articles are one-sentence long. If they had that size would be rapidly deleted cuz Mariowiki doesn't approve that. Second point, if we have short articles - more than one sentence long, sure, we just add they are stubs and soon these pages can receive more information by a good contributor.
2. Time Q (talk): Per Coincollector.
3. Edofenrir (talk) - Per the collector of shiny round metal pieces.
4. Fawfulfury65 (talk) Whoa no way! That would be too big of an article which = more time to load. Gee... that would be an ULTRA article and would be very cluttered too! And per Coincollector.

Comments

I fixed up the coding, remember to use the format ===<proposal=== when making a proposal. Marioguy1 (talk)

Yeah, I'm sure there's a lot of coding I need to learn. I joined up and made some edits over a year ago, so I'm trying to jump into it again now. Thanks for the advice. Redstar 17:35, 24 November 2009 (EST)

Let me get this straight: You want to merge all traps and obstacles articles from everywhere into one single article? - Edofenrir (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2009 (EST)

Yes. Why do we need an article explaining what a "spike" is and how it is bad for the player? This is repeated ad infinitum, ad nauseum with many other articles. A single article saying "Obstacles and traps are (or a separate article for the two mechanics) game mechanics that hinder the player, etc." then a list of the different traps. It's cleaner, more organized, and doesn't seem to be detrimental to anyone unless they like reading one sentence-articles on things that make much more sense in a general page. Redstar 18:07, 24 November 2009 (EST)

Considering how many obstacles there are in the Mario series, wouldn't it take forever for the page to load if we do that? Mario Wiki is slow enough the way it is. :/ ToadetteAnime4evur (talk)

There are currently 135 articles in the Traps and Obstacles category. Each article is as short as a single sentence to only a couple, few-sentence paragraphs. Combining all of them into a single super-article will amount to a page nowhere near as long as one the character pages, which are currently some of the largest on the wiki. With some re-writing and removal of pictures to form more of a general article featuring a list, this will drop to a more manageable page. (It should be noted that a cursory look at the category shows several articles that appear to be enemies, not traps or obstacles. This miscategorization will also cut down the article's size when cleared up) If this is still too long for you or others, I have no qualms with two super-articles, one for "obstacles" and one for "traps". This will cut down the pages even further. Redstar 21:12, 24 November 2009 (EST)

"Coincollector (Talk) - That's really unnecessary. Not ALL traps-and-obstacles articles are one-sentence long. If they had that size would be rapidly deleted cuz Mariowiki doesn't approve that. Second point, if we have short articles - more than one sentence long, sure, we just add they are stubs and soon these pages can receive more information by a good contributor. "

How much information can feasibly be added to an article on spikes? A stub sometimes will remain a stub, since the information related to an article's subject can be limited. While it may be true that not all of the trap and obstacle articles are so short, they are still too short to constitute a true article. It's simply trivial. A general article groups all the information together in a much more appropriate environment. Redstar 21:59, 24 November 2009 (EST)

Despite for being a short article, that doesn't mean it will remain short forever. Anybody can add more info to these articles if they know more of them. Furthermore, we have the pipeproject Unstubify where many users want to remove that (annoying) stub tag to make short articles longer and informative. Coincollector (talk)

Yes, but how much information can be added to an article on a trap. "This game mechanic kills Mario. It kills him by doing this." I'm perfectly willing to expand on these articles, and am currently doing so to many other stub articles, but in the long-run it's simply not something that can be expanded. Get me a book where Miyamoto discusses the artistic direction that went into creating spikes, as well as the aesthetic team that decided where to put it and how many, and the programming niceties involved in putting it there, and so on, and we can expand it. Redstar 22:22, 24 November 2009 (EST)

Sorry, but your latest comment is forcing to go beyond of a topic that I ain't concerned by now. How can I find more info for a single short article since personally I'm busy for other objectives of my life? I don't know but sometime... Coincollector (talk)

I was speaking in generalities. I don't suppose anyone can find that kind of information, and that's my point. I have the time and the interest, but I can't find such information. It simply can't be done. These articles are trivial and would be better suited for a general super-article that covers the general topic. The information will remain the same, but is in a quick-and-easy place for viewing similar game mechanics. Redstar 22:37, 24 November 2009 (EST)

Then if you couldn't find more info, too bad, but even so that doesn't mean the article is and will be stub. I think this proposal something unnecessary just because you think all the obstacles are short, contain the same info (it kills the character and nothing else) and THEY'RE NOT articles - then what they are?. And if you are still thinking so, then think about the one-time appearance characters. Coincollector (talk)

I'm not adverse to some of these articles remaining that have sufficient information. The Fire Shooter and Fire Spitter articles, for example, have some information that serves for an expanded reading-experience (design failure and development throughout the series), but many other articles are simply unnecessary or permanently stubs. Look at this, for example:

"A platform is an obstacle in almost every adventure video game, and the Super Smash Bros. series. In sidescrollers, the player can jump through platforms (and in Smash Bros' case, drop through as well), but in 3D games, the player would need to get on them as if the game were real life. Some platforms cannot be jumped through in sidescrollers (Mario Bros. for example), but most can. "

Really? An article on platforms? I honestly cannot see how that could be expanded into a significant article. This is the kind of thing that simply begs to be grouped. As for your "one-time appearance characters" example, I must say that there are several pages that group characters together that lack insufficient information. Try any of the "List of Implied X" categories. Redstar

Actually, in an article about a platform, we could list all the different types of platforms that appear in the games. But forget about that. Why can't we merge the obstacle articles into the game they appear in, instead of a "super -article". Or perhaps a sub article about obstacles on a certain game. Like for Yoshi's Island(the game) it could be, Yoshi's Island/obstacles, just like we did for beta stuff. Fawfulfury65 (talk)

Something like that could work, but many platforms, obstacles, and traps make multiple appearances throughout the series. I really just want to get most of these articles placed somewhere where they can provide more general information. I really don't see the point in have them all separated, so alternative proposals are fine by me. Redstar 01:12, 29 November 2009 (EST)

Category Split

OK, this proposal is to propose that we split Category:Featured Articles into Category:Featured Articles and Category:Featured Images. I have no idea why featured images are categorized as featured articles but I just have this feeling that they should both get their own individual categories. The only change that would be needed to do this would be a little edit to {{FI}}. This is an easy thing to do and will stop images from being categorized as articles.
Proposer: Marioguy1 (talk)
Deadline: Friday December 4th, 2009 (8:00 EST)

Split

1. Marioguy1 (talk) - Per above.
2. Coincollector (talk) - Agree with Marioguy1. Period.
3. FunkyK38 (talk) - Umm.... yeah. Why are Featured Images counted as Featured Articles? Makes sense. Per Marioguy1.
4. Vini64 (talk) Wow... Per Marioguy1.
5. Edofenrir (talk) - Per Em Gee Won.
6. Fawfulfury65 (talk) Per all.
7. Super Mario Bros. (talk) Huh? Darn, that is my mistake. When I was creating that template, I copied the coding from {{FA}} so that I could have a reference. I forgot to change the category. Anyway, obviously, Images aren't even articles, so this makes sense.
8. MATEOELBACAN (talk) Per All.
9. Gamefreak75 (talk) Per MG1.
10. Baby Mario Bloops (talk) Makes more sense, and a lot organized.
11. Reversinator (talk) Agreed.
12. T.c.w7468 (talk)Uh... yeah, per all (though who would oppose?)

Merge RPG Boss Minions With Main Boss Articles

This proposal is for support of moving a particular type of boss minion (as explained below) in the RPG games to their related main boss article. This is because these particular minions are only encountered in battle alongside bosses, because their Tattle information suggests they are either a part of or actually are the boss, because the main boss article is lacking complete information, and finally, because the splitting of these minions has largely resulted in stubs.

The following are a list of which minions are proposed to be merged, to whom, and why.

1. The four Elemental Crystals in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars, being Fire Crystal, Water Crystal, Earth Crystal, and Wind Crystal. All but the Wind Crystal are stubs, composed of mostly only a single sentence and an enemy template. These enemies are only ever fought alongside Culex, whose article already covers most of the information these stubs have. I propose merging these articles as sections of the main Culex page and creating redirects.
2. The Bowser??? article to the main Koopa Bros. article as a sub-section. This enemy is not another boss, but a different round of the Koopa Bros. battle. In fact, the Bowser??? is occupied and controlled by the Koopa Bros., making it more a weapon than an actual character/enemy. It should be noted that the Koopa Bros. article contains information on all four Ninjakoopas, rather than each of them having their own page. Merging would make this article more comprehensive.
3. The Chompy article to the main Tutankoopa article. Chompy is only fought in the boss battle with Tutankoopa, and acts as both his weapon and pet. The article on its own forms a stub.
4. The Tubba Blubba's Heart article to the main Tubba Blubba article as a section. Though sentient, Tubba Blubba's heart is essentially the same character as Tubba Blubba and acts as the first round to that boss fight. Dividing them gives the impression that both are bosses, despite the fact they're the same boss, as well as treats them as different characters. The heart is more like a different personality than a character. Merging with the main Tubba Blubba page completes the article and joins together the fragmented description of the two-part boss battle.
5. The Shy Squad article with the main boss page, General Guy. Only encountered as aspects of the boss battle, acting as living weapons for General Guy.
6. The Petit Piranha and Lava Bud articles with the main Lava Piranha boss article. They are only ever encountered during the boss fight with the Lava Piranha. In fact, Lava Bud's Tattle description says "Lava Buds are little flower branching out from the main stem of the Lava Piranha.". This clearly points out they're only different "heads" of the same enemy. Petit Buds are spewed from Lava Buds, making them also part of the Lava Piranha. All are really the same enemy, so they should be merged to provide comprehensive information on the singular character.
7. The Tuff Puff article into the main boss Huff N. Puff article. Tuff Puffs are only ever encountered in battle with the boss Huff N. Puff, and their Tattle information even says "These are the Tuff Puffs that break off when you damage Huff N. Puff." This clearly makes them the same enemy, just different "heads". Merge as a section.
8. And, finally, the Crystal Bit article into the main boss Crystal King article. Just like all the previous examples, Crystal Bits are only ever encountered in battle with the boss Crystal King. Also, like some of the previous examples, their Tattle description says " This is a Crystal Bit. Basically, Crystal Bits are just pieces of the Crystal King. You can drop 'em with ease. Their Max HP is 1 and they're only dangerous when the Crystal King spews 'em out. Their defense power is 0. These guys are pretty weak. They'll keep coming, though, until you've finally beaten the Crystal King." This clearly says they are the same enemy, just different "pieces".

In summation, here is a quick and easy list of what this proposal will accomplish:

1. Remove stubs by merging them with their main articles
2. Create more complete articles by piecing together all the information in one place
3. Remove unnecessary division of information

And reasons why:

1. The information is divided. Putting it all in one place creates more complete articles as well as removes stubs
2. Many of these divisions are enemies that are either different rounds of a boss, or just their weapon. Still others are just pieces of the boss, so aren't really a different enemy

If anyone has any questions or comments, feel free to use the Comments section below. Hopefully I provided enough information to make a decision. If you agree with this proposal in general, but you don't agree with some of the merges or are wary of the reason why, feel free to comment about it and we can discuss it. This is a big proposal and I don't want anyone Opposing if they don't agree with just one aspect.

Proposer: Redstar
Deadline: December 8, 2009, 17:00

Support

1. Redstar (talk) - Per proposal

Oppose

1. Tucayo (talk) - Different tattles, different battles, different enemy, different article
2. Vini64 (talk) Per Tucayo.

Changes

Different Version Characters

In the Mario film and also in the Mario cartoons, there are versions of characters that are not necessarily the same characters from the character's real media. Such as:

• The princess in the Mario film basically has all of the qualities Peach would have with a few exceptions including her name.
• Same goes with the koopa cousins in the film, neither are actually their corresponding counterparts.
• The infant form of the princess in the film is hardly BABY Daisy in video games.
• The infant forms of Mario, Luigi, Peach, Toad, and Bowser are not the same as the Baby characters from video-games.

This proposal is to make it so that in the case of characters from the film, we create separate articles for the character that explains them for the film but also makes note of the connections to video game characters.

It is also to make it so that just because in some previous media there has been an infant form of a character, does not mean that it is the Baby form of the character from video-games. Infant Princess Daisy from film =/= Baby Daisy from videogames.

If there's any confusion, ask. This proposal was made from ides of numerous users on the comments of previous confusion from the original proposal made by Redstar.

Proposer: FD09
Deadline: 1 December 2009, 17:00

Support

1. FD09 - Per other users suggestions and ideas. above
2. Redstar (talk) - Results in article clean-up by creating more specialized articles. The better organization sounds good to me.
3. Edofenrir (talk) - Per what is proposed there.
4. Toadette 4evur (talk) - Per FD09.
5. Coincollector (talk) I've thought a lot about this and as we have a proven example that supports greatly the issue, I consider that would work.
6. Walkazo (talk) - Per all (including me, since, for the record, I was one of the users who contributed the helpful ideas in the first proposal's comments, which were based on the example Coincollector mentioned). Speculation is bad, so when in doubt, split 'em out.
7. MeritC (talk) - Defininte yes. Split them. The majority "main characters" from videogame installments should have articles all to themselves. This needs to get done, fast.
8. Vini64 (talk) Per all.
9. Arend (talk) Per all. Who says the film King Koopa and the game Bowser are the same person? Respectively, the one is a human and the other a Koopa. The Goomba's are in that film big, broad human-like monsters, while the original Goomba is a tiny living brown mushroom, which is generally weaker than the film Goomba's. And the film Toad is also human, while the game Toad represents his own species with the same name. And so on.
10. Gamefreak75 (talk) Per all.
11. MATEOELBACAN (talk) Per All,Excellent Proposal,I was thinking in that.
12. Zero777 (talk) I am Zero! Yes it's a good idea to split the articles, plus the Bowser article looks out of place with his alternate human version. Zero signing out.
13. Baby Mario Bloops (talk) - Per all!!!
14. Gamefreak75 (talk) - Per all! We will need a disambiguation page though.
15. Stooben Rooben (talk) - I spent a good long while thinking about this. Per all.
16. T.c.w7468 (talk) Per all.
17. LeftyGreenMario (talk) SPLIT THEM. I don't even consider the movie part of the Mario series because it's so different and wacko.

Oppose

1. Super Mario Bros. (talk) Seems like a seperation of media appearences to me, which is against our current policies.
2. Pie Shroom (talk) Per SMB.

Comments

This is the result I originally had in mind, but failed to voice that proposal in a clear way. Under this new proposal I think special attention can be paid to both the film characters and their video game-counterparts in an equal way, satisfying all parties and make for a much more informative encyclopedia. Redstar 17:39, 24 November 2009 (EST)

Good to hear it. Now don't forget to add some reasoning next to your vote. If you don't explain your vote or say something like per (another username who voted) your vote is liable to be removed by a sysop that deems it incomplete. FD09

I neither support nor oppose. I simply think we shouldn't really consider that film as canon, but anyway, I dont want a canonincity discussion. Tucayo (talk)

When it comes to the Mario series, there's no canon at all. (or if you must have one, it's very loose and filled with lots of parallels and alternates) This proposed change won't in any way cause the film's interpretations of the game to infringe on the articles there already are, but help specialize them into distinct articles that stand more productive on their own. Currently, there's difficulty in knowing where and how to define the film characters to their (speculative) video game counterparts. This side-steps most or all of the issue entirely. Redstar 21:05, 24 November 2009 (EST)

I'm pretty sure Shigeru Miyamoto said there is no Mario canon, but even if he didn't, it's not our place to decide what's true and what isn't. We merely provide as many facts as we can with as little speculation as possible, which is why this proposal is good: in a way, it's wrong to assume things like Koopa's cousin Iggy and Bowser's son Iggy are the same person because of their shared name and status as members of the Koopa family, given how different they are in so many other ways. It's better to state both possibilities: that they're the same, but also that they could be different. - Walkazo (talk)

My comment explicitly said there's no canon and pointed out the speculative nature of assuming which video game character may or may not be a counterpart to the film characters... So are you "correcting" me, or expanding on what I already said? Redstar 22:24, 24 November 2009 (EST)

Expanding on what you said. Canonicity gets so muddled, I've found it's better to be really windy about it right off the bat before confusion and arguments can sprout up. - Walkazo (talk)

FD09: Where do you plan to put the info about the infant characters from the cartoons? Time Q (talk)

Where it belongs. On the episode page, the cartoons page, the characters page. Just where it fits the most. FD09

Do you mean on the pages of the "adult" characters or the respective Baby pages? Grandy02 (talk)

Well I'm pretty sure it was covered that the info would be getting removed from the actual babie's pages so if it fit, the actual adults pages, but of course just because the information exists doesn't make it necessary to put on the character page in the case of a cartoon episode. I believe it would more than likely already be covered on the episode page so..FD09

The issue at hand is that many media counterparts are assumed to be the same character, when this is oftentimes a stretch. While Bowser has often always been Bowser throughout various media, despite his divergant appearance, other characters, such as the film counterparts, are composite of several video-game characters or are completely new and only share a name. This makes it difficult to know where exactly to put the information. New, specialized articles, would resolve this confusion while the main character articles would benefit more easily by having "Spike (enemy) ... Trivia: A character appears in the film sharing the same name, though the two aren't necessarily meant to be the same."

By the same token, some characters are often assumed to be counterparts without confusion, but this leap is based on false logic. The infants of Mario, Luigi, and Daisy (film) aren't the same as the Baby characters because those characters were introduced much later, have distinct personalities, and distinct roles. While a separate article could be made, for example, baby Rugrats and teen Rugrats (since they're distinct characters), the Star Wars wiki doesn't make a separate article for Anakin compared to Darth Vader. It's simply a difference in age, not character. These examples are best suited for the respective media pages. Redstar 20:47, 26 November 2009 (EST)

If I understand what you are saying here (and please correct me if I am wrong) in "The infants of Mario, Luigi, and Daisy (film) aren't the same as the Baby characters because those characters were introduced much later, have distinct personalities, and distinct roles" is that they are not the same because of the time and media of their appearance. Since Mario and Luigi appeared in the movie (and there can obviously be no arguement about that), and their baby forms appear, it is safe to say that they are the same character, no? And what are we going to do about the Super Mario Bros. Super Show! appearances for Baby Mario? Our coverage policy clearly states that there is no distinct seperation of media: Even if these characters appeared in the media before a video game, we still have that content in the article. Super Mario Bros. (talk)

Hm, I don't see that much of sepparating medias here. I think the point of the Proposal is, that Baby Mario/Luigi/Blah are distinct characters that even go by those names. The infant forms in the movie/shows never expicitly get called "Baby Mario/Luigi/Thingaling" and thus are not to be confused with the distinct characters. Imagine there would be an appearance where Luigi gets hypnotized. Would we automatically merge that info with the Mr. L article? I highly doubt we would do. - Edofenrir (talk)

Super Mario Bros.: I don't even see how you see logic in that oppose since it's not about separating media as it is clarifying on specific character's details. Although the information will be getting removed from the babie's page sit is still considered a part of the "actual" character's history. It's not separation of media, it's separation of characters.FD09

We would still be making an assumption by splitting the articles. We would be implying that they are not the same character, and that the creators of the movie did not intend it to be. That said, if we have those articles split, and we put main tags on the original articles, that could be considered speculation because we are linking two (by our standards if the proposal passes) unlinked characters as possibly being one, therefore creating speculation. You also mention making a different article for the Princess in the movie. That would be separation based on media, and so is that article that Coincollector pointed out. Who are we to assume that they are not based on the characters in the video games? The Peach in the Super Mario Bros.: Super Show! has red/orange hair color. Does that mean we are going to split it because of the way she looks? No. They named her Princess Daisy; and it was an official Nintendo-approved film. Who are we to go change it all based on what they made her look like?

Merging the baby appearances into the adult article, on the same token, would just be pointless. Even if it is not a set in stone character at the time, Baby Mario is still the baby form of Mario. If Baby Mario and Mario are considered to really be separate characters, then we need to split the history sections that deal with the babies in the Mario, Luigi, Peach, and other articles, since they are clearly separate characters. That is my point of view, and I hope you understand. Super Mario Bros. (talk)

Alright so by that logic either way you look at it you are speculating. The way you are phrasing this is just a sneaky way to make it look like we are creating speculation when either way whether you consider them the same character or not you are speculating. No, just because the film was Nintendo approved does not make it set in stone because whether you like it or not to some extent there is a large enough difference between certain Mario media outlets that this is something we have to look into rather then accept as fact. You are speculating the baby characters from the cartoons are the same as the baby characters from the video game because whether you like it or not they are not the same therefore are being examined and as you can see agreed upon to be different. This is not breaking policy anymore than it already is by being the way it is. And I doubt the information will be getting on the actual characters pages even as it is not mentionable especially not with the way the character's pages are organised right now. It's already thoroughly covered on the episode page so it's not getting removed from the wiki soo.. Don't know what else to tell ya, guy. Yes it is your OPINION. And here opinion is majority rule. Clearly you are in the wrong.FD09

I love how you say I am so wrong. There are many things that the majority has wanted that hasn't been right. Now, while I will refrain on calling your proposal biased towards your wanting to separate media so much, I will say that we should follow the way that is more in accordance with our rules. Either way, we are making speculation, but what ultimately matters is which side would add more speculation. The way I see it, these characters were given names by the creators. In example, we cannot just go and say that the Bowser from the movie is not Bowser. Although he did not look like Bowser, that is who he is based on. Whether you like it or not, we have been given their names and their characters are in the movie. Princess Daisy, although she may look, act, and appear to be Peach, was given the name Daisy. One major plotline that would support this is that Daisy goes out with Luigi, and although this may be because the writers didn't want to make it look like a creepy old dude going out with a young girl (don't worry Walkazo, I'm not stealing this from you. I'm borrowing the saying), but Nintendo itself added the idea of a possible romance between Luigi and Daisy. It is horrendous to go and say that Daisy could be the Daisy in the movie, when we are told it is Daisy. Let me finish with a quote: "Don't know what else to tell ya, guy. Yes it is your OPINION. And here opinion is majority rule. Clearly you are in the wrong." Super Mario Bros. (talk)

"Don't know what else to tell ya, guy. Yes it is your OPINION. And here opinion is majority rule. Clearly you are in the wrong". Hey look, I'm doing it too! ...? I don't really need to discuss it with you considering your opinion is, as they say, set in stone. FD09

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.