From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
All past proposals are archived here. This page is protected to maintain the discussion as was.
Previous proposals

Forget Japanese Names

canceled by proposer
I think we should'nt speculate or decide stuff based on the Japanese name. Sometimes stuff has the same name in japan,so people think it's the same enemy/item or whatever it is. I think Japanese names should only be mentioned in the Languages and Trivia sections.

Proposer: yoshiyoshiyoshi (talk)
Voting start: April 27, 2011, 14:26
Proposed Deadline: May 4, 2011, 23:59
Date Withdrawn: April 28, 2011, 02:17 GMT




So the country where the game is made and where the enemies are created on an international wiki names are completely irrelevant what only the American names count so i guess Skeleton Koopa's and Mini-Ninji's now get there own articles and we should merge rename Birdo's from Super Mario Bros. 2 Ostro because that's what there called in the credits of the game Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)

Sigh...this proposal is based off of your reasoning on the Pale Piranha talk page concerning our naming policy, isn't it? You think that because "most of us" play the American or European versions of a game, any other translations are irrelevant. That reasoning is unsound and so is the reasoning behind this proposal. Mario4Ever (talk)

No,It is also based on the Lava Bubble/Podoboo merge.Those are 2 unrelated things that got merged because of their japanese names.I think we could just as well misunderstand japanese names as we could american ones.

@goombas shoe.those hotel mario(is this even "cannon"?) creatures are extremely similar,andthe Birdo/Ostro goof had nothing to do with japanese. yoshiyoshiyoshi (talk)

first off yes Hotel Mario is an officially licensed Nintendo game second off no you can't you seem to think that American names are the only ones that matter yet when i use facts you dance around the issue so tell me why should we not split the two skeleton koopas if your proposal passes i mean they have separate names in English don't they. Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)

@Yoshiyoshiyoshi: It doesn't matter if the names are in Japanese, Spanish, or Arabic. When in doubt over which name to use or over which species are related, we use the name given in the region in which the game is first released. Most Nintendo games are first released in Japan, as it is a Japanese company with a Japanese name, so we rely upon it when the American/European translation is insufficient. You can't just disregard translations because you don't speak a given language or own a game in a specific language. As I said on your TPP, this is an international wiki. Mario4Ever (talk)

In the King Boo example, the SMS boss looks completely different than the King Boo seen in all other games, so we went with the Japanese names that said they were, in fact, different characters. For the Parabuzzy and Para-Beetle situation, they look like different things, so we went with the names that say they're different things, which happened to be from the English translation that time, rather than the Japanese. In this situation, the Boomerang Bros. also look like different things, so once again, we should go with the names that say they're different things, but this time it's not the English or Japanese versions that provides those names, but the French and Italian ones. In every case, we're assessing all the information we have about the subjects in question, and choosing the naming convention that makes the most sense, whether it's saying the things are the same (like SMRPG), or different (like the other examples). It doesn't matter which region the names come from: it's all Nintendo, so it's all official and perfectly valid; no one office is any more important than any other, nor is any one team more or less reliable than any other. Going with the Japanese names a couple times doesn't mean we always have to "trust" them, and not going with Italy on the King Boo issue doesn't mean they'll never be right. How the different localizations named different species in different games shouldn't influence what we do about this situation: it's a case-by-case process. - Walkazo.

Thanks for explaining it.I thought that everything gettting merged,because the japanese names were the same,was really annoying me.Maybe they just call it that because they dont want to make up names for them?yoshiyoshiyoshi (talk)

I apologize for the out of context approach, but this pretty much nailed the situation perfectly (imho). We shouldn't do away with Japanese names. Pay special attention to the bottom half, I left the top half in to help with context a little. Bop1996 (talk)

If you don't want this proposed any more, I suggest that you ask a sysop to remove it. The names do in the different languages what they do in English. They have some sort of pun or descriptive name. Bop1996 (talk)

Ok,someone just remove it,sorry for making it.yoshiyoshiyoshi (talk)

WHAT!! Yoshiyoshiyoshi what the heck are you trying to say? You were talking about one thing and turned a different direction on the last sentence. Oh, and you forgot to put your vote in. But here are my thoughts: I think this proposal will be invalid since there are a balance between logic and invality on the sides of basing it off the Japanese name, suggesting it's the same by its look, and giving a good logic why they should be merged. Zero777 (talk)

@Zero he took his vote off Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)

Make standard template names for like friend templates instead of always having to type the code

don't create 2-17
Hi. Would it be easier if you had just a simple template name. Like for let's say, Johnny 115's friend template, we could move it to Template:Friend Of Johnny 115 in stead of having to type all those codes.

Proposer: Tom The Atum (talk)
Deadline: May 14, 23:59 GMT


  1. Tom The Atum (talk) I mean, have a link, like User:Tom The Atum/Friend Template. Also, for other ones, like This user thinks this is a funny gif or This user can dance very well, and there could be a category marked user templates made for those specific purposes, like when I was at Club Penguin Wiki before my one year four months ban.
  2. SuperYoshiBros (talk) Per TTA.


  1. SWFlash (talk) The user-only templates should be located nowhere outside of the userspace.
  2. Fawfulfury65 (talk) Userboxes do not help the mainspace in any way and they belong only on userspace. Also, it's a waste of space when you can just copy and paste the code for the userbox easily.
  3. UltraMario3000 (talk) Per FF65 and SW.
  4. Mariomario64 (talk) And this would help how? Per the three above me, especially Fawfulfury65.
  5. Mario4Ever (talk) Per FF65. If you don't want to type code, you can either copy someone else's and use it as is (as in the case of a friend userbox) or modify it to make a new one.
  6. Xzelion (talk) – Per All.
  7. Phoenix (talk) Per all. (Lol, how'd I get mixed up in this...?)
  8. Superfiremario (talk) Per Fawfulfury65 and DKpetey99
  9. Yoshiyoshiyoshi (talk) This is confusing. It's fine the way it is. And you dont have to type it. You can copy and paste them. Its way easier.
  10. Bop1996 (talk) Per FF65
  11. Byllant (talk) - Sounds kindly useless.
  12. Luigi is OSAM (talk) COPY AND PASTE.
  13. DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr. (talk) Per all.
  14. Magikrazy51 (talk) Per those above and below.
  15. DKPetey99 (talk) If you are referring to your deleted Club Penguin template, we don't cover Club Penguin. This is the Mario Wiki, not the Club Penguin wiki!
  16. BoygeyDude (talk) Per Luigi is OSAM. Besides, we can put the code on our page.
  17. Smasher 101 (talk) It's not that hard to copy and paste the code. There is no need for this.


I think I fixed the formatting. Bop1996 (talk)

I don't really understand this proposal. Clarification? BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)

I think he wants for there to be a template for each userbox in existence, so that instead of using the userbox template, you just type in {{User:Phoenix/Friend Template}}. Bop1996 (talk)

They shall only be used for userspace, not main. Club Penguin Wiki does the same thing. Tom The Atum (talk)

Well of course they'd only be used for userspace, what else would we put it in? "Mario is a friend of Phoenix". Xzelion (talk)
"Mario is a friend of Phoenix"? Why'd ya type that? Phoenix (talk) 03:33, 8 May 2011 (EDT)

@Phoenix They just mean the username is a friend of Phoenix. Superfiremario (talk)

@Phoenix: You seem to have been the unfortunate example listed here... Bop1996 (talk)

@Bop1996 - Well, you know what they say: "All publicity is good publicity"...or, truthfully, I really don't know what "they" say, I just remember hearing that somewhere once... :) Phoenix (talk) 18:48, 8 May 2011 (EDT)
Good point... You seem to be getting free publicity, so that's a bonus for you. ;) </off-topic> Bop1996 (talk)

Add Additional Links For Main Characters

don't add 1-11
Something that I've noticed for a while is that in the characters section of the wiki, links major characters that appear in most of the games look just like those of minor characters that got one game appearance, making them hard to locate. I think additional links to non-generic characters (For example, Goomba would not be counted) that are either playable or major characters in at least fifteen games should be added at the top of the characters page.

Proposer: Vivalahomestar (talk)
Deadline: May 16, at 23:59 GMT


  1. Vivalahomestar (talk) This would make it much more convenient for somebody who just wants to find (for example) Luigi instead of Lumpy.


  1. Bop1996 (talk) We hold these truths to be self-evident. That all characters are created equal. That they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. In short, why put another link to major characters so you can find them better? Use the search bar or something <_<
  2. Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) all characters are equal under the watchful eye of the Big Rock Who Watches.
  3. Mario4Ever (talk) The Star Spirits disapprove. Per Bop1996 (also, Skolar googled the Declaration, and it's certain "unalienable rights," not "inalienable rights").
  4. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk) "Major"is more of a subjective thing, anyway. What happens if a certain character appeared in 15 games, but only made cameos throughout the game. You get my point?
  5. Zero777 (talk) Per all, just edit that yourself.
  6. Superfiremario (talk) This proposal is way too vauge. (Like mine)
  7. Mariomario64 (talk) Umm...when you think about it, it doesn't matter how major or minor a character is, and you can most likely find a character more easily in alphabetical order than in major-minor order.
  8. Nicke8 (talk) Per BLOF.
  9. MeritC (talk) Per all.
  10. Reddragon19k (talk) Per all.
  11. Smasher 101 (talk) Per all.


What are you trying to say? Zero777 (talk)

yeah ive never had any problems with finding Mario or any other main character if thats what you mean Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)

Ummm... Well, he (or she) seems to be saying that he wants additional links for main characters in the proposal title, but he goes on to say that he finds other minor characters' links clogging up the link characters section and he thinks that adding links to non-generic characters (???) would solve this problem. All in all, I don't see what he's trying to say either, but that's what I can make out. Bop1996 (talk)

Yeah, in, un, both are similar... I need to do more Latin and Greek Roots study... Bop1996 (talk)

*WARNING--OFF TOPIC CONTENT* Actually, both words mean the same thing, but "inalienable" is only found in earlier drafts. Mario4Ever (talk)
Sue me, I'm a stickler for accuracy. Bop1996 (talk)
I would if I were a lawyer. ;) Mario4Ever (talk)

Protect all talk archives

don't protect 1-12
I think we should protect all the talk archives so no one can edit them ecept sysops. For User talk archives we should only let the user who owns the talk page and sysops.

Proposer: Superfiremario (talk)
Deadline: May 16, 23:59


  1. Superfiremario (talk)


  1. Bop1996 (talk) Why do this? It's a lot of unnecessary work. If you want your talk page archives protected, ask a sysop.
  2. Mario4Ever (talk) Per Bop1996.
  3. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk) Per all
  4. Mariomario64 (talk) If you want it to be protected, then make it a sub-page of your userpage and not your talk page. Your userpage and any other sub-pages of it (sig, etc.) are already protected.
  5. UltraMario3000 (talk) Per Bop and MM64.
  6. Xzelion (talk) - Per all.
  7. DKPetey99 (talk) Why? You edit your archives like 10 times, so why protect it?
  8. Arend (talk) - Worst. Idea. Ever.
  9. Reddragon19k (talk) Bad idea! Per all!
  10. Smasher 101 (talk) Uh, that's pretty unnecessary if you ask me. Per all.
  11. BoygeyDude (talk) Per all.
  12. Luigi is OSAM (talk) Per meh comment


A similar proposal was deleted per the agreement of the administration. Therefore, I see no reason for this to stay. Mario4Ever (talk)

No, they're different enough. Unless the admins also find this too tedious then this proposal should stay. Marioguy1 (talk)
Fair enough. Mario4Ever (talk)

Arend: Please don't insult the idea, just give reasons for your oppose. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)

Can someone delete my proposal? Superfiremario (talk)

Ask an administrator BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)

I'm going to oppose for this ridiculasly long reason: Many times on this wiki, people edit talk page. You edit your/someone else's/a page's talk page when leaving a message. Also, since VANDALS could write on talk pages and insult you might wish to censor/delete things. I know this is about archives, btw. AND ON THE TOPIC OF ARCHIVES, someone might want to get rid of an offensive past messsage, but insted would have to stare at it, wishing this rule hadn't been made. That is all I have to say. ._. Luigi is OSAM (talk)

@Luigi is OSAM: I'm now going to oppose becue I changed mt mind days ago. Superfiremario (talk)

Merge Game and Non-Game Elements in Games, Characters, Places, Items, Species, Allies, Enemies, and Anything Else I Forgot to Mention

merge the game and non-game categories together 8-1
What a ridiculously long name.

But what is truly ridiculous is how according to this page, we have to keep non-game stuff and game stuff in the same section, but in the lists like those, it has to be separate? I don't see any coherence. I propose we (insert proposal title) because leaving it separate makes no sense.

Proposer: LeftyGreenMario (talk)
Deadline: May 16, 2011 23:59 GMT


  1. LeftyGreenMario (talk) Please read my proposal this time! If you object, make a valid reason! Of course I would support my own proposal
  2. Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) if every things cannon than everything should be covered under one list, and one category.
  3. Superfiremario (talk) Per all.
  4. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk) I'm all for consistency. If we are required to group something together in the history, what makes listing this any different?
  5. Reddragon19k (talk) - That is a yes to that and per all!
  6. SWFlash (talk) Per RightyMagentaWario LeftyGreenMario.
  7. Smasher 101 (talk) Per all.
  8. Luigi is OSAM (talk) Per them...ALL!


  1. yoshiyoshiyoshi (talk) I think It's easier to find something the way it is.If I was looking for something in the characters section,I wouldnt want to search through hundreds of TV show characters.I'm glad It's the way it is.It's more organized this way.

Other Thoughts

Technically, you don't have to follow that page. It isn't an enforced policy.--Knife (talk) 21:19, 12 May 2011 (EDT)

This is just for the sake of consistency. LeftyGreenMario (talk)

It would make more sense if we further separated different media information by making a page for the video-game version of a character, and then the specific media versions. But this wiki is so stuck on the crummy old cartoons that they think putting them on the page of the video-game character makes sense. It doesn't, they're to different medias has near totally different portrayals of the elements from each. UhHuhAlrightDaisy 04:14, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

Make an article on the Electric Fence.

create article 18-6
It appears in all of the stadiums in Super Mario Strikers, Mario Strikers Charged and in the second Bowser Jr. battle New Super Mario Bros. Wii. Why does it still not have an article? It is a gameplay element and it is important in a boss battle. Any other games in which it appears in?

Proposer: DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr. (talk)
Deadline: May 18, 2011 23:59 GMT.

Create article

  1. DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr. (talk) Per proposal. Part of it is removed in Thunder Island and there is a cheat to turn it off.
  2. Nicke8 (talk) Per Kongs vs Koopas
  3. Superfiremario (talk) Per Kongs vs Koopas
  4. Reddragon19k (talk) - Of course we are going to create it! Should I per all?... YES!
  5. Arend (talk) Per DKnDKvsBnBJr. (what a long abbreviation). And they were known as just electric fences according to a MSC(F) Cheat, named Power Shortage.
  6. DKPetey99 (talk) Why did you ask, just create the article and see if it gets deleted! Per Kongs vs Koopas
  7. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk) They are indeed a gameplay mechanic, no matter how "boring" it is. Besides electrifying people in MSC, there are a certain amount of ways to alter the range of the shock, such as if the character simply gets too close to the fence or if it is disabled.
  8. Tails777 (talk) Per all. P.S. don't electric fences appear in Mario Galaxy and Mario Galaxy 2 as well?
  9. SWFlash (talk) Because per Tails777 and my comments.
  10. Yoshidude99 (talk) I have been wanting this article to be created for a while now and they appear in more than one game.
  11. Yoshiwaker (talk) It appeared in MSF, MSC, SMG, SMG2, and NSMBW. Seems notable enough.
  12. Smasher 101 (talk) It seems pretty notable in the games that it appeared in. Per all.
  13. ThirdMarioBro (talk) This wouldn't be too different from the other articles I created, and only one got deleted. Besides, there is some information that wouldn't be redundant with other articles. Per all.
  14. Luigi is OSAM (talk) Per allllllll
  15. Akfamilyhome (talk) Per all. Also they appeared in lots of different Mario games. They should be made into an article.
  16. Zero777 (talk) Since there are a lot of appearances, per all.
  17. MarioManiac (talk) Per all.
  18. Byllant (talk) - Do I need a reason?

Don't change it

  1. Mario4Ever (talk) What's the point? We can't say anything else other than that it shocks players if hit and is used to shock Bowser Jr. in a boss battle.
  2. Bop1996 (talk) So, you want to create an article that has all that information on a World article and the stadiums? Why do that? Unnecessary, redundant, and probably bland and boring. Per all.
  3. Xzelion (talk) Per Bop1996.
  4. MarioMaster15 (talk) Per Bop1996.
  5. Knife (talk) – Per Bop1996.
  6. Bloc Partier (talk) - Per Bop1996.


Proof that they've appeared in SMG2:
Click for larger ones. SWFlash (talk)

You forgot Super Mario Galaxy. LeftyGreenMario (talk)
Even if they appear in SMG and SMG2, my reasoning still applies. There is not enough information that could be placed on the article that is not redundant with the World aricle, the stadium articles, and the galaxy articles. Bop1996 (talk)
And why do we have articles like this one on our wiki? SWFlash (talk)
Because there is more information on that article than would appear in the articles where Torpedo Teds are mentioned. Bop1996 (talk)
Torpedo Teds are very uncommon enemies, in fact, the electric fence has made more appearances than Torpedo Teds have done in many years. Byllant (talk)

Add a section for Writing Guidelines on this page

add section 16-0
Something that really need development on MarioWiki are Writing Guidelines (currently known as Writer Guidelines). First let me explain what they are, since I assume most of you are unfamiliar with this term.

What are Writer Guidelines? Writer Guidelines are pages that belong to this category, with the most notable page being the Manual of Style. Writer Guidelines are enforceable policies to some extent, but with a much lighter enforcement.

You may be wondering what distinguishes Writer Guidelines from Help pages. The difference here is that Writer Guidelines are much more specialized about the subject they pertain to while Help pages just give users a general overview of things. Since this is the case, Writer Guidelines have the ability to be very detailed and specific. This is better explained on my pending policy page, User:Knife/Policy.

What I'm proposing is that we allow regular users join in on developing more Writer Guidelines by making the process much more accessible to them. How do we do this? We should create a page titled "MarioWiki:Writing Guidelines", based off my pending policy page, which explains what Writer Guidelines (henceforth known as "Writing Guidelines") are. As for the nomination process, we can include it to the proposal page in a new section titled "Writing Guidelines". If Writing Guidelines get popular enough we may consider getting a separate page for it, but for now, a section of the proposal page should be sufficient.

Reasons why this system will be beneficial:

  1. Increased user interest in editing.
  2. Better quality articles.
  3. More opportunities for users to get involved in the development of the wiki.
  4. More consistency.
  5. An aid to help users edit.

Things that will be added if this proposal passes:

  1. A section will be added to proposal page for Writing Guidelines
  2. A new rule will be added stating that Writing Guidelines will be given two weeks as opposed to one.
  3. My draft page (User:Knife/Policy) will be created as an actual MarioWiki: namespace page.
  4. Also see User:Knife/Proposal to see what the proposals page will look like.
  5. All mention of Writer Guidelines will become Writing Guidelines (including the category).
  6. Some existing policy pages will turn into Writing Guidelines, like MarioWiki:Naming and MarioWiki:Redirect.

Honestly, this system has no real drawback other than potential lack of use, so why not give it a shot? If it doesn't work out, we can always scrap it later.

Proposer: Knife (talk)
Deadline: May 28, 23:59 GMT


  1. Knife (talk) – Per my proposal.
  2. Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) its worth a shot per him
  3. LeftyGreenMario (talk) Great, but what I'm concerned is the arguments of writing style we might come up, like the singular "they" (which doesn't exist), and so on. The phrase "reason why" is also redundant. :) per proposal, though. If it turns out to be bad, we can always delete it.
  4. Superfiremario (talk) Per LeftyGreenMario
  5. SWFlash (talk) Per proposal
  6. Bop1996 (talk) This would greatly help with edit quality for new users. I see no problem with how to instate this, or any other problem.
  7. Mario4Ever (talk) Per proposal and per LGM.
  8. Phoenix (talk) Go for it dude! :)
  9. Xzelion (talk) – Per Knife.
  10. Byllant (talk) - Per... you know
  11. Walkazo (talk) - Per proposal.
  12. MrConcreteDonkey (talk) - Per all.
  13. Reddragon19k (talk) P-E-R, A double ll. Put them together and you got... PER ALL!
  14. Bowser's luma (talk) Per all.
  15. Mario vs Luigi (talk) Per all
  16. Fawfulfury65 (talk) Per proposal. If this doesn't work out, we can just remove it. It will be a good way to make new writing guidelines.



@LeftyGreenMario: Singular they is he or she. SWFlash (talk)

From Wikipedia: Singular they does, in fact, remain morphologically and syntactically plural (it still takes plural forms of verbs). Talmy Givón (Syntax: an introduction, 2001) even provides "If anybody did that, they'd be insane" as an example of non-referring, plural anaphoric they. Mario4Ever (talk)
We use they when the singular pronoun could refer to a male or female. I read somewhere that it is preferred over s/he or she/he. Bop1996 (talk)
Only if you have to refer to the singular subject multiple times in succession, which we normally don't. I see the singular they as more colloquial than anything. It's generally frowned upon among grammatical experts (and AP Language and Composition teachers), despite its relatively recent resurgence in usage. Mario4Ever (talk)
I think it was in the Manual of Style. I was referring to us as a wiki, not the experts (that's not to say I don't enjoy a pointless discussion over this type of thing).
It is in the Manual of Style. I understand the intention behind using the singular they, but it's not found often in standard written English. The problem is that there is no consensus among the grammatical experts (those who come up with all the rules for writing and speaking the English language) concerning its validity. Some think it's fine, while others don't. I find it perfectly acceptable in spoken English and informal writing (such as in dialogue) but not something I would use in formal writing such as would be found in an encyclopedia. I guess I'm a purist that way. It's partly because of that that all references to players in the Augmented Reality Games article, for example, are in the plural. Mario4Ever (talk)
Yeah... To be honest with you, I just took it for granted... Idk, I never gave it that much thought... That's just the way I roll, I give it a lot of thought or nearly none... Bop1996 (talk)
I wouldn't have taken you of all people as someone who would take anything relating to grammatical structure for granted. ;) Mario4Ever (talk)

@Knife: Could you elaborate on the difference between an enforced MarioWiki policy and a general suggestion for writing style? I understand the basic idea, but I'm not sure how much we enforce a writing suggestion... Bop1996 (talk)

@Bop1996: We will enforce both, but Writing Guidelines will be given a much lighter enforcement. For instance, a user may be given a reminder or warning for breaking one of our userspace policy, but failure to follow MarioWiki:Manual of Style will not carry the same consequences (unless the user is intentionally not following Writing Guidelines).
@All supporters: Please re-read the proposal and all draft pages since some changes have been made. --Knife (talk) 20:47, 21 May 2011 (EDT)

Thank you for elaborating. I see the logic in your change in the proposal, I have no problems with the changes. Bop1996 (talk)

Reception, keep or no keep

keep reception 17-0
I just want to resolve this issue since it looks obscure, should we keep or not keep the reception section?

Note: If Keep is chosen then the game articles with no reception section on them will get a reception section. If No Keep is chosen then all the reception sections of every article will be deleted.

Proposer: Zero777 (talk)
Deadline: May 29, 2011, 23:59 GMT


  1. Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) But were not Wikipedia also i think the reception makes us look more professional since it shows that we have indeed found reliable sources, also featuring reception harms no one especially since reviews from things like Nintendo Power are official sources and there fore should be included as well Famitsu which is considered the most reliable gaming magazine in Japan, also i would like to point out that pretty much every wiki features reception since it shows how good a game is
  2. Mario4Ever (talk) Do we really want to be less detailed than Wikipedia concerning Mario-related content? The Reception section tells the reader how well a given game fares, and I think it's important to have in case games reach certain milestones (such as Super Mario Galaxy 2 receiving perfect scores from almost every well-known reviewer, making it one of the highest-rated, if not the highest-rated game in the company's history thus far). On a more practical note, keeping the section demonstrates that the wiki cares about its subject matter, and we have a standard to include as much information as possible about every subject we cover if it provides readers with a better understanding of that subject.
  3. Xzelion (talk) – Per Mario4Ever!
  4. Mariomario64 (talk) Per Mario4Ever.
  5. Bop1996 (talk) Per Mario4Ever.
  6. Reddragon19k (talk) Per Mario4Ever and Goomba's Shoe!
  7. Edofenrir (talk) - I see no conclusive reason to remove this information.
  8. Walkazo (talk) - Per all.
  9. Zero777 (talk) Per all
  10. MeritC (talk) - Per all; especially for major games like the Super Mario Galaxy installments and Mario Kart DS, for example.
  11. yoshiyoshiyoshi (talk) - The reception section is very useful and needs to be added to every game. It's nice to look at in here instead of search it on Wikipedia <_<
  12. Mario304 (talk) Per all.
  13. Bowser's luma (talk) Per all.
  14. Phoenix (talk) Definitely keep it.
  15. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk) Why not? It definitely provides information from the game (although sometimes unreliable, eh) and I see no good reason to remove it other than it takes up space.
  16. Byllant (talk) - I feel this would work, considering what Mario4Ever said.
  17. SKmarioman (talk) - Per all. I think this wiki (or any wiki, for that matter) should be extensive as possible to make more and more guests and new users come to this wiki.

No Keep


Do you mean reception as in video game reviews Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)

I believe that's what it means. Mario4Ever (talk)
@Zero what do you mean by obscure Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)
It's not consistent and it was left like that for a long time.

@Zero: Wikipedia's content should have no bearing on our content at all. If we sustained an argument like yours, should we also delete half of our Mario article because Wikipedia covers it? I believe not. Please be a little more alert. - Edofenrir (talk)

Well I was thinking in my mind, what are we going to make different of the reception? Receptions are just ratings and commentary, there not suppose to be specific, and wikipedia did fine on that, but I guess since it will make us look more professional, I say keep it. Zero777 (talk)

Hey guys, if it pass, should we have a chart like how wikipedia has it? Zero777 (talk)

I obviously can't speak for everyone, but I think a paragraph such as we have on the SMG2 article will suffice. Mario4Ever (talk)
I actually think a rating graph would be nice, rather than having to go to Wikipedia to see ratings on Mario games we cna just check here. Of course we'd have to differentiate a bit. Xzelion (talk)
Yeah, I think it would be good to have a graph like that, as long as it doesn't resemble the Wikipedia one too much. Fawfulfury65 (talk)

Make a new rule for deleting a template

don't make new rule 3-10
Look at the proposal here.

I'm making this proposal to change valid reasons of deleting a template. The users there said that the Gone template is useless because "people hardly use it" and "you can just copy the code on your userpage". To me, these are more of excuses than good reasons. What if people hardly know of a template you want to delete? What if copying the code is too hard for some people? What if we have to delete the last warning (or any other) template just because you can copy the code on an user talk page? There are just silly reasons.

I'm not saying that we have to restore the Gone template. I'm just saying that we should not accept reasons like what they did on the template's talk page. These are just silly, and they are more of excuses than good reasons.

P.S. I don't care if the Gone template is restored or not. All I care is that people never use stupid reasons like these anymore.

Proposer: DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr. (talk)
Deadline: June 7, 2011 at 23:59 GMT.

Make this rule

  1. DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr. (talk) Per proposal.
  2. DKPetey99 (talk) I have to agree about the deletion of the gone template. I honestly see no reason how that template brought harm to any user. It was useless to delete, didn't affect anyone, and now it's gone for no reason, only because users thought it was "useless" in a harmless way. I think a new rule would be a good idea.
  3. Bowser's luma (talk) "It's quiet for 15 minutes, let's find something to delete or merge." It's getting like the Hazzard County Police here, there's just excuses to delete what you want and no real reasons.

Don't make this rule

  1. Bowser Jr And Tom The Atum (talk) Ahem, but it is actually easier to have the code instead of copy and paste. You end up needing to view source another person's page to get the stupid code. Highly against this.
  2. Xzelion (talk) – Per my reasons below.
  3. Mario4Ever (talk) Per Xzelion.
  4. LeftyGreenMario (talk) This is more subjective than objective. I think in this wiki, we have to be as objective as possible. And I found the Gone template to be pointless. Some users that are gone don't want to bother using the template.
  5. Walkazo (talk) - Per Xzelion.
  6. Yoshiwaker (talk) - Per Xzelion and LGM.
  7. Reddragon19k (talk) Heavens no! Per everyone!
  8. Magikrazy51 (talk) Per those who per people.
  9. Mariomario64 (talk) QUOTE: "All I care is that people never use stupid reasons like these anymore." What stupid reasons? *insert what Xzelion said here* Per all.
  10. Bop1996 (talk) Per Xzelion. As an aside, it doesn't matter whether a sysop votes or not, as long as the best for the wiki is chosen. If a sysop needs to speak, he or she will speak up and give his or her opinion.


I think that the people who brought up those arguments or as you called them "excuses", is because the Gone template is very rarely used, and with only two to three users using it at a time it didn't warrant it's own template. However templates like Warning or stubs template are frequently used and are a key part of the wiki and it's administration, if we ever needed to modify the template, we'd have to edit a ton of articles and a ton of user talk pages. However Template:Gone, is rarely used, that and half the people who add it to their userpage are just being babies about an argument and take it done in two to three minutes. Not only that, but it seems to me like you're just mad the template was deleted. You may call these votes "excuses", but others may not, it's clearly just a pov for you. And if we add this rule, who is going to be judge of whether a vote is an "excuse" or " silly", you? What's to keep the judges from being biased so they get there way in an TPP? This rule is going to cause more trouble than it'd fix. Xzelion (talk)

I am not mad that the template is deleted. I'm just mad that people aren't making good reasons. Copying is just highlighting what you want to copy, "Ctrl" and "C" to copy and "V" (P means print) to paste. How is that hard? I take that back. I just don't get Tom The Atum's reason for opposing. DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr. (talk)

I'm confused. In your proposal, you ask "What if copying the code is too hard for some people?" In this comment of yours, however, you mention how easy it is. Aren't you contradicting yourself? Mario4Ever (talk)
For deleting Template:Gone, the challenge was to find a sysop to vote, not one sysop voted and now for Template:Vacation sysops are opposing. DKPetey99 (talk)

I'm taking the challenge back DKPetey99. I realized that it does not matter if a sysop agrees with us or not, they still have to delete the template because it is their job. In short, the sysops can't always have everything their way. DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr. (talk)

Make a Rule for Changing Votes

don't make rule 3-16
I'm noticing in a lot of featured articles, talk page, and just regular proposals, people change their votes, a lot. Now I understand if the article has been improved and whatnot so they change their vote, but to me, it seems more like "jumping the bandwagon". Maybe if there are popular people, or good friends, or even related, users always "per" them or acknowledge them. Again, I understand if major, MAJOR, improvements have been made so that user feels like they can change their vote, but again some users tend to "jump the bandwagon". There is going to be two sections. One will be to make new rule, other will be to keep it the same. I think the rule should be to go through a dreadful, life-threatening small process in which it will determine if they can change their vote. It will possibly to tell a sysop and give a sincere reason why, and the admin can decide if their reason is worthy enough of switching.

Proposer: DKPetey99 (talk)
Deadline: June 9, 2011, 23:59 GMT

Make a New Rule

  1. DKPetey99 (talk) I am getting sick of "bandwagon jumpers" and I think people should only change their vote, if highly necessary.
  2. ThirdMarioBro (talk) I think we should change the rule, as I've seen bandwagon jumping on other wikis. However, I'm thinking of a different rule: Users are allowed to change their vote whenever thay want, but they are not allowed to say "Per (insert username here)". Instead, the user must fully state their reason for which side they chose. This still applies even if the user changes their vote back. This seems more fair than simply limiting people from changing their vote.
  3. yoshiyoshiyoshi (talk) Per all

Don't Make New Rule

  1. Yoshiwaker (talk) - This would be much more hurtful than it would be helpful. Usually, when someone is changing their vote, someone's argument has convinced them otherwise. I'm pretty sure that all of the time the sysop would say yes. Also, I don't believe that users who are switching votes are "jumping on the bandwagon".Therefore, this would just be a pain for users who want to change their votes.
  2. Mario4Ever (talk) We have no way of knowing a user's thoughts when he or she votes on a given matter. For the sake of the wiki, we like to think that the user takes the matter into consideration and votes based on what he or she believes is the best or most beneficial option, but I think we are all aware that it is naive to accept the notion that every user's vote is cast based on that. That said, making a rule establishing criteria that would outline just when one could change his or her vote would be unenforcible. There is not a time in anyone's life in which one's viewpoint on any given matter is constant. It constantly is changing based on what is seen, what is heard, what is read. Because there are few users with the opportunity to be in the same room with another user at the time of voting, it is impossible to be certain whether a change in vote occurs because the user has been persuaded by an argument or because he or she simply seeks to adopt the opinion of the majority at that moment. Therefore, any attempt to discern one's motives one way or the other would only be a result of speculation and bias and would ultimately be detrimental to the wiki as a whole, as it would undermine the democratic principles under which and by which the proposal and featured article processes operate.
  3. Bowser's luma (talk) I, in fact, change my vote often, as compared to other users. It's a matter of my opinion what I vote for, and if I've had a change of heart or some sort of wiki epiphany than it's my decision what to vote for and whether or not to change it, and I don't think the 'sops need to be involved. It's not their job to decide whether my reason for changing votes is good enough; my opinion is my opinion and in my opinion there should be nothing requiring me, or anyone, to give a reason/excuse for changing a vote.
  4. Walkazo (talk) - Way too restrictive for the voters and an unnecessary hassle for the admins.
  5. Xzelion (talk) – Per my comments below.
  6. MrConcreteDonkey (talk) - Per all.
  7. Reddragon19k (talk) Since today is my birthday, I'll say it twice: Per all! Per all!
  8. Zero777 (talk) Your definition for "bandwagonning" is too vague and this rule will be as ridiculous as the proposal start rule.
  9. Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) why should people people be forced to ask an admin just to change their vote it just doesnt make sense since.
  10. Bowser Jr And Tom The Atum (talk) Now that I've thought of it, I'm against this idea. Per all
  11. Mariomario64 (talk) Yeah, per all.
  12. Paper Yoshi (talk) - Per Bowser's luma and Xzelion's comments below.
  13. SWFlash (talk) Per the wordy comments above.
  14. DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr. (talk) Per all.
  15. Bop1996 (talk) Per Boswer's Luma, Xzelion, Mario4Ever, and everyone else. Even if one user gives a reason that causes a large number of people (5+) to per them at once, what that means is that the user being per'd probably has a good reason and has defended it in the comments section, not that they don't want to be on the losing side. When I change my vote, even if it is from the losing side to the winning side, it is because I have decided that the other side is better for the wiki.
  16. UltraMario3000 (talk) Per all.


I'm mostly aiming at stuff like this being turned into this or this to this. Now this is not because these are my proposals, its because the votes change so gradually without a good reason. DKPetey99 (talk)

You never actually said what the rule would be >_< Yoshiwaker (talk)
To go through a process before changing votes. I know it may seem annoying, but like I said three times, STOP "JUMPING THE BANDWAGONS"! DKPetey99 (talk)
@Yoshiwaker, Man, you just jumped off a bandwagon! DKPetey99 (talk)
I just did that intentionally to prove how annoying it would be to ask a sysop just if I wanted to change my vote. Yoshiwaker (talk)
Well, it ruins the whole proposal because other people who admire you, may do that and say "Per Yoshiwaker". DKPetey99 (talk)
What you really mean is that people will agree with me and say "Per Yoshiwaker"? I don't think anybody admires me... Yoshiwaker (talk)

Remember to properly format your proposal next time (i.e. include the "proposer" and "deadline" lines). - Walkazo (talk)

You know what I found interesting when looking at those links? They were changing from supporting you, to opposing you. You just seemed frustrated that people can and always will change their minds. I may vote for supporting you, but if someone points out a very good reason why it should be opposed, then people should be allowed to change their minds. Not only that but you, personally have asked people to support your proposals and even asked someone to do it as a personal favor to you, promising them that you'd do anything you wanted them to. So it's not okay for people to "Bandwagon" vote, but it is allowed for you to ask people to support your own proposal? (examples: Here, here, here, and here.) You come across as a huge hypocrite here, wanting fair voting yet when it's your proposal at stake, you do whatever you can to win. You should care about what's right for the wiki, not whether you win or lose a proposal/nomination. Also why dump this all out on a sysop, we will get flooded with people asking us if they can change their vote, and what are the odds we care if they do? We can't outright accuse someone of "bandwagoning", people should be allowed to voice their opinions, and they deserve the right to change their minds without having to consult an admin. And just how, exactly are we supposed to judge if someone is changing just to "bandwagon" or not, how the heck are we supposed to know what they really feel? We can't read minds. Not only that, but this would discourage actual, honest people who want to change their minds, and whose to say the Wiki won't suffer because of it? Xzelion (talk)

@0777, jumping the bandwagon means to switch sides because one side is losing, or your friend is on that side, etc. DKPetey99 (talk)

Do you really think people do that? Seriously. <_< Yoshiwaker (talk)
Etc. is vague, again, and per. Zero777 (talk)

@Boswer Jr. And Tom The Atum, thank you for proving my point. We are down 9-2 and you don't wanna be on the losing side so you change. Thanks for proving my point! DKPetey99 (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

No. He obviously just changed his mind. You are on the losing side so will you change your vote? Yoshiwaker (talk)
Or he could have changed his mind but your right it's prolly cause he doesnt want to be part of the losing side my god man Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)
Except that you don't know that for sure DKPetey99. Your reasons may have seemed good at first, but after all the reasons the opposition brought up, maybe he changed his mind? You have done nothing to counter arguments. And also the fact that Tom the Atum has been on the losing side of a proposal before: here which was quite the landslide and here which was a close one, but he still stuck to his opinions on both subjects. Just because someone opposes you, doesn't mean their dishonest or "bandwagoning" some people can and always will change their minds. Rather than throwing accusations around, try countering one of the many good arguments people like Mario4Ever, Yoshiwaker, and Bowser's luma brought up. Xzelion (talk)
@Xzelion:To say the truth, you are right. I didn't want to change sides just because Petey and I were losing. I wanted to change sides because I read the users' reasons for why the opposed. They made more sense to me than the actual proposal, so I changed my vote to now what I truly believe. Bowser Jr And Tom The Atum (talk)

@Reddragon19k: Happy birthday! :) Bowser's luma (talk)

^What he said. Xzelion (talk) </end off topic>

@ThirdMarioBro: Why do users need to restate the same idea as the other users? Zero777 (talk)

It's better than letting people get away with using "Per *insert username*". And @Yoshiwaker, believe it or not, people actually do "bandwagon jumping" a lot. It can become a problem. ThirdMarioBro (talk)
so what your saying is if someone gives a speech that sways you to change sides you can't just per them when any other time your allowed to per other users because if you change your mind your clearly a bandwagon hopper and should be punished for it i might be wrong on that but thats what i picked up Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)
@ThirdMarioBro: You have no proof that people switch their votes just to go with the bandwagon, nor do you have proof that it is common; therefore, your arguement is invalid. Any arguement that assumes that people will bandwagon is not a very good one. Yoshiwaker (talk)
@Yoshiwaker: You should see what happens at my school with bandwagon jumping. There are a lot of children active on this wiki, and children do bandwagon jumping often. ThirdMarioBro (talk)
Just because somebody will do it in real life, where there can be pressure, does not mean they will do it online, where there is no pressure at all. Even if some people occasionally "jump the bandwagon" it will still be a nuisance for people who have just been convinced otherwise. Yoshiwaker (talk)

Make a "List of Blue Coin Locations in Super Mario Sunshine" page

don't make list 2-15
I thought about this idea, so that's why a set up this proposal. It basically says what it is in the name, make a page of that name, and the layout will be similar to the "List of Quotes" pages, with a new section for each place in the game (Delfino Plaza, Bianco Hills, eta) and each different Blue Coin listed in bullets, not numbered. I believe that this page should be made to make this wiki a lot more extensive.

PS. I will be on hatius by the time this proposal finishes, so I will need someone else to create the page if this proposal succeeds. Use YouTube playthroughs to help make the page.

Proposer: SKmarioman (talk)
Deadline: June 11, 2011, 23:59 GMT


  1. SKmarioman (talk) Per my proposal.
  2. Paperphailurethemariomonster99 (talk) Per my friend. It would help me complete the game. Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!


  1. Yoshiwaker (talk) - Wouldn't it be better just to put the locations on the level articles?
  2. Nicke8 (talk) Per Yoshiwaker
  3. Reddragon19k (talk) Per both!
  4. Mariomario64 (talk) Per Yoshiwaker.
  5. ThirdMarioBro (talk) Per Yoshiwaker.
  6. Mario4Ever (talk) Per all.
  7. Bowser's luma (talk) Per Yoshiwaker.
  8. Zero777 (talk) Per Yoshiwaker
  9. Pseudo-dino (talk) Per Yoshiwaker.
  10. Tails777 (talk) Per Yoshiwaker.
  11. Bop1996 (talk) Per Yoshiwaker, the current format works just fine.
  12. Walkazo (talk) - Per Yoshiwaker. The Blue Coin locations can fit in the exiting text of the articles quite handily.
  13. Theguywithtwohats (talk) Per All
  14. Holyromanemperortatan (talk) - Per Yoshiwaker. Blue Coins' locations should be intheir respective level's article. In my opinion, an article for the locations of all of the Blue Coins would kinda be a bit messy for this wiki.
  15. UltraMario3000 (talk) Per YW.


For the record, it's a good thing the proposal's not going to pass, because Rule 10 clearly states that the proposer has to take action when that happens: simply warning us that you're going to be away and beseeching someone else to do the work for you really doesn't cut it. If you can't enact your proposal, don't propose it in the first place. - Walkazo (talk)

Well, if it was going to pass, I might have had a day to take action on creating the page. SKmarioman (talk)

Add "Status Effect Given" in Recipe Infobox Template

don't add 2-9
I think it's a good idea for the Recipe Infobox template to have a "Status Given" part in it. It can tell us what status it gives or cures. And the template can have more info if the article about the recipe says it doesn't affect HP, FP, & Damage taken.

Proposer: BoygeyDude (talk)
Deadline: June 12, 2011, 23:59 GMT


  1. BoygeyDude (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Paperphailurethemariomonster99 (talk) Per my best friend. This would be so USEFUL!!!


  1. Yoshiwaker (talk) - I don't think this would be too useful, seeing as only a few recipes inflict status conditions. Most items would have "none" for that section.
  2. Bowser's luma (talk) Per Yoshiwaker.
  3. Reddragon19k (talk) That is definitely a per all!
  4. Bop1996 (talk) Per Yoshiwaker.
  5. Mario4Ever (talk) Per all.
  6. PyroGuy6 (talk) Per Yoshiwaker.
  7. UltraMario3000 (talk) Per YW.
  8. Superfiremario (talk) Per all.
  9. Loxo (talk) Per Yoshiwaker and anyways the status conditions would probably be in that item`s page on the wiki.


This is really better suited as a Talk Page Proposal.--Knife (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

May you please describe more by what you mean by "Status Effect Given"? Zero777 (talk)

@Zero: Like the Snow Bunny. If you consume it in battle, you become frozen. Although, not many items give status effects. I can only think of Ruin Powder, Spite Pouch, Snow Bunny, and that one cookie I don't remember the name of at the moment. Zess Cookie?PyroGuy6 (talk)

Zess cookie doesn't give any status. & besides, It will also say if an item CURES a bad status effect. BoygeyDude (talk)

Oops, sorry, I mean Peach Tart. But anyway, this would be confusing to new users; "Status Effect Given: Cures Poison" would not make sense to guests and new users. Plus, like I said above: Not many items give or cure a status effect, with an exception of SPM. As with the Snow Bunny, it can just be mentioned in the article. The sections in the template already should stay. There's more than enough attack items for a "Damage Given" section, but this does not apply for status effects. PyroGuy6 (talk)

Articles regarding levels

don't make articles 3-13
Being new here, Im not sure if this should be a TPP, but whatever. Anyway, I noticed we have articles on Mario worlds (ex. World 1, World 2, World 6), but not individual levels (World 6-4, World 3-1). However, for Donkey Kong levels, we have articles on worlds(Cliff, Jungle, Volcano) but in addition we have articles on individual levels (Prehistoric Path, Jungle Hijinx, Hot Rocket, King of Cling, Weighty way, Cramped Cavern, etc.) I say for consitency we do one or the other. I think Mario levels, especially NSMB and NSMBW levels, have enough contents and secrets to be individual articles. I am simply proposing we either add Articles for Mario levels or delete the articles for DK levels, for consistency.

Proposer:Yoshi2go (talk)
Deadline: June 13, 2011, 23:59 GMT


  1. Yoshi2go (talk)- I would vote my own proposal
  2. Zero777 (talk) Per proposal
  3. superfiremario (talk) per proposal. I all ready made one like this.


  1. YoshiGo99 (talk) I don't think we should because all the levels in Donkey Kong games have names. Most of the levels in NSMBW do not just numbers like 1-1, 1-2 and so on. Also in the World articles we don't have long descriptions of the levels.
  2. Nicke8 (talk) He stole the words right outta my mouth! I don't wanna go to the south! (I'm in a rhymey mode)
  3. Bowser's luma (talk) I wrote this before and now it is gone. I'll just type it again - Per FF65's comment below and YoshiGo.
  4. DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr. (talk) Per Mario4Ever's comments.
  5. Mario4Ever (talk) Per my comment below.
  6. Bop1996 (talk) Per Mario4Ever and FF65 in the comments.
  7. Yoshiwaker (talk) - Per all.
  8. Reddragon19k (talk) Good enough for a per all!
  9. Mariomario64 (talk) There was already a proposal similar to this that failed. Per all.
  10. UltraMario3000 (talk) Per all.
  11. Walkazo (talk) - Per all. I'd rather go the other way and see existing level pages put into world articles. The 3D missions are already in single world pages, and I think SPM would be much better off if the chunks of its chapters were all in one place too. As for 2D sidescroller levels, many are stubs while others are excessively long walkthroughs disguised as articles - they need work done, and the pages that are fine need not lose any content if merged properly.
  12. New Super Yoshi (talk) Per All.
  13. PyroGuy6 (talk) Per my comments, FF65's comments, and YoshiGo99.


I don't even remember why the SMB levels were all merged but I think it has to do with the fact that they don't all have specific names (they all have names like world 1 - 1 and world 1 - 2). The Donkey Kong levels do have separate articles because they have specific names (such as Jungle Hijinx and King of Cling). Fawfulfury65 (talk)

But i believe the levels do have semi-specific names ya know 1-1 and so one Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)
Uh, Goomba's Shoe15, 1-1 is not a name. Besides, the designation 1-1 (without a name) is found in Super Mario Bros., Super Mario Bros. 2, Super Mario Bros. 3, SMB: The Lost Levels, New Super Mario Bros., and NSMB Wii (if I'm missing any, let me know). I think having the levels of each of these games organized by world is much more efficient than making articles for separate levels and then creating a disambiguation page for every instance of the level 1-1. Mario4Ever (talk)

@YoshiGo99: Why should that make a difference? Zero777 (talk)

@Nicke8: You know that you can just say "Per YoshiGo99"? DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr. (talk)

Yeah, but read what is in the brackets. Nicke8 (talk)

Didn't Superfiremario make this proposal awhile ago? And didn't it fail? DKPetey99 (talk)

Yeah, and your point is...? Yoshiwaker (talk)
No, I just wanted to make sure because this does seem familiar. DKPetey99 (talk)

Why should it matter that the levels must have names? I do get what you're coming from but really, if a human doesn't have a name then is he not a human, NO he is still human. Zero777 (talk)

@Zero we aren't saying these aren't levels. Nicke8 (talk)
I never said they weren't. Zero777 (talk)

I think the difference between this and SFM's proposal is that SFM just wanted to make level articles, but this proposal gives a vaid reson as to why we should do it. Ratfink43

I know I'm a bit late to the party, but I've noticed a huge flaw in how this proposal has been set up. The exact thing that's been proposed is: "I am simply proposing we either add Articles for Mario levels or delete the articles for DK levels, for consistency.". There are actually three possible ways to deal with the pages being discussed here (delete, create, do nothing), but there is only two voting options - it's too late to change it now, but in the future, never set a proposal up this way. What's being voted on has to be specific: an "either/or" choice cannot simply be "supported". - Walkazo (talk)

Like Fawfulfury said. The SMW levels have specifyed names, but NSMB, NSMBW, etc. do not. This would also lead to a ton more disambiguation pages. PyroGuy6 (talk)

Revisit Blocked Users' Votes policy

change policy 13-3
Originally, when I had read this proposal, I did not know which choice to support. Here is what the choices in the original proposal were, just to make sure we have something to reference on this page:

  1. All blocked users' votes are removed; no matter the length of the block.
  2. All permanently blocked users' votes are removed, but if a user's block expires before the end of the proposal, their vote remains.
  3. All permanently blocked users' votes are removed, but if a user's block expires two or more days before the end of the proposal, then their vote remains.

Obviously, if you look at the original proposal, you can see that Option 2 garnered the most support out of the three proposed changes. However, I am asking that we reconsider the first two options:

  1. Option One: If a user makes a vote, and they are subsequently blocked, then their vote is removed regardless of whether their block expires before or after the proposal.
  2. Option Two: If a user makes a vote, and they are subsequently blocked, then there are two things that can happen. If the user's block ends before the end of the proposal, then their vote stays. If the user's block ends after the end of the proposal, then their vote is removed.

I would like to have everybody consider Option One for several reasons. Think about it, why does a user get blocked? Assuming good faith in our administration, it is because the user clearly shows that they do not understand, or outright choose to ignore, Super Mario Wiki policy. Why do we want somebody that lacks understanding (or just outright breaks) our wiki policies influencing wiki policy?

Now, think this even further. Whether a proposal ends before or after a user's block is irrelevant when considering the above point I made. If the user's block ends before the proposal ends, and the user in question decides to return to the wiki, then they will be able to add their vote again. The chances of the formerly blocked user not understanding our policies (or their willingness to purposefully break our policies) after experiencing being blocked is much lower. They served their time for the crime, therefore, they have earned their right to vote on a proposal again. But a vote cast in ignorance of the rules should not be considered acceptable under any circumstances, which is also why an argument based on the user hypothetically not returning is also not really justified: if the user simply doesn't want to participate in this system after being blocked, that is their choice. But their vote was made back at a period of time when they couldn't understand our policies, so it should not be allowed to stay.

So that is why I feel we should change our policy to Option One. Option Two simply rewards and babies users that have no regard for the rules of this site. Option One promotes personal responsibility and promotes a logic that will, perhaps, convince more users not to get themselves blocked.

Proposer: Super Mario Bros. (talk)
Deadline: June 19, 2011 (23:59 GMT)

Option One

  1. Super Mario Bros. (talk) – Per my reasons in the proposal.
  2. Turboo (talk) – per proposal
  3. Baby Mario Bloops (talk) – Instead of saying what I told SMB, I'm just going to say that this is the more justified option.
  4. Hypnotoad (talk) – per proposal, mainly the point of blocked users being blocked for a reason
  5. Reddragon19k (talk) Per everyone! Thanks!
  6. Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) Per all
  7. Mario4Ever (talk) This option is the one I supported in the first place. Per proposal.
  8. MrConcreteDonkey (talk) – Per all.
  9. Gamefreak75 (talk) Per all.
  10. Zero777 (talk) They chose to act innapropriate and get themselves blocked so why should we treat them any better, why should they have any privileges if they're in jail?
  11. Mariomario64 (talk) Well, in a way, this seems more fair. Per all.
  12. Bowser's luma (talk) Per Mariomario64.
  13. UltraMario3000 (talk) Per SMB, MM64, Anton (Who is Hypnotoad), and Zero.

Option Two

  1. superfiremario (talk) per proposal
  2. Yoshiwaker (talk) - The fact that a user has done something deserving of a short block(which is the only way they would be able to keep their vote by this option) has nothing to do with how valid their vote is.
  3. DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr. (talk) What if an user's vote expires after a proposal they voted in ends and they made a very good reason? Let's say I was blocked for whatever reason. The block will expire one day later, but I voted in a proposal the day before and made a very good reason. Is it fair to remove my vote? I don't think so.


I'm going to quote what I told SMB (mostly) word for word, so it is going to see a little detached: "I just think that if they are blocked, their votes are out. If their block is over before the proposal is over, then they can just revote. What's so hard about that? But yes, they didn't follow the rules, so they shouldn't be treated with caviar. caviar being the current system. Being blocked is like jail. You are sealed in from the world. And you have no rights at all (because you broke the rules). Understood that many blocks that MG1 are talking about are the 3 day ones, which are pretty much time-outs. But still, when they are blocked, they shouldn't have any right, especially in keeping their vote. shows that they are still in involved with the proposal, showing that their decision still matters (giving them rights)."

That is why I'm supporting changing the current role to be more justified and more reasonable and not so giving as the new one. Also, no offense to you MG1. Baby Mario Bloops (talk)

Huh? I don't believe I was ever for any side in this matter. I'm just against the "Do Nothing" option. Marioguy1 (talk)

Create an article for Reggie Fils-Aime

create article 13-0
We have articles on many Nintendo employees, including but not limited to Satoru Iwata, Hiroshi Yamauchi, Shigeru Miyamoto, Takashi Tezuka, and Koji Kondo. I think it only fitting for Reggie Fils-Aime, president of Nintendo of America, to have an article as well. I realize that he hasn't been as involved in Nintendo software as other employees, but he is one of the primary sources of information concerning the goings-on at Nintendo during every E3 since E3 2004, his public debut. A user informed me that the wiki has had an article on Reggie in the past on three separate occasions, and it was deleted on those occasions. However, I find the risk worth taking. The wiki just seems incomplete without information on him.

Proposer:Mario4Ever (talk)
Deadline: June 20, 2011, 23:59 GMT


  1. Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) He seems pretty notable what with America being the biggest game market its only natural we have an article on it's president
  2. Mariomario64 (talk) Why don't we have an article for Reggie? Per proposal.
  3. Reddragon19k (talk) First Koji, then Shigeru, now Reggie? Per all!
  4. Zero777 (talk) he is rather important for the Nintendo of America.
  5. Walkazo (talk) - Per Goomba's Shoe15, although I don't think we even need a proposal to OK this: as long as the page isn't a stub, it'd totally be allowed.
  6. UltraMario3000 (talk) Per all.
  7. Superfiremario (talk) Per all.
  8. Paper Yoshi (talk) - Per Goomba's Shoe15. Although we can't ignore the European and Japanese markets, we can't deny Reggie has been very important in Nintendo of America's conferences (which are the major ones) either.
  9. Tails777 (talk) Per all.
  10. SWFlash (talk) Per proposa;
  11. Bowser's luma (talk) Per all.
  12. Fawfulfury65 (talk) Per all.
  13. Arend (talk) Per all.



@Walkazo: I figured that a proposal was necessary because I was told that the wiki had an article on Reggie in the past (on three separate occasions), and it was deleted. Besides, it's an important subject, and I want to make sure that anybody who might have issues with this can voice them. Mario4Ever (talk)

All we ever had were really crappy stubs - that's the main reason the page was axed repeatedly. It's an important subject, but it's only one page, and we already have articles about some other important RL figures, so it's not like it's breaking significantly new ground. I personally don't care when the page is made, but I just wanted to take this opportunity to point out that not every decision needs a proposal (and, by extension, changes made without a proposal aren't necessarily less valid). - Walkazo (talk)
I understand. Thanks for your input. I think that it's mainly due to my inexperience at creating articles and proposals, as my only other proposal was crap, and Augmented Reality Games is thus far the only article I've done more to than simply edit. I suppose this proposal is my way of getting comfortable with features of the wiki I rarely use (I've had an account since July 2010, but it's only since April of this year that I've had a talk page, for example). Mario4Ever (talk)

Remove unconstructive translations from articles that use the {{foreign names}} template

canceled by proposer
I have not seen this often, but it irks me when I do, and I just want to resolve the issue. To clarify the proposal's title, "unconstructive translations" are those that are not changed either in spelling or in meaning from one language to another. The Goomba article is a great example of what I mean (see Spanish, French, Italian, and Portuguese). These sorts of translations make me wonder whether or not those who place them there actually speak a language other than English or if they just take the article's subject and run it through Google Translate to get "translations" in as many languages as possible. If these are legitimate translations, what purpose do they serve? It disgusts me (probablement parce que je parle une langue secondaire) that some translations may not be added in order to benefit curious users but may be added just to be added.

Proposer: Mario4Ever (talk)
Proposed Deadline: June 30, 2011, 23:59 GMT
Date Withdrawn: June 24, 2011, 20:21 GMT

Remove unconstructive translations

  1. Mario4Ever (talk) Per my proposal.

Do nothing

  1. Walkazo (talk) - Even if the name is the same, it's better to show that we know that for sure by including it. Having no info just means we have no info; assuming that the name's the same when there's no foreignname entry is assuming too much. Besides, there's no reason to assume the users were making the unchanged names up, and to me, it's just as interesting if a subject keeps its name than if it gets a new one in any given region.
  2. Mariomario64 (talk) – Per above.
  3. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk) It doesn't hurt adding that information that it remains the same in other regions. In fact, that's actually information itself, not non-constructive at all.
  4. Reddragon19k (talk) Per all!


I know this is a bit tangential, but while I don't mind when the Names are the same, I do get annoyed when the Meanings are just the name rewritten. The Goomba article has it right: just use dashes when no change between languages has occurred, and leave it blank if the name is different, but you don't know what it translates to. However, if it sounds the same but there's a spelling change (or if it's been transcribed and we romanized it back in the template), then the English name should just be written, like on Yaridovich (although explaining that's it's a transcription of the English name, like in the Korean Goomba entry, doesn't hurt). Or at least that's how I've been doing it... - Walkazo (talk)

“Walkazo's reasoning is sound enough for me...I'll drop the issue.”
Mario4Ever, edit summary

From Three votes to two votes

canceled by proposer
I remember a long time ago (I'm not sure in this page or feature image or poll selection) the proposal or etc. was determined (at its deadline) if it pass or doesn't pass if one side had two more votes then the other side. Really I think three is too much and ends up as a long and annoying war (i.e. either side have equal chances of winning), example The Starter Planet proposal, it has been up too long, extended two or three times. One more vote then the other, in the other hand, is too little and unfair. Two more votes than the other is just more fair and balance, and could avoid unnecessary extends.

P.S.: I should not see any opposers opposing with just saying "What's wrong with this system/It's not too much of a difference."

Proposer: Zero777 (talk)
Proposed Deadline: June 30, 2011 17:10 GMT
Date Withdrawn: June 24, 2011, 20:52 GMT


  1. Zero777 (talk) Per proposal


  1. Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) there isnt enough of a difference i don't know why the number 3 was chosen but your proposal doesnt make any points as to why we should change the number other than that it would make certain proposals easier to pass or fail.
  2. Walkazo (talk) - If a proposal really is that close a race, it shouldn't pass. It's better to debate it to death and even bring it back to the drawing board to try and accommodate as much as the community as possible, rather than having is pass against the will of half the users. That was the entire purpose of the clear majority rule. As we've seen here, and on the proposal that originally inspired the rule, 2-vote leads can be gained and lost in a matter of hours, but a 3 vote lead that manages to sticks around is an indicator that the vote is starting to swing, and not just waver some more. Lowering the threshold would completely undermine this safeguard.
  3. Mario4Ever (talk) Per Walkazo. Just because a proposal is going on for a long period of time does not mean we should change the votes needed to pass/fail just to resolve it or any others.
  4. Xzelion (talk) Per all.


@Walkazo: Hhhmmmmm...................... That proposal does make WAY more sense than this one. May a staff delete this? Zero777 (talk)

No Starting Planet Left Behind!

don't make new names 29-29
Well, here we are again. It's always such a pleasure. It's been over a month, and my viewpoints in regards to this matter still have not changed. Now, I'll say this yet again: the "Starting Planets" need better names! I don't know how many times I need to say it, but this is not a race; we would not name a planet "Pit Stop Planet" or "Finish Line Planet," so what's the deal with "Starting Planet?" To reiterate what I said a month ago, renaming the "Starting Planets" would prevent a lot of issues, and is overall a much better decision in terms of consistency and accuracy than the way in which they are named currently. Again, I'm proposing that the name of each "Starting Planet" in every galaxy article be changed to "_______ Planet (Starting Planet)." This way, the affected planets are given actual names which coincide with the rest of the planet names in the article as being generally far less confusing and more understandable, though their position as the first planets encountered in a galaxy is simultaneously maintained. As for the galaxies in which there is only one planet to be visited, I'm now proposing that we drop the "Starting Planet" extention altogether, and simply give it a new name in accordance with the aforementioned guidelines (unless people have a drastic problem with that, in which case I could be persuaded to propose otherwise), given that it is, after all, the only planet encountered in the galaxy, and therefore leads absolutely nowhere after Mario lands on it. So, in these situations at least, the name "Starting Planet" is rendered fairly pointless. Because the name "Starting Planet" is already conjectural, nothing will be lost or compromised by renaming them as detailed above. Should anyone wish to view the previous proposal and its respective arguments, etc., please look here. And like I said before, I would be more than happy to make the majority of the resulting changes myself.

Proposer: Phoenix (talk)
Deadline: June 5, 2011 June 12, 2011 June 19, 2011 June 26, 2011, 23:59 GMT.


  1. Phoenix (talk) I definitely support this.
  2. Mario4Ever (talk) Take 2...per proposal.
  3. SWFlash (talk) Per proposal
  4. Nicke8 (talk) Per Phoenix
  5. SuperYoshiBros (talk) Per all.
  6. yoshiyoshiyoshi (talk) Per Phoenix
  7. Reddragon19k (talk) Per all six!
  8. Ilovemarioandtoad (talk) Per Phoenix proposal!
  9. Bowser's luma (talk) Per Phoenix.
  10. Super Mario Bros. (talk) – I don't agree with adding "(Starting Planet)" to each section: rather, it can be mentioned that the planet is the first planet that Mario visits when he goes to the galaxy. Otherwise, I feel that this is an improvement from the current way we do each galaxy article now and I'll support. However, I do feel the need to state that Walkazo's and her supporters' opinions on removing planet sections altogether would probably be the overall best thing to do (I feel that we simply differ on what we feel is the better option in this proposal specifically).
  11. New Super Yoshi (talk) Per them all!
  12. Pseudo-dino (talk) Per Super Mario Bros.
  13. Paperphailurethemariomonster99 (talk) Per All. I could help name the planets!
  14. Boowhoplaysgames (talk) Per All.
  15. Jumbods64 (talk) Per All!
  16. MarioMaster15 (talk) Per All.
  17. Mario Fan 123 (talk) Per all.
  18. ThirdMarioBro (talk) This will only help two galaxies, you say? Well, for many galaxies between the two games, the Prankster Comet missions have different starting planets. This would actually help about 70 galaxies, maybe 80. Per all.
  19. superfiremario (talk) per proposal
  20. YoshiGo99 (talk) Per All.
  21. Runeon12 (talk) Yeah, just seeing starting planet there all the time makes it kinda annoying. Some starting planets are big and deserve to be called something else other than starting planet. Say for instance, the starting planet on the Supermassive Galaxy. It could have some cool, catchy name like 'Mario Bros. Planet' or something like that! Per all
  22. PaperFawful (talk) Per All.
  23. MarioManiac (talk) Per all.
  24. Galaxy_2-Alex (talk) Per all.
  25. Fly Guy 2 (talk) Per all. was the beginning a portal 2 reference?
  26. kenniky (talk) Of course! I'll be willing to help.
  27. Petergriffin555 (talk) Per all.
  28. Shadow34 (talk) Per all.
  29. Olors (talk) Starting planet shmarting planet. I can change that!!


  1. Bop1996 (talk) Per the reasons I opposed the previous proposal. This proposal makes no new arguments to convince me to support it this time.
  2. Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) Per Bop1996
  3. Gamefreak75 (talk) "_______ Planet (Starting Planet)" just looks unprofessional, in my opinion. I see nothing wrong with keeping the name "Starting Planet". Per Bop as well.
  4. Walkazo (talk) Per all, although, to me, this is still the lesser of two evils: I stand by my opinion that removing the planet sections altogether and putting all the info in the missions would be the best course of action (in other words, per what I said on the last proposal).
  5. Marioguy1 (talk) - If you want it to work the second time around, provide a new reason. Per me in the first proposal's comments, and the summary of it in this comments section.
  6. MrConcreteDonkey (talk) - Per all, including all who opposed the last proposal.
  7. Turboo (talk) - per all
  8. Young Master Luma (talk) One of your reasons for changing the names is that "'Starting Planet' is already conjectural". The names you would change "Starting Planet" to would be conjectural, too! Also, labeling a planet as "Starting Planet" is a great way to help people in recognizing which planet it is. Also, per everyone before me.
  9. Zero777 (talk) I don't think it's a good idea, per all.
  10. Magikrazy51 (talk) I'm back from my abscence. Anyway, we already discussed this. Per all.
  11. Yoshiwaker (talk) - Per all.
  12. Supermariofan14 (talk) - Per Gamefreak.
  13. Bloc Partier (talk) - Per Walkazo. The planets should have never had a section. IIRC, we simply put planets on the pages because, when SMG1 was first announced, all we had to go on was the planets. Not that that's terribly important to my vote, but still. I don't think that we ever had to have specific descriptions of the planets.
  14. Holyromanemperortatan (talk) - The first planet is called a starting planet because it is the opening to the galaxy. A galaxy would be plain random if it didn't have an introduction planet.
  15. Paper Yoshi (talk) - Per Bloc Partier. While the wiki may be used by some people as kind of a walkthrough, this isn't our goal. Therefore, as stated by Bloc Partier, we don't need to thoroughly describe each planet from SMG and SMG2.
  16. UltraMario3000 (talk) Per all.
  17. YL (talk) It's obvious that we need to tell readers where's the starting planet. Per all.
  18. Count Bonsula (talk) - Per all.
  19. Smasher 101 (talk) - Per all.
  20. Castle Toad (talk) - Per all :)
  21. Edofenrir (talk) - Per Gamefreak75 and Walkazo.
  22. twentytwofiftyseven (talk) - Per all.
  23. Rise Up Above It (talk) Gamefreak just convinced me to take a side. Per my comment and all these guys.
  24. luigi42 (talk) Per Gamefreak.
  25. IGGY7735 (talk) Per Walkazo.
  26. Baby Mario Bloops (talk) - I sort of like the idea, but I feel like we either leave it starting planet or change it completely, and not at an "impass". Per Gamefreak and Walkazo.
  27. Supremo78 (talk) Per Gamefreak75 and Walkazo.
  28. Mpeng (talk) - Per Holyromanemperortatan. "Starting Planet" is actually quite a helpful name.
  29. MarioMaster720 (talk) Per all. I'm completely fine with "Starting Planet".


First off, your argument of the term "starting planet" being just as effective as any other planet is invalid, as having set names for the planets you begin on in every galaxy will set a precedent, which readers browsing our articles will be able to recognize, and use to find the planet where Mario starts. And I agree with Gamefreak when he says that adding (Starting Planet) in brackets looks unprofessional; you still have yet to provide a reason why the creative name is better than "starting planet".

Secondly, adding in random names to articles without the names being fully decided on will cause dispute among users. For example, the galaxy where Megaleg is battled. The first planet (with the bullet bills). What would it be called? User1 might say it should be the Bullet Bill Planet, but then User2 decides that it would be more accurate to describe it as the Cage Planet. Then while those two are arguing, User3 changes it to the Black Hole Planet. What I'm trying to point out is that there is only one name that perfectly describes the starting planet - "Starting Planet".

Thirdly, while you may have opted to do most of the work yourself, this definitely does not remove the point of the matter; it is a whole lot of work (for everyone, including you) for absolutely no benefit. In fact, as I stated in the first paragraph, it is a whole lot of work by everyone to hinder the articles. Which is definitely not the way to go.

Finally, I expect you to oppose this by bringing forth the examples of the Space Junk Galaxy (and the one other galaxy like it) where there is more than one starting planet. But, as I made a strong point of bringing across the last time this was opposed, there are two galaxies like that and I admit, those two galaxies would benefit. However, there are over a hundred galaxies in total and for those other 100+ galaxies, this change would not benefit them at all, and even go so far as to harm them (see above). In short, this proposal fails to provide any reasons in support of the change. All of the reasoning explains why it is not a bad idea, but none of it explains why it is a good idea. Marioguy1 (talk)

I think removing all the planets' section as Walkazo says is bad idea as it would result impossible to define what places the player will go specially in a mission of the galaxy - You know you don't visit the same places on every mission. On the other hand, I believe that the planets should be called according to a feature that the planet has in special. Well that's my opinion. Coincollector (talk)
Well Coincollector, what could be a more specific thing - and special thing specific to a single planet - than "Starting Planet" in all but two galaxies, only one planet is ever started on. And if Phoenix would just stop proposing this, I would be able to run a TPP through on those galaxies to get them exemption to this rule. So like I said, what is more special than "Starting Planet"? The answer is nothing, Starting Planet is the ultimate description of the planet that is started on. Marioguy1 (talk)
@Marioguy1: You should know better than to think that I would use the same argument twice :)
Well, first of all, what in the world are you talking about? There aren't over 100 galaxies total, there are only 91 between the two games. That aside, it seems to me that you're saying that the rest of the planet names that we have now are fully decided on, which of course is not the case. As you frequently pointed out last time, many of the planet names that we currently use still have not been decided on 100%, and are often changed accordingly. In my view though, this is fairly irrelevant in the long run. I'm certainly not saying that the constant name changing is a good thing for anyone, but it's going to keep happening regardless of what we may try to do to stop it. For the umpteenth time, the overall effect that this proposal will have on the repeated name changes will likely be a minimal one. As I type this, we currently have 11,480 articles. I highly doubt that 91 of them will dominate the majority of edits in the near future. As for the part about using definite names to set a precedent, perhaps it's time to set a new precedent. People will still be able to locate which planet Mario starts on both quickly and easily; that's the whole point of leaving (Starting Planet) next to the new name of the planets. So "Starting Planet" is ultimately still going to be kept intact, just in a slightly different format.
And besides, given that every single planet name is conjectural (including the "Starting Planets"), who's to say that naming them one way or the other is the correct way anyway? I mean, who decided on naming them all "Starting Planet" in the first place? I'm simply offering a naming method that will ultimately provide a much clearer picture of the "Starting Planets" in the mind's eye of our readers, and perhaps our contributors as well. Like I've already said countless times, there is a huge difference between planet names that are descriptive, and planet names that seem descriptive. Regular planet names are descriptive, while "Starting Planet" names seem descriptive, yet in reality embody everything but description. The name "Starting Planet" does not help anyone do anything besides indicate to readers that a planet is the first in its respective galaxy. If such a system was beneficial, we would have undoubtedly already replaced every planet name with "Second Planet," "Third Planet," etc. Why do we not do this? Because it would be unbelievably foolhardy and incredibly shortsighted of us to do so. No one in their right mind would be able to discern one planet from another if we were to do something like this. Readers may very well be forced to rely on pictures as a result of taking such action, something which no one should ever have to resort to, especially when one considers the fact that not every galaxy article even contains pictures of every planet that it features.
Not only is naming the "Starting Planets" definitely more effective, but it is also much more sensible in the long run. It's not about the new name being creative or cool, it's about it getting the job done correctly and competently, something which "Starting Planet" does not do a very good job of at all. I do see where you're coming from, but I honestly fail to see how the resulting actions of this proposal will cause so-called dispute among users. Like I said, how is it any different from what we have going on now? Names that have not fully been decided on are constantly being changed or reworded, and still I have yet to see a recent dispute between users over a planet name being changed. Why should I believe that this proposal will cause an overabundance of users to act any differently than they have been lately? Also, you say "there is only one name that perfectly describes the starting planet - "Starting Planet"." Well, I definitely agree that there is only one name that perfectly describes each planet (I'm talking about every planet, not just the "Starting Planets"), but "Starting Planet" is certainly not it. Each planet requires a unique name, because every planet is different in size, shape, color, texture, what have you, so how can one name that is the same for 91 separate planets possibly be the best name to be using? Obviously, not every "Starting Planet" is exactly the same as the one before or after it, so why name them all as such? It just doesn't make any logical sense. Phoenix (talk) 04:51, 1 June 2011 (EDT)
@Coincollector: That's the exact same thing that I said the last time, it's an interesting idea, but I don't think it would work out very well. It would simply be too difficult to determine what we're talking about and where we're talking about it. Personally, I feel that the planet sections are fine as long as there is some definite semblance of consistency among them. Phoenix (talk) 05:04, 1 June 2011 (EDT)

Sorry, about the 100 galaxies thing, I misread some comments from earlier and basically rounded off; either way, 91 and 100 are both gigantic numbers compared to 2.

Now, first off, I'd like to point out that I have never said anything about the changes to the names dominating the recent changes, or implied in any way that this proposal will affect the rate of change in the other planets in any way. I am saying that if we change the title, that will be one more planet name to change and that will affect the rate of change of the starting planet (prior to this, it would never have been changed, after this, it will be lumped into the same category as all the rest). And about the precedent, I believe I noted that "(Starting Planet)" looks sloppy; it seems like we are going along trying to decide names (which provide no benefit to the overall article) and then, as an afterthought, adding in "(Starting Planet)", "Starting Planet" improves organization and should not be overshadowed by a name that does not properly specify the planet.

Secondly, "Starting Planet" does not just "seem" descriptive, it is descriptive. There is only one planet started on in each galaxy. This planet is the "starting planet". If one is going to try to get a picture in their mind's eye, they could get confused between "Lava Planet", "Rock Planet", "Volcano Planet" or any number of planets whose names apply to multiple planets. There is always the possibility that, unless we have an explicit symbol of the starting planet (that does not appear on any other planets in the galaxy; which are usually shaped so that they look alike), people will get confused and mix up planets. Nobody will ever mix up "Magma Planet" with "Starting Planet" as "Magma Planet" is not started on. And the reason we do not used "Second Planet", "Third Planet", etc. is that there are multiple second planets, third planets, fourth planets, etc. for the missions in each galaxy. Unlike with starting planets, where 2/91 have similar names, that scenario would apply to ~40/91 which is a slightly higher number.

Finally, when I said this would cause dispute, maybe I wasn't clear. What I meant is that, for the time when we are changing the planet names, the users will see the edit, think the name isn't descriptive and then that will cause a dispute. I realize there are already disputes about the planets, but this would be like throwing another fish into a tank full of sharks. On the matter of whether "starting planet" is a descriptive name or not, it seems we have reached an impasse and it's your word against mine (or rather, your opinion against mine) so I don't think we can go forward there. I believe that "starting planet" is a perfect description for the planet started on, and you believe that to create a better picture, we need to be more descriptive. And your argument about starting planets being unique between the galaxies is an improper comparison; the starting planet in Galaxy A is not the same starting planet as in Galaxy B so the comparison does not work. Marioguy1 (talk)

*Hrm* Portal 2 reference spotted. Young Master Luma (talk)

@Marioguy1 (sequel) – "I'd like to point out that I have never said anything about the changes to the names dominating the recent changes, or implied in any way that this proposal will affect the rate of change in the other planets in any way." Truthfully, I was never trying to say that either, I was merely trying to express that out of the 11,000+ articles that we currently have here, I'm almost certain that the majority of users have more to do with the time available to them than continually switch the names of the "Starting Planets" back and forth to what each one personally desires them to be called, especially those users who could care less about Super Mario Galaxy or Super Mario Galaxy 2, which collectively comprise about 0.02 percent of the total number of Super Mario games that have been released to date.
I mean, if I asked ten random users at this moment what they thought about the goals of this proposal, I bet at least half of them would say something to the effect of "I've never even played either of those games, so I could honestly care less." And again, we continue to discuss this as if it is guaranteed that it will happen. Like I said before, there's no proof that every user is going to dislike names which haven't even been created yet. Sure, some may have a problem with them, but for all we know, 99.9% of users could not only really love the new names, but also like them a lot better than what we have now. I'm certainly not trying to put words in the mouth of every user who's ever edited this wiki, but we can't throw this out the window because of the possibility of an unfavorable outcome, which may, in fact, never occur, especially given the fact that there's no hard proof that such an outcome will even happen in the first place.
And as for the part about having the "Starting Planets" become part of "the same category as all the rest," that's exactly what I want to happen! There is no logical reason whatsoever to have any planet physically separated (whether purposely or otherwise) from the remainder of the planets in any given galaxy article, especially not when said planet is the first planet that we're going to be talking about in an article. Again, I'm not saying this was done intentionally, but you can't just name 91 planets one way, and then name the rest of the planets in every article in a different way. If you truly want to improve organization, then we need to pick either one option or the other, and since I've already proven that one option is extremely inappropriate, this proposal favors the more sensible of the two.
Now, I know you keep saying that the name "Starting Planet" is descriptive, but in reality, it only gives the illusion of description. Ignoring the obviously distinct differences among 91 independent "Starting Planets" and naming them all "Starting Planet" simply for the sake of people being able to recognize what planet they start on when they enter a galaxy circumvents talking about the actual visible characteristics of the planet, and seems quite lazy to me. Naming every "Starting Planet" as such does little in the way of recognizing the specific attributes that each planet has, which just isn't right. You can't just name 91 planets the exact same thing and cover up how the planet looks and what it does, even if it does accurately describe where it is in relation to the rest of the planets in a galaxy. That's precisely why I want to give it another name, so that we don't have this problem. But that doesn't mean that I haven't fully taken the opposers into account either. If I hadn't, I would've simply proposed that we just give every "Starting Planet" a new name, instead of giving it a new name and leaving (Starting Planet) next to the new name. Long story short, people will only start to "get confused and mix up planets" when 91 planets that are obviously different in size, shape, function, etc. are all named the exact same thing, like they are now.
Finally, I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say at the end of the third paragraph; the fact that "the starting planet in Galaxy A is not the same starting planet as in Galaxy B" is exactly what I was trying to communicate when I said "Each planet requires a unique name, because every planet is different in size, shape, color, texture..." Let's compare, for example, the "Starting Planet" in the Good Egg Galaxy and the "Starting Planet" in the Honeyhive Galaxy. In the former, the "Starting Planet" is fairly small and dual-sided, with a bright garden-like area on the top, and a dark castle-like structure on the bottom. In the latter, the "Starting Planet" is considerably larger, and has trees, water, Bees, fountains, rolling Boulders, Sproutle Vines...the list goes on. And this is just the case for the "Starting Planets" in two galaxies out of a total 91 galaxies! You're telling me that the numerous, obviously incontrovertible differences between every single "Starting Planet" in all 91 galaxies ultimately amount to nothing more than naming all of them the exact same thing? I realize that they're all the first planets encountered in their respective galaxy (with the exception of two), but come on. We cannot, and we should not, sacrifice quality for consistency. It's as simple as that. Phoenix (talk) 17:35, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

@Usernamer2"Go Galaxies!" isn't a valid reason to support.--UltraMario3000 (talk)

Whoah. Stuff is happening while I'm on hiatus. Anyway, this seems to be a big deal, so I should vote. But I won't because I agree and disagree with points on both sides, so neither outcome seems more favourable imo. I know that a lot of users, myself included, have put a lot of effort into improving the quality of each Galaxy article, especially the Planets sections on some articles. Just haphazardly placing all the Planet section info into the Missions section of the article seems like it would reduce the overall quality of the article by creating a massive wall of text that users and guests probably won't want to read in one sitting. As for Phoenix's idea, it doesn't seem too great. You're basically taking a conjectural name and replacing it with a longer conjectural name. Which is highly screwy logic even by my weirdly high standards of screwy logic. Kudos if that made any sense to you, readers. I'd simply prefer to keep the current format of these Galaxy articles, if that's okay with all you good people who actually placed votes here on this proposal. I shall now resume the last few weeks of my hiatus. Rise Up Above It (talk) 07:20, 13 June 2011 (EDT)

I dunno, but I think the proposal is going too far from the suggested time (it has been held back four times...). I suggest to finish the proposal for this last time if there is at least one vote that makes the difference to carry out this proposal. Another suggestion I would make for the proposal is to not give conjectural names and remove also the name starting planet, and instead use only area (or planet) with a number (like area 1, area 2, planet 1, planet 2, etc). Maybe is not the most creative and sounds awful as to match them with the planets, but would serve to avoid the conjectural names and specify easily the planets or areas in a galaxy. Coincollector (talk)

Um... why the heck do planets need their own articles? Each galaxy should have its own comprehensive article, separated into missions maybe, which then go into planets. This would save TONS of stubs, too. Wayoshi (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

Per Wayoshi. HK-47
The planets don't have their own articles; they have individual sections in the articles for each galaxy. Yoshiwaker (talk)
OK, I misunderstood a bit. REGARDLESS, I think using the concrete names of the mission names would be better than trying to come up with what ultimately is conjecture for planet names. ("Starting Planet" sounds pretty wrong, too, by the way.) Wayoshi (talk)
As per Wayo again. HK-47 (talk)

Remove categories describing or referencing non-Mario-related content from articles

remove categories 12-9
This mainly deals with characters that have made appearances in Mario series games who also appear in series that are outside of our coverage. These characters are then placed in categories based upon what happens in their respective series. For example, Bottles the Mole is placed in the Undead category because he dies in Banjo-Tooie. Since we cover Mario-related content, what does it matter what happens in an external series that is outside of our jurisdiction?

Proposer: Mario4Ever (talk)
Deadline: June 23, 2011, 23:59 GMT June 30, 2011, 23:59 GMT


  1. Mario4Ever (talk) Per my proposal.
  2. Reddragon19k (talk) Per M4E! I like this proposal! Believe me, it's true!
  3. Bop1996 (talk) Per proposal and my comment below.
  4. Baby Mario Bloops (talk) - It took me a second to understand what you guys were saying. Although we do have categories, and though they might be that in their series, it doesn't mean that they belong in this category. We take care of Mario, DK, Yoshi, Wario, and some crossovers. If they want to be in those kind of categories, then their individual wikis can do it for them. It's not our responsibility to do it when it doesn't even fit in our genre. Whatever happens in their games stays in their games, and it is not for us to do.
  5. Phoenix (talk) Per all.
  6. Superfiremario (talk) Per all.
  7. Walkazo (talk) - Per Mario4Ever's proposal and the comments made by Bop1996 and Phoenix. We don't write about aspects of characters that only occur outside their Mario appearance, so why would we categorize them? If they're not "undead"/whatever in their Mario appearance, it's misleading to include them in a category of undead Mario characters. It's also confusing for folks with no knowledge of the parent series: all they will see is the disagreement between the undead categorization and the exposition of the article (which will have no mention of the character's undeathliness).
  8. UltraMario3000 (talk) Per all I guess.
  9. Koopa K (talk) Per all especially BMB.
  10. Marioguy1 (talk) - Regardless of whether or not Bottles the Mole was undead in his marioverse appearance, you cannot change the fact that Bottles the Mole is undead (canonically speaking). Saying otherwise would be giving false information to anybody researching the subject. This applies to every other scenario as well.
  11. Glowsquid (talk) - Per proposal.
  12. Rise Up Above It (talk) Per all.


  1. Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) theres a difference between jurisdiction and confirmed fact and if the categories fit they should be in there since its a confirmed fact theres no reason to remove them unless there false
  2. Bowser Jr And Tom The Atum (talk) If a mole died in a Non-Mario game, then that should be included, as that is info on the mole. How about the Sonic and Pokemon characters? Pokemon could be placed in Category:Pokemon Characters and the Sonic characters could be placed in Category:Sonic Characters. So yes, we should keep non-Mario categories as there is content for them.
  3. SWFlash (talk) Per Bjatta.
  4. Zero777 (talk) You don't completely specify the categories and per all.
  5. LeftyGreenMario (talk) I don't understand what categories relate to Mario and what articles do not. Birds are not Mario-related, but some Mario characters are birds, for instance.
  6. Bowser's luma (talk) Per all.
  7. Nicke8 (talk) Per all.
  8. Fly Guy 2 (talk) per all
  9. Young Master Luma (talk) The articles about characters should contain information about the characters, so why wouldn't the categories be informative, too? If we were to only have information about the character's appearance in a Mario game, the article shouldn't be called, for example, "Olimar", but "Olimar as depicted in Mario context".


@Goomba's Shoe15 So you'd be ok with putting Conker the Squirrel in categories such as Drunkard, Hungover, Profanity User, Murderer, Sex Addict, and Pill Popper? You know, as he's confirmed to be all of those things in Conker's Bad Fur Day. Mario4Ever (talk)

Yes but those would be pretty limited categories considering he'd be the only one also mario would go under the kidnapper category, /luigi would be in the drug user category, and Bowser well yeah... my point is we have these categories we can confirm that these characters fit the category so theres no reason they cant be in ther Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)
We don't have Link and Zelda in a "Heroes of Hyrule" category. Mario4Ever (talk)
We also don't have a Hereos of Hyrule category but we do have a married cateory and Olimar is married so he should go in that category Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)
Why don't we have a "Heroes of Hyrule" category? Could it be that these are designed to be applied to characters and events relevant to the Mario series? Mario4Ever (talk)
That and it would be two short side note link is in the heroes category, but more to the point you have yet two give a reason why we should not include these characters in the categories when we know they fit in there Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)
I did. Since we cover Mario-related content, what does it matter what happens in an external series that is outside of our jurisdiction? The point of this proposal is that this wiki does not need to concern itself with content outside of its jurisdiction; therefore, a marriage in the Pikmin series or a death in Banjo-Tooie is irrelevant. Mario4Ever (talk)
But it's part of the characters biography and it's a known fact that they are married so theres no reason for it to be removed Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)
We'll see how things turn out on the 23rd, monsieur. Mario4Ever (talk)

Here's my take: Yes, the categories exist for a good reason, and they are used to, well, categorize characters so that they may be grouped according to how they are similar. That's all well and good. Now, we cover other Nintendo series (as well as some elements from Sonic, Metal Gear, Banjo, and Conker) for one reason: they appear in Mario-related media. While I believe that we should be accurate in-universe for those other series (eg, I don't want false info about the LoZ series on Link), that doesn't mean that we should categorize them in categories only fulfilled outside of the Mario series (inclusive). For example, if Mario were for some weird reason to gain the Triforce and we created a category for that, it wouldn't make sense to place Ganondorf, Zelda, and Link in that category since that fact only matters in LoZ games. Bop1996 (talk)

You all make good points, but here's the deal: as established by MarioWiki:Coverage, we only accommodate information from outside series when that information is related to the Super Mario franchise in some way. This is the reason why (I believe a few months ago) almost the entirety of the Banjo article was removed; because nearly everything in the article did not pertain to the Mario series in any way. What information remained in the article after this was kept only because it was relevant to the Mario series. Because Olimar's marital status, as well as the specifics of Bottles' death and resurrection, is not relevant to the Mario series at all, we should therefore not concern ourselves with mentioning such information, despite the fact that it may be correct. Long story short; it really doesn't matter what happens with any particular character or characters outside of a strictly Mario game, the only thing that matters is what happens to them in relation to a Mario series game / character / item, etc., ergo, if it doesn't have anything to do with the Mario series, we do not have any business covering it here. Phoenix (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

@Zero777: The reason I don't specify the categories is because they vary among the articles in question. For example, Bottles the Mole is placed in the Undead category because he dies in Banjo-Tooie. Olimar is placed in the Married category because he gets married in the Pikmin series. Pac-Man is placed in the Parents category because he and Ms. Pac-Man have Pac-Man Jr. The problem with all of these is that they occur in the characters' respective series and are not related to the Mario series in any way, shape, or form. Therefore, these articles need to be removed from categories that describe non-Mario-related events, and the way to do that is to remove those categories from the articles in question. @Bowser Jr And Tom The Atum: I'm not trying to get rid of categories. I'm trying to stop their misuse. Categories such as Pokemon characters and Sonic characters exist because representatives from those series appear in Mario-related content. The whole point of this proposal is that categories, when used, describe events concerned only with Mario-related content in some way. Mario4Ever (talk)

@LeftyGreenMario He's not saying we should remove any categories he's saying we should remove characters with info that only happens in there series from those categories Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)

@All Opposers: Let's look at it this way. Characters in categories via their own game -> Didn't appear in the MarioWiki, so makes people confused -> Many users will then look it up, and find out about it -> Users will add that information randomly to each article - which will ultimately lead to -> Articles have useless information that pertains to nothing dealing with the article. Tell me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure that if I'm able to predict that far ahead that it won't be bound to happen any time sooner. That is why we need to let this pass, because I rather have a separated article not including what happens in its other appearances outside of the Mario series then having major headaches of reverting many edits because they were just trying to help out. Baby Mario Bloops (talk)

@Marioguy1: Just to be clear, I'm not denying the canonicity of the events in question; I'm simply stating that if the events have nothing to do with the Mario series, we have no business covering them. @Young Master Luma: This is the MarioWiki. Our primary concern is with the Mario series. This is why we don't cover Link's trials with Ganon or the events of Metroid: Other M. If ever we do need to reference external information, we link to other wikis, and only then to be accurate (withholding information isn't synonymous with inaccuracy). Having categories that reference events outside of the Mario canon only confuses the reader because we don't provide any information on those events. Mario4Ever (talk)

Merge the Croacus family (excluding King Croacus IV) to List of Implied Characters

merge to list of implied characters 11-0
Currently, our definition of implied is "something that is mentioned but is not shown". If it is implied, it goes to one of the various list of implied articles. Now, I haven't played Super Paper Mario in a while, but the articles say that King Croacus I, Prince Croacus, Queen Croacus II, and King Croacus III are all implied, so since the wiki needs to stick with concistency, I propose to merge the articles I just mentioned to List of Implied Characters.

Proposer: Reversinator (talk)
Deadline: June 30, 2011, 23:59 GMT


  1. Reversinator (talk) I per my proposal.
  2. Zero777 (talk) Per
  3. Walkazo (talk) - Like I said in the Rosalina's Mother TPP, in-game pictures shouldn't count as physical appearances any more than textual mentions. Merge 'em.
  4. Mario4Ever (talk) The List of Implied Characters is a list of characters that have not physically appeared in any form of media up to this point in time. These members of the Croacus monarchy have not physically appeared in the series. Therefore, they are implied and should be merged.
  5. Tails777 (talk) Per all and Reversinator's comment.
  6. Reddragon19k (talk) Per all of them and I love it!
  7. UltraMario3000 (talk) Per Walky and 4Ever.
  8. Nicke8 (talk) 5 Volt is there, and she actually talks (correct me if I'm wring)
  9. Superfiremario (talk) Per all.
  10. Koopa K (talk) Per Reversinator's comment.
  11. Baconator (talk) Per all.



I seriously don't know about merging them. I mean they do have their own pictures with a significant amount of information for each Croacus and I think that is enough for an article, despite them never appearing in the game. Tails777 (talk)

Nevertheless, they never actually appear in the game aside from a painting, but that doesn't count, so per our current definition of implied. Yes, they do have info on all of them, but it could of been faked. With no actual proof, we consider them implied. Reversinator (talk)
It's like the Rosalina's Mother TPP, only without the "but is the story really about Rosalina?" kerfuffle. These pictures and text were explicitly about these characters, so it's much more straightforward question: do pictures count as "physical appearance"s or not? - Walkazo (talk)
Photos should, but drawings, paintings, sketches, etc., shouldn't count. Reversinator (talk)

@Walkazo: In Luigi's Mansion, all of the ghosts who appear in the pictures aren't implied characters, right? If so, we should conform to that or change it to keep consistancy. Bowser's luma (talk)

Remember, though, that before they become pictures, they are captured by Luigi. Mario4Ever (talk)
Um, what? E. Gadd put the ghosts in paintings after capturing them, then they escaped, then Luigi captured them again and turned them into paintings again. What's this about them being implied? Reversinator (talk)
Apparently, Bowser's luma is saying that because the painting ghosts aren't implied, the Croacus monarchs shouldn't be considered implied on the basis of being in paintings. Mario4Ever (talk)
Would it kill to know something before using it as a reason? Especially when it's false? Reversinator (talk)

@Nicke5 5 Volt makes an two actual appearance's although one's only a silhouette and the other is only her leg so she is not implied Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)

Categories for Redirects

remove some categories 0-0-6-0
I've noticed an inconcistentcy with redirects. Specifically, that some of them have categories, but most of them don't. On one hand, it helps to easily organize them, but on the other those implied redirects are the only ones that have categories. I'll stay neutral on this, but something should be done.

Proposer: Reversinator (talk)
Deadline: June 30, 2011, 23:59 GMT

Place categories for the redirects

Remove the categories from the redirects

Remove some, but not all categories

  1. Walkazo (talk) - Per my comment.
  2. Bowser's luma (talk) Per Walkazo.
  3. Mario4Ever (talk) Per Walkazo.
  4. Reddragon19k (talk) Per everyone please!
  5. superfiremario (talk) per all.
  6. DKPetey99 (talk) Per Walkazo's comments

Leave it as it is


Most of the time it's pointless to categorize redirects, but it makes sense on some occasions, like redirects to list pages: it's the only way you can categorize implied characters, for example. The baseball teams having categories also makes sense, since three quarters of them don't have actual articles. So, most of the redirects need to be cleaned up and have the categories stripped, but not all of them - but there's currently no voting option for that. I think a fourth "remove some, but not all categories" option should be made; if one isn't made, however, I'll just vote to "leave it as is", since maintaining our policy-less, "sometimes they have them" status quo give us more flexibility to take this on case-by-case than simply saying "yes" or "no" to all of them would. - Walkazo (talk)

Well, I can still edit my proposal. Adding your option. Reversinator (talk)
Awesome, thanks. - Walkazo (talk)