MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/23



Change categories such as "Category:Beta elements" to "".
DELETED &mdash; Proposer was banned

From what I hear, the beta elements pages were created because it was too difficult for the reader to find beta elements unless they were split out. This way, articles can be meatier and less forked, and readers can still find the relevant content. This proposal would affect all related categories and articles related to those categories such as Category:Glitches, and would result in the subpages being merged, such as Mario's Tennis/Beta elements. {{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|NARCE}} Voting start: 12 July, 2010 21:16 Deadline: 19 July, 2010 21:16

Support

 * 1) As the proposal creator.

Oppose

 * 1) Useless. How can an article have beta elements?
 * 2) Well, there is no point in changing the name by two letters, and merging the "subpages" would cause some pages to double in length with information that works well in separate articles. Also, it would take a good amount of time to move the information, the current setup has worked with new and old users, that is why this proposal lacks a point.
 * 3) - Pointless.
 * 4) - Per all. The current set-up works just fine.
 * 5) It'll just make it longer to tye in. Basically useless
 * 6) Per Baby Mario Bloops' comment.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) - This would be completely pointless. Per all.
 * 9) I am Zero! Very pointless and per all. Zero signing out.
 * 10) - Per all.
 * 11) - We decided in an earlier proposal that they would have their own pages.
 * 12) Per all.
 * 13) -Merging the pages is useless. The way the pages are now makes everything more organized and easy to browse through. Per all.
 * 14) - If this had been here when I first got my account, i would support. Now i know more, i've learned enough to know the answer should be no,it works fine. Per Pseudo-Dino, Not Bugsy, and 4DJONG.
 * 15) - Per all. If we made that it would be just history of pages we made.

Comments
Why?
 * This is one of the times I can easily say "Good Point" to you, KS3. We don't need the Articles with part as it is just extra and we don't need the extra.

Well, I concur with you both because the first two words in the proposed name are pointless.
 * Looking at Mario, size doesn't seem to be a problem with MarioWiki articles. To say that there is no point in creating a more concise article is absurd - it would factually improve them, and whatever ones aren't improved by the measure can easily remain split out on a case-by-case basis. The whole reason the split-off sections exist was to more easily categorize them. This, factually, solves the problem of categorization. Is it a problem if a category doesn't sport some amaazingly flashy name? - NARCE 04:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have made your assertion invalid.
 * Actually, it didn't, at all. The assertion was that we had to split these articles out because it was difficult to find such beta content/glitches/etc. This is an acceptable, logical fix to that problem. The proposal is to make articles like Yoshi's Island into a little more than a bunch of lists, which it currently is. Beta elements and glitches are two of the things that, if added, could make that article WAY more interesting. But as it stands, people have to navigate away from the page constantly in order to get a full experience. Splitting these articles out in the first place was pointless - changing categories and merging articles doesn't have to be done overnight, and can be done by multiple people. To the person who said that it would take longer to type in, that's simply not true. As it stands, if one searches for Glitches, they go to Category:Glitches. If one searches for Beta elements, they go to Category:Beta elements. Why would it have to change? If someone searches for Glitches, they can still go to the category. It would be no more difficult than if it stayed at the current title. Basically, the proposal seeks to have more concise articles, rather than have all of the sections forked off. And again, to the point that it would make them too big: I've never seen anywhere where someone would suggest forking an article off because of size. Mario is incredibly large, but no one has said anything. SMW2 is surprisingly small, and could be made larger if relevant content were moved back. However, there is no way to move it back, because of a proposal that argues that because the category is worded that way, content related to glitches or beta elements may not be in the main articles. As opposed to having a strong article, we have a weak article with two subarticles. It's silly. If the amount of effort required is a problem, I can do it all myself. It shouldn't matter if it's pointless if it doesn't affect anyone else, and the amount of time doesn't matter because I'm fine doing it over time. It is not as if the new proposal would confuse readers - they would surely adapt immediately. The only contention is the page length problem, and again, such a thing may be handled on a case-by-case basis. If it does indeed make the article too long, agreed, it should be split out. But for some content where it is just a few sentences, especially when the main article is small, then we ought to definitely merge it back in. As it stands, opposing the measure feels like opposition for the sake of opposition. - NARCE 20:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait a second. That doesn't sound right at all... Seriously, ARTICLES can't have beta elements. Name one that does.
 * Mario's Tennis/Beta elements

Well NARCE, there are no short game articles, and the situation with SMG2 could be fixed with adding more content, doesn't have to be Beta elements. Also, this would affect all game pages and glitches, if you merge the beta elements of one game with the games page, you have to do it with all game pages, some of which are rather long pages, and merging long pages with long pages makes monitoring the article a nightmare for Patrollers and Admins. Plus you say "it shouldn't matter if its pointless" but, it does, if you make a moderate article long through pointless measures, it is not necessary. If something is pointless it is not logical.
 * No, we don't HAVE to do it with ALL of them. That is broken logic that has NO place in an argument. If it negatively affects the quality of an article, then it can be avoided. Do you people not have guidelines? Policies and guidelines are two different things. Policies are to be enforced at all times, while guidelines are to be enforced when the situation calls for it. If a guideline would be detrimental to the quality of an article, it is to be ignored. But your stance is that because of the exception of articles, not the majority of them, that it should not be enforced on any articles. Mario's Tennis can use as much content as it gets, and yet we're forking the information off for no reason. And as for your argument that SMW2 [not G2] is not small, yes, it's not small by stub standards. But why is it shorter than the Wikipedia article? Logically, Wikipedia should have less content for its articles than a website that is focused on the related subject, true? - NARCE 02:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Well NARCE, we have to do it with all articles because it is one of our policies, ask Steve, and it would be very hard for anyone check for vandalism. Also, we do have guidelines but they are different from what you seem to think they are, I advise you to check over our policies. We can not simply ignore our policies, we have to follow them, and you say that it is "broken logic," then why is it a policy. I can not make this clearer, check over our policies again. }}

Stricter featured article standards.
DELETED &mdash; Proposer was banned

From looking through some of the FACs, as well as some of the articles already featured, I've seen that not one article actually passes the criteria presented in MarioWiki's FA standards. Let's examine them, and let's use the most recent article - Mario Power Tennis - as an example.

  1. …be well-written and detailed. - Not the worst writing, but it could be improved significantly in both flow and how it presents itself. But the problem with this point is that it is not detailed. Gameplay and plot-wise? Yes. But it does not educate the reader of how it came into being, nor does it tell readers how much it sold, or how the critics received it.

  2. …be unbiased, non-point of view. - Not a major problem, but I did notice some instances where the writer[s] give their own POV, such as suggesting that Wario and Waluigi being injured in the commission of their evil scheme was unfortunate [whereas someone may object and say that because they only got injured by their own evil design, they got what they deserved].

  3. …be sourced with all available sources and Mario-related appearances. - And here's the kicker. Some may argue that it is sourced in that it has A source, but that's not acceptable. This criteria clearly expects an article to be fully referenced. As it is, almost every article fails this standard, save for some like the "list of Zess T. recipes", whose source is obviously the game.

  6. …have a proper lead that gives a good summary of the topic and can be used for the front page featured box. - The lead does not mention who created the game [the person, not the company], how well it was received, and mentions the Wii version as an important aspect, when the Wii version should be mentioned at the end, as this article is about the GameCube version.

  8. …have significant information from all sources and appearances, especially a biography for character articles. - Aside from development and reception info, it is fairly significant, but it fails this criteria in that it doesn't take from any sources.

Without any criticism of what is there - such as the bloopers, which, as a Wikipedian, I'm not a fan of them being there, but I do understand that this is supposed to be a "complete Wiki", and as such, they should be there - I can say that what isn't there absolutely guarantees that is is not ready for featured status. I think people take it too seriously - first and foremost, writing a quality article is priority over being praised for it. There are rules put in place to prevent people from successfully featuring more than three articles. Seriously - take pride in your work, not the award you get for it.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|NARCE}} Voting start: 12 July, 2010 22:42 Deadline: 19 July, 2010 22:42

Support

 * 1) As the proposal creator.

Oppose

 * 1) Useless, and thats way too strict. That would make us have to unfeature alot of our previous featured articles.
 * 2) - Everything you have proposed just now is basically already in the FA rules. The "problem" here is that FA nominations contain a voting process, and as such, they are subjective. The reason why these articles get featured despite their flaws is because there were, are, and always will be people who just aren't so strict with rules, and as such, are more indulgent with the nominated articles. Your proposal will not change the people's hearts, and therefore, it is pointless.
 * 3) - Nothing is ever perfect to everyone. That is why we have the voting system. If you do this, then it is like impossible for an FA to become a FA.
 * 4) What they're standards are fine.
 * 5) Per all
 * 6) Per Booderdash.
 * 7) Well, all of it is already in the the FA rules, and there are many people who are not as strict with the rules as you. Also, the rules are subjective with every article in the Wiki, every article has different problems and strengths, some are minor some major, there is a difference between what really needs to be fixed and what you can fix on your own. If there were only strict people running the process, there would be no featured articles, that is why this proposal is useless.
 * 8) The standards are perfectly fine...
 * 9) Per Edofenrir and Gamefreak75.
 * 10) - No featured article is perfect, and just apply these rules only lead that all our articles are horribly made.
 * 11) Per all.

Comments
Man, you make too many proposals x.x
 * You can never have too many legitimate proposals. - NARCE 16:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Legitimate"? What's wrong with the FA standards now? Have you really seen FA's that actually do not follow at least one rule? And of those articles, which of them are currently or have been nominated for unfeaturing? We don't need to expand the rules, we understand the rules, and we have a excellent rule system for FA's.
 * The problem with the FA standards is that people use a case-by-case standard that they wish to apply whenever a favourite game or character or element is up for FA. The FA standards are almost never enforced in any meaningful way. And it's "like impossible"? Why is it impossible, when it frequently works on Wikipedia? The nomination process is basically "do you like this character? y/n" for a lot of people who will vote the worst article FA if they like the subject. And to the notion that there is any problem with the defeaturing of the articles... how are articles helped by keeping them featured? Having such a mediocre standard for featuring encourages mediocrity. The voting system is easily fixed by removing it as an outright vote. I see peoples' opinions being removed by opposition because they argue that it has been already addressed or that their point does not matter. The whole process is ruthlessly stacked in favour of featuring an article. - NARCE 04:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed that NARCE has been making a lot of proposals and hasn't actually formatted them right.

I concur, and NARCE some votes are like that but, not all of the votes are like that. Most of the time I see a FA nomination it is full of meaningful votes.
 * Why shouldn't all votes be like that? This isn't a popular vote, it's based on the quality of the article. If we had 100 people vote and say "I sure do like Birdo, she's neat", by the current rules, it would pass, even if the article didn't fulfill any of the criteria once it was examined. The featuring feature will eventually be reformed. Would you rather it happen after we feature many more articles, or would you rather fix it as soon as possible? - NARCE 20:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, we have one support reason and a group of people who agree with it, and there are no votes against it saying that they hate the object in question, so this proposal is pointless.
 * Yeah. Good point. If more people are against it, then it cannot be enacted into rules. Because if we let the people vote on interracial marriage, I'm sure that the fact that the popular vote was against it wouldn't prevent it from being legalized. Correct?
 * You have a reason - doesn't mean it's a good one. Why don't I go down the list of what people say and I will gladly explain why they do not work in this.


 * "Useless, and thats way too strict. That would make us have to unfeature alot of our previous featured articles." - An emotional response, not a logical one. It is not too strict. It's adhering to the rules of the MarioWiki. This doesn't even need a proposal - it's already how the Wiki is supposed to work. However, because popularity determines quality nowadays, people ignore the rules to see that their favourite article gets featured. As it stands, it's not too strict because the way things are, it's WAY too lenient. To enforce these rules would make the situation exactly how it should be.
 * "Everything you have proposed just now is basically already in the FA rules. The "problem" here is that FA nominations contain a voting process, and as such, they are subjective. The reason why these articles get featured despite their flaws is because there were, are, and always will be people who just aren't so strict with rules, and as such, are more indulgent with the nominated articles. Your proposal will not change the people's hearts, and therefore, it is pointless." - Basically agreeing that the policies are taken into account. The proposal is not pointless, as clearly, if the rules aren't enforced, they aren't rules. All that would have to be done is for the people in charge to say "Hey, this article fails [so and so] rule, it cannot be featured despite votes." In doing so, the proposal is given point.
 * "Nothing is ever perfect to everyone. That is why we have the voting system. If you do this, then it is like impossible for an FA to become a FA." - This is clearly not true. There needs to be more effort in featuring articles. Heck, in looking at the lead for Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story, I notice some immediate flaws with the lead. And it's clearly not impossible by the fact that the MUCH stricter Wikipedia has thousands of featured articles.
 * "What they're standards are fine." - I'm not sure what this means, but I assume it means "What? Their standards are fine." To which I respond with no. I've done a bevy of examining, and I frequently see people defend themselves from criticisms of grammar. People get far too sensitive to criticism, and really should be tougher.
 * "Well, all of it is already in the the FA rules, and there are many people who are not as strict with the rules as you. Also, the rules are subjective with every article in the Wiki, every article has different problems and strengths, some are minor some major, there is a difference between what really needs to be fixed and what you can fix on your own. If there were only strict people running the process, there would be no featured articles, that is why this proposal is useless." - Perhaps there would be some awkwardness in the changeover, but your acts attempt to keep the quality of the articles down. With such low standards for quality - frequently I will see a vast majority of support from people based on the sheer size or number of images, and I will go through and notice typos, grammatical errors, etc. I understand that the editors are young - not to sound critical, as when I used to edit here I remembered there being a lot of people in their tweens/early teens. If we keep with lenient rules, without being more strict about quality, we encourage mediocrity. The harder we are on editors to provide quality in order to achieve something - especially something considered a high honour - the more people will work to improve. Really, in the end, it's the person expecting hard work and not the person protecting them from it that is helping. Improvement can only come from effort. - NARCE 02:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Narce, once again, you're mixing Wikipedia up with Mariowiki. The standards are fine for MARIOWIKI. The standards on wikipedia has to be higher because more people edit it so of course its going to need alot stricter standards. Not Mariowiki, and we don't even have 1/1000th of Wikipedia articles anyways. Our pages are usually shorter. Its like the Kirby wikia. They're featured article standard are MUCH smaller than even ours. Its relative
 * Our standards our excellent here. The problem is that we don't enforce them, at all. In allowing a system that focuses on votes, not actual statements, as well as the popular vote being able to oust the opposition if they so choose, it denies the ability to make a quality article. There is no encouragement to be found for people to improve themselves, merely celebrating mediocrity. Not to suggest that the articles are mediocre, but the fact of the matter is that they are far weaker than they can and should be. - NARCE 06:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

"sigh" The popular vote thing. Yeah, thats life. You think I don't know about it? But the good think is that it rarely happens here. Yes it DOES happen but rarely.

I concur, and NARCE, give me an example of a bad FA nomination that didn't take place years ago.
 * Half of the FAs that are going on? I went through the M&LBiS article, and found numerous errors in the first two paragraphs. - NARCE 21:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You edited the part that came directly from the instruction book, that's why.
 * And there was even a typo in that content.
 * Oh, thank you for reminding me. In the first two paragraphs of an article that was very likely to become featured was a copyright violation. - NARCE 21:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually Booderdash, the Kirby Wikia is going to have much higher standards, but probably a little looser than those of the MarioWiki since we are a smaller wiki.

Really you mean this?: this? That is WAY smaller than the Mariowiki! Or this- wikirby which is SMALLER than the wikia version!


 * Yup, there haven't been many Kirby games, so it's definitely smaller in size. And the first one. --

" And it's clearly not impossible by the fact that the MUCH stricter Wikipedia has thousands of featured articles."

It also is way older, has a much broader scope, is read by about 180+ millions people daily, and has about a million of users. Not exactly the best comparison. --Glowsquid 21:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)}}

Remove the fake "New Messages" boxes.
Passed 22-2

Yes, I know this was said before, but it was never inforced. You know how sometimes onuserpages there are fake "new messages" boxes? Well, they annoy me, and ot just me. Like once, we had to babysit our neighbor, and, when i clicked on the link on 's page, a loud, annoying video popped up, resulting in the baby crying from its nap, and having a fit. Another one had a disturbing picture of a camel that was innapropriatte for little kids. Since nobody did anything about, and for the other stuff I said, i think we should take some action.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|BluePikminKong497}} Voting Start: 21:11, 10 July 2010 Deadline: 23:59, 16 July 2010

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) - I think the proposal description explains perfectly why this is not just a stupid joke. It tricks users by messing with basic wiki mechanics. These pranks can break people's trust in the page mechanics, and this is where it stops being funny, and just becoes a nuisance. Per the proposal.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) - Per all. Per the old proposal.
 * 5) Althrough I don't get angry when I get tricked and rick rolled, if this makes most users angry, then it's a wise thing to support. Also, per Edo, using the wiki tools for pranks is kinda destrubing.
 * 6) Per all. It's very annoying. If they want to include them, then they should put it somewhere else on the page.
 * 7) Fake messages are easy to identify (never got tricked), but it's annoying. If someone must have a fake message box, at least he/she should alter it so people can easily distinguish it. (I.e. You DO NOT have a new message) or something like that.
 * 8) Per LeftyGreenMario.
 * 9) - Per LGM with the differences. I mean, some people might be awaiting a message, and they are searching through user's pages, and they find the fake message box. They click it not realizing it is fake as it is worded the same as a message box, and they are rick-rolled. They are annoying, immature, stupid, a waste of a user's time..............
 * 10) I know some users who have them, and it's pretty annoying. (I used to have one, but someone made me delete it.) Per all.
 * 11) This rule should be enforced. I HATE those boxes. I get excited when I see them, but then, I just realize, oh my god, it's just another of those fake boxes. Rawr. You can't fool me. It's just ANNOYING. So I say we KILL, EXPLODE, and EAT those boxes. Every one of them. No survivors.
 * 12) At first I thought this wasn't necessary but after another look I see how annoying it is. Per all
 * 13) Per all.
 * 14) Per all.
 * 15) Per all. And, um, Tucayo, it might be true that WE could recognize them, but a completely new user NOT.
 * 16) If your like me you'll click on it anyway. Curiosity killed the user... Per all.
 * 17) Per all. Yes, all. Every single one of them. ALL of them! PER ALL!!!
 * 18) - Per all.
 * 19) Per all.
 * 20) Per all.
 * 21) - Never used that, but this would justify the odd purpose for those boxes. Per All.
 * 22) - There is no reason for this template to exist. Per all.

Oppose

 * 1) - Stupid, annoying, pointless. But that's never been a great reason to remove something.
 * 2) - Your case is one in a million. If you are smart enough you can see they are fake. They are a joke, have some sense of humor.

Comments
I just went under the the tedious procedure of digging through all our proposal archives to find the proposal that addressed this issue earlier. It can be found here. This new proposal might be a good way to double-check if the points made in the past still are valid in the eyes of today's userbase. -

It should be called "Enforce the Rule" proposal, like how there is the "Enforce the No-Sig policy" proposal. Anyway, it's easy to tell between a fake message box and real ones, but fake message boxes are annoying still.

I saw a TON of sysops with them though. Tucayo for one, but there was alot more "contributive" people who had them.


 * @Booderdash: Sorry to say this, but try to get your facts straight before saying that. First of all, Tucayo is not a Sysop anymore. Second, not a single Sysop or Patroller has that up on their User Page, as I just went through the list. And, I mean, the more contributive people that have it, it goes to like "Special:Mypage" to where it is not as bad as other things it could be. BTW: My opinions are made clear in the proposal before that Edo linked.


 * Baby Mario Bloops, he had it when he was STILL a sysop though. ANd I remember some other people who had it.
 * @Booderdash: Yeah, I realized that. Also, I made it clear that you point out had. Many users have removed it after the first proposal, and yet some still keep theirs. This proposal is a enforcement to make sure that all those fake message boxes get removed.
 * Most of the users didn't hear about the proposal, especially the new ones. I was inactive during the time. Also Ks3, how could Blof make you remove it? You didn't have to, at least yet, but she asked you to.
 * Meh, I kinda liked those boxes. Its mostly just a rickroll but much more harmless. Its a sophisticated kind of humor.
 * You have a rather uncommon definition of "sophisticated humor". -
 * Probably, yet then why is rickrolling such a popular fad on most websites?
 * @Booderdash: I remembered she gave me a reminder or warning of some sort.
 * Nooope. I just told you to remove it.

Sophistication is in no way proportional to popularity. Those two things are entirely different values. On the contrary, actually; Sophisticated humor tends to reject the majority of people. Therefore, most popular jokes are those that are more rudimentary. But this isn't subject of this proposal. -
 * I still don't see whats so bad about it. I mean especially if you just changed it to Special:Random or something like that. I would get how getting transferred to another website might irritate you, but if you just stay on this site, I would think its ok. Besides some of you guys are taking it way too seriously. Its just a harmless joke especially if it doesn't lead you away from this site. The deleted page archive in MY opinion is much more unfunny than the fake message box.

Many people have even said my fake template is really funny. And it is unoffensive. One link leads to a funny, UNOFFENSIVE page, and the ptehr one to Game Over. I don't see any harm in that.

Exactly what Tucayo said. There is absolutly no harm in this. Plus, it teaches a valuable lesson:Don't get too excited and click random things. That can get you viruses. Also, if you're running away from a giant boulder and you see a wallet on the floor, are you going to get it? besides if you were already on someones USERPAGE, you would probably be in a very social mood, which I would think tolerate fake message boxes.

Those fake messages do not cause harm, just some people can't take a joke. However, if the link leads to a screamer or a scary picture, or some meture contents, or something that harms your computer. It'll be a good thing to remove those. I only supported becuse it's a wiki tool.

It's a joke all right. It's funny the first time you see it. But once it starts pooping (haha) up everywhere, it starts getting terribly UNFUNNY and UNCOOL. And it NEVER makes me laugh or tricks me. I came to people's userpages to learn about the user, not to get "tricked". And "many people" is not "all people." If the message leads to somewhere funny, so be it. I don't care. I just hate to see that stupid, fake, orange box when I expect a new message.

Well, its ok if it doesn't make you laugh, its just a thing. You don't have to think its funny. You just have to leave it. Like your pooping joke wasn't funny, but I can still take it. The message can just lead to Special:Random for all I care. I just think its a bit childish to have a proposal to remove fake message boxes just because they annoy a few people. And i still can't get how its annoying. Is it like some people think babies are annoying? Anyways, I don't see how anyone could fall for it. Its just interesting to see whats on the other side of the link.


 * A few people? A lot of people get annoyed by it. And I intentionally meant "popping", but I had a typo and decided to leave it like that. And, like Edofenrir said, it's a way to mess with the wiki mechanisms, which makes us lose trust. And who doesn't like new messages? A lot don't like seeing the link go to another place when they expect a new message.
 * As I said, it is REALLY EASY to find out fake boxes.
 * True, but it still annoys me.
 * I know you did, but it was kind of a joke right? Anyways, i doubt anyone will lose their interest over wiki mechanisms from fake message boxes. besides if there is a real message, there would be two boxes on the screen and that is hysterical.
 * Oh yes, two boxes. So hysterical. Maybe later there will be three.
 * I doubt it. What person would be dumb enough to put 2 fake messages on their page?
 * Sarcasm, Booderdash.

If the links are so bad, well, I saw this thing called a fake-link, and if you just put a fake link, would that be as bad? That way, when you click it, nothing happens, which wouldn't lead you to another page or anything, because it does nothing! Am I right? :)

Well, that would piss people off, becuse they'd get all excited and go and click it... but nothing happens! Some people might think they're computers are malfunctioning and take it to the repairs and lose money.
 * Seriously, who would do that? To think their computer is malfunctioning because they cannot click on a link?
 * Proves my point, who would get angry at a fake message box that apparently doesn't even work?

Does this affect any other templates which are tampered with (Other then the character infoboxes), like the fake stub templates and the fake rewrite templates? }}

Wiki welcome template
16-0

I noticed some users (including me) having welcome templates with links to the help section, rules, etc... New users are supposed to get those. However, only some of them do. You see, some new users get reminders for not reading the rules. But if they're new, how are they supposed to know where the rules are without a welcome template. I don't know if this is possible, but I propose we make a wiki welcome template, that will be automatically on the new user's talk page. Like the one in zeldawiki, just with more details. This may reduce the reminders and all the misunderstandings.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Mr bones}} Voting Start: 08:58, 10 July 2010 Deadline: 23:59, 16 July 2010

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) This seems a much better idea than having a bunch of users going round and only welcoming certain users, as this will make sure every new user knows the rules and has useful links for whenever they may become confused.
 * 3) Per all. I didn't get one - :'(
 * 4) Everyone should get these. I mean, I'm in the same boat as MrConcreteDonkey! One downside might be the lack of unique welcome templates created by users, though.
 * 5) I got one only because I'd done something wrong and needed a reminder. Per all.
 * 6) Now everyone can get a welcome message whether they like it or not. Per all.
 * 7) There are absolutly no downsides to this (at least not that I can think of at the moment. I never really saw the point of user made welcomes anyways since they practically say the same thing except for different colored templates and a different image.
 * 8) per all.
 * 9) Per all. I got one, but another friend of mine gave me a second one because he couldn't be sure if I'd gotten one or not. This way, we can be sure.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Per all. I don't see anything wrong with this.
 * 12) Per all. I did not recieve a welcome from anyone until about a week after I joined.
 * 13) I am Zero! I would miss doing it the old fashoin way, but it's for the better. Zero signing out.
 * 14) A very good proposal! I liked it!
 * 15) Per all, per proposal.
 * 16) Per all. We don't want any confused wiki members who don't know what they're doing.

Comments
That would probably work if new users were actually reading their welcome templates. Practice has shown that most of them just skip and delete them. Doing this will just result in additional work for almost no gain at all. -
 * If a welcome template appears on new users' talkpages automatically, wouldn't that mean user-made welcome templates like User:Fawfulfury65/Welcome would have to be deleted?

@Edofenrir You're right, some users don't read their welcome templates, and they face the consequences. However, some other users do not have a welcome template, so they can't read one.

@FF65 Yes, they'll be deleted, however, like FFY said, this is the only way to make sure every user has his/her welcome template. We can use some examples like your editing tips though.

I didn't have a welcome template and yet, my sister had one. :( Had to resort to the Help page.

Will this be like how Wikia welomes everyone after they make one edit?

Nipe, if you were on zeldawiki. You should've noticed a user named TheStoneWatcher. However, it is not a real user, but some sort of a...I can't find the right word to describe him. However, I think it's this that we need. I am not good at those...

Mmmmmm, we don't even know if its possible or not. We'll have to ask Steve.

@Mr bones: Yeah, I also suggest we add some editing tips to the welcome messages like on my welcome message. I actually got the idea from User:YellowYoshi398/w, which probably has some better tips.

Steve won't allow a bot.

@Tucayo Heu...What is a bot? Also, since it's possible on zeldawiki and wikirby, I'm pretty sure it'll fit here...I think...

Okay, then check this out! Steve made the bot...before the proposal passes...
 * Yes, and the bot seems to already be working. A new user just got a welcome template automatically. But yeah, we should put editing tips into the message, I'm sure it could help a lot of users.

@FF65 You're right, this way, they'll learn basic editing rules. We're gonna discuss about what we're gonna put later.

Ok, is this on yet? Since I just found about 3 new users who didn't have the template.

No, it does work actually.--Mr bones 18:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thats good.

Having experience with it, I'll share, it's not really a bot. It's a mediawiki extension. So it's a whole lot easier as it needs no maintenance or configuration. Wiki bots generally have to be told to go, except for TheStoneWatcher, I sorta begged Adam to look into codes to make it automatic since it didn't work when he took one of his famous long vacations. So now it's fully automatic, every hour, on the hour. The drawback to the extension is that it does not welcome anyone who signs up using OpenID, if you have that. You'll be able to see New User creations by an IP in the Recent Changes, but immediately after it creates a user page for that person, and we have to manually get them a welcome message.Axiomist 06:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC) }}

Change Our Wiki Logo
DELETED

Yes, chances are, you have already seen that previous proposal of changing the logo. However, most opposers of the previous proposal thought the logo was going to change into the Wikipedia-like picture. Actually, the proposal was changing the logo in general, not replacing it with that image.

Why would I want to change the logo? I am personally getting tired of that logo. Sure it looks nice with Mario in the foreground the history of his games in the background, but it doesn't look original. I saw one created logo in the previous proposal and a lot of people said it looked better than the one we have now. Another reason I want to change the logo because our current logo doesn't mesh well with the other logos.

Besides, Steve changed our logo in the site. I suggest the main site should do the same.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|LeftyGreenMario}} Voting start: July 18, 2010. 20:13 UTC Deadline: July 24, 2010, 23:59 GMT.

Change Our Logo!

 * 1) We should change the logo just like the one in the website.
 * 2) LeftyGreenMario does have a point. If our logo is different on NIWA then we should use that logo.
 * 3) Kill that boring square in the corner!!!
 * 4) Lu-igi board DO IT!!!! seriously though, the current logo is neither attractive or memorable. I like the one NIWA use for us.
 * 5) Our SMG logo looks ugly and the other logo looks much better.
 * 6) Yes we should change it to our NIWA logo!
 * 7) - Much better! Put this logo there!
 * 8) I am Zero! This proposal is NOT to change our logo to the cap one, but it is if we want to change our logo right? Well you are right LGM the current square one doesn't mesh in correctly with the others, so I agree that we change it, but not to the cap one, my reason is my large comment below to per, so do read it and comment on the idea. Zero signing out.
 * 9) Per perposal.
 * 10) Per all (PS KS3, what Super Mario Galaxy logo?)
 * 11) Per my previous suggestion that a broader logo process is necessary.
 * 12) - Wikipedia-like logo was definitely a fail, but the one on that page is simple, elegant, and it really fits on our wiki than the current (sorry current logo :. Pictures are just not the style anymore.
 * 13) Per all.

Leave it the Same!

 * 1) - I know I won't get far with this vote, and the logo will be changed. Still, I'd like to express this way that I like our logo like it is, even if it's just for the record.

COMMENTS
I am Zero! You're right about it doesn't mesh in together. On another topic, why in the bloody hell did NIWA change our logo, did they have our approval? Zero signing out.
 * Don't yell at them; it's probably a misunderstanding.

I concur, and they shouldn't have changed their version of our logo without our permission, we are the only ones allowed to change our logo. Also Zero777, don't swear on this site, there are children on this site.


 * Hell is just a place, though :/
 * And they made a smart move, IMO. That new logo looks a bajillion times better than the boxed one.
 * It's not "they", it's Steve. He did it.
 * How do you know?
 * I was snooping around curiously checking out his talk page and he said it looked good on the thingy.
 * It was my idea. I went to Niwa with the logo and told all the people the SMW is going to change the logo and they all agreed.
 * With Tucayo and Steve's help.

Since my brother made the new logo, I know a little bit more about this subject. Steve gave permission to use to use the new Mario Wiki logo on the NIWA page. However he wants to keep the logo on our wiki the same. He says Zelda Wiki.org also has two different logo's, so why can't the Super Mario Wiki have two logo's as well?
 * I like this one better.
 * PS: Why doesn't your brother create an account instead of using yours?

I am Zero! I HAVE AN IDEA!!! Ok it is settled off a popular vote you want to change the logo right, well why only select for/from one? Why don't we have a contest! Users make their own logos and submit it, the Sysops will then start eliminating ones for only one sole or some good reason, but there are still going to be a lot to choose from. After that the voting begins, users can ONLY VOTE ON ONE LOGO they like. After a set long period of time the votes will be counted an there will be a winner. Where will this contest be held, ....well it is too late to have it in or part of the awards, so I suggest to put it in The Shroom', this way the issues can show us who is winning so far, and on the last month they won't show us who's winning as that will be a suprise for the next month of who won. I say this vote will last a little more then 3 months uless the polls are inactive for a while then the time will cut short. Now who's in!? Zero signing out.
 * I actually like your idea :3 Also, to the angry people, Steve as MW Owner, and me as MW Representative in NIWA changed the logo. Don't get angry.
 * Great, idea, Zero777, now we will have several logos to choose from. Any entering logos will look better than the one we have...
 * Um...didn't porple say this proposal was too late a few comments down?

@BLOF: The current logo is the SMG/MKDS logo. @Tucayo: I thought that I was the one who brought the topic over to NIWA (but yes, you were the one who changed it). @Other people: Please read Nintendo Independent Wiki Alliance -
 * Wait, I thought this proposal wasn't allowed until the first of August. From the rules: No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old. The last proposal was started on July 4 (2 weeks and 2 days or 16 days) and the decision was keep current logo, which is the opposite of change the logo.
 * So, which proposal is this overturning?
 * @Turtwig A I'm confident the proposal that decided to keep the logo the same is simply a rejection of the logo suggested in that proposal.

Go to your custom monobook.css and add the following line of code to use this logo: This issue was already settled and the proposal is too late.
 * 1) p-logo a { background: url(http://www.mariowiki.com/images/mariowiki_logo.png) 35% 50% no-repeat !important; }

Didn't know that until it was mentioned recently. Now, if those people really want the logo, they should edit their monobook. Now, can this proposal get deleted? I AM the proposer, and I want Porplemontage's wishes fulfilled. }}

Set limit of proposals by a certain user
Failed 1-9

Well, first of all, we have this for FA's, so why don't have it here? I now that will not convince you all, so I will detail it even more. Please, take this in count, this is nothing personal against anyone.

So, many of the proposals made are rather pointless, impossible, unprobable, or simply useless, so why not set a 2 proposal per person limit in order to avoid this? When one proposal passes/fails, then the proposer can propose another one. Simple.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Tucayo}} Voting start: 14 July, 2010 18:00 GMT Deadline: 21 July, 2010 18:00 GMT

Set proposal limit

 * 1) - Per me

Allow infinite number of proposals by a certain proposer

 * 1) Sorry Tucky, but this really doesn't seem necessary. Users may have a few good ideas at a time that they wish to propose. They could be restricted by the limit. I understand that they could wait, but limiting proposals wouldn't stop people from making fake/pointless ones. Also, if it is fake/pointless, it should be removed, and if a user continually makes bad proposals, they can be warned or banned or something. From what I see here, you are just fed up with a certain user who made a few "bad" proposals above. Also whether or not a proposal is bad depends on the opinion of the person viewing/making it. Sorry, no way.
 * 2) Thats not really fair or nesccary.
 * 3) Please don't compare proposals to Featured Articles. Proposals are an idea. Just because you think it's terrible doesn't mean that others think the same (such as the proposer of those). Besides, what's the point in setting the limit? It's bound to fail anyway. Besides, several people can think up of several well-thought out proposals that they don't want to forget and so they state that idea and see the opinions of the others.
 * 4) Proposals and Featured Articles are two different things, sorry. Per all.
 * 5) Sorry, but I have to admit you're overreacting. Per all.
 * 6) And I feel it's just a horrible idea. It won't solve any problem. Your comparison of Featured Articles to Proposals, first off, is a mistake in itself– "Featured Article" is pretty much just a status for an article that is well-written (it's also technically a sort of "Cheers!" to the users who helped the article rise up to F.A. status). Proposals are not some sort of status thing, and directly comparing it to FAs makes it seem like a status thing. What if a user comes up with an outburst of revolutionary, wonderful, magnificent, overbearingly awesome, spectacular ideas that they just to get out there? FAs serve for recognition. Proposals serve to make the general community come to make decisions in a more organized manner. If there are any bad proposals that are coming in, well, they'll probably fail. If not, then the Administrators can have one good look at it and make a decision. Seeing as we deal with quality of proposals already, there is no need to limit the quantity.
 * 7) The more proposals the better, we can't limit them.
 * 8) FAs don't "help" the wiki as much as propasals. Per Super Mario Bors.
 * 9) Proposals are far more important than FA's and shouldn't be limited, per all.

Comments
Using the FA rule as an example is terrible because the FA rule reinforces the notion that it is important to be acknowledged for your work with a gold star. - NARCE 17:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...shorten the proposals per user? Do you mean, when his/her proposal passes/fails, he/she can add a new one right? In that case, I'm with this. Some proposals are pointless. But FAs aren't the good thing to compare with this. Cause' there are millions of articles!
 * Exactly :) Also, NARCE, your comment makes no sense.
 * Good then, I'll wait til' tomorrow to vote!--Mr bones 18:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It makes no sense? Well, here's a q - what good reason exists to limit the number of FAs a person may have under their belt to three? - NARCE 18:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, here is the answer. There are so many articles here. If a user creates 10 articles a day. Wouldn't that be a disaster?

YOu don't understand, is the number of FA's you can nominate. Not "have under your belt", as they are not yours.

Do TPPs count?
 * Nope.

}}

Whose Point of View is it Anyway?
Continue Using Them 0-0-16

It caught my attention that some level walkthroughs, bosses, etc. articles have it said in the players point of view (Then the player will need to.....), but on the Congazuma article it has it in the character's point of view (.....then Donkey Kong has to hit him in the head). So it comes down to this issue should we have all the articles at the character's or the player's point of view, or should we leave them alone, or do we do both?

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Zero777}} Voting start: 15 July, 2010, 14:00 Deadline: 22 July, 2010, 14:00

Leave them alone

 * 1) Per Walkazo's comment.
 * 2) I'll choose this vote because there are less people. (Aren't the two options basically the same thing?)

Keep Using Both

 * 1) I am Zero! Per Walkazo's comment, if you don't get "Keep Using Both" term then look at Walkazo's comment. And do you like my reference on the title! Zero signing out.
 * 2) Walkazo makes a great point. We only can use the character's name for articles such as any levels on Donkey Kong, But in articles on multiplayer games such as Mario Kart, we can use "the player"
 * 3) Either way works fine. Per all.
 * 4) - If it's an action the player is doing (pressing buttons, deciding to go somewhere, etc.) you use "player". If it's something the controlled character is doing (hitting an enemy in the head, climbing up somewhere, getting hit, etc.) you use the character's name.
 * 5) - Per Edo.
 * 6) Let's say you have the option to be either Mario or Luigi. You say "the player" which is easier than saying "Mario or Luigi." If there is no option (such as if you must play as Donkey Kong) use the player's specific name.
 * 7) - As long as using "you" is not in this act. ;)
 * 8) - If you have the option to choose who you're using in a boss fight, use the term, "the player"; examples include bosses from Donkey Kong Country and Paper Mario.  Of course, you use the name of the character if only he/she is used in the fight; you can only use DK in the Donkey Kong: Jungle Beat boss fights.
 * 9) - Per All.\
 * 10) - Per all; and as long as we're not referring to the reader directly, it's fine.
 * 11) - Per my comment below.
 * 12) Per all.
 * 13) - Per Walkazo.
 * 14) Per all.

Comments
I think the games where there ARE alot of ranged gender character we can use "the player" but when its solely male or female we use the character.

I think a mix of the two is fine: multiplayer games need the option to talk about the player. For example, when you've got something like Mario Kart or Mario Party, you can't list off all the playable characters the text could apply to, and simply saying "the character" all the time would sound really bad. However, when you're talking about more conventional games like Yoshi's Island or Super Mario Galaxy, always saying "the player has to do this, and that, and then they face Bowser" starts sounding a bit too walkthrough-ish, whereas talking about it all using "Mario" as the vehicle sounds more like an in-game perspective, like the character articles (you definitely can't say "the player" when you're talking about what happened to Mario during Super Paper Mario, for example). So, by necessity the wiki will always have some articles saying "Mario/whoever" and others saying "the player", so for the pages where either would work, I think having the option to use both would be the best course of action. For one thing, it'll add variety to the writing: I've always found the presence of both "Mario" and "the player" in the same paragraphs much less repetitive, and therefore easier to read, than passages with only one or the other. And even if some people do find the duality distracting, as I said before, the wiki needs both styles, so really, having common ground utilizing both of them isn't inconsistent, but merely knitting the two halves of the wiki together. A voting option to keep using both should be added. -

If we use "the player", then we have this pronoun problem of he/she. Case right here: "The player has to do this and that, and then they face Bowser." If we use Mario, we can always use he.

Zero: Anyways is not a word. Change it to anyway.

That's why I use "players" on Wikipedia. ie: "Players have to do this and that, and then they face Bowser." - NARCE 03:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I am Zero! @LGM oh whoops, I tried to make a reference to Whose Line is it Anyway? and probably thought it said "Anyways". Zero signing out.

One thing we'll have to be careful about is that some mainstream games such as Super Mario Bros. have different characters the player can choose.

LeftyGreenMario: It actually is acceptable to use "they" when talking about a singular player (or another gender indeterminate title). There was a discussion about it last year when we decided to stop using "he/she", after a sockpuppeting troll suggested we simply use "he" to refer to players (but obviously, that didn't go over well). You can see the cancellation of the proposal here, but the idea to use "they" did become policy. (However, I'm not sure if we unofficially decided to do that as a result of what the proposal brought to light, or if there was another proposal about it at a later date - it was too long ago...) -
 * I know "they" is becoming more acceptable in everyday writing and speech, but I feel that we should steer clear of the word when it refers to one unspecified person. It's not correct in everyone's eyes. My teachers don't accept it and I don't accept it.

Wait, this brings up something. If we do The Player, shouldn't that be consistent throughout it? Not saying He/She unless its a ranged gender game? Since both Mario and Luigi are male it should just be The Player the entire time through. Same with Princess Peach, shes only female.

Case in point sometimes things will look like this:BJAODN/Other

My opinion would be to use neither. The walkthroughts are just that -walkthrought, trying to peper them with this kind of faux-narrative is cheesy and unnecessarily wordy.... but I'm sure not many will agree with me. --Glowsquid 12:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

?So then what do we write if we use neither?

Err, now that I reread the proposal, I'd say the character pov should be used for Boss articles. Buuuut, levels which have walkthrough in them (ex Hooktail Castle) should just state the action directly ("Hit the switch, then enter the room"). Things like "From X character point of view" are just baddly-writen word cruft. --Glowsquid 16:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Wrong. That's an imperative sentence. We can't use imperative sentences. Imperative sentences have the hidden "you".
 * And you say you're bad at english. I don't even know what imperative MEANS!
 * I didn't say I was bad at English. I just said that I don't know how to write the language. Imperative sentences are orders, such as "make Wario lose!" or "destroy Wario!" They have a hidden you. The actual sentence is supposed to be "You make Wario lose!" but we can omit it in English.
 * On my talk page, you said your english teacher gave you a C or something. Your teacher must be on crack.

'Leave them alone' and 'Keep Using Both' are ultimately the same thing. }}

Create articles for the Game Boy Advance ports of Donkey Kong Country series
Don't Create 1-7

You may have noticed how lately I've been making some changes related to the Donkey Kong Country series. While checking the games' articles, I noticed how they have a quite lengthy section describing MOST of the changes of the Game Boy Advance ports. In the case of the third game, there wasn't even one. I think we should create articles for the ports (including the Game Boy Color port for the first game. This way, we could a more well-explained article that won't be a stub. A link to the article should be put in the original games' article. {{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Supermariofan14}} Voting start: 17 July, 2010, 21:00 UTC Deadline: 24 July, 2010, 23:59 UTC

Support

 * 1) As explained above.

Oppose

 * 1) Per comments below
 * 2) Well, if we give the GBA ports articles, we would produce multiple stubs or clone articles. Also, they work fine as sections in the original game articles.
 * 3) Yeah, they'd make clone articles, just like Super Mario Advance 2: Super Mario World and Super Mario World.
 * 4) - Per all. Merging the GBA games with the originals would be a better way to make our coverage of these ports uniform.
 * 5) I've never played any of these GBA games but I've heard Fawfulfury65 that they're fairly similar to the originals.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all.

Comments
Many of those listed changes are minor. Other than that, the game are too similar to have an article.
 * I agree with BluePikminKong. They really aren't that different, and the changes can easily fit right into one article.

I concur, they are two versions of the same game with the same plot, and few changes. If they were given articles, they would be clones of their root articles.

Also, if we split them all, I'm sure they'd turn out like this.

I agree, the lack of major differences means that those ported versions do not deserve articles, that is why this proposal is useless.


 * Then how about a separate article for the changes on each game?
 * Automatic stubs, we should keep them in the article itself.
 * Well, if we put the differences in the articles they wouldn't be stubs, but I think the game articles with the GBA ports merged into them is be just fine as it is now.

Seeing how the Super Mario Advance articles ended up, I'd actually prefer to merge those again rather than even separating the handheld versions of Donkey Kong Country. --

I put up 3 proposals to merge the SMA remake articles back into their respective original game articles.
 * Good idea, though the better thing to do would have made one proposal concerning all four SMA games, like how the New Super Mario Bros. Wii Toads were dealt with: with the proposal on only one page, and the other linking to it. Having one voting arena for all the pages ensures uniformity, avoiding a situation where people vote differently for different pages (or simply not vote for one page). I could fix it for you tomorrow, if you want. -
 * Only thing, the first 3 articles should be merged, because they are stubs/clones, but the fourth one is long enough to be a separate article.
 * But that would be inconsistent. The fourth game may have a longer page and more things to write about, but it's still just another Super Mario Advance game, and if we merge the other three, we must merge the fourth: "all or nothing" is basic Super Mario Wiki policy. -
 * But if that's inconsisent, then we should merge all the remakes into their original articles, like Super Mario 64 DS.
 * I see your point, but SM64DS isn't quite the same thing as the Super Mario Advance titles - for one thing, it's not part of the SMA series (this connection alone is why I say those four games must be treated equally), nor is it even for the same console as them and the Donkey Kong ports. It also adds three new playable characters and the plot points to go with them, making covering both games in one page is a bit more of a juggling act than the GBA titles. -

}}

Set a day for the DYK section to be updated
DELETED &mdash; Proposer was banned

The DYK section is being updated randomly, sometimes not even upgraded at all for months in a row. I propose that we set a day (I don't know yet) that the DYK is going to be updated, like the FA and the "soon to be ending" FI. If you support, vote underneath the date which you want the DYK to be updated. {{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|KS3}} Voting start: 17:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Deadline: 24:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Monday

 * 1) Tuesday seems pretty random to me. Per MCD.
 * 2)  Per MCD as well.

Tuesday

 * 1) Any day is good for me (Im just picking the day with the most voters
 * 2) I am Zero! I change my mind, though Monday is a beginning of a new week, mostly everybody don't have their mind straighten up and things a rocky at first. On Tuesday they know what to do now and their minds are straighten up; that's why I'm changing it to Tuesday. Zero signing out.
 * 3) Per Zero777.
 * 4) Per Zero 777, although any day would be good as long as we do have a set day to change the DYK section.
 * 5) I'm not allowed to use the computer on weekends so I vote Tuesday. Besides DYK isn't that big of a deal...
 * 6) – To tell you the truth, I think we shouldn't overwhelm ourselves with having to update two things on one day. A Tuesday-Thursday-Saturday Main Page rotation seems pretty good, in my opinion.
 * 7) -Per all

Saturday

 * 1) Weekdays are too busy with school, Saturday would be the best day to edit it every week.
 * 2) Per to Fawfulfury`s comment.
 * 3) - Per FF65, and it is also FA rotation day.
 * 4) - Per Fawfulfury65. I would have said the same thing had he not already done so.
 * 5) Well, since weekdays have school, and most of our users are children, we should should use a day where they have the most time available to them.
 * 6) I am BobombFuses, and I say since I'm usually busy with something on another site, I'd go for Saturday.
 * 7) Okay, I'm changing my vote. Per all.
 * 8) Makes sense to keep all rotations on the same day
 * 9) Agreed, Saturday seems the best.
 * 10) Changing vote. Per 4D.

Comments
I was actually thinking about that today...

Whats DYK?
 * I am Zero! It stands for "Did You Know?". Zero signing out.
 * Abbreviations... does it hurt to type out the whole thing?
 * Thanks! Who updates or edits the "did you know" though?

@Zero777: Well, usually people are refreshed after a weekend and they have to go to work/school on Monday so wouldn't be in the right frame of mind on Tuesday. Also doing it on Monday would get them in the right mood for work or school as well.

What? Sunday is the start of the week. SMTWTFS.
 * Well, most people see it as Monday, it's the start of the work/school week and the end of the weekend, so it must loop back to the start.
 * In France and other European countries, Monday is also the start of the week.
 * Yeah, like the UK, where I live.
 * According to the Wikipedia article, 'Sunday is the last day of the week but, in Jewish law, Sunday is the first day of the Hebrew calendar week. The official ISO 8601 Calendar Standard states that Monday is the first day of the week, but in the Judaeo-Christian tradition Sunday has been considered as the first day'. So whichever one you agree with, I still think it's Monday.
 * I'd just like to say that it seems you guys are just voting for your favorite day. Just want to know if any of the voters here have payed attention to the Main Page rotation process? I'd advise everyone to check it out: Featured Articles rotate every Saturday. Featured Images (soon to be replaced by Polls) rotate every Thursday (Polls, which are replacing Featured Images, will rotate every other Thursday once they're up). Everything else is more dependent on wiki, Nintendo, and community factors (specifically, the Mario & Nintendo News box, Community box, and Proposals box don't have a set date). Make of this what you will.

I vote against Saturday since my dad doesn't allow me on the internet when hes home. Which is on weekends, I can only play during weekdays.

@Bowser's luma, BluePikminKong497: Could you rethink or remove your votes because I have changed mine.

@Booderdash: Don't vote against Ssturday because you can't edit on weekends, you should support it because most users can edit on that day.
 * Yeah, and you could check it on Monday. Anyway, it's only the DYK section. }}

Revamp PAIR system
Don't Revamp 5-13

Not really sure where to put this... Anyways, some of you old users might know that we used to have a way to review articles known as PAIR. However, it was put on hiatus for some reason. It was a really great way to review articles for FA, and, due to the lack of good FA nominees latley, I am proposing we restart the PAIR system with a whole new team of users.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|BluePikminKong497}} Voting Start: 21:36, 29 July 2010 Deadline: 23:59, August 5, 2010

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Sounds great even though I haven't done it before.
 * 3) Per New Super Mario. Revamping the PAIR system would ensure that only the best articles (quality-wise) get nominated, resulting in fewer objections.
 * 4) – Per all.
 * 5) Per all.

Oppose

 * 1) Old, not needed, fas are doing fine without it, and its too complicated to get it up and going. Way too hard to do, mainly only sysops will be working on this
 * 2) – You say that you're going to revamp the system. How, exactly? Also, it didn't really work the first time, and we had editors just as dedicated to the wiki as the current ones. I just don't see it working.
 * 3) - May I just ask why we would need them right now? I have not seen many FA's that were not meant to be an FA. Sure a user is going left and right and nomination pages as if they were bunnies, but that is not a reason for PAIR reviews. And Booderdash is correct that it is way to sophisticated to do. BTW - It is very opininated, meaning it doesn't fully represent an article.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Lu-igi board per all
 * 6) - Your proposal about revamping that system is much too vague. What are your plans about it? How will you revamp it? How will you expell it of the flaws that caused it to collapse originally? As long as you don't have solutions for these issues drafted out and presentable, the systemn will not be revamped.
 * 7) Per Edo.
 * 8) - Per Edo.
 * 9) Though it does sound a lot like fun, there's a reason the PAIR went on hiatus and I don't know exactly. If we are going to bring it back without making any major changes, chances are, it will go on hiatus again.
 * 10) I basically said, "What are we going to revamp?" and I don't have any answers yet.
 * 11) - Per all.
 * 12) It is pointless. Per all.
 * 13) per all

Comments
What are we going to revamp? (P.S. If this proposal passes, make sure the list thingy follows the No-signature policy.
 * We're revamping PAIR.
 * I know we are revamping it, but WHAT part of PAIR is needing a revamp?
 * Pretty much all of it. You guys know how many articles KS# nominated....

...This is incredibly old. Saudy is there and hes been banned for more than 2 years.
 * Thats cause its OLD. If you will do something as big as this, then you have to say what you will do to improve it.

What about new users like me? What is the PAIR system?
 * Read this to find out.

@Booderdash: Too complicated? I said i would start it all up myself.
 * No offense BPK, but you're 11, you were complaining that you didn't know the rules on Tucayo's page that you were just 11, yet you can all of a sudden want to do this huge task?
 * It's not that huge, and besides, your only 12, and age doesnt matter. i'm very smart for my age.
 * I'm sure you are and as am I, but since you were complaining on how young you were on his page, I thought you wouldn't be up for this. -_-.

Um, try not to pass judgements on people based upon their ages. It's not nice to say "You're too young" - if he's up for the task, let him do it.

I know, I'm not stopping him, just wondering.

I think this is like the third time there's a proposal to ressurect PAIR: Our current policy is "Do it if you want" - but you just can't force people to do it. --Glowsquid 14:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Didn't it go on hiatus because nobody was interested in it?

And it isn't needed. Our Fas are fine as it is. This is just like Narce's make Fa rules stricter thing. We'll have to unfeature most of our fas.


 * Or we can just fix them so they don't need to be unfeatured.
 * @Blue Toad: Or we can't do it just like Wikipedia since we don't have millions of people viewing it everyday, thousands upon thousands of users, and that anyone can edit!!!!! Also, not all nom's are bad, yes the KS3 (no offense KS3) nominated are not prepared, but not ALL of them. NARCE was just used to Wikipedia, and if we followed NARCE, then we would be all blocked for a year. I just saying, you can't call all nom's bad.


 * I'm not calling all nom's bad, I'd just like a chance to try it. I think it's worth a shot, and it doesn't seem too sophisticated or complicated to me. But then again, it's only my opinion.

Guys, the PAIR system isn't here to criticize the FAs, nor is it to make stricter rules. It's here for people to review how they are before they are nominated. Then we wouldn't have so many terrible nominations.
 * I still don't see the need for this. For instance, if we had had this, many articles like Dry Bones, Sir grodus, and Shadow Queen wouldn't be nomianted in the first place, but since its already featured, when someone nominates it for unfeaturing people would say there's no need for unfeaturing, there's problems but it can be fixed, but when its in the PROCESS of nominating, people would oppose it for problems that can be fixed. Besides most votes are fan votes anyways.

I don't understand your reasoning. I don't know why... This is just a way to review articles, and the review is optional for articles.
 * I think this proposal is to make it nonoptional.
 * No, the proposal is simply revamping it, bringing it back as it was before.

}}

New Video Page
Don't Create 7-21

I don't know if this is really a proposal (it is more like an idea) but why not make a page where Users can post videos of gameplay etc. I think it would be cool to show people new skills, action, and ideas. {{scroll box|content= Proposer:{{User|New Super Mario}} Voting start:12:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Deadline: 24:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I like it

 * 1) I think this is a great idea. It may be a lot like youtube but, some people don't go on youtube.
 * 2) Per all.
 * 3) The channel will be called MarioWiki:Videos and per all.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) I'd use it a bunch. Cool idea, but we need people to post videos. If they will, let's do it!
 * 7) Per all.

I dislike it

 * 1) This idea has been suggested before and opposed to. We have YouTube for this. Go to YouTube and upload videos there. If people also want to view videos, they shouldn't be here.
 * 2) Horrible idea to have Youtube videos on our wiki per BLOF.
 * 3) I hate Youtube, though. Per all.
 * 4) We had this before. Stupid idea. Mariowiki isn't as famous so it NEEDS a youtube page anyways. People can just create individual accounts.
 * 5) I am Zero! That is a horrible idea, why do we need that; the SMW is not a chat/forum to share stuff on large scales. Zero signing out.
 * 6) Basically per BLOF. Though the OTHER one had 3 users vote for to have it, that (I think) was outmatched by 16. And my comment as well goes for a matter... (The LOADING TIME! Videos would more or likely slow to a browser time-out.)
 * 7) If we do this, I will probably not be able to browse the wiki as much on my DSi Browser (it can't load videos very well). And per all.
 * 8) Per All. Apart from LGM, because I love YouTube. If people want to learn new skills, it's much more fair that they can find them out for themselves
 * 9) Well, we do not need a page of YouTube videos, we are not a social website, we are an encyclopedia. If we were to make a page like that, it would be decremental to our quality as an encyclopedia.
 * 10) Per 4DJONG.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) You could just have another window.
 * 13) Per all.
 * 14) Per LuigiMania, Marwikedor, 4DJONG, Booderdash, BabyLuigiOnFire, Gamefreak75, and Zero777!
 * 15) – This is a factual Wiki.  Link to your YouTube profile on your userpage, but don't create a page for this stuff.
 * 16) That would basically kill the whole purpose of this wiki.
 * 17) Per all.
 * 18) Per all.
 * 19) Per all.
 * 20) - Per all.
 * 21) - Per all.

Comments
I don't actually dislike the idea, but the idea of the video is not needed here. You should change the headers.
 * Or delete this proposal and put the youtube videos onto your userpage.
 * @KS3: What makes you think those places allow youtube videos? I know ZW and youtube do and IDK about WK but I know UP doesn't.

I am Zero! Would this be considered a joke proposal? Zero signing out.

Seems pointless...and if we even HAD one, the loading time would go haywire...

Why just youtube though? Youtube is a worse source than wikipedia, and admins call wikipedia a bad source for things like release dates and the such.
 * That's the only video site I know. There are tons of others out there. The internet is not only limited to YouTube.

No, this is a horrible idea because there are A MILLION videos of Mario out there, and people will try to post a million different videos on the page; its just not worth it. Go on youtube itself and search it up. }}

Set a day for the DYK section to be updated
Set Saturday for the DYK to be updated 5-0-0-0-0-9-0-0

The original proposer got his account banned and his proposal deleted because of that privilege. However, this proposal brings up a good point, that's why I'm reproposing this. It's just as exactly the same as the last one, just that I'm proposing this. What day shall we update the DYK? {{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} Voting start: 23:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Deadline: 24:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Monday

 * 1) Start of the week, perfect. Besides whats so "groggy" about it? Its just a DYK.
 * 2) per Booderdash. it just seems right.
 * 3) I am Zero! Per Booderdash, I was going to say Tuesday because of the same reason as the other proposal but your right it's just DYK, just a small section, it's not like the whole main page. Zero signing out.
 * 4) – Per all.
 * 5) How long does it take to do it anyway? Per all.

Saturday

 * 1) Weekdays are too busy with school, most users can edit more on this day.
 * 2) i agree with fawfulfury65. That or sunday is good.
 * 3) Well, since weekdays have school, and most of our users are children, we should should use a day where they have the most time available to them.
 * 4) Per EY.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) - Easiest day as it is the day we are mostly free on.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) per BMB
 * 9) Yay! No edit conflict by Fuzzipede27, ! Anyway, per all!

Comments
BLOF, you still have to describe it in the descriptions, so people who haven't read the old one can understand this.

Saturday, the school-free day. Definitely the best choice for most users when summer is over.

Not for everyone, I heard alot of people have school on Saturday too. How about Sunday? Or do people go to church too much on that day?

I'm usually busy on Sundays. Also, I've never heard of anyone who goes to school on weekends.

Are you serious? Most european people do, and asian people do too. Plus American people who want to be really successful in life do too, but those are like 4% of America.
 * In America, you don't even get a choice as to what days you go to school until after high school (12th grade), so you cannot assume that Americans are unsuccessful just because they do not go on weekends. It also depends on how you define successful.
 * To go in a top 10 college is my definition. But alot of americans are successful, I never mentioned that they weren't.
 * Ok, sorry, but you did imply that 96% of Americans have no desire to be successful. Even if one does end up going to a top 10 college, there's not much one can do with a degree if factoring in the present state of the economy. I'm just saying that it's incorrect to classify a mere 4% of America of wanting to be really successful. I'm done being off-topic now.
 * Here in England no-one goes to school on Saturday/Sunday. In France they definitely do, but only for half a day. Not sure about the rest of the UK and the rest of Europe.

I've never heard of that, I'm not European or Asian. But I did hear of very few schools that have classes on weekends. Most of the users here are from North America, though, so most of us don't have school on weekends.

Still, though its a international wiki and some of our own sysops came from places other than North America. (Grandy02}


 * Yeah, I heard Europeans don't go to school on Wednesdays or Sundays, but go there every other day, but then again, I could be wrong. People that have school on Saturday (in USA) are usually (not ALWAYS!) failing students.

Not those people who are "nerdy" and work their buttocks off 7 hours a day.

Why do we care who edits more? This is the DYK. As far as I know, its Steve who does it.Anyways, for Monday we get the pleasure if looking at it for a real week, Saturday is awkward and new users might get confused.


 * "Not those people who are "nerdy" and work their buttocks off 7 hours a day." -_-' ReallY?

Saturday school is for those people who failed classes and are trying to earn credits in order to not have to retake the class again. Anyways, let's get back on topic, please.

What about those ace people who do extra work on weekends for extra credit to get a good scholorship to get into harvard or one of the top 10 colleges? But I think we can go back on topic. I mean its just a DYK. }}

Merge all sport moves for each character to their respective articles.
Don't Merge all Sport Moves 9-11

People have been asking this for a long time so I'll just put it here. All individual sport moves each character has like Iron Hammer should be merged into their respective article that the sport move is, which in this case is Offensive Power Shot. This will help make navigating alot easier. {{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Booderdash}} Voting start: : 7/30/2010 1:00 GMT Deadline: 8/6/2010 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal
 * 2) Well, the sport moves do not deserve pages because they are not notable enough.
 * 3) Duh, I made a talk page proposal about this.
 * 4) I am Zero! Per proposal and per all. Zero signing out.
 * 5) – Per all.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all exept Emperor Yoshi.
 * 8) per Booderdash.
 * 9) – per Zero777, and Booderdash

Oppose

 * 1) Per Knife in the TPP. It would affect much too many articles. also, if we already have a TPP, can this be deleted? I don't see any reason to merge them since none are stubs.
 * 2) A great deal can be added to those articles. What does the character do when using it? What does it do? How do you use it? All that can be added to not make a stub and also make it long enough to have its own article. They work absolutely fine how they are now, in fact, hardly any one of them seem to be stubs at all.
 * 3) - Per all. Besides, if a stub can't be expanded, the way I see it, it's not really a stub - just a short article that says everything it possibly can about a minor subject, and there's no shame in that. The recent push to merge what seems like every last stub is getting out of hand: as long as the page has a picture and some information that was worth the click of the mouse, I say there's nothing wrong with it at all: stubs are not evil! Also, while I'm not a fan of having to read many articles for only a little information, I prefer that over having my poor old computer crash every time I try to view the sort of large pages these merges will create.
 * 4) - Per all
 * 5) - Per all.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) - Per Walkazo.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Horrible idea, we haven't merged any other sports moves so merging these would break the trend and hurt the professionality of the Wiki. In other words that probably exist, it would be a damaging step to the improvement. Per all.
 * 10) Per All
 * 11) The sports moves have three things that make them unique enough to have their own article; character, appearance, and ability. Sure they may be short, but that's unavoidable since they don't have much information to cover. A lot of those sports articles have the three important pieces of info anyway, so some stub tags should be removed. Stubs are not defined by lack of text but rather lack of information. I would like everyone to remember that.

Comments
BPK, yes, it affects too many articles hence why its now a MAIN PAGE PROPOSAL! It was bad in a talk page proposal because it affected too many but its perfectly fine for a main page proposal.

It can make navigating alot easier.

65: It's not only the matter of stubs; it's also the matter of how convenient this is. I find it very inconvenient because I have to keep on clicking on links.

LGM: Oh yeah? Well I like clicking on links!!! Or do I?

LGM: Yes, but I find some of them to be long enough to have their own article.


 * Those articles aren't very long, though. Frostyfireyoshi, you might like clicking on links, but it's very inconvenient to click constantly through related articles.
 * Walkazo has a great point. Some computers can't handle long pages very well. I'm sure that page would take a while to load up on my DSi brower if all those abilities were merged into it.

@LGM: Yeah, I know it's inconvenient. That comment was just a piece of crazy sarcasm that I think failed. Seriously though, FF65 & Walkazo have very great points.

I don't think putting all sports moves for a certain game in one article would really make navigating easier. It would just turn it into that old glitch page we had, where all the glitches were put into one article. The article was so long, it took forever to find the right thing.

The Mega Strike article isn't that long...  Is it? And if this proposal fails, will we need to split up the Mega Strike Page? It is sorta inconvenient to have to click all those links... When I have so many links open, my computer takes a very long time to load, and those links just annoy me to be split! The Mega Strike page is fine, I think, and to have another page like it wouldn't be so long as the old glitches page, would it? I don't understand how it would be worse merged... It seems it would be less links to have to click on, easier access, and simply convenient. Blue Toad ( Talk )


 * It will take longer to load if there is one large page than many small pages, actually. If you have a horrible connection, it takes FOREVER to load up a large page. Besides, these special moves are unique. They aren't similar to each other at all.

Guys, you know this proposal already failed.

}}

New Logo
Don't Make New Logo 2-16

This proposal has came up every now and then, but why no change? I believe that our new logo shouldn't be Mario but mushrooms. There would be several pictures of different types of mushrooms,(this includes bee mushroom,green mushrooms,etc)through out the ages of Mario games. Each picture would be randomly picked for each page every time users visit the page. That way seeing the same old picture, every time you visit the homepage and any other page, is the thing of the past.Its the mushrooms the fans want and without it,Mario will be like any other platformer.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Hyper1025595}} Voting start: 19:00, August 1, 2010 Deadline: 19:00, August 8, 2010

I agree

 * 1) I like the cutesy-eyed mushrooms. Oh, and Booderdash, mushrooms sound PERFECT.
 * 2) BobombFuses sorry your idea is not that good but we need a new logo i'm sick of this logo. Oh and all you guys saying it's bad idea YOU ARE WRONG this is a great idea.

I disagree

 * 1) Absolutely not! That is the dumbest thing I ever heard! Seriously, mushrooms? The logo is fine as is. Plus, there was already 3 of these awhile ago, they all failed and I think this proposal should be deleted.
 * 2) What? Are we going to die if we don't have a new logo or something (not to be mean)? This is completely unneeded, and you can just change it for yourself on the monobook thing (however you do that X_x).
 * 3) I am Zero! NO! Even though I agree we should change the logo, I had a better idea then this, Per all. Zero signing out.
 * 4) I agree with changing the logo, but this changing-mushroom idea is overkill.
 * 5) Well, the current logo is only a  year or two old, and Mushrooms do not describe this wiki very well. Also, mushrooms are not major enough to be used as the logo of the wiki, we also were not made by Nintendo.
 * 6) I voted on this when I first saw it two days ago, and my vote must have gotten deleted, so I'll just repeat what I said. This is the Super Mario Wiki, not the Super Mushroom Wiki. Therefore, the logo should have Mario in it. Besides, mushrooms are not what make the games memorable, and even if they did, we're here to provide information, not create logos just to appeal to a supposed fan-base. Per all, specifically Booderdash.
 * 7) I'm okay changing the logo to anything but mushrooms *-*. Per all.
 * 8) If you really hate the boring square, use a monobook. It's simpler than it looks.
 * 9) - Unless someone comes up with something absolutely stupendous, I'm fine with the current logo. Also, per LeftyGreenMario.
 * 10) Blue Toad ( Talk ) - MONOBOOK! There have been so many proposals to change the logo recently... Just use your Monobook, if you have a problem with the current logo!
 * 11) May I refer you to the Super Mushroom Wiki? Per all. This deserves a place in BJAODN. Even more than pie.
 * 12) That is not fail. That is EPIC FAIL! Per all.
 * 13) Per all.
 * 14) This proposal has been repeated far too much and I'm sick of it. Per all.
 * 15) NO that's a lie without substanansiation!  Logo's fine.  Your idea belongs in Loggo from Banjo-Kazooie!
 * 16) Fawfulfury's right! We're not gonna die if we don't change the logo! Please guys! Focus on making important proposals then making these logo ones.(No offense).

Comments
Well, wasn't there a proposal like this one, two, or three weeks ago, so if I am correct in my assumptions, this proposal can not exist yet.
 * Didn't someone propose changing the logo to Mario's head, and it resembled Starship Mario and was made out of puzzle pieces?
 * - Did you guys know that there is a code for your monobooks that allows you to change the logo on the top left? We also can't start copying everyone's logos even if they look cool, that is not right.
 * You want a new logo, then make one and change it yourself. Mario4Ever: Yes. I proposed it too, but using a monobook instead was a much better idea.

Its the mushrooms the fans want and without it,Mario will be like any other platformer. Any proof? I like Mario more than mushrooms.
 * I don't recall ever wanting to play a Mario game based on the mushrooms it had, even Galaxy 2. If mushrooms were what defined the series, I don't think this wiki would exist. Mario tops mushrooms any day. :D


 * If I got to pick a logo, I would pick the Paper Mario TTYD Super shroom. Once I make my monobook, that's what it's gonna be. The monobook page is great because you get to choose! It can stay the same and still be changed, you know. LGM was right.Blue Toad ( Talk )

}}

Translator
Don't Implant Anything 1-0-14

Back when we knew nothing english about M&L:BIS, we had japanese names. Now, this kind of thing should be implanted: a Translator. Namely, a copy of the wiki in another language. Also, I'm proposing that if the user got the welcome message the user who sent it is from the same country. This way, the user would understand everything about the wiki without learning english. Also arn't we an INTERNATIONAL wiki? {{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|LuigiMania}} Voting Start: 6:00, 3 August, 2010 Deadline: 24:00, 10 August, 2010

Implant Translator & Country-only Welcomes

 * 1) Per....above and ME!

Don't implant anything

 * 1) Most of our users are English or speak it, and if someone doesn't understand something then they can look it up in a dictionary, or look at it on a website of their own language.
 * 2) - See my comment.
 * 3) Per Edofenrir. I draw the line at "Mario is the Mario series...."
 * 4) There are mostly native English speakers. Per the comments below.
 * 5) If someone who doesn't speak English (I originally wrote that speek inglish by accident) were to visit the site and want to translate it that badly, they could translate the specific articles they want to with something like Google Translator, not us doing it.
 * 6) Well, if we were to implant a translator, most versions of this Wiki's grammar would be incorrect. That could cause some countries to think we are a Wiki that is run by Trolls, and a few might think we are mocking them.
 * 7) - Per all (except for MrConcreteDonkey's opinion on the welcome template: I'm against that as well as the overall wiki translation thing).
 * 8) - Automatic translations are complete gibberish and useless, and I doubt there'd be anyone dedicated enough to translate our entire content in another language. This is really short-sighted.
 * 9) The wiki is written in English, and if you don't know it, you can't edit it. This may be an international wiki, but most users here are from English speaking countries. And anyway, those translations are sometimes so messed up that you can hardly understand them. Per all.
 * 10) I don't trust automatic translators anyway. Sure I don't speak fluently any other language, but I've heard that a stupid automatic thing does a worse job than a person who speaks the language.
 * 11) Websites who use this method are really bad. Trust me, things like Google Translator are horrible. But if someone who actually speaks the language want to rewrite all the wiki, then I'm okay.
 * 12) Per all, computer translators do not have the capacity to translate well at all.
 * 13) Internet translators are absolutely abysmal and the primary language of Mario is English, even in Japan!
 * 14) What, like someone who doesn't speak English would've found this anyways?

Comments

 * OK, I don't get the welcome-country thing but I really think you should talk this over with Porple...

Hello, can someone change the time into GMT instead of AM?
 * "AM" was indicating that it was 5 in the morning, not what timezone the time pertained to. Anyway, the times were still wrong, so I fixed them. -
 * Er...what I had was -10 hours from my time zone (+10:00, if that wasn't obvious) but I MAY have thought wrong...but I need it at 4 PM my time...as 3 PM is when I'm on....but my perspective of time is...backfiring...

"Mario ist die Hauptfigur der Serie Mario und der legendäre Maskottchen von Nintendo. Mario ist in der Regel einen Klempner, aber in Spielen, nutzt er seine legendären Sprung und Kampffähigkeiten, um die Bewohner des Mushroom meist friedliche Welt von machthungrigen Schurken verteidigen wie Bowser. Wenn nicht Abenteuern, nimmt Mario in einer Vielzahl von sportlichen Veranstaltungen und arbeitet sogar als eines seiner Alter-Egos, Dr. Mario."

This is what an automatic translator throws at me when I attempt to translate the first paragraph of the Mario article into German. This is also what would make me leave the site if I found this text anywhere. The translation is totally inaccurate and ridden with grammar errors. Translators just cannot handle complex material, especially when fictional names are involved. I'd much rather have an english-only wiki with readable texts, instead of that soulless piece of auto-translated nonsense that will get native speakers of a language to laugh at us. -
 * I translated it back into English with Google Translate, for everyone who doesn't speak German - it reads:

"Mario is the protagonist of the series and the legendary Mario mascot of Nintendo. Mario is usually a plumber, but in games, he uses his legendary jump and combat skills to defend the inhabitants of the Mushroom usually peaceful world of power-hungry villains like Bowser. If not adventure, Mario takes in a variety of sporting events and works even when one of his alter ego, Dr. Mario."

This proves it indeed was inaccurate.


 * As opposed to...

"Mario is the main protagonist of the Mario series and the legendary mascot of Nintendo. Mario is normally a plumber, but in games, he uses his legendary jump and combat abilities to defend the inhabitants of the usually peaceful Mushroom World from power-hungry villains such as Bowser. When not adventuring, Mario participates in a variety of sporting events and even works as one of his alter-egos, Dr. Mario."

This!Blue Toad ( Talk )

"Mario is the main protagonist of the Mario series and the legendary mascot of Nintendo. Mario is a plumber normally, but in games, he uses his legendary jump and combat capabilities to defend the inhabitants of the peaceful world of fungi usually power-hungry villains such as Bowser. When not in the adventure, Mario is involved in a variety of sporting events and even works as one of his alter ego, Dr. Mario."

And that is it translated into French and back. Blue Toad ( Talk )

"Mario is the mascot of Nintendo and the legendary hero of the Mario series. Mario is a plumber, but usually in the game, his ability to fight and use his legendary jump to protect the inhabitants of a peaceful world of fungi usually villainous Bowser power. When not in the adventure, even one's ego involvement in various Mario sports events, operates as an alter ego Dr. Mario."

That's Japanese...

and this is Greek! "...?"

"Mario is the main protagonist of the series of Mario and the legendary mascot of Nintendo. Mario is usually a plumber, but in games, using the legendary jump and capabilities to defend the residents of the usually peaceful Mushroom World from power-hungry villains such as Bowser. When not adventuring, Mario participating in various sporting events and still works as one, alter egos, Dr. Mario."

Blue Toad ( Talk )

"Mario is the main protagonist of the Mario series and the legendary mascot of Nintendo. Mario is a plumber normally, but in games, it uses a legendary jump and combat abilities to protect the residents of the normally peaceful Mushroom World of Villains power-hungry like Bowser. When not adventuring, Mario participated in a variety of sporting events and even as one of the works to alter-egos, Dr. Mario."

The above quote is Irish... It calls "Mario" an "it"!Blue Toad ( Talk )
 * Okay, we get it! Now stop spamming the comments, please.


 * Did we really need all of these examples?
 * Well I for one thought they were hilarious.
 * I found them similar and annoying.

Well, we do not need all these examples to prove a point.
 * Gamefreak75 just told that person to stop spamming the comments with examples. Now please don't continue to spam the comments with a further discussion about their notability. - 18:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Not only are automatic translations ridden with grammar mistakes, but it won't localize names as well (it will get directly translated). It may cause confusion for some people. English is not my first language, I speak Dutch. Sadly, only manuals get translated to Dutch and the game remains UK English (except Mario & Sonic at the Winter Games). So I am more used to an English Mario and English names. Translators will only mess it up. However, when I translated the name クッパ (Kuppa, Bowser’s Japanese name) to English, I was a bit surprised the result was not Kuppa or Koopa, but Bowser.


 * As far as I'm aware, Google Translator has a feature to suggest better translations nowadays; that has probably been used to suggest "Bowser" as a translation for "クッパ". Various other names of fictional character or works are also "translated" by now, but obviously, it's far from recognising every name.--
 * I didn't use the Google Translator, so multiple translators know how to translate Bowser's name. But I guess your right about those translators can't recognize every name.
 * Yeah, I've found that the translators get the Japanese enemy names wrong a lot (even the basic romanizations get screwed up sometimes). -

}}

FA Archiving Policy
N1, N2, N3... 0-0-9-0

OK, there's been some confusion over the archiving policy of articles...anyways, I want to get a system down. I think we had one before but then there were several people doing the system differently and now I have three seperate versions of how to archive. In all three versions when a proposal passes it is moved to MarioWiki:Featured Articles/A/Article but when it fails one of these three options happen... And then of course there's the leave as is option.
 * 1) Move them to MarioWiki:Featured Articles/N1/Article and then, after one month, delete them.
 * 2) Move them to MarioWiki:Featured Articles/A/Article and never delete them.
 * 3) Same thing as #2 but instead of MarioWiki:Featured Articles/A/Article, move them to MarioWiki:Featured Articles/N1/Article and then /N2/Article and then /N3/Article and so on...

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Marioguy1}} Voting Start: August 3rd, 2010 (19:43) Deadline: August 17th, 2010 (24:00)

Use Option 3

 * 1) Per Tucayo's comment below. And mine as well.
 * 2) – the pros for this sound like a logical reason
 * 3) - Per me. Also, there is no sense in deleting them. They are archives
 * 4) Per Tucayo. They are archives anyway. It's like a record of what happened.
 * 5) - I remember a long time ago when I opposed a proposal because of that same reason...Per Tucayo.
 * 6) - Per all.
 * 7) - Per the comments of Tucayo Below. I guess an archive is just an archive, and records do can handy. Also I didn't switch because I was outnumbered, I haven't looked at the Proposal page in awhile...
 * 8) - After reconsidering the pros and cons of each option as presented to me in the comments below, this seems like the best of the three.
 * 9) - Per Tucayo.

Comments
Right now even I'm indecisive. All the options look good to me (except #2)...anyways, I'll probably vote soon but right now I'm leaning towards #1.
 * I'm more or less new to being involved in the wiki. What's the current procedure?
 * Try seeing here for the stuff you want. It might not have everything, though.
 * @Mario4Ever: That's the problem, we don't seem to have one. We definitely have no written policy and I have seen several users archiving with different methods. That's what I'm trying to change. @LGM: Trust me, I've read that page over and over and it has nothing on archiving at all. If this proposal passes, I'm probably going to add a paragraph on archiving to that thing.
 * I agree we should have one of those 3, but I'm sure that not many fails will be appearing anytime soon. KS3 has been blocked for 3 months, so I bet it will be calm with the FA stuff.
 * Even if it's unlikely that many articles nominated for Featured status will fail, we should still have a system in place. @Marioguy1, what are the pros and cons of the above proposed methods? I'm just asking since I can't vote on any of these until I understand them.

We use #3 now and it works fine.
 * Well, if that is so, we should remove option number 3 from the option choices.
 * Tucayo: Some people use #3, this will help combine together all of the options. Mario4ever: Well, pros for #1 are having the articles moved to the tentative title for the one month that they have to be, and then removing them so that people know they can nominate again. Cons however are losing the past information. #2: Pros: It will have a definite article set in history and easily accesible to find people's past arguments. Cons: There can only be one at a time... #3: Pros: Basically all of the pros of number 2 except for "easily accessible" and there can be multiple at once. Cons: It would be pretty hard to 1. Know where to search for the information and 2. Know what number we're at to archive it.

Well, I think we should keep the failed nominations so if anyone else wants to nominate them they can look at that and perhaps see why it wasn't such a good idea. Also, people could keep voting to unfeature the same article, for example, if a unfeature nomination failed due to the nominator not seeing something, someone could try to unfeature it for the same reason again and again.
 * Actually, the pages will be cluttered, and most of the failed nominations were made by KS3, and were very foolish. Once we get rid of all the bad ones he had, I don't really think there will be many failed nominations to be in truth. Also, you should always start of with a clean. If we don't, then people won't really have good votes since it is swayed by what happened last time, and it will more than likely fail again.
 * Option 3 will clutter the wiki up with all the many failed nominations. Option 2 will have only one article and it will contain the entire history of that thing (found in the "history" link). Option 1 will be the least cluttered as we will have the articles for only as long as they are needed as placeholders. However, the more cluttered it gets, the more archives we have on the wiki. Granted a sysop could still view the deleted revisions of the articles but other than that Option 3 will have no referencing past nominations. Option 2 will be able to if you know the date of the nomination and you use the history link. Option 1 however will have them all, you'll just have to try out the N1, the N2, the N3...
 * Well, this could result in other, new people nominating articles again and again, which will more likely clutter up the Wiki. It's only the FA nominations. It's not going to clutter up the Wiki when it makes about 1 percent of it.
 * Hm...it seems this will be a tie...extend it another week when it's tied for me, kk? I'll be back on the 12th to check it out.

@Supporters: Could you add reasons to your votes? You are currently "per"ing Baby Mario Bloops' vote which he moved to the other section. }}

Crossover policy
Don't Change Crossover Policy 0-19

Mariowiki's intention is to cover as much information as possible regarding the Mario series. For the most part, there is no disagreement about this. However, there is disagreement about what constitutes as the "Mario series". Spin offs, like Donkey Kong, Yoshi, and Wario obviously belong, but what about crossovers? Especially regarding the Super Smash Brothers series. Should we include information about that? The following is my proposal. Information directly relating to the Mario elements of the series should be kept, such as information about Mario's Final smash, etc. Information regarding the series plot should be put on on the article about the series. Information about enemies in the series should be placed into one article, as with items and bosses. Information about other characters in the game should be grouped into articles regarding each series. For example, we could merge all the articles concerning the Zelda Series into one article about the series, and then list all it's relevence to Mario and it's crossovers on that page. With these changes, we can keep up Mariowiki's reputation of being one of the most detailed wikis, yet also keep all information relevent to Mario.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Mr. Anon}} Voting Start: August 15, 2010 (16:37) Deadline: August 21, 2010 (24:00)

Oppose

 * 1) Lu-igi board nope terrible idea. per Marioguys comment.
 * 2) Per Marioguy's comment bellow.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) Got to admit, It wasn't that bad of an idea, but Marioguy is right. Articles for stuff like that is much more better than one huge list.
 * 5) Well, the current system works fine, and there is too much information in those articles to work well in a list.
 * 6) Per Emperor Yoshi, Baby Mario Bloops, and Marioguy's comment below.
 * 7) - How about no? Per all
 * 8) - Not a good idea.  Better to keep those kinds of articles separate.
 * 9) The list you said would probably be too long and it's going to give my netbook a fit. Per all, I guess.
 * 10) It's fine the way it is
 * 11) Per all, and Marioguy's comment below.
 * 12) Per marioguy1's comment.
 * 13) - Per all.
 * 14) This is probably one of the worst ideas I've heard of. I could barely stay one the wiki if this passed.
 * 15) - Per Marioguy1's comment.
 * No, just NO. Per. All.
 * 1) - Per MG1, BMB and Emperor Yoshi.
 * 2) The wiki is already fine. There is no need for this.
 * 3) This is about as important to the wiki as a logo of Mushrooms. Per all.

Comments
You mean you want to create more articles like Conker (series) or Banjo (series)? Because I really don't think we need one of those for other series like Zelda or Super Smash Bros.
 * I think the current coverage policy is good. Long lists of content is not as good as seperate pages for it because in a long list, you have to scroll all the way down to the part you want to read meanwhile in an article, it's all nicely grouped together under an easily-recognized title.

How come there isn't a single support vote?
 * Because no one supports it?

Th...The proposer doesn't support his/her own proposal???
 * Maybe they forgot to vote. They're not opposing or supporting.
 * Or he has given the choice not to vote in his proposal. He doesn't have to vote if he doesn't want to.

This idea is terrible.

}}

Merging Super Mario Advance and Super Mario Bros. 2
DELETED

Super Mario Advance and Super Mario Bros. 2 are basicly the same game. Why do they need seperate articles? We should leave Super Mario Advance as a redirect. We should do the same with the other similar articles. {{scroll box|content=

Proposer: {{User|Cat91x}} Voting start: 31 August, 2010, 10:00 GMT Deadline: 14 September, 2010, 10:00 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per my proposal.

Comments
Well, shouldn't this be a talk page proposal?

No, because this was ALREADY proposed on a talk page AND as a main page. A sysop soon delete this as soon as possible. }}

Remove Fake Templates
DELETED - Proposer request

Recently, I have come across many userpages saying "this user has been blocked by ruling of Wario's Butt," or something of that sort. I also have seen many fake talk page message announcements (I used to have one, I removed it today because it was dumb). These templates are stupid and pointless. Let's eradicate them once and for all!

{{scroll box|content=

Proposer: {{User|Ralphfan}} Voting start: 29 August 2010, 0:30 (GMT) Deadline: 5 September 2010, 23:59 (GMT)

Support

 * 1) – Per proposal.
 * 2) - Templates are essentially warning signs. They aren't meant to be playthings and shouldn't be treated as such.
 * 3) - Per Edo.
 * 4) - Fake warning templates make our (sysops) job much more difficult, having to check which are real and which aren't.
 * 5) - Per Edofenrir and Tucayo.
 * 6) - I did it once and it didn't feel write. Per Edo.
 * 7) I am Zero! Per Edo. Zero signing out.
 * 8) I'm pretty sure that BLOF and LGM are only opposing because they like to give each other said templates; per all.
 * 9) LOL, it's not a surprise that BLOF and LGM are opposing, considering that they are the ones who made fake templates :D No offence *ahem* Per Edo.
 * 10) Would be acceptable if it was just a user stating that wouldn't be on for awhile. aside from that, let's have them removed.
 * 11) Per proposal and all.
 * 12) They always get in my way. Per proposal.
 * 13) Per Edo and Tucky
 * 14) We're not one of those wikis that has no serious sense at all. Remove all fake Templates.

Oppose

 * 1) I would have supported if it regards the removal of real-looking reminders, warnings, etc., but since this proposal deals with all types of fake templates, I'm forced to oppose. I believe that having fake article templates on your page is funny and it tells the viewer that you have a sense of humor, plus there's no harm in that (and since it lacks the ability to trick you with excitedness, a la fake new message box, it's less harmful than a fake new message box). I, however, do understand the tedious process required to rummage through warnings to find out which one is a real one.
 * 2) I will change my warnings after this proposal, but I don't see why people cannot have a little fun here. The fake new message box isn't 100% gone. We still tolerate the obviously fake ones, so I don't see why now we have to remove ALL fake templates. Fake templates do actually shows a bit what your personality is like, what BabyLuigiOnFire says.
 * 3) - I hate the idea of fake warning templates, but if you reread ralph's proposal, this proposal will not just get rid of fake warning templates. This proposal is proposing to get rid of fake templates period. So the fake templates that are juvenile and cause no harm to the users of the wiki and no extra work for the admins is included in that. Let me explain what is considered a template; fake image tags, fake rewrite tags, fake tense tags, fake infoboxes and fake navboxes. Sorry but I can't live without these templates. If you change your proposal to mean the warning templates only, I will support but I refuse to support something that prevents me from adding an infobox to my user page.
 * 4) Per MG1s comment below. This proposal makes it so INFOBOXES are also removed. But fake rewrite templates are even more annoying and unfunny than fake warnings so the proposal should be remove fake maintenance templates (like this userpage needs images)
 * 5) There is no reason to remove templates like the infobox templates on userpages. Per Marioguy1.
 * 6) Wait what? Infoboxes? No way!
 * 7) Almost all of the supporters think it is about removing the fake warnings, but it is really about removing all fake templates. Well, it would get rid of the user infobox templates and many other non-warning fake templates, that do can not do any harm whatsoever. Showing your personality should not be able to cause any harm to other people, also, most, if not all, of the supporters have infoboxes on their pages, therefor opposing their own votes.
 * 8) - Now that it is all templates a user has, now that is not right. I understand the fake messages and fake warnings, but things like Infoboxes and navboxes are useful. Example - Navboxes allow you to easily find user sub-pages. How is that worth deleting?
 * 9) This template is so vague. I do not support removing every single user template created. I do, however, support the removal of any type of userspace template that look geniune and interferes with an admins judgement. By that, I mean things like putting a fake warning with the actual "!" sign and all that, so when an admin looks if they have three warnings and counts that one, they block that person accidently.
 * 10) After reading this thoroughly, I oppose as I DO NOT want every "fake" template that us users use gone.

Comments
I understand all of those fake templates that do not alter the content of the actual one at all, but I'll laugh at anyone who gets fooled by a fake template with different text and/or a different color. It's like the fake new message box template. I'll probably enforce the removal of fake templates that look exactly the same as the actual one, but not the one where its content gets altered, such as text, size, or words.

If this is about removing fake templates that look genuine, I'll support. Otherwise, no. I don't see the harm about obviously fake templates other than being "stupid and pointless", which is still your opinion.

Maybe you don't see any harm done, but the ones who have to work with those templates and issue blocks on their base sure do. Warnings are an indicator for how a user behaves in the community. They are there to help identifying trouble-makers. If you add fake-warnings into the mix, you make the job of those who have to keep any eye on those trouble-makers needlessly tedious. I for one have better things to do than staying on a talk page and identifying which warning is valid and which is a bad joke, when all I want to do is simply count them. It may be funny for you (for whatever reason), but it's respectless towards others. -


 * But what's your opinion on warnings or reminders when the content gets altered? I told you, I understand those real-looking templates, but how about ones where the words that normally are in a reminder gets replaced? Or when pictures of warnings are altered?
 * I still do not see the harm done in obviously fake reminders/warnings. I tend to read the warnings anyway to see what the person had done to receive it. I understand real-looking fake ones, because you cannot tell the difference unless you look in the contributions/template HTML. Those ones I cannot distinguish by reading are the ones that should be the pain in the butt, not the obviously fake ones.
 * When I search for previous warnings in pages, I mainly look for the little warning sign images. If you put 20 fake warnings on your page which all have that image, it becomes incredibly annoying to have to search for and read all of them to keep track of how many actual warnings the user in question has. It forces me to dig through all of the page(s) and search for little wording differences to make sure I don't accidentally read a fake warning as a real one. It also confuses new users, who don't have enough experience to identify those warnings as fake. All in all, fake warnings do reflect bad on the user who has them, and I'd advise them to remove them. -
 * I for one don't understand warnings. I mean i know that the ones given to you by sysops and patrollers are 100% accurate. But what about userbased ones? Some users don't know the rules of the wikis so much so they might overreact to a certian offense and give them a warning. I remember Larryman as a particular person who did that. So I want to know the rules of warnings. Is it also ok to make a proposal on a unanimous rules about warnings?
 * @Edofenrir: Oh, me too. Who doesn't like that little warning sign? How about we replace the picture? Like say, a Wario head, or something. We are all image learners.
 * One more thing, how about fake templates (fake rewrites) on userpages? After all, we are not allowed to have them real ones, and if there is a real one, there will be a category on the bottom of the page. But, yeah, looking at them at a glance will confuse you. I understand that procedure.
 * By the way, I started this entire fake warning thing. :( I'm sorry. I wasn't intending to be bad. I was just fooling around with other users.

I tend to read the whole warning template, not just look for the image. I never saw an instance where there are 20 warnings on a page. I would assume that most are fake, but I'll still take a look. Warnings don't take that long to read. How about other fake templates, like fake block templates? Most of the time, there are only one block template. I made my block template super-obvious that it is fake. Where's an instance where a fake warning template confuses a new user? I'm pretty sure every user that gets warned for "being himself" knows that this is a joke. Even then, the person who issued this warning can say this is a fake.
 * New users are new to HTML (most of the time) and they don't understand it (me, I don't get it, but I know how to use it). They would probably want to mimic you and place an actual block template on their page. Not everyone is like you. Me, I'd go for the image, not the text. I scan stuff, not look over them, since I'm pretty busy.
 * Well, the original question is if those templates are disrupting, and as one who has to work with them daily I can say: Yes, they are. Most other people who have to work with them agree that they are distracting. You might say they aren't, based on that you sometimes read some warning templates for fun, but please keep in mind that we aren't doing this for fun. It is our job to keep this site running smoothly. In order to do that, we have to keep our eyes on many users at once. We don't have the luxury to spend big chunks of our time on one userpage to sort out warnings. The warning system was introduced to help us, who have to identify and block trouble-makers, and toying around with that system, even without any ill intent, is disruptive and makes our job harder. We merely ask you to consider that. -
 * Again, do these fake templates (fake rewrite, fake FA, fake image) count? You only regarded warnings and reminders.
 * They aren't as distracting as fake warnings, but I honestly see no point in having them on your page. It's not very funny, they don't tell us anything about you, and they are generally useless. They don't cause any harm other than making our userbase look immature, though, so if you can live with that... -
 * Eh, I personally don't use them, but I find them a little bit hilarious, but humor is defined in the eyes of the perceiver, so I respect your opinion. But this proposal is dealing with ALL fake templates. Not just the warning ones.
 * Edofenrir, I want to know if you can tolerate fake warnings with a fake pictures and weird colors. There are people that find the fake templates funny and others do not. I'm not supporting this proposal until it can satisfy the people that find fake templates funny and others (like you) that think otherwise.

Though I haven't gotten the time to read this whole discussion, I'm agreeing with Edofenrir on this. It's annoying when you have to find which warnings are fake and which are real.

I agree with Edo. It is a bit annoying. However, if the image in the warning is replaced.(the ! sign). Then maybe that's okay.

Supporters: This proposal is about removing ALL fake templates, not just fake warnings, even if the templates have replaced pictures, colors, and text.

If this proposal passes, how are we going to eradicate the fake templates in talk pages without stirring attention to the user with the talk page? There has to be a way.
 * Well, I've been having a lot of fun with the listgrouprights page and I found that if a bot marks an edit as minor on a user talk page, there is no new messages box. So if the 'crats promote themselves (or other users) to bots, it won't notify the users.
 * But that only means bureaucrats can do this. Why can't we notify to the user that "your fake warning message was removed due to a proposal, blah blah blah."?
 * 1. No, it doesn't, bureaucrats can promote other users to Bot. Then the other users can do it and it would only take a day. 2. Um...maybe because just two comments ago you were saying "There has to be a way"? I suggested an alternative, forgive me for answering your question.
 * I was wondering of a better alternative than that I suggested.

Um, about an hour of work with maybe one or two bots is not a bad alternative.

@Users making Assumptions: I'm only opposing because this proposal deals with ALL templates, NOT JUST warning templates. If it were about ONLY WARNING TEMPLATES and TEMPLATES THAT LOOK REAL this would have gained my support, but TEMPLATES THAT OBVIOUSLY LOOK FAKE will get removed as well.
 * Well warnings, real or fake, are not toys. If you want to spam eachother with Wario's butt, fine, but don't make it harder on the admins by using warnings.
 * OK, I reread the proposal and it is proposing to remove all fake templates. Period. This includes all those tags on user's pages and, more importantly, the infoboxes on user's pages. I think the infoboxes are actually pretty fun to have on a user page and I have seen plenty of users with them, they are good. But they are, nonetheless, templates and will have to be removed if this propoal passes. Likewise all navboxes will have to be removed as well as they are also templates. @ralph: If you don't mean this, please specify it in your proposal.
 * To be more specific, the following supporters of this proposal will have to remove their fake infoboxes and/or navboxes,, , , , , , and . By extent, a lot more would have to. But at the moment, only those users will have to remove the hard work they put into creating a user page. Other than that, many other users have fake infoboxes on their userpages and will have to go back on that hard work as well.

I suggest we put this proposal down, and then just make a new one to only get rid of fake warnings. Unless it's not too late to alter the proposal... I see no reason to get rid of fake rewrite templates and stuff on userpages.
 * Actually it's possible. He can still edit this proposal until some time August 31st. If he edits it, I will move my vote back to support but if not, I don't like this proposal at all.

Also, what actually qualifies as a "fake" template? Do the user-made infoboxes on userpages count, as Booderdash brought up in his vote?

Yes, it does ALL fake article templates. FF65 umm maybe you should read the discussion again, Edo said fake rewrite templates are unneccary and make the wiki look immature.
 * This proposal affects all fake templates. An infobox is a template. Ralph has not specified a certain type of template. Therefore it affects all templates, immature or not. I personally like the infobox concept, it's a nice way to organize your stats. But this proposal will remove it all and I will not support that.

OK, I have updated it. It now applies only to fake TP messages and fake warnings/bans.

Can you add all fake MAINTENANCE templates too? I'm pretty sure fake TP messages are already banned though.
 * They are but this proposal is still allowed, it passes the 28d limit. Anyways, I don't really find those annoying or harmful, do you?

This proposal was edited after the three-day limit had passed, (rule 9) so it has to be reverted to the state it was in beforehand. I went ahead and changed everyone's votes back to how they were as of this revision so that nobody ended up voting for the side of the proposal they didn't agree with. However, I left the comments as they were as of this revision. I'm aware that this is a less than ideal situation, but it has to happen per the rules. I'm sorry.
 * Srry about that, my time was EST, the wiki doesn't use EST X_X. Anyways, the rules still say ralph can contact a sysop to get it deleted and then make a new one so...


 * So let me just get it clear. So all of these:


 * Fake Messages
 * Userboxes
 * User Navboxes
 * User Welcomes
 * and any other template used by a User
 * are all going to be deleted if this proposal passes, correct? Mistake me if I'm wrong on any of those, but that is a lot of templates to delete on all the users. Also, we need to have much of the supporters to re-think there vote now that the proposal has changed.
 * Also adding some last second thoughts, look at places like Bulbapedia and Zelda Wiki. I went straight to them, hit recent changes, and clicked on a random user's page. I found userboxes and other templates that we have on our wiki. Besides the fake messages and fake warning/blocks, why have a userpage if not to show yourself with things like userboxes?
 * I hope Ralphfan restarts this proposal because there are way too many people that think this proposal is about warning templates. If this proposal passes. it's going to be doomsday for people who use infoboxes, navboxes, etc. in their userpages, both supporters and opposers.
 * LGM, read 2257's post. He can't change it. He already changed it but it was over the 3 day line, so we have to wait until this loses or wins or ralphfan requires this to be deleted can he change it.
 * That's why I said "restart". I meant that he should request this proposal to be deleted and start another one.

BMB, a userbox isn't a FAKE template though, this is saying all FAKE templates. So userboxes and user welcomes are allowed since they're real anyways. But fake messages navboxes, warnings, infoboxes, and maintenance templates (ie. image and rewrite) will be deleted.

Please delete this proposal, admins. Then please undo my edit in the archives (I archived it because I thought I could delete it.)

We will delete this and replace it with something less ambiguous soon.

}}