no such pages 4-5
I feel this should be added for begginers. I am proposing that abreviations commonly used in this Wiki should have their own page. It took me 2 months to find out what NPC means. If this does not happen, then I propose instead that we change all abreviations not used in games to be changed to what they really mean.
Proposer:Jaffffey (talk) Deadline: January 24, 2008, 17:00 EST
Orangeyoshi I agree, because I'm new! I want to be able to learn things like that.
Stumpers (talk) But only as redirects to their entries on the glossary, 'k?
Time Q (talk) This is Super Mario Wiki, not Abbreviation Wiki. There may be people who do not know what "NPC" means, but we cannot explain everything (which we would have to do if we made articles on abbreviations). And where's the problem in searching Wikipedia for NPC? It does not take 2 months, it takes 2 seconds. Er, per Cobold. (I didn't know about that Glossary page, which is indeed a good place for explaining these abbreviations.)
Don't forget to vote on your owm proposal! Anyway, abreviations are annoying but I disagree with your secondary suggestion to cut them out if this translation-page proposal doesn't fly. One major problem people might have will be "canon vs. fanon" slang, but the page could always be divided into those respective sections... I dunno, I have to think about this one. - Walkazo
What's about a List of Abreviations used on the Mariowiki? Ah, didn't see the Glossary. --Blitzwing 17:14, 17 January 2008 (EST)
Orangeyoshi That would work too! I just want someplace to learn the abbreveations. By the way, what does NPC mean?
Non Player Character, Characters that appear in a game, but that you can't play as. Those are mainly enemies or generic towns-people in the RPG games. --Blitzwing 18:19, 17 January 2008 (EST)
Can't we do what Stumpers suggested and redirect abrieviations to their glossary entries?Knife (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2008 (EST)
Would be possible if they had entries in the glossary in the first place, which is currently not the case. - Cobold (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2008 (EST)
Cobold: I can help there. So, what abbreviations are we talking about? Just list 'em out and then I can take care of 'em all at once. Stumpers (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2008 (EST)
Well, NPC for starters. I guess RPG is we wanna be thorough. What other abbreviations do we use a lot (besides things like SMB for Super Mario Bros. 'cuz those can simply be redirected to the actual game pages)? - Walkazo
They should be in the glossary as well, but I would redirect 'em to the actual game page, because the glossary will just say, "An achronym for Super Mario Bros., usually the game rather than the movie." Stumpers (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2008 (EST)
Orangeyoshi 16:56, 20 January 2008 (EST) Cobold is right. "NPC" isn't in the glossary. I wouldn't know what it means unless Blitzwing told me.
STUMPERS' LIST OF ABREVIATIONS TO ADD: NPC, RPG, Bros.(everyone: feel free to add more!)
Orangeyoshi 20:53, 23 January 2008 (EST) Wait, I thought Time Q, Walkazo and I figured out that "per" wasn't wiki slang. Should it be in the glossary? It still could be... but I don't think we need it.
Ok. I removed it... per Orangeyoshi. Stumpers (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2008 (EST)
Ya just said it again! Or did you do that on purpose? Orangeyoshi 19:56, 24 January 2008 (EST)
Yup, I was messing with you ;D Stumpers (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2008 (EST)
Merge of the same stages/courses into one article and split the the different ones
I also propose to split the pages that have two or more entirely different stages in the same article, mostly the Super Smash Bros. stages, such as the article with the original's and Melee'sMushroom Kingdom, two ENTIRELY different stages. Well, you may think "But they have the same name and design!" No, they don't. All stages based on Super Mario Bros. would have that design and the Melee versions is called Mushroom: Kingdom, with "Mushroom" being the stage location and "Kingdom" the name.
(BTW, I is not neutral to English and this is the first time I propose so if anything is spelled wrong or wrong in any other way, feel free to edit this.)
Proposer: KingMario Deadline: January 26, 2008, 20:00 EST
EDIT 20/01: Looks like i forgot the idea to add a category in which users can support one idea only.
BlueYoshter (talk) i have to oppose cause those are completley different levels.
Stumpers (talk) I like your second idea, not so much the first. I wouldn't think you'd want to combine an article about a race track in a city and the city itself, would you? Bowser's Castle is larger than most cities in the Mario series, so... I wouldn't think that you'd want to combine these based on the fact that they have the same name. Oh, and remember that we have articles on individual rooms in Luigi's Mansion? We've already combined the clearly different racetracks, so at this point it'd be like making the article about the individual Toad a sub-portion of the article about his species. Remember, we even split the Mr. E article (two minor subjects w/ same name = two articles). Merging is only applicable when you have minor subjects with different names, not major subjects with the same name.
Cobold (talk) - Per Stumpers. Bowser's Castle isn't the same castle in most games, anyway. It is a place in Super Mario World, a flying building in Paper Mario and a Bowser-Statue-formed Battleship in Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga.
I'm split. No to the first, yes to the second. Where do I put my vote? O_o InfectedShroom (talk)
If we're merging areas in the spin-off games with the main games, than shouldn't the same be done for Super Smash Bros. stages? Your argument about how they're different places is valid, however the same could be said for al the other spin-off places (i.e. MSB's Bowser Castle stadium is certainly not the same as the Castle he actually lives in). Also, the individual stages of most games (except more obscure games like the Japanese-only Itadaki Street DS) already have articles and not all of them have corresponding main-game areas, so it's going to be difficult acting on this Proposal. Then there's the other option of cramming all these odd-ball stages together into lists of stages for each game, which would also have links to the main-game artciles for the stages that were merged in that fashion. It's a very big and daunting undertaking, but I still don't want to vote against it, since if it's done right it could be beneficial... Walkazo
InfectedShroom, you may want to put your vote in oppose so that the proposal doesn't go through? If you don't you might lose both of your arguments. Stumpers (talk) 13:02, 21 January 2008 (EST)
I think we should split this proposal into two different ones, people's votes shouldn't be influenced by only offering one rating on two different issues. - Cobold (talk) 13:05, 21 January 2008 (EST)
don't merge 3-9 Note: Message is edited from Talk:Snufit
So, um, according to TMK, these guys' Japanese names are exactly the same as a normal Snifit's. On top of that, i and u are right next to each other on most English keyboards. They look nearly identical (especially in the remake, which makes almost all enemies look more like their traditional forms), and, floating aside, act identical as well--and the originals could jump and hover for a short time anyway. And this very wiki says that they were "accidentally" referred to as Snifits in one of the MPs anyway.... Considering all that, can we really say that they're intended to be different enemies? I'd suggest a merge.
Proposer:Dazuro and Knife Deadline: January 26, 2008, 20:00 EST
Dazuro - Per above. Per below. Per common sense. Per logic. And, most importantly, per the designers' own designation!
Blitzwing - The fact that they were refered to as Snifit in Mario Party kind ofp oint out to the fact that those things are infact Snifit. I think the proposer could be more polite and reasonable, thought.
They're different species, but I do see what you're getting at with your arguments on the talk page. I agree that it's strange how Koopa Troopas started out quardrupedial and are now totally different but retain the same name. If it were up to me, the 4-legged ones would be called Shellcreepers and only the anthropormorphic turtles would be Troopas, but it's not up to me, it's up to Nintendo, and they say they're all Koopa Troopas. It's the same case with the Paratroopas: they're just Koopa Troopas with wings, but they've been given different names so we have to say they're different species, and the same goes for Snifits and Snufits. Of course, I'd still want to list Paratroopas as their own species (or at least sub-species) anyway, since they look and act different from Koopa Troopas, which are the main criteria for determining species in biology (aside from genetics, which doesn't really apply here as this is the fictionalMarioverse where DNA means squat and anything can happen, including a species getting its wings knocked off and magically turning into another species). Maybe Snifits and Snufits were meant to be the same thing, but they're not. They act and look different, just like the two kinds of Koopa Troopas, and just like Paratroopas and Troopas; but like the latter, they got seperate names. It doesn't matter if it was a typo, Nintendo has spoken and we're obligated to follow it. - Walkazo
I just want to point out that if this proposal pass, we should also perhap split the Super Mario World Goomba from the Goomba article since they act differently and haves a different name in the Japanese localisation, which is kinda the opposite of this "Snifit = Snufit?" deal. --Blitzwing 12:22, 20 January 2008 (EST)
Exactly. Whether NoA screwed up the localization or not, they were designed as the same characters (Snifit example) and different characters (Goomba example), and we should respect that. I mean, come on--Bloopers were known as Bloobers in a few games, but we aren't rushing to make new pages for those! You say it's up to Nintendo, Walkazo--well, Nintendo says they're the same. Just because NoA typoed doesn't change that fact. Dazuro 13:14, 20 January 2008 (EST)
Your Blooper example doesn't work: Blooper and Blooper look and act exactly the same way. Snufit and Snifit are obliviously different (If similar) creature, beside, we are an english-speaking wiki, I think it make sense to follow the American localisation. --Blitzwing 13:17, 20 January 2008 (EST)
Come on. The Japanese creators of a Japanese game say they're the same species. The American translators change one easily-typoed letter, be it by accident or otherwise, and redesign them even less drastically than others that remain the same species. They then proceed to call them by the "other species"'s name even in American publications. Where's the logic in saying they're different? There is not a single argument for keeping it Snufit that doesn't apply to dozens of other changes you never questioned. The American localization has screwed up in the past. We don't follow those mistakes. What makes this one different? Dazuro 13:19, 20 January 2008 (EST)
The difference between this case and Pakkun Flower (which is a half-translated Piranha Plant), is that Snufits actually look different and have different abilities (flying). So as there is already an official name for this sub-species, we should use it. Because these are a sub-species, not regular Snifits. - Cobold (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2008 (EST)
NoJ says otherwise. Dazuro 15:19, 20 January 2008 (EST)
I was not referring to the name, but the appearance. Check again. - Cobold (talk) 08:10, 21 January 2008 (EST)
And your point is? NoJ says they're the same species. NoJ designed them. NoA may have said they're the same species with a minor typo, or they may have been foolish enough to try to make a new species out of something that's clearly not supposed to be so. Either way, what's the point? Every single creature in 64 that I can think of except the goombas changed in some major way from their previous selves. "It isn't like the old snifits" is NOT a valid argument unless you're completely blind to all forms of common sense and pattern recognition. There is not a single reason to say it's different--except for a ONE-KEY-OVER LETTER, which was later corrected anyway! You people are being completely irrational! Dazuro 14:26, 21 January 2008 (EST)
Keep a cool head. Anyway, do they fix this typo in SM64DS? If not, then they were meant to be a separate species. If they did, then they are Snifits. Either way, I think their official name in SM64DS should be the deciding factor here.Knife (talk) 15:49, 21 January 2008 (EST)
It should be noted that, even when they are called Snifits, the "Snufits" are a sub-species nethertheless. They just have features regular Snifits don't, or better the other way round, they are lacking Snifit bodies. They are a subspecies, it is just the question whether they have an official name. The Bloober <-> Blooper example doesn't really fit here because of that. - Cobold (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2008 (EST)
Cobold, you're entirely missing my point. Every enemy in SM64 has features they didn't before, so that is NOT a valid argument. Knife, are they ever even named ingame? And I'd keep a cool head if these people would stop acting so ridiculously dense. -_- But hey, what do I know? I'm only following the original creators' obvious-as-(censored)intentions, after all. Sheesh... Dazuro 19:39, 21 January 2008 (EST)
Okay, so having looked at SM64DS's revamped model (it has a TAIL!), it's clearly intended as a subspecies. This, however, does not prove anything. After all, was not Bubba turned into a different species (Big Bertha, IIRC?) for the DS one? Yet we still have the Bubba article for the original game's sake. So, while it seems that 64's Snifits were apparently retconned into Snufits, they were Snifits in the original game. Dazuro 19:49, 21 January 2008 (EST)
Well.. if you look at this image File:Snufit.jpg they do look pretty different from normal Snifit, they don't even have feets! --Blitzwing 17:58, 22 January 2008 (EST)
Right, and any self-respecting biologist knows that an animal without feet is not the same as an animal with feet. I like your Goomba point too, SMW Goombas don't look like any other Goombas, but like bipedial/quadrupedial Koopa Troopas I thought that since they have the same name we're stuck saying they're the same species, however if they have different Japanese names I say we should split the article. Besides, we don't just have to go by names, we can still use common sence where we can. Like with the Koopalings: Ludwig Von Koopa and Kooky Von Koopa have different names, but we know they're about the same person and therefore we only have one article for them/him. And Dazuro, no swearing. - Walkazo
Character Stats and Descriptions
no quorum 2-0
I find it rather odd that semi-minor characters such as Daisy and Waluigi have extremely detailed stats and character descriptions from recent spinoff games such as Mario Party DS and Mario Superstar Baseball while main characters such as Mario and Wario have very vague stats and no descriptions for games such as Mario Party DS. It seems like a minor complaint, but for the Super Mario Wiki, it seems kind of unfair and silly not to include thorough stats for everyone, especially main characters such as those mentioned. For those who can not find out for themselves (such as myself), the Mario Wiki should definitely include the information to live up to its reputation as a thorough database. All who support should be for attempting to locate these stats or finding one who is able to.
The main reason for that, is 'cos Daisy and Waluigi's articles are hit by incredibly over-zealous fanboys, who put all their time to that one article. That's awesome for us, cos' we need all the info we can get, but other articles are ignored in this way. I'm only commenting to give the reason why this has happened, sorry. Pokemon DP (talk) So, anyway, what exactly are we Supporting and Opposing here?
I don't think this is even proposal-worthy, yes it's odd, but like Pokemon Dp said, some off our users here are *ahem*, more dedicated to certain characters. --Blitzwing 18:02, 22 January 2008 (EST)
Couldn't Have a Rotten Day just do it himself? Even if this passes the only thing that will change is that he will HAVE to do it himself. Not just could. Stumpers (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2008 (EST)
Good point, Stumpers. He says in his proposal that he does not own all of the Mario sports title and cannot find all of the info by himself, but if the proposal passes he's going to have to do it anyway. Glitchman (talk) 18:54, 22 January 2008 (PT)
No, I totally agree with you guys. I'm not horrendously concerned over this, I just think that when it comes to stats that people have obviously gotten hold of, that they should include all of the characters over time. I really have been trying to locate the info myself and trying to locate people I know who may have the information but I haven't really met anyone who has the info. I am more than willing to include the info myself, I just don't own the games or know anyone who does. If I get the info, I'd be happy to personally apply it to the proper pages. I just really feel that when it comes to information like that, that all characters need to be included, regardless of popularity, in order to fufill the Mario Wiki's reputation as a thorough database. Have A Rotten Day!
The proposal page is for things that can alter the working of the MarioWiki (New rules, deleting/merging an article), if you think some articles lack informations, there's the Trouble Center --Blitzwing 06:42, 25 January 2008 (EST)
Ugh, are you serious? Just because CERTAIN PEOPLE [ugh-huh, ME!] were willing to do it for characters they liked doesn't mean other characters are by your opinion MORE deserving of the same information. I don't have to add info to certain pages if I don't feel like it. I can indeed do this with ease, it's just that no one seems to care as much about MArio and Luigi's spin-off information as they do for characters like (i.e Waluigi et Daisy). I have no problem with doing this, it's just frustrating the way you put it. Fixitup
Currently, we do not have an article on Hungry Lumas. Although Hungry Lumas are simply Lumas that are hungry, I believe they should get a separate article because they appear so consistently in the game and their name is official, with a capitalized Hungry in front of Luma. They also affect the gameplay a lot by forming new planets, new galaxies, or even Mushrooms. Of course, they are still the same species as Lumas (not subspecies), but should that be reason that they have to stay on the same article?
Proposer:Knife (talk) Deadline: January 29, 2008, 17:00 EST
InfectedShroom (talk) Yeah, I agree. They are big in finding more stars, and the fact that they can transform into galaxies is very big, especially when the galaxies have seperate pages.
Tykyle - The Hungry Lumas are much more important to the gameplay than normal lumas. Now, would this article include the shop and comet lumas?
Dodoman (talk) It has an official name, and affects quite a few Stars in the game.
Knife (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2008 (EST) Per InfectedShroom
Stumpers (talk) I'm gonna have to go with you guys on this, but I would also support providing links to the other luma articles from the main one.
MarioBros777 (talk) Per all above. Due to the fact that Hungry Lumas are useful. Like new galaxies. (Would it include that Luma who knows about Prankster Comets?)
Glitchman (talk) True, but they're basically regular Lumas and do not have any separate abilities, so it would be best to just create a large section on the Luma page dedicated to Hungry Lumas, to show what they do and where they appear in the game.
HyperToad They are just lumas, not any different except they eat. Do we make articles for Koopa without a shell? HyperToad
The page is perfectly okay, those are enemies from Super Mario World which start out with having no shell. - Cobold (talk) 12:18, 26 January 2008 (EST)
Tykyle: Yes.Knife (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2008 (EST)
Would the Luma Shop need a separate article... Nah...But i just wanted to check... MarioBros777 (talk) Oh yeah... I say split!!! Get your fist and break the article into 2! :P
keep references 1-8
On the wiki, many people add in articles refrencing about spriting and models. I know what these mean, but not all guests or users who don't care about the community side may not know what exactly sprites are, and the differences with models. So should we allow this kind of talk? Or shall we make this only for people who know about this stuff?
I still haven't quite understood what you are talking about? Could you say where in the Brawl article exactly there is a reference? The Beta Elements would be a different story, it's vital to the article and could perhaps be explained for that. - Cobold (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2008 (EST)
I don't really understand this proposal... Spriting is a legetimate videogame term, refering to 2D models of characters and items, it's not just a community thing. Same things for Model. What's the point of removing mentions of something perfectly legetimate? Blitzwing (talk)
Stumpers (talk) We need another justification: "affects gameplay" means that we should include an article about video games that have inspired the Mario games, so... I think it's a weak argument for anything.
BlueYoshter (talk) per all. if the articles have one sentence, they should be deleted.
What is "too minor" and what is not is mostly opinion. Maybe Mario mini isn't as important as Mario himself, however, the character play a proeminent part (A minigame in Super Mario 64 is centered around it) and have an official name, showing Nintendo kinda cares about that... thing. However, I agree we should merge Beach koopa (C'mon, it's just a Koopa without it's shell, it doesn't make it a new species).
For this kind of problem, we should work with a case-by-case basis , not everything need to be run throught the proposals, if you think the article is about a too minor subject, say it on the Talkpage and see if other agree/disagree, making an individual proposal to merge Pirate Goomba is OK, however, making a proposal to get rid of everything that doesn't seem too major just doesn't work.
Saying it on talkpages DOESN'T WORK! I've tried with Pauline's Items, but Xluidi came in and acted like he's so smart by saying "It affects gameplay, like CHEESE". Everthing that effects gameplay doesn't get an article! So maybe this proposal can't work, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have a standerd for what gets an article and what doesn't. What about Blue BirdGreen Bird, and so forth! And YOU were the one trying to destroy cheese! HyperToad
HT, I can relate to your problem (not with Xluidi... I mean the talk page discussions being shot down by one comment), but what you'll want to do is go after each separate page individually on the proposal page. Asking people to vote for a generality makes them worry about other pages. You split voters into saying "no" if you talk about more than one subject. Hope that helps you with your future proposals! Stumpers (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2008 (EST)
The Marioverse is filled with minor things, and if we cut them all out our Wiki will be full of holes. Some things, like the Isle Delfino Birds should be merged (a proposal just passed to merge the birds but hasn't been enacted), but others like Beach Koopas should stay. Yes, they're just Koopas without shells, but they've been given offical names, have appeared over and over in the Marioverse, and have affected gameplay and plot; if that's not significant than what is? So they're not seperate species, neither are KP Koopas or Pirate Goombas. The point is, we can't be this picky about these little details, nomatter what we say makes one thing or another article-worthy, someone else will say it doesn't. As many others have said, do this case-by-case; and don't blow your cool if you don't like what stays. Who knows, someone out there might want to know about Pauline's Items... - Walkazo
BTW: This proposal is under the wrong section. (Way to go HyperToad). MarioGalaxy2433g5 16:02, 27 January 2008 (EST)
See Walazo, there this secret thing called REDIRECTS! Redirect can help give info on Pauline's Items without using pointless articles. HyperToad
Redirect to... what? --Blitzwing 11:38, 28 January 2008 (EST)
My guess is he'll say Donkey Kong (arcade game) for Pauline's Items. But, see HyperToad, the secret thing here is that some things like Mario minican't be put into one major game's article: in this case, Mario mini is in Super Mario 64 and SM64DS, with homages to it appearing in Paper Mario, Mario Teaches Typing 2 and New Super Mario Bros., to name a few. Plus, there's nothing more infuriating than a re-direct if you want to read about one thing and get shuttled off to another where the first thing's only a little footnote at the bottom of the page or not in it at all. And also, who the heck is Walazo? If you're gonna patronize someone, at least get their name right. - Walkazo
Thank MarioGalaxy, we know that. Also, not everything has to redirect, just some. Also, please go to the main page's talk. HyperToad
Yup. HyperToad and I are trying to figure out new criteria other than, "effects game play." Come help! Stumpers (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2008 (EST)
How about.... I have no idea. Can we just scrap this proposal and start over. The chances of this thing winning are slim to none. MarioGalaxy2433g5 18:25, 30 January 2008 (EST)
Why don't we close this early. Before saying no, read this. MarioGalaxy2433g5 14:28, 1 February 2008 (EST)
This proposal doesn't hurt you either, so it there's no reason for it not to stay until the deadline is over. - Cobold (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2008 (EST)
Yeah, by the looks of it the proposals not gonna pass so chill out and let it die in its own good time. - Walkazo
Yoshi and Wario entries
put these entries in primary lists 8-0
Fellow Kids Next Door operatives I mean MarioWiki users, :P; I just found out an issue that lasts just about when the wiki has started to this very day... Do you notice something missing in the lists such as Characters, Places, Items, Species, Allies and Enemies? If not, it would be the Yoshi and Wario entries. Just look, those entries are long forgotten and unlisted, (excluding DK entries). You can barely see some of the entries in those lists, and besides, they are linked through articles instead of lists sadly, :(. Come on, this is the Super Mario Wiki! In the last note, if neither of those two choices are effected, then Wayoshi would make a DPL code to list Yoshi and Wario entries in the Wiki Maintenance in such case.
Proposer:RAP (talk) Deadline: February 3, 2008, 15:00 EST
Include the Yoshi and Wario entries in those primary lists
RAP (talk) I think it would be better if those entries belong in the same list instead of seperately, IMO.
Walkazo - Seeing as these main lists are simply called Places etc. instead of Mario Places than it would make sence that all the places were listed there. If the crossover things are already in these lists, we should just stick everything else in there too and make it a done deal. An obscenely large list will be a tad onerous to navigate, but it will be no worse than the lack of lists we have now (Donkey Kong Places but no Yoshi Places or Wario Places?).
Alphaclaw11 (talk)It would be easier and yoshi and wario games first were mario games so they are related game wise.And if they are included in the wiki overall then they should be in the overall lists.
Red.TideI've always said that the Wario and Yoshi series, particularly the Yoshi series, aren't really distinct series from the Mario series.
Stumpers (talk) I wanted that for a while, too, because no one except a select few in my experience know that places means "Mario places, ect., so, thanks for taking the initiative, RAP.
Make a list for Yoshi and Wario entries seperately
Talking about Donkey Kong Characters etc.? Considering that Crossover (a.k.a. Smash Bros.) characters are already included in the "mainstream" lists, it's a bit inconvenient. But it is here. - Cobold (talk) 05:35, 27 January 2008 (EST)
Maybe it's because I'm reading this at 3am, but I'm not seeing the problem. If they are missing from lists, add them. Don't need a proposal for that. -- Chris 06:07, 27 January 2008 (EST)
Sadly some people don't tend to add the other types of entries into those lists just because they belong to the Yoshi series or even the Wario series. RAP (talk) And besides, I think SoS perviously suggested spliting up into other lists, and sofourth with my conversion... Source - Talk:Places
Correct Operator System
keep separated power groups 4-10
I know everyone is tired of talking about the chat on this wiki, but please, hear me out. Steve currently has "200" powers – founder of #mariowiki, complete control over all settings. When I had my bureaucrat term, I was privileged with "190" – everything the same as 200 except to unregister #mariowiki (i.e. remove ChanServ and all ops). All sysops on the wiki got "100", which allowed them to be auto-oped upon entry in the room to ban & kick when appropriate. The chat was very ho-hum and orderly at that time.
But now? Ever since I stepped down, no one has returned to 190 (Xze should have), and though 100s are valid, "back-up" non-sysops are now receiving 100s also, because, as the Big P declares "the chat is separate from the wiki."
To that I give a polite "no." I'm sorry, Steve, but the chat has been on this wiki for almost a year now. <10% are forum-only users. And now, there are three non-sysops with auto-op powers, one of which I am extremely questionable about, with no consensus from us. As the only person >100 now, Steve, not RAP (who's in chat quite often) or Cobold, is making all the decisions, and as such the chat has been quite a mess for at least a month now, if not more. I understand with more people the chat is harder to control – now 15 people on a weekday is not uncommon. But we had 10 people on spring nights, probably 15 on summer nights too, and everything couldn't have been better. Now, it really couldn't be much worse.
Thus I propose the following:
All sysops get 100s, all bureaucrats get 190s. It is not a requirement to chat, but it is strongly encouraged to help keep it in line and child-safe (i.e. no sexual content, etc.) Enough sysops/crats are active in chat for now, so that is not a concern.
All non-sysops stay at 0, including patrollers. A patroller and sysop are two completely different things. Patrollers don't have enough privileged rights to earn a 100, though this is debatable.
Demotion of op powers also means loss of sysop powers. The chat is CONNECTED TO the wiki.
Proposer: Wayoshi Deadline: Febuary 4, 2008, 17:00 EST
Alphaclaw11 (talk)Per Wayo. Also i do think thiere are ways for people to lose power but being a syop or crat means you are trusted so you should be in trusted in chat, but that doesnt mean being DE-OPed means being DE-Sysops but like i said before, being a sysop means you are trusted.One more thing THis doesnt mean being a sysop means you ahve to go on chat. I do thing that good OP who arent Sysops should stay OPed since they help.
Uniju :D (talk) - As I've stated many many many other times, the chat and forum always seem to be falling apart because their ops/mods are only sysops, so the mods/ops need to both be sysops, and active on that sub-site. However, recently the chat has got these "back-up ops", which are the only thing keeping the chat from being a spam pit around, like... Through almost all of the late morning, through sometime in the after noon, the ops tend to be lacking. While more trusted users who become back-up ops tend to still come on during this time. The Back-up ops are really the only thing keeping this together, you just dislike them because you don't get any time to break rules on chat anymore.
ChaosNinji (talk) - Look, I may be biased because I'm a back-up, but I'm on half the time regular ops aren't. During the course of the day that I am on, operators of the chat usually come around 6:00 PM EST. That's pretty late, considering many Users get on around 2:00 PM EST - 3:00 PM EST. Many times, it is just the other back-up operators and I keeping control. If there are trustworthy Users, why not let them be Operators? It makes no sense, considering the chat is pretty seperate to the Wiki. Look, I don't care if I'm demoted. I just feel that Back-up Ops should be around. I also agree with DP's idea of limiting the amount of them.
Purple Yoshi (talk) - There are 24 hours of the day. No sysop or 'crat can stay all 24 hours. And I've seen plenty of times when no sysop is around.
Blitzwing (talk) - I only disagree about the patroller part. See comment.
Shroobario (talk) Per all. I'm not voting because I'm now a back-up op, I'm voting because many back-up ops are on on time that spam mostly occurs because there is no other ops that happens because of all those different and confusing times zone. Me for example, Most part of when I'm usually on there isnt other ops there.
Cobold (talk) - I won't participate in the chat, so giving the power to me is rather pointless - community and wiki are fully apart.
King Boo (talk) This isn't a cheap way for you to return to op status? Yeah I wish I could believe that. We needs Ops around 24/7. We need back ups to ensure that the chat is safe 24 hours a day 7 days a week. I oppose this proposal, not only because we need back ups, but because this IS just a cheap way for you to get your power back. What will you do if you get it back? You'll abuse it, that's what.
Master Crash (talk) Out of no disrespect Wayoshi, we've gone through this already, back-ops are very useful in a situation where there are no ops.
BlueYoshter (talk) per all. i don't see why patrollers shouldent be ops in the chat. they're admins too, arent they?
Before I get any complaints / flames, this is NOT a cheap way for me to return to an operator rank. Note that by the proposal if I go awry in chat again, I will also lose something I covet very much: maintaining & improving this wiki with my powers here. This could very well fall flat, but I feel it necessary to finally get a consensus; it's high time we put all disputes of chat to rest. Wayoshi (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2008 (EST)
I must disagree with the back-up Op removal. However, I am not opposed to limiting them. I believe we should ONLY have two trustworthy back-up Ops. After all, Steve has recently given Uniju and Shroobario 100 level Op powers on chat, but Uni recently cursed like crazy, as well as flame others. Not that I'm flaming Uni or anything, I just don't trust Uni as a back-up Op, neither do I trust Shrooby. We just need more trustworthy Users, like Purple Yoshi or ChaosNinji. Pokemon DP (talk)
Let it be noted that you already made this, Wayoshi. It failed, remember? ChaosNinji (talk)
I feel that there should be another answerAlphaclaw11read my comment where i voted
What if the active Sysops were to take a vote before the creation of any back-up operator? That seems fair, considering you said that the back-ups were created without consensus. ChaosNinji (talk)
I disagree about not giving Patroller OP rights. Patrollers are chosen for their trust-worthyness and their activity, much like sysops are. The power given to the Patrollers is already rather dubious. Limiting their powers even further is rather ludicrous. I agree with the rest, thought. Blitzwing (talk)
Ghost Jam, although I know your way too stubborn to change you're mind on this, I must point out that several Sysops have been proven to not be reliable chat ops AT ALL(Wayoshi, You, and Paper Jorge), and that there are many normal chat users that would be much more fit for the op job than such people. I'm not saying that all the sysops shouldn't be chat ops, or that I am superior to the sysops in any way because I'm an op on chat. Also, Porplemontage himself promoted me to back-up op status, and when Pokemon DP asked why he responded that he trusts me. If you don't believe me, go ask DP or Porple. Uniju :D (talk)
I disagree, with what you said about demoting ops along with sysop powers, because a good buddy of mine (Paper Jorge) doesn't really set a good example of being an OP (he doesn't curse or flame, but he does spam), however Paper Jorge is a great sysop on the wiki. And another great example is you Wayoshi, who could not be trusted on chat but could be trusted on the wiki. So if an OP demotion (hypothetically) happened to Pokemon DP in chat, we would also lose a great sysop. I think of the relation of our chat/forum to the wiki like this: the Wiki influences the chat/forum, but the forum/chat does not influence the wiki.Knife (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2008 (EST)
use latest released appearance 21-1
On the character infobox template, there is a section for "Latest Appearance". I'd like to establish a consensus on what this means: should this apply solely to released titles or should announced titles have precedence? We must also decide how to deal with multiple release dates. Please be sure to mention in your vote how you'd like to deal with this second issue and we can have another proposal if there is not a clear consensus.
Stumpers (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2008 (EST) For the reasons above. I feel that the earliest release date for a title (ie, Japanese release date for Brawl) should be used to determine which appearance we use.
Cobold (talk) - "Latest" implies that something has already happened, so it can't be in the future. And we should use the first release in any region, that's Japan for most games, but also Europe for Super Mario Strikers.
Stooben Rooben (talk) The latest appearance should say what the most-recently-released game with that character is. There could also be a part that says "Future Appearances" that would tell games to-be-released that has that character confirmed to be in it.
Toadette 4evur 12:47, 3 February 2008 (EST) I think making it the latest announce appearance make makes more sense because latest appearance means the last time the character was seen, it has nothing to do with the fact that an event already happened. If a game is in development that means it's happening, and if the character is confirmed that means that they appear in the game. Can't stump me here! >=) *go me!*
I don't believe that this was needed to be a proposal, but it DID have to be delt with. HyperToad
I was pretty sure there would be a concensus, but I just thought: "We have this system, and there is no possible conflict if we use this system, so...." Oh, by the way, I was wondering how you guys would feel if we mentioned the latest appearance in each region, so it would be something like this:
Just asking, what's the difference between EUR and PAL? PAL is the name for the video standard used in Europe. - Cobold (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2008 (EST)
Sorry, I meant AU. I have a beast of a cold right now. I've made the corrections. Anyway, there are some games with different release dates for PAL and AU, I found out. Thanks for catching that. Stumpers (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2008 (EST)
Cobold, "latest appearance" means the last time the character was seen. It has nothing to do with if an event already happened or not. *I ROCK at this! =)* Toadette 4evur 15:29, 3 February 2008 (EST)
I was just starting to wonder if my name makes people combative... guess it does... :*( Does it? Toadette, my responce to your position is that some games are cancled, etc. Plus, how do you know which future release to put there? Sometimes there are more than one appearance scheduled as TBA or TBA 2009, etc. Anyway, my apologies for all of the trouble that you and other users have had with this arguement. Stumpers (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2008 (EST)
Yeah, they're really gonna remove Mario/Luigi/Peach/Bowser from a misc. game. See? You can't stump me. Toadette 4evur 17:04, 3 February 2008 (EST) ps- I didn't mean for you to think your username is combative, sorry.
Stumpers, when it comes to future releases, you can just contact the companies when the game is waiting to be released about any questions you have regaurding the release date. Toadette 4evur 17:08, 3 February 2008 (EST)
Don't double post, and that sounds like WAY too much hastle. Besides, we don't need to directly ask Nintendo because they tell the public the release dates on their own, and when those dates bounce around (like for SSB Brawl) its because Nintendo is doing it. Using the actual release dates is simpler, and it's gonna be more useful to Joe Public, who won't care that - for example - Brawl was due out late 2007, only that it came out in 2008. And if they do wanna hear about how much it's tentative dates were moved around, they can simply visit Brawl's article. - Walkazo
Toadette: Thanks for letting me know that it's your catchphrase. You are right about removing characters, but the thing is that until the economic quarter games are going to be released in, their release is still up in the air -- either to be jumbled or to be canceled entirely. It seems like we're just asking for confusion and controversy when we put down a game that is labeled "Q4 2008" instead of another game also labeled "Q4 2008". Just as a side note, you were talking about events already having happened or happening right now, etc. The thing is, the release of games has nothing to do with that. Think about Yoshi's Island DS. We've had it as Baby Mario's latest appearance since the game came out, right? But, the events of YIDS happened before those of Mario Kart: Double Dash!! Yet, YIDS is the latest appearance. Latest appearance has nothing to do with game timelines or what is happening in the world right now or anything like that because the timeline is messy that way. It would be weird to assume that YIDS didn't happen until it was announced in the real world, right? Stumpers (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2008 (EST)
Hey, Stooben Rooben, that isn't a bad idea. Toadette 4evur 17:15, 6 February 2008 (EST) *Could we do that?*
No, there are too many characters with only one appearance and no forseeable future appearances to warrant that. Besides, most articles get sub-sections in the Bios. (or just paragraphs or actual sections for the minor articles) for upcoming games, so adding a "Future Appearance" line on the character box would be a tad unneccesary. - Walkazo
Toadette, what do you think about my example... we probably need to consider it in this arguement. Stumpers (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2008 (EST)
I think we should merge that article. These guys are simply the componement of some attack. If we allow an article on these guy, we should also allow articles on the various Pokemon and Assist Trophy.
Blitzwing (talk) - We had a proposal to get rid of all Smash Bros. article, while it didn't pass, it was right about the wiki putting too much focus on the Smash Bros. article. The existence of this article is a good proof of it.
Waddle Dee also appeared in Melee and appear outside of Waddle Dee Toss in Brawl so I think that article should stay. But I think the other three are minot enough to be merged into Waddle Dee Toss. - Walkazo
The Gordo also appears in SML2, in Dedede's FS, AND as a sticker (and likely a trophy) in Brawl, I'd think that qualifies enough. HyperToad Per Walkazo on the Waddle Dee things, but Waddle Doo should be merged without question.
remove difficulty section 18-1
Why does the level template used in DKC and SMW2 levels, among others, have a section that says something along the lines of Difficulty: Super Easy? This seems to be POV- What if I thought, say, Jungle Hijinks was hard, but the page said otherwise? This could call for many edits and opinionated statements. I propose that the template is changed so it doesn't have the Difficulty: Whatever .
Proposer:GreenKoopa Deadline: February 18, 2008, 17:00 EST
Time Q (talk) Per GreenKoopa. This is indeed POV and we don't want that here.
Uniju :D (talk) - Per all. Especially cuz I suck and it makes me realize how much I suck every time I see a level I had a ton of trouble with labeled as "easy" :P
Blitzwing (talk) Yes,Wrold 1-1 is easier that World 8-8, duh. But as the proposer said, level difficulty is mostly opinion and I don't really see what's the point of having it.
Stumpers (talk) Unless Nintendo provides difficulty levels (I believe they did for the SMB3 Advance guide), we should allow the reader to determine difficulty for themselves and list out the threats of the level, which we already do.
PaperStriker Difficulty says nothing, it can even change if you replay the level. For example in Galaxy, I found the Trial-Galaxies were very hard with Mario, but with you-know-who, I beat them in a few tries.
InfectedShroom (talk) Well, the Special World of SMW is obviously harder than, say, Cheese Bridge. :P So per all.
Cobold (talk) - It's simply a subjective parameter that can't be decided encyclopedially. What if there was a dispute about a level's difficulty?
Con 20:07, 12 February 2008 (EST) Level difficulty is only an opinion. Let's not confuse this with difficulty set options (like the setting Classic mode in Melee to Easy, which is for a fact easier than the Normal difficulty).
Paper Jorge (talk) Per all. It's mostly people's opinion, and how good they are at gaming. My mom might think the first level in Super Mario World is Extra Hard. My dad may think it's medium. Meanwhile, most people think it's easy. Just opinions...
Pokemon DP (talk) Its only official if Nintendo stated the difficulty in a Guide Book, or something. If Nintendo didn't officially state it, well, then its just a matter of opinion. POV has no place here.
Glitchman (talk) Well, I decided to change mine :P Per everyone else.
Fly Guy 2 (talk) The Dreadnought Galaxy is harder than the Good Egg Galaxy. Duh.
Fly Guy 2: Ehheheheh, I athought the speed run Prankster Comet in Good Egg galaxy was actually harder than the Dreadnaught galaxy. See? The whole difficulty thing is all opinion. --Blitzwing 20:51, 12 February 2008 (EST)
Well, then Blitz is odd. Oh and we should RECREATE SNUFIT BALL AGRESSIVLY. Fly Guy 2 (talk)
I have a comment- ITS ALL OPINION. Lets say you think... world 1-1 in SMB is easy, but I think its relativly difficult. Whos right? NEITHER OF US, FG2. If you are at a bad skill level, you will think a level is difficult. If your super-good, it might be easy. GreenKoopa PS: SNUFIT BALL DOES NOT NEED TO BE RECREATED AGGRESIVLY.
One thing we could do is to do a vote on the difficulty of all the levels, and then say the "estimated difficulty" is whatever. This would be rather long and hard, though... InfectedShroom (talk)
Main Article Template
don't use template in those cases 2-11
I've noticed with a lot of articles on main characters (e.g.:Mario), it shows that character's relations with other character (e.g.:Luigi, Peach, etc.). That article section gives a brief synopsis of his or her relation with another character with the Main Article Template above it. However, the articles also give a brief synopsis of appearances in games, and how his or her role is important to the story of that game. I think that the Main Article Template should also appear in this area of the articles. For example, with the Mario article, it would say Main Article: Paper Mario above the synopsis of Mario's role in Paper Mario.
Time Q (talk) I don't think this is necessary. The links to the corresponding articles are there anyway. Putting this template almost everywhere is overkill, and it doesn't serve its purpose.
Cobold (talk) - Per Time Q. The purpose of the Main Article template is not a "see also" notice, but that the content which could else be exactly in the section where the template is used has been split up into a different article.
Con 20:07, 12 February 2008 (EST) Would cause the template to become overused.
Stumpers (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2008 (EST) Like Cobold said, Main Article isn't a See Also, which I think is more appropriate with what you're thinking of. I know to say "during the events of", etc. breaks in-universe writing, but I really don't think that's a big problem.
3Dejong (talk) Uniju? Since when are YOU back? Per all. O-VER-KYLL.
Of course, we could easily create a "see also" template which does the same as the Main Article template with different text: "See also". However, this shouldn't be overused, especially when the article of the game is linked in the text anyway. - Cobold (talk) 13:07, 11 February 2008 (EST)
You know what I think we should do? Mabybe we should only do what the proposal said if the character is the main character in the game. For example, for the Paper Mario section in the Mario article should have the main article template, but not in, say, Bowser's article. The part of Peach's article about Super Princess Peach would have a main article template, but not in Mario's article. What do you guys think? CrystalYoshi (talk)
Then Mario's article still would be full of templates. He has more than 15 games of his own. --PaperStriker 08:09, 12 February 2008 (EST)
And what would you do with Super Paper Mario, with features several playable characters? Or every Super Mario Bros. game where Luigi is also playable? This sounds inconsistent. - Cobold (talk) 10:38, 12 February 2008 (EST)
We don't have to if you don't want to, but I would go by the character in the title, or the default character. CrystalYoshi (talk)
The "links to the corresponding articles" are in the synopsis paragraphs for games. You're right. BUT, in--let's just say--the Mario article, links to Luigi, Princess Peach, Toad', Bowser, Yoshi, Wario, you get the point. Since these links are used (sometimes several times) previously in the article, what is the point of the Main Article Template? As for how to use the template, you would only use the character played as most in the game. For Super Paper Mario, Mario's article would be the only one with Main Article: Super Paper Mario. Though Luigi, Peach, Bowser, and a number of Pixls can be played as, Mario is the character played as most. As for Super Mario Bros., Mario and Luigi would both have the template, since both can be played as the same amount of time during the game. For Super Mario Bros. 2, the same principal would work, only with Mario, Luigi, Princess Peach, and Toad. As for...Yoshi's Island DS, Yoshi would be the only character with the template in the article. Though almost all other color Yoshis are played as in the game, Yoshi's article is the only one to mention a main role in the game. The Babies wouldn't have the template in their articles simply because they couldn't survive without Yoshi (or Yoshis). Party games and spin-off games wouldn't have Main Article Templates, because no character is played as more than the other due to choice and the fact that some are unlocked (which would be a spoiler). Stooben Rooben (talk) Debate me some more!
As Cobold explained, this is not the purpose of this template. If a section has the Main Article template, the reader knows: What I'm reading is a short synopsis of the link article's content. However, to use your example, this article is not an extended version of this section, because it's not only about Mario's role in the game but about the game in general. Also look at articles like Yoshi, which combine several games in one section. We would have to put more than one Main Article template then. Time Q (talk) 04:03, 13 February 2008 (EST)
With Yoshi, if you are referring to Hero Rescue, there are two games mention, yes. But only one of which can Yoshi be played as, Super Mario 64 DS. As with Flipped, I guess it wouldn't be so much a synopsis as it would be a...cliff-notes version of the Story, so nonetheless it is a "shorter version" of this. Even though it does tell about the game in general, not just Mario's role (this I do agree with), it does tell the whole story, Mario's role and all. Stooben Rooben (talk) This is cool!
Forget it. And Toadette, Stop being so mean to Time Q he had the right to his own OPINION!!! (Even if it was the wrong opinion.) CrystalYoshi (talk)
I don't care about that anymore. We just don't get along. We used to get along, but we stopped after not to long. Toadette 4evur (talk)
LETS RECREATE SNUFIT BALL AGRESSIVELY
keep wiki unaggressively snufit-ball-free 2-12
I think the Snufit Ball deserves an article. Duh. It's an important object! Article worthy!
Uniju :D (talk) - We have an article on freaking Mario's Hat and even his damn Gloves, Mario's Hat may have a small effect on gameplay in a couple of games, but his GLOVES certainly don't. If Mario's Gloves are enough for an article, than why not Snufit Ball? Mario's Gloves don't even do anything, while Snufit Balls do. Although, if we do end up having the article, it should probably be Snifit Ball...
PaperStriker WTF? o_O It does affect gameplay even less than platforms.
Cobold (talk) - "Important object"? Oh, really? Would you create an article on Mario's left ear? This is way too minor.
Stumpers (talk) Other minor subjects have been obtainable items, etc. This one, not so much. Mario's Gloves affected the storyline of LM, Snufit Ball doesn't do that for SM64.
Blitzwing (talk) I made the first proposal to recreate it, but yeah, per everyone.
Paper Jorge (talk) His gloves are a collectible item, like Stumpers said. His gloves can actually be collected and are very important to the story. Meanwhile, a simple dumb cannonball...no. It's only a simple weapon that appears for one second. How about creating Monty Mone's Rock or Snifit Ball or Snifit Mask or Mario's Nose...how about Grass or Tree? Or a Leaf in a Tree. Oh, no...how about, The Manual of the Game "Hotel Mario"! I'm sorry if I offensed anyone.
It's not up to me, but maybe to make this cleaner we should get some more imput? Buuuut... if you want to delete it I'm not going to complain. Stumpers (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2008 (EST)
Pokemon DP: Actually, there is no conscensus on the Snufit Ball since I deleted the proposal before it could pass (It was winning 3-1, BTW). No opinion on this proposal, thought. Blitzwing (talk)
The fact that this was meant to be a joke, that it was badly done, or the fact that Fly Guy 2 made it shouldn't get in the way of people voting. ._. Uniju :D (talk)
Uniju - Mario's Glove is a collectible item in Luigi's Mansion. That's something different, if it hadn't been, it definitely wouldn't have been worth an article. - Cobold (talk) 09:55, 14 February 2008 (EST)
Cobold: Actually, I don't think Mario would be quite as popular without a left ear. J/K, but since there's an entire wiki devoted to the Snufit Ball, there might be potential for an article. I'm not voting in this, though. Yet. InfectedShroom (talk)
Er, InfectedShroom, I believe that Wiki was made by Snufit Ball-crazed fans from this Wiki, made simply as a joke. Pokemon DP (talk)
So, how does the Snufit Ball Wiki being hilarious make it any more article-worthy here? Pokemon DP (talk)
Nothing. Absolutely nothing. I just was... Uh... Making... a... uh... point? :P InfectedShroom (talk)
Not true, Uniju. First of all, you shouldn't curse (however minor the curse-word) in your votes, and second of all, Mario's Gloves are actually needed to capture Madame Clairvoya in Luigi's Mansion, so they DO indeed effect gameplay. Heh heh, you've been PWNed >:D Glitchman (talk)
Yeah, so? I don't care if you get to use them to attract ghosts in Luigi's Mansion, because Snufit Balls(Or Snifit Balls?) Are a lot more freaking important then his gloves. They appear in every game with Snifits(Snufits), and effect gameplay in every one of them. Also, I don't want to hear anything about if I should f***in' swear of f***in' not on the f***in' internet. Uniju :D (talk)
You can swear in the internet; just not here. I'm not voting because it's already a landslide, but the ball is so minor, it should be stay on the Snufit/Snifit article. 3Dejong (talk)
What you guys will say about? Mario's Shirt. It doesn't affect gameplay at all. Shroobario (talk) GO SNUFIT BALL!
Someone needs to merge that into Mario's article... one more proposal... :( Stumpers (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2008 (EST)
Hey, not every discussion about merging articles need to be run throught a proposal. Pakkun Flower got merged without having to pass throught the proposal process. --Blitzwing 17:52, 15 February 2008 (EST)
Yeah, a proposal is only needed when there are disagreements on the split/merge. - Cobold (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2008 (EST)
keep articles merged 1-14
Often when browsing the wiki, there are various articles about two character such as Mario and Luigi's Parents and Mario Joe and Luigi Bob. I propose a split of these articles who is about two characters, into two characters. Of course, these articles shouldn't only say thins such as "Mario and Luigi's Father has a pipe and appeard in a comic strip and at the end of Yoshi's Island and Super Mario Advance 3" and nothing more, but there shall be things written on both articles, such as their background. I propose a split of pages like those.
Proposer: KingMario (talk) Deadline: February 21, 2008, 17:00 EST
HyperToad (talk) Despite there not being enough info, they ARE seperate characters. THIS MEANS ASHLEY AND RED!
Time Q (talk) The reason for two characters being merged in one article usually is that there isn't enough to say about each of them. If this proposal passed, we would need to split all of these articles, and that would automatically result in more stub articles. If you feel that a certain article should be split, you should discuss it on the talk page, not through a proposal.
Cobold (talk) - Per Time Q, this has to be decided individually.
Stumpers (talk) As the writer of the current Mario and Luigi's Parents article, I remember being grateful that I didn't have to rewrite the same historical information twice. If characters are never seen apart from one another and do not have detailed backstories, I feel it is fine to leave them combined.
WTF! I never made this propsal D=< I'v been posed as! King Mario (talk)
If you visited Recent Change every so often. You would notice than there is an user called "KingMario" (Without the spaces) that sometimes edit. You haven't been "posed as". --Blitzwing 17:18, 14 February 2008 (EST)
Uuh, KingMario, aren't you going to vote for your own proposal?! Glitchman (talk)
WAIT JUST A DARN MINUTE!!! If we have certain "double" articles, why does every obscure game get an article? Why don't we mege those too. Characters are just as inportant as games. HyperToad
Oh, no. Games should be the main focus of this wiki (at least from my point of view). And game articles can actually be extended, whereas there is usually nothing more to add to those merged character articles. Time Q (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2008 (EST)
You'll see, though, that remakes in which barely anything was changed are in a sub-section in the original game's article. See Super Mario Bros. for example. Stumpers (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2008 (EST)
huntercrunch You see, Hyper Toad, Two characters who have barely any info in them should be merged. Hotel Mario, for example, has enough info to stay separate. Characters aren't as important as games. Characters are PART of the games. Actually, we could have something like "List of minor characters in the Mario series" or something to that effect.
I think that was attempted in the days of the "Big Eight" article. It, like Big Eight, didn't work out, even with the child articles in place. There is a List of Implied Characters, though. Stumpers (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2008 (EST)
Yeah, we had an article called "List of Minor Characters in Super Paper Mario", however, some guy came and split it without discussion. --Blitzwing 06:53, 18 February 2008 (EST)
split into character and species 14-0
This Wiki features articles for both Toad the character and Toad the species. The same applies to Yoshi. In light of this, the topic came up on Talk:Birdo regarding whether the Birdo article should be split in the same manner. A proposal appeared there before the creation of MarioWiki:Proposals, died, and was brought back. I'd like to bring it here so that it is official.
What it comes down to is this: is there ample evidence to conclude that a character named "Birdo" exists in the Super Mario series? For Toad and Yoshi, the policy has been that when a game, TV show, or otherwise specificially refers to a character by name, it constituted mention in the character article. (ie. "Bowser kidnapped Peach and Toad," rather than simply "Bowser kidnapped Peach and a Toad,").
Stumpers (talk) Birdo was introduced as a single character in instruction manual of Super Mario Bros. 2 (USA). In the remake, she is still referred to as a single character. Additionally, comments such as, "I'm ready for you THIS time!" imply there is still one single Birdo. The existance of Birdo as a species is an invention of The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! that came to the games in Mario Power Tennis. Even with this developement, Birdo has been given the more distinction from generic Birdos in each appearance following Mario Golf: Toadstool Tour (the ring). Even Toad and Yoshi don't have a distinction in these titles.
Stooben Rooben (talk) Per above. Yoshi and Toad have been split into separate articles of the character, and their species (even though they're hard to define from their species as Stumpers said). Even though Birdo (character) is seen more than her particular species, she needs to be split to define the differences. Even Mario (who is a human character) has been split from his species. Even if Birdo (species) would be a very short and limited article, it wouldn't be classified as a stub because it would contain all the known information about the species.
Glitchman (talk) Stumpers has a point, while Birdo may have been just a single character in Super Mario Bros. 2, she is shown as a species in the Super Mario Bros. Super Show, and in the Mario Strikers series, so we should split them.
Super Mario Bros. (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2008 (EST) We agree with everyone. We think the Birdo section should be split. A good reason being their are multiple Birdo in the spin-off titles in the Mario series.
So, uh, are we voting on wether or not to split the Birdo page into Birdo (character) and Birdo (species)? Pokemon DP (talk)
When the proposal wins, the character should stay at Birdo, and only the species moved to a different article with a note in brackets. - Cobold (talk) 06:20, 1 March 2008 (EST)
My basic question was, are we voting on wether to make an article on the species or not... Pokemon DP (talk)
I'm a little confused: If I support, am I saying I think Birdo should be split into Birdo and Birdo (species)? Stooben Rooben (talk) I R S2PID!
Yes. But, if you have other ideas for the page names, let us know. Stumpers (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2008 (EST)
What I said on Birdo's talk page is that the birdos in Super Mario Bros. 2 are bad, and the Birdos in the sports and party games are good. I think the most logical explaination is that the ones in the sports and party games are the same, but not the ones in SMB2. Either way it's fine, but if it does get split, there should at least be some mention that they sports and party birdo might not be the same as the SMB2 birdo, for the reason that one fights Mario and friends and one is close with Yoshi. CrystalYoshi (talk)
I don't want to jump to that conclusion, because SMB2 did refer to all pink, bow-wearing bosses as "Birdo" singular, and SMA, rather than overwrite this, only cemented this further. I would be glad to accept your view if you can take a look in the GCN instruction booklets and find maybe a biography for Birdo that proves me wrong. Stumpers (talk) 10:19, 1 March 2008 (EST)
Well, right now the "split article" side is winning, so it'll probably get split. That's fine with me, but can the character article at least mention that there's a possibility the two birdos aren't one? There's no proof they're the same, and most Mario characters aren't like that, sometimes good and sometimes bad (On the other hand, Donkey Kong is kinda like that, but still.) CrystalYoshi (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2008 (EST)
I was thinking about this, an I'm pretty sure saying that in the article would be POV. We have a character Nintendo named Birdo from SMB2 (USA) and a character Nintendo named Birdo from the spin-offs. If we do what you suggest, for consistency we would have to note that the Mario from Donkey Kong Circus may be different because he is bad in that game (exploiting DK before DK ever did anything wrong). The thing you're seeing is called character growth in other fictional universes. Until we see a good character named Birdo and a bad character named Birdo lined up next to each other, I don't feel right putting that in the article. Stumpers (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2008 (EST)
I guess you're right, but I'm still not going to vote for either side. CrystalYoshi (talk)
The one thing I'm afraid about is that the species article may be a stub. I'm not sure if it will be, but what are everyone else's thoughts? InfectedShroom (talk)
If we expand on appearances in other media, it would be less of one. It's a good point, though: how about I try writing an abridged version or something? Stumpers (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2008 (EST)
I don't think it'd be a stub. Birdos that aren't the Birdo appear in lots of sports games (for example, Super Mario Strikers and Mario Superstar Baseball). Inclide Birdo biology (egg shooting) and there'll be more than enough for a uncontestable article. - Walkazo
Well, one thing that could make the species article longer (if it were to be noted) is that Birdos come in different colors in SMB2 and SMA. Though these Birdos act the same (are evil and want to stop Mario), they are different colors and have different powers. The pink Birdo shoots eggs, the red Birdo shoots eggs and fireballs, and the green Birdo shoots just fireballs. Would this be noted as separate sections of the Species article, or would they be separate articles themselves (like the Yoshis are). I would tend to think that they would all be part of the species article since they're not officially named, but they appear slightly different. Stooben Rooben (talk) Or am I completely wrong?
I wouldn't split those articles like the Yoshi ones, just because they haven't played as big of a role. Oh, and also, we know Birdo (character) can change colors... I think. (SMB2?) Stumpers (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2008 (EST)
How exactly do we know what Bridos were or weren'tthe Birdo? HyperToadMost of it would be speculation, or it would be a stub.
The same way we determine which Yoshies and Toads aren't the Yoshi or Toad: you see how they are referred to both in game and in the instruction manual. It's actually pretty clear whether a character is called Birdo (Mario Golf: Toadstool Tour, Super Mario Advance), instead of just being a member of the species (Mario Power Tennis). Stumpers (talk) 18:15, 3 March 2008 (EST)
All right, you guys needn't worry about length: writing just one section of the history (based on the Super Show episode, "Toad Warriors," and the intro, its already 1837 characters long, not including species infobox. Stumpers (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2008 (EST)
Okay, so I'm working on the rewrite now, and so far I've got a bunch of stuff about The Super Mario Bros. Super Show. So, after I finish with the American TV shows, we also have the Super Mario Strikers games and sections about physiology and abilities, correct? I think I'm missing something, so if you can think of any additions, let me know. Oh, and I'm not sure if the traditional "History", "Other Information", "Apperances in Other Media" set-up will work for this article. The majority of the history of the species is based off of appearances in other media... so we're going to have a really small "main" section of the article and huge sections that are supposed to be tiny. Anyway, I'll post it if the proposal passes and then hope someone can figure out a way to do this up like the other articles. Stumpers (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2008 (EST)
I agree with the idea of the separate articles for the Birdo character and Species.
Although it would appear that there were more than one Birdo sub-bosses in SMB2 I'd suggest that the most commonly encountered one was in fact THE Birdo not a random Birdo which would explain why in the instruction booklets for the original and remake Birdo is referred to as an individual, also when she still spoke in english instead of various noises she would show that she remembered Mario and friends (as mentioned by previous users).
Also as for the idea that any Birdo who attacks Mario or Luigi is a bad Birdo and therefore not the actual Birdo, is probably untrue due to the events in Super star Saga. Where Birdo helps then for a short time hinders Mario and his brother, she then also goes on to say that she plans to become a super star hinting that she will appear in future games trying to gain fans, this could perhaps imply that the sports titles Birdo is one in the same (Also this could simply show a part of her personality, meaning she is open to helping but, no above hindering when it serves her needs).
A confusing issue of the Birdo character is Super Mario Strikers, in other games Birdo's large diamond ring has been described as her pride and joy yet, in this game all the Birdos wore one. I'd suggest that the ring was invented so to make it easier to identify the Birdo character from her species, and the appearance of the diamond ring on other characters of her species was just perhaps laziness, a mistake or over sight by game designers in this case. I also doubt every Birdo ever born considers a diamond ring it prized possession. Also as mentioned by other users Birdo is one of the few species based characters to have a physical trait added, as Yoshi hasn't but is accepted as an separate character and neither has Toad (although the Toad character has been slightly replaced by other characters more recently, but, that's for another time.)
Also it has recently been shown that Birdo has the ability to incase others and herself in eggs for protection, which could perhaps even prove that the Birdo working for Valentina in Mario RPG is also her simply in some kind of defense mode (the fact she emerges fully grown from said egg may also back this up as the eggs she otherwise produces are considerably smaller). Also noting that she claims not wanting to destroy Mario and company as they are too cute hinting to the fact that Birdo may no be clean cut good or evil (similar to Wario who is known to be and friend and foe) and perhaps from past experiences with them as grown somewhat fond of them.
It appears also that Birdo is somewhat lovelorn, working only with Popple because she believes she loves him, perhaps her employment as an enemy or friend could be hypothesized as either going from infatuation to infatuation or working as some kind of gun for hire as Birdo seems to be buyable when offered the right reward. Sadly this point is a slightly weaker one as it has never been revealed as to why Birdo was working for Wart or Valentina (although a infatuation is possible with Wart it is not proven, but with both these villains Birdo could simply be preferring to be the right hand of evil rather then being in it's way, this is however speculation) I have still however included this point in my rantings as it is something to consider that is it completely possible that THE Birdo has no side alignment and the sports games Birdo and in her other appearances has been shown to crave attention, maybe showing that all these Birdos encountered are one in the same.
Any way before I write an essay she needs to be split to allow for documentation of her personality better (as it is at the moment being neglected), individual powers and abilities outside of her species normal traits and to better keep track of her future and past appearances. Although concern has been shown about the length of the Birdo article I am not concerned as there is a bit of information around e.g. we know all Birdos can shoot eggs, that despite only so far seeing what we assume are "female" Birdo's we know they are physically very strong and so forth. It's just a task of seeing what facts can be given to both Birdo the character and Birdo the species and then adding to each over time as more information is at hand.
Did I write too much? (there are a few more little things but, I'll stop. Apologies.) Despot_joil (talk)
don't remove images 1-12
While looking at some User Pages I have noticed large chunks of images from the site ilovemiaow.com. These seem to be massive space-wasters. 3Dejong (talk) has a entire page of them, Sadaharu (talk) has a big chunk of them and Plumber (talk) has inserted a LOT of extra <br>'s on User:Plumber/Pignature just so he can insert a LOLCat GIF at the bottom. So, should we get rid of them?
Purple Yoshi (talk)-Dude, it's an external link! If you block that you'll have to block other external links, which means people will have to upload everything here. That would be even worse. Plus, it's their userpage, they can do what they want.
Pokemon DP (talk) Per Purple Yoshi. You can do what you want with your Userpage, unless it breaks the rules, and having an incredibly large Userpage isn't against the rules. Its just annoying. Heh, just kidding.
Blitzwing (talk) - Per everyone. No one forces you to go on Userpages, they aren't article or something.
InfectedShroom (talk) Per all. Plus, Plumber and Sadaharu are mostly retired now, so they are kinda bad examples.
Stooben Rooben (talk) Getting rid of the LOLCats wouldn't make sense. Like PY said, you'd have to get rid of all external links by getting rid of LOLCats; why? Because it would be discriminatory against that particular site and it's harmless images. Youtube, Photobucket, Picoodle, and others would have to go too, which would anger a lot of users, because that's a form of taking away people's rights. Not only that, the citing reference may fall into that "banning" category too, since their external links that can lead to other things that you may find offensive...blah blah blah. There's no point in taking away something that a lot of users enjoy and get kicks out of because "it takes up space". That right there is only half true: The images take up a lot of physical space on the page's face, but it takes up only a few lines in syntax to insert the images. Just because it takes longer to load a page, doesn't necessarily make it bigger. My page is almost 75KB long, but there's very few images on the page; it's mostly text and what few images I do have are small in size and take up one line in syntax. So, in other words, leave it be.
KP Shadow (talk) Per all of the above. Besides, the LOLcats are my favorite form of comedey on this wiki. I first found out about them from Reasonably Clever webcomic.
Paper Jorge (talk) Let those guys keep those. We have nothing to do with their business. Let them keep LOLCats. They're doing no harm.
3Djong (talk) lawlercoaster, Jdrow got pwned. Per all; I mean, it only takes up like 0.1% of the Wiki's space. And all my Cats are neatly stored at User:3Dejong/Idiotic Pix.
Madame Lady Boo-Ànn (talk) Just like Purple Yoshi said, It's THEIR userpace provided for them. And If we block them that means all external stuff will be blocked and will have to be uploaded on this wiki which could cause alot of problems.
Crossover Species Page
create list 5-4
Er, I think this goes on this section... Whatever. OK, I was discussing this with Stumpers over a certain edit involving a Hedgehog, and we came to an agreement. We believe that perhaps a List of Crossover Species page is needed. I'm feeling lazy right now, so I'm not gonna bother listing five examples. Instead, someone else can fill the blanks for me. Just an idea... We could possibly merge things like Topi, Polar Bear or Octorok with this as well.
Blitzwing (talk) Per Ghost Jam in the comments. Seem rather pointless.
Walkazo - If we're not going to merge already existing articles about crossover species and only not make them in the future that's gonna cause some unneccesary inconsitancies, confusion and more proposals down the road.
Cobold (talk) - I don't see a reason for merging them. They are all long enough to warrant their own article. (I'm refering to species which are enemies, e.g. ReDead. We wouldn't need articles because crossover characters are of a certain species, e.g. "Hylian")
I'm all in favor, as long as it DOESN'T GET CARRIED OVER TO MARIO SPECIES. This Wik was made so every character and enemy, great or small, gets its own article. 3Dejong (talk) HOO HOO
Not to be Mr. Idiot, but just so I understand things: We'll be making a list article that will contain info on Hedgehogs, Foxes, Topis, and other crossover species; however, we're keeping articles like Sonic and Knuckles because they're about crossover characters? Stooben Rooben (talk) I just wanna be sure before I vote.
I talked with DP about the merging Topis, and he and I are pretty sure we'd like to keep species that are also enemies separate, so Octoroks and such are fine. Nothing that is currently separate will be merged with this proposal as I understand it: the proposal only allows us to include information about hedgehogs and such collectively, so that the reader does not have to search through a bunch of articles to find what he or she believes is all of them... and also to include information about the species as a whole as well. Characters are definately not going to be merged. But, all this is just to my understanding. DP will have to give you the offical word. Stumpers (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
This seems like a lot of work for little reward. You're talking about a handful of species that appear more than once, a group of one shots and some species that will, in all likelihood, result in another proposal about what to do with them. This idea either needs to be fleshed out or dropped.
Also, DP, in future, if you are too lazy to properly and completely explain your proposals, then please wait until you are NOT too lazy to do so before making them. -- Chris 18:42, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
If I can stand up for DP here, this really would have been a proposal better headed by me. I asked DP to do it for me because I'm occupied with acting in accordance to the results of the "Birdo" proposal. Stumpers (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
No problem! Thanks for the vote. Stumpers (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
Sure thing! I try to participate in these as much as possible! Stooben Rooben (talk) It's usually in the best interest of the site!
Me and Stumpers listed a few Crossover species here, if anyone is curious. Pokemon DP (talk)
Speaking of, Rooben just let me know that Pac-Man and Ms. Pac-Man are of the Pac species. Stumpers (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
Thanks guys, that helps. And, my Namco instruction book calls them "Pac"s. Stooben Rooben (talk) But Blinky is just called a ghost.
Hey 3D Ejong, what about the Pokemon characters huh? They were merged into 1 big Pokemon article. (Actually I don't like that. Super mario fan (talk)
Let's get this squared away. Let me know what you think: we won't be merging Re-Deads and such. This article is only for the addition of material. It would be something like this: Hedgehog -- Hedgehogs are a species of humanoid animal from the Sonic universe. They are brightly colored with spines. All hedgehogs are fast, although Sonic and Shadow are the fastest. Notable Hedgehogs: Sonic, Shadow, Amy Rose (trophy). Stumpers (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
I hate close votes... how about we actually make an example entry and you can see if you want it? Stumpers (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
Final Smash Trophy Information
keep info on character pages 1-8
I noticed that for the characters that are in Super Smash Bros. Brawl articles, there are the Final Smash Trophy information. The exact same information can be found on each of the Final Smash Articles. (e.g. Ike and Great Aether.) I think that the ones one the character's article should be deleted, even if that means we should put a link to the Final Smash article. I don't think there should be two duplicate trophy informations on two articles.
Garlic Man (talk) Well, why would I be against my own proposal? :P Reasons are given above.
Keep Trophy info on Character pages
Pokemon DP (talk) No one said the Trophy Information had to be restricted to one article each. Its about both the Final Smash and the character using the Final Smash, so, it stays on both articles.
Stumpers (talk) Sometimes there are great bits about personality in those trophies. Take Luigi, for example. Nowhere else are we lead to believe that Luigi's life in the shadow of his brother has done anything... weird to him.
3Dejong (talk) per all. I mean, what use is there HAVING the trophies then?
keep list 3-9
Hi everyone, okay now to business. How do I put this? I think there should be articles for each Pokemon from the Smash Bros. series instead of all into 1 article. Because seperate articles would make more sense (in my opinion), because most of the Pokemon's stuff is mainly trophy stuff and there should be more about the different kinds of Pokemon. A lot of Pokemon do very different kinds of things. Also if by chance, my proposal doesn't work, than somebody has to merge the Dialga, the Palkia, and the Cresselia articles with the Pokémon article. Love Sincerly Super mario fan (talk)
Stooben Rooben (talk) I have to agree with everyone else here. A big list makes more sense since there are too many Pokemon (even in the SSB series) to have for their own articles. Like Stumpers said, they do the same things with trophies; there's no article on Link's Grandma, but she's got her own trophy. Sowwy, SMF; I hope you don't hate me.
Glitchman (talk) No, we already have too much stuff on non-Mario related stuff found in Smash Bros. game. One article will be sufficient.
InfectedShroom (talk) As much as I do enjoy Pokemon games, Per everyone. They are not necessary here.
The thing is, unlike other crossover species there are tonnes of Pokémon and as this is the MarioWiki they'd be out of place. Plus it'd be inconveniant to navigate all the short little articles, wheras one large article is perfectly fine for the amount of info that can be expected about Pokémon here. If you want to read about the different species in detail, go to Bulbapedia. - Walkazo
Erm... If it's a Mariowiki, in which no pokemon have a place then please explain why every other thing in the SSB series gets an article EVEN THE MOVES!?! HyperToad
...Assist Trophies? MegaMario9910 (talk) Even though I'm a heck of a big Pokemon fan, I don't wanna see ALL of these articles of Pokemon!
Hypertoad has a point, we should really scrap the moves pages all-together and only discuss them in the character articles. However I predict a proposal for that would be shot down with the Smash-mania going around thanks to Brawl, so let's hold that thought for a while and let the hype die down. - Walkazo
Pokemonfan7002: You being a fan of pokemon doesn't give you a reason for voting. If you think pokemon artices do have enough to do with Mario to belong on MarioWiki, that's different. CrystalYoshi (talk)