MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/25

__NEWSECTIONLINK__ 

Merge the Minor Voice Actors together
DON'T MERGE 3-16

I noticed that many actors from the cartoons are just stubs. Also, there is a List of Cartoon Voice Actors article, and i was hoping we could merge all of the minor actors into that article, but keep the major ones, such as Lou Albano and Danny Wells. But, on the other hand, actors such as Aron Tager and Damon D'Oliveira, that are very minor, should be merged into that article, since they are just stubs.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Mileycyrussoulja}} Voting start: 21:39, 26 October 2010 (GMT) Deadline: 23:59 2 November 2010 (GMT)

Merge

 * 1) Per meh.
 * 2) I agree with this. It's the same thing on Bulbapedia. They have a huge table of voice actors that tells who voiced who and so on. It's a lot easier than having a bunch of stubs.
 * 3) Why not make a single page dedicated to voice actors, major or minor? Of course, no one listens to my ideas, so I'll have to say per Mileycyrussoulja

Don't Merge

 * 1) I gave my reasons in the comments, there is no need to repeat.
 * 2) - Per BLOF
 * 3) They're all important, no matter how minor a voice role they have.
 * 4) Voice actors are quite important really, per all.
 * 5) If I was a voice actor, I would appreciate my own article. Per all.
 * 6) Per my comments.
 * 7) - Per FF65 and our policy.
 * 8) - Per all.
 * 9) - Merge...is not always a good idea. Per all.
 * 10) - Per Count Bonsula. Imagine the mess...(well, in other words, per all)
 * 11) - Per all.
 * 12) - They deserve their own articles. Per all.
 * 13) – Per all.
 * 14) The merger the maryer? Not this time.XD
 * 15) Ditto to all opposers. ;)
 * 16) Per all.

Comments
I really don't think merging is the solution. We are supposed to expand on the articles rather than merge it. And no matter how minor a person or actor is, I believe that they should still have their own articles, just like the Mario Tennis generic humans.
 * Yeah, we should have an article for all of them because they are all important enough.
 * I'm pretty much neutral on this situation. Though I do see some points brought up on the merging side, though they might not necessarily be the views of the proposer. What if the TV series just randomly comes back up, and they have a bunch of Goombas in one scene, all voiced by different actors, speaking a bunch of indistinct stuff. Would every person voicing said Goomba be noted? What if said person doesn't have a voice acting history, and only voices for this once? The page about them can never go above stub status. Though this is a 1 out of 999999999 situation, it could happen. Like I said, I'm neutral on this situation as I feel my vote might be biased.
 * Well, we just have to trust that Nintendo is not insane and that they will not make a new TV series with different actors for each enemy (what a budget). Also, show me any character that falls under your second thing, "not notable", I wanna remove the immediately.

}}

List of non-Mario game Characters Games
DON'T MAKE LIST 2-12

Make a list of all of the non-Mario games any non-Mario character has appeared in, but has appeared alongside Mario in some game (such as Super Smash Bros. characters).

Setting out:

==Other Games==

(list all of the non-Mario games that particular character appears in to the Wikipedia page in bullet points) {{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|SKmarioman}} Voting start: 26 October, 2010, 15:00 Deadline: 2 November, 2010, 23:59

Support

 * 1) This will be useful so that not only readers know what other games a character has appeared in, but they will also have some information on that game.
 * 2) We have the right community for it, I think this is a great idea.  I'm also thinking, if this takes off.  We could even change our name.  The other wikis like BLOF said aren't populated enough.  We should take advantage of the fact that this is most likely the biggest gaming wiki on the internet.

Oppose

 * 1) - This would be expanding way too much our coverage, no.
 * 2) Our current coverage is fine. If you want to learn about Kirby's games, the Legend of Zelda's games, etc., this is the wrong wiki to be in. We have WiKirby, Zelda Wiki, Lylat Wiki, etc. for a reason.
 * 3) - Per BLOF
 * 4) I am Zero! Per first two comments and per all. Zero signing out.
 * 5) This is why we have NIWA...
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) - Cameos and that kind are in the reference section and per all.
 * 8) - Per all.
 * 9) - Per all.
 * 10) - Per all.
 * 11) - Per all.
 * 12) – Per all.

Comments
Wouldn't a extended List of Appearances be enough?
 * Couldn't we just suffice with a "see the article on this subject" (for an example). I don't see the point in adding information that has nothing to do with what we cover. We just link them to another associate of NIWA (or wikipedia) and they can get much more in-depth information there.
 * That's actually what this proposal is about. The idea is that the list of appearences links to the, let's say Pikachu, to all of the Pokémon games he's appeared in, as well as the the Bulbapedia article.
 * So all the games in the lists would be links to the articles for those games on the other wikis? It's too much work for something that will ultimately not be used much: if the reader really wants to read about the characters' influences in the other series in that much detail, they would go to the other wiki, rather than bouncing between the list on our wiki and the info on theirs. -
 * The basic idea of the proposal is so that users and readers can easily navigate around the enitire NIWA (and some other wikis) instead of just getting info from one wiki.

@Beecanoe Take a look around Bulbapedia. They are real big too. Like a Wailord. }}

Remake Exclusive?
DON'T MOVE INFORMATION 0-9

I've noticed on a few pages about games that have remakes, SMB2 for example, have information or even whole sections of stuff that is only in its remakes. Examples are voice acters or on the staff page, there's people who only worked on the remake version.

So I say we move this information from the original game to its respective remake. {{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|SKmarioman}} Voting Starts: 03:00 December 14, 2010 Deadline: 23:59 21 December, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) - It's better to have all the information about the games on one page: and that means both the originals and the extremely similar GBA remakes. Splitting the remakes from the originals was a bad idea, and two of them should have been re-merged by now anyway, due to a pair of TPPs that were never enacted (their proposer was banned before he could do it, and then they fell through the cracks). This proposal runs counter to the plans to re-merge the remakes, and therefore, I oppose it.
 * 2) Per Walkazo.
 * 3) Per Walkazo.
 * 4) Per SMB and Fawfulfury
 * 5) Per all, this is sensible.
 * 6) - Per Walkazo.
 * 7) Remakes, other than few and aesthetics changes, are too similar to their parent game to be warranted a separated article. The remakes are so similar to the original games, that a list can be devised listing changes without heavily expanding the article.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Per all

Comments
You mean like make a whole new article for remakes?

No, I mean move information about a game's remake, such as the 'Voice Actors (Super Mario Advance)' section on the Super Mario Bros 2 article to the Super Mario Advance article.

I thought a proposal passed to merge the Super Mario Advance series with their original games.


 * Two TPPs passed to merge two of the SMA games. Here's a complete timeline of proposals regarding GBA ports (I'm pretty sure I got them all):
 * Separate pages for the SMA ports - Passed, March
 * Split GBA ports from the SNES DKC games - Failed, July
 * (Merge SMA into SMB2 - Deleted, August)
 * Merge SMA - Improperly cancelled; would have passed otherwise, August
 * Merge SMA2:SMW - Passed, August
 * Merge YI:SMA3 - Passed, August
 * SMA4:SMB3 - No TPP has been made
 * Long story short, it's a pretty big mess: if the two pages are merged, the other two should be merged as well for consistency, but this proposal has confused the issue, and it would be best if it was voted down before any merging occurred. -
 * Well, the SMA one was cancelled because KS3 was banned. I think maybe we should try to merge SMA again, the other games have done the same and it has worked. Otherwise, that would probably render this invalid.
 * There is no policy saying that when someone is banned, their proposals are cancelled. As for whether or not the proposal is invalid, that's hard to say: two of the pairs of pages it deals with shouldn't be separate anymore, but the other two are fair game. Alternatively, this could be interpreted as an attempt to repeal the two TPPs that did go through. In an ideal world, rather than make three TPPs, KS3 would have made one Proposal here about merging all of them, and then the merges would have actually been done, and we wouldn't have this current conundrum. -
 * Really? That's pretty strange, looking back in the proposal archive, things have been removed due to the proposer being blocked, like the proposal to update DYK (did you know) more regularly, and quite a few by NARCE. Surely these shouldn't have been deleted. On topic of the proposal itself, I thought there was a proposal on this page to merge them with their respective remakes...I guess there may not have been. Surely we should create one.
 * Apparently they were deleted because Rule 10 ("The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it.") couldn't be upheld if the proposer was banned. Anyway, once this Proposal ends, TPPs are going to be made about merging SMA and SMA4, and then everything's going to merged once those pass (if SMA2 and SMA3 are merged immediately, there'd be a huge inconsistency in how the remakes are being dealt with in the meantime; doing it all at once will be much neater). -

Change of plans. Seeing as everyone voting on this proposal seems to be fine with merging all the articles, and recalling how the two TPPs that have been made were unanimously approved, odds are no one will take issue to the other two pages being merged. Therefore, we're going to go ahead and merge all four of the SMA pages when this proposal hits the deadline (unless someone does complain on the talk pages in the meantime and talking it out doesn't work). Before TPPs were made, pages were merged, split and deleted without proposals all the time, so this is perfectly legitimate (and much faster and convenient). -
 * Great, this issue has been bugging us for some time and I'm glad it can finally get settled. I don't see why anyone would have a reason to object.

}}

Combine Game Guides
COMBINE GAME GUIDES 19-1

Hi, this is my first time suggesting a proposal, so forgive me if I screw something up.

My proposal is this: the "Super Guide" function has now, to my knowledge, appeared in four games: New Super Mario Bros. Wii, Super Mario Galaxy 2, Mario vs. Donkey Kong: Mini-Land Mayhem!, and Donkey Kong Country Returns. It doesn't look like Nintendo is getting ready to stop using this new feature, so I propose we make a "Super Guide" article that will encompass all of the analogous features that count as a "Super Guide" between the Mario series games, with a section for each game, with possible subsections for distinctly different things with similar features in other games (i.e. the Super Play videos and Super Guide Block in NSMBW and the Tip Network and Cosmic Spirit in SMG2, respectively).

Again, sorry if I've gone about this wrong, but I thought it'd be better if I was a little more professional and made a proposal here instead of on a talk page for, say, one of the Super Guide features, since this proposal involves several articles.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Teamrocketspy621}} Voting Starts: 23:59 December 13, 2010 Deadline: 02:57 20 December, 2010 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Per proposal
 * 2) Good idea. Per proposal.
 * 3) Perchlorate all.
 * 4) Per all too
 * 5) - Sounds like a good idea.  After all, they basically operate in the same manner.
 * 6) Sounds like a great idea
 * 7) Per M&SG
 * 8) That is an excellent idea. Per proposal.
 * 9) Good idea. Per all and proposal.
 * 10) Per proposal.
 * 11) Per Proposal
 * 12) Purrrrrr all.
 * 13) – Per all.
 * 14) Fewer short articles.
 * 15) They have some things that are the same, so why not give all the same page?
 * 16) Sounds good. Per above.
 * 17) Good Idea!
 * 18) A very good idea, makes complete since. Per all.
 * 1) A very good idea, makes complete since. Per all.

Oppose

 * 1) - hmmm... I'm not sure really. Is it possible that we should merge every element involved in the super guide? I mean, first, there are articles of them with enough info as to be one on their own. Second,  I see some inconsistency (if that's the word) on gathering elements that are at first sight unrelated. example: the tip network is an object; the cosmic spirit is a character of sorts and so on. I think that is better to add these topics a category and (or) make the article "Super Guide" without removing the others.

Comments
OK, I moved this here from the talk page
 * Thanks, I'm not entirely familiar with the proposal process. Teamrocketspy621 23:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

}}

Allow Youtube Videos on Specific Pages
DELETED BY PROPOSER

I realize no one went for my first proposal on expanding the mainpage, so I'm back with a new one. I know that YouTube videos are for userpages only, but I can think of a few pages that can include such videos. For one, there's the songs. What's the point of making a page for a song when you can't hear it? It really took away from me when I was a non-user browsing the pages on the wiki. Another use for it could be to show an intro to a game to start off the page. If anyone approves and can think of other uses for videos, feel free to put them in the comments section.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer:{{User|Beecanoe}} Voting Starts: 03:45 20 December, 2010 Deadline: 00:00 26 December, 2010

Oppose

 * 1) I am Zero! Per my comment. Zero signing out.
 * 2) Yes, the comments are very valid. I really don't think it is consistent, and many pages could have youtube pages, even if it isn't in that category. But it really degrades our pages, so I am opposing.
 * 3) - Per all (including the comments): embedded videos look sloppy and can make loading times frustratingly long on older computers. If a video is truly necessary, it can be externally linked to, but for the most part, the wiki is fine without them.
 * 4) - YouTube likes to take down its videos spontaneously when there are slight copyright infringements, users who host Mario music might upload other videos that gets their accounts suspended, content gets banned in certain lands, videos vanish, etc etc. We as a wiki have absolutely no say in this. If we put videos on our articles, the videos might get removed and we are left with broken media on our page. Someone would have to watch over all the videos and be ready to replace them. This wastes a lot of resources that can better be used for actual maintenance. tl;dr version: We shouldn't subject our mainspace articles to the mercy of a site we have no control over.
 * 5) - Per everything below the oppose section (and what I said).
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) You know what the problem with YouTube videos are? We don't NEED them. All we need to be a reliable source are the information typed out and some colorful pictures to illustrate. Yes, it could be helpful for certain glitches, but that's it. Besides, if I did upload videos, well, I'd say that my videos are less-than-serious.

Comments
"What's the point of making a page for a song when you can't hear it?" Well...

We don't have articles on songs. And intros are described good enough on the pages, if the person reading it doesn't know it already. We're a Wiki, not a video-showcasing website. And how do you know the owners will give us permission?

Ever been to a wikia site? They do this all the time.
 * Wikia sometimes has separate pages for songs too, but our coverage does not stretch to that. We're not like Wikia. We're different.

I'm sure this won't work. There have been former proposals talking about this and failed...
 * I am Zero! There has already been a proposal about this. The problems of putting youtube videos on an article are, the loading time it takes, and the quality, once that video's embedding has been disable, has been claimed on copyright infringement, or the quality is terrible it will make our wiki look bad. Zero signing out. }}

Autoconfriming Wait Time Cut
KEEP SAME WAIT TIME 0-9

Hi,this is my first proposal too so I apologize for any mistakes.I recently discovered that new users have to be Autoconfirmed In order to edit articles but in order to do that the new user has to wait 1 week and make at least 10 non-article edits.I also discovered that this rule was made to prevent vandals from moving pages.While I understand that there are jerks who want to make peoples lives harder,I feel it is more important to let new users who are probably eager to let their voices be heard edit articles.So it is my proposal that we cut the number of days that a new user has to wait from 7 to say,5.I hope this if this Proposal is passed it will make more people interested in joining Mario Wiki so they can post new information so people who are new to the Mario series may better understand it. Thank you for letting make my Proposal {{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Bowwow828}} Voting start: December 20,2010 11:35 Deadline: December 27,2010 23:59

Oppose

 * 1) I am Zero! Per my comment below. Zero signing out.
 * 2) Per all the comments below.
 * 3) - Per the comments below: a week and ten edits isn't asking much.
 * 4) - The rule is fine as it is. Changing it wouldn't bring much benefit, so there's no need.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) No need, and alot of people sometimes just edit there userpage all the time while they are waiting
 * 7) Per everyone.
 * 8) - There's a reason for having the current auto-confirmed rules.  Just refer to the comments.
 * 9) – Per all.

Comments
Non-autoconfirmed users can edit most articles in case you didn't know. They just can't create articles. Besides, new users need to get a little more experience on this Wiki and its rules before they can create pages and upload images.
 * Yes, I agree. 7 days isn't long, and you can have ten edits on any article IIRC.
 * 65: Don't you mean new users? Anyway, what are the pros and cons of reducing the amount of days to 5? Are 5 days enough for a user to learn?
 * I am Zero! I see no difference between 2 days. I think the rule is fine as is. Zero signing out.
 * @LGM: Oh thanks for picking that up. It was a stupid mistake of mine.

@Fawlfulfury65 yeah when you mention it is fine to leave it as it is.Sorry for your trouble

A week and 10 edits isn't long anyway. No need to reinvent the wheel.
 * It seems to me that the creator of this proposal is not autoconfirmed and instead of waiting the duration of the week he's trying to cut the wait.
 * That would be pretty stupid then, since proposals take one week to be concluded anyway. - }}

The TPP Effect
LEAVE IT ALONE 5-15

Third times the charm I hope, but let's not focus on what proposal number this is that I've made. Lately there has been many talk page proposals by the same user that conflict with each or they conflict with past tpps that have already passed. It is quite confusing on how unorderly and how inconsistent it is starting to become.

What I propose is that we have some changes to the Talk Page Proposal rules shown far above this. I say that if a tpp is being runned that conflicts and disagrees with another tpp that one of them has to change in order for consistency to be played out. Now of course some circumstances should be made about that, depending on what it is and the reasons, but if it is for the same reasoning as another, then that rule should change. But it is hard if it conflicts with other proposals from the past. What I say we should do about it is to have that ttp turn into a proposal that will go into misc and deal with all that it effects. Then, depending on whether the proposal passes or fails, shall the pages be changed depending on the outcome.

I believe that all I have said above is very logical, and will solve many issues that we have had here on the MarioWiki with the tpp's going on lately. If you don't quite fully understand my proposal, comment in the comments section. {{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Baby Mario Bloops}} Voting start: December 29, 2010 5:16 Deadline: January 4, 2011 23:59

Support

 * 1) - Probably should have done this when I made the proposal, but wanted to see some opinions first. Since this seems to be looking like a good proposal, I support it 100%! Per me!
 * 2) Per guy above
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) Per Proposal.
 * 5) Per all.

Oppose

 * 1) - I'm sorry, but this is way too vague to be incorporated in our policies. Maybe if you flesh it out and formulate it into clear, precise paragraphs, we can think about adding something like that. But in this form: Just no.
 * 2) Per Edofenrir. I think it would turn out as a confusing policy.
 * 3) - I like the idea, but I have to agree with Edo, this is vague.
 * 4) Well, I agree with all that oppose this, it's main idea is good, but BMB, you need to make your description less vague. I can personally not see the specifics to this idea, thus, I simply have to oppose this for the time being.
 * 5) - Per Edofenrir: I don't see how we could possibly turn this proposal into some clear, concise rules. Besides, we already aim for consistency and if things really do get out of whack, Rule 13 gives the admins the means to set things straight. The problem is that a lot of the time, comparing TPPs is like comparing apples and oranges, and the whole thing is rather subjective: what's inconsistent for one person might be perfectly fine for another. No rule or policy will ever change that, and trying to shoehorn the TPPs into a strict guideline could actually backfire and make it much more difficult to run and regulate them; having wiggle-room is very useful sometimes.
 * 6) - Per Fawfulfury65. It could get confusing.
 * 7) - Per all, mostly Walkazo and Emperor Yoshi. I don't understand what you want to change, or do differently.
 * 8) I am Zero! Per Edo, way too vague. Zero signing out.
 * 9) - i would support...if i knew what ur talking about here. sorry.
 * 10) - Per Edofenrir, Emperor Yoshi, Tucayo, and Fawfulfury65.
 * 11) Per Edofenrir. Way too much vague.
 * 12) Per all.
 * 13) Per all.It's too vague.
 * 14) Look out: YOU MIGHT BE DOING WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO PREVENT.
 * 15) Per the SysOps.

Comments
I like your idea, we do need that. Consistency above all.

Can you clarify what you're saying please?


 * @Bowser's luma: Pretty much I am just solidifing the rules since a lot of agruements and conflicts have been going off in some TPP's. I am just saying to add/change a rule or two in the TPPs so that we can have consistency and to have a more understanding structure. That is about it.
 * Ok. Consistency is good.
 * This seems a little vague, could you be a little more in-depth?
 * Let's see if I can make it fit your idea of "clear". Hmmm...Pretty much if this proposal passes, we will be adding some more rules to TPP's. If a TPP conflicts with another (let's say one is to merge Goomba and Paragoomba, but another at the same time that has Goomba be split to Goomba (species) and Goomba (character)) then one of them has to be deleted or changed so that it doesn't happen like that. But if they interfere with each other, and one is running and another is passing (Example, split M&L series mushrooms apart, and a proposal that passed a few months ago merged them to the Mushroom article), then the current one either has to change the proposal, delete it, or bring it on this page as a main proposal and if passes, then the TPP would say something like "this TPP has changed via ". Its to help put consistency into the TPP's as we have struggled ever since they have been made with what is right and wrong and if this or that conflicts with that or this.

Agree! But that is not consistency, that is preventing conflict.

WAIT! This proposal has already been passed! See the "How to" section above, it has this rule: 8. No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old. So that means that the proposal made second would have to be deleted to follow this rule so this proposal is unnecessary.
 * Not exactly, it is actually to expand that rule. Because the rule refers to proposals dealing with the same subject, while this proposal talks about proposals that deal with similar circumstances.
 * Well if the circumstances are conflicting, such as in the case of his Goomba/Paragoomba example, one of them would be deleted so either his proposal is unnecessary or his example is faulty. }}

Change to
KEEP THE NAME 1-11

First proposal, I'm sorry if it's n00by. So recently, I found out that the template that has all the courses in the Mario Kart Series is. I think it is a little childish to put in the Race in Racecourses. I can understand if you disagree, but sounds better. Once again, sorry if it's n00by. {{scroll box| Proposer:{{User|The Cosmic Vin}} Voting Start: December 30 2010 22:56 Deadline: January 5, 2010 17:56

Oppose

 * 1) There are 2 types of courses,race courses, and battle courses.
 * 2) Per BLOF.
 * 3) Per Nicke8.
 * 4) Per Nicke8.
 * 5) - Per all (including BLOF and what I said about semantics in the comments).
 * 6) I am Zero! Per Nicke8 and BLOF. Zero signing out.
 * 7) Per Nicke8 and BLOF.
 * 8) Per Nicke8
 * 9) Per Nicke8 and BLOF.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Per all.

Comments
I disagree with you. I think the prefix adjective, "race" specifies "course". There are many types of courses out there, such as an obstacle course or battle course (it could even mean a school course), so changing it to "course" would be simply too vague. I don't understand what makes putting in the word "race" makes things childish. It describes the places perfectly, since you definitely (most of the time) are racing in there.
 * I agree. Also, would have to be switched to the new template name on over 60 pages, which seems like a lot of work for mere semantics. -
 * Well if he agrees to do it all himself...
 * I was planning on it. I was also thinking we could put EVERY courseof every kind into one template.
 * Having both types of courses in one navigation template might work, but they're too different to share one style of infobox, so while and  would be merged, you'd still have  on the articles. The infobox doesn't actually say "racecourse" outside of the coding, but neither does the navigation template: it says "Race Courses", like how the other one says "Battle Courses", and even if you merged them, they'd still have to us those terms to differentiate between the two types of courses within the template. The term is not childish or superfluous, it's functional. - }}

Bowser's Castle Article Name
CHANGE THE NAME 12-6

Since, in Mario Kart series, they're all called "Bowser's Castle" and not "Bowser Castle". I think we should change the name of the article from Bowser Castle, to Bowser's Castle (course). I've not been on Mario Wiki long, but I know a lot of stuff about games, I just don't know how to make major changes like this. If this is voted for, I ask that someone tell me how to do it, or that someone else do it. Thank you. {{scrollbox| Proposer: {{User|Britannic124}} Voting start: January 2, 2011 00:00 Deadline: January 9, 2011 00:00

Support

 * 1) &mdash; Why give a page a different name than the subject, itself? A lot of other courses have the parenthesis after its title, rather than a different name. I hope you also support me on this.
 * 2) I have to agree with Brittanic124. There are 2 courses that say Bowser's Castle, and one that is Bowser Castle 3. That's more than half of them that say Bowser's. It even has a disambiguation on both pages.
 * 3) Per… uhm… proposal maybe?
 * 4) Per Britannic124, UltimatePetey and SWFlash.
 * 5) Per all. As my mom says, you have to spell and pronounce it correctly, so other people can understand you.
 * 6) - Per myself in the comments: the courses have been called both "Bowser Castle" and "Bowser's Castle", but the latter is the most recently-used term, and so we should go with that.
 * 7) The "courses" label makes everything much clearer. Bowser Castle and Bowser's Castle sound too similar. The label shows that there is a difference between the two, which means that people can find what they are looking for without memorizing if the castle of Bowser is the course or the castle itself.
 * 8) I'm with you about this one.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) The only thing I would say is that it's called Bowser Castle in Mario Kart DS but still cool.
 * 11) - Per Walkazo.
 * 12) Per all.

Oppose

 * 1) I am Zero! It will be too confusing to the visitor to have them in separate articles. I think just making that slight edit on their section is all we can do. Zero signing out.
 * 2) I am not Zero, but I am still opposing. Per Zero. It is fine as it is. It can be known under two names, and one is already the name of a very different article. If I remember correctly, it uses that name in most of the games, so it would be better as the name of the majority.
 * 3) No no no! Per Arend & Coincollector. Bowser Castle is the main article for all the Mario Kart racecourses, whereas Bowser's Castle is the main article for the actual castles location/level-wise. A similar idea to this has already been resolved, just follow the link in my comment.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Well in Mario Kart DS, the Bowser Castle Course is Called "Bowser Castle". It wouldn't make sense to have all the courses on the page be listed under the title Bowser's Castle, if one course is called Bowser Castle!
 * 6) The page got deleted FOUR times.

Comments
Voting start...January 5th?! It's supposed to be around 24 hours after you first make it, not...3 extra days. I was just leaving space for the voting on the proposal below!
 * That's kind of not how it works. The rules state it has to be, so I will alter the voting start. People have enough time to vote on each.

I dunno, I've seen that the racecourses appear under the name Bowser Castle (like in Mario Kart DS) and others Bowser's Castle (like in MK Double Dash). I suggest you to use the latest name used for the course in a similar way that was done for the Octoomba's article.

Hey zero, did you see the article itself? There's Bowser Castle and Bowser's Castle (and no redirects!). That's why I'm supporting it.
 * Fools. Take a look at the bottom of Talk:Bowser's Castle. It should clear this up.
 * Okay, I'm crazy. I thought you were going to merge them. x_X But still, per Coincollector.
 * Calling people "fools" is rude: drop the attitude, please. The discussion you linked to doesn't clear anything up; the only bit applicable here is what MG1 said about proper names/nouns, but that logic is actually faulty seeing as "Bowser's Castle" is now used to refer to the tracks as well as the general castles that belong to Bowser. The entire thing feels like speculation to me: I doubt Nintendo ever meant for the names to be that subject-specific, especially since they've started using the same term for both uses of the castle. We're not supposed to make conclusions: we're supposed to name articles based on what the most recent game calls the subject in question (which is what Coincollector was talking about); in this case, the course set in the Koopa King's castle was called "Bowser's Castle" in the most recent game, Mario Kart Wii (I just played it myself to make sure of that). -
 * Yeah, I kinda noticed that. x_X Sorry about the attitude, though.


 * I have been questioning about this myself. We could always make a disambiguation page for Bowser's Castle, and have an article for the place, the race track, and the Baseball stadium. –
 * We already have Bowser's Castle (disambiguation); since the place is almost always what people will be searching for or linking to, it gets the main namespace. -

The name Bowser’s Castle is only used in 3 Mario Kart games. The other 3 games use the name Bowser Castle. I made a little list to clear things up. Every odd numbered Mario Kart game uses the name Bowser Castle, while every even numbered Mario Kart game uses the name Bowser's Castle. If this trend keeps on, it will be called Bowser Castle again in the next Mario Kart game for the 3DS.
 * Super Mario Kart - Bowser Castle (1, 2 & 3)
 * Mario Kart 64 - Bowser's Castle
 * Mario Kart: Super Circuit - Bowser Castle (1, 2, 3 & 4)
 * Mario Kart: Double Dash!! - Bowser's Castle
 * Mario Kart DS - Bowser Castle
 * Mario Kart Wii - Bowser's Castle


 * Arend, you are GREAT! I mean that seriously and respectfully.
 * You forgot about MKDS (it's Bowser Castle too), so it will be called Bowser's Castle in MK3DS (I think)
 * I didn't forgot DS. It released after Double Dash!!, but before Wii.
 * I though it was last one, but yes, you're right.

Err... I had said before to use the current name regarding the last appearance, right? however, changing the name in this way would be a lame cause because then would have to change to the name that the next game will use (move from Bowser Castle to Bowser's Castle and again Bowser Castle). In my opinion, stick with the first official name ever used for the article and this is Bowser Castle exactly.
 * But we don't know if it'll keep flip-flopping. As for the patter of the previous names, it could be a coincidence, or it could be because of different developmental teams, or it could be on purpose based on the order of the games or even whether they're consoles or handhelds (not counting the SNES game). We shouldn't speculate on it and even trying to anticipate what the next game will be doesn't seem right: we should name our articles based on the present conditions, not because of what might happen. - }}

New Time Trial Article
DON'T MAKE ARTICLE 2-13

I noticed that if you search "Time Trial" right now, you are brought to a redirect that takes you to a small section of the Mario Kart (series) article. I think this mode should be given its own article.

The biggest reason I think this is because there are full articles existing about similar modes, such as Diddy's Dash and Time Attack. It makes no sense for these to have their own articles and not Time Trial. Additionally, if a Time Trial article is made, it should have the similar Time Trail modes that I mentioned merged into it since they are near identical. The article could be used to list times that need to be completed in some Time Trials, since some games give you certain times to beat. It can also describe how the Time Trial mode can be unlocked (I know a few games don't let you play the mode right away), how it can be unlocked, and a little about how it may work.

Well, those are all the reasons I can think of. {{scrollbox| Proposer: {{User|Fawfulfury65}} Voting start: 3 January, 2011, 1:47 Deadline: 9 January, 2011, 23:59

Support

 * 1) This seems like a good idea.  Time Trials mode is a major part of the Mario Kart series and deserves its own article (unless Grand Prix, VS, and Battle don't have articles.
 * 2) Sounds good. It's a game mode, so it's important.

Oppose

 * 1) – If anything, those other articles need to be merged to their respective games, not the other way around. Modes shouldn't get separate articles as they detract from the game articles. Will we put a  template on each respective section in the game articles? Not to mention that this proposal is inconsistent. What makes the Time Trial modes more deserving of an article than other modes like Grand Prix, Battle Mode, Versus, Mission Mode, etc.?
 * 2) -Per Knife. Game modes should make up the game's article in question.
 * 3) - Per all. Now I can see the cons of this, and they overpower the pros, to be honest.
 * 4) - I agree with Knife.
 * 5) - Making a Time Trials article is pointless if you asked me.  Refer to Knife's statement.
 * 6) - Per Knife.
 * 7) I am Zero! Per all. Zero signing out.
 * 8) Per Knife, Coincollector, MrConctreteDonkey and M&SG.
 * 9) You guys are right. Per all.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) Per all.
 * 13) Per all.

Comments
We could also list the staff ghosts in Mario Kart Wii into the Time Trial page.
 * Yeah, that's what I want in them along with the times for some of those Donkey Kong Time Attacks and stuff.
 * You opposed your own proposal! Does it mean that you'll delete it?
 * No, anyone who still agrees with what I wrote before can support. But I changed my mind. }}

Bring Back Featured Images
DELETED BY PROPOSER

I know this might get shot down faster than you can say "MOOMOO MEADOWS," but I just want to give it a shot:

Myself and many other users preferred the Featured Images to the Polls. I joined in the era of FI's, never seeing a MarioWiki poll until the aforementioned killing of the FI's, and personally prefer them to the polls. Although the polls voice everyone's opinions, the FI's have a certain joy to it, and is a nice aspect for users where we can take a break from editing and check out the Featured Images nominees. You vote on a poll once a week or so, and then the results are posted and nothing really comes of it. With FI's, you vote as well, but whichever image wins has the glory of sitting on the Main Page (not a subpage that nobody ever goes to like the polls) for a week and whoever nominated it is happy. The FI's are an aspect of fun and user satisfaction to the wiki that we should bring back. This concludes my extra-long proposal. :)

{{scrollbox| Proposer: {{User|Bowser's luma}} Voting start: 18 January 2011, 19:28 GMT Deadline: 25 January 2011, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per me up there.

Comments
I think the FIs were more interesting than the polls, but the FI system was terrible and there weren't any good images to use because everyone was being too picky when they voted.
 * Mmmm. The system was bad, people were way too fussy and there aren't any good images left.
 * I think that it started getting too opininated and not what it should have been with all the users. I really don't think it would be better now that we have some cool images from DKCR or MSM. Polls are doing excellent right now, with many votes, and FI's....well, I know I loved it so...but....this seems like a bad idea.
 * I just don't get any satisfaction out of the polls. I click a button, wait like a week, and then find out if I voted in the majority or not. Whoopee. Maybe it's just me, but FI's were more fun.
 * I am Zero! The FI's were very opinionated and disorganized. I think it will be better to start the Poll selection page again, this time with new rules and delete all the previous ones. Zero signing out.

I do agree on how the FI sytem was funner than clicking on a button for the polls (one of the main reason I joined this wiki :P). However, the reason it got removed was the faulty system it had. I think if we have FIs again, we can make rules saying that votes MUST have substantial content (like WiKirby's system, there's lot of rules that we can inspire from).
 * If I recall correctly, something else that factored into the cancellation of the FIs was that it didn't actually reflect on the quality of the wiki - just on the quality of the pictures we had, whereas the FAs at least promote good writing and motivate people to actually edit, and not just sit around and vote on things they like. First and foremost, the wiki is a database and everything else is just extra, so when the Polls or the FIs started taking over a lot of the traffic, that was not a good thing. Of course, I kept both things at arm's length (except when their issues were taken to the proposals page) so my knowledge is limited. -
 * It has become clear to me that the old FI system was bad, but that doesn't mean we should have gotten rid of them. I know that if this passes that we can all decide on some new system that strictens (what? is that a word?) the rules for the FI's so it isn't too messy.

That's actually wrong. You need to propose a system before this passes/fails, otherwise we'll get nowhere in the event that it does pass.-- 17:39, 18 January 2011 (EST)}}

Tougher Rules on Unneccesary Redirects
DELETED BY PROPOSER

Recently, I have noticed that some users (not saying any names) have been creating redirects that are unneccesary and do not follow the rules stated in Redirect. Then, a sysop comes along and has to delete it, usually, so really that only adds up to extra, unneeded work for the sysops and achieves nothing.

So, I propose that we enforce the following rules:


 * If a user makes at least 3 unneccesary redirects around the same time, they will get a reminder. Hopefully, this can help them get the message.
 * If said user makes at least 6 unneccesary redirects (doesn't need to be at the same time now) and already has a reminder, they will get a warning.
 * If this user makes an extra 4, they get another.
 * About 20 constitutes to a Last Warning.

If a user already has a warning for something else, then the reminder should still be issued.

They may seem a little tough, but really it's the only way to stop this.

, who apparently has made some of these redirects, has said that, a recently retired sysop, gave him permission to make some of these redirects, which clearly do not follow MarioWiki:Redirect. I also propose that all sysops know the rules stated in MarioWiki:Redirect, and follow and enforce them. Maybe we could mention MarioWiki:Redirect somewhere on the rules page too.

I hope this will encourage users to think before they redirect, yet I hope they aren't disheartened. Any redirect is fine, as long as it follows this policy.

Sorry if you think this is a bad idea, but we need to stop all of this redirect madness.

{{scrollbox|content= Proposer: {{User|MrConcreteDonkey}} Voting start: January 19, 2011 17:06 GMT Deadline: January 26, 2011 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) - There's way too many unneccesary redirects being made. Brittanic124, for example, continues to do so even though many sysops disapprove, so I say, why not do something about it.
 * 2) - Abreveations like SMB3 are fine, but forigen names like Mario & Luigi 2x2 it's unlikely that anyone will ever use them.
 * 3) Walkazo wrote redirect rules from here to Prudhoe Bay, and they definitely should be enforced and taken care of.

Oppose

 * 1) - As I said in the comments, Help:Redirect already lets the Sysops enforce the rules against creating unnecessary redirects, letting us do that using our own judgement will actually be much easier than if we have to follow a strict "X redirects and you're done" outline. Perhaps more emphasis can be put on what not to do concerning redirects, but compared to other policies that people (including Admins) are often ignorant about (i.e. the current History Organization Standard, and no "you"s or "he/she"s - all of which are discussed in the Manual of Style), cleaning up bad redirects is actually pretty easy.

Comments
- I'm just want to say I'm fine with getting rid of the unnecessary redirects I've made. We can also make a button, like the one that says "Make this page": one that says "Make this redirect", and has guidelines specifically for that.
 * You mean the box at the top that appears when you edit a new page? Yes, having something about following MarioWiki:Redirect or stuff like that would be a good idea.

This is a good idea. Walkazo has worked his butt off to make the new redirect policy, and I was here yesterday as he deleted dozens and dozens of useless redirects. I'm also just gonna put out there that I made a few useless redirects a few months back and they were deleted promply by Phoenix, who is enforcing the policy already it seems.
 * Her. Also, Phoenix isn't a sysop, so he can't delete stuff.

@MrConcreteDonkey: Actually, MarioWiki: Redirect wasn't even created before Tucayo told Britannic124 he/she could make those kind of redirects. It's a new policy.
 * Really? I just thought I hadn't seen it. >_>

Still, I didn't see it, and the less-active sysops wouldn't know it's there either.


 * Any Sysop who visited the admin board over the past week would have known about the new policy: I drafted it last weekend on a user sub-page and had them look it over before I actually made MarioWiki:Redirect yesterday morning (Monday, right before all the deletions). Before that, there was only Help:Redirect, which listed more basic rules, and more importantly, explicitly states that breaking those rules and making bad redirects will get someone in trouble (the last line on the page is actually "Failure to adhere to the rules listed here or on the MarioWiki:Redirect page can also result in a warning or block."). Therefore, while well-intentioned, this proposal is unnecessary: we already have the authority to warn or punish people for making bad redirects. Also, I think having specific numbers of how many unnecessary redirects a person can make before getting a certain specific reminder/warning is the wrong way of going about it: it's better to just let us use our judgement in these matters, on a case-by-case basis. Redirects are a very subjective matter and there are quite a few grey areas when it comes to redirects: it is quite easy for anyone to make mistakes, especially over a long period of time (an abbreviation here, a nickname there, etc.). As for the "Make this page" box that appears when you create new articles, we can't have one specifically for redirects (the wiki doesn't know what you're making when you click on a red link), but adding a line about redirects and linking to MarioWiki:Redirect on top of the eight Manual of Style rules sounds like a good idea. -
 * Well, I see what you mean. The small bit at the end doesn't really need a proposal, so I'm deleting this.

When I said Phoenix up there, I meant Knife. That explains it. }}

Make MarioWiki:Featured User
DO NOT CREATE 2-20

I once made a bad proposal, so sorry if this proposal is once again, bad. I'm thinking that we should make Featured Users because it would help new users know who to look up to when they need help. It would be set up like this:

===Your username or some random nickname=== (Insert why we should Support you here)

Support
(Insert why you think this user deserves it)

Oppose
(Insert why you think this user doesn't deserve it)

At first I was going to make it right away, then I knew it would get deleted. I will note again that my first proposal was bad, so sorry if this proposal is bad.

{{scrollbox|content= Proposer: {{User|The Cosmic Vin}} Voting start: January 16, 2010 12:39 GMT Deadline: January 23, 2010 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per my Proposal.
 * 2) I think it would be an interesting thing to see; allow more friendships, too, maybe?

Oppose

 * 1) I don't think Mario Wiki needs such features. We had Featured Images, but it was closed. Userpedia has Featured Users because it points on articles about users, but MarioWiki on Mario related stuff.
 * 2) The best people to ask for help are Sysops, Patrollers, and maybe even users with Autopatrol, so a featured user wouldn't be useful at all. A Featured User system would be very difficult to set up too.
 * 3) Per Fawfulfury and the comments below.
 * 4) Per Fawfulfury65.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) - Per all. As Tucayo mentioned in the comments, these sorts of things can cause lots of animosity between users: people could resent not being nominated or get angry when someone says something negative about them. It could also turn into a popularity contest and the people with the most friends may simply win, which isn't the sort of thing we want new users looking up to. If someone does need help, they can easily post on the QnA page or talk directly to an Admin, as Fawfulfury65 said.
 * 7) - Per all (and specially Tucayo according how this proposal was made), featuring users is useless and pointless here. take this to Userpedia.
 * 8) There's a 'sop for that. (Bad iphone commercial knockoff...) You can just ask a sysop. I opposed the FI deletion because they were about the Mario series, but this is too Userpedia-y.
 * 9) - Per all. This would lower the morale of many users.
 * 10) I am Zero! Per all. Zero signing out.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) Don't need it.
 * 13) - A very redundant proposal.  No need for it.
 * 14) Per all.
 * 15) Per all. Userpedia stuff, not Mario stuff.
 * 16) I think it may lead to alot of unnecessary bureacracy....
 * 17) - This would just turn into an inflated popularity contest. People who would actually deserve appreciation through their dedication to their work would be ignored in favor of those who have the most friends. So: No.
 * 18) - So when you don't win, you get a mental image that nobody likes you? These things can become very violent when someone wins or loses, they may resent losing and turn into a troll or they may abuse winning and do the same thing. Plus I'm also seeing a biased system where people vote for admins just to suck up...
 * 19) Userpedia stuff.
 * 20) Per all of the opposition that has not brought Userpedia into this. To address something on that end: Userpedia does not and will not have "Featured Users" for the exact reasons we are opposing this proposal. Just thought I'd make that clear before a wave of users come on expecting to set up some process that won't work.

Comments
We had an User of the Month in The 'Shroom but it was removed because it may cause conflicts. So, if you want to implement this, you need to come up with a very good system, not just 2 lines.
 * I just added the setup.

Featured users? Sound like Userpedia. We had Featured Images, but it was closed for no reason (at least I didn't find a proposal that closed it). I don't think it will stay for long, but I don't know.

I know a better way to handle this.

I am Zero! It got to be a little more complex then that because I don't think it will grab users attention and also I don't think the reason should be mandatory. Zero signing out.

Who deleted the setup?
 * SWFlash did. I really would like to know why, because IIRC it's against the rules to modify another user's proposal.
 * You're right: it is against the rules (it's the same as modifying another user's comments). -
 * I though it was copied from here, I'm sorry. }}

Merge all the Super Strikes
MERGE 18-1

The proposal made in front of you is to merge all the super strikes into the Super Strike article. Reasons why: one, the Mega Strikes are all in one article. Two, all of the super strikes, as their individual respected articles, are stubs. And three, to keep consistency.

{{scrollbox|content= Proposer: {{User|Zero777}} Voting start: February 1, 2011, 19:00 Deadline: February 8, 2011, 19:00

Support

 * 1) I am Zero! Per Proposal. Zero signing out.
 * 2) I agree. It's better because it gets rid of some small pages on the wiki.
 * 3) Seems reasonable
 * 4) Per NSM.
 * 5) This is a great idea. It has consistency to it, and it is like the Mega Strike article. Per proposal.
 * 6) What we currently have is inconsistent, and Super Strikes are not too different from each other than aesthetics.
 * 7) I'll agree. Merge into one Super Strike article! That's a per all on that!
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Per Zero, Tails, New Super Mario, Dry paratroopa, Supremo, BLOF, Reddragon, and Ultramariologan.
 * 10) Although they have different names, they (as far as I know), are no different. The only difference between them is that they are, obviously, used by different characters, and that they look different when being used. They are so similar they might as well be merged.
 * 11) - I just realized I forgot to support, see my first comment in the comments section.
 * 12) Per all.
 * 13) - Per all.
 * 14) I say merge Mega and Super Strikes.
 * 15) Make Super Strike just like Mega Strike.
 * 16) My vote has been changed. Per all.
 * 17) I say combine them, because its more convenient to have one big article than 100 small ones.
 * 18) - Per all.

Oppose

 * 1)  - I tried to add the necessary info about the moves as far as I know, including their meanings in other languages, and despite they aren't lengthy enough, I have to oppose because they have their own name and, it seems, they have all the info that can offer; the stub template shouldn't explain the current state of these articles actually. On a side note, the Mega Strikes articles is right, because the developers didn't appoint a name for each captain's MS - excluding Japan.

Comments
I agree, we don't need an article on every single of these non-significant elements of the game. Actually, only one of the articles is a stub.
 * What about Skillshots ? Would they end up being merged too?
 * M&SG: I think that skillshots would be OK, this proposal doesn't include them. That would require another proposal.

I have a question, what would we do with the names-in-other-languages sections if it is merged all?
 * ==Names in Other Languages== / ===Fire Strike=== / ===Heart Strike=== / etc. (I assume that Fire Strike and Heart Strike exist...)
 * I think that'd look bad: it'd be better to put the templates in the specific strikes' sections (we'd have to use sections instead of a chart like in Mega Strike, but when it comes to lists, I think sections are better for navigation anyway: you can redirect the old pages straight to them). -
 * OMG that's a great idea! Using a chart! We could make a chart with all of the strikes in it!

User:Marioguy1/Test <-- I'm done :)
 * Neat. I'd be cool if it collapsed (width-wise) like the actual template, but whatever; this is good too. Also, are the strikes themselves going to be put in a chart like on Mega Strikes? If so, there should be colour-coding between those headers and the headers in the names chart (i.e. red for the stuff pertaining to Fire Strike; Green for Vicious Vortex; etc.). -


 * Bowser's Luma: All the pitches and hits in Mario Baseball/Super Sluggers are different to each other, if you don't count the pairings from the first game (Waluigi/Wario, Mario/Luigi, etc.). For example, Mario's is a fireball, Bowser's is a Bullet Bill, you get the idea. Super Strikes are no different to each other other than their looks.
 * I see. Vote changed.
 * Walkazo: I have no idea of their plans for the article. I'm just helping anyway I can. I picked skyblue because it's my favourite colour. :P

I am Zero! Can someone please archive this. Zero signing out. }}

Adding A "Make New Page" Button
DON'T CREATE 13-22


 * Sorry if this is a bad proposal, Its my first time.

Okay, yesterday I made a Mario Wiki and kept looking for how to make a page. I even looked at the help page! I think it would be easier to add a "Make new page" button. It would just bring you to the screen of the new page.

{{scrollbox|content= Proposer: {{User|Luigi is OSAM}} Voting start: February 22, 2011 14:45 GMT Deadline: March 1, 2011 23:59 GMT

Support

 * I made the proposal!
 * 1) Per proposal (as input on the main page)
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) Another MarioWiki button. YES!!
 * 4) Would make creating pages easier.
 * 5) I would like new features. Put it under the search box and the Main Page.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) can only be a good thing. per all
 * 8) Why not? Per all.
 * 9) It'd be convenient.
 * 10) I still need a page for Mario Baseball Association.
 * 11) I'm with MushroomMadness1221. He hired me to work on the MBA.
 * 12) Per my overly long comment.

Oppose

 * 1) I'm not sure how this could be possible.
 * 2) Unnecessary.
 * 3) - Per all, including Zero and FF65 in the comments. All anyone ever has to do is click on a redlink or search for their title and click on the redlink that the wiki gives them in the "Create the page "_____" on this wiki!" line that immediately comes up: how is that inconvenient or difficult? Besides, people should search to make sure pages aren't created before trying to make new ones, anyway. Don't fix what isn't broken.
 * 4) - Per Walkazo.
 * 5) Per all. It's already easy enough.
 * 6) Per Walkazo and the comments.
 * 7) Per Walkazo.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Making a page should not be that quick and easy as it would be easier for spammers and such to create new pages.
 * 10) - Per Walkazo and Bowser's luma.
 * 11) - Per all.
 * 12) Per all, but especially Walkazo and Bowser's Luma.
 * 13) I am Zero! Per my comments below, there's a point when too much luxury is bad or unnecessary. Zero signing out.
 * 14) Per Bowser's Luma.
 * 15) Ditto. Also, this makes even less useful for newcomers with the autoconfirm (you can't create any page of you aren't autoconfirmed) included in the wiki...
 * 16) Per Bowser's Luma
 * 17) Per all above and you know how hard it is to make a new button like that?
 * 18) Per all. But this proposal shows that we should make the answers to this question easily available. Either that, or make sure that people who make these proposals actually read the instructions on how to use and edit the wiki.
 * 19) I am not Zero! However, I per him. Yeah, I steal catchphrases, jealous?
 * 20) Per all.
 * 21) – Per all.
 * 22) Though it is possible to do that, I do not think it is necessary and someone who is really rushed can misconstrue that for a search box.

Comments
You know, you can only make new pages if you're an autoconfirmed user, when you've been here for a week. If you're autoconfirmed, you can search for a term, and if there isn't a page with the name of a term, you can choose to make a page of it, or something. Otherwise, it might be a handy idea. There's no "create a new page" thing on the main page. For ease, it could be on the sidebar (like the search thing. You type something, click "create", and begins at the editing screen). I won't vote yet, since I don't know what the others think of this.

Thank you so much for tellinng me that! I also belong to Adventure Time Wiki and they have a "Create New Page" button right next to the search. Both of the things you said were great points.

I am Zero! I think it's very unnecessary, just search the new page you want to make and click on the red link and make the page, that simple. Zero signing out.
 * Yeah, but I think this is just more convenient. Anyway, how are we going to implement this? I remember we have this similar issue dealt with creating the tables with just a click of a button. Will this be as difficult to implement as that?

Well, I own another Wiki and it just has a button that says "Create New Page" I think we could just add a button like that below the search. I just think it would be easier


 * I am Zero! But really, what's so hard of doing what I just say above, unnecessary. Zero signing out.
 * It's not hard, but adding a button saves time.

For creating an article we need to search, and, if it doesn't exist, we can create it. If this button existed, we'll had to search for the article anyways. It is unnecessary.

Wouldn't it be possible for there to be more unnecessary articles if people used a button instead of redlinks to create articles? There would be more orphaned pages too if many weren't created from redlinks.
 * Yeah. Personally, I prefer to create the redlink then create the page. It makes more sense to me.

I don't find it uneccesarry, I think it would be easier

I am Zero! @Pokemon Trainer Mario It's simple for a programmer to put that under the search, it is just us opposers find it unnecessary. Your vote is invalid. Zero signing out.


 * I thought a proposer like this got archived before it's deadline because it was immpossible to do.

For those who thinks it's impossible/hard - leave it to me.
 * You aren't even a patroler. Sure, you may be able to create it, but only Porple can actually implement it, I think.
 * I can do the code, porple'll do the rest.
 * That depends if the proposal passes, which, let's face it, is very unlikely.

@ Geniusguy445: Well I DID LOOK, AND I DIDN'T know how to get autoconfermed. SO YEAH, PEOPLE MAKE MISTAKES!!!! --LUIGI SAYS BYE!¡! 16:28, 25 February 2011 (EST)
 * Calm down.

...sorry..got a *little* out of control

11. MushroomMadness1221 (Talk) I still need a page for Mario Baseball Association. 12. Mariomario64 (Talk) I'm with MushroomMadness1221. He hired me to work on the MBA.

These votes are really invalid. We don't have pages for those sort of things.

Even though I made the proposal, I think the Oposers actuly have better resons :P

I'm undecided. A lot of people won't know that in order to create a page you have to search for it, but if they're smart they'd check to see that a page exists before trying to create it. Also, the Make New Page button probably couldn't be able to check this for you... and it'd be hard to title it. But, I can easily imagine it doing that, first bringing you to a make title page, and if the page already exists it will tell you that. I know nothing of programming but it sounds achievable. I just... I don't know. Let me argue with myself some more and I'm sure we'll reach a verdict soon. Wait, according to the above, we have an available coder and implementer, so it should be fine. I'll go ahead and support this. }}

Merge Planets and Missions/Levels sections (On every Galaxy article,from Gateway to Grandmaster)
DON'T MERGE 1-15

Why is there a need to individually describe each planet? Can't we just do that in the Missions section? Also why are the planets named, Nintendo didn't ONCE give a planet a name, they probably don't even have names. They are just adding more conjectural information to the wiki which we don't need or want.

{{scrollbox|content= Proposer: IGGY7735 Deadline: March 5, 2011 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) IGGY7735 I made It!

Oppose

 * 1) - Where do I begin? Many planets appear in more than one mission, the planets are barely related to the mission otherwise, it will get very confusing, planet info will be hard to find...etc. Conjectural information is fine, as long as it describes what it's supposed to describe well.
 * 2) - Absolutely not!!! What you're talking about doing here is merging two completely different pieces of information across 91 separate articles...I'm sorry, but that cannot be allowed to happen...
 * 3) Per all
 * 4) Proposals involving the change of 91 perfectly good pages are totally unnecessary. I think our limit is at most 74.
 * 5) Per Bowser's luma.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per MrConcreteDonkey.
 * 8) Per MCD.
 * 9) Per MCD, Phoenix, and BL.
 * 10) – Per all.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) Per all.
 * 13) Per all, mostly MrConcreteDonkey, Phoenix and Bowser's Luma
 * 14) Per all, Iggy, you said we "Do not need or want" planet names. Why are they still there then? Why hasen't anybody got rid of it if we don't want it? Names help us find what we want, when we want easy. So my point is: Your proposal was a waste of time and, at this point, will never pass. 14 against 1? I think not. Per all.
 * 15) Per all.

Comments

 * Look, the very least someone could have done was to add this to the list of talk page proposals so this doesn't go unnoticed, like it did right now.


 * I can understand where you're coming from in your argument, but the truth is that giving the planets names helps to identify them when talking about them in the Missions / Levels for a particular galaxy. If none of the planets had names, the mission descriptions would all have to say "the large blue planet" or "the small red planet," etc. for every planet that is discussed in the description, which would make things extremely confusing. Naming the planets and giving them their own descriptions independent of the level descriptions completely circumvents this problem. Also, merging these two bodies of information would create more problems than it prevents. Adding the descriptions of planets to the level descriptions would just create larger bodies of information rife with excess information which, as a result, leans neither one way nor the other in relation to the newly-created paragraph. Therefore, the planet descriptions and the mission descriptions need to remain separated. Phoenix 23:13, 24 February 2011 (EST)
 * I have not once seen a galaxy page (of course this is when the article is up to the standard of all the others) where when I looked at a mission section and was confused because of ambiguity in planet names. There's usually only seven planets at the most in the galaxy, and most of them have clear, concise descriptions that aid in the mission section. In short, I found the planet names helped me understand the rest of the article more.

This should actually be a mainspace proposal: TPPs are only supposed to be for minor changes, not massive overhauls of dozens of articles. - 00:08, 25 February 2011 (EST)
 * Shall we move this to the proposal page or shall we have to close it? If we can move this, I'll do it.
 * Give the proposer a chance to move it himself. If he takes too long, a Sysop should do it. - 00:24, 25 February 2011 (EST)
 * Moved it. -

}}

Split Buckbomb, Skullyrex, Mole Guard, etc. from their respective articles
SPLIT 20-0

Why are all of these enemies merged? For the most part, all of them have different looks, different attacks, different names, and, the most important thing, they are different species. Not much more I can say.

{{scrollbox|content= Proposer: {{User|Reversinator}} Voting start: February 28, 2011, 20:20 Deadline: March 7, 2011, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per my proposal.
 * 2) Yes, yes, YES! I agree with this. We haven't all the other DKC enemies merged to each other for having just the same look with a different shade.
 * 3) I am Zero! Per Walkazo's reasoning of the Hopgoon and Frogoon Proposal. Zero signing out.
 * 4) Per ALL and the proposal is well written
 * 5) We have different articles for all the forms of the Strollin' Stus (you know, those SMS Goomba knockoffs). As long as the enemies aren't stub-worthy, I say go!
 * 6) I haven't even taken the time to look through all of them but I trust your judgement Reversinator and the Buckbomb example is pretty good and a split is necessary.
 * 7) YES! Another splitting proposal which is good. Per proposer.
 * 8) Absolutely, we've got sixteen different sub-species for Thwomp, Koopa, and Bullet Bill, but these are merged?
 * 9) - Per all, especially Zero.
 * 10) - If they aren't the same, then split them. I know that we could add enough information to make them not stubs.
 * 11) Per all, mostly Walkazo, who per'd Zero, who per'd Walkazo. Having played DKC, I can safely say it makes a good deal of difference which type of enemy is there, so they should be split.
 * 12) - Per all.
 * 13) Per all.
 * 14) Per all.
 * 15) Per all =).
 * 16) Per all.
 * 17) Per all.
 * 18) I was a bit bothered by this myself. Per all.
 * 19) Per all.
 * 20) Per all and I love splitting proposals!

Comments
Here's what I think is a full list of the merged articles I'm talking about. How did we get away with all these merged articles?
 * Tiki Buzz/Tiki Tork
 * Tiki Zing//
 * Awk/Rawk
 * Chomp/Mega Chomp/Shroom Chomp/Spore Chomp/Vine Chomp
 * Screaming Pillar/
 * Snaggle//
 * Toothberry//Cageberry/Ack
 * Squeekly//
 * Skellyrex/Skullyrex
 * Buckbot/Buckbomb
 * Char-char/
 * Mole Miner/Mole Guard
 * Mole Train/
 * Stompybot 3000/

I'm not sure. But what about the Skellirex and the Skullirex? If you jump on a Skellirex, it loses its body and therefore becomes a Skullirex. So they both seem to be the same enemies, should they stay merged?
 * Think of Skellyrexes and Skullyrexes as Koopa Paratroopas and Koopa Troopas, respectively. Once Koopa Paratroopas lose their wings, they become Koopa Troopas, similar to when Skellyrexes lose their bodies, they become Skullyrexes. Admittedly, I've never actually played or seen a video of Donkey Kong Country Returns and I'm going by the article, but what I said seems to be about right.

Y'know, should we also split from the Mole Train and  from the Stompybot 3000? Yes, they're bosses, but I never got it why they are merged anyway, besides they're related. Max is a mole, not an extra carriage for a train, which is a vehicle, an object. And Pluck is a chicken, not a robot or a robot part.
 * Yeah, they deserve to be split. It's not like Magnus von Grapple and Lord Crump are merged. I'll add those to the list of articles that will be affected.

See, this is exactly the point I'm trying to make with the Ridley / Meta Ridley Proposal! If you view them in this context, there is no difference between the two of them and any two enemies off the above list of merged enemies; they each need their own article... 10:21, 1 March 2011 (EST)
 * I see where you are coming from, Phoenix, but the splits requested here and the Ridley/Meta Ridley proposal differ in at least one very important way: Ridley is a Metroid character, and the same creature as Meta Ridley, while these enemies are different creatures, and from a series we cover in depth, namely the Donkey Kong Country series. Whether I think the splits here need to be made or not, I have not decided yet, but it seems to me that if we do split them, at least for most of the enemies, it would be a good idea to have a list of levels the enemies appear in and more details on each enemy. Hope this helped. 10:41, 1 March 2011 (EST)
 * Phoenix, I made this proposal because different species are merged. With Meta Ridley and Ridley, they're both the same person. And Bop, just because a character appears in a separate series doesn't mean we can't cover them. I just supported and opposed the separation of Meta Ridley.

Okay, fine, you guys win...I admit defeat... :( 10:55, 1 March 2011 (EST)
 * Reversinator, I didn't make this point again here, because it seemed not to make much difference, but the difference between Ridley and Meta Ridley is really only used for continuity purposes within the Metroid series. As far as Mario games go, the difference is negligible. That is why this character from another series doesn't need two articles for two different forms. I don't really even know why we are arguing about this on the Proposal Page instead of the talk page anyway. I guess I don't want people looking at this and going and voting to split without looking at the arguments against. 11:19 1 March 2011 (EST)

The only problem that I see with this proposal is that we'll end up with more stubbed articles, which is never good. Of course, this isn't for me to decide. 08:11, 3 March 2011 (EST)
 * Not necessarily: even if there isn't tonnes of information about all the species, as long as we provide everything we can to the readers, those pages shouldn't be labeled as stubs. Also, please use colons to indent comments instead of asterisks (*) - it says to do so at the top of the page, and it looks messy if people use different styles. -
 * Sorry for that. Fixed.  15:19, 3 March 2011 (EST)

Since my proposal will most likely pass, and I don't have Donkey Kong Country Returns, who will split the articles?
 * Well, I was the one who created some of those articles. I never put much thought into splitting them, due to the risk of adding to the list of stubbed articles.  17:49, 3 March 2011 (EST)

You know, whenever a Stub template is added on a page, most of the users come in conclusion to merge it with the most relevant thing. Whenever it happens in case of these articles, I don't think about merging, oh no. I'd rather do what the stub template says:  expanding  it (and  removing  the template from the page, as it is no longer needed after then). A lot seem to forget that.

Shouldn't this proposal's voting period have lasted for only one week? If so, it's already passed, by a landslide.
 * Yes. -

}}

Make second to last warnings, only warnings and state the reason a last warning was issued
DON'T ADD ADDITIONAL WARNINGS 1-18

I think this Wiki should have these three. A second-to-last warning would look like this.

This is a warning to stop your inappropriate behavior (reason put here). The next time you do this, a last warning will be issued.

An only warning would look like this. They are given out when it is your first and last warning.

This is your only warning to stop your inappropriate behavior (reason put here). The next time you do this, you will be blocked from editing this site.

The last warning should look like this (I assume you get one for insulting other users)

This is your last warning. The next time you insult other users, you will be blocked from editing this site.

{{scrollbox|content= Proposer: DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr. Voting start: March 6, 2011 13:00 GMT Deadline: March 13, 2011 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) I'm looking at this

Oppose

 * 1) - The system is actually pretty easy to grasp. You get a reminder for very minor offenses, as well as possibly unintentional ones. You get a warning for any solid offense or repeated rule infractions. A last warning is what you get if you're a really notorious rule breaker and you keep ignoring policies. You can get banned if you either keep stacking up warnings or do something extremely idiotic, like blanking/spamming pages, uploading profane material, blackmailing, etc., the duration of the ban depending on the severity of the offense. It's a fairly simple system once you get behind it, and it doesn't need to be made more complicated. Moderating is no automatized process, you know.
 * 2) - As Edo said, the system is fine the way it is. Two new warning templates would be unnecessarily complicated: the system's already flexible enough. And like I said in the comments, if we wanted to make it more explicitly within regulations to give one warning and then block someone for certain types of infractions, we'd just add that to the policy pages.
 * 3) - I'm going to make a reference to baseball here; three strikes and you're out (...if it was gonna be a deep reference I would have said "metaphor"). We don't need a redundant fourth and fifth strike to know that this guy can't play the game properly.
 * 4) - Per all. The current system is much better.
 * 5) If a proposal to fix a currently good system takes two tries just to understand, we say no in a fashion similar to this.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Per the fact that it makes the sysop's already laborious job harder.
 * 9) Per all and it kind of discards Sysops' jobs.
 * 10) I just don't think it's necessary...
 * 11) I wouldn't fix something that isn't broken, and this system is definitely not broken. The current one is particularly easy to grasp and the proposer's system takes me two read-throughs for me to understand. I find it completely unnecessary; the system is fine the way it is.
 * 12) The only thing flawed about this system is how vague the last reminder is.
 * 13) Per Walkazo.
 * 14) Per Edo.
 * 15) If you do that, you are taking chances and you may do more wrong things and warnings will not work much. Per Edofenrir.
 * 16) Per all.
 * 17) Per EVERYBODY!
 * 18) Per Edo.

Comments
A second to last warning already exists (the last warning) and we could just use to give them an only warning.


 * Okay, I'm confused; currently, it goes: reminder --> warning --> lastwarn --> block, right? So in your proposal, are you suggesting that we keep that the way it is, and then implement "only warnings" in place of reminders, warnings, and last warnings, leading directly to a block after, or are you saying that it should become: reminder --> warning --> last warning or only warning --> block, or do you want only warnings to be a completely separate entity from the normal cycle, to be used only in extreme situations...or am I just drastically overthinking this...? 12:55, 5 March 2011 (EST)
 * What I'm thinking he wants = reminder > warning > sec-to-last warning > last warning > block, or only warning > block. That means either adding an extra warning, or skipping one (and reminder), depending on the situation and user (so, what the user does).
 * Also, He may want to add a reasons thing to the Last Warning template, just like the reminder and normal warning

I like the idea of only having to give out one warning for certain offences (i.e. making spam-ish edits, or other probable cases of vandalism), but I think it'd be better to just add provisions for admins to do so on the appropriate policy pages (i.e. Blocking Policy), rather than confusing the issue with a whole different template. Plus, outlining exactly what offences are "one strike and you're out" situations on the policy pages will safeguard against the Only Warning template from being misused. I also think a second-to-last template is unnecessary: three chances is enough (and besides, people often get more than that, between multiple warnings for slightly different offences and informal reminders before the templates are broken out at all; all things considered, we hardly need to be more lenient). -


 * Well, honestly, I really don't think we need a second-to-last warning in between a warning and a last warning, I mean, by this point, the user must obviously realize they've done something wrong, and if its gotten to this point there's really no need to sugar coat it, so why not just cut out the middle man and leave it the way it is...? 23:17, 5 March 2011 (EST)

}}