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

Backup Ops

allow back-up 6-9
I do not believe many of you are aware, but there has been a practice of "backup-oping" in the chatroom. When it is crowded and people are spamming, or if the only op in the room has to go for awhile, they op their friends or anyone who claims that they will use their power responsibly. I consider this abuse of power & incapability on part of the current ops. If there really is trouble in the chatroom that often, we need more patrollers (at the time of this posting there was 10 users but 0 ops), and the current ops need to take action and not cower in fear! But one of these days chaos will wreak havoc at the hands of one of these "backups". I'm not saying anyone is not trustworthy, this just isn't smart and things need to return to normal.

Proposer: Wayoshi (talk)
Deadline: December 2, 2007, 15:00 EST

Only Current Ops

  1. Wayoshi (talk) – one of these days a proclaimed backup will disrupt the chat, I guarantee it. We need more capable ops, that's the problem!
  2. Glowsquid Even thought I am one of those back-up operators, I agree with what Wayoshi said. I am too not against the idea of having more pattrolers, I mean, currenlty, we have at least 10 sysops and one pattroller... what the heck?
  3. ChaosNinji I agree wholeheartedly that we need more patrollers and less Back-up ops. At the time of my writing this, the chatroom is being flooded and spammed, as it has been all day, and not a one op has appeared throught the day to stop it!
  4. Dannyboy (talk): Agreeing with the person with the title of Wayoshi.
  5. Mr. Guy (talk) Per Wayo
  6. Ghost Jam (talk) With the current inconsistencies with the rules, it's hard enough for the official ops team. I can't imagine it being any better for someone else.

Allow Backups

  1. Pokemon DP (talk) Even as I write this, Wayoshi is spamming the Chat. Do you see why he wants to get rid of Back-up Ops?
  2. Plumber (talk) I would remain neutral on this, but I don't think people will be promoted solely to watch over a chatroom, so there would be even less of a solution than there is now.
  3. Master Crash (talk) Per all
  4. Dodoman (talk) I thought Wayoshi was being reasonable, until I read Pokemon DP's vote.
  5. Uniju :D (talk)Changed from support, Per Dodoman.
  6. Luigibros2 (talk) Per DP
  7. Xzelion (talk) Per DP
  8. Alphaclaw11 (talk)– There has to be a few backup OPs when NO op is on. Which Steve can do. I vote no backup Ops if this won't happen.
  9. King Mario (talk) Per all


If this proposal fails, I would like a list of official backups current ops can look towards, maybe in Help:Chat, at the very least. Wayoshi (talk) 12:30, 25 November 2007 (EST)

There needs to be more active ops. Alphaclaw11 (talk)

One thing you guys are forgetting, is that most of the current Sysops are trapped in their personal lives at the moment and, I don't know if school is on in America, but, if it is, that is a distraction as well. And, the reason I'm not on all the time, is because I have a life to live, as well as sleep I need! And, are you sure we should be listening to Wayoshi? He spams the most in the Chat when there are no Ops. Additionally, we should not make Patrollers just to save the Chat. Patrollers have to fight off vandalism on the Wiki, not JUST protect the Chat. If this is such a big deal, why don't you just remove the Chat for good? Pokemon DP (talk)

Pokemon DP: While Wayoshi motives are indeed dubious, he's right. This whole back-up up thing may make soem of those back-uo operators that they could get promoted to Pattroler status, plus, a back-up operator can only be opped when an actual operator is on the chat, which make the point of their existence kind of moot. Glowsquid

I'm going to remain neutral on this, as both sides have a fair point. Plumber (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2007 (EST)

Since I don't use the chat I don't think it's my place to go sticking my nose into issues involving it, however I do think we should have more than one Patroller (for the Wiki in general). - Walkazo

To Dodoman: Don't pay attention to what DP said, he's just a bit upset he won't be able to op Uniju, LB2, etc. Wayoshi (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2007 (EST)

Can we get a solid definition of spam up in here? I know DP is more strict about it than some other moderators, for example. That might help clear up some of the bad feelings that are going around right here. Stumpers (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2007 (EST)
Most of the spam happening is indeed spam, not DP over-reacting. Plumber (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2007 (EST)

Sorry for asking, but who exactly are currently ops in the chat? - Cobold (talk) 11:07, 27 November 2007 (EST)

DP, Phoenix Rider, RAP, Porplemontage, KPH2293, YellowYoshi398, Ghost Jam, and Myself. However only RAP, DP, and I are on everyday. Xzelion (talk)
And how do you decide who becomes Op? All you listed are also Sysops on the wiki. - Cobold (talk) 15:01, 27 November 2007 (EST)

Wayoshi: In response to the list of official back-up Ops, I've decided to agree on that. For example, after discussing it with Plumber, Luigibros will NOT be a back-up Op anymore. I'm still thinking about Uniju... Blitzwing seems trustworthy enough. Plumber can act a bit spammy at times, but, I'm sure he wouldn't do anything like what HK did. Pokemon DP (talk) I'll still watch him, just in case. Also, with Ghost Jam on the Chat, I will lower the amount of Back-up Ops in Chat.

I've only been using the chat extensively for the last two and a half days. Honestly, I don't see what all the fuss is about. Things has been rather silent, with some little discussion here and there, with only a few people who had to be kicked. -- Chris 20:22, 27 November 2007 (EST)

And now I do see what all the fuss is about. -_- -- Chris 21:27, 27 November 2007 (EST)

Alpha, if a back-up tells Steve they're a back-up, he'll add them, like he did with me. Plumber (talk) 22:30, 27 November 2007 (EST)

MarioWiki:Improvement Drive

get rid of it 6-0
The improvement drive was created a few time ago, even thought simmilar ideas have been tried and all failed miserably, it seemed like a good idea at time. But now, it's barely edited and the creator (Max2) is blocked from editing forever. As of now, the Improvement drive seem like a waste of database space more than anything, I propose we delete it and state somewhere than project like it were tried and failed, so we won't end up with the idea being brought up again, accpeted, and turn out to be a similar fiasco.

Proposer: Glowsquid
Deadline: December 2, 2007, 15:00 EST

Get rid of it

  1. Glowsquid
  2. Wayoshi (talk) – I knew this wouldn't work. We are a big community, yes, but it seems mainspace contributors don't work together, as our knowledge is spread out, not concentrated on a particular area (I myself have never played the original SMB). This just won't work consistently.
  3. Dodoman (talk) It's a trainwreck, and a waste of our Wiki's space.
  4. Xzelion (talk) Per All
  5. Walkazo - I think we should still have a plain old list of bad articles, that way any old user can see what they can do, and then do it without having all the hooplah about a "weekly collaboration drive" wasting their time along the way.
  6. Plumber (talk) Per my original opposition of the project in the first place

Try a comeback


Walkazo: We have that list, it's called Category:Rewrite and Expansion Requested.


Oh, okay. Thanks! - Walkazo

Wario Man (character) and Wario Man (Final Smash)

keep 'em merged 3-10

Um, what can I say? If WarioWare, Inc. and WarioWare (stage) are seperate, why not this? It's not like there's a reason not to split them (to my knowledge >_>).

Proposer: Dodoman
Deadline: December 5, 2007, 17:00 EST

Split 'em!

  1. Dodoman (talk) I am the proposer and I like pie.
  2. Purple Yoshi (talk)-One's a move, one's a character. Merging them is unnessesary
  3. Theryguy They are two different topics!!!!!

Keep 'em merged.

  1. Cobold (talk) - See my comment below.
  2. Demyx (talk) per Cobold
  3. Walkazo - Per Cobold.
  4. Xzelion (talk) Per Cobold;
  5. Plumber (talk) Per The Bold Company
  6. Pokemon DP (talk) I was originally neutral on this Proposal, but, after hearing Cobold's comment, I saw the flaws in spliting them.
  7. Ghost Jam (talk) - per Cobold.
  8. User:Girrrtacos - Per Cobold
  9. ChaosNinji (talk) - Per Cobold
  10. Super Yoshi10 (talk) - per cobold


WarioWare the company and WarioWare the stage are something entirely different. Wario Man is not, he's a form of Wario in both meanings, just the fact that it's classified as a Special Move in Brawl does not change that. As such, F.L.U.D.D. (SSB attack) got merged with the F.L.U.D.D. article because of redundancy. - Cobold (talk) 09:08, 29 November 2007 (EST)

I see we have two different articles for Giga Bowser and Giga Bowser Transformation. What's everyone's take on that? Is this any different? We're going to have to decide which to split/merge, IMO. Stumpers (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2007 (EST)

Nice spotting! We should merge the Giga Bowser articles and leave the Wario Man article alone. - Walkazo
Thank you! We should still wait to see how the vote turns out, of course, but I'm fine as long as we act for consistency. Stumpers (talk) 19:15, 5 December 2007 (EST)

PAGENAME template

remove {{pagename}} on articles 9-0
Recently, I've seen theres been some misuse of {{PAGENAME}} on articles. And its not being used for its real purpose, on Notice Templates and such, instead simply saying "This article", while its sometimes being abused in places like real articles, which in most cases is longer then the Page's name itself. So, I propose that {{PAGENAME}} be added to Notice Templates and such, and an official rule be passed that its not to be used on articles themselves.

Proposer: Uniju :D
Deadline: December, 9, 2007, 1:00 EST


  1. Uniju :D (talk)People are gonna get mad at me for making so many proposals when I never edit... Then maybe they'll make a proposal saying that you need to edit to make proposals, and that edits are kinda like currency to do things on the wiki... Oh yeah, reasons given above, ^^SO READ THEM^^
  2. Pokemon DP (talk) I agree, aka, per Uniju. =P
  3. Cobold (talk) - {{PAGENAME}} should not be used in articles.
  4. Mr. Guy (talk) Per Uniju
  5. Stumpers (talk) 22:31, 4 December 2007 (EST) The less we use templates in the body of the articles the better. However... I love templates at the start and end and off to the side, but that doesn't apply here.
  6. Walkazo - Using the {{PAGENAME}} template is lazy and/or plain stupid.
  7. Ghost_Jam (talk) per Stumpers.
  8. Glitchman - per Walkazo.
  9. User:ND_IRISH_ROCK! Walkazo has a point. If you're going to be lazy, bug some other wiki.



What are you talking about? --HyperToad 10:41, 6 December 2007 (EST)

If you place {{PAGENAME}} on an article, it will put the Page's name. Its there for templates and such, but isn't used on them. And lately I've seen people adding it to articles, mostly on images. Thats what we're talking about. Uniju :D (talk)
What is the harm in using it in articles? -- Chris 19:24, 6 December 2007 (EST)
Good point, Chris. Sorry I forgot to mention this: (1) page moves, particularly ones such as "Toad" to "Toad (character)" or articles that cover multiple topics being limited to one. (2) If the template ever changes, it will take a lot more work to change the articles back to the old method. When I say changes I'm thinking about if we wanted to have it link to both the page and the talk page. Very unlikely, I know, but it's my concern. Oh... vandalism, too unless the page is locked. Really, though, all of this is very unlikely. Stumpers (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2007 (EST)
Ghost Jam: It usually takes more space then the article's name, and thats not what its there for. Also, Stumpers:... Are you even talking about the pagename thing? :\ Uniju :D (talk)
If it's the template that places the name of the article in place of {{pagename}}, then yes. Think: what if you put that one a page like Ashley, now merged as Ashley and Red? "When Ashley combed her hair she accidently hit Red with her fist" (yes, it's a fake example) now, that page is called "Ashley and Red", so it would read "When Ashley and Red combed her hair she accidently hit Red with her fist." There you go. Only careful reading of the article would find that error. Stumpers (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2007 (EST)

Individual Stars

keep information on individual stars 11-2
It seems rather cumbersome to me to have information on all the Stars on all the galaxies in Super Mario Galaxy. We don't even have that for Super Mario 64. Yes, some, like Bob-omb Battlefield have a complete list, but most, like Snowman's Land cover it only briefly or not at all. Therefore, do we really want a whole bunch of unused space on the Wiki? Or is someone going to step up and flesh them out? Personally, I think having sections for individual Stars is unnecessary, and turns this wiki into more of a game guide. Not a very good thing. But I suppose I shall see what you all think.

Proposer: Phoenix Rider
Deadline: December, 12, 2007, 21:00 EST

Addendum: One thing, though, if we DO keep these Star lists, we will have to complete the 64 Stars as well. This could turn out to be a big project, and right now it's all a bunch of white space.

Keep them

  1. Stumpers (talk) Please see my first comment below.
  2. User:ImperialscoutsI'm with Stumpers here. btw Stumper, nice analogies.
  3. Cobold (talk) - Per everything Stumpers said below.
  4. Walkazo - Per Stumpers. I also agree with what Phoenix said about needing to flesh out articles like Snowman's Land.
  5. SpikeKnifeNeedleSword (talk) - I'll help out with SM64 stars, but not Galaxy stars.
  6. Vadahata2-per stumpers.
  7. Litnin200 - I say keep them. You know, the same thing is currently being done for Donkey Kong 64 (Golden Banana Guide), so if we get rid of these, we'll also have to get rid of those. Oh, and if we do get rid of them here, could we at least put them up somewhere else, like at StrategyWiki?
  8. User:Fly Guy 2 They're very helpful.
  9. Jaffffey (talk) Keep them in. The more articles the better! Once I get this game, I will try to give better details on the stars.
  10. User:ND_IRISH_ROCK! We need to keep them for completeness, but they shouldn't be too long (my two cents anyhow).
  11. Lemonface I think they should stay. The more articles on the MW, the better. If anything we can start making articles on the Mario 64 stars. It'd only be fair.

Get rid of them

  1. Phoenix Rider (talk) - Per Above.
  2. Glitchman - I believe Phoenix Rider was right, having all of the Mario gaming guides you could ever want on one site would be great, we need to add information.


I like the goal of the article (make us an encyclopedia, not a game guide), but here's the thing: you're using a hatchet to remove a fly from the Wiki's forehead. Here's why: you are proposing we remove information about specific events that take place during the actual game play of these two adventures because the player controls Mario during them, and thus they are prone to discrepency and game guide style. However, with those gone, you are left only with cutscenes and actions that happen in the overworlds (castle, observatory). Sure, you have a basic story arc, but that would be like telling the original Star Wars trilogy with only a half hour from each film (and possibly none from the "Empire Strikes Back") because you are missing the events that occured in between. Yes, you'll be able to write that Mario gained at least a certain number of stars before defeating Bowser, but not about how he explored the Hazy Maze Cave, because that exploration was part of a "Star Mission." Additionally, the content the proposal seeks to remove/block is the very content that makes the games so famous (no one mainstream is talking about how Peach was captured in SM64, they're talking about the great gameplay, or the "Star Missions."). Even if you'd like to focus on the story alone, you need the stars and Mario's missions to retrieve them as they integral parts of the story.

The fact that the sections are not done when the game has only been out for about a month should not indicate that they will stay that way forever. Now, below I wrote about your concern about looking like a game guide and how to change text from game guide stuff to encyclopedia stuff. Take a look if you're not convinced yet.

We'll only look like a game guide if we present our information in such a format. Word choice is crucial here, because the events in these games are customized by the player to a certain extent. We must refrain from addressing the player or you, instead saying "Mario does this." However, that phrase can be tricky, too. Take a look at this faked example from Paper Mario's battle with Tubba Blubba's Heart:

Suitable:"Bow can protect/protected Mario from Tubba Blubba's Heart's special attack by using her Outta Sight ability. After taking extensive damage, the heart bounced away out of the windmill, where he reunited with his body. Mario and his party members gave chase before running into Blubba, who they engaged in battle."
Game Guide: "The player/you/Mario (choose one, even saying Mario can't save this example) should have Bow out for this battle to block against Heart's attack. When the heart charges up during it's turn, have Mario attack before Bow on the allied turn, then have Bow use Outta Sight. The heart's attack will go through the transparent characters, allowing Mario to keep more HP for the next battle with Tubba Blubba. However, should his HP fall, Mario will have a chance to use restoritive items in his inventory before leaving the Windmill to face the beast. There is no Save Block between these battles. To finish off the heart, Mario should continue attacking normally until the heart charges up again, at which point he should repeat the process.

Stumpers (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2007 (EST)

I think we should retain those lists, but put them in table form. Section form makes it look a bit messy.SpikeKnifeNeedleSword (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2007 (EST)

Yeah, like in the Donkey Kong 64 article.


Actually, looking at that article, the chart squishes the discriptions too much unless you have a 1600width screen with the window taking up all of the space, and then it's still cramped. How about using the third header for the level and then bolding the mission name and a colon, then the discription? Yes, I know that with only one character we'll have more room, but generally charts aren't good for discriptions IMO b/c of small screens. Stumpers (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2007 (EST)

How about the tables on the Super Mario 64 DS article? They look pretty good.SpikeKnifeNeedleSword (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2007 (EST)

Those are really good! I'd be happy with more like 'em. Stumpers (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2007 (EST)


keep redirects 4-9
Recently, I've seen that some articles have been turned into redirects because their too short(Like all of the Prankster Comets), however, I believe that as a Mario Encyclopedia, we should have a full article on every object, place, and character in the Marioverse, not clutter things into lists to save space. Lists usually tend to compress the information as much as they can, and not include smaller pieces of Information. They also tend to lack an image of each thing in the list, while full articles usually do not. Thus, I propose that any Object, Place, or character in the Marioverse is major enough to have its own article, not simply a redirect to a list.

Proposer: Uniju :D
Deadline: December 12, 2007, 22:30 EST


  1. Uniju :D (talk) I agree with myself.
  2. Plumber (talk) I agree with myself, who is agreeing with you.
  3. Snack See comments below.
  4. HyperToad Per Uniju


  1. Phoenix Rider (talk) - See Comments below
  2. Purple Yoshi (talk)-We don't need one-line articles. In real encyclopedias, it would say something like "See (other article)".
  3. Pokemon DP (talk) Per Purple Yoshi.
  4. Walkazo - It sounds good in theory, but some things just don't have enough information for a full article.
  5. Blitzwing - Per Walkazo.
  6. Xzelion (talk) Per Walkazo
  7. Ghost Jam (talk) - per Purple Yoshi.
  8. Mr. Guy (talk) - Per Walkazo
  9. User:ND_IRISH_ROCK! Sections seem to be good enough for many topics.


While I do see your reasoning behind the "every aspect deserves an article" approach, the truth is, some articles have very little to say about them. In these cases, it is better to have one page that can give all the information in a group rather than forcing people to go back and forth between bite-sized pages. Simply put, it makes navigation a mite easier. Phoenix Rider (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2007 (EST)

Almost any article can have more information than you seem to think. Also, I don't see how going between articles is hard or annoying in any way. Uniju :D (talk)

Although I support this proposal, I think it might be better to do it on a case by case basis. For example, I don't think much more information could be given on each individual Prankster Comet then is given on the current Prankster Comet page, although having each comet have a seperate page would make things cleaner and make the images (if any ever get added) fit better... Maybe I should have just opposed the proposal :P Snack 23:03, 30 November 2007 (EST)

Uniju, if you think more information can be put on the page, then you do that. But as it stands, in this case, there's not much to be said. Like Snack said, it should be a case by case basis, and in this case its hard to get enough information short of totally wringing it dry. And that doesn't make for good material. You can tell when articles that have little to say about them are stretched for the point of making them longer. Also, what about users who have slower computers? Wouldn't it be more convenient to have more little sections of information on one page rather than having those same little sections on separate pages, where they would have to wait for each individual page to load? Phoenix Rider (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2007 (EST)

Purple Yoshi: In real encyclopedias there would be an article on everything the encyclopedia would cover. Also, like I said, most one line articles are only one line articles because people where too lazy to make them any larger. It makes the place look sloppy of you are simply told to go to another article because someone was too lazy to write a new one. And, Rider: I never said I have a fast computer. Also, I never said this was only about that article, I said its about the whole wiki, and other Redirect-to-list articles. These articles make people not care about expanding the article, instead it doesn't really need to be expanded. Thats the problem with this place, things that either have small articles, or aren't "major" enough, will simply be either redirected to a list, or deleted. Uniju :D (talk)
Redirects are annoying, but I'd rather read one big page about Prankster Comets than six little ones: Either way I'd get the same amount of info, only one way is fast, and the other makes my computer bleat about how it's running low on system memory after fifteen minutes of tedious bouncing from article to article. As for the encyclopedia not looking profesional because of redirects, I disagree; it's stubs that are unprofessional. Also, PY's right about how some encyclopedias and dictionaries use "redirects" and clump similar information together, whether it's to save paper for hard copies, or time and server space for online resources (i.e. us). Still, I'm going to agree with Phoenix about taking things case by case; it seems the most sensible course of action consering this whole "delete/create-stubs-debate" doesn't seem to be going away anytime soon... - Walkazo

Uniju: Ok, explain how the guys on the List of Implied Characters are worthy of theirs own articles. Blitzwing

What about this article too, there isn't much to say about them Xzelion (talk)
Xzelion: It seems that those Boos are a lot less major then things like the Prankster Comets, for them it would be like having an article for each Silver Star in Super Mario 64 DS. And, Blitzwing: Many of those characters seem to have enough information to have an article, and all are either notable enough to have a full article, or not notable enough even to be on that stupid list. Uniju :D (talk)
The only character on the Implied list that seem to have enough info for an article is the Bog Monster, all the others are simply thrownaway, one-time mention in a line of dialogue, the only reason most implieds are more than stub-size is that they are filled with ridiculous speculation based on their names, I agree we should have an article on every named things and all, but frankly, having an article on guys like Old Man Skoo is ridiculous. They do exist in the Marioverse, but something like WIN-tendo isn't worthy of it's own article, only a mention.


I like Snack's point: determining whether to merge is an article-by-article process. I have had two experiences with this recently:

  1. Ashley and Red: I tried writing the article for Red. When there was not enough information I could say about him individually (ie events not involving Ashley), I realized the merged page was fine.
  2. Super Star: This was a redirect to the Star page. Realizing that Super Star is the title the characters in MP1 are fighting for, I fleshed it out.

Really, what you need to do is proove to the Wiki that the page deserves to be separate by writing about it. If the Wiki decides to re-merge, make sure that all your work got merged (and not generalized -- that goes against what we're here for) and look for more information and try again. It seems like a lot of work, but it destroys the possibility of a stub, right? Stumpers (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2007 (EST)

Merge Cartoon Voice Actors

merge 6-0
Although I recently wrote an Andrew Sabiston article, I soon afterwards thought that all of the cartoons' voice actors were mostly stubs that said "So-and-so voiced Such-and-such in InsertCartoonHere." And that's it! I think these actors are not each worthy of their own articles, with the exception of Lou Albano and... the guy who played Luigi... on TSMBSS, because they were the main live-actioneers. So, I think there should be a List of Mario Cartoon Voice Actors (with the DKC actors as well). Good?

Proposer: Dodoman (talk)
Deadline: December 12, 2007, 20:00 EST

Merge 'em, Steve

  1. Dodoman (talk) Oh, and I guess I'll take the responsibility of creating the article.
  2. Blitzwing - Per Dodoman.
  3. ChaosNinji (talk) - Per Dodoman
  4. Walkazo - Per Dodoman.
  5. Stumpers (talk) Hmm... eliminate stubs and create a fun article to read, like the List of Implied Characters... I like it. But, the actors from the movie and from the live action segments are not going to be on this list right? Good.
  6. Ghost_Jam (talk) per Stumpers

Keep 'em, Sam


So, the shows we'll have will be the three American series and also the anime, right? Any others? Stumpers (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2007 (EST)

The Donkey Kong Country and The Saturday Supercade voice actors; what about them?. -- Sir Grodus 14:05, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Oh deary dear. Well, Grodus, I mentioned that Donkey Kong Country would be on there, but Supercade didn't come to mind. I suppose those can be too. Stumpers, I didn't think of the anime either, but I guess that will have to be in too. Dodoman (talk) I have the four "main" cartoons done, now I just have to add those... others.
Aww... you don't have to do all the work: just put a construction template up top and discuss it on the talk page. We'll help. Of course, this has to pass first, I guess. Oh, by the way, do you think maybe we should also mention the video game voice actors, too? Not to replace their articles, but just to have 'em? Oh, and how about I make a sortable list for you on that page (when it's made) that can be organized by vocal role, show, and character? Stumpers (talk) 18:52, 14 December 2007 (EST)


no way 3-7
Maybe we should have a section where you can hear the original music and how it has changed over the years to the more recent Mario style. This would require the music to play in Super Mario Wiki instead of just linking to it (like galbiana hotel or whatever it is). I know Wikipedia uses OGG for its music... Thoughts?

  • Ok, ok. The OGG was only a suggestion. I would personally prefer MP3 or WMA, the format doesnt matter.
    • Also, this proposal is now officially stating that the music would need to be activated (i.e. clicked on) in order to run. That way, people with slower computers would not get clogged on every page unless they wanted to hear the tunes.

Proposer: Macewindu
Deadline: December 24, 2007, 17:00 EST

Let's try it!

  1. Madhatter9max - See below.
  2. Macewindu - see below.
  3. G-Money I don't have something to play .OOG files and when I try to install it, my computer freeses up!

No way!

  1. Walkazo - See below comment.
  2. Pokemon DP (talk) I am in total agreement with Walkazo on this. First of all, not many people are able to upload .ogg files, so that poses as an issue. Galbadia Hotel is very reliable, as it is NOT mostly remixes. A lot of their music are ripped from official games or soundtracks, so we can link to that site. Now, VGMusic is the website that is all remixes. And, as Walkazo said, we don't want to alienate those with slow internet.
  3. Mr. Guy (talk) Listening to how the music changed over the years/ That sounds complicated and useless, were an Encyclopedia!
  4. InfectedShroom. Per Everyone. OGG sucks, and playing them straight from the wiki would be slow and might not even work on some computers. Sure, I like my Video Game music, but no to the straight up files. And GH is EXTREMELY reliable.
  5. ChaosNinji (talk) - Per all. It makes no sense for it to be on a MARIOWiki even if it is Mario music.
  6. Storm Yoshi (talk) per Walkazo
  7. Ghost_Jam (talk) per Walkazo


Don't forget to vote yourself, Macewindu. Anyway, being able to compare music through the ages does sound like a good idea, but we should stick with links out of the Wiki. It's just like with videos: people with slow computers may encounter difficulties with the extra features. The Wiki's for everyone, after all. - Walkazo

I'm supporting because you have to click on it for it to work or not so you know what you're in for. there's galbadia hotel but it's mostly remixes from what I've seen and also as reliable sources for me. the songs show the depth and evolution of each game and are certainly a landmark to be included. I'm in support as long as each song doesn't try to start automatically.Madhatter9max 01:31, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Right on madhatter9max! I will only support it if each song doesnt try to start automatically. This would get kind of annoying (like how all the videos start on youtube every time a window is openned). Also, The format need not be OGG. I said that only because Wikipedia uses that. If we used MP3 or WMA, or both that would be much better. I currently have all Mario Party 7 gamerip music with me in one folder, so we wouldnt have to download EVERY SINGLE ONE from Galbadia. Macewindu 08:41, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Now that the former questions have been addressed, Pokemon DP and Walkazo, any other concerns or do you agree?

Two comments: a) GHotel isn't all remixes, some of them are correctly ripped, b) I am not certain if there is an extension to directly play files internally. Wayoshi (talk) 16:01, 18 December 2007 (EST)

  • ???-Um, Galbadia is entirely correctly ripped. I dont think there is any remixes. I was just saying that, instead of downloading them one by one...never mind. This part is trivial. We need to decide if the dumb thing is a good idea first.Macewindu 16:32, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Nope, you covered everything I didn't DP, but thanks for asking! - Walkazo

What? I didn't ask you anything. Pokemon DP (talk)
  • No,no,no. I was asking if either of you have anything else against this or do you agree with it?Macewindu 07:03, 19 December 2007 (EST)
Then you shouldn't've started a new paragraph after signing the first part of your comment. Since I couldn't tell it was still you talking and I knew I didn't write that, I figured it was the only other name in the message. I know DP uses a real signature here, but I was having and off-day and automatically ignored the irregularity of it all... - Walkazo

alrite everyone I was just saying Galbadia is mostly remixes from what I've seen I'm sure there are actual scores and everything I just wanted to post a possible disclaimer. also: who cres if it wastes too much time? theres enough people out there willing to upload songs so that it won't waste your time. even wikipedia has music samples on there. since we're more exclusive to Mario than they are why don't we put up more info? it's not pointless, there are plenty of people that randomly wonder what songs are what and this would make it much easier for them to find the song without having to download. Madhatter9max 23:58, 19 December 2007 (EST)

  • I concur.Macewindu 10:16, 20 December 2007 (EST)
For what I seen. Galbadia is entirely official songs ('cept for the MIDI section, which link directly to Vgmusic) since all the musics are directly ripped from a promotional album, and even some times, from the actual game. On the other hand, VGmusic is entirely remix.

Blitzwing I don't think the point about less powerful computers is really right, Wikipedia itself use sound samples in some of their articles, and I am sure they are as cautious as us when it come to low-tech computer.

How about an example of one of these pages? - Walkazo
You mean a page with sound sample on Wikipedia? Well, there's this page.


As far as I know, GH doesn't have any Mario Galaxy tunes at the moment. User:firemario

Thanks for the example Blitzwing, but my computer won't run it! Looks like Wikipedia's not so cautious after all... - Walkazo

Merging Pumpkin Head with Goomba

merge 8-1
Pumpkin Heads are absolutely proven to Goombas wearing Pumkins on their heads, so does this make them a new species altogether? No. Listen to the comment I wrote on its talk page over a week ago: Should this have its own article? Goombas have worn many things for protection, but wearing a pumpkin head doesn't make one a new species. Its like saying that Mario is another character when he doesn't wear his overalls. And I'm pretty sure Nintendo didn't give it an official name since it wasn't meant to be a new enemy altogether. If you will remember, there were also Goombas with helmets that can be killed almost the same way. I'm sure they wear pumpkins just to give to level a spooky feel. It doesn't even have an official name! But I'll leave it up to you guys to decide.

Proposer: Knife
Deadline: December 29, 2007, 20:00 EST

Merge Information

  1. Knife (talk) 14:51, 22 December 2007 (EST) My reasons are given above
  2. Blitzwing Per Knife.
  3. Walkazo - Per Knife.
  4. Pokemon DP (talk) - Per Knife. The name isn't even official.
  5. Dodoman (talk) If there's no name, then chances are Nintendo meant for them to be one and the same. (RHYMELOLZORZ)
  6. Stumpers (talk) THANK YOU. Just thinking the same thing a few weeks ago.
  7. Freakatone I agree completely.
  8. minimariolover10 (talk)- GOOD GOD you take a pumpkin and put it on a goomba, it's only extra health and sometimes leaves blue fire around, MERGE.

Keep Article

  1. Stooben Rooben (talk) Whether or not the name is conjectural, it is a sub-species of Goomba. If a Goomba wants to walk around with a pumpkin on its head, then let it be different! The Goombas in the Pit of a 100 trials are called Gloombas (real name), but they are different! Merge pumpkinhead with Goomba, then merge all the different goombas with Goomba!


This can also be applied to Mask Koopas. - Walkazo

Well, unlike the Pumpking head, the Mask Koopas actually have an official name. (Or do they?)


Yeah, they should only be merged if the name is conjectural. So, Pumpkin Heads = Merge with Goomba. Mask Koopa = Keep split if the name is official. Dodoman (talk)
Bah, people put too much weight into whether things have official names or not. Ever stopped to consider that all the "conjectually named" things might actually have official names over in the Nintendo databanks? The sprites have to be saved somewhere; sure they'll probably have serial numbers and such, but they're probably named too; it'd be a bit silly if they weren't... - Walkazo


make gallery pages 10-2
So I was viewing the site and noticed that a whole bunch the pages (notably Wario) has a section devoted to images, though recently they've been a little too big. I propose that we create galleries for specific characters and merge the images ove there. For example, maybe we could have a page called "Gallery: Wario" or something similar and merge all of the images over there. Or possibly just make a category called "Category: Wario images" and have all the images there for people to view. It seems like there are over 100 images on the page, and I'm sure many will agree that they should all be merged to their own page.

Proposer: Bentendo (talk)
Deadline: December 31, 2007, 17:00 EST

Make galleries

  1. Bentendo (talk) My reasons above!
  2. Blitzwing Save article space.
  3. Cobold (talk) - Similar to the quotes, those get really to long on articles like Princess Peach.
  4. Knife (talk) Category idea seems better than an article just for images.
  5. Walkazo - Those image galleries take up too much time and memory to load, having them on seperate pages like quotes is a good idea.
  6. Purple Yoshi (talk)-Per everyone.
  7. Dodoman (talk) Sounds like a plan.
  8. Freakatone 18:10, 28 December 2007 (EST) yup
  9. Stumpers (talk) Per Bentendo, and also because we need some order regarding images, so this could help people who are looking for "that one" image. Plus, then we don't have to nitpick about "This image is just of a Bowser suit." or anything.
  10. InfectedShroom. Per everyone. I also think that we should have seperate pages for quotes...


  1. HyperToad I don't think that images deserve there own page, but it doesn't matter, because I'm out-numbered.
  2. minimariolover10 (talk) If your that dissapointed about article space, just add less images around one corner, jeez.


Knife: Images in a "Wario Image Category" but not on a page will be marked as unused and destroyed by the devorous Unused Image predators. - Cobold (talk) 14:32, 24 December 2007 (EST)

Hmmm, would we keep any images on the page? Dodoman (talk)

We would only remove the images galleries (official artwork/screenshot galliers), the images in the written article itself stay. - Cobold (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2007 (EST)

As an aside, many wiki will create gallery-lists when images are placed in a gallery. I tried this once before, and it seems that it doesn't work around here. -- Chris 14:46, 24 December 2007 (EST)

What's a gallery list? - Cobold (talk) 07:24, 26 December 2007 (EST)
Go to any mushroom image and add Category:Mushrooms. What is supposed to happen, Category:Mushrooms will list all the articles in said category, then have a separate section called Images that will list all images in said category in gallery format. However, I tried this before and it didn't work. It just listed a link to the image. -- Chris 21:17, 26 December 2007 (EST)
Sounds like a task for DPL script. - Cobold (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2007 (EST)

So does that mean I don't have to do anything? Bentendo (talk)

MiniMariolover10: The problem is: Some article on major characters such as Wario or Luigi have an extensive "gallery" section, which have every artwork/screenshots of the character in question, those pics take up a lot of spaces, but some users are not too happy about removing them. With this proposal, we can cut down the size of some articles while still keeping the images. Blitzwing

But we would still have the images, just on a different page. Bentendo (talk)
That's what I said.


Major facepalm! I read it wrong, sorry! Bentendo (talk)

This would be a huge project for the Sysops and Beuracrats (not one) and our featured articles like the Yoshi one will be reduced.Storm Yoshi (talk)


remove quote sections 8-4
On really long articles such as Peach, one can see that there are dozens of qoutes, and most of them are completely pointless like:

  • Help
  • "Dear Mario, I'll be waiting for you at the castle on the night of the Star Festival. There's something I'd like to give you. From Peach".

I propose that these either get removed or shortened. I see no promblem with having qoutes, but having so many that arn't even descent (Although that is a matter of opinion) is pointless. What are your thoughts?

Proposer: HyperToad
Deadline: Janurary 5, 2008, 20:00 EST

Remove Them

  1. HyperToad Reason said above.
  2. Dodoman (talk) I think quote sections like that should be removed altogether.
  3. Ghost Jam (talk) Quotes are fine, but not quote sections.
  4. User:Yoshimon I think the quotes that are screaming/laughing/etc. should be removed.
  5. InfectedShroom.Infectoicon.png Shorten them. They take up a ridiculous amount of space. OR, just make a page devoted to quotes of the Mario series.
  6. Time Q (talk) An extra page for important quotes (what is important and what is not, could be decided later) would be good, but they should not clutter up the article.
  7. The Legend of Zelda Freak Yep. I got the feeling that sometimes the quotes are longer than the "article itself".
  8. BlueYoshter (talk) per all.

Keep Them

  1. User:Pseudo-dino Well, we could probably keep the second one, but we gotta get rid of Help
  2. Walkazo - See my below comment.
  4. Glitchman - I like quotes. I guess you could get rid of "Help!" though.


As you said, deciding what Quotes are decent and which aren,t is purely a matter of opinion. I think we should use a case-by-case procedure, not everything need to be run throught a proposal. Blitzwing

already had this prospoal, that one -_-' minimariolover10 (talk)



Although it is a matter of opinion, how the heck is "Help" a descent qoute, I'm sure anybody could agree that it's just stupid. HyperToad

Rather than argue that it's stupid, you could say it was just one of the exclaimations in SMG put there in order to help guide players rather than significant dialouge. I'd be more willing to delete it then, wouldn't you? That said, I agree with Blitzwing that these things are too varied for a proposal. How about just talking on the talk page? Stumpers (talk) 14:47, 29 December 2007 (EST)
We already had a proposal about quotes to which it was decided (as Blitzwing suggested here) that relevancy would be decided case-by-case. The first proposal was concerning nonsensical things like "Ahhhh!", but we did touch on ubiquitous-sounding quotes like "help" and we decided that since (in this case) Peach screams for "help" so often it actually does shed some light on her character and therefore is in fact a "decent quote". - Walkazo

In my opinion, entire sections devoted to quotes are ridiculous. Sure, the quotes at the top and everything are okay, but these quote sections... Let's see. They clutter the article, they're often written in poor grammar, and sometimes they've been added to the article above the quote section. They're trouble in my opinion, and I think that not only should the "small" quotes like Peach screaming for help should be removed, but the entire quote sections. Dodoman (talk)

If the quotes sections are being scrapped can we at least make seperate quote pages as InfectedShroom and Time Q suggested? Since that proposal about Gallery pages passed, quotes pages would fit right into the whole idea. Besides, some quotes pages are already being worked on (i.e. Koopalings (quotes)). - Walkazo

That sounds like a good idea. I just think that they're cluttering their articles. Dodoman (talk)

Merge Bird Articles

merge 12-6
The Other night I was looking through articles and I came across the Blue Bird, Green Bird, Yellow Bird, and Red Bird. Yellow and Blue barly make any apperances while Red only makes one. I think these are way to insignificent so I say we merge them into on Birds Article Or Minor Speacies of Island Delfino.

Proposer: Luigibros2
Deadline: January 5, 2008, 20:00 EST

Merge them

  1. Luigibros2 (talk) My Reasons above
  2. Minimariolover10 (talk) Same thing, different gifts.
  3. Ultimatetoad
  4. Celeste – they are not different species just because they are colored different and many animals have different colored/patterned coats (like cats).
  5. Walkazo - Their individual articles are three lines each. Merge them and we'll have a decent article. Plus it will be faster to read one page than having to go from one to another, to another...
  6. Mr. Guy (talk) - Like Red Koopas and Green Koopas, they should be merged, as they're just palettes
  7. Luigifan14 02:21, 2 January 2008 (EST) - There isn't enough about them to merit seperate pages. All of them could be summed up in one ordinary paragraph. Same for the Boards in Super Mario Galaxy (though I could see line breaks on every sign)
  8. BlueYoshter (talk) theyre just palette swaps
  9. Madhatter9max 16:20, 3 January 2008 (EST) it's simpler and takes up less energy for slower computers and it's not that specific a detail.
  10. BlickBlock (talk) Per Lbros2
  11. Ghost Jam (talk) Per Walkazo
  12. Glitchman (talk) Per Ghost Jam

Let there be Bird articles

  1. Uniju :D (talk)Although their all rather minor, they are different species', so they each are deserving of an article.
  2. Bentendo (talk)I like the seperate articles!
  3. User:Pseudo-dino Gotta agree with Bentendo.
  4. Paper Jorge What Uniju said. Let's see here: Mini Goomba is similar to Goomba. Merge anyone?
  5. Stooben Rooben (talk) Leave 'em alone! If we merge the bird articles, we might as well cram all the different species of Koopas into one big article. Same with any other thing that has sub-species.
  6. Dodoman (talk) Per Uniju and Paper Jorge.


Hmmm... While the birds are rather insignificant, they are all seperate creatures with different purposes. For now, I'm neutral on this.
The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dodoman (talk).

Uniju: Yes, but they are all birds. They only have 2 differences; one is their colour s and two is their coin they give out/ minimariolover10 (talk)

What about Yoshi's. We have Red Yoshi, Yellow Yoshi etc..... should they be merged? - Ultimatetoad

Probably not, just because they are specific characters when you look at individual Yoshi's Island games. Stumpers (talk) 14:52, 29 December 2007 (EST)
Yeah, but if you look at the Purple Yoshi article it talks about Purple Yoshis in general (the Super Mario Sunshine Purple Yoshis vs. the Yoshi's Island Purple Yoshi). I sorta agree they should all be merged into one article with all the Yoshi subspecies but that would look a bit messy and wouldn't last very long. I think one "Isle Delfino Birds" article will work here because the birds are so minor, whereas Yoshis are real pop-icons when it comes to the Marioverse. - Walkazo

Merge Classic NES Series Articles

merge 10-5
The other day I was reading through the list of stubs, and I noticed that all three Classic NES Series games, Donkey Kong, Dr. Mario, and Super Mario Bros. have their own articles and are all stubs. If we merge these articles, the series will be more organized, complete, and easier-to-read, plus you would not have to move from page to page to read them.

Proposer: Glitchman
Deadline: January 11, 2008, 20:00 EST

Merge them

  1. Glitchman (talk) My Reasons above
  2. Kamicciolo, any changes or additions could just be noted in the main games page
  3. Ghost Jam (talk) Better to create an article on Classic NES Series and list all that apply.
  4. Dodoman (talk) Put it this way: These need to be here as much as the Bird articles. >_>
  5. Stumpers (talk) Either this or make them sub-sections in their main game articles. Which do you think is best?
  6. Mariofanical (talk)Same as anyone else
  7. Cobold (talk) - They may be different games, but all remakes, so we don't need to retell the story, controls etc., just state the differences from the original games, and they don't need have their own articles for just that.
  8. Walkazo - As long as the games are included in their parents articles too (see my comments below).
  9. InfectedShroom. Per Walkazo. Absolutely everything she said. :P
  10. Orangeyoshi Everything I said in the comments section, and what Walkazo said.

Keep them separate

  1. minimariolover10 (talk) True, but they're different games, which are more major then species and such.
  2. Mr. Guy (talk) - Per the mini and the 'Shroom
  3. BlueYoshter (talk) per all.
  4. Stooben Rooben (talk) Leave 'em alone These should be part of the SMWikify PipeProject. It'd un-stubify them. Besides, they're separate games, so they should have separate articles. So, uhh...per all.
  5. HyperToad Per all


They may be different games from their originals, but aside from a few minor graphical improvements, they're complete and utter ports, nothing else. If we have articles on these, we may as well have articles on the Virtual Console versions of games.

The same thing applies to all ports, like Donkey Kong Jr. (Game & Watch). Instead of putting the Classic NES games into one article, we should merge them and all the other unneccesary ports with the articles for the original games. - Walkazo
But we should have a page for the Classic NES Series, just because it was a big thing back in the ol' GBA days. Stumpers (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2008 (EST)
Actually, Stumpers has a point. Making sub-sections on the main game pages makes a lot of sense. My opposition to the total merging still stands, though... Sorry Glitchman! :( InfectedShroom.
I agree with Stumpers. There doesn't need to be an article with information about each classic NES series game. After all, it's just the same game, but for GBA. They can just be put into the game's main article, but there should probably be an article for the classic NES series, that maybe lists all the games. -Orangeyoshi (talk)

How about both? We can have a page about the Classic NES Series as a whole with the re-makes covered in each of their parent articles (the originals). - Walkazo

Very good Idea. I say we do that. InfectedShroom.
I agree with Walkazo's idea there. As such, which side do I choose for it? XP Pokemon DP (talk)
Yeah, that's what I meant! What Walkazo said is what I was trying to say. -Orangeyoshi (talk)
Shorter is better; my Chemistry teacher even takes off marks for long-winded answers! Anyway, for voting for both we should just vote to merge but make a note of it that we want both, like I did. - Walkazo
I totally love Walkazo's idea. I was just thinking about it yesturday, yowza (small world, great minds... whatever)! I keep my vote on the merge side, right? Stumpers (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2008 (EST)
Yep, but just make a note you want both. And InfectedShroom, just so you know I'm a girl. - Walkazo
Ah. My bad. Lemme change that. :( mixed with :P InfectedShroom.
Much obliged. - Walkazo

The articles are officially merged. Dodoman (talk)

A Glitch Too Many

leave glitches as they are 2-6
Whenever I go to the List of Glitches page, I see a mess. With all those glitches out there, I feel like the page needs help. The only way I can see helping the page out is by weeding out all of the glitches that either: A) Can't be proven or B) Aren't notable. If a glitch meets one of these two requirements, then it would be okay to mention in the article. Remember, we all can claim to have experienced a glitch, but proof is the thing that we need to make sure if the glitch is true. After all, not listing glitches is better than putting down glitches we think happened.

Proposer: Knife (talk)
Deadline: January, 14, 2008, 17:00 EST

Glitches Must Be Notable or Proved

  1. Knife (talk) My reasons are given above.
  2. HyperToad Per Knife, I actually belive there is no reason for the page at all.

Leave Glitches As They Are

  1. Walkazo - See my comment below.
  2. Glitchman - If there's even a chance of a glitch existing, I want to know about it. Per Walkazo.
  3. Stumpers (talk) per Walkazo and Glitchman.
  4. InfectedShroom. Per the man that is glitchy and the... azo that is... uh... Walk? :P But seriously, I love that page. Keep it the same.
  5. Crypt Raider (talk) Plz, it's just a list of glitches, keep it the way it is! Remove it if it's false.
  6. FG2 Keep them! I think we should have a possibility meter to show how often it can be done. 100%, Good chance, Possible, Barely, and 1-time-only.


How are we supposed to prove the glitches exist? Photos? Acknowledgement from Nintendo? Also, aren't we supposed to have everything we can possibly find about Mario on here? If we strip off the minor glitches we'd be defeating the purpose of Super Mario Wiki. However the page does need to be cleaned up, something that can easily be accomplished in ways other than scrapping a handfull of glitches (i.e. combine the two SMS walking-under-water glitches and scrap the "Requirements"). - Walkazo

Generally blanket ideas like this look good in thoery, but you're looking at something as varied as glitches, and plus you have the problem of "notability" arguements. Maybe they're worth it for an article that could be featured, but an individual glitch? Plus, I don't want to see someone put hours of work into something just to have it removed. Stumpers (talk) 19:19, 7 January 2008 (EST)

If we only kept the most famous and notable glitches, such as Minus World and Fireless Bowser, the wiki's original purpose would have been replaced to be a video game dictionary instead of a fun and interesting place to learn cheats, gameplay, and of course, glitches. Many people (such as myself) rely on the Wiki to find all of the glitches they can. And like Walkazo said, how would you go about proving their existance? - Glitchman (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2008 (PT)

Good point. I know I've found plenty of glitches on Animal Crossing: Wild World that I didn't take a photo of, even though I later joined an AC Wiki. Stumpers (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2008 (EST)

Hmm... I just looked at the page, and yes, it does need cleaning up. My comment still stands, however. InfectedShroom.

Just as an aside, and this isn't to be insulting, but why did we decide to do a list of glitches page instead of making it a list of links to glitches sections in the games? I didn't know how to phrase that to not sound insulting, so just know that I don't mean for it to be... Stumpers (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2008 (EST)
How is that insulting? Anyway, as it is now it's like a one-stop-shopping page for the glitches. Its easier for people to read about them all on one page than having to flit from one to another to another, etc. Also, if we did make it simply a list of links, sooner or later someone's bound to propose we make it a proper page again... - Walkazo
Walkazo does have a point. - Glitchman
Well... can we still put some major glitches on the game pages? It kinda seems like making articles about game modes, and then refering users to them, which is something that Steve allegedly said we shouldn't do. I dunno. The list of glitches is cool. Stumpers (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2008 (EST)
Yeah, definitely. The hard part's still deciding which glitches are major, though. Minus World definitely, and the Fireless Bowser, but it gets hard for things like Super Mario Sunshine where there are so many glitches. I personally think the "Blue Nowhere" (or whatever it's being called these days) and the Walking-Under-Water glitches are the biggies for that game (since they're the most well known and easiest to come across while gaming). - Walkazo
Sorry, I should have clarified. What I meant by major were those that effected gameplay. So, I would exclude visual glitches I think (unless we're talking about something such as a beta element sneaking in)... yeah, maybe that's too relative. Stumpers (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2008 (EST)

Conker and Banjo

don't add banjo and conker content 2-11
At first clance, this would seem stupid, but hear me out. Considering we feature things Not actually part of the Mario series (in the sense that no Mario characters aside from DK characters appear) I was thinking we should have Banjo and Conker games as well, as they are spinoffs of the DK series, just like DK is a spinoff of Mario. Thoughts?

Proposer: HyperToad
Deadline: January 17, 2008, 17:00 EST


  1. HyperToad See comments above.
  2. FG2 Per HyperToad


  1. Glitchman I don't really think Conker and Banjo have anything to do with the Marioverse, and these games were just cheap copies of the DK series. I don't think these should be added to the Wiki.
  2. Walkazo - They're too far removed.
  3. InfectedShroom (talk) See my comment below.
  4. Ghost_Jam (talk) - We've been over this many times before. Banjo and Conker have nothing to do with the Marioverse besides a far removed role.
  5. Cobold (talk) - For the nth time, they are not related enough.
  6. Time Q (talk) Per previous proposal. And as an aside, why the heck would it matter that there is an "inappropriate" game? I don't remember the guidelines saying that everything has to be appropriate for children. In fact, that would go against one of the major principles of an encyclopedia.
  7. Paper Jorge A long time ago, before lots of users joined, Banjo and Conker articles were allowed. Seriously. There was a Tooty article, a Gruntilda one and others. However we soon stopped making them, and after talking about it cancelled everything and destroyed everything Banjo and Conker. So in the end I say: Not related to the Mario series enough. They were just guest appearances. Let's not make articles on the Itadaki Street series, or Final Fantasy or Sonic.
  8. Jdrowlands (talk) Per Time Q
  9. Macewindu ,sorry dude, Mariowiki is for mario alone...
  10. Master Crash (talk) we've already had a proposal like this.
  11. Mr. Guy (talk) Go to the Rare Wiki: Per all


Actually, we had two proposal on this matter and infact, we used to have article on Banjo and Conker subject. The overal concensus was that Banjo and Conker only had very marginal link to the Marioverse (Not my opinion, thought) and that Conker was too scary for little kids. Just so you know. --Blitzwing 12:36, 10 January 2008 (EST)

In all fairness, same for Donkey Kong. HyperToad Also, uh, what's the big deal about Conker, if we are worried about that, let's get rid of Bob Hoskins. :)
Well, Mario made a cameo in DKC2 and the Donkey Kong Land instruction manual imply that Big Ape City may be where the original Donkey Kong took place. That, and a lot of DKC characters have been appearing in the sport games. About the Bob Hoskins stuff, I brought that up on the proposal, but no one listened.

--Blitzwing 12:49, 10 January 2008 (EST)

I listened, we should censor that page. Anyway, since Donkey Kong is a spin-off of Mario that'd make Banjo and Conker spin-spin-offs, which is a degree too removed from Mario. You could argue that Mario comes from Donkey Kong (the game) and is therefore the spin-off, but in the older proposals it was agreed that the game was more of a Mario game than a Donkey Kong game (except for its title). The opinion that Donkey Kong is the spin off is further supported by the fact that Donkey Kong Country (as the first of the bonefied Donkey Kong franchise) didn't show up until way after Mario was established as a franchise. - Walkazo
I already did. - Glitchman (talk)

Wait... shouldn't we be making our decisions based on continuity and connection of game universes rather than personal throughts on how far removed a character can be before his series isn't covered by our Wiki? That line of reasoning is a little close to conjecturally determining canon for me. Stumpers (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Hey, Glitchman, Banjo-Kazooie was in fact an incredible game, and a completely new series made by Rare. However, we already tried adding both those series to this wiki. Everyone remember this summer? They were removed again in about a month. Plus, most of Conker's games are pretty... Innappropriate. I don't want to see that stuff around this wiki. InfectedShroom (talk)

True, I don't think we should bother posting them again when they're just going to be deleted...AGAIN. Per everyone else. Glitchman (talk)

The Cheese article

keep it 14-18
I think we should get rid of this article, but before I explain my reasons for deleting this article, (In my flaming wreck of an opinion, of course) I will explain a few things to those that are new to the Mariowiki lore, because, let's face it, this article only exist because of a fad.

During February 2007, two users (Don't remmember who exactly) discussed how tasty cheese is, eventually, other users started putting like "CHESSE IS SO AWESOME! LOL." on their userpages. This eventually culminated in the creation of a mainspace article called "The Cheese Craze of '07", which was nothing more than a thinly veiled place for spam. The Cheese Craze of '07 was deleted and the Cheese fad started to die down, a few months after, this article was created. That's about it for the backstory.

Now, why this article should be deleted?:

First, the Importance of the item to the Marioverse is dubious: Let's see... it appear in Donkey Kong 64 as something you can climb on. Some places in Super Mario World and the Mario Kart have "Cheese" in their name. It's mentioned in the Paper Mario series and appear as one of the generic food item in the Super Smash Bros. Series. It's only claim to fame is that it might boost (The article write it like you can only see one if you expect a piece of cheese, but that's untrue) the chance of seeing a Gold Mouse in Luigi's Mansion, and I am not even sure it's true, it's said in the Prima Guide, but those aren't official and full of bogus info. An actually notable item called the Sacred Cylinder of Cheese play a major role in one of the Valiant comic story, but I don't think it help Cheese in any case. Look at the Toy Time Galaxy, it's the galaxy as a whole that is notable, we don't have an article on the individual toy-like surface that are in it, the same thing should apply to the Cylinder.

Second, If we allow Cheese to have an article, we should also allow a crapload of generic real world items to have their own articles: Let's take the Baozi-like meal found in Young Cricket story in WarioWare: Smooth Moves as an example. It play a major role in Young Cricket story since he's racing to grab some while they're still fresh. They also affect the gameplay, since they also act as a life counter. Lost all of them and it's game over. The Baozi's do everything the Cheese do and more, so why we don't have an article on it?

Seriously: If we allow Cheese to have it's own article, we should also allow other generic items to have their articles such as Television, Bridge or the afro-mentioned baozi, why Cheese should have a priority over those other items?

I hate when community stuff creep in the encyclopedia, this article is the perfect example of it.

Proposer: Blitzwing
Deadline: January 17, 2008, 17:00 EST

Delete it

  1. Blitzwing To make a long story short, this article only exist because of a short lived fad and it's importance in the Marioverse is rather dubious.
  2. Xzelion (talk) Per Blitzwing
  3. Walkazo - Per Blitzwing.
  4. Pokemon DP (talk) - I'm so sick of that fad, as well! Its ridiculous! Per Blitzwing!
  5. Ghost_Jam (talk) - Per Blitzwing.
  6. Smiddle (talk) – Per Blitzwing.
  7. Knife (talk) It does affect gameplay, but not enough. It affects gameplay as much as maybe a platform.
  8. Uniju :D (talk) Per all.
  9. ChaosNinji (talk) - This is like making a "Head Asplosion" article. It just doesn't fit. It's just based on some fad.
  10. 3dejong (talk) suuuuure, call me a hypocrite. This is pretty much useless; I can't believe that it was even made. Stupid fad that I perpetuated in. >.<
  11. Storm Yoshi (talk) Per Blitzwing
  12. Jdrowlands (talk) Per all.
  13. User:freakatone I agree
  14. Phoenix Rider (talk) I've been wanting to see it gone since Day One it was created. Per all.

Keep it

  1. HyperToad As a Mariowiki, we should have articles on everything, maybe List of Real World Foods Appearing in the Mario Series?
  2. Glitchman (talk) That proposal wasn't long enough...:P Per HyperToad.
  3. InfectedShroom (talk) Hmmm... This decision was hard... But the Cheese does in fact have a role in gameplay. I think that the cheese in Luigi's Mansion is enough to keep the article. And yes, it's a stupid fad.
  4. Cobold (talk) - The Luigi's Mansion cheese should be there. Per InfectedShroom. Also, the wording of this proposal doesn't give me the option of actually voting for what I want. Because "If we allow Cheese to have an article, we should also allow a crapload of generic real world items to have their own articles:" - it is still not like that. The Cheese should be only kept for the Luigi's Mansion part, in which it can be interacted with. We don't need an article on "floor" and "Mario's house's door".
  5. Master Crash Per All.
  6. Plumber (talk) Luigi's Mansion thing saves it.
  7. Crypt Raider (talk) Per everyone
  8. Mr. Guy (talk) It has appearences and a role, so it must stay
  9. huntercrunch Per Mr. Guy.
  10. FG2It's important. Keep or I destroy the deletor.
  11. Stumpers (talk) Ugh... I'm being bipolar. I'm sorry. It's been mentioned too many times for me. I don't care if it has a real world counterpart: so does Peach (item). To me, it's not a matter of having to create articles like the Snifit Ball, it's about deleting items like Peaches and other things to that extent. I'm sorry Walkazo and Blitzwing.
  12. Girrrtacos If its in the Mario series, why delete it? Its one more thing, shouldn't we have more than less?
  13. Dodoman (talk) Per all y'alls.
  14. Mewtwo49 (talk) Guys, it is an important aspect of Luigi's Mainsion. I mean, it was the entrance to a secret room. I think that's notable.
  15. Luigifan14 The page is pretty detailed.
  16. Alphaclaw11 (talk)Keep it, but get rid of the parts that have no point. The parts that have a point are longer than some articles, so you can't say we should just put it in part of it's game's article.
  17. macewindu, yeah its stupid, lets keep it anyway...
  18. PaperStriker, if we delete it, we have to delete all those Paper Mario items, too, because they're also minor items.


HyperToad: No, we don't have an article on everything. There is nothing special about Cheese, it's only a real world object that sometimes get referenced in the Marioverse, what make it more worthy of it's own article than other generic objects? Some guy here just thought it was tasty and started a fad around it. About your idea of making a list.... it could work, althought I think it would get pretty crowded. Blitzwing

Although I agree about it's actual purpose, reworking the article is still an option. It appears in 2 games (at least) and the comics. Are we going to get rid off things that only appear in only one game or take out things that only appear in the comics. Honestly, notabilty arguements could go on forever. HyperToad

Unlike Cheese, Wart and King Toadstool actually have some importance (Plus, you are wrong on both only appearing in a certain medium, Wart have appeared in a few comics and King Toadstool was mentioned in the instuction manual of the first Mario Bros.).The plot of SMB2 was about Wart invasion of the Subcon and he was the final boss of the game. A lot of the Valiant comic stories were centered on King Toadstool and his goofy atics. Wart and King Toadstool have revalance to the Marioverse, Cheese does not. The problem with Cheese isn't the article, it's that the subject is way too freaking minor, if it wasn't for that "Cheese Lover" fad, that page wouldn't exist. I remmember we used to have an article on "Snufit Ball", (The grey ball shot by the Snufit enemy in Super Mario 64... seriously, we had a page on that.) but it got deleted because the subject was too minor. Snufit Ball is exactly the same as Cheese, really, it's generic, very minor, and only have a marginal effect on the Gameplay (It hurt Mario), it just hadn't the luck of having a fad centered around it.


Glitchman: What do you mean by "That proposal wasn't long enough."? If you mean that the opening thing is huge... well, I acknowledge I have difficulties abreviaitng my writting. But to make it short, Cheese as of now is too minor of a subject and we don't have "articles on everything" (See my comment.) Blitzwing

Blitzy: Cheese does effect gameplay, as confirmed by guidebooks (Prima among others). Yeah, they're not official, but they still are sources that are superior to observations from an individual user, not to put you down or anything. Could you have simply turned on the lights in the room before the mouse appears? I've gone through runs of that game where I haven't seen any mice and others where they appear every time I enter particular rooms. All of this says to me that you'd want to put cheese as a subsection on the Gold Mouse page though, don't you think? To flat out delete the information would be crazy, plus, every edit that every user makes on a Wiki is influenced by his past, sometimes including gags and fads. So... to say that an article shouldn't exist because the user who created it was involved in a running gag that you happened to severely dislike seems very strange to me. Should an article I made about Minor Characters from the Movie be deleted because I happen to love the fact that everyone seems to hate the Mario movie? In other words, because I was interested in the movie because of the "running gag" of mocking the movie, and because I get into the mocking as well, should any edits I do on minor subjects from the movie be removed?

But you'll notice that the article example I gave would be a list, right? I'm not advocating the cheese article to be its own necesarily, but that information should remain on the Wiki in some way, shape, or form. No, the types of platforms in Toy Time Galaxy should not have individual articles, but they should be mentioned in the Toy Time Galaxy article, yes? So, what I would do would be to make a list of Real World Subjects that have showed up in the Mario continuity (such as television, for example) and include Cheese in there... and include all of its cross-overs into the Mushroom World.

The Real World is as important to the Mario series as someplace like the Land of Ice... actually, it's more important. You'll notice, however, that the Real World is still different from our own (in other worlds, there is no Blitzwing in the Mario interpretation, no?) and so I would say it's important that we note what does exist there, just as we talk about what exists in the Mushroom World. So, cheese should be mentioned, just like everything else from the Real World, right?

I usually tend to diviate during my arguments, so please feel free to ask for clarification. But I am on your side that we're probably giving too much relavence to a topic that can be looked up somewhere else... like Wikipedia. Stumpers (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2008 (EST)

While the Prima guide is a superior source of information, it still is not official and can contain a lot of bogus info (see Kasplat and King Kut Out articles, among other), infact just search "Prima" in the search engine and you will find a lot of articles pointing out mistakes in the Prima Guide. I will pull out that example again: We had an article on Snufit Ball, the projectile thrown by the Snufit enemy in SM64, if we keep Cheese, we should also recreate Snufit Ball since they both affect the gameplay in very minor ways.

The problem with the "It affect Gameplay!" reasoning is, that when you think about it, pretty much everything 'cept for the Mario Kart Sponsor affect gameplay. The bush and other objects you can shake in the Paper Mario series contain valuable items and you kinda interact with them. In the WarioWare series, you have to use a variety of object to get the task done... ect. While affecting the gameplay is a good argument, an article shouldn't be kept merely because it affect a very minor part of the game.

About the list idea, while it could work, I think it would just end up as a gigantic list of "(Insert Generic item here) is a real-word object that sometimes appear in the Marioverse, it appear in (Insert Game Name here)" style entries without much info.

About the "You only want to delete this because you hate that fad" thing, yes, I hate that fad and want to see it dissapear. However, even if a part of me hate the fad, I still think Cheese isn't worthy of it's own article, maybe as a mention in a list or something. The problem isn't that Cheese have a cult centered around it, it's that Cheese was only created because of it. Do I have to start a fad centered about Snufit Ball to recreate it? Geez. Blitzwing

Thank you for clarifying. I was thinking about this some more, so how about this: we cut the article up and put it's little sections as mentions in each game. We also mention cheese in Mouser and Gold Mouse's articles. Then, we start the list on the "Real World" article, even if it is just a list without any "entry". Sound good? Stumpers (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2008 (EST)
I wouldn't be against that. That way, we still keep revalant info but we don't allow a very minor object to have a mainspace article.


I'll also support these actions, but as it would still require in the deletion of the Cheese Article shouldn't you move your vote Stumpers? - Walkazo
I wanted to make sure that the information would still be on the Wiki first. I'd rather have bad formatting than missing information. :) Here was my vote, btw, for anyone interested, "Not to be tounge in cheek here, but I hate it when users let their prejudices for an article's past control whether or not it should be deleted. Sounds sort of like the arguement that we should delete video game stub articles to me. I really like HyperToads ideas, but I'd like to expand on that an propose a "List of Real World Subjects" instead. See my comments below..." Stumpers (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Fly_Guy_2: Was that a joke or are you threatening? - Cobold (talk) 13:35, 13 January 2008 (EST)

Npot the first time he threaten another user.


If the Cheese article stays then why not make an article about a chair or a coach!Storm Yoshi (talk)

Stumpers: You don't need to appologise for changing your mind (at least, you don't need to appologise to me). However, I disagree about your Peach (item) example. The part about its role in Donkey Kong Jungle Beat could easily be merged into the Peach Kingdom article (like we've been saying about the bits of the Cheese article), but the fact that it's a Super Smash Bros. Brawl item makes it "neccesary" for it to have an article, since all the other items do. I personaly don't whole-heartedly agree with that policy, since it does make people wonder why other random items don't get articles if SSB items do. I dunno, I don't really care about this anymore. I'd rather see the Cheese Article gone and thereby set a standard for all random item articles (or lack thereof), but it's never bothered me before, and it won't in the future... I hope. - Walkazo

For me it's mainly the fact that cheese could have played a role in Luigi's Mansion. If it weren't for that I probably wouldn't have voted that way. I'd be happy to see cheese merged in a page titled, "Random Items" or something like that, by the way. Thank you for being so gracious abou this. Stumpers (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2008 (EST)
Hey, it's what I do. - Walkazo

Split up the Quote Sections

split the quotes 8-2
As I'm looking around the wiki, I see HUGE quote sections on certain pages (mostly pages on big characters like Mario and Princess Peach). I think that we should remove the quotes altogether from these pages and make an entire page devoted simply to quotes from the Marioverse. Yes, it will be a long page, but I think it will be better. What are your thoughts on the matter?

  • We could also make seperate "Quote Pages" for each game or character, which would serve the same purpose, and make quotes easier to find.

Proposer: InfectedShroom (talk)
Deadline: January 17, 2008, 17:00 EST

Split The Quotes!

  1. InfectedShroom (talk) My thoughts are above.
  2. Stumpers (talk) Having them on the page detracts from the analysis, and the pages are getting way beyond that 32MB guideline or whatever it is. I'd rather have the multiple pages.
  3. Glitchman (talk) Ghost Jam does have a point, but as long as the patrollers kept an eye on the page it would be a more complete and less destracting way of posting gaming quotes on the Wiki.
  4. Walkazo - I'm only supporting the creation of seperate quotes pages for the various games divided up into sections for individual characters.
  5. Blitzwing Per everyone. Some of these quotes section are gigatarnacious.
  6. Orangeyoshi Yes, but we should have one article for each character's quotes. And, we might not need a seperate quote page for minor characters. But I like the idea.
  7. Jdrowlands (talk) - Per Walkazo.
  8. Smiddle (talk) Per InfectedShroom and Stumpers.

Keep Them Where They Are.

  1. Ghost Jam (talk) - Seems like a license for spam.
  2. FG2 Quotes are fun! Keep them. Or else.


GhostJam, how so? Stumpers (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2008 (EST)

I think we used to have a page about a list of Quotes found in Super Mario 64 and it's remake, althought I can't find it now.... was it deleted? Blitzwing

What's the point of this proposal? I mean, we just had a proposal regarding quotes, and we decided to remove those quote sections. Someone just would have to take action. Time Q (talk) 10:00, 11 January 2008 (EST)

We JUST had this SAME proposal. Urgh! HyperToad

Not true. The other one was different: completely removing certain quotes from the pages. I say we keep them all, but on a different page. I WANT SOMETHING DONE ABOUT QUOTES. InfectedShroom (talk)
On the last proposal I said we should make quotes pages for individual characters (or for groups like all the Koopalings). However, now I prefer Blitzwing's suggestion of quotes divided up into individual games (and for the TV series' and movies). I've seen it done on other sites and it makes finding individual quotes a bit easier, especially if each page is divided up into sections for the different people speaking (but with the minor characters grouped together to minimize cluttered headlining). - Walkazo
Hmmm... I thought of doing that... I thought the other way would be easier. Oh well. I will add your comment to the main part. InfectedShroom (talk)
Splended! - Walkazo

Hmmm... I'm gonna need help making the pages if this proposal makes it... InfectedShroom (talk)

I just thought of something. And it's not good. Splitting the quotes by game would be good for newer games, like Super Mario 64 or Galaxy. But what about games with almost no quotes, like Super Mario Bros.? That would make some pages very small. I think that we should make quote pages for individual characters and then make sections in that character-quote page for individual games/TV series/Movies. This would also make it easier for me in making these quote pages, as all the quotes I need are on one page, so I can easily transfer them to a new one. It could also make it moderatly easier to look for certain quotes. Sooo... your thoughts? InfectedShroom (talk) Meh, forgot the last ~

Hmmm, the question is, are most people going to be looking for quotes from specific games or quotes from specific characters? People do both, but I think dividing it up by games first and pputting links to the individual characters' sections in those pages on their main pages will make it easier for everyone to navigate. Also, we could group the games without many quotes together to eliminate short pages. Anyway, homework takes up a lot of my time but I'll still try to help with this project. - Walkazo
Hmmm... sounds good. InfectedShroom (talk)

Citing Sources

start referencing 16-3
Around the wiki, we have always been quite lazy citing our sources. We do not have any system of giving references like at Wikipedia, and everyone just adds information he has taken from a random site. The best example for this is Super Smash Bros. Brawl, which got flooded with information from questionable sites, or the name of the site was not given at all. In order to save our credibility, I suggest that we start to quote our sources, as long as they are not the game (/comic/TV episode/Brawl Dojo) itself, either, if we can get it, by Wikipedia's reference system or by simply by adding an external link like this: [1]. This should prevent further unsourced speculation in the articles, and also prevent random questionable Trivia items like on Princess Rosalina, as currently, to quote the user, there is "no need to source".

Proposer: Cobold (talk)
Deadline: January 22, 2008, 17:00 EST

Use Reference System

  1. Cobold (talk) - Per above.
  2. Alphaclaw11 (talk) - Per Cobold and it is illegal to get info from someone/where else and not say who/where you got it from.
  3. Blitzwing I thought of doing a proposal about this matter, but Cobold beat me to it. Per Cobold.
  4. Stumpers (talk) I'm loving this. Can we also start using the image infobox template to show which site we got it from in the "source" section rather than the game it is from?
  5. Ghost Jam (talk) Haha, I always thought we had a reference system...we just didn't use it. But, yeah, it's needed.
  6. Knife (talk) A lot of effort but a lot of reward. Our wiki's credibility is important.
  7. Uniju :D (talk)I certainly don't see why not, and it's not like it's very hard to cite sources.
  8. Pokemon DP (talk) Per Cobold. I'm so sick of this unsourced crap! We need to know WHERE you found the information.
  9. RAP (talk) Per all. Does it include the images in this database that needed cite sources too?
  10. Mr. Guy (talk) Per DP, wait that's per-ing Cobold
  11. That Guy We should definitely cite the sources.
  12. MarioBros777 (talk)Of course we should have this, it has helped on many occasions when doing so on Wikipedia. Per all.
  13. InfectedShroom (talk) I'm down with everything everyone said.
  14. Jdrowlands (talk) It's a big job but it needs to be done.
  15. MarioGalaxy2433g5 See comment below.
  16. Walkazo - Per All.

Use not

  1. Peachycakes 3.14 (talk) Not only is it annoying for everyone to always have to cite they're sources, but why should your edits be reversed because of it. Yes, some of it might be spam, but most of it isn't, and if it looks suspicious you could ask them where they found it. Or even wait for the game to come out.
  2. Glitchman (talk) That's not a very good example, most if not all of the information on Brawl's page is from Dojo!, and there's already a link for that. Peachycakes also has a point.
  3. Mewtwo49 (talk) Per Glitchman.


Alphaclaw11: It's only illegal when the author holds the right on it. For information about Nintendo video games, you may always use it as a part of press freedom (when new game), and because Nintendo does not mind (obviously). The sites like IGN don't own the right on Brawl information, for example. Only when you copy a text 1:1 (e.g. GameFAQs walkthrough), it's possibly a copyright violation without naming the author. - Cobold (talk) 12:05, 15 January 2008 (EST)

I know but arent you talking about non-oficail sites. Alphaclaw11 12:09, 15 January 2008 (EST)

IGN is an unofficial site. As long as the content we take from unofficial sites is about a Nintendo game, it's Nintendo's intellectual property, not the site's. And Nintendo game information/images are used on the whole wiki already under Nintendo's terms:
“All content on this website, including articles, artwork, screen shots, graphics, logos, digital downloads and other files, may not be used on any other web site, in any publications, in public performances, in connection with any product or service that is not Nintendo's, in any manner that is likely to cause confusion among customers, in any manner that disparages or discredits Nintendo, or in any manner that is otherwise exploitative for any commercial purpose or that otherwise infringes Nintendo's intellectual property rights.”
Nintendo, Smash Bros. DOJO!!
So as long as these criteria are met and we quote or rephrase other sites, it's perfectly legal to take their information. - Cobold (talk) 12:15, 15 January 2008 (EST)

OkayAlphaclaw11 12:20, 15 January 2008 (EST) but still, if it is from a non-offical site then you need to say where you got it in cause it was wrong

Of course. That's what this is about. - Cobold (talk) 12:35, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Citation extensions literally cover on sub-pages galore, which I assume is Wikipedia's shortcut <references>. If we really want to go that far, it can be done. Wayoshi (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2008 (EST)

That would be great, clears the article from the links but also explains the page without the user having to click it. - Cobold (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Stumpers: The current rules of the {{aboutfile}} template say that the source website should indeed be listed as "source". The problem is more that currently, older files didn't get the update, and we don't have a section for the game any more. - Cobold (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2008 (EST)

What if we're drawing from our personal experiences, do we cite the games themselves? Cuz that might seem a bit redundant, ex: "In Super Paper Mario, Mario, Luigi, Peach and Bowser are on a quest to stop Count Bleck from destroying all the dimensions [Super Paper Mario, 2007]." (I know it's not a proper citation, but you get the point). Also, what if you see screenshots of a game on a website, which to you cite? - Walkazo

IMO, what we should do is this: don't bother with siting a game on its own page and only site it once in its section in a bibliography. If you mention an event from the game in relationships, you should site it as well. But, let's see what the people who actually know what they're talking about think. Stumpers (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Read above, I've mentioned it, of course you don't have to cite the games! This is mostly about unreleased games or other statements drawn from the internet. And even then, you don't have to mention the Smash Bros. Dojo 100,000 times in the Brawl article, it's okay when it is linked to only at the top. But Bob Hoskins could get a link to the Guardian interview which is avaiable on their website. - Cobold (talk) 12:20, 16 January 2008 (EST)

*AHEM* I have one problem with this proposal... Everyone looks at citing sources as just like on Wikipedia, but it's not really, we're about a series of video games, so the source could be the actual game itself. Everyone says things like "We need to know WHERE you FOUND the information" as if the internet is the only thing we have to find information about a series of video games. I don't really see it being easy to just say "I played the game itself" on this place, seeing as how people seem to LOVE arguing about that kind of stuff, and it could be used to back up conjectural information for more minor video games. Of course, I don't really see how this would majorly effect citing sources much, since conjectural information is rarely placed on articles anyway... But, it may still cause conflicts, especially when it comes to obscure games. </pointless rant> Uniju :D (talk)

I thought you could site non-internet sources, though? Maybe we could ask for people to say which chapter or something (for Paper Mario) or level (for SMG) they got the information from when they site their sources? I dunno. Stumpers (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2008 (EST)

I think the sourcing system here (If this proposal pass) should perhap be less strict than Wikipedia. There, every bit of cretinous informations like "X organisation is the bad guy of the game" or "X character return from the previous game" require to be sourced, even if the information can be found in the game itself. I think only really obscure info (Like Nastasia having a crush on Count Bleck) or things like the crap about Rosalina being related to Peach in SMG beta should be sourced. --Blitzwing 06:55, 16 January 2008 (EST)

You're right, we shouldn't get on Wikipedia level. It's mostly about speculation here. - Cobold (talk) 12:20, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Peachycakes 3. 14:You know, we can alway use the (in)famous "citation needed" tag of Wikipedia if the information isn unsourced. For what we know, the information added could be one of those "I heard somewhere that..." deal whose original meaning get warped over time. Sourcing mean we can verify the credibility of the infos. --Blitzwing 18:16, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Alright, I too think we should cite. HOWEVER: I have done many things here that I just pulled out my DS and started looking for info. How the heck are we supposed to cite that? I never even go to other websites for info. I just look it up in the game or the guide. Another thing: how are we supposed to quote Official Guides? it's a bit hard... InfectedShroom (talk)

A "reference" isn't necessarily a link. It may as well be simply a text string which reads "Nintendo Power Official Super Mario *enter game name here* Guide, page XX". At least, that is what Wikipedia's reference system allows perfectly well. - Cobold (talk) 13:04, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Well, probably we could do like what Geographers do when the map maps. They write "Field Work" so just replace it with "Own Source" or something... MarioBros777 (talk) Could work...

We need to know where we get our info. Before I posted a message on the talk page of shrowser, I didn't know the name was official because it didn't say where the name came from. If we don't give our sources, a lot of questions will be asked like mine. MarioGalaxy2433g5 22:56, 18 January 2008 (EST)
I've done that a lot, too. Right now I'm trying to find where the term "Earth" was used to describe the "Real World" from the cartoon shows. Could have saved me a lot of time if someone noted that. Stumpers (talk) 16:47, 19 January 2008 (EST)

Outside Info

keep super smash bros. content 3-16
Recently, I've seen a very large amount of Super Smash Bros. content all over the wiki, which includes stages, items, and all sorts of other junk taken from all kinds of other series'. I'll put it plain and simple, I believe that we should removed this immense amount of uneeded Super Smash Bros. series stuff(Including cutting down on the insane page for the game, Super Smash Bros. Brawl), since we are the Super 'Mario' Wiki, not the Super Smash Bros. Wiki, and with the amount of Super Smash Bros. Brawl content we could even be the Super Smash Bros. 'Brawl' Wiki. I know that this is the exact opposite of a proposal I previously made, but things like this just seem totally wrong how we're doing it... Everyone said no to my last proposal, but after it was archived, the immense amount of Super Smash Bros. Brawl info continued to flow in, mostly about the stages, items, and character that where shown on Smash Bros DOJO!!, and it almost seemed like everyone would have liked my proposal if it had instead been "Add more Super Smash Bros content to the wiki". If you havn't noticed from this whole thing, I am proposing that we shorten, merge, and delete pages relating only to the Super Smash Bros. series, or other series' that where introduced to the Mario Wiki through Super Smash Bros.

Proposer: Uniju :D
Deadline: January 22, 2008, 17:00

Support, we are the Super Mario wiki

  1. Crypt Raider (talk) I get sick of this SBB being Marfio 100% crap.
  2. Uniju :D (talk) Forgot this... Per myself.
  3. NintendoExpert89 (talk) Mixing Mario with something else does not make it Mario related. Please see my "comment" below.


  1. Pokemon DP (talk) It features several Mario, Yoshi, Donkey Kong and Wario characters as major playable characters, and has several Mario-based items and stages, moreso than any other series, at least. I think it is worthy to be part of the extended Mario series.
  2. Master Crash (talk) Per DP.
  3. King Boo - What if people want to know other stuff BESIDES the Mario content? We should cover EVERYTHING. It wouldn't be fair to only cover Mario content, in such an important series. I oppose this proposal. I am 100% against it.
  4. Alphaclaw11 (talk)Per PDP
  5. Mr. Guy (talk) Let's have everything SSB related, but let's keep it below information from other series (The trophy info is fine)
  6. Stumpers (talk) Uniju, didn't you previously want a page for everything? Merging is unpredictable: you do it once and more stuff follows. Will the Yoshi and DK series be next if we do this?
  7. HyperToadPer DP! Although this is a MarioWiki, let's not pull a Wikipedia and cut down articles that give usefull infomation.
  8. Cobold (talk) - Per all. Considering that your argument is that the Brawl article is too long, I wonder whether this is even a reason to qualify as a vote. Also, I've removed the tag of the "Oppose" header because while Smash Bros. can stay, it still doesn't mean that we need an article on NBA Street V3 which had Mario, Luigi and Peach as guest characters. That's a place for Game Sightings still.
  9. Xluidig (talk) - Per all. And Uniju you're so inmature that you're leaving.
  10. huntercrunch Per all. Also, might I add, SSB IS closely related to the Mario series.
  11. Booster Keep, but see my comment.
  12. Walkazo - See below comment.
  13. InfectedShroom (talk) Super Mario Wiki we are, but who cares if we have SSB articles? Per all.
  14. Glitchman (talk) Per Booster and Walkazo.
  15. Paper Jorge Per all, specially Cobold.
  16. Jdrowlands (talk) Per all. We MUST keep all this.


DP & Crash(and the rest of the hoard coming to per him): I see where your coming from, but just because there's Mario stuff in it, that doesn't mean we should cover the whole thing. Do we cover all about the TV shows Mario cameos in? And, KingBoo, that's not what everyone said last time, everyone said that we should just link to other sites. Which I now see is the better way to do it. Uniju :D (talk)

That's a cameo, its just minor, and has no significance. Smash Bros. features a major role for Mario and his friends. In fact, there's more Mario content in the game than any other series. Pokemon DP (talk) I'm just saying, Mario and his allies play a major role in Smash Bros.
Putting it that way, scroll up. Look at Banjo and Conker, who both have a large connection to the Mario Series are both being kicked off the wiki. It seems to me that your all simply biased towards Super Smash Bros. Uniju :D (talk) I expect the only response to be "Your biased against it", so please give a VALID argument.
I'm not gonna say that, Uni, so stop being so immature. Banjo and Conker only made minor appearances in one game, with them being kicked out in the remake. After that, their respective series never got linked to the Mario series again, or Donkey Kong, for that matter. They became their own unique series with no relation to DK or Mario, whereas Smash Bros. brings in attributes from the Mario, Yoshi, DK and Wario series. Pokemon DP (talk)

King Boo - You just said it yourself, Uniju. We are the MARIO wiki. Therefore we should completely cover every game that has MARIO content.

If Super Smash Bros. has content from Mario, then we should cover the content from Mario. I don't see why we need to cover EVERYTHING ELSE. And I don't see why all the stages and such can't just be tossed into a table like a lot of things can. Uniju :D (talk)
Ya see, here's the problem. If we ONLY cover the Mario-based information from Smash Bros., then the Smash Bros. articles are worthless. What's the point of covering one side of the game, but not covering the other side? If it has Mario in it, we should at least mention it, right? But, the Smash Bros. articles would have no use if it did not tell you EVERYTHING that's in the game. Pokemon DP (talk) If you get rid of Smash Bros., you must get rid of the Final Fantasy articles as well.
On a related note, I DO think that the items don't deserve articles, or the moves. HyperToad
Could you explain why? Especially about the Final Smashes we have a lot to say, more than about Flutter Jump. Of course we shouldn't have articles on A attacks, but Special Moves and Items pages are created for the mainstream Mario articles as well, so I don't see a reason why not Smash Bros. - Cobold (talk) 12:24, 16 January 2008 (EST)

The proposal is right about one thing. A LOT of emphasis (too much?) goes into the Smash Bros. articles. If something appeared, or is going to appear in a Smash game, it's guaranteed to have proper coverage, and will never be in danger of being a poorly-written stub. Looking at the front page right now, all three news articles are about Brawl. The featured article? Melee. We do look like the Smash Wiki just from glancing at the front page. Too much attention is being given to the Smash Bros. games. I know they're uber popular and everything, but they shouldn't be the center of attention on the Mario Wiki. I'm not saying that we can't have all these articles, but that the people who write them should dip into other subjects when they get the chance. Look at Super Mario Bros. or Super Mario Bros. 3. Landmark games with lousy articles for what they are. -- Booster

It wouldn't be got not to feature Super Smash Bros. Melee but instead Super Mario Bros. 3, simply because Super Mario Bros. 3 is quite a bad article. That's also something, and if you want to change it, you'd have to sit down yourself and work on the article. It's possible, most of the work on the Melee article was done by myself. - Cobold (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2008 (EST)

As long as we only give a brief background on non-Mario things like in the Link article these articles are fine (because it's still relevant to Mario). As others have said already, these games are Mario games, just like Mario Hoops 3-on-3, only instead of one crossover series there's several. The very name Super Mario Bros. is homage to Mario and Mario being a playable character could make it more of a Mario game in some peoples' eyes than things like Donkey Kong Country or Wario Land 4 that have no sign of Mario at all. Yes, Smash Bros. is a bit over-hyped, but its a good series and with a new instalation about to come out it's bound to get lots of attention. Step back and wait for the game to be released and all the information digested into the Wiki before deciding what should stay and what should be merged... But the proposal probably won't fly then either. - Walkazo

Kind of in line with what you were saying, we cover what we do on the Wiki because of the relation to the main Mario video games. The movie wasn't in the same world or with the same characters (just the same names and general roles), but we still have it there because it's part of the history of the Mario series. Smash Bros. is the same, so the question shouldn't be "Should we limit SSB articles" but "Should we limit articles on subjects that follow alternate storylines?" And then you get into a whole crudload of speculation. Stumpers (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2008 (EST)
Too true, makes me think of that old expression: "leave well-enough alone." - Walkazo

I think that these connections being made between series is getting a little far-fetched. I myself believe the amount of Smash content should be limited, and I have a reason why. I may have a tough time explaining (I might be sounding like I'm being contradicting here and there), so please don't fret if you cannot understand.

Alright, the Smash Bros series is closely related to Mario, as some of you argue. But "closely" is not the same as "directly": Smash series did not come straight from Mario. Smash is more like a salad of different Nintendo (and other) series blended together. Mario being mixed with everybody else does not make them all related to Mario. The Yoshi, Wario, and DK series are Mario related, because they stemmed directly from the Mario universe. Diddy Kong, King K. Rool, and everyone else there is Mario related, because they are part of the DK series (stemming from Mario). But, characters like Conker and Banjo did not stem out from Mario, but from DK and thus became a whole different franchise altogether. From this we can conclude we should only cover characters and whatnot that are within the Mario universe and those that stemmed directly from it. But now you all must be thinking "what about Sonic? He and Mario are in a game together!" Mario & Sonic is a Mario game to begin with but had allowed Sonic, a completely different character, to be a guest in the universe. So the Sonic characters that appeared there should be covered on the Wiki as they were directly put within or extremely near the Mario universe for at least a while. The Smash series differs from this situation in that it is several video game universes in one big collage, rather than a direct implementation of one universe into another. It doesn't focus directly at Mario, Sonic, Pokemon, or at Pikmin. All of them are in for it.

So, back my first point: the Smash series is a big (mostly Nintendo) video game collage; the series doesn't solely take place in the Mario universe. Several franchises meet together, but doesn't make them related as they didn't originate from one another. Zelda did not come from Mario, and neither did Pokemon, Metroid, Star Fox, etc. Therefore the Mario Wiki is being cluttered with many articles that not even related to Mario: only because Mario is in the game. Sonic is a very loose exception, as he and Mario were the direct focus of the game mentioned earlier-- Well... look, I'm not saying we should simply throw out all things non-Mario, I'm saying that they should be controlled. I myself suggest that we do directly focus on primarily on the Mario components and gameplay of Brawl and Melee while giving mention to the other franchises within. I suggest links to non-Mario Smash articles (Link, Final Cutter, Smashville, End of Day) be replaced with links to those at Smash Wiki's. This way, I believe it does not ignore the majority of Smash itself, but rather lets more appropriate sources fill that void. I hope at least many of you were able to see what I'm saying. --NintendoExpert89 02:07, 18 January 2008 (EST)

I cannot follow your reasons about Mario and Sonic being different to Smash Bros. Also, we will stay independent from SmashWiki, it's something completely different and not written in a neutral style. It does have nothing to do with the MarioWiki and will stay that way in the future. Same goes for "the Userpedia" and all that stuff. Second, it was initially decided to feature the Smash Bros. series on the wiki because the majority (not absolute, but relative) of its content is indeed featuring the Mario universe. Currently, removing the Smash Bros. content from the Wiki again would look like a foolish attempt which, in my opinion, is only triggered because the articles have been expanded that much. Long articles on Smash Bros. are not to be discriminated against by Mario articles of the same length, as per the Importance Policy. The Smash Bros. series is related to the Mario series enough to be featured in here, as are other crossovers like Mario & Sonic. And this still doesn't mean that we should include Banjo or Conker or games were Mario made a cameo in. My vote is mainly because I don't want to lose all the work I put into the articles, that's true as well. In my opinion, if we hadn't wanted Smash on the Wiki, we should have decided it earlier, now you're too late. - Cobold (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2008 (EST)
Wouldn't Smash Bros fall into the same category as the Wario & DK games in that they all stem back to the Mario series - Kamicciolo

Orangeyoshi 17:18, 20 January 2008 (EST) Super Smash Bros. articles are fine. But I don't think those games should be considered part of the main Mario series. They're not even really Mario spin-offs-- they're more like general Nintendo character games. When I read the ESRB article, it said no Mario, Yoshi, Donkey Kong, or Yoshi game had ever been rated EC, M, or AO. That made me curious about what game was rated T. When I found out it was SSB Melee, I was like, "Oh, THAT game." On this wiki, it's considered to much as part of the series. The articles are fine. But that's what I have to say about this matter.

Merge the different colored Yoshi articles

keep separate 1-8
I propose that we merge Green Yoshi, Cyan Yoshi, Orange Yoshi, etc. into one article. I find it unnessacarry to have seperate articles on each color. We can easily merge each color and it's abilities into one article.

Proposer: King Boo
Deadline: January 23, 2008, 17:00


  1. King Boo - Per myself.

Oppose, each color should have it's own article

  1. Purple Yoshi (talk)I don't see what the problem is. The articles aren't stubs, why should we merge them?
  2. Stumpers (talk) As it stands, I'm gonna say no b/c of differences in Super Mario World. I could change easily, though.
  3. Walkazo - Per all. We touched on this subject in that old Isle Delfino Birds proposal (which hasn't been fulfilled yet...) and decided these Yoshi pages stay... However inconveniant it is to flick through them all.
  4. BlueYoshter (talk) THE YOSHI ARTICLES HAVE TO STAY APART. per all.
  5. HyperToad Per all.
  6. Orangeyoshi Yeah, I thought about it, and they each have enough info to stay seperate. I agree with everyone.. and, there'd be no Orange Yoshi article (no article of me!)
  7. MarioGalaxy2433g5 Per all except for the last 2 comments of Orangeyoshi.
  8. Glitchman (talk) Per all.


Can you expand on your reasoning a little more? I'm not sure which way I want to go yet. Stumpers (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2008 (EST)

We had this proposal before, it did not pass. Time Q (talk) 01:41, 17 January 2008 (EST)

BlueYoshter, I don't understand what you mean by "THEY MUST STAY." Could you elaborate, please? ChaosNinji (talk) This did fail before.