MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 7

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

Contents

"Bad Jokes and other deleted Nonsense" -style archive

make archive 13-9
The English Wikipedia had an archive called "Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense", where contributors can archive vandalism or plain bad writing that they consider to be humorous. The French and German Wikipedias still posses such a page, and it's quite possible that other Wikipedias posses such a page, as well. I think we should have a similar page. anything that ranges from Bad Writing to Humorous and non-harmful vandalism should go on there, although only articles stuff should be included. No User-talk things.


What are the gains from creating such a page? Well... This will stop the frequent recreation of deleted nonsense (Such as Mario (Species) and "Snufit Ball") since those pages will be redirected to the Bad Jokes archives and archived in all their glory. And as many users have noted in the votes comments, it would show new user what to not write. This may seem like Troll feeding, but if anything, Trolls are feeds by overreacting to their attacks (For example: Creating the Patroller ranking just to fight them), recording a few vandal edits isn't that big of a feeding in comparison.


Anyone should be able to edit the archive page, and there shouldn’t be any edits war about what to add/remove. Of course, common sense should play a part here. The Mario page being littered with obscenities can't really be considred funny, the Pirate Goomba article stating the obvious can be considered funny. Use your brain!

Proposer: Blitzwing (talk)(The idea comes from this message of Cobold (talk)
Deadline: March 21, 2008, 20:00 EDT

Support

  1. Blitzwing (talk) Blablabla Me proposer Blablabla Me gaves reasons above Blablabla I need a sandwich.
  2. Cobold (talk) - We have so much pages about rules etc., time to show how not to write articles.
  3. Uniju :D (talk) - Per above. :D
  4. 3dejong (talk) per all. It should be made part of the Welcome template to show new users how NOT to do things.
  5. InfectedShroom (talk) Per all. Um... *Insert funny/interesting/odd comment here*.
  6. Paper Jorge (talk) Yes, per all. Not only would it help some new people who don't know what to write but we can definatly store Snufit Ball in there. That will make the Snufit Ball fans stop all this arguing. Or at least, I hope.
  7. Storm Yoshi (talk) per all
  8. Walkazo - Per all.
  9. Wayoshi (talk) – you convinced me, as long as it's clearly stated for a newbie that this is NOT what to do.
  10. Pokemonfan7002 I agree.
  11. Toadette 4evur (talk) Per all.
  12. Mr.Vruet (talk) Per All
  13. Stumpers (talk) Well, Blitzwing's a patroller, too, soif there really is a spike in spam, he and I will be right alongside cleaning up the mess. We can always remove it...

Oppose

  1. Ghost Jam (talk) - If the point is to help to stop people from recreating deleted articles, it would make more sense to just block creation of said articles than to create another page that's just going to end up being huge and difficult to load.
  2. Pokemon DP (talk) - DO NOT FEED THE FREAKIN' TROLLS! We don't need MORE vandalism to come from this. Any User with common sense knows that they shouldn't vandalize, even if they are new; the whole thing seems pointless.
  3. Purple Yoshi (talk) - Honestly, I think this is WORSE than that Pie proposal. Why would we give spammers their own page! They feed on people being aware of them!
  4. King Mario (talk) Per PY and DP
  5. MarioGalaxy2433g5 - This wiki will become an encyclopedia of sillyness
  6. Glitchman (talk) Per Stumpers and DP, we have too much user fanon as is.
  7. Per ALL! HyperToad ESPICALLY PY.
  8. Stooben Rooben (talk) Actually, I'm changing my vote simply because this is only a reason for people to spam the site even more. It'll become like a competition to see who's the "better" spammer, and to see who can get their spamming archived.
  9. Tykyle It'll only serve to patronize people who are honestly trying and to give the trolls even more attention.

Comments

Ghost Jam, I don't think the point is to stop people from making deleted articles, it's just to put vandalism/dumb writing that you found funny on a page people can view. I would have thought that at least you would understand that it's just for fun. <_< Uniju :D (talk) N/O

Plus, it could help n00bies to learn how not to write. :P 3dejong (talk) WHOOP DE FRICKIN' DOO

I don't know. At first I thought this sounded silly and unprofessional, but we are a Mario wiki, meaning we don't have to be serious about everything. It would teach new guys how not to write, and it might stop nonsense articles. I'm not sure whether to vote yet, though.
The preceding unsigned comment was added by CrystalYoshi (talk). whoops, forgot to sign again.

*ahem*, have you guys heard the term "Do not feed the trolls"? If we make a page full of vandalized articles, that will only inspire MORE trolls to come which will lead to MORE vandalism. Trolls vandalize as a means of becomming popular on the Wiki; this page is only going to further their goals. Pokemon DP (talk)

Hmmm, good point. But isn't most of the stuff just going to be bad User writing? Like the Pirate Goomba thing. I'm no expert, but aren't most Troll edits piles of... er, excraments? Like Willy on Wheels moving everything to _____ on wheels. That's not funny, that's idiotic. - Walkazo

Pokemon DP: If anything, we feed the Trolls by overreacting to their attacks, such as creating a completely new ranking just to fight them, in comparison, having a few humorous vandal edits recorded on a page is rather minor. And beside, why a vandal would vandalize the wiki to "becomes popular"? That's broken logic.

As Walkazo said, the Bad Jokes archive will be mainly filled with bad writing (Ex:The Orange Yoshi article stating that people confuses Brown Yoshi and Orange Yoshi, although the occasional humorous vandalism (Such as the Mama Luigi article) can go in there. --Blitzwing 11:19, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

How about just bad writing, not vandalism? Becuase this would be cool, just it is a good point an archive of vandalism encourages vandalism. So just bad jokes and bad writing go in the archive. CrystalYoshi (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Well... Bad Jokes and Funny Vandalism = Pretty much the same thing. Unless that by "Bad Jokes", you mean things like the infamous "Pie for "everyone" proposal. Note that not every vandal edits will be recorded on the page. Things like "Mario (species)" should be archived, things like "Mario is a (insert swear word here)" shouldn't. --Blitzwing 17:06, 16 March 2008 (E ber

Hmmm... people on the opposing side have a good point. But it might help us a bit and... it would be funny. CrystalYoshi (talk) 17:42, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Isn't that basely like the Sandbox?? Princess Grapes Butterfly 17:56, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

No. You can write whatever you want in the Sandbox. In the Bad Jokes archive, you archives edits that were on article, you can't go there and write random crap. --Blitzwing 18:06, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Ohhhhhhhhhh, i understand now. Princess Grapes Butterfly 19:31, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Bad Writing... It seems like you are just insulting the User who wrote the article. Counts as a form of flaming... Does it not? Pokemon DP (talk)

Although this might help n00bs with what not to do, they might be encouraged to spam so they can get their "greatness" archived. Stooben Rooben (talk) Gar...
Maybe whoever wants to archive a sample of bad writing should contact the person who wrote it and get permission first; some will say no, but others might like the opportunity to laugh at their own mistakes/be a "class clown" for the Wiki. - Walkazo

Argh... torn between two sides. The people on the opposing side have such a good point about this would be saying vandalism is cool. And yet having the archive would be so fun. Vandalism is annoying, but it's also funny; on the other hand... ARGH! I just can't decide! CrystalYoshi (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2008 (EDT)


Template:Koopas

split template 6-0
For those of you who don't know this template, it (presumably) consists of a list of every Koopa species and every character in those species. Most groups of Koopas have smaller templates doing the same thing (i.e. Template:Koopa Paratroopa or Template:Spinies); however, unlike the Koopas Template these lists are small and easy to use. The Koopas Template is used primarily for articles that do not fit into one of the other Koopa groups (i.e. Bowser), most of which are Koopa Troopas and their kin (i.e. Koopatrol). I propose we slim down this bulky template so that it only consists of these "misfit" Koopas; and to cut down on even more of the clutter, I propose we make the much-needed Koopa Troopas Template. Prototype versions of both these templates can be seen here.

Proposer: Walkazo
Deadline: March 21, 2008, 20:00 EDT

Two Smaller Templates

  1. Walkazo - Being the Proposer, my opinions are stated above.
  2. CrystalYoshi (talk) Makes sense. Per Walkazo. As long as you're not planning to make a "Dragon Koopa" template. (kidding)
  3. InfectedShroom (talk) Tahts a big template. Per the azo that Walks. Or Walkazo, if you're boring. :P JK
  4. Stooben Rooben (talk) Gotta agree with Walkazo here. Navigation templates are supposed to make traveling from page to page easier, and it can't be easier when the template's as long as that.
  5. Blitzwing (talk) Huge Templates makes things hard to distinguish because they are overcrowded. I think we should also split the Yoshi Enemies template, that one is freakin' HUMONGOUS.
  6. MegaMario9910 (talk) Too many Koopas. It overfills the old template, so making a second is better, so it doesn't overfill the first one. Heck, a lot of other templates go this way. (Like Blitz said).

Keep the Big One

Comments

We can't use yours, it breaks the page up. <_< I suggest you try fixing that before you try to get it used. Uniju :D (talk)

It doesn't on my computer, but I use hexadecimal workarounds and they go screwy a lot so I'll look into that. - Walkazo

Concerning Blitzwing's comment, there are many ways to deal with the Yoshi Enemies Template than splitting it, such as organizing it so all the enemies are divided into sections based on the Enemy Classes, sorta like how I made this species-only Koopa Template I made in my spare time (if it doesn't work again blame my ancient computer). - Walkazo

Hmm... That's a good template. Still very large, but much easier to find stuff. That should be what the YI one should be like, cuz that one is really crowded. InfectedShroom (talk)

Use of the Term "Clone"

don't use the term "clone" 12-1
With the release of Super Smash Bros. Brawl, several users have been arguing and editing back and forth regarding the inclusion of the blanket, fan-made term "clone" in the character articles. The opposition argues that it is a fan term of no solid definition. Its use encourages assumptions on the part of both the readers and editors rather than granting support to in-depth discriptions of fighting styles. The support argues that it is legitimate, pervasive term understood by all and applicable as long as characters share special moves.

Proposer: Stumpers (talk)
Deadline: March 25, 2008, 17:00 EDT

Remove "Clone" From Articles

  1. Stumpers (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2008 (EDT) The use of a fan term on a Wiki that prides itself on using only official sources is questionable. Additionally, there is no set definition that all fans agree on. One can see this by looking at the SSB Wikia, our Wiki, and the Smash Wiki... but that's been merged wtih SSB Wikia now. If you click the links, you'll see that some sources (us!) only consider it to be a clone if the character is exactly the same while others (them) consider a character to be a clone if they are neaerly identical. Therefore, the use of the term brings misinformation, as what the writer intends by using it is not going to be what the reader interprets it as. Also, no character has ever been "exactly the same" -- so our definition is wrong to begin with.
  2. InfectedShroom (talk) Yeah, per Stumpers. "Clone" is not a good term, unless it has been officially stated by Nintendo or The makers of the game.
  3. Pokemon DP (talk) Its not official, its meaning is debatable, it just shortens the articles. Its worthless.
  4. Jaffffey (talk) Per everyone.
  5. HyperToad Per Stumpers. Not only is it a fan-made term, but Wolf ang Luigi and a few others' status as "clones" are debatable.
  6. Blitzwing (talk) Per everyone. Heck, I was the first user to point out that Clone is unofficial.
  7. Booster -- Purely a fan-made term. Get rid of it.
  8. Stooben Rooben (talk) Per Stumpers. And, it's no different than a conjectural term.
  9. Walkazo - Per all.
  10. Princess Grapes Butterfly Per Stumpers I agree with him.
  11. Wayoshi (talk) – Per all, it's not big deal, fan terms often sneak their way in.
  12. Jdrowlands (talk) Per everyone.

Include "Clone"

  1. Trogga - It's much easier to say "Y is a clone of X" than "Y has a similar moveset to X's".

Comments

I'm not sure on which side to take on this one just yet. There is a debate about whether it is a genuine fan-term or not. Some say that Sakurai said something of the sort, specifically describing the characters that were very similar. Hard to say, though. Garlic Man (talk)

One of the most confusing clone acts is with Mario and Fox. According to fan base, they each have 2 clones. These are Dr. Mario, Luigi, Falco, and Wolf. They are all diffrent, but people consider them to be clones. The answer? They're not clones! They're distinctly diffrent, so they shouldn't be labeled "clones". Jaffffey (talk)

Sorry, but wolf is not a clone. McDimentio (talk)

Hey, Stumpers, you spelled "legitimate" wrong. I corrected it. ;) InfectedShroom (talk)

Thanks. I expanded on my vote (didn't touch the proposal!), btw, so make sure you're still "per Stumpers"! Stumpers (talk) 22:46, 18 March 2008 (EDT)
Looks good. I'm even more "Per Stumpers" now! :P InfectedShroom (talk)
All right! Stumpers (talk) 00:17, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

Trogga: I'd hope you'd go more in-depth about what was the same and what was different regardless. Stumpers (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2008 (EDT)


Food

don't merge 1-7
Awhile ago, I believe Blitzwing (talk) made a proposal regarding the notabilty of the article: Cheese. Although I agreed with him on some points, my opinion went to keeping the article. Anyway, while giving my opinions, I suggested a List of Real World Foods in the Mario Series article, which, as long as it would be, would probably help this wiki. Chesse, for example could easily be merged into a list, just like any Pokemon could be on the Pokemon article.

Proposer: HyperToad
Deadline: March 26, 2008, 17:00 EDT

Merge Them

  1. HyperToad My reasons given above.

Keep Them

  1. Time Q (talk): So this proposal would merge all "Real World food" into one article, regardless of its importance in the Marioverse? I'm against that; you have to decide about each article separately.
  2. Stumpers (talk) Definately not. Then, Peach, Banana, Melon, etc, etc, etc would also be merged. Can you give us a list beyond "cheese" that you're thinking of?
  3. Cobold (talk) - I don't think it makes sense making a general decision like that just to eradicate the cheese article. There is much different food in the Paper Mario series and in Super Mario Sunshine which has its right to their own article, just because cheese is controversial, it doesn't mean that we should get rid of something else.
  4. Stooben Rooben (talk) Per Stumpers and Cobold. It just seems like too much effort for something that'll make things more confusing.
  5. Booster - Not a good idea. Many Real World foods serve as actual items with their own legit pages. Besides Cheese, what foods are you thinking of?
  6. Snack (talk) - Per Booster.
  7. Princess Grapes Butterfly Per all

Comments

HyperToad, please explain your proposal. As Stumpers said, according to your current explanation, we'd also need to remove articles like Watermelon, which makes no sense at all. Time Q (talk) 07:07, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

Hmm... The opposers have a point... Someone convince me one way or the other. InfectedShroom (talk)

Ok, I'll try! I think the thing with the lists was that all the articles were stubs. Now, compare that with Cheese, Banana, Peach (item). Stumpers (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
Maybe there could be "list of minor real world foods in the marioverse. CrystalYoshi (talk)
Maybe, but then you get into how you define minor, etc. The reason I'm okay with all of the "implied" pages is that the subject in question is never seen, so it's a clear boundry. What definition would you like to use? Stumpers (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

Okay, I suppose a Bananna has usefulness. To tell the truth, I knew there were others out there (foods), but I couldn't think of any. Pretty stupid to make a proposal then, huh? Anyway, I think articles just as Melons, despite having a role in the Marioverse, could still be merged. We don't give sperate pages for Ashley and Red, (not trying to argue about that) despite the fact that they are inportant character, just not enough for two articles. In addition, I agree with Blitzwing consearing inplied characters. HyperToad

But we do have enough to say about Melons. There's no point in merging it. (Perhaps we could merge all those differently-colored Watermelons, but this is not the place to discuss that, I think. (And HyperToad, please check your links, "Bananna" leads to nowhere.)) Time Q (talk) 07:56, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
The thing is, there might be a few foods that belong in a list, but we can't make the list because of all the important ones. I'm not sure what the best solution is. CrystalYoshi (talk)
HyperToad, this definately wasn't a dumb proposal. The only dumb proposals are, IMO, those that are used for a political motive (ie, when the proposer thinks his/her side isn't legit from the get-go) rather than for the betterment of the Wiki. So don't be hard on yourself. Stumpers (talk) 22:45, 25 March 2008 (EDT)
Nah, of course it's not dumb. Just in case you think that's what I was trying to say. Time Q (talk) 06:47, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Comic Subpages

no comic sign-up user sub-pages allowed 11-0
Lately, many Users have had a habit of creating sprite comics based on the sprites of other Users. While this, itself, is OK on its own, many Users have also created subpages to have people sign up for these comics. To quote Blitzwing, "I think we should get rid of all those 'SIGN-UP ON MY COMIC!!!!1!' subpages on Mariowiki, that kind of thing just doesn't have a place on an encyclopedia." Therefore, I propose the elimination of these subpages.

Proposer: ChaosNinji (talk)
Deadline: March 26, 2008, 17:00 EDT

Delete Comic Sign Up Subpages

  1. ChaosNinji (talk) I'm the proposer.
  2. InfectedShroom (talk) Yup. The sign up pages are a waste of time and space. Using the talk pages would be much better. Per above. (And you spelled "place" wrong, so I fixed it. Just so you know.)
  3. MegaMario9910 (talk) Delete 'em. At least have a type of link to Userpedia to sign up. The sign-ups are kinda annoying going through pages, and so on.
  4. Toadette 4evur (talk) The Mario wiki part of this shouldn't be used for that stuff. It should stay on Userpedia.
  5. Uniju :D (talk) This is the MarioWiki, a place for Mario info, not sprite comics based on websites based on video games based on plumbers.
  6. Wayoshi (talk) – comic signup should go on the talk page of the comic subpage
  7. Cobold (talk) - Per Wayoshi, and only him. Generally, user page content shouldn't have restrictions.
  8. Garlic Man (talk) - I misunderstood the proposal :P. Per Wayoshi. I thought it was saying to delete comic subpages themselves.
  9. Jdrowlands (talk) Per Wayoshi.
  10. Stooben Rooben (talk) As long as it's ONLY for the removal of sign-up pages.
  11. GreenKoopa Keeping the comic pages is a stretch; the signups being destroyed is a given. Theres a place for wiki fandom; Its a maaaagical place called:USERPEDIA.

Keep Comic Sign Up Subpages

Comments

Well, comics are a great part in the MarioWiki. It's fun to create, sign up, and read. I mean, where else would people ask to sign up for their comic? What's the downside of comic subpages? Garlic Man (talk)

Userpedia and the forums can easily be used for the same purposes. Comics make the Wiki look unprofessional, and, as Blitz said, they just don't belong. ChaosNinji (talk)
They make the wiki look unproffesional? Couldn't the same thing be said for user pages? I mean, is that really a good reason to get rid of them? And "They Just Don't Belong" is a nonsensical reason. Garlic Man (talk)
The ``wiki`` part should only be an encyclopedia, not a social network! IT's bad enough that most of the users only do User talk-page edits and don't contribute to the encyclopedia, we don't need to allow these guys even more ways of wasting our database space. Userpage are OK - They are made to makes yourself know and gives info about you and your contribution on the wiki, Comic sub-page are just... pointless. --Blitzwing 20:44, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
Blitz, there is no possible way to stop users editing user talk pages. Besides, we have plenty of database space. It's not like "Oh no! Only 14 more pages left!" or anything. Also, Comic pages are to express your creativity in a humorous way, and to have fun with it. I think they are important enough to stay on the wiki. This isn't Wikipedia. It's a wiki about games. It doesn't have to be super-proffesional. But that's just my opinion. Garlic Man (talk)
Garlic Man has a good point, but I guess having a section in your talk page would also be fine. CrystalYoshi (talk)
Isn't that what Userpedia is for? Toadette 4evur (talk)
Yep. --Blitzwing 17:52, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
Um, not everyone knows about usepedia. I learned about it a day or to ago. It's not in the welcome template or anything. CrystalYoshi (talk)

Geez, Blitz, never thought you'd go THAT far in trying to keep us from having fun. Anyway, will COMICS THEMSELVES have to go? Like my MW Alliance page? 3dejong (talk) dang it's gonna be hard to move my comic article.

Uh, I didn't make the proposal complain to Ninji.

--Blitzwing 21:01, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

We're just talkin' about taking the comic stuff off of Mario Wiki, not Userpedia. It should be there anyway. Oh, I've got a question. Could we have a way of telling members about Userpedia? Toadette 4evur (talk)
Well, Userpedia is unofficial and unaffiliated to Mariowiki. Maybe it could be linked in the rules for Userspace/user sub-page/whatever. --Blitzwing 21:11, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
Userpedia is unaffiliated to the Mariowiki? I thought all long it was... I guess I was wrong :P. Anyway, doesn't this mean we have to get rid of the comics on userpages too? Garlic Man (talk)
Yes, because that is what Userpedia is for. NOT Mario Wiki. Toadette 4evur (talk)
Uh, no. --Blitzwing 13:03, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
All this about userpedia! How did all you find out that there is a userpedia? I stumbled upon it by going to InfectedShroom's comic, and I don't really understand what it's about. So if there's no way for users to find out about userpedia, you can't just say "That's what userpedia is for. And Green Koopa's sarcasm "Its a maaaagical place called:USERPEDIA" as if it's so obvious that it exists. But it really isn't. CrystalYoshi (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2008 (EDT)
Generally, you may have on your user page what you want. Wayoshi's solution seems the best - Comic sign up pages should be on the talk pages of the actual comic subpages, not somewhere else. - Cobold (talk) 13:05, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
Sorry, everyone! I totally misunderstood the proposal! I thought it was saying that saying there should be no more comic subpages. So, yes, now that I understand, it's sorta pointless to have a seperate page just to sign up, yes. Garlic Man (talk)

I wonder if all supporters are voting for the same thing. What will happen when the proposal passes? - Cobold (talk) 14:41, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

We need to make this more clear. I'm guessing this means:

  • All comics still on wiki = deleted.
  • All comic sign-ups on wiki = deleted.

I'm not voting; it's already a landslide. Sorry for yelling atcha, Blitz. ._. 3dejong (talk) HOT BLEEP!

Well, then it's definitely not what I, Wayoshi and Garlic Man put our votes on the support side for. - Cobold (talk) 08:17, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
Isn't the wording quite clear? "Therefore, I propose the elimination of these subpages." Thus, no deletion of comics, no deletion of comic sign-ups in general, only elimination of sign-up subpages. Time Q (talk) 08:24, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

We add them here so that MW exclusive user can sign up on them. HyperToad It helps them be bigger.

When you have a quote in a quote, you use ' instead of ". I fixed it for you.
The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shyguy27 (talk).

OK, this proposal is for the removal of ALL comics. ALL OF THEM. INCLUDING things like MW Alliance and Glitchman's series. ChaosNinji, please add a sub-category for keeping comics themselves. 3dejong (talk) halp halp

What? Says who? Two days before deadline is a BIT late for such an essential decision anyway. Time Q (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Kay, fine. After this goes through I'm making a proposal to keep COMICS THEMSELVES on the Wiki. 3dejong (talk) bringing idiotic back.

We ARE keeping the comic sub-pages. We just want to get rid of comic sign-up sub-pages, since they can stay on the talk page of the comic. Toadette 4evur (talk)

Repeated Images

images may be repeated once in an article 8-3
Me and Stumpers discussed about Repeating Images on articles. On the article R.O.B., at one point, there were two Brawl artworks on the same page. That was soon changed by a sysop. However, in picture galleries at the end of the article, as Stumpers said, "is really great for seeing how the character has evolved". I agree with that statement. Since there are yet no official rules about repeating images on a single article, this proposal will hopefully make it clear. However, this means two pictures on one article. Three or more is redundant, and makes the article quality go down.

Proposer: Garlic Man (talk)
Deadline: April 3, 2008, 17:00 EDT

Repeated Images on Articles

  1. Garlic Man (talk) Per what I said above. Sometimes you just need the same pic in two places.
  2. Time Q (talk): I don't see a problem with it, and indeed, seeing how the character has evolved is good. And the same picture twice in one article doesn't even take twice the time to load, right?
  3. Stumpers (talk) Per myself and Garlic Man. That's my understanding, too, Time Q. If this doesn't pass, though, we can alleviate this problem by replacing official art in the biography section with screenshots, moving the artwork to the bottom. That would be more applicable IMO anyway, since the section is on the character's actions rather than his/her appearance.
  4. Princess Grapes Butterfly Per all I agree!
  5. Stooben Rooben (talk) Yup. Per all.
  6. Walkazo - I don't see a problem with reusing images as long as they're in large articles that have enough other images to offset the repetition (otherwise it might look a bit lazy on our part).
  7. CrystalYoshi (talk) No reason not to. It doesn't waste that much space, only a little bit. Plus some images in the gallery also have a place on the page.
  8. InfectedShroom (talk) Per all, and see my comments.

No Repeated Images

  1. Glitchman (talk) - Meh, I see your point, but there are probably already too many images on the major pages as it is.
  2. Fixitup - It's a waste of space, and a waste of perfectly good and usable images otherwise.
  3. Toadette 4evur (talk) As long as I've been here, we've always gone by an image is in an article once and thats it. I also agree with Fixitup said, so per him (or her).

Comments

Wait wait wait... I don't seem to understand the proposal. Do you mean the same pic on, say, the top and then again on the bottom? Or something else...? InfectedShroom (talk) Sorry, I may just be an idiot. :P

Well, anywhere. Including the gallery, the main image, and images throughout the article. Garlic Man (talk)
Hmm... Then I must disagree. See my reasons above. InfectedShroom (talk)
I don't think we'd ever have an image up three times, though. Stumpers (talk) 23:03, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
You say it'd be fine if an image was repeated twice at the most. By opposing, however, you say that an image must not appear more than once in an article. It seems to be a contradiction. If you support, you don't support the idea that an image may appear three times in one article, but only that it may be repeated. To make it clearer, perhaps Garlic Man can modify the proposal's description, in the way that even if the supporters' side wins, an image may only appear twice. 'cause three times would definitely be too much imho. Time Q (talk) 07:43, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
You have a point. I'll remove my vote for now, because there is no place for me to vote. If there ever is, I'll move it there. ;) InfectedShroom (talk)
Sorry, Infected Shroom. You're right, my proposal was not very clear. Twice is the max, and only twice. Three times is over the limit. I have changed the proposal slightly as well. I hope this helped. Garlic Man (talk)
Alright. Thank you. ;) InfectedShroom (talk)

Fixitup: please explain your vote. What do you mean "a waste of perfectly good and usable images otherwise"? It's not like an image has a limited number of uses allowed. And Toadette: what's so great about one of the image per page, even it's been that way since you came. CrystalYoshi (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Well, if we add images twice, the bandwith is slowly depleted away, and that is what keeps the site up. Toadette 4evur (talk)
Toadette, "As long as I've been here, we've always gone by an image is in an article once and thats it." is not a valid oppose; if it has been, that's what the proposal is trying to change. Also, it's not a waste of space. It's useful as a visual aid. It's not like we're putting a bunch of images on the page just to make it bigger. Garlic Man (talk)
I also put "Per Fixitup". =) Toadette 4evur (talk)
But Fixitup's vote doesn't make sense either. "A waste of perfectly good and usable images otherwise." That makes it sound like the images can only be used a limited number of times. You're not "wasting" the images in any way. They're still good and usable. CrystalYoshi (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Are we talking about screenshots or artwork? Pokemon DP (talk)

Mainly Artwork, I think. Garlic Man (talk) Although screenshots could apply, I guess. Why?
Because reusing screenshots is overkill. Seeing the same artwork is bearable, but using the same 'shot twice is uncalled for, there's no good reason for it (whereas the "seeing how characters change over the years" example for repeated artwork is perfectly valid). One could argue that sprite evolution could serve a similar purpose, but that's as much a result of technological advancements than the creative process, and there are much better places on the Wiki to illustrate that then the character galleries. - Walkazo

Well, IMO, artwork should go on the top of the page (in the infobox) and in the gallery at the bottom, but not in the article. I believe screenshots should be spread throughout the article, not artwork. Just my opinion. Pokemon DP (talk) I mean, Artwork merely shows what the character looked like in the game. The screenshots in the article should show what the character did in the game/show/comic/whatever.

I agree that artwork within the article should be used in the gallery again to show the character's development. But I think we should limit the number of artwork per game. For example, Princess Peach's gallery uses 11 (!) pictures from Super Pricess Peach, I don't think that this points the development up. --Grandy02 07:49, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Whoa! Once again DP you put my thoughts into words. I wasn't sure how to say that, but you hit it on the head. The artwork doesn't always show the actions being described, right? Grandy02: The proposal won't change that there are still 11 artwork pieces from SPP on Peach's page, but you're absolutely correct. In the future, we may want to limit massive amounts of images like that to the game page itself, but like I said, this proposal isn't going to affect that one way or the other. Stumpers (talk) 14:38, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Great minds think alike, don't they, Stumpers? =P Its why I jokingly stated we were brothers on Userpedia. XP Anyway, I'd really like to see limitations on artwork from the same game. The amount of SPP artwork on Peach's article is... Its overkill, definitely. That artwork belongs on the Super Princess Peach article, IMO. Pokemon DP (talk) Maybe we could make another Proposal about that...? Oh yeah, I forgot to vote on this one! XP Scratch that, my opinion doesn't fit into either of these choices, sorry...


Poorly Written Articles

keep articles 7-15
Now and then, certain users (usually noobs) will sit down and write up a poorly written article. Sometimes these articles aren't about valid subjects, and get deleted quickly, but what should we do if the subject is valid? Take the article In the Clouds for example. It's a level in Yoshi's Island DS, and qualifies for its own article, but the article itself, while not a stub, is atrocious. It makes the wiki look like a joke, and it amazes me that the author has the reading skills to even navigate the internet and come here (no offense). I can't bear to actually read it, and it's just gonna sit there and rot with a rewrite tag until someone comes along and does a proper write up.

What I'm wondering is if we should delete these poorly written articles. This sort of thing is different from stubs, which may actually contain decent grammar, and may just need expanding. Even if they do get a rewrite, poorly written articles will likely be started over from scratch, and the original context would be lost regardless.

Proposer: Booster
Deadline: April 10, 2008, 17:00 EDT

Delete Poorly Written Articles

  1. Booster: Per my statement above.
  2. Huntercrunch Per Booster. The articles tagged for a rewrite always rot and no-one ever checks them out/ attempts to make the article look better.
  3. Purple Yoshi (talk)-Per all. No one looks at rewrite pages!
  4. Pokemon DP (talk) Per Booster. I've always wanted these kinds of articles deleted. About time someone stepped up and said something. No one ever, EVER checks the Rewrite pages, and never even bothers to try and rewrite them... As the above three have already said...
  5. 3dejong (talk) yeeeeeaaaah... They're better off in Edit Heaven. Let's let someone CAPABLE rewrite them.
  6. HemuI Agree someone better should write those articles.
  7. Glitchman (talk) - Yeah, nobody's doing anything about the articles in bad shape. Why not just remake them??

Keep Them

  1. Plumber (talk) 11:46, 4 April 2008 (EDT) People DO check the rewrite pages, and improve them greatly. Look at Stumpers (talk) edits on Donkey Kong, for crying out loud!
  2. Stumpers (talk) Way to generic of a proposal for my taste. The point of a proposal is to create a guideline to prevent the problem from coming up again in the future, but this will just lead to more discussion and individual proposals regarding specific arguements, which will happen anyway. This would be much more efficient if you'd had made a series of proposals, each about one article individually. Please give us a list and we can look at each of them.
  3. InfectedShroom (talk) Per Stumpers and Plums. This proposal has too wide of a range. There are a lot of poorly written articles tha are also very long. Do we want those deleted? And I agree, someting that's only one line sucks. But this proposal is including the long articles as well. And anyone can edit those articles if they just get up off their lazy butts and do it. (No offense to anyone in particular. Really.)
  4. Ghost Jam (talk) per my statement below.
  5. Time Q (talk): Per Ghost Jam. Who decides what is poorly written? And if we're talking about specific articles, we don't need a proposal.
  6. Stooben Rooben (talk) Per all. Every article has poor grammar or punctuation at some point which could be considered "poorly written" to some. People (like Stumpers) visit the rewrite categories quite often; a lot of times the articles get awesome rewrites too. There's a reason we have the categories rewrite, rewrite-expand, rewrite-you, rewrite-wikidump, rewrite-biased...do I really need to go on? THEY CAN BE REWRITTEN CORRECTLY!
  7. Canama - Per all. We don't want to lose good articles.
  8. Girrrtacos Then be a big boy and re-write 'em if you don't like 'em.
  9. Blitzwing (talk) - I didn't have an opinion up until I saw that ginornomously stupid "IF YOU OPPOSE THIS PROPOSAL, YOU NEED TO REWRITE THOSE ARTICLES OR ELSE YOUR VOTE IS VOID" comment. I do look at the Rewrite page - Infact, I rewrite quite a few articles in need. Anything is salvageable, provided you know the subject.
  10. Walkazo - Per all, especially Girrtacos.
  11. Toadette 4evur (talk) Per all
  12. Green Guy Per all
  13. Jdrowlands (talk) - The person who wrote In the Clouds probably spent an hour or two writing it. We don't want to put possible new users off the wiki. Also, Per All.
  14. Goldguy Per all.There's actually some articles that are good "poorly written".You're being alittle harsh.
  15. HyperToad Per All

Comments

I feel that it would be better to delete articles like these on a case by case basis. Many could be saved and many shouldn't be saved.

If there is an issue with the article improvement categories, it might be worth trying to bring more attention to them. -- Chris 01:21, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

I agree. If this proposal passes, we'd still have to decide for every article individually whether it is "poor enough" to be deleted or not. Plus, some might be poorly written but could contain information which would be missing when the article is deleted and later re-created by someone else. Time Q (talk) 07:09, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Hmm... I'll have to wait and see where this proposal is going, and I would like to see both sides' main points before I vote. My question is this: How do we decide if an article is "poorly written?" Because Spiny used to be terrible, before I started editing it. But it was big. Would we have deleted it? InfectedShroom (talk)

No. I think only small ones, like stubs with bad grammar or that are obviously idiotic, like "world 2-1" which was coposed of simpy "world 2-1". 3dejong (talk) AND MY HEART IS AS LIGHT AS THE WIND WHICH IN TURN BLOWS THE BROWNED DEAD LEAVES OFF THE TREESES, OOOOOHHH!

Plumber: The Donkey Kong article isn't exactly a candidate for deletion because it's poor. - Cobold (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, it would have to be a case-by-case basis for this sort of thing. If anyone's unsure about the quality of an article they can always ask. I also think we should also do something about one-sentence stubs, but that's another issue at the moment. -- Booster

I think there's already an (unwritten) rules for deleting one-liner. Heck, I think there was even a proposal about it. - Blitzwing (talk)
I remember something like this as well, but the only thing I could find in the archives is this one - not about deleting one-liners, but against the deletion of new stub articles. Time Q (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Hey, Plumber! I appreciate the support! Cobold: while I'm on the topic he was discussing how it was a long time ago... go check out the history. It was long, but poorly written. Of course, now that the proposer's specified that he only meant short articles I'm not sure if it's a good example, but whatever. Instead of having this generic proposal, I'd rather the proposer come forth with a list of pages he's talking about, and then we can take care of the stinkers one by one. (seriously, who wouldn't vote yes to, "Fix Something Bad" proposals? Only people who don't like the vagueness...) Stumpers (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Here's some of the really bad articles (not so much stubs) that I'm referring to. -- Booster

Um, guys, look above... Those are the kinds of articles Booster meant, he didn't mean poorly written articles (like Donkey Kong was) in general. :\ Pokemon DP (talk)

I don't think I get this proposal. Pages with only "World 2-1" or "Pirate goombas are pirate goombas" should definitely be deleted. Badly written stubs can be deleted. But non-stub articles that are badly written are fine, as long as there's a rewrite tag. What side should I vote on? CrystalYoshi (talk) 08:28, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Everyone who is opposing, you need to rewrite all these type of articles, or there's no point putting your name here. And if no one does this, I'm going to bring this up again.Purple Yoshi (talk)

PY has a point. Everyone who is opposing this Proposal automatically has the responsibility of rewriting those poorly written articles. Pokemon DP (talk)

What? No. Everyone who is opposing doesn't agree with Booster's proposal. The proposal says to delete poorly written articles. Now my question is what is poorly written. Because if we don't have a clear definition (e.g. a rewrite tag plus bad formatting), this proposal makes no sense imo. Sorry. Time Q (talk) 13:10, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
Opposing the deletion of the articles doesn't mean we're gonna rewrite them; it merely means that we think they should stay. Users come across these articles and fix them. I'm sure a lot of articles started out like crap and turned out pretty good after a while. Stooben Rooben (talk) Overkill, Mr. Sysop; overkill.
Woah now, calm down... I see a flame war in the near future if you don't. Anyway, why are we fighting about this? Everyone has the responsibility to rewrite crappy articles. But most of us (me included) are usually just too lazy to do it. So please, stop fighting about something we should all do. :| InfectedShroom (talk)
Yeah, you're right IS. Didn't mean to get so worked up. Stooben Rooben (talk)

Well, the articles we are talking about are articles that hardly make any sense whatsoever. Articles that look like they were written by a two-year old. The articles Booster showed as an example. Not articles like Spiny or Donkey Kong before their rewrite, those were at least written in a way that could be understood, it was just the way the article was organized that was the problem. Pokemon DP (talk)

And how do you define "articles that look like they were written by a two-year old"? That's my problem with this proposal, basically. Time Q (talk) 06:24, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

For the last freakin' time, look at Booster's examples! Pokemon DP (talk)

I can't derive a definition of "poorly written" from the examples. The proposal says to delete "poorly written" articles. It does not say to remove the articles Booster listed, which would indeed make sense as a proposal. But automatically deleting articles through a rule does not make sense if there is no definitions we can use for deciding whether an article is poorly written or not. Time Q (talk) 06:34, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
Uh, the "Hunky Chunky Barrel" article in Booster example doesn't appear to be "written by a 2-years old". Sure, it's full of unnecessary details and the past tense is quite annoying, but it's still perfectly understandable. --Blitzwing 06:42, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
Then that's what I'd define as poorly-written - an article that is hard to understand. --Pikax 16:46, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
That's no proper definition, there can be different opinions on what is hard to understand. Plus, very well-written texts can also be hard to understand, if they're complicated. Time Q (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
I was thinking hard to understand because of silly things such as spelling and grammar errors. Still, if that won't do for a definition, I guess badly-written is just an opinion, so what can you do? --Pikax 17:02, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
Well, we actually could lay down some "reqirements" for a new article to become "officially poorly-written"; see my example above, a rewrite tag plus bad formatting (no bold text or no links). That's only an example. If a new article meets these "requirements", it could be deleted. This could be discussed in a proposal, because it wouldn't be a matter of opinion. Time Q (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Umm someone should remove In The Sky or something like that off the poor list in been rewrite to a beautiful article. Princess Grapes Butterfly (talk)


Mario Kart DS Karts

no merge 2-13
So I've been reading through the after-mentioned articles, and I've noticed that they all read something like "The [insert name here] is [insert character here]'s [availability] kart in Mario Kart DS. [Describes appearance here]. [Describes stats here]." So I propose that we merge these into character aticles such as "Mario's Karts in Mario Kart DS" or something shorter to that effect. Opinions?

Proposer: huntercrunch
Deadline: April 20, 2008, 15:00 EDT

Merge Kart articles

  1. huntercrunch My reasons are given above.
  2. Incrobe The karts aren't a very important part of the game, and it would save having to add info to heaps of different articles if one needed to if the articles were merged.

Keep articles seperate

  1. Time Q (talk): They're all officially named and major enough to have their own articles. Appearance, stats, and maybe some trivia make enough info for an article.
  2. RedFire Mario: They're different things so they have to be seperate
  3. Pikax: Per Time Q. Plus, there is a table in the Mario Kart DS article itself that contains the stats of each car.
  4. GreenKoopa - This is a MarioWiki, with information on EVERYTHING Mario related- This includes karts.
  5. Jdrowlands (talk) – Per all.
  6. Glitchman (talk) Per all.
  7. MegaMario9910 (talk) Though a lot of the karts have only made one appearance, they were big in the game. Tracks go for the same. Some items also. They should deserve TO BE SEPERATED!
  8. Stooben Rooben (talk) Each kart is different; that's reason enough for them to stay separated. Even if they are short articles, they can't be classified as stubs because they are complete and contain of all the needed information. If we were to merge all of the karts, we would have to merge all of the courses as well. It's simply to much effort for something that will make very little difference.
  9. InfectedShroom (talk) Per all. The karts are different, and as long as they're not stubs, they're fine.
  10. Walkazo - Per all.
  11. Princess Grapes Butterfly (talk) Per Roob I agree about what he wrote up there ↑.
  12. Stumpers (talk) The merges of badges and such were only because so little information was available for them.
  13. Jaffffey (talk) Per all.

Comments

Incrobe, it is highly unlikely that someone will have to add heaps of detail about the karts. --Pikax 13:46, 15 April 2008 (EDT)


Normal Smash Movesets

don't add 3-4
I have read the Player's Guide to Super Smash Bros Melee, and realized that every character's moves have a different name. I propose to add a list of their move names on each character's page. It would help complete the articles, plus I remember some advice on the talk page of Son of Suns:"If there is any information ina a manual that is not on the wiki, upload it". Guides help you just as much as manuals do, so that's why we should do this. Anyone with me?

Proposer: DarkMario (talk)
Deadline: April 21, 2008, 17:00 EDT

Add

  1. DarkMario (talk) Reasons above.
  2. Stumpers (talk) As long as this is the Official Nintendo Power guide we're talking about.
  3. MegaMario9910 (talk) Per DarkMario. I have gotten the Brawl Guide. The articles really only mention the Final Smash.

Do Not Add

  1. Arend (talk) We already have the Template:SSB Infobox. These templates includes the character's debuts, artwork and special moves. If we add a list with all moves, we have 2 times the same!
  2. Toadette 4evur (talk) Per Arend.
  3. Pokemon DP (talk) I dislike the idea of making articles on A/Standard moves. Its a waste of space, and there isn't really much to say on them, even if they are officially named.
  4. Princess Grapes Butterfly (talk) Per all Arend and DP is both right I agree!

Comments

What exactly do you mean by "Normal Smash Movesets"? Pokemon DP (talk)

Possibly Special. B button. Mario: Fireball, Cape, etc. MegaMario9910 (talk)

I'd rather say he's talking about A button moves, thus "normal" and not "special". - Cobold (talk) 10:50, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
Possibly, but Mario's is just punch, punch, kick, etc. MegaMario9910 (talk) And it wouldn't be Smash Attacks, not saying anybody said that.
Well, isn't there already a spot for B moves in the template? And why can't we just add it if it wasn't there? Wouldn't that be logical? InfectedShroom (talk) Sorry, the answer may be painfully obvious. :')
He means all of the normal A moves and grabs are named in the guide, and yes, it's the official Nintendo Power guide. Pokemega32 17:35, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
OK, thanks. InfectedShroom (talk)

PokemonDP, read the proposal over again: I didn't see any indication of making separate pages, only mentioning them where appropriate. Stumpers (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2008 (EDT)


Trivia Sections

keep 3-12
While I'm well aware we are not Wikipedia, I feel that trivia sections detract greatly from the quality of an article. Pieces of information pertaining to topics adressed previously are placed in an unsorted list at the end of the article. Now, I know that we already are against, "overly long" trivia sections, and that's a good thing, but if we allow trivia sections to exist, they'll grow into "overly long" sections. In other words, we can either stop them before they happen, or we can wait until a dedicated user comes along and puts the factoids where they belong in the article. UPDATE: I have clarified the support/oppose headers. Please make sure your vote still applies (they look like it to me).

NOTE: There are a bunch of people doubting this. Give me an example we both know about in the comments section and I'll integrate the trivia for you.

Proposer: Stumpers (talk)
Deadline: April 21, 2008, 17:00 EDT

Support (Remove Trivia Sections--Integrate Facts into Article)

  1. Stumpers (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2008 (EDT) It takes 30 seconds in my experience to find an appropriate section and put a factoid at the end of it instead of making a trivia section. On the other hand, we risk readers not finding information about the subtopic they want to know about. They have to read the appropriate section AND the ENTIRE trivia section, full of unrelated information.
  2. Glitchman (talk) While some pieces of trivia information can be useful to the readers, most of what is under the trivia sections is just either an opinion (e.g. Toadsworth is about the same age as E. Gadd) or something found at an untrustworthy source. Better to prevent these sections from being made.
  3. Princess Grapes Butterfly (talk) Per all

Oppose (Keep Trivia Sections--Keep Facts Separate)

  1. Fixitup Trivia sections exist for information that can't be placed WELL somewhere in another section of the article. Although some people overdo it, they still come of good use when there is such information.
  2. 3dejong (talk) per above, plus the fact that there's no place else to PUT trivia.
  3. Time Q (talk): I have to agree with Fixitup here. I really don't see how those facts should be integrated into the article. For some it might work, but for most it won't, I believe. See below.
  4. Blitzwing (talk) - Trivia section are exactly what the name implies: Trivial informations that can't be put anywhere in the article. Getting rid of those would just makes some of the Trivia-heavy articles messy.
  5. MegaMario9910 (talk) Per All. The Trivia section in almost each article is needed. Say for example Super Smash Bros. It has trivias. If it was put into the main part of the article, it'd be useless.
  6. InfectedShroom (talk) Per all. I've tried to put some trivia in other parts of articles, and failed miserably. It is very difficult, as they are just random bits of information. Well, that and I've learned more from trivia sections from the articles themselves. :')
  7. Jaffffey (talk) I always read the trivia sections and they give me fascinating information.
  8. Stooben Rooben (talk) Per all.
  9. Toadette 4evur (talk) It would probably make us look stupid if we were the only wiki without trivia sections. Also, where would we put all this trivia. Take the cameo appearances of Mario characters in Kirby Super Star for example. What would we do, make a page about the game and say "Some Mario characters appear in this game as cameos"?
  10. Walkazo - Per all. Sometimes you just can't work certain bits of info into the body of the article, see below for an example.
  11. Ghost Jam (talk) - Per all.
  12. Bob-omb buddy (talk). Without trivia sections everyone might overlook intresting information. Also it keeps articles tidy.

Comments

Of course, there's the issue about things such as the "Nintendo Monopoly" characters. Where do you merge them? Into a cameo appearances section. Stumpers (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

It's not a good idea to merge such a thing into the cameos section when it would only be one sentence. When you qualify a separate paragraph as one sentence, or even two the page looks like someone's trying too hard. Like I said, sometimes there actually can be a lot of information that shouldn't be crammed somewhere in the article. I would be very disappointed to see such an option to leave my grasp, especially for smaller pages. Come on, people. Fixitup

Do you have any examples for us? Stumpers (talk) 23:49, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Where would the interesting facts go? What'd we do with the displaced trivia? 3dejong (talk) III'MMM ACTING AS IF

First of all, "interesting" is a subjective term, and so I really can't give you an answer. Like I said with Fixitup, do you have an example? Looking at your second sentence, I think you're asking what we'd do as soon as this proposal is passed. We'd integrate the trivia with like information. As a matter of fact, let me clarify that. It's in the proposal, but if you're not clear I'm sure many other people will, too. I'd argue against your point that there's nowhere else to put trivia. Just use your head and sort the points back into the article, or make a new section. You'll also remember that every other Wiki before us that has put its mind to it has been able to remove trivia. Stumpers (talk) 00:50, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, a simple example for a piece of trivia of which I wouldn't know how to integrate it into the article is here. This fact should be mentioned imo, but how should we do that if not in a trivia section? Putting it into the article would clutter things up (no one who reads the plot synopsis wants to know in which other comic DK appeared). Making a new section would be possible, but 1) it is only one cameo (or however you want to call it) and 2) how would that be better than just leaving it called "Trivia"? Time Q (talk) 02:16, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, first off you've lost some "trivial" (couldn't resist...) infromation by not telling us where DK can be seen--which part of the story? I'm not familiar with Cool Klange in the least, so all I know is that he was in there somewhere. You are assuming that no one would be interested in knowing where he appears because you don't care yourself. As you know, that's not true for everyone. Of course I'm not advocating making a new section for one piece of information like that. I don't care if you call it trivia, cameos, whatever. The problem is that you guys are looking for a one-size-fits-all approach to this, but the fact is there isn't because this is writing, not making a template. Putting information where it's actually applicible rather than off to the side where it is out of context and random is something that must be done differently in each scenario. Yes, I understand the three of you would rather make this easier on yourselves, but focus on the reader here: you want to make this accessable. The easier something is to read or do, you can be someone on the other end had to put in a greater amount of effort. Stumpers (talk) 04:21, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
No, you got me wrong with my example. Let me shortly explain: At some point in the comic Donkey Kong appears. He is wearing a suit, the same suit he has worn in a different comic. To me, this is worth pointing out, because as far as I know DK doesn't usually wear a suit, and it's also worth pointing out that it was the same one in two different comics. My point now is that this piece of - indeed - trivial information should not be moved to the plot synopsis, because the reader of the plot synopsis, well, wants to know the plot, and surely the fact which suit DK is wearing doesn't belong there. You also say I lost some information by not telling where DK appears, but it reads "in the club [...] at the table", so the reader of the plot synopsis should know what it's about. I absolutely agree with you that some trivia sections are too long or contain facts that should be integrated into the article. But most of them are best kept in a separate section, though the term "Trivia" might be a bit un-encyclopedic. Time Q (talk) 07:34, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
IMO, I think getting rid of the Trivia would create a glut of speculation in Trivia-heavy articles, since some writers would go all excited and try to justificate every bit of random trivia as something that is actually really important in the Marioverse. Look at the implied articles to see what I mean. --Blitzwing 07:58, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
I'm sorry Blitz, but which "Implied" article has a trivia section? As you your concern regarding speculation, preventing speculation has always been part of the Wiki's history. I don't see why you'd want to lower the quality of an article just to prevent someone else from doing it. As to the DK thing, I really can't argue the point because I've never head of that subject before. I'd really like to have us look at a subject that more than, three or five users have personal experience, preferably a subject that I could actually discuss back... does anyone aside from Walkazo have an example we all know about? Stumpers (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
No Implied articles have a Trivia section, yesh. I took them as an example because they're the perfect example of trivial information. I mean, who knew Old Man Skoo existed 'till someone made an article on him? And why the hell do Trivia sections "lower the quality" of the article? If anything, randomly integrating the trivias in the Main article is what lower the quality! And as Toadette4evur said, it would be weird to be the only wiki without trivia. I mean, even Wikipedia have those. --Blitzwing 06:59, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
There is nothing in the proposal about removing "trivial" articles. Here's Wikipedia's official stance on trivia: clicky. Basically, Wikipedia is recommending what I've been saying all along, but as you've told me before, we're not Wikipedia, so that really doesn't apply whether you want to emmulate what Wikipedia wants done or what is actually done on Wikipedia. Trivia sections lower the quality because they are an excuse to randomly plop down bits of speculation or valid information without regard to actually making a complete article. Just think about it: wouldn't you be frustrated if you thought you knew everything about, say, Wario's laziness (personality section), only to find out that you'd missed something: at the very bottom of the trivia section, there's a note that he exercises in his free time! Not everyone is going to read through a trivia section, especially if they see the random things like references and allergies at the top of it. So, what I'm talking about valid infromation being out of place because someone was too lazy to actually make a good edit. That does hurt an article. Stumpers (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Here's another example supporting the Triva section: Mr. Game & Watch (SSBM and SSBB) has a move called Oil Panic, which stems from the game of the same name. That information needed to be in the game's article, but since it wasn't part of the game itself nor any of it's ports, I couldn't fit it in without a Trivia section. If we get rid of the trivia sections we're getting rid of lots of valid information, not just speculations. - Walkazo

I think what you're forgetting is that some article alteration may be needed. You guys are arguing as though you couldn't rearrange paragraphs and rewrite trivia into the article. Walkazo, in your example, I expanded on the trivia point, turning it into a full comparison of the attack to the game. See if you like it -- it's not my best work, but hopefully it shows you what I mean. The other trivia point which you didn't mention was easily integrated into the main part of the article. Check revision history. Stumpers (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

The Luigi's Mansion trivia section points out an allusion to Home Alone on the boxart. There's no "boxart" section in the article and thus no obvious place to put it. I also highly doubt that the article can be rewritten in the way that the fact is integrated into the article without annoying people who don't care about such trivial information, who don't want to read about allusions, but only about the game itself. Your accessibility argument can actually be used against your point. "Super Mario 64" states that in Donkey Kong Country 3, Wrinkly Kong is playing SM64. Valuable information, but certainly nothing to integrate into the main article. I mean, if there were several games which had such references to SM64, we could make an extra section, but that's not the case. Finally, the trivia section of Waluigi has the character's address, according to the Mario Power Tennis website. Again, such a section just seems to be the best place to put this info. Time Q (talk) 04:19, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

All this goes to show that a blanket proposal for the matter won't work. In my Oil Panic example, both triva points were easily moved into the body text (though I streamlined your work a bit, Stumpers), however the same cannot be said for Time Q's points. In Oil Panic, the bit about Mr. Game & Watch's Oil Panic move was turned into a full sections, which is okay for small artciles and big ideas, but a section about Waluigi's address wouldn't be feasible. If nothing else, we should do this case-by-case. - Walkazo
Actually, this case-by-case logic is exactly what I've been arguing for the entire time. I want people to gage each article to see where information belongs rather than assuming that there is a quick out, the trivia section, where all information that they deem trivial should go (point of view writing). Stumpers (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
Then I think I agree with you, but why are you making a proposal? You can't force people to "gage each article to see where information belongs" as an outcome of a proposal. Well, what a proposal could do is to lay down a new rule in the guidelines which says to generally avoid trivia sections and only make them if there is no other place in the article to put the info. But I don't think this is what the current proposal says. Time Q (talk) 01:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
The reason for the proposal is because I didn't want any NEW trivia sections to jump up. I think I can be completely open now, because I'm obviously going to lose: the arguement about "where else will it go" was one that I knew would still plague us because we are a specialty Wiki and there are some really out there references and such. If you can think of a way to stop trivia sections except when no other option is available, that would be perfect, but the reason I chose to deal in absolutes was to avoid that slippery-slope of a user making a trivia section for something that is integrateable and saying, "Well, I couldn't figure out how to put it in..." We'd be exactly where we are now. Tell you what, though: how would you feel about a proposal that created a template for trivia sections asking people to integrate where possible? Not like a blaring, red box or anything, just an italisized notice that says something to the effect of, "This article has a trivia section because there is information regarding the subject that does not apply to the rest of the article. Please integrate the information into the article if possible and avoid adding more trivia." Stumpers (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
I think we do have such a template, although I can't find it right now. --Blitzwing 17:15, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
Is it the one that's on the Wario article's trivia section? We could edit that one I suppose, but it's way to blaring for a notice on an article with the type of trivia TimeQ and Walkazo have been providing me with--it shouldn't be a penalty template, just an advice template, kind of like Wikipedia's "this page is locked" template. Stumpers (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Super Mario Advance series

merge 9-0
It has recently come to my attention that there is a page for the original Super Mario Advance, but not for Super Mario Advance 4, which is just included as a remake of SMB3 on that game's page. There is also a separate page for the Super Mario Advance series, which includes information and the cover art of all four games. Having to try to find information about these games on different pages is a hassle, so I propose we delete the Super Mario Advance article and simply expand the page that has to do with the series itself.

Proposer: Glitchman (talk)
Deadline: April 21, 2008, 17:00 EDT

Merge articles to one page

  1. Glitchman (talk) My reasons given above.
  2. Blitzwing (talk) - Per Glitchman. The Super Mario Advance series are simply a bunch of port with graphical enhancements, only the port of SM2 haves any real changes, and even with that, I don't think it deserves it's own article.
  3. MegaMario9910 (talk) Per all. Even though I don't own any Advance games except SMA, they should be merged. They're exactly the same game (with some changes).
  4. InfectedShroom (talk) Per all. Uh, everyone else said everything else I was gonna say.
  5. Stooben Rooben (talk) Per Glitchman. I own two in the series, but have played all, and they definitely aren't original enough to have their own articles...especially when SMA4 doesn't even have one.
  6. Pokemon DP (talk) Per all.
  7. Walkazo - Per all. I have all 4 SMA games and it's such a pain trying to research how they different from the originals as it is now.
  8. Wayoshi (talk) – per all. The only major change was the Yoshi Egg Challenge in SMA1, honestly.
  9. User:Hemu per all

Keep the articles the same

Comments

The only reason I haven't voted on the support side yet is that there's one thing that's not right. The Super Mario Advance (series) page is the place where the boxart for the games is. Super Mario World: Super Mario Advance 2 and Super Mario Advance 4: Super Mario Bros. 3 don't have their own articles, but the main information about them is in the Super Mario Advance (series) page. SMW:SMA2 and SMA4:SMB3 should redirect to SMA (series), but instead, they redirect to the original game article. To make it more confusing,the SMW article has a "Changes in the GBA version" section which says "Super Mario World got a remake in the GameBoy Advance. Here are the differences between that game and the original." If we could just take one place to put all the information and the boxart for SMA2 and 4, that would be good. CrystalYoshi (talk) 07:31, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that through merging all the SMA games all those redirects would be sorted out too. Then, the sections dealing with the remakes in the actual game articles would be replaced with Template:Main. And that would be the end of it: no more inconsistancies between remake pages (or lack thereof), no more irritating redirects, no more confusion. - Walkazo

Game Systems and Controllers

merge 10-7
This wiki has articles on game systems. This wiki also has articles on their corresponding controllers and accessories. The articles on the gaming systems are fairly long and consist of adequate information; however, the articles on the controllers are quite short, containing 1 image usually – they are practically stubs. The articles on the controllers don't consist of much information; in fact, the information on them basically describes the actions of the buttons, and then lists the buttons themselves. To me, this seems completely pointless, for it holds no certain specificity for its own article.

So here's my proposal. We should merge the controllers to their corresponding game system. So there is NO CONFUSION, I will list the controllers and the article they should be merged to. (THE FOLLOWING ARE ALL CONTROLLERS)

Once the articles are merged to their corresponding game systems, the game system articles will be more complete; there will be less stubs lying around, and things won't be as confusing to find.

Proposer: Stooben Rooben (talk) with advice from Stumpers (talk)
Deadline: April 23, 2008, 17:00 EDT

Support (Merge Controllers and Accessories to Their Corresponding Game System)

  1. Stooben Rooben (talk) My reasons given above. Stumpers helped too, so this proposal shouldn't be so disastrous.
  2. Pokemon DP (talk) Yes, such accesories should be merged with the respective Console articles.
  3. MegaMario9910 (talk) They should. Controllers are just part of Game Systems. This is the Mariowiki, not a Game Wiki.
  4. Jdrowlands (talk) As Time Q said, we're a Mario Wiki.
  5. Princess Grapes Butterfly (talk) They should merge and heres my reason they'll be neat and stub free.
  6. Stumpers (talk) I agree on all counts, but we must make sure that we stress the connection between the design of the N64 controller and Super Mario 64 even though it isn't significant for its own article. For the record, StoobenRooben did a lot more than he's admiting: I just gave general advice and suggested a few more articles. Nice job, Rooben!
  7. Glitz_Hawk (talk) Per all.
  8. Blitzwing (talk) - Per Ghost Jam in the comments.
  9. Ghost Jam (talk) - Per myself, I guess.
  10. Time Q (talk): Agreed. Articles about game systems should stay, because they are directly connected with the games. Controllers are just part of the game systems, thus not directly connected with the games, and the controller information can be easily put into the game system article.

Oppose (Leave Articles Separate)

  1. Glitchman (talk) Sorry to disagree with you, your sysopness (:P) but controllers obviously effect gameplay of any video game, and some controllers (e.g. the three different colors of Gamecube controller) articles can have multiple images on them. I think they should stay separate.
  2. Garlic Man (talk) I'd have to agree with Glitchman here. As he said, each distinctive controller affects gameplay, and are unique. And yes, more images of different versions can be added as well. They're usually not even stubs.
  3. Toadette 4evur (talk) Per Glitchyman.
  4. InfectedShroom (talk) The effect of the proposal is too wide. I do not believe some things should be merged. See my comment below.
  5. Wayoshi (talk) – controller articles can be expanded into respective, stand-alone ones and don't need merging to do so.
  6. Uniju :D (talk) Per all.
  7. King Mario (talk) Per All

Comments

For some reasons, I think that we should also merge the Wii Remote and the Nunchuck with their in-universe equivalent (The Form Baton and the Balance Stone) and replace every mentions of the "real" name of the controllers with their in/universe equivalent. For example, instead of saying "Mario must shakes the Wiimote to do a star spin", it would say "Mario must shakes the Form Batton". --Blitzwing 06:53, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Also, uh, MegaMario9910, your vote isn't really making sense. --Blitzwing 11:38, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
I think we should keep articles on special accessories, that are not normally needed to play the console. There are R.O.B. and the Super Scope (bad examples because they have different roles in games as well, but there might be something in the future). - Cobold (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
Thanks, Stumpers. And, Cobold, I do agree with you that R.O.B. and the Super Scope should stay separate, because they have in-game roles separate from what they are in real life. Blitz: The Form Batton and Balance Stone should also stay separate because, even though they take the in-game form of Wii accessories, they play their own roles and are considered artifacts. Stooben Rooben (talk)
Duh, but it would makes a good practical joke be more in-universe. --Blitzwing 18:11, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

I think the articles should be seperate, as they do affect gameplay, and some, like Rumble Pak, have descriptions of when and where they are utilized. Garlic Man (talk)

I'm pretty sure that the "affects gameplay" arguement was rendered invalid by the results of the "Snufit Ball" article. Stumpers (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
True dat. Ah! I just realized something. I don't believe some of those things should be merged, especially the e-Reader, as it makes new levels and even games. InfectedShroom (talk)
Okay, I removed the N64DD, the e-Reader, and left out the Game Boy Player because they actually play games. I didn't think about that. However, what's left up there, are merely attachments and accessories for the systems themselves. Here is an example (a bad one) of what the GameCube article would look like after merging. Stooben Rooben (talk)
Hmm... Even still, the GCN Mic allows the player to play more minigames that are inaccessible with the GCN Controller. (Er, I'm almost positively sure, at least... Please correct me if I'm wrong.) InfectedShroom (talk)
Actually, (at least in MP7), there's an option that let's you use the Controller in place of the mic. Stooben Rooben (talk)
True, but there were some mini-games in MP6 that you can only use with the mic. Even though I don't really even know what you guys are talking about, but just thought I'd add that :P Glitchman (talk)
That's why they're mentioned in my temp article. Stooben Rooben (talk)
In MP6 you could select an option to open a command window if you had the mic off. Commands could be selected from as list. Stumpers (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
I think the mic should stay as its own, because when all of the MP6&7 games are listed on the GC page, it looks like they should belong on their respective game articles. Garlic Man (talk)
I'm unsure of your meaning. Can you rephrase that. Stumpers (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
OK, OK, I was mistaken. Even still, I think it should be separate. InfectedShroom (talk)
If we want to get technical here, the Mic isn't a controller, and should thus stay separate; the same concept goes with the Rumble Pak, and the Gameboy Player. Take a look at my example again, this time without the Mic merged into the Gamecube article. It looks much better (I'll agree with that only), and it only has it's corresponding controllers merged into the article. All that's left in the list at the top is controllers, not accessories. Accessories do have their own function separate from controlling the game being played. How's that? Stooben Rooben (talk) I won't compromise any more than this though, because the controllers should be merged nonetheless.

Say, can someone explain to me why we have articles about controllers on the MarioWiki? -- Chris 20:22, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

Probably for the same reason we have articles about non-Mario series-related Smash Bros. characters or had articles about Conker characters. People are looking for ways to make the Wiki more complete, so they expand what is considered appicable for an article, and people follow suit, which occassionally turns out badly. I'm sure it's an innocent thing like that. Stumpers (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
I never understood it. Hence, the proposal. But, I have to agree with Stumpers. Who would have thought Falco Lombardi would have an article on the Mariowiki? The same person that thought controllers would be. Stooben Rooben (talk)
Yeah, but many of these characters have a purpose in the game. Falco is part of Smash Bros, so he would naturally have a mention of some kind on the wiki. Controllers....I don't see that happening. Like someone was playing Super Mario Galaxy and thought "Oh, crap, this Wiimote is part of the game, as I can't play the game without it! I should create an article about it on a Mario related site, as I'm using it to play a Mario game!" This is the same logic people who want Banjo and Conker back use. -- Chris 01:00, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
Too true. Stooben Rooben (talk)
To justify myself, the Wii Remote is so fully integrated with the Wii that it should be put with the Wii Article. But not some other things. InfectedShroom (talk)
Just to clear things up, do you think the Nunchuk should be merged with the Wii as well? Stooben Rooben (talk) Or just the Wii Remote itself?
Yeah, the Nunchuck is part of the Wii Remote. I don't know why it wasn't on the Wii Remote page anyway... InfectedShroom (talk)
Okay. Thanks. Stooben Rooben (talk)
So... is the action pad a controller that "affects gameplay"? Garlic Man (talk)
Yes, because it technically has "buttons" that control the game, same as the regular GameCube Controller affects Mario Golf. Stooben Rooben (talk)

Multiple Canon Names

use older names when talking about older games 15-0
Articles such as Princess Peach's and Bowser's could go under different names - Princess Toadstool and King Koopa respectively. While we're not going to have articles for each of their names, I think we should not discard them completely in the merged article. So, in a text refering to Super Mario RPG, it should be Toadstool and not Peach, and in texts conserning the Super Mario Bros. Super Show!, it should be King Koopa and not Bowser. Minor tweaks could be done with FLUDD<>F.L.U.D.D. and Koopa Paratroopas<>Parakoopas<>Sky Troopas. This way, the wiki is true to the original games which we are talking about.

Proposer: Cobold (talk)
Deadline: April 25, 2008, 20:00 EDT

Use older names for sections concerning older games

  1. Cobold (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2008 (EDT) - Per myself above.
  2. InfectedShroom (talk) Per Cobold. I can see no reason not to do this.
  3. Princess Grapes Butterfly (talk) Per Cobold. The older the more original right?
  4. Stumpers (talk) I've been doing that since day one, glad to see this be official.
  5. MegaMario9910 (talk) Per Cobold. Peach's name needs to be Princess Toadstool in the games before Yoshi's Safari (or whatever the name is). Bowser I'm not exactly sure about... But if correct, it was before Super Mario World, I think.
  6. Time Q (talk): Per Cobold. Perhaps there was a reason for giving them different names, so we should also refer to them by their respective names.
  7. CrystalYoshi (talk) Per Time Q and InfectedShroom, which is also Per Cobold. Use the right name for what you're talking about.
  8. Booster: I agree. Articles about the TV shows generally use characters' cartoon names, so a similar rule should follow for non-cartoon articles.
  9. User:Hemu I also agree they should be separate because Bowser is sorta Different from King Koopa
  10. Pokemon DP (talk) Per all. If we say that pesky plumber, we can say King Koopa.
  11. Toadette 4evur (talk) Unless we're going by the Japanese games, we should use Koopa and Toadstool.
  12. Stooben Rooben (talk) Per Cobold.
  13. Glitchman (talk) Per Booster, CrystalYoshi, and Cobold.
  14. Grandy02 Per Cobold. Would be only logical.
  15. Bob-omb buddy (talk) They aren't the offical names BUT they are offical for the game.

Use up-to-date names in all sections

Comments

"The older the more offical right?" ~ I don't think we can easily say what is more official. They old are more original, but newer names might be more official. - Cobold (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Some people are bound to get confused by this. They won't notice that the different names go by section, all they'll see is when it goes from Princess Toadstool to Peach, and think it's just inconsistancy. And what about games where the character's are givent heir updated names in remakes (i.e. King Koopa in SMB becomes Bowser Koopa in SMBDeluxe)? - Walkazo
Uh oh... Walkazo is kinda right. How about we do it like "During the events of Super mario bros., Princess Peach (then known as Princess Toadstool)" and call her Toadstool from then on until we get to the game when her name was changed? I think that would work, but is it too much trouble? CrystalYoshi (talk) 07:46, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, I'm not only talking about the Peach article. An article only concerning Super Mario RPG, such as the game's article itself, shouldn't talk about Peach at all, but use Toadstool, otherwise that would feel wrong. - Cobold (talk) 11:30, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Per all in this article (except Cobold). Also, there's also only one resolution to this. After all, Bowsers and Princess Peachs right respective names is King Bowser Koopa and Princess Peach Toadstool, right? Only move the articles to their full names. There are various wikis who likely had edit wars because nobody could came up with this idea. KingMario (talk)
No, I do not think this is necessary. "Bowser" and "Princess Peach" are both official names and the most commonly used phrases. We don't need to clutter up article names. An encyclopedia is supposed to have entries where users would search for them, not where the official name of something is that people don't know. Both "Toadstool" and "Koopa" are no longer used in modern games, so the "right" is debatable. - Cobold (talk) 10:53, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
I guess we should just... hmmm... I don't know. Whatever Cobold wants, he's the proposer. CrystalYoshi (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
Don't get me wrong - you can always make a different proposal on moving pages like that. But this proposal isn't worded like that, and changing its wording after so many people voted isn't really fair. (I would oppose the move, btw.) - Cobold (talk) 13:12, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
Actually, "Toadstool" has been reused in a few not so old remakes, Super Mario Advance 4 and Super Mario 64 DS. Not that this would matter, just wanted to mention it. The name is very, very rarely used in games since late 1996 (over 10 years passed), so Peach's surname isn't needed for the article's title. BTW, is there actually any game where Bowser has been exactly named "King Koopa"? --Grandy02 14:18, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
In Japanese, he is simply called "Koopa" (Kuppa), while regular Koopa Troopas are "Nokonoko". Then, his Japanese name was made into "King Koopa" for the television series. But I don't think any game named him that in the translation. - Cobold (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
Yay, I know, just wondered that you said ""Koopa" is no longer used in modern games". --Grandy02 15:01, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

If (when) this passes, Koopa should be switched from a redirect to a disambiguation page, otherwise people trying to use it as Bowser's name'll be inconveniencd. - Walkazo

Good point, Walkazo. I'm for that idea. Glitchman (talk)

What's-a-Gibberish?

remove all "gibberish" quotes 2-9
Hey-hey, come on! Ok users, pay attention, and read carefully. As some of you may know, there was a proposal that said, "Lately i've been searching around the wikis quotes, and have seen quotes like "whupee heeheeheehee!" when thats just a bunch of giberious and also something like AHHH!!! thats just someone yelling! should we get rid of these?". Now, the problem some users (including me, of course) have encountered is what to actually consider a "gibberish" quote. Now look at the quotes that have been recently removed from the Baby Daisy article:

  • "Baby Daisy!"Mario Kart Wii
  • "Ha-ha! YAY!"Mario Kart Wii
  • "Go-go!"Mario Kart Wii
  • "GO!"Mario Kart Wii
  • "NO!"Mario Kart Wii
  • "NOoooo.."Mario Kart Wii
  • "Heh-heh!"Mario Kart Wii
  • "Okey-dokey. Yeah!"Mario Kart Wii
  • "Yaaaay! Whoo-hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo."Mario Kart Wii
  • "Yipee. Yipee. Yi-hee-hee-hm-hm.."Mario Kart Wii

Okay,just so you know, a current issue trying to be settled is, which of these quotes actually count as gibberish, and which should actually be allowed to stay. Now, as of the current point in time, and according to the outcome of the proposal linked above, gibberish quotes count as anything that is random babbling or plain screaming. So, Which of these quotes qualifies in those groups? Well, as the quotes that contain nothing but yelling qualify as gibberish, you COULD mark out these:

  • "Baby Daisy!"Mario Kart Wii
  • "Ha-ha! YAY!"Mario Kart Wii
  • "Go-go!"Mario Kart Wii
  • "GO!"Mario Kart Wii
  • "NO!"Mario Kart Wii
  • "NOoooo.."Mario Kart Wii
  • "Heh-heh!"Mario Kart Wii
  • "Okey-dokey. Yeah!"Mario Kart Wii
  • "Yaaaay! Whoo-hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo."Mario Kart Wii

Oh, but wait! All of these quotes contain yelling! There's the first problem. Just because quotes contain a character showing excitement, in any odd manner of saying it, does that mean we should count it as actual gibberish? Last time I checked, gibberish was random babbling, not yelling because of excitement or anything otherwise. Also, just because a character is exclaiming something like Yay, No, or laughter, doesn't mean their mindlessly speaking in tongue, does it? So, what it comes down to is, do we remove all quotes that are to a short point, and that are exclaiming remarks? As I gave examples on the Baby Daisy talk page, many characters plenty good quotes would qualify for this, thus leaving certain pages to the point of "quote-less". Now, I know most people know what a quality quote is, but I also know that a quote shouldn't have to be entertaining or a long sentence in order to define characteristics of said character. Please take in to account the outcome of your vote, and also take into account that gibberish is quite literally random babbling and not actual wording. P.S: Choosing support doesn't mean quotes considered gibberish will stay, it means quotes not to be confused with gibberish cannot be removed for that reason. Therefore, certain quotes would stay, while certain quotes would be removed. According to ACTUAL consideration.

Proposer: Fixitup
Deadline: April 29, 2008, 17:00 EDT

Support(Keep Certain Quotes Considerably Acceptable, Regardless Of Length Or What's Being Said)

  1. Fixitup Per above, lol.
  2. HyperToad Per Fixitup. Plus, Peach has a "HELP!" quote. WTF?

Oppose (Remove All Quotes Containing Those Of Examples Listed, And Any More Found Throughout Other Pages)

  1. Pokemon DP (talk) The official definition of "gibberish" may be random babbling, but this Wiki has a different definition. Its any quote that is just a simple stupid expression that says nothing about the character. "NO!" is NOT a valid quote. Why? Its just someone saying "No". Its not unique AT ALL. It says nothing about the character's personality. Any simple quote like this, or any compilation of things like "WHOO-HOO-HOO-HOO! WHEE!", should not be considered a REAL quote. Its not professional, AT ALL. That's my two cents.
  2. Wayoshi (talk) – per DP. A quote should be revelant and not be a restatement.
  3. Blitzwing (talk) - What's the point of knowing that some guy said random nonsense like "AAHAHAHAH" or "NO"? Those kinds of quotes are a waste.
  4. Xzelion (talk) Perl All.
  5. Stooben Rooben (talk) Per all. Anybody can scream or cry. Specified quotes like "Only cheaters mess up", make Waluigi different from Peach. Waluigi and Peach have both screamed and cried before, so it's pointless.
  6. Princess Grapes Butterfly (talk) Per all.
  7. Garlic Man (talk) - Per DP. Whether they are real words or not, they make no sense at all, and are thus "gibberish".
  8. Toadette 4evur (talk) Anyone can say "woo hoo!". Only quotes like "Toadette's the winner!" should be kept, because it is unique, unlike "woo hoo!".
  9. InfectedShroom (talk) Per all.

Comments

Well you know, DP, when I gave examples of other quotes, that have been here for quite a long time, someone said to me something like, well although this quote is almost the EXACT same line, this one is more humorous, therefore is fine. Does that make sense? I didn't think so. Also, like I said, not all of these quotes are just, "NO". Fixitup

Also, I don't no if I said this incorrectly above, but I know quotes should be relevant, but I know that not all of these quotes are at all irrelevant. Fixitup

First of all, I didn't understand what you said. You are treating this like "Since its on other pages, it should be on every page.". That's not the case. The case here should be that ALL quotes like this should be removed from ALL pages, not added to others just cos' other people decided to add them to other articles. And no one is saying they are all just "NO!". SOME of the quotes you gave are fine, most of them are just... No, sorry. Pokemon DP (talk)

I'm not saying that, I'm saying that's how it was, and I don't see why we are just now getting to that. Naw mean? Well the thing is, on the Baby Daisy talk page, that IS what they were telling me, that all are not allowed. Listen, the accept choice is not to allow quotes that count as gibberish, it's to allow quotes that may be confused because of how they are worded. Fixitup

I tend to agree with the second option, but wouldn't that also include quotes like "It's-a-me, Mario!", which Mario is famous for? It's an exclamation, yes, and in most cases such quotes should be removed, but I feel we need to make exceptions to this rule. Saying "It's-a-me, Mario!" is very characteristic of Mario, while Baby Daisy saying "Baby Daisy!" is just random. Maybe one day, when she has appeared in more games than Mario Kart Wii, it turns out that she actually commonly uses this phrase as her "identifying feature", but until this point we shouldn't allow that (and the other) quote(s). Time Q (talk) 04:33, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Somebody give Time Q the "Most logical User of the Year" award! Pokemon DP (talk)

Yeah... Baby Daisy won't have many good quotes until she's in a game that's not a spin-off. CrystalYoshi (talk) 08:30, 23 April 2008 (EDT) I don't think I'll vote just yet, though.

Hmmm... I'm preferring the second option. But the word "all" in it's title is a little ominous. We shouldn't need to delete all the quotes from a page, just most of them. Leaving a page with no quotes is... Not preferable. InfectedShroom (talk) Sorry if that didn't make much sense, I couldn't find a way to say it perfectly...

DP, you just said that only certain quotes listed from the Baby Daisy page should be removed. Then you agreed with TimeQ that none of the quotes were relelvant. I don't know if anyone has noticed, but Mario hardly even says "It's-a-me. Mario!" anymore. Aside from that, some of you are ignoring the fact that I stated that supporting this isn't to support quotes like, "No!"/"Wahaha!". It's to allow certain quotes, like SOME of the quotes from the Baby Daisy page. If you are against keeping any of the quotes on the Baby Daisy page, then you are against most of the other quotes used as examples, which I know for a fact hardly anyone disagrees with. As I expected, everyone is misinterpreting the outcome of this proposal. Fixitup

Then make the meaning clearer. Short and concise is a much better way to go then long, rambling and sarcastic. Anyway, the only quote I think is relevant up in your example is "Okey-dokey, yeah!", since "okey-dokey" is something usually uttered by Mario, making it strange coming from Baby Daisy (though the "yeah!" part was in character with her older self). - Walkazo

I think it is safe to say how this proposal will turn out, therefore the only type of "work" I will be doing around this type of situation will be resolving it on the Baby Daisy talk page. I know how votes go sometimes, regardless of what I would've liked, it is obvious most of you have a mind set. Fixitup

While we're on the subject of removing quotes, can someone please put Bowser's Quotes back on his page? I tried to undo the edit that scrapped them myself, but my ancient computer couldn't handle the amount of coding. Also, what's the status about the pages devoted entiurely to quotes? Are they still being constructed or have those projects been abandoned & forgotten? Sorry if this is a bit off-topic, but it's not quite enough for a stand-alone proposal, and nobody's done anything about the issues when they're brought up on the individual talk pages. - Walkazo

Ah! About quote pages... I am still making them. I did kinda abandon them for a bit there, but I am working on it again. :') And also, where is that edit that deleted his quotes? I can't find it in the history. InfectedShroom (talk) Note: Go here for a category of the quote pages.

Format of Quotes

keep using second format 2-9
Next up, I have noticed articles such as Wario and Princess Rosalina have a different format for quotes compared to many other pages. For example, the Rosalina page quotes appear as this:

“I'll be watching you from beyond the stars”
Rosalina, Super Mario Galaxy

While a format of quotes used on other pages look like this:

You'll notice the first style is obviously "neater" and more formal than the second, but takes up much more space. Sooo, we should decide on one quoting system in order to make sure pages follow a specific guideline. One, the first style, or the other, the second style. Obviously this isn't a big deal, but should be addressed. I actually have a hard time choosing myself.

Proposer: Fixitup
Deadline: April 29, 2008, 17:00 EDT

Support (Star Using First Format)

  1. Fixitup Per above again, lol.
  2. Bob-omb buddy (talk) The first one may be longer but it is much neater.

Oppose (Keep Using second Format)

  1. Wayoshi (talk) – This meaning both formats are kept, right? The standard one works well with top of pages, this bullet-formatted one works well for multiple little quotes related to each other. I can incorporate all of these into RandomQuote if I had some time over the weekend...
  2. InfectedShroom (talk) Per Wayoshi. Multiple quotes look a bit better when they're in a list, and the {{quote}} looks great on the top of the page. IMO.
  3. Walkazo - Per Wayoshi.
  4. Toadette 4evur (talk) Per Wayoshi.
  5. Stooben Rooben (talk) Per Wayoshi.
  6. Pokemon DP (talk) Per Wayoshi.
  7. Time Q (talk): The "neater" layout takes too much space when there are many quotes.
  8. Princess Grapes Butterfly (talk) Per Time Q More space more KB. (Another pointless proposal.)
  9. CrystalYoshi (talk) How is the first "neater"? It's just longer and more annoying, not neater. In fact, I think the second one is neater. It's bulletpointed, and plus it only takes up one line. And the quote doesn't need to tell who's saying it, we already know from who the article is about.

Comments

Um, I think there was a reason the {{quote}} template wasn't used like that. I think it was that ALL the quotes on the page would end up on the Random Quote of the Day Template, instead of just one. At least, I THINK this was the reason. I don't remember. Pokemon DP (talk)

Yes, second choice is for both being kept, as in first format at top only, and second used in quotes section. First choice is for first format in both quotes section, and at top of page. Fixitup

Yeah, the first format is for the quote at the top of the page, and the second is better for quote lists. It takes up less space, and you don't need to tell who says it; everyone already knows. Is the oppose side for keeping two types in quote lists, or for having only the second in quote lists? CrystalYoshi (talk) 08:34, 23 April 2008 (EDT) I don't see how the first is more formal.

Princess Grapes Butterfly, this one definitely isn't pointless. There are obviously different layouts of quotes on this wiki, but we should use a consistent way, so this proposal helps us deciding which way to choose. Time Q (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2008 (EDT)


Recipes

merge 12-4
Ok, here we go. I've been looking through some pages and I saw that there is a different page for each of Saffron, Zess T., and Tayce T.'s recipes, even though the grand majority of them are stubs. I propose that we merge them all into a table on the Recipes page for easier access to them, sort of like the Badges page. So it's up you know. Tell me what you think.

Proposer: Toadette 4evur (talk)
Deadline: May 1, 2008, 17:00 EDT

Merge recipes

  1. Toadette 4evur (talk) What I stated above.
  2. InfectedShroom (talk) Per T4E. I have done the same thing. We need just one page for all the recipes.
  3. Blitzwing (talk) There was a proposal about this (Which failed). I agree that the Recipes article are rather short and minor.
  4. Princess Grapes Butterfly (talk) Sound great merging a the stub into one great stub free page in a neat order. Also we'll have less recipes page.
  5. Xzelion (talk) Per All; I had this proposal going before, had tons of supporters, than SoS opposed it, then everyone opposed it. ;-;
  6. Stooben Rooben (talk) Per all. I like GJ's idea; neat and compact...it sounds good.
  7. Walkazo - Per all.
  8. Green Guy (talk) Per all is all I can say
  9. Knife (talk) 11:44, 26 April 2008 (EDT) I originally suggested this, but the vote was to keep it separate. I have an idea for a template.
  10. User:Byfordej per all.
  11. Ghost Jam (talk) per my comments below.
  12. Glitchman (talk) Per all.

Leave them the way they are

  1. YellowYoshi398 (talk) They're officially named items; I think they're worthy of articles. Some even have backstories, like Cake and Couple's Cake. They also have other notability (like maybe TTYD recipes needed for troubles, or even physical descriptions) that could give them longer articles with some work, and it seems like a lot of them could at least have the bare bones "____ is an item in Super Paper Mario that restores 398 HP and is made by having Dyliss cook a ___ and a ___"; maybe the articles that just CAN'T have any more info than that can be, like, exempt from being stubs or something. (That could even be a proposal...)
  2. Wikiguest - Per YellowYoshi398.
  3. Garlic Man (talk) - Per YY398
  4. Stumpers (talk) Very good point, YellowYoshi. Although I'm not against a big list, I am against a merge because of the exceptions mentioned. How is this list going to tell the story of how the Paper Mario cake lead to Tayce T.'s marriage?

Comments

This is a good proposal; I can tell, because I'm having a hard time deciding what side to vote on. So, good work on that, T4e! ;) While I do agree that a good portion of the recipe articles are stubs, merging all 174 of them into one article...I think that the one big article would be very large and take a while to load. And, each recipe has a different effect...what to vote... Stooben Rooben (talk)

Hmmm, maybe we could have 2 pages. Toadette 4evur (talk)
No, that would just make navigation confusing. Besides, what about the Recipes page? Or do you want something more? Also, we already had a proposal about this a few weeks ago, so I'll reiterate my point form then: the recepies aren't substantial enough for their own articles, the existing Recepies Page is perfectly fine for that; however, the ingrediant/product pages should all list the recepies they are involved with to make it easier to research things concerning them. - Walkazo
Walkazo: We don't want 100-some stub pages. It would be easier to merge them all. Toadette 4evur (talk)
Oh, I get what you're saying now, yeah, totally we don't need the individual recepis pages, I wa salways againt that. But I still think the big list of recepies is enough: it indicates the game the recipe comes from and it has the ingrediants and products; if you want to find out what they do, just use the link. What more is there to write about? - Walkazo
We can merge the info onto the page. Toadette 4evur (talk)
Uh oh, a no solution problem. The articles themselves are too small. But a page with all of them would be too big. And two pages would be weird. I thought about "list of recipes in Paper Mario", "list of recipes in PM:TTYD", etc. But that wouldn't work since some recipes are in both. CrystalYoshi (talk) 10:35, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
Everything could merged onto a table on the Recipes page. We don't need to go into super detail over what an item is, how it works and where to get it. Just how to make it, a note about what it does...maybe how much it sells for. -- Chris 12:06, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
You mean sort of like the Badges page? Stooben Rooben (talk)
Hmmm... when you put it that way, it doesn't sound bad. Maybe I'll vote support when I've thought about it more. CrystalYoshi (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2008 (EDT) And when I'm feeling a bit less lazy.
Great idea, Ghost Jam! I changed the proposal so that we can do that. Toadette 4evur (talk)
Neatness and compactness, all in one page; this is what is needed. Stooben Rooben (talk)

YellowYoshi398: Even if they're officially named, do you want 174 2-4 sentence articles? The badges were officially named, and they are all on one page. Toadette 4evur (talk)

I do feel like they're worthy of articles... And I guess my real point was that there's more to be said about them. I kinda feel the same about Badges, though... YellowYoshi398 (talk)
About 130 of them are stubs, though. We can get rid of all of them by making this one page. Toadette 4evur (talk)
That is a good point... CrystalYoshi (talk) 11:17, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Stumpers: Put that on the Tayce T. article. Toadette 4evur (talk)

Oh yeah, that is an idea... CrystalYoshi (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2008 (EDT) I just can't decide!

Beta Elements

keep beta info on beta elements article only 7-10
I say we put a beta section on each page, so we won't have to go to the beta elements page. Here would be an examlpe for Mario Kart Double Dash!! "This was supposed to be a stage (blahblahblah)"

Proposer: Blue Koop (talk)
Deadline: May 1, 2008, 17:00 EDT

support

  1. Stumpers (talk) What I often find is that by not mentioning beta elements on a game's page, we lose the ability to see how the the game developed and so on. Besides, this proposal doesn't mean the end of the Beta Elements page. I could really see the BE page being a collection of "cream of the crop" Beta Elements while the game articles show all the nitty gritty little details. Or vice versa.
  2. Blue Koop (talk) I say we do this, and for those who oppose saying were going to get rid of the beta elements page if we do do this, were not.
  3. User:Fly Guy 2 I never liked the beta element page.
  4. InfectedShroom (talk) I vote here as long as this means that we do not delete the BE page and simply add sections on other pages.
  5. Pokemon DP (talk) This Proposal is NOT asking to remove the Beta Elements page, people. It is merely asking to add Beta information to the articles they belong on. So quit saying "The Beta Elements page is good, so I'll oppose.", because it is NOT valid, since we are NOT removing the Beta Elements page. Wow, long pointless rant in my vote, eh? =P
  6. HyperToad Per all.
  7. Stooben Rooben (talk) I don't see the harm. And, per my below comment.

oppose

  1. Walkazo - I blearily remember the proposal going the other way on this issue a few months back... Anyway, see below for my real resoning.
  2. Princess Grapes Butterfly (talk) Per all to me just leave the beta elements where it belongs in a nice neat page the is in A B C order.
  3. Goldguy (talk)-Think about it.You can just go to one page to find all the wierd and cool stuff Nintendo has left out of games.
  4. Xzelion (talk) Per All
  5. Green Guy (talk) Per all
  6. MegaMario9910 (talk) Also like SR & IS said. I'm not against your idea, but I always like the Beta Elements page, also. But if we did add beta elements to the pages, it would be in the trivia section. And you know how much Beta Elements are in each game.
  7. Knife (talk) 11:42, 26 April 2008 (EDT) I think it is okay to use both ideas.
  8. Glitchman (talk) No, because some games have only maybe an enemy or a level that are BETA and that's it, so most games don't have enough Beta elements to have its own section on the games page. Better to keep them all on one.
  9. Canama Per all.
  10. User:Meat Knight Frankly I would really just want to read about beta elements in the beta elements section

comments

Hey, Blue Koop, you gonna vote for your own proposal? ;) InfectedShroom (talk)

It all comes down to a question of whether more people will want to read about Beta Elements all together or while they read the specific game articles. The real problem is how much variance there is in the amount of beta elements between games: some have enought for a nice big section, others have a line or two of iffy info. For the latter, it would make more sence to give a link to the section of the Beta Elements page, because there, the information scraps fit in. Plus, it makes writing and editing info on beta elements easier doiwn the road, since they're all in one place and you don't have to go hunting around the various port and remake articles of a game to find the differneces, etc. - Walkazo
Walkazo -- the ports of games have all been combined, with the exception of recreations, such as Super Mario 64 DS and Diddy Kong Racing DS. In the case of recreations, a game had to be remade from scratch to fit a completely different control scheme, so it's not really the same game in terms of the actual programing, as far as my understanding goes. What I'm saying is: with very few exceptions the ports and remakes are on the same pages now. That should ease your trouble a bit. :) Stumpers (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2008 (EDT)
Eh, I don't quite understand what you are trying to get to. You are lecturing Walkazo about game ports... on a proposal about having Beta Elements information on game articles?

Also, the Yoshi's Story page do have a section about Beta Elements. Just want to point that out. Blitzwing (talk)

Yeah, I don't get what you're trying to say about ports and remakes either... anyway, I'm not sure where to vote. I'm leaning toward "oppose" since I don't see a reason for it not to be in one page. CrystalYoshi (talk) 10:28, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
He was talking about the trouble it would be for a reader/editor to track down all of the changes and beta elements made in ports. With recent changes made to the SMA series (merges), I'm pretty sure that problem has been fixed. All the remakes I know of with the exception of two significant ones mentioned in my previous comment are merged. I don't know why I'm summarizing the comments for you, but maybe that makes it easier to understand. Stumpers (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

I don't think this Proposal is asking to remove the Beta Elements page. I think its merely asking to just add Beta Element information to the articles they belong on. Pokemon DP (talk)

Yeah, there are a lot of votes that are inappricable in light of that. But, then again, the proposal is asking for permission to do something that I don't think is banned (see Blitzwing's example). Stumpers (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
Okay, there are 6 oppose votes there that are inapplicable because they either defend the Beta Elements page or per someone who did so. Knife's oppose vote asks for both Beta Elements page and sections on game pages to be present, so it's really a support vote.
People with opposes that are invalid because the beta elements page is not being deleted:
  • Infected Shroom
  • Princess Grapes
  • Goldguy
  • Xzelion (a per all, potentially valid b/c that includes Walkazo's reason)
  • StoobenRooben
  • Green Guy (a per all, potentially valid b/c that includes Walkazo's reason)
  • MegaMario9910
  • Knife (supports both, so is in support of the proposal)
That leaves Walkazo and Glitchman as the only definately solid opposers. Xzelion and Green Guy are also potentially valid, although the question is whether or not they looked at Walkazo's reasoning below or not. Stumpers (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Oh. But is that really necessary? I'm not sure, actually, so I just won't vote. I'll see what the majority thinks. CrystalYoshi (talk) 16:46, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Ah, now I see what you're saying. I'll move my vote. ;) InfectedShroom (talk)

I do support the idea of putting beta elements on game articles where appropriate, but Glitchman has a point: Some games just have too little beta info to make an extra section. But your proposal says to "put a beta section on each page", so in its current wording, I cannot support it, sorry :P Time Q (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

I still think there should be a link. For example:
Paper Mario
Beta Elements
See here.
"Paper Mario" is an example of the page title, while "beta elements" is an example of a sub-header. Stooben Rooben (talk)

Totally, but we sould use that "Main Article" template instead of a normal link. - Walkazo

Smart thinking. Stooben Rooben (talk) I never even thought of that.

Courses and Stages with the Same Name

split 7-5
In many games there are courses that appear multiple times, but have a different layout each time. Take for instance Luigi's Mansion (place). While it's good to have an article about the mansion itself, it also talks about how it appears as a basketball court, a tennis court and a SSBB stage, all of which have different layouts, and are crammed down at the bottom of the page. Meanwhile, something like Mushroomy Kingdom gets its own article, instead of being merged with say Mushroom Kingdom or World 1 (SMB), just because it has an extra letter in its name. Another example is the many Bowser Castle courses. The SMK ones have their own articles just because they're numbered in-game, while the rest all are lumped together, despite not being the same actual course.

What I'm asking is that we split all these courses, stages and such into their own, seperate articles. Recurring courses that don't actually change appearance much or at all, like Final Destination should stay the way they are, since it isn't necessary for that.

Proposer: Booster
Deadline: May 4, 2008, 15:00 EDT

Split

  1. Booster Per above.
  2. InfectedShroom (talk) Per Booster. I've thought about doing this once or twice, especially for Bowser's Castle.
  3. Stumpers (talk) Per Booster. Can you give us a full list of articles this would apply to?
  4. Stooben Rooben (talk) Per Booster.
  5. Glitchman (talk) This is a good idea, part way at least. It might be best to have an article for Luigi's Mansion (place) as it appears in the game of the same name, and then another one for Luigi's Mansion (stage) that talks about its racecourse in MKDS, its basketball stadium in MH3on3, its battle course in MKDD, and it's stage in Brawl. At least two splits.
  6. Canama- Per all.
  7. Plumber (talk) Per InfectedShroom

Don't Split

  1. Garlic Man (talk) Per my comments below.
  2. Walkazo - In theory this seems straightforward and sensible, but all these little articles are going to clutter up the wiki, confuse n00bs, and irritate people who don't enjoy navigating five articles to read about one place and its doppelgängers.
  3. Blitzwing (talk) - Per Walkazo.
  4. Pokemon DP (talk) Per Walkazo and Garlic. One vote CAN make a difference, hopefully.
  5. Ghost Jam (talk) Per Walkazo, Garlic and DP.

Comments

Hmmm, I don't think I quite understand what this is for. If this passes, will Bowser's Castle become Bowser's Castle and Bowser's Castle (stage)? Or will it be Bowser's Castle, Bowser's Castle (MK64), Bowser's Castle (MK:DD), etc.? What I'm asking is, will the pages be split into individual pages for each game, or will they be split into a general article and a course article? CrystalYoshi (talk) 16:33, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

  • It'd be split so that we have a seperate page for each track/course/stage with a shared name. So yes, we'd have Bowser's Castle (MK64), Bowser's Castle (MK:DD), etc. This would include, at the very least:

Peach's Castle
Yoshi's Island (place)
Luigi's Mansion (place)
Bowser Castle includes the numbered ones as well
Rainbow Road
Luigi Circuit
Mario Circuit
Wario Stadium
Rumble Falls
Rainbow Ride (I mean, Cruise)
Kongo Jungle
Jungle Japes
Mushroom Kingdom (stage)
Roof (perhaps just delete the SM64 stuff) -- Booster

Sweet. I completely approve of everything with a possible exception of Peach's Castle. What do you intend to do with it? Stumpers (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

There are two different Smash Bros. stages named Peach's Castle. One from the N64 game, and one from Melee. -- Booster

I'm gonna remain neutral on this. You bring up a very good point, but at the same time, I feel its better to keep all of it merged. I tried to make Mushroomy Kingdom and Mushroom Kingdom one article, but Cobold split them. So, well... I dunno what to vote for. Pokemon DP (talk)

Look at the Luigi's Mansion (place) article. The stage you fight on in Brawl is not the actual mansion itself, since it's much smaller than before, is missing rooms, and is now on a floating platform. It's not the same mansion IMO, and if it is, they did a lot of renovating. I'm not saying we should make an article for, say every castle Bowser has in each game, but for stages with their own features and layouts, then perhaps yes. -- Booster

Its still the same mansion... Even if it does look different, the overall design is still Luigi's Mansion. But, like I said before, I will remain neutral on this. Pokemon DP (talk)

I'm gonna be with DP on this one. CrystalYoshi (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
Okay, I have some reasons to oppose: I see what Booster is trying to say, and it makes sense. However, despite having diffirent features, they represent the same place in the Marioverse. This sorta brings up a point about the other Paper Mario proposal that's going on, but, while having different features, Paper Mario and 3D Mario are the same person, thus the same article. I think the same could be said with Luigi Mansion in LM, MKDS, and Brawl. Garlic Man (talk)
A course dreamed up by Master Hand based off of Princess Peach's Castle is not the same location as the actual Princess Peach's castle. The Smash Bros series worlds are: (original) dreamed up by Master Hand, (Melee) unconfirmed, but in a world where trophies smaller than a human hand battle, and (Brawl) in a completely separate world where trophies BASED off of the Nintendo cast fight. In other words, the Mushroom Kingdom is not the world of trophies/master hand's imagination. Stumpers (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
Actually, I was about to revise my comment, saying that all of the Mario games(Does not inculde crossovers, such as SSB) are the same locations. So, uh, Brawl doesn't count, I guess. But anyway, besides brawl, Luigi Mansion is always the same place in the Marioverse. There aren't 5 Luigi Masnions out there. Garlic Man (talk)
That's good. Still, though, you remember the end of Luigi's Mansion, right? It turns out to have been a spectral illusion or something crazy like that made by King Boo. After he is defeated and the Boos leave, the mansion disappears. To avoid speculation, we can't say that Luigi's Mansion is the same place everywhere because of this. It would be best just to admit the inconsistency and let Nitnendo explore it at their leisure rather than assuming they are the same place. Stumpers (talk) 00:17, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
Luigi's Mansion may not be the best example, but you can't tell me that every Rainbow Road track is the same course. Also compare Luigi's Mansion from the Luigi's Mansion game itself, the Double Dash Battle course, and the DS Racetrack. Yes, they're all called Luigi's Mansion, and look similar, but with that logic you could say that several Burger King locations are all the same place. -- Booster
I figure: if they are different courses we should have a different article regardless - their differences are the only official word we have on the connection between subjects... arg, Nintendo! Why can't you make clear cut continuity decisions! Stumpers (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
Garlic Man and Walkazo have good points, I'm starting to lean towards oppose... CrystalYoshi (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
In response to Walkazo, we'll use disambiguation pages to make navigation easier for all. I can't imagine things getting all that complex. -- Booster

I have to agree with Garlic and Walkazo on this. Sorry, Booster... Pokemon DP (talk)

Don't be sorry for having an opinion! ;) Anyway, just about Garlic Man's comment, I was thinking that the reason this is different from the Paper Mario/Mario thing is that these are separate completely different courses, not just visual changes. You know, like the Luigi's Mansion course in Double Dash is a battle course while the one in DS is a racecourse. And, just because something has the same name has made no difference in the past: Toad v. Toad (species), Yoshi v. Yoshi (species), Super Mario World v. Super Mario World (cartoon), Magikoopa v. Kamek (same name in Japanese versions), Birdo v. Birdo (species)... the list goes on... oh, yeah: Super Mario Bros. v. Super Mario Bros. (movie). Stumpers (talk) 23:47, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

Can't we at least split up the racetracks? Their layouts are never consistent. -- Booster

At the very least, I believe it is unbalanced that certain tracks have their own articles while others don't. And its also confusing with the templates. Stumpers (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
Spitting the the racetracks would be fine, I guess... I just don't know where to vote... CrystalYoshi (talk)
Stumpers has a point, but I still don't think splitting up all the conglomerate articles is the best way to deal with it. As long as the information is there, who cares if it's in its own aricle or part of a bigger one? For the templates, include the merged courses and have them link to the sections of the main articles that deal with them, that should clear that inconsistancy up. That way, people reading about the race tracks or whatever can navigate easily as can the ones reading about one specific place; it's a win-win situation.
And as for Booster's disambiguation point, it's needless hastle. It would be just as easy to include all the Bowser's Castle courses together in one page (along with the stadiums and whatever) instead of having a disambig page linking to something like 8 short, synonymously-named pages. Plus, when people search for plain "Bowser's Castle (course)" they get a redirect, and it's all a big mess.
As for the argument that they're all different, Bowser's Castle is different in every game its appeared in, but does that mean we should have seperate artciles for each incarnation? No. That's overkill. But in the face of all the courses' articles that will look very inconsistant. - Walkazo

Toads

keep separate 1-11
Hiya. With the recently release of Sper Smash Bros. Brawl and Super Mario Galaxy, I would like to make a shocking proposal: merge Toad with Toads. Though it makes me ache to say it, Toad is no longer a valid character. Yoshi still has enough separateness to have his own article, in fact I think the "Yoshi-Yoshi's" conundrum has actually ben mentioned by Yoshi once or twice, but look at the Toad trophy in SSBB! It makes no attempt to divide the character from the species. The biggest problem is that the articles will suffer from us not being sure whether a certain red spotted mushroom man was THE Toad or A Toad.... I know this is not a very well written proposal, but you get what I'm trying to say right?

Proposer: Ultimatetoad
Deadline: May 4, 2008, 15:00 EDT

Merge Toad with Toads

  1. Ultimatetoad

Keep as is

  1. Toadette 4evur (talk) Merging is only for articles that don't have enough info to have it's own article. Toad has enough info to stay separate, plus, he is a major Toad like Toadette and Toadsworth.
  2. InfectedShroom (talk) The two pages are much different, and Toad used to be a major character in and of himself, before there were the other ones.
  3. Booster Toad is still a unique character, despite getting fewer and fewer roles over the years. Even if he were forgotten entirely doesn't mean we should drop his article. And he did make an appearance at the start of Super Paper Mario, for what that's worth.
  4. CrystalYoshi (talk) Come on, Toad is a character! There's a species just like him, but there's still one with a red cap in a blue vest who's Princess Peach's main attendant and has helped Mario out since Super Mario Bros. 2. And plus both articles have a lot of info.
  5. Stooben Rooben (talk) All the other characters/species are separate, thus, Toad should be too.
  6. MegaMario9910 (talk) If we do this, we'll have an article too big. Toad has a whole page to himself, and the speceis have their own. If the speceis was merged, then we'd have no clue which was the actual Toad.
  7. Canama- There's still a seperate character named Toad.
  8. Cobold (talk) - There might be no clearly definable character Toad in modern games. But that doesn't take the character Toad out of earlier games such as SMB2.
  9. Stumpers (talk) Took the text right out of my keys, Cobold. I'd like to add the DiC cartoons and the movie to the list of sources he is a character in.
  10. Walkazo - Per all. Besides, plenty of other characters have been AWOL for years too, if we scrap Toad's artcile, we'd have to can half the Wiki.
  11. CountBlumiere - Per all. Donkey Kong Jr. hasn't been in any games recently, but we aren't merging him with Donkey Kong.

Comments

Infected, You realize that I'm not actually saying we should merge Toad just with Toads, but that they both be deleted and a combination page of both be written, a page that has info on the species and the (questionable) character. Frankly, I don't think there is a character anymore, thats why I made this proposal. - Ultimatetoad

Ultimatetoad, don't forget to add a reason for your vote, even if you're the proposer. Toadette, I think you got the proposal wrong; what Ultimatetoad is trying to say is that there's no difference between the character Toad and the species Toad. Thus your reason "the Toad (Species) article is only for generic Toads" doesn't make much sense. Time Q (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Ultimatetoad: Yes, I realize that. You just made it sound like you wanted to merge one with the other. I'll change my oppose. InfectedShroom (talk)

Why to merge Toad and Toads? If there was a person named human, you wouldn't merge him with Human (species) because they have the same name. Think of it that way. And Toad's a valid character, although he doesn't play many roles now. CrystalYoshi (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2008 (EDT) He's still referred to "Toad", not just "A Toad"...

Hypertoad: "I don't think there is a character anymore," Like what, he died? XP - Walkazo (Super Paper Mario proves otherwise)

He's in Mario Kart Wii too. :/ Seriously, even if he wasn't a character anymore, he was at one point, leaving enough reason to keep his article separate from the species' article. Stooben Rooben (talk) 18:24, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
Good point Walkazo. And on the same note, even if he died, that doesn't automatically make him the same as Toad the species. [[User:|]] ([[User talk:|talk]])

Count Blumiere's vote is actually about something else, since I think DK Jr. is the same guy as Donkey Kong. But that's a different issue. CrystalYoshi (talk)

Actually, he's right on-topic. DK Jr.'s been phased out of the Marioverse in recent years, and since the current Donkey Kong is Jr. all grown-up, it would make sence to merge the two articles if we were going along with this proposal's position on such matters. - Walkazo
Then we'd have to merge Dr. Mario, Mario, and Baby Mario. There's no end to the implications of this proposal. Stumpers (talk) 00:23, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
No, I'm just saying that DK Jr.'s article talks about him as if he isn't the current Donkey Kong, when they're actually the same character. But I'm not going to get into that here, it's off-topic... CrystalYoshi (talk) 09:32, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

I understand much of the opposition here, but this is actually a simplicity issue (per my reason for the proposal) how can we tell if A Toad is the Toad? I'll use the Red-capped Toad from Sunshine & Galaxy as an example: both of the characters have fairly lrge roles, but there never reffered to as the Toad. The information will be less debatable if we can write about the species and character on the same page. The Toad character has not "died": he simply seems to have been retconne. If the entire species has the same name as the character, than we have no proof that ANY Toad referred to as Toad is the Toad and not a Toad.... get it? - Ultimatetoad

Well, THE Toad has a red cap and a blue vest. That marks the difference. Toadette 4evur (talk)

Yep. Just what I was going to say. And plus, who's the playable Toad in the spin-off games? Just some random Toad? Nope, it's the one who's important: Toad. CrystalYoshi (talk) 08:10, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, the blue vest tthing is silly: thats like saying it's impossible for him to change his clothes, plus last time I checked plenty of random red toads were wearing blue vests in the PM series. As for the spinoff thing, yeah probably, but nobody can actually prove thats it's not a random Toad, or even that they were all the same Toad. - Ultimatetoad


Paper Mario

no separate article 1-17
Is Paper Mario a seperate character from Mario? If so should we make a seperate article for Paper Mario Just asking.

Proposer:Dragonson
Deadline: May 4, 2008, 15:00 EDT

Support

  1. Nintendofan146 14:51, 29 April 2008 (EDT) Paper Mario is Mario in 2-D graphics; however, Nintendo has them as different characters ; use the Brawl trophies.

Oppose

  1. Blitzwing (talk) He's Mario, nuff said. If we makes a separate article for Paper Mario, we should do the same for 3D Mario, Super Smash Bros. Mario, Godawful Movie Mario, Hotel Mario Mario, Mama Luigi... Ect.
  2. Glitchman (talk) Per the Winging-Blitz :P
  3. CrystalYoshi (talk) He's just Mario, after getting a magic spell making him 2D... just kidding. Per Blitzwing. Besides, what is there to say about Paper Mario? People expect the information about him in Paper Mario games to be in his own article.
  4. InfectedShroom (talk) Per the lighning wing.
  5. Stumpers (talk) It's just an art style change. On a related note, Blitzwing's comment about separating SSB Mario isn't a good oppose: according to Sakurai, it's trophies fighting in Brawl. The Mario of the main series isn't a trophy, so technically they are two different people... but a separate character doesn't always mean a separate article (Ashley and Red), so that's why they're still together in one article.
  6. Girrrtacos The Mario from SMB2 is the same Mario as SM64, just as Paper Mario.
  7. Pokemon DP (talk) Even if its alternate canon (I still think the RPG's is official canon, but others disagree), Paper Mario is still Mario. This isn't Legend of Zelda, ya know.
  8. Stooben Rooben (talk) A person is a person, no matter how small. Mario is Mario, no matter what form.
  9. Paper Mario doesn't qualify as a form or seperate character IMO. Just keep it as is -- Booster
  10. User:Byfordej Per All
  11. Bob-omb buddy (talk)-Paper mario is just mario but in a different form.
  12. Canama- Same 'ol Mario
  13. Darth Waluigi 19:18, 29 April 2008 (EDT) It's just Mario with a different art style. It's still him. Seperate Brawl trophies means nothing, or else Striker Mario is a different character too.
  14. GreenKoopa - Thats like seperating SMB3 mario from SM64 mario because of the different style.
  15. Walkazo - Per all.
  16. Princess Grapes Butterfly (talk) .....k? Mario just Mario no matter what form he is and even if he's paper his it does mean his a "tranformed" different charater. (Same persona, same person.)
  17. user:Meat Knight Though I do love Paper Mario very much, in the end, he's still just Mario.

Comments

Stumper: Eh, never heard of a wonderful thing called "No taking things literally"? I was taking SSB Mario as an example, no needs to lecture me about him being a different character blablablablab but that he is merged because blablabla. That's really annoying. --Blitzwing 06:51, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Actually, the proposals thing is about taking things literally, so you shouldn't take offense at being "lectured" when I'm trying to clarify your point for people who haven't voted yet. Stumpers (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Not that I don't agree with you guys, but then, WHAT ABOUT Dr. Mario?!?!1111///1 HyperToad

Well, Gameplay-wise, Dr. Mario is a different character from Mario because of his appearance in Super Smash. Bros. Melee. --Blitzwing 16:39, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Uh oh, HyperToad is right... CrystalYoshi (talk) P.S. Blitzwing, please try to talk to Stumpers in a nicer way.

HyperToad: Although Dr. Mario is a seperate article, it's one of Mario's personas. Paper Mario, on the otehr hand, is him without a different job and costume. The only difference is the art style.Darth Waluigi 19:23, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Ha Ha! Mario's Schizophrenic! LOL! But seriously, I've been irritated by "Dr. Mario" for years, and while I'd fully support moving him to the main Mario page, I have a feeling that won't fly. Which is unreasonable. It's been stated they're the same guy, only one time he's acting like a doctor and the other time he's acting like a plumber... or a demolitionist... or a kart, stunt-bike or motorcycle racer... or a soccer, hockey, baseball, basketball, golf or tennis player... or a fireman, party host or ring-leader... or a juggler... so... what exacly, besides the name, sets Dr. Mario apart? The "both forms of Mario fight in SSB" isn't too good since Baby Mario's also been around at the same time as adult Mario, so the time-space continuum obviously doesn't apply to spin-offs. - Walkazo ...or a teacher... or a factory-head/company owner... or a chef...

Just to ask, why do we have a Toon Link article. It's like everyone else said Toon Link is just a different artstyle. So why do we have Toon link as a article.Dragonson 20:29, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, in the article it seems like he's a different guy than Link, and also he's a separate playable character. CrystalYoshi (talk)

Well, I'm not an expert on the Zelda continuum so Toon Link might be officially seperate from his more realistic counterpart. Otherwise, the fact he's playable along-side normal Link means squat, since they're all trophies brought to life, or whatever, and there are lots of cases where there's multiple trophies for a single character. Therefore, if that's the only reason there's two artciles, I say, merge 'em. - Walkazo

Paper Mario is different cos' he's made of Paper, not Polygons. </RudnickiMarioX06> lol, but, honestly, that's a pathetic logic. Toon Link and Link are different. The Link in Brawl is from Twilight Princess, which tooks place several thousand(?) years before Wind Waker. Toon Link is a DIFFERENT Link, who appeared WAAAAAAY after Twilight Princess Link. The Legend of Zelda is jam packed with different Link's; Just check Toon Link's codec. THAT'S why they have their own articles; that, and they are seperate playable characters. So you can't compare Link/Toon Link with Mario/Paper Mario. Pokemon DP (talk)

Oh, so it's like different generations of Link? Then yeah, it's totally not like Paper Mario, instead, the comparison should be made to Donkey Kong (Cranky) and Donkey Kong (Jr.)... maybe. Anyway, thanks for the enlightenment! - Walkazo

Yeah, it cannot be compared. Shigeru Miyamoto has officially stated there are different generations of Link's, and each Link is different. If I may, please, borrow a joke from BJAODN, Paper Mario is a paper Mario. It's true. Paper Mario is merely Mario in a paperish form; Nothing more. And, your welcome, Walkazo. =P Pokemon DP (talk)

DP: lol. Anyway, how do Donkey Kong, Cranky and DK Jr. come into this? I don't really understand that. CrystalYoshi (talk) 08:18, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

That's a different story, me thinks. This ain't the place for it... Or maybe it is, if it is relevant to the Proposal. Pokemon DP (talk)