MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/18



Different Version Characters
SUPPORT 17-02

In the Mario film and also in the Mario cartoons, there are versions of characters that are not necessarily the same characters from the character's real media. Such as:
 * The princess in the Mario film basically has all of the qualities Peach would have with a few exceptions including her name.
 * Same goes with the koopa cousins in the film, neither are actually their corresponding counterparts.
 * The infant form of the princess in the film is hardly BABY Daisy in video games.
 * The infant forms of Mario, Luigi, Peach, Toad, and Bowser are not the same as the Baby characters from video-games.

This proposal is to make it so that in the case of characters from the film, we create separate articles for the character that explains them for the film but also makes note of the connections to video game characters.

It is also to make it so that just because in some previous media there has been an infant form of a character, does not mean that it is the Baby form of the character from video-games. Infant Princess Daisy from film =/= Baby Daisy from videogames.

If there's any confusion, ask. This proposal was made from ides of numerous users on the comments of previous confusion from the original proposal made by Redstar.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: FD09 Deadline: 1 December 2009, 17:00

Support

 * 1) FD09 - Per other users suggestions and ideas. above
 * 2) - Results in article clean-up by creating more specialized articles. The better organization sounds good to me.
 * 3) - Per what is proposed there.
 * 4) - Per FD09.
 * 5) I've thought a lot about this and as we have a proven example that supports greatly the issue, I consider that would work.
 * 6) - Per all (including me, since, for the record, I was one of the users who contributed the helpful ideas in the first proposal's comments, which were based on the example Coincollector mentioned). Speculation is bad, so when in doubt, split 'em out.
 * 7) - Defininte yes. Split them. The majority "main characters" from videogame installments should have articles all to themselves. This needs to get done, fast.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Per all. Who says the film King Koopa and the game Bowser are the same person? Respectively, the one is a human and the other a Koopa. The Goomba's are in that film big, broad human-like monsters, while the original Goomba is a tiny living brown mushroom, which is generally weaker than the film Goomba's. And the film Toad is also human, while the game Toad represents his own species with the same name. And so on.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Per All,Excellent Proposal,I was thinking in that.
 * 12) I am Zero! Yes it's a good idea to split the articles, plus the Bowser article looks out of place with his alternate human version. Zero signing out.
 * 13) - Per all!!!
 * 14) - Per all! We will need a disambiguation page though.
 * 15) - I spent a good long while thinking about this. Per all.
 * 16) Per all.
 * 17) SPLIT THEM. I don't even consider the movie part of the Mario series because it's so different and wacko.

Oppose

 * 1) Seems like a seperation of media appearences to me, which is against our current policies.
 * 2) Per SMB.

Comments
This is the result I originally had in mind, but failed to voice that proposal in a clear way. Under this new proposal I think special attention can be paid to both the film characters and their video game-counterparts in an equal way, satisfying all parties and make for a much more informative encyclopedia. Redstar 17:39, 24 November 2009 (EST)
 * Good to hear it. Now don't forget to add some reasoning next to your vote. If you don't explain your vote or say something like per (another username who voted) your vote is liable to be removed by a sysop that deems it incomplete. FD09
 * I neither support nor oppose. I simply think we shouldn't really consider that film as canon, but anyway, I dont want a canonincity discussion.
 * When it comes to the Mario series, there's no canon at all. (or if you must have one, it's very loose and filled with lots of parallels and alternates) This proposed change won't in any way cause the film's interpretations of the game to infringe on the articles there already are, but help specialize them into distinct articles that stand more productive on their own. Currently, there's difficulty in knowing where and how to define the film characters to their (speculative) video game counterparts. This side-steps most or all of the issue entirely. Redstar 21:05, 24 November 2009 (EST)
 * I'm pretty sure Shigeru Miyamoto said there is no Mario canon, but even if he didn't, it's not our place to decide what's true and what isn't. We merely provide as many facts as we can with as little speculation as possible, which is why this proposal is good: in a way, it's wrong to assume things like Koopa's cousin Iggy and Bowser's son Iggy are the same person because of their shared name and status as members of the Koopa family, given how different they are in so many other ways. It's better to state both possibilities: that they're the same, but also that they could be different. -
 * My comment explicitly said there's no canon and pointed out the speculative nature of assuming which video game character may or may not be a counterpart to the film characters... So are you "correcting" me, or expanding on what I already said? Redstar 22:24, 24 November 2009 (EST)
 * Expanding on what you said. Canonicity gets so muddled, I've found it's better to be really windy about it right off the bat before confusion and arguments can sprout up. -

FD09: Where do you plan to put the info about the infant characters from the cartoons?
 * Where it belongs. On the episode page, the cartoons page, the characters page. Just where it fits the most. FD09
 * Do you mean on the pages of the "adult" characters or the respective Baby pages?
 * Well I'm pretty sure it was covered that the info would be getting removed from the actual babie's pages so if it fit, the actual adults pages, but of course just because the information exists doesn't make it necessary to put on the character page in the case of a cartoon episode. I believe it would more than likely already be covered on the episode page so..FD09
 * The issue at hand is that many media counterparts are assumed to be the same character, when this is oftentimes a stretch. While Bowser has often always been Bowser throughout various media, despite his divergant appearance, other characters, such as the film counterparts, are composite of several video-game characters or are completely new and only share a name. This makes it difficult to know where exactly to put the information. New, specialized articles, would resolve this confusion while the main character articles would benefit more easily by having "Spike (enemy) ... Trivia: A character appears in the film sharing the same name, though the two aren't necessarily meant to be the same."


 * By the same token, some characters are often assumed to be counterparts without confusion, but this leap is based on false logic. The infants of Mario, Luigi, and Daisy (film) aren't the same as the Baby characters because those characters were introduced much later, have distinct personalities, and distinct roles. While a separate article could be made, for example, baby Rugrats and teen Rugrats (since they're distinct characters), the Star Wars wiki doesn't make a separate article for Anakin compared to Darth Vader. It's simply a difference in age, not character. These examples are best suited for the respective media pages. Redstar 20:47, 26 November 2009 (EST)
 * If I understand what you are saying here (and please correct me if I am wrong) in "The infants of Mario, Luigi, and Daisy (film) aren't the same as the Baby characters because those characters were introduced much later, have distinct personalities, and distinct roles" is that they are not the same because of the time and media of their appearance. Since Mario and Luigi appeared in the movie (and there can obviously be no arguement about that), and their baby forms appear, it is safe to say that they are the same character, no? And what are we going to do about the Super Mario Bros. Super Show! appearances for Baby Mario? Our coverage policy clearly states that there is no distinct seperation of media: Even if these characters appeared in the media before a video game, we still have that content in the article.
 * Hm, I don't see that much of sepparating medias here. I think the point of the Proposal is, that Baby Mario/Luigi/Blah are distinct characters that even go by those names. The infant forms in the movie/shows never expicitly get called "Baby Mario/Luigi/Thingaling" and thus are not to be confused with the distinct characters. Imagine there would be an appearance where Luigi gets hypnotized. Would we automatically merge that info with the Mr. L article? I highly doubt we would do. -

Super Mario Bros.: I don't even see how you see logic in that oppose since it's not about separating media as it is clarifying on specific character's details. Although the information will be getting removed from the babie's page sit is still considered a part of the "actual" character's history. It's not separation of media, it's separation of characters.FD09
 * We would still be making an assumption by splitting the articles. We would be implying that they are not the same character, and that the creators of the movie did not intend it to be. That said, if we have those articles split, and we put main tags on the original articles, that could be considered speculation because we are linking two (by our standards if the proposal passes) unlinked characters as possibly being one, therefore creating speculation. You also mention making a different article for the Princess in the movie. That would be separation based on media, and so is that article that Coincollector pointed out. Who are we to assume that they are not based on the characters in the video games? The Peach in the Super Mario Bros.: Super Show! has red/orange hair color. Does that mean we are going to split it because of the way she looks? No. They named her Princess Daisy; and it was an official Nintendo-approved film. Who are we to go change it all based on what they made her look like?
 * Merging the baby appearances into the adult article, on the same token, would just be pointless. Even if it is not a set in stone character at the time, Baby Mario is still the baby form of Mario. If Baby Mario and Mario are considered to really be separate characters, then we need to split the history sections that deal with the babies in the Mario, Luigi, Peach, and other articles, since they are clearly separate characters. That is my point of view, and I hope you understand.
 * Alright so by that logic either way you look at it you are speculating. The way you are phrasing this is just a sneaky way to make it look like we are creating speculation when either way whether you consider them the same character or not you are speculating. No, just because the film was Nintendo approved does not make it set in stone because whether you like it or not to some extent there is a large enough difference between certain Mario media outlets that this is something we have to look into rather then accept as fact. You are speculating the baby characters from the cartoons are the same as the baby characters from the video game because whether you like it or not they are not the same therefore are being examined and as you can see agreed upon to be different. This is not breaking policy anymore than it already is by being the way it is. And I doubt the information will be getting on the actual characters pages even as it is not mentionable especially not with the way the character's pages are organised right now. It's already thoroughly covered on the episode page so it's not getting removed from the wiki soo.. Don't know what else to tell ya, guy. Yes it is your OPINION. And here opinion is majority rule. Clearly you are in the wrong.FD09
 * I love how you say I am so wrong. There are many things that the majority has wanted that hasn't been right. Now, while I will refrain on calling your proposal biased towards your wanting to separate media so much, I will say that we should follow the way that is more in accordance with our rules. Either way, we are making speculation, but what ultimately matters is which side would add more speculation. The way I see it, these characters were given names by the creators. In example, we cannot just go and say that the Bowser from the movie is not Bowser. Although he did not look like Bowser, that is who he is based on. Whether you like it or not, we have been given their names and their characters are in the movie. Princess Daisy, although she may look, act, and appear to be Peach, was given the name Daisy. One major plotline that would support this is that Daisy goes out with Luigi, and although this may be because the writers didn't want to make it look like a creepy old dude going out with a young girl (don't worry Walkazo, I'm not stealing this from you. I'm borrowing the saying), but Nintendo itself added the idea of a possible romance between Luigi and Daisy. It is horrendous to go and say that Daisy could be the Daisy in the movie, when we are told it is Daisy. Let me finish with a quote: "Don't know what else to tell ya, guy. Yes it is your OPINION. And here opinion is majority rule. Clearly you are in the wrong."
 * "Don't know what else to tell ya, guy. Yes it is your OPINION. And here opinion is majority rule. Clearly you are in the wrong". Hey look, I'm doing it too! ...? I don't really need to discuss it with you considering your opinion is, as they say, set in stone. FD09

}}

Merge Traps and Obstacles pages to super-article
NO MERGE 1-5

These pages are usually quite small and would be better suited if merged to a super-article. This would allow them to be better located as well as cut down on needless articles covering every minor aspect of the games.

{{scroll box|content=Proposer: Redstar Deadline: December 1, 2009, 17:00

Support

 * 1) Proposer

Oppose

 * 1) - That's really unnecessary. Not ALL traps-and-obstacles articles are one-sentence long. If they had that size would be rapidly deleted cuz Mariowiki doesn't approve that. Second point, if we have short articles - more than one sentence long, sure, we just add they are stubs and soon these pages can receive more information by a good contributor.
 * Per Coincollector.
 * 1) - Per the collector of shiny round metal pieces.
 * 2) Whoa no way! That would be too big of an article which = more time to load. Gee... that would be an ULTRA article and would be very cluttered too! And per Coincollector.
 * 3) - Per Edofenrir.

Comments
I fixed up the coding, remember to use the format ===<proposal=== when making a proposal.
 * Yeah, I'm sure there's a lot of coding I need to learn. I joined up and made some edits over a year ago, so I'm trying to jump into it again now. Thanks for the advice. Redstar 17:35, 24 November 2009 (EST)
 * Let me get this straight: You want to merge all traps and obstacles articles from everywhere into one single article? - 18:01, 24 November 2009 (EST)
 * Yes. Why do we need an article explaining what a "spike" is and how it is bad for the player? This is repeated ad infinitum, ad nauseum with many other articles. A single article saying "Obstacles and traps are (or a separate article for the two mechanics) game mechanics that hinder the player, etc." then a list of the different traps. It's cleaner, more organized, and doesn't seem to be detrimental to anyone unless they like reading one sentence-articles on things that make much more sense in a general page. Redstar 18:07, 24 November 2009 (EST)
 * Considering how many obstacles there are in the Mario series, wouldn't it take forever for the page to load if we do that? Mario Wiki is slow enough the way it is. :/
 * There are currently 135 articles in the Traps and Obstacles category. Each article is as short as a single sentence to only a couple, few-sentence paragraphs. Combining all of them into a single super-article will amount to a page nowhere near as long as one the character pages, which are currently some of the largest on the wiki. With some re-writing and removal of pictures to form more of a general article featuring a list, this will drop to a more manageable page. (It should be noted that a cursory look at the category shows several articles that appear to be enemies, not traps or obstacles. This miscategorization will also cut down the article's size when cleared up) If this is still too long for you or others, I have no qualms with two super-articles, one for "obstacles" and one for "traps". This will cut down the pages even further. Redstar 21:12, 24 November 2009 (EST)

"Coincollector (Talk) - That's really unnecessary. Not ALL traps-and-obstacles articles are one-sentence long. If they had that size would be rapidly deleted cuz Mariowiki doesn't approve that. Second point, if we have short articles - more than one sentence long, sure, we just add they are stubs and soon these pages can receive more information by a good contributor. "
 * How much information can feasibly be added to an article on spikes? A stub sometimes will remain a stub, since the information related to an article's subject can be limited. While it may be true that not all of the trap and obstacle articles are so short, they are still too short to constitute a true article. It's simply trivial. A general article groups all the information together in a much more appropriate environment. Redstar 21:59, 24 November 2009 (EST)

Despite for being a short article, that doesn't mean it will remain short forever. Anybody can add more info to these articles if they know more of them. Furthermore, we have the pipeproject Unstubify where many users want to remove that (annoying) stub tag to make short articles longer and informative.
 * Yes, but how much information can be added to an article on a trap. "This game mechanic kills Mario. It kills him by doing this." I'm perfectly willing to expand on these articles, and am currently doing so to many other stub articles, but in the long-run it's simply not something that can be expanded. Get me a book where Miyamoto discusses the artistic direction that went into creating spikes, as well as the aesthetic team that decided where to put it and how many, and the programming niceties involved in putting it there, and so on, and we can expand it. Redstar 22:22, 24 November 2009 (EST)

Sorry, but your latest comment is forcing to go beyond of a topic that I ain't concerned by now. How can I find more info for a single short article since personally I'm busy for other objectives of my life? I don't know but sometime...
 * I was speaking in generalities. I don't suppose anyone can find that kind of information, and that's my point. I have the time and the interest, but I can't find such information. It simply can't be done. These articles are trivial and would be better suited for a general super-article that covers the general topic. The information will remain the same, but is in a quick-and-easy place for viewing similar game mechanics. Redstar 22:37, 24 November 2009 (EST)

Then if you couldn't find more info, too bad, but even so that doesn't mean the article is and will be stub. I think this proposal something unnecessary just because you think all the obstacles are short, contain the same info (it kills the character and nothing else) and THEY'RE NOT articles - then what they are?. And if you are still thinking so, then think about the one-time appearance characters.
 * I'm not adverse to some of these articles remaining that have sufficient information. The Fire Shooter and Fire Spitter articles, for example, have some information that serves for an expanded reading-experience (design failure and development throughout the series), but many other articles are simply unnecessary or permanently stubs. Look at this, for example:

"A platform is an obstacle in almost every adventure video game, and the Super Smash Bros. series. In sidescrollers, the player can jump through platforms (and in Smash Bros' case, drop through as well), but in 3D games, the player would need to get on them as if the game were real life. Some platforms cannot be jumped through in sidescrollers (Mario Bros. for example), but most can. "


 * Really? An article on platforms? I honestly cannot see how that could be expanded into a significant article. This is the kind of thing that simply begs to be grouped. As for your "one-time appearance characters" example, I must say that there are several pages that group characters together that lack insufficient information. Try any of the "List of Implied X" categories. Redstar


 * Actually, in an article about a platform, we could list all the different types of platforms that appear in the games. But forget about that. Why can't we merge the obstacle articles into the game they appear in, instead of a "super -article". Or perhaps a sub article about obstacles on a certain game. Like for Yoshi's Island(the game) it could be, Yoshi's Island/obstacles, just like we did for beta stuff.
 * Something like that could work, but many platforms, obstacles, and traps make multiple appearances throughout the series. I really just want to get most of these articles placed somewhere where they can provide more general information. I really don't see the point in have them all separated, so alternative proposals are fine by me. Redstar 01:12, 29 November 2009 (EST)}}

Category Split
SPLIT 15-0

OK, this proposal is to propose that we split Category:Featured Articles into Category:Featured Articles and Category:Featured Images. I have no idea why featured images are categorized as featured articles but I just have this feeling that they should both get their own individual categories. The only change that would be needed to do this would be a little edit to. This is an easy thing to do and will stop images from being categorized as articles. {{scroll box|content=Proposer: {{User|Marioguy1}} Deadline: Friday December 4th, 2009 (8:00 EST)

Split

 * 1) - Per above.
 * 2) - Agree with Marioguy1. Period.
 * 3) - Umm.... yeah. Why are Featured Images counted as Featured Articles? Makes sense. Per Marioguy1.
 * 4) Wow... Per Marioguy1.
 * 5) - Per Em Gee Won.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Huh? Darn, that is my mistake. When I was creating that template, I copied the coding from  so that I could have a reference. I forgot to change the category. Anyway, obviously, Images aren't even articles, so this makes sense.
 * 8) Per All.
 * 9) Per MG1.
 * 10) Makes more sense, and a lot organized.
 * 11) Agreed.
 * 12) Uh... yeah, per all (though who would oppose?)
 * 13) MG1 brings up a good point; per him.
 * 14) - Per all.
 * 15) Agreed.

Comments
}}

Removal of Support/Oppose Votes Votes
DELETED

This proposal is to allow two things: Anyhow, here are my points: The Removal of Support/Oppose Votes section is not well-ruled and any vote goes ATM. I propose that we do one of three things, allow any user to create another section to remove that vote OR allow any user to just remove the vote as long as they put a comment in the comments section as to why OR allow admins to remove the votes as long as they put a comment in the comments section. Same thing goes for my second thing that I am proposing because we really need to define some rules for these sections. {{scroll box|content=Proposer: {{User|Marioguy1}} Deadline: Friday December 11th, 2009 (18:00)
 * 1) The removal of votes in the "Removal of Support/Oppose Votes" section.
 * 2) The ability to stop one of those proposals.

Removal of Votes
This proposes to remove the votes from that section in three different ways.

Admins Only

 * 1) - This is the only trustworthy way, there are too many glitches with the other two. We have to turn it over to the ones we trust the most.

Removal of Sections
This proposes three ways to remove the entire section.

Admins Only

 * 1) - Once again, they're the only ones I trust.

Comments
If you don't get the proposal then don't vote but I think we must quickly define a ruleset for this type of thing.
 * I don't really understand the proposal (probably because what it's trying to deal with is complete nonsense in itself), but you're right: something needs to be done. However, that something is to merely rewrite Rule 4, and seeing as this issue has destabalized the entire Proposals page, it might be best if the Admins are left to deal with it behind the scenes. This proposal is well-meaning and your desire to right the wrongs is appreciated, but it will make things happen a lot faster if you simply remove it - that way, we won't have to wait a week to take action. -
 * OK, take it away admins!

}}

Make bestiaries or not?
MAKE BESTIARIES JUST FOR RPG'S 0-12

Ok so users have been arguing on if there should be a bestiary for enemies or not(like a collection of all the enemies from a game in one article). Really, why do we need a bestiary? I'm not the best at explaining, but my reasons on why there shouldn't be a bestiary are below.


 * 1) First of all, bestiaries are worthless because you're just deleting a list of enemies from a main article, and then putting that content into a new sub-article and adding stuff, like where the enemies appear. But why don't we just keep all that in the main article and not have a whole article on enemies and where they appear? In fact, writing about where enemies appear in main articles or bestiaries, as you can just click on the link to that enemies page and read about where they come from there!
 * 2) Some users made a huge table for the BiS enemies. I can tell that it took them a lot of work, and if the BiS enemies are put in a bestiary, than those tables have to be deleted! And there's no point of erasing great work!
 * 3) Bestiaries can make some stubs. How? Some games such as Mario is Missing, Yoshi's Cookie, Super Mario Bros., and Mario Bros. have very few enemies. Making their list in a bestiary will make a short list, resulting in an unwanted stub.
 * 4) Why do we need bestiaries when we have categories about enemies? You can just go to category:Paper Mario enemies or category: Mario and Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story enemies, then click on the link to their article, and read about where they appear.
 * 5) Wikipedia doesn't even have bestiaries! We may not be Wikipedia, but it is a much more experienced wiki. The users they probably know better than to put in bestiaries.

HOWEVER, games in the Paper Mario series and Super Mario RPG SHOULD have bestiaries because their games have psychopath thoughts/tattles and bestiaries. But yeah, no need for bestiaries on those other games. Happy voting!

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Fawfulfury65}} Deadline: 5, December 2009, 15:00

Bestiaries should be developed for RPG game articles only; unnecessary for other genres

 * 1) Per above.
 * 2) - Keep it!!! Bestiaries are for Paper Mario and MRPG stuff, since it actually tells about the enemies in the game. The Mario & Luigi series is RPG series and hav enemies too, but don't describe them in the game. Easy choice.
 * 3) - I'd have to go with you guys on this one. I know how hard you all worked to finish the whole thing. Per FF65.
 * 4) - Per BMB.
 * 5) Per my comments below.
 * 6) - Per all. Another thing really unnecessary. Most of bestiaries are small, poor and so-simple lists that can be created within main articles without any complication. Why making those simple things harder?
 * 7) - Per all,we don't need this,they make the pages of their respective games shorter and make the pages of the "bestiaries" a stub,Really not necessary!.
 * 8) Well, considering the fact that I think the gallery is stupid, at least I don't have to go to another article just to read info on the enemies.
 * 9) - No, it's all right in the game article. However, in RPG games we may put them in alphabetical order.
 * 10) - Per all. Only the Paper Mario series actually requires bestiaries.
 * 11) - Bestiaries are, for the purposes of this wiki, a list of enemies found in a particular game, as well as their vital statistics, locations, and a description if the game provides one. Due to the nature of bestiaries, they can be quite long and thorough, so must be split from the main article. Bestiaries, however, are not always necessary, and in fact are only really helpful for RPG games. There are currently four Mario RPG games: Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars, Paper Mario, Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door, and Super Paper Mario. A bestiary for each would prove legitimate and useful. I oppose this proposal because it seeks to make bestiaries unnecessary for all game articles, RPG or otherwise. I agree bestiaries are not necessary for the regular platformer and puzzle Mario games, but banning them entirely from the RPG games is simply too far.
 * 12) I think the enemies of a certain evolution like Goomba and Gu Goomba, should be merged.

Comments
Is this proposal supposed to delete all bestiary articles or only those pertaining the M&L series? Lists of enemies should belong on the game's article (Paper Mario games shouldn't get any special treatment). I'd support preventing all bestiary articles.--

Uhm... Does this Proposal actually intent to change anything? If so, then the header of the second paragraph is misnamed. If not, then what's the point? - 20:12, 29 November 2009 (EST)


 * I think it's only gonna change the newly added bestiaries of M&L series. I've gotta disagree with you Knife, though. Mario and Luigi series have no bestiary, while the Paper Mario series have bestiaires (Tattles, Catch Cards, and whatever the heck they are).
 * No this counts for all articles on games. Not the Mario and Luigi series. So if the most users think that there shouldn't be a bestiary, than we will only have any, unless it is really needed(like for PM games). But if the most users want there to be bestiaries, than we'll put bestiaries for all games.


 * I'm not really too fond of bestiaries for the M&L series, but if this proposal passes, do we have to create bestiaries for SMS and NSMBW and other games?

Yes but I honestly doubt we'll have to make any bestiaries. A lot of uses didn't like the idea of bestiaries, but I made this proposal to solve an argument. I hate when people fight on the internet.


 * Yeah, but I think the bestiaires for PM games should stay.
 * Yes, because PM has tattle info and stuff needed for bestiaries. Just for the PM series.


 * Perfect! I shall vote now.

Uhm... I just want to inform you, that, should the Proposal pass in favour of the site who is leading atm, absolutely nothing will happen, because the header says "Keep as is". -


 * FF65, when you mentioned the BiS table stuff, I think that one user made it, while another user fixed a grammar problem (not trying to be selfish, just stating that fact) :) -

So do have to change something because the header says "keep as is"?
 * Wait, I have a question, does that mean that the PM bestiary will cease to exist if this is heading in the direction the atm side is on?
 * The Proposal should probably be rewritten. It seems to cause much confusion. -
 * Ok ok I fixed it a bit! Does it make more sense?
 * Well, it's more straight forward now, so I guess yes. -

There seems to be some confusion as to what a bestiary is. A bestiary is a complete list of all enemies found in a particular game, as well as the places they are located. It has absolutely nothing to do with tattle information, and in no way ends up as a stub. Really, Fawful is misleading you all as he apparently hasn't even read the current bestiary for the Paper Mario page. The intent of bestiaries are to avoid crowding main articles and expand on information that would otherwise be a list. Please, look at all the information before casting your votes. Redstar 22:23, 29 November 2009 (EST)
 * Ok forget about the stub parts. Yes, I read the bestiary for PM, a list that can be added to the main PM article but isn't. And if bestiaries don't include tattle info, than that just makes bastiaries more worthless. And putting all that in the main article won't clutter up anything, in fact, if you really want to know where certain enemies appear, than just check out their article, that simple! We don't need bestiaries, Wikipedia doesn't even have bestiaries on games!
 * We're not Wikipedia. If we were, we wouldn't even be covering half the article as it is. And bestiaries aren't worthless... The entire point of them is to clean-up the main article, because no one wants to read a list of enemies found in that game. It takes up space for more important information. Splitting that list off into its own page, as well as expanding it to include location information, both cleans up the main article and keeps information presented in a more specialized location. Really, the only reason against this is because it's a little more work. The only reason you brought it up is because you don't like the things needed to be done to make the Mario & Luigi page worth Featuring. Laziness does not excuse professional standards. Redstar 22:46, 29 November 2009 (EST)
 * If you want to continue this discussion, then do it without accusations! Everyone, maintain a mature standard of debating please! -
 * I would like to, but I don't approve of someone going behind my back and lying about what something constitutes just so they can avoid doing it. This entire proposal is based on personal misconception, which implies Fawful didn't even look at the bestiary page as an example. I just hope we can both resolve it and get people looking at the facts. Redstar 23:06, 29 November 2009 (EST)

CoinCollector: Bestiaries are not meant to be simple lists. They are a more thorough amount of information detailing locations in-game found, stats, and in-game tattle or player's guide information. These are things that should be there anyways, but if they were would take up too much room and so are moved. Several articles already do this and it's supposed to be done for all of them, but hasn't already. The only reason this is up for proposal is because Fawful and MATEO don't want to do the necessary work to make their articles worthy of Featuring, so are attempting to side-step it by creating a proposal to undermine current standard. Redstar 02:20, 30 November 2009 (EST)


 * Making a bestiary in that way is similar to create an article for each enemy found in the game. Adding too info for enemies in the game's article makes the enemies' articles themselves redundant and useless, even making an attachment on that issue. In other words, you would like to "merge" (or "copy" or whatever) the info seen from multiple articles into one...
 * It's not similar to that at all. Enemies stats differ from game to game, so in actuality this splits that information from the main articles to the related game articles, thus saving space. There is no merging at all. The main articles, such as a Goombas, for example, shouldn't be swamped with technical information from each game. It should only cover the history of that enemy throughout the games. Stats and such is better suited for the bestiary related to each game. An example of what a basic bestiary is would be the Paper Mario/Bestiary, which simply lists each enemy and the location they're found at. A more extensive bestiary is the one for Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Tattle Log). This information is individual from game-to-game, specifically the RPGs, so the RPGs are the only games affected to such a degree. Other games, such as Super Mario Sunshine, only need to be filled out in the basic way. Redstar 03:10, 30 November 2009 (EST)


 * That info fits without problems in the main article, so, why move it? in fact, I see there is no official descriptions (eg: in-game info) or something like that as to fill the "missing space" for those lists, just technical information (HP, Attack, Defense, etc) and that's fairly short. Changing over the info for the character articles will look them more formal but less dynamic - and maybe is by the fact that looks like we abused the purpose of the information tables, but that's other tale. The tattle log of Paper Mario looks like for me a walk-trough than real information... Well, that's just my opinion.
 * It should be moved because it's supposed to have all that essential information filled out, but if it did it would take up too much space. That's why bestiary pages are warranted. The problem is that the Goomba page, for example, used the correct table for an enemy while the Amazy Dayzee page does not. It uses the box associated with the RPG game. These main character pages shouldn't have all that technical information and should focus on the history, appearances, etc. The technical information should be moved to the corresponding game bestiaries, where they provide better focus and clean up the various related articles. Also, the Paper Mario bestiary looks that way because it's unfinished... It's supposed to look like the TTYD one. Redstar 03:53, 30 November 2009 (EST)
 * Hey, I made this proposal to solve arguments you know! And stop it, Redstar, here, you're calling me and MATEO lazy, you called me a liar(which I am absolutely not!), and you're telling everyone that I'm misleading them! And now you're arguing with a sysop! Just wait until Dec. 5th when more users decide. Until then, I'm done with this, I'm going to fix up my proposal's description and wait for other users to vote on which they want. I hate arguing!
 * It's called discussing, not arguing. I have perfectly valid reasons for believing you both lied and are lazy. For laziness, I discussed many points on why I felt the Mario & Luigi page wasn't yet ready for Feature-status, including splitting off the enemy list into a bestiary. Rather than give reasons not to do it, or simply split it (which was all I asked, was to split it and we could work on expanding it later) you came here and formed a proposal that, if passed, results in you not having to do it. How is avoiding work or discussion not lazy? As for lying, your initial proposal stated that forming a bestiary would delete work already done and create nothing but a stub. Both are untrue because moving all this work to a new page as-is does not delete it, and if it would become a stub, then that's because it's already a stub. Splitting it doesn't change a single thing. It can't become something unless it already is that thing. You may not have lied, but you obfuscated the facts. Redstar 09:02, 30 November 2009 (EST)
 * I made this proposal to stop the endless chat going around on those nomination pages. That's not lazy at all. My reasons on why we shouldn't make bestiaries are stated above. Therefore, we will wait for others user to make up their mind.
 * That was not chatting, that was discussion on issues relating to the article that you could have easily argued there. Instead, you formed this proposal. If you didn't like the proposed work to make the article fit for Feature-status, then you should have provided legitimate reasons against it. Instead I find this proposal a means of sidestepping professional discussion for a chance to not do the work. I don't want to argue over this, but I would like you to admit to what is obvious. Wikis take compromise and collaboration, not finding ways to get around work or discussion. Redstar 09:23, 30 November 2009 (EST)

Fawfulfury65 recently re-wrote his proposal to better explain reasons against forming bestiaries. I will now write a rebuttal to each point explaining why bestiaries are both a good idea, and why his reasons are misinformed. Here we go:


 * 1) Fawful asks why we can't just have the information on the main page. Well, truthfully, we can, but the reason why we shouldn't is because there are simply so many enemies that by naming them all, it becomes nothing more than a list. Even if they are fitted into tables, that list becomes much larger and, while more "pretty", takes up space. Splitting it to a new sub-article saves space on the main article as well as allows the information to be presented to its fullest where it won't distract from the main information. He also suggests simply clicking the enemy links to read on their main articles where they're located... Well, the problem with that is that enemies appear in more than one game. Any information on how and where they appear in this game simply won't be provided. The bestiary would provide actual locations in the game where they are found, giving far more information than can be found otherwise.
 * 2) Fawful's second point is that the current list of enemies are presented in a table, which took "hard work". I can personally vouch that the tables are very badly-written and lack in-depth information. I cannot see much of any work having been put into them at all. Regardless, these tables won't be deleted on splitting. There's no reason to, so there's nothing to fear.
 * 3) He suggests that bestiaries would create stubs for games that don't have a large amount of enemies. This is false thinking because bestiaries are only necessary for the RPG games, which both have a large number of enemies as well as a plethora of statistics for those enemies. No game articles besides the RPG ones are affected by this, because only the RPG articles need it.
 * 4) We need bestiaries because they provide quick and easy information for enemies found in a game. Categories are not a legitimate substitute because people don't often look up categories, and categories only list articles. Categories provide just as much information as using the search-function does, which simply does not work.
 * 5) Finally, Fawful points out that Wikipedia doesn't use bestiaries, so why should we? Well, Wikipedia also doesn't create articles about specific enemies, so I think that explains why Wikipedia does not apply here.

I hope all those points explain why I feel bestiaries are both necessary and logical. Perhaps a few people will change their votes, but if not, I hope you all feel you have the correct facts and are making an informed decision. Thank you.
 * Just to point out, my proposal goes for all games. Also, be aware that I am a she, not a he.
 * Sorry. I don't know how I would have known, but sorry for the presumption. To respond to the clarification of your proposal, bestiaries are currently only meant to be for RPG articles, and since your proposal is to not have bestiaries, than technically your proposal wouldn't extend past RPG games anyways. Redstar 09:40, 30 November 2009 (EST)
 * MATEO: Did you even read any of my points or look at any of the bestiaries there already are? They're nowhere near being a stub! Redstar 21:23, 30 November 2009 (EST)


 * BabyLuigiOnFire: What Gallery do you mean? And the Paper Mario/Bestiary isn't exactly something that can fit on its main page. Redstar 22:45, 30 November 2009 (EST)


 * I think she(BL on fire) meant the separate page of images (such as artwork and screenshot) found in articles like Wario or Luigi because I'm not too fond of it either.

I changed my vote because I realized this proposal changes nothing already done, and actually agrees with my initial position. It was just so badly presented I had no idea what Fawful was trying to get at, but in the end I realized we can both benefit from this proposal. Redstar 00:55, 1 December 2009 (EST)

Half of you need to re-vote, seeing as how this proposal is now changed to remove Paper Mario bestiaries.-- 14:20, 1 December 2009 (EST)

I was actually thinking we could change the PM bestiary to Paper Mario/Tattle Information because most of it is tattle info. Then all the hard work going into the sub article wouldn't get deleted if the most users decide to get rid of all bestiaries.
 * It's actually a bestiary that contains Tattle information. Super Mario RPG doesn't have Tattle information, but it does have Psychopath thoughts. There's a clear different, so bestiary is a broad term that works for all four games. Redstar 15:59, 1 December 2009 (EST)

@Redstar: You can't make a new option without defining it. What exactly are you opposing? Instead, make the header something specific like "Allow RPG bestiaries only". Also, since the proposal has been changed, those votes without valid reasons will be removed.
 * Okay, I'm tired. Are you telling me I need to oppose something more specific? I'll re-work my oppose just in case. Redstar 16:40, 1 December 2009 (EST)

No, you misunderstood me. I meant change the title of your section from "oppose" to an option more specific.

Ok I agree that it should only be for Paper Mario games and SMRPG, but no other games, so my proposal wa, once again, edited. Hopefully, now I won't have to edit it anymore. So everyone can change their vote or whatever. }}

What's a Koopa?
DO NOT MERGE KOOPA AND KOOPA TROOPA 2-9

I think that the pages Koopa and Koopa Troopa should be merged together because, frankly, what on earth is a Koopa? The page lists all of the sub-species of Koopa Troopas and that could be done on the page Koopa Troopa or not done at all because it is not necessary. When I think of Koopa, I think of turtle enemy-thing in Mario but this page does not describe the turtle-enemy thing, it describes its sub-species and all of those subspecies descriptions are one sentence long with ! I think that Koopa=Koopa Troopa and I'm sure you will agree.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Marioguy1}} Deadline: Friday December 11th, 2009 (8:00 EST)

Merge

 * 1) - Per above
 * 2) marioguy has made a good point also, the "koopa" article is pointless, simply pointless, because "Koopa" is just another name for Koopa Troopa, merge "koopa" into Koopa Troopa because Koopa Troopa is a more common name than "Koopa" and a new section would fit nicely in the Koopa Troopa page.

No Merge

 * 1) - No. Koopa is not the same as Koopa Troopa. Koopas are species, while Koopa Troopas are sub-species.
 * 2) The Koopa article is information on other Koopas (Hammer Bros., Dry Bones, Paratroopas) and the Koopa Troopa article is about a type of Koopa, Koopa Troopa. Look over those articles again, they are about two different things.
 * 3) - Having a catch-all Koopa page is good, since Bowser and Lakitus aren't anything like Koops or KP Koopas, but there should still be a separate "Koopa Troopa" page for the species. Saying the "Troopa" just refers to them being soldiers is just splitting hairs - are all Hammer Bros. brothers? Unlike Bowser's unnamed species, at least the little guys have a title that has been applied to their kin and no one else - unlike "Koopa" which has many meanings - and ignoring that would be foolhardy in the face of all the other organization issues Nintendo forces upon us (like Bowser's species).
 * 4) - Per Walkazo. It'd make more sense in this case (to me, anyway) to leave Koopa Troopa at it's current location, than move it to Koopa and move the current Koopa article to Koopa (species). Besides, "Koopas" has been used several times in Mario games to indicate the species of Koopa. (And what is "Koopas" but the plural form of "Koopa"?)
 * 5) - Per Walkazo, and Stooben Rooben. Category:Koopas pretty much sums up how all the arguments as well.
 * 6) - Per Stooby boy and Walka girl.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) - Merge unnecessary. Simply re-write the Koopa article to more clearly describe the Koopa group, rather than identifying them (incorrectly) as a species.
 * 9) - When I think koopa, I think of a koopa troopa, but it is actually the species.

Comments
I was having a discussion on a similar topic just yesterday, concerning the Hammer Bros. I think the entire thing is sort of speculative since the page amounts to more than a cherry-picked list of various turtle-like enemies, entirely excluding other candidates. If it was truly extensive, it would list a lot more. But by the same token, it'd be speculation because who knows what a "Koopa" really is? The manual says "Koopa tribe", but the term "American" covers a lot of different races and ethnicities. Whether they meant "Koopa race" or "Koopa social-group", who knows. I feel a complete overhaul of the way we classify the enemies is in order. I really don't feel Boomerang Bro., Sumo Bro., Fire Bro., etc. should be considered "sub-species" of Hammer Bro. Related (as in similar, not blood-related) enemies, yes, but the current terms really deliver inaccurate connotations. Care to make this proposal a bit more general, MG1? If so, I'd be happy to support. Redstar
 * Reversinator: Aren't enemies species as well? Redstar: It's easy, Koopa and Koopa Troopa are the same thing. Koopa is like an expanded ==Sections== section for Koopa Troopa.
 * ...I guess so... Fine, I'll change my vote.

Super Mario World indeed lists Koopa Troopas simply as "Koopas" in the credits, which would suggest that only those are called "Koopas" and the enemies that aren't directly related to the Troopa are not. I don't think the Koopa article can be merged with Koopa Troopa like that however, since the majority of species listed in it are, in fact, quite clearly not Koopa Troopas. What it would need is a title change, or possibly a complete removal in favour of the Koopa Troop article.--vellidragon
 * As I said, cut the speculatory-fat and rename it "Koopa tribe" (as you were great to bring up). I'm sure there would still be speculation involved, but far less. The name issue needs to be resolved the two articles' subjects re-defined, anyways. Redstar
 * Will someone please explain to me What a Koopa is? This is why I named the proposal what I named it, because I have no idea what a koopa is. As far as I know, Koopas don't exist and are just another name used for Koopa Troopa. Whether they're listed as Koopas or Koopa Troopas in the credits, they're still the same thing and that thing can be renamed, like redstar said, after we figure out what they are.
 * I believe "Koopa", as suggested by the "Koopa tribe", is meant to encompass all the various turtle-races into a singular group. (Though, as far as we know, Piranha Plants could be Koopas as well under the "tribe") Koopa Troopas are just the catch-all, generic Koopa, which is why they can be called just Koopas. (Like in many sci-fi works, humans are so common that they're the "standard" in judging appearance and so on). I always just took the term Troopa, and thought it meant Koopa Troopas were "troopers"... Perhaps it's just a title? They're Koopas, unless they're a member of the Koopa Troop, in which case they're "Troopas". Does that make sense? Redstar
 * As far as I'm aware, "Koopa" in the Japanese games has always been no more than a name; that of Bowser, to be exact. The mention of a "Koopa tribe" and names like "Koopa Troopa" are afaik exclusive to the English localisation (Koopa Troopas for instance are named Noko-Noko in Japan, Koopa Paratroopas are Pata-Pata), and I don't think it has ever been officially stated what a "Koopa" would be according to the translators. The closest information we can get is the Koopa Troopas being referred to as Koopas in SMW's ending, which as Redstar pointed out may just as well mean they are the most common members of a Koopa tribe (which would include other sub-species as well) as it may indicate that Koopa and Koopa Troopa refer to the same thing. No real clarity seems to come from official sources.--vellidragon

Vellidragon: That's what Koopa (disambiguation) and are for :P Redstar: All of that goes under Koopa Troop.
 * The Koopa Troop is the personal army of Bowser's (hence the "Troopa" part applied to Koopas that fight for him... Not that no Koopa that isn't sided with him has the Troopa part). The Koopa tribe would be a more broad grouping covering all Koopas regardless of political alignment. Redstar
 * I agree with you on that part but we are straying off topic here, whether Koopa Tribe should be created or not is a topic for later discussion, right now we're talking about merging two articles together and I think we should get back to that.
 * King Bean: Can you elaborate on that?

Okay, how about this: Koopa is the species name for the generic-turtle enemies in the game, namely "Koopa Troopas". "Troopa", however, is a job title or position. Koopa Troopas are members of the Koopa Troop, making them troopers. This is supported by the Koopa Paratroopas, who take their name from paratroopers, or parachuting soldiers. This suggests that normal, wingless "Troopas" are also soldiers... Also take into account the RPG games, where we get most of our information. Enemy Koopa Troopas are specifically said to be working for Bowser. Compare this to Kent C. Koopa, an enemy that works alone, and note that his Tattle information calls him simply a "Koopa". No "Troopa" part. All the non-enemy Koopas in Koopa Village and, later, in Petalburg, are simply called Koopas. It seems highly likely that the difference is Koopa is species, and Troopa is title/position, much like the various "Bros." enemies carry the weapon or technique they use as a sort of job position-title. Redstar
 * Fawfulfury: I have read the articles over again, again and again and, whether you like it or not, Koopas and Koopa Troopas are the same thing; just because the article is a list of different types of the sub-species of Koopa Troopas doesn't make it a valid article in the slightest. I could very well put under almost every single one of those sections! The article has many tiny sections displaying stuff that, if it should be here at all, should be under List of Koopa Troopa Subspecies. If you still believe in your cause; what's a koopa? I'll tell you what it is, it's a Koopa Troopa; that article was obviously made by someone who didn't know we had an article on Koopa Troopas already.
 * What makes that so "obvious"? I'd rather say the article was made by someone who believed "Koopa" to be a collective term for all the turtle-like enemies in the Mario games, which may or may not be true, since the games are rather vague on that.--vellidragon
 * Walkazo: Would you consent to having these articles merged but a "List of Koopa Troopa Subspecies" made? Because I think most people that type in "Koopa" are looking for a Koopa Troopa and not a list of their subspecies. We could add the list of subspecies to Koopa (disambiguation).
 * No, because calling anything a "subspecies" is pure speculation: we can justify calling things like Chargin' Chucks "species" on the Koopa page because of their unique biology, but that's not the case with things like KP Koopas, Dark Koopas, Shady Koopas, Mask Koopas, Koopatrols and many other variations of Koopa Troopas Mario has encountered. (See here for why this is the case; it's a long essay, but I tried to make it interesting for all you non-biologists.) Why should we create a speculatively titled List page when the Koopa page is a perfectly good platform to list not only the types of Koopa Troopas, but of all Koopas, which, unlike the list-template, hasn't been done yet? The same goes for adding a list to the disambiguation page. There's a link to Koopa Troopa in the first paragraph of the general Koopa page, as well as a link to the disambiguation page, and making one extra click of the mouse is not going to inconvenience anyone looking for the Troopas. It might even teach them something about Koopas in general if they choose to read the Koopas page first - especially if we clean it up a bit. The potential value of an annotated list of Koopa species far outweighs the benefits of saving that space with a merge and using templates and categories to list things instead; my reasons why are included in the essay I linked to above (primarily in the last two paragraphs), which also has an example of what the page could look like with a little expansion. -

Can we at least establish that Koopa is not a species and that Bowser's article should not be classified as having the species Koopa? That is the real reason I made this proposal anyways...
 * Well, the Koopa page has been re-written and expanded a bit. "Koopa" is no longer presented as a species. Redstar
 * It's not a species. It is (IMO) a fan-made subject used to describe the generic creatures carrying shells on their backs. I have no idea why we have someone categorized as one but I plan to change that.
 * I didn't say they were a species.
 * @KingBean: Koopa Troopas aren't sub-species. They're simply Koopas working as soldiers (troopers) for Bowser. This is supported by the Paper Mario Tattle descriptions.
 * @Walkazo: It's not splitting hairs, it's fact. And none of the Bros. enemies are brothers; it's a title. The comparison to Troopas is moot. Redstar
 * No, "Troopas" is as meaningless as "Bros." in these respects, so the comparison is valid. As an example, I give you Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door: both Dark Koopas and KP Koopas are described as "Koopa Troopas" in their tattles, yet one is found exclusively in the Pit of 100 Trials and the other is only encountered in the Glitz Pit, so they're hardly soldiers of the Koopa Troop. -
 * By the same token, Kent C. Koopa (an enemy not working for Bowser) is described by his Tattle description to be the "Biggest Koopa ever". The Troopa-nomer is absent. So, really, both our arguments are supported and it's only localization and Nintendo that make it vague. Redstar

}}

Merge RPG Boss Aspects With Main Boss Articles
DELETED

This proposal is for support of moving a particular type of boss minion (as explained below) in the RPG games to their related main boss article. This is because these particular minions are only encountered in battle alongside bosses, because their Tattle information suggests they are either a part of or actually are the boss, because the main boss article is lacking complete information, and finally, because the splitting of these minions has largely resulted in stubs.

The following are a list of which minions are proposed to be merged, to whom, and why.


 * 1) The four Elemental Crystals in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars, being Fire Crystal, Water Crystal, Earth Crystal, and Wind Crystal. All but the Wind Crystal are stubs, composed of mostly only a single sentence and an enemy template. These enemies are only ever fought alongside Culex, whose article already covers most of the information these stubs have. I propose merging these articles as sections of the main Culex page and creating redirects.
 * 2) The Petit Piranha and Lava Bud articles with the main Lava Piranha boss article. They are only ever encountered during the boss fight with the Lava Piranha. In fact, Lava Bud's Tattle description says "Lava Buds are little flower branching out from the main stem of the Lava Piranha.". This clearly points out they're only different "heads" of the same enemy. Petit Buds are spewed from Lava Buds, making them also part of the Lava Piranha. All are really the same enemy, so they should be merged to provide comprehensive information on the singular character.
 * 3) The Tuff Puff article into the main boss Huff N. Puff article. Tuff Puffs are only ever encountered in battle with the boss Huff N. Puff, and their Tattle information even says "These are the Tuff Puffs that break off when you damage Huff N. Puff." This clearly makes them the same enemy, just different "heads". Merge as a section.
 * And, finally, the Crystal Bit article into the main boss Crystal King article. Just like all the previous examples, Crystal Bits are only ever encountered in battle with the boss Crystal King. Also, like some of the previous examples, their Tattle description says " This is a Crystal Bit. Basically, Crystal Bits are just pieces of the Crystal King. You can drop 'em with ease. Their Max HP is 1 and they're only dangerous when the Crystal King spews 'em out. Their defense power is 0. These guys are pretty weak. They'll keep coming, though, until you've finally beaten the Crystal King." This clearly says they are the same enemy, just different "pieces".

In summation, here is a quick and easy list of what this proposal will accomplish:


 * 1) Remove stubs by merging them with their main articles
 * 2) Create more complete articles by piecing together all the information in one place
 * 3) Remove unnecessary division of information

And reasons why:


 * 1) The information is divided. Putting it all in one place creates more complete articles as well as removes stubs
 * 2) Many of these divisions are enemies that are either different rounds of a boss, or just their weapon. Still others are just pieces of the boss, so aren't really a different enemy

If anyone has any questions or comments, feel free to use the Comments section below. Hopefully I provided enough information to make a decision. If you agree with this proposal in general, but you don't agree with some of the merges or are wary of the reason why, feel free to comment about it and we can discuss it. This is a big proposal and I don't want anyone Opposing if they don't agree with just one aspect.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: Redstar Deadline: December 8, 2009, 17:00 Extended: December 15, 2009, 17:00

Support

 * 1) - Per proposal
 * 2) First off, we'll just put their tattles in the same article. Not really any harm in that. Since those enemies are controlled of part of that enemy, they should be in the same article. So per Redstar's proposal.
 * 3) - First of all for all the opposers, they are battled at the same time, asist in the battles, and has too much information linking to the bosses. Also, do we want stubs, or articles? This is too little information for both the bosses and minions to be articles beyond stubs.
 * 4) - This would combine all kinds of useful information into one place - making it easier to access.
 * 5) - Per all, we need this!
 * 6) These are stub-like articles that are just simply part of the bosses. I think it's ridiculous that projectiles or other stuff like that used by bosses have their very own article.
 * 7) - Changed vote. I recently stumbled on Straw, which technically is part of a boss. If this proposal fails, we would have to keep that article. We'd also have to split Exor for consistency (which is literally composed of body parts). Just because an enemy can be targeted and has a tattle, doesn't mean it needs an article.
 * 8) - Per Knife, mainly. Having individual articles for different parts of the same boss/enemy seems unnecessary; it's like devoting an individual article to Corkpedite's body (or the Goomnut tree in the King Goomba battle for that matter, since it can be targeted). I see no reason not to merge them, all it would do is make getting information on the respective boss fights easier since it's all in one place.
 * 9) Lu-igi board at the very least merge the crystals with Culux
 * 10) - Per all, because, some boss battles also have more than one boss, such as the Axem Rangers, it is split into Axem Black, Axem Green, Axem Pink, Axem Red, and Axem Yellow. The Shadow Sirens is split into Beldam, Marilyn, Vivian, and Doopliss (Vivian and Doopliss are debatable). Merging Booster, with his Snifits, would also be possible. Bowletta, should be merged, with Flaret, because, Flaretts (as stated in their own page,) are not even enemies, just items. Bowser??? - Per Proposal. Adding Mario Clone, to Mario, Mallow Clone, to Mallow, Geno Clone, to Geno, Bowser Clone, to Bowser, and Taodstool 2, to Peach. Merging Aero, to Bowyer. Marging Brobot and Brobot L-Type, to Mr. L, because they are both Mr. L's weapons. etc...
 * 11) - Per Waluigi Guy
 * 12) - IF all the opposers read the stubby articles, then read the Exor article, you should instantly agree with this proposal. Enemies in Bowser's Army don't need to be merged because they made their own stand and have many appearances throughout the Mario era. These Redstar are pointing out are the one time bosses and enemies that appeared in mostly the RPG series. They extremely need to be done, or we would have to split the articles that are merged this way (Exor for example, who be split into left/right eye, Neosquid, and Exor (main), and all would be stubs!!!). Just, for the sake of unstubifiying the Mario Wiki, support this!!!
 * 13) - Per all.
 * 14) Different parts of the same boss shouldn't need their own articles. Or different battles of the same boss.
 * 15) - Per Dimenshi, per all. I may be new here, but even I can see that this is a good idea. We don't do this on the other wikis I edit.

Oppose

 * 1) - Different tattles, different battles, different enemy, different article
 * 2) Per Tucayo.
 * 3) - Per Tucayo.
 * 4) - The enemies you have listed there are minions of a greater boss. They are affiliated with him, they take out his orders without complaints, they even may go as far as to sacrifice themselves for him, but ther are not identical with him. We cannot just say that they are the same when there is no solid proof. On the other hand, there is evidence that they are separate beings by the different tattles! Under this circumstances, merging these articles would not be recommendable. This is why I disagree! So per me, and per Tucayo!
 * 5) - Per Tucky and Edo. They shouldn't be merged, and with all these merges, where are we going to draw a line for what needs to be merged and what doesn't?
 * 6) Per Tucayo and Edo.
 * 7) Per Tucayo and Edofenrir.
 * 8) Per Tucayo and Edo.
 * 9) - Per Edo.
 * 10) - Per all.
 * 11) - What can I say? Per Tucayo and Edo.
 * 12) - Admittedly, I'd agree on this proposal without the fact that Tubba's Heart and the other Paper Mario articles are suggested. A solid "no" from me.

Comments
@Tucayo: Lava Piranha before and after becoming covered in fire gets a different Tattle description... Does this make the two different enemies? No, it doesn't, and many other enemies are of the same circumstances. Many of these proposed merges have Tattles that specifically say they are a part of, or the same being as the enemy. The different body parts of Exor aren't divided among different articles, even though they each have different stat-spreads and tattles (Psychopath Thoughts). Likewise, all of these "minions" or extensions of the main boss are fought in the same battle, not different ones. Redstar 16:51, 1 December 2009 (EST)
 * Thanks for noticing, we should split Exor.
 * Uhh, yeah. I don't think anyone's going to support splitting a character just because they have different points of attack. But if this proposal fails, I suppose it would extend to Exor. I suppose next you'll want to make individual pages for the Koopa Bros.. Redstar 16:57, 1 December 2009 (EST)
 * Of course we wouldnt split Exor, that was sarcasm. Its a single enemy.

Quote Edofenrir: "And next we merge Magnus Van Grapple with Lord Crump? It's the same guy, just surrounded by a load of metal." Well, yes. I go to Lord Crump's page and see a section very vague. If I want the whole story, I have to go to the Magnus Van Grapple page. Why do I need to jump around to get all the information? Magnus Van Grapple is not a character, and is not a boss... Lord Crump piloting it is, so the experience should be told from his perspective, not from an inanimate object. This proposal changes little. All it does is move all the information to one place where it is the most productive. Redstar 17:18, 1 December 2009 (EST)

Just to be absolutely clear, are you proposing that the 8 cases listed above should be merged, or that those and all similar cases should be merged?

BMB: Yea, we dont want stubs, we want artciles, so lets expand those, merging is not a good solution.
 * I'm only proposing this for these 8 specific cases. There may be similar situations, but those won't immediately be affected. They should at least be discussed on their respective pages, though, if someone deems a similar merge necessary.

@FunkyK38: The line will be drawn quite cleanly. Merges will not occur all over, rendering this Wiki a copy of Wikipedia. There will still be articles dealing with a singular topic, hotlinked from main articles. The only reason these are brought up is because they are all aspects of the same enemy, just different "attack points", so to speak. Dividing them is unnecessary and only serves in spreading information which should be read in one place. Redstar 21:58, 1 December 2009 (EST)

After reading over my list of suggested merges, I've decided that Chompy to Tutankoopa and Shy Squad to General Guy could easily be cut. They, to a degree, are individual enemies so are more on-the-fence compared to the other examples. Would anyone change their vote in favor of this proposal if these two were removed? Redstar 22:06, 1 December 2009 (EST)

Wait a sec, I'm not understanding. The Proposals page never had a removal of votes section. Why this proposal have?

Alright, now you are fighting dirty. The rule you are refering to applies only in case of bad-faith or reasons that are so blatant that the wiki cannot support them. This rule is in no way a green card for expelling other people's opinions of their value. Tucayo's vote is valid, and mine was too! Stop this attempts to rig the Proposal! -
 * The section is not simply for bad-faith votes; it is also for votes with no given reason and I'm afraid your vote falls under that category. Your vote was: And next we merge Magnus Van Grapple with Lord Crump? It's the same guy, just surrounded by a load of metal. I disagree. per Tucayo. Where is the reason in that? If you want Magnus Van Grapple merged with Lord Crump or not then say so but do not put it as a vote.
 * I disagree with the removal of Tucayo's vote. Nintendo is horrendously vague about so many things (Bowser vs. Dry Bowser, anyone?), so believing that a sentient heart (or whatever) is a character unto itself is a perfectly valid opinion. Tucayo belives they are separate beings - and so must the people per-ing him - and so believes they deserve separate articles; this is a perfectly valid reason to oppose this proposal. It's not misinformation, it's just one way of looking at things; you got a problem with it, take it up with him, but it's not enough to call a vote over. -

Walkazo: Until further notice there is not removal of removal of support/oppose votes nominations or comments sections. If you wish to have either of these things done then propose it here or on the admin boards but don't just go ahead and do it. I disagree with the removal of Tucayo's vote but there should be no comments placed there at all.
 * I'm sorry redstar, edofenrir's vote is valid as it pers tucayo's vote which is also valid so I will not be able to vote to remove it (thought the rest of the vote is invalid)
 * The abuse of democratic values that were given to the users of this wiki in this Proposal is shocking. This foul display of abuse to gain personal advantages utterly disgusts me. I am disappointed. -

I believe that people should be able to vote about what they think without fear of their votes being rendered, "invalid" and getting removed. The people of this wiki should be free to vote about what they see fit, and neither Tucayo or Edofenrir's votes are invalid.
 * I agree ATM but unfortunately what if I added the vote GOOD IDEA, I SUPORT LULZ!!!!!!!!!!!!? That vote would have necessary removal but, as edofenrir said, this function should be reserved for that function only - that is why I have removed my vote to remove his vote.

In the past, I saw votes saying "Good idea" that were not removed. Why these are being now?
 * The rules were changed
 * There was always a rule against votes like that, but sometimes there was simply no one around to remove them. -

How exactly is Tucayo's vote "not specific"? He's stating the fact that they are different enemies, so they get different articles. Just because he didn't write it in a textbook fashion (i.e. "They are different enemies with different tattles, thus they should have different articles") doesn't make the vote invalid. --
 * For everyone else, I don't understand what the big deal is. The option is there to remove votes, and three people voted. Obviously, two people agreed with me. That is very democratic, and Edo's vote was simply "I disagree". He should have provided a better reason then that, which he now has. As for my response to Stooben, Tucayo's vote is misleading and has two incorrect points. He states that these enemies are different, and fought in different battles. They are not. They are fought only in the same battle, and their tattles say they are part of or actually are the boss. So, he's lying. Saying their Tattles say they're different enemies is wrong. His vote has two wrong points to two valid ones, so the whole thing should be removed and, if he so chooses, re-added with entirely valid reasons. I don't want people to read his vote and think all those points are true when they're really not. If they're really such different enemies, then why do the Crystal Bits tattle say "They are pieces of the Crystal King", Tuff Puffs say "They break off from Huff N. Puff", and Petit Piranha's says "They are flowers that grow off the stem from the Lava Piranha"? Since when are pieces of my body not considering me? They also say that these different Tattles are indicative of different enemies... Well, then we should get to work splitting the different forms of Smithy and Exor, as well as any other boss that has multiple body parts and a different Tattle for each. Clearly, if my hand has a different description from my chest, they're not a part of me and different entities. They should be split for consistency. Redstar 04:45, 5 December 2009 (EST)

I will not remove neither modify my vote, because I know it is perfectly valid. In the worst of the cases, I can just per Edo ;)
 * And yet, Edo's vote is still leaving much to wonder about. What exactly is this "solid evidence"? Likewise, how is your vote "perfectly valid"? You say they're different enemies, and different battles... Why and how? I've offered undeniable evidence supporting the contrary, while your vote simply states something and doesn't back it up. I felt Edo's vote and yours lack merit, and at least for Edo's I got two votes and that of an admin. How exactly is that "rigging" it? If MATEO and MG1 were socks, yes. But they're not. They're two people that agreed, and one person with authority-bound honor... You said that I was close-minded in that chat, but you're the one that has so far refused to offer any explanation for your opinion. I've explained my reasons and revised my proposal many times over, yet I'm the close-minded one? Please, all I'm asking is for a legitimate rebuttal, and not just a disagreement. You're biding your vote for MG1's Koopa proposal below, until the difference between Koopas and Koopa Troopas is defined, so why can't you define the difference between your own reasons? Redstar 11:16, 5 December 2009 (EST)
 * For the record, none of the people who voted to remove Edofenrir's vote were administrators. And even if they were, it wouldn't matter, as this does not change the weight of a vote. Also, why did you think you can remove a vote that was supported by a valid reason? The rule said that a vote has to have no merit or be cast in bad faith. You've said yourself that Tucayo's vote had some merit, so it wasn't not eligible for removal under that rule.
 * He basically said that he doesn't want to merge the articles because they deal with different individuals. I got it, many other users got it, I'm sure everyone should be able to get it. Every information you need is up there, so use your eyes and read it! If you still say you don't get it then, then you probably don't want to get it to have a point to remove it. On a side note I recommend you to learn more about democratic values, and how abusing them leads the entire system to collapse. And please, don't type a respond to justify everything (once again). Use this energy to think about what other people told you, and what you attempted to do here. If you are not ready to do that, I have nothing more to say to you. -
 * @Twentytwofiftyseven: I'm fairly sure MG1 is an admin of some sort. And Tucayo's vote holds two invalid points contrasts by two valid ones, so shouldn't that make the entire vote invalid?


 * @Edofenrir: You and Tucayo say they're different individuals, but neither of you have provided a reason as to why while I have provided their Tattle descriptions which explicitly say they are the same individual... I also know as much about democratic values as I need to, and I in no way abused them. How did I? I used a system already in place, I put up a vote, and two people besides myself voted. If I was "abusing" it, then I wouldn't have received anything. You're the one abusing it through your position of sysop and basically changed the rule to negate true democracy and put the power to remove votes only in the hands of sysops. If sysops are voting, and sysops have votes that should be removed, then how is it democratic if no one can vote? It can only be "discussed" now... And after the discussion, then what? Is there a private vote for only sysops? I don't understand how that is any more democratic than what we already had, but you claim was somehow "rigging". Redstar 12:39, 5 December 2009 (EST)
 * Your comment just showed me that you don't care about what other people tell you. I see no point in going on, since you don't even want to reconsider. I'm not that eager to waste my time talking to someone who won't listen. Good afternoon. -

Redstar: I am not an admin of any sort unless you mean on userpedia and could we please, as Edo said, drop this subject? The admins are coming out with an advancement on rule #4 and we just have to trust them on that; wait a couple days until the rule has come out and then propose it.
 * Edo, I don't even know what you're talking about. You keep accusing me of all these things and getting heated over a simple proposal. You're the one that's being rude and not listening... I mean, just look at the edit history. You say "Eat it" as the summary for editing your vote. Is that any way for a sysop to behave? You're supposed to be professional and courteous, yet you rudely attack me and accuse me of all these things. I'm just trying to help improve the wiki in ways I believe would be good. MG1, sorry, I thought you were one. On Bulbapedia, welcome templates are automated and any of that stuff is only handled by admins. Redstar 12:59, 5 December 2009 (EST)
 * Well, as admin it is my duty to be impartial, and that's why I didn't give you a warning for nominating my vote to be partially removed (which is btw the same as proposing to rewrite my vote, which is a heavy violation the rules). As a human being it is my right to be pissed to have my vote and the vote of a friend of mine assassinated by dubious usage of rule no. 4. I also have to ask you to quote correctly. I said "Eat this" in a joking way, when I rewrote my vote. And now, as MG1 said, this discussion should be ended. I suggest you to re-read what I said, what Walkazo said, and what Stooben Rooben said at your talk page. -

Redstar: as an administrator, i order you to drop this. If you continue this you will get a warning. Thanks and have a nice day.
 * You're ordering me to drop something that happened six hours ago? >_> Redstar 21:38, 5 December 2009 (EST)
 * Yes, I AM.
 * Why is that even necessary? I've been here for the entirety of those six hours, so it should be obvious it was already discontinued. Redstar 21:46, 5 December 2009 (EST)
 * Because there is no reason i could know you were here all that time.
 * The Recent changes page says which users are currently online. I'm currently online, and have been for six hours. Six hours have passed since the last comment on this page. Quite obviously, I had no intention of responding. Redstar 21:52, 5 December 2009 (EST)
 * Just a little pointer for everyone before this discussion is ended for good: The user list at the recent changes sometimes acts buggy and does not always acurately display who is online at that time. It's not the best source. -

@luigi-board: Would you mind expanding your reason a little? You're either entirely for it, or entirely against. Any modifications should be handled in the Comments, which I can consider for modifying the proposal. Redstar 15:39, 7 December 2009 (EST)


 * Sheesh you guys like to argue with each other! Maybe we should put a limit on how long a proposals comments section should be, since someone is making them way longer than they should be. All this about whose vote is good or not. Half the comments aren't even for the said proposal!

You can't modify a proposal that's more than 3 days old.
 * Alright, thanks for telling me.
 * And @ WaluigiGuy: I appreciate your support, but your suggestions are a little too extreme, in my opinion. Some of those should be merged, but to different articles, I think. If this passes, we'll at least discuss some of those before doing anything about them, okay? Until then, can I ask you to make your reason more in line with accepting the examples already given? I don't feel too comfortable being supported if it directly extends to other articles. Redstar 21:11, 7 December 2009 (EST)

Would anyone be willing to change their vote in favor of this proposal if I were to remove Tubba Blubba's Heart and Bowser??? from this list? Please realize these are only examples, so they're not immediately meant to be put into action if the proposal were to pass anyways. They're only meant to give an impression of what I meant this proposal to accomplish, though I now feel the two above don't meet that standard so I'm willing to cut them. For Edo specifically, this protects from his fear of Magnus Von Grapple and similar being merged. Redstar 22:25, 9 December 2009 (EST)
 * According to proposal rules you are not allowed to edit/delete a proposal after three days of proposing it...just sayin'
 * Yes, but I didn't modify the proposal. That was a list of examples. The proposal itself is intact, while those examples were never meant to be affected by the proposal. They were just there to illustrate what sort of articles the proposal would affect. I realized that the two I just removed don't follow the standard of what I'd intended for the proposal, so I cut them. Nothing has changed, really. Redstar
 * I wonder if people realize they could just make User:Username/Proposal and then type onto the page and then they will be able to edit the proposal at any given time. I realize that you did not change the proposal, I'm just stating the rules as they are listed. Listen to them or not - even if you have ultimate reasoning - I will still say the rule. I'm not trying to challenge you or the proposal in any way, I'm just saying it how it is.
 * I'm not exactly sure what either of those would do. Sorry for my ignorance of what you're explaining... As for my proposal, the proposal and what it intends to do hasn't been changed at all, only some of the examples accompanying it that contradicted the proposal. If a sysop disagrees, they can re-add them with an explanation why.

Redstar: When you type the name of a user space with – then the content of that page is copied onto the page you're editing.
 * I don't really see the use in that. Redstar
 * It's how everyone uses their signatures around here (that or )
 * It's simply easier to type out four tildes than to write that every single time. Redstar
 * Yeah, but if everyone has signatures, the backgrounds and images make it hard for people with older computers to load the page, especially if the sigs aren't coded properly. An extra second of typing one's signature means mintues less of loading time for many other people, so in the grand scheme of things, it's actually easier to write the whole thing out every single time. -

Redstar: If you want further information, my talk page is open. Anyhow, back to the proposal - would anybody change their vote now that Redstar has removed Tubba Blubba's Heart and Bowser?
 * Nope. I know it's just a suggestion, Redstar, but I still am opposed to the wide scope of possibly effected articles. I think this should be done on an article by article basis.

@Waluigi Guy: Most of the articles you suggested to merge weren't even stubs... }}

Make a Limit for the Length of Comments on this page
LEAVE AS IS 5-12

Okay, I know I'm not the only one who's noticed this, but I'm going to be the one to do something about it. The proposal comments have gotten ridiculous. Comments aren't supposed to be these insanely long paragraphs that argue with what the other users may say. It takes a long time to scroll down all the comments, and then it's hard to even find where one proposal starts and one ends (At least that's the impression I get)! And it's just missing the point when half the comments in the section are not even about the said proposal! Here's what I want to do about it:
 * I'm not trying to silence other users who have a short and sweet opinion, but I want the users who drag it out too much to STOP. Comments should not be whole paragraphs like the ones above. I want to reduce the length to, let's say, 4 to 6 sentences.
 * Comments that have nothing to do with the proposal should be deleted. This includes arguments about deleting votes. That stuff should be done on Talk Pages.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|FunkyK38}} Deadline: Monday, Dec. 14, 2009 (8:00 EST)

Shorten Comments

 * 1) -Per me above.
 * 2) I completely agree with Funky!!! Removing votes comments belong on talk pages! The comments section should only be for questions and answers, and just stuff that won't make huge conversations/arguments.
 * 3) I think those ridiculously long comments that act like walls of text should get removed. If a user wants to make a point, he/she should at least make it short, but clear. I also dislike when comments take up like, half the proposal page.
 * 4) "I think those ridiculously long comments that act like walls of text should get removed." - This says all. :P
 * 5) - Yes, some users can write what they thing, and forget. They literally can be writing a short novel for all we know about a thought that have. If we want to make it long, do it on the proposer's talk page or this talk page (that is why we have it!).

Leave as is

 * Sorry, but this proposal is ridiculous. If there's much to discuss about a proposal, you can't just suppress that. If certain users tend to write overly long and off-topic comments, kindly tell them. But a general rule is really pointless.
 * 1) - There are plenty of good reasons why long, wordy debates can be held in the Comments sections, and they often lead to improvements of the original proposal, better understanding of ideas, and more developments down the road. As Time Q already explained, Users (and especially Administrators, who are charged with policing this and any other discussion pages) already have the right to ask for off-topic or inflammatory discussions to be taken elsewhere or ended all together, so this proposal would only add restrictions to the meaningful comments.
 * 2) As Time Q and Walkazo have already explained, this proposal is point less because long comments can explain more than 4 to 6 sentences could while being grammatically correct.
 * 3) I won't like this proposal to pass because sometimes long comments are useful and necessary. I don't like long meaningless comments though, so until the proposer changes the wording (such as "remove unnecessary long comments"), I am opposing this.
 * 4) - Fraid I'm gonna have to agree. No limiting comments as some comments must be long to get a user's point across if they are trying to point something out. We already have people who think we're too strict thanks to the no-sig policy. Imagine what they say if we limit the amount of sentences you can add to the page! Per Thyme Que.
 * 5) - I don't necessarily feel things should be "left as is", but I do oppose this proposal. An alternative should be considered.
 * 6) -- Per Time Q. Ridiculous proposal.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) - Per Time Q and Walkazo.
 * 9) - I'm not an user who likes to make speeches on discussions, but I know that limiting an user's arguments is unfair and incorrect. As for out-of-topic comments on proposals, any user can stop these discussions by sending an advice on them, avoiding confusions for other readers and conflicts out of place.
 * 10) - Per Coincollector
 * 11) - Yup. Ridiculous.

Comments
Hmm... I don't know if limiting the comments to four to six sentences is the right solution... Though I fully agree with you that the comment sections have gotten very long and hard to overlook. I will think about this for a while. -
 * Well, I suppose I could change that to "not making it a huge arguement" like FF65 said above... If enough users feel that way I can change it.
 * I don't think a limit is necessary, since sometimes length is necessary to elaborate on a point. I would approve moving all Comments to respective sections on the Talk page, or a specific "MarioWiki: Proposals/Comments" page, however. Redstar 21:13, 7 December 2009 (EST)

I always thought that separate sub-pages were a good idea. I brought it up on the talk page a long time ago, but I guess it fell through.

How about a show/hide tag? Or a scrollbox?


 * I don't think so on the show/hide tag (reason being is that I mysteriously see all the answers on the 'Shroom and it says click here to show answers. I think it's something to do with my extension), but I think it should be like on the Archives section where all proposals are on scrollboxes.

Imposing character limits on comments just seems to go too far. My idea for a /Comments page work, but a show/hide tag, as suggested by Tucayo, is quick and easy as well. Redstar 10:28, 8 December 2009 (EST)

The administrative staff will probably make a change to the proposal organization, so this proposal probably isn't necessary. }}

Allow Support Votes to be Removed on Nomination Pages?
NO REMOVING SUPPORT VOTES 4-7

For this proposal, I think that users should be able to vote for the removal of support votes on FA nomination pages. I mean, we can vote to remove oppose votes, but what about support votes! Users might support articles to become featured because they like that certain character that was nominated or they might not make a good reason on why they supported. Other users should have the right to choose on to delete those or not.

So, here's how it would go: Users can vote on if they want to remove a support votes or not. If three users, including an admin, support for the removal of that vote, we can delete it. Good, right?

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Fawfulfury65}} Deadline: Wednesday, Dec. 16, 2009 (5:00 EST)

Be able to remove support votes

 * 1) Per above.
 * 2) - I suppose we must trust our sysops (though I don't know why it doesn't extend to all admins) to make the right decision in the end as that is why they were promoted, per Fawful Phew Ree65.
 * 3) I still see some supports that sound a lot like fan votes, but maybe the SYSOPs are little slow in deleting fan votes. Some other support votes sound like fan votes but with the word "article" instead of the character's name in it.
 * 4) I've seen a lot of support votes that say "oh i love *insert character here*!" when we're supposed to give a good reason.

Leave as is

 * 1) - I think our current policy is fine.
 * 2) - Per Tucayo. Besides, the oppose votes are really what keep a page from getting features, not support votes.
 * I do NOT think our current policy is fine, since the proposal has passed that allowed admins to remove support votes. So of course I don't agree with this proposal either. I explained a thousand of times why removing support votes is pointless, and I'm tired of doing it again and again. Please read my reasons here. In short: Support votes do no harm, and no, they should NOT be treated the same as oppose votes, since they serve a totally different purpose. Opposers need to state what is wrong about an article, but supporters CANNOT state what is "good" about an article without reciting the FA requirements, which would be pointless and redundant.
 * 1) -- I can't think of any reason an admin would ever agree to remove a support, but still, the idea behind this proposal is pointless. Oppose votes are really the only ones that matter. Per Time Q.
 * 2) - If the reasoning Time Q provided, that an article cannot be featured without complete support, then I don't see a reason to change it now. Just make that a bit more clear or obvious.
 * 3) Per Time Q, and, as I stated before in the comments of a previous proposal, I am in support of removing any vote description, while keeping the vote intact (thereby leaving the name of the supporter), I do not see anything wrong with the actual vote. The reason is that I think the main issue is not the vote itself, but rather the unattractiveness and clutter the reasons attached with the vote, therefore I think the reasons can be removed, but not the vote itself, as it would probably cause anger to those who put in the vote. (Do you guys think I should create a proposal with these terms? :))
 * 4) Per All, I think that it's good now.

Comments
Well, we already have that rule that the most blatantly annoying votes (aka fan votes) can be removed from the support section. I cannot think of another kind of vote that would be useless enough to justify its removal. I don't think this rule change is necessary, since support votes are basically useless after the nomination got five of them. Can you provide an example of a vote you'd like to remove? -

Well, supports shouldn't be moved for fan votes only. When people oppose and just say something like "this is a terrible article" with no reason why, people can vote to remove that, but if someone supports saying something like "this is a great article!" why can't users vote to remove that? All votes that don't give a reason on why they supported and think the article is great really should be removed...

@Marioguy1: By all admins, you're saying sysops and patrollers, right? I'll change that I guess. I really want this to be like removing oppose votes.

Uh, you know people this days may load up the support with fan votes and we may get into a huge mess just trying to remove one at a time. But I do agree that "this article is good" isn't enough. In that case, some people may think many grammar errors are ok, but others think it is horrible. Fawful: Yes, that is what I mean - Admins=Sysop, Patroller, Bcrat, that other rank...
 * @MG1 - Whether or not all ranks of admins can have the same privilages seems to be outside the power of proposals, so I'd take that up elsewhere.
 * @Stooben - Just because an article is nominated doesn't mean it should be featured just because. Removal of oppose votes protects an article from not being featured for baseless reasons, but what if the article is supported for baseless reasons and doesn't deserve to be featured? We need to protect the honor of what a featured article means just as much as the process of getting to it. If the article truly deserves it, then a removal of supports privilege won't change anything. Redstar 01:19, 10 December 2009 (EST)
 * I don't know if you are used to the wiki's FA nomination system rules yet, so I better explain them. Unlike the Proposal page, the ratio of support and opposal votes actually doesn't matter, they don't affect each other. Support votes have only any impact on the nomination as long as there are less than five. If the amount of support votes meets five, the nomination becomes valid and the article will be featured after a set amount of time. However, if someone opposes the nomination, the whole process becomes stalled. The article will then not be featured until the pointed-out flaws are rectified. The opposal vote is then removed. Because of this, one single opposal vote is able to outnumber all given support votes, and this is why opposal votes are watched much more strictly than support votes, or at least that's how I was told about it. We had a Proposal about removing fan votes some time ago and I am glad it passed, but I think this is as far as we can go... -

I vote for the removal of Reversinator's vote since unlike what he says, supporters of an FA nomination are NOT supposed to give reasons for their vote.
 * Ok, I dont want another discussion, but TimeQ, if they do not give any reason at all they will be removed...
 * Well, under the current rules that were enforced by the proposal I linked above, any admin can arbitrarily remove votes they don't like (well, in the wording of the proposal, those that "do anything but help", but who is to judge what falls under that description?). There is NO rule stating that every support vote needs to have a "good reason", as Reversinator puts it.
 * Any support vote should at least refer to the article it supports. I think this doesn't ask for too much. And now let's please end this discussion. It was started one time too often. -
 * I certainly won't end the discussion, as we're here to do just that: discuss the matter.
 * Yes, exactly. We are here to discuss the matter. The matter that is listed above, not the matter of something else. I tried to prevent the discussion from going off-topic. If you want the discussion to derail though, then go ahead ;3
 * Sorry, I misunderstood you then. You're right that this isn't exactly the topic of the proposal. But it's a very similar discussion (what are support votes worth, what are oppose votes worth, etc.).

Ok, I dont plan to argue again :)You can make a proposal to revert that, or even veto it...
 * I might propose to revert it sometime, but of course I won't veto it. Obviously there's no consensus among the admins, so I wouldn't even be allowed to.

T.c.w7468: I somehow like your idea, since there's indeed no real point in giving a reason when supporting a FA nomination. But I don't know if the reasons are that much of a problem really.
 * I like it a lot. It does remove more clutter, I think. Perhaps a rule that only the first five supports must have reasons? Since those are the only ones that really need to count anyway. I dunno, just a suggestion. }}