MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/26

All past proposals are archived here. This page is protected to preserve the discussions as they were.

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Date Withdrawn: April 28, 2011, 02:17 UTC

Comments

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 (UTC)

Support

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.

Oppose

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.

Comments

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 something...like...that...okay, 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 (UTC)

Support

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

Oppose

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.

Comments

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

Support

1. Superfiremario (talk)

Oppose

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

Comments

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 (UTC)

Yes

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!

No

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 (UTC).

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.

Comments

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:Article 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 (UTC)

Support

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.

Comments

@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 (UTC)

Keep

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.

Comments

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 (UTC).

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.

Comments

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 (UTC)

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.

Comments

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)