MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/8



Speculative Relationships
REMOVE SPECULATION FROM RELATIONSHIP SECTIONS 15-1

OK, so, I've gone through many articles and noticed a lot of speculative relationships in the Relationships section. Baby Daisy and Princess Daisy are HUGE offenders. While some relationships, like Mario's relationship with Luigi, are fine, others, like Princess Daisy's relationship with Waluigi, are overly speculative, and have no place on this Wiki. I propose to remove any relationship that has no real proof and is merely complete speculation. I mean, c'mon, Diddy Kong was on Mario's relationships list at one point! DIDDY KONG!!!

And an added idea by Time Q, we could move unsure relationships, like Baby Daisy and Baby Luigi, to the Trivia sections of the article.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}} Deadline: May 5, 2008, 17:00

Remove overly speculative relationships

 * 1) I am the proposer, and my reasons are given above. Or possibly below, assuming some Users decide to argue. = |
 * Per DP, the relationships section is not the right place for speculation. Uncertain relationships could be mentioned in the trivia section though.
 * 1) per suggestions by DP and Time Q.
 * 2) - Per Time Q.
 * 3) - 'Big duh here. It's like saying "Rewrite Poorly Written articles"
 * 4) Per Ghost Jam.
 * 5) – Per all. Come on, babies aren't supposed to have romantic relationships.
 * 6) Per all. I had done this, but Fixitup got a section made again.
 * 7) Per all. Those sections are ridiculous. And people, from my view, the Baby Daisy/Baby Luigi example was just an example. There are more relationships like theirs that are speculative.
 * 8) Indeed. I removed the Baby Daisy section several times, but got re-added by Fixit several times... gr...
 * 9) Speculation has no place on a Wiki that even suspects the official alternate forms of media as being alternate canon.
 * 10) If what we're talking about is baseless fan made-up stuff, I'm supporting this, since this is an encyclopedia; no reason to keep random theories.
 * 11) &euro;zlo The speculative content of the relationships sections come from the opinions from the masses (I mean, people)...
 * 12) Per all. The relationships between Daisy and other characters are uncertain. [[Image:Don Pianta2.PNG|50px]]User:Nothing444sup? 01:27, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
 * 1) Per all. The relationships between Daisy and other characters are uncertain. [[Image:Don Pianta2.PNG|50px]]User:Nothing444sup? 01:27, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Keep the relationships in question

 * 1) Moonshine- At this point there's no support for the relationship section anymore. But it is worth mentioning. I think a trivia section would suffice though.

Comments
I agree to remove those relationships from the section. However, I think putting them as Trivia items would be okay (that is, if it's not complete speculation, but if there is some indication that it might be true (as seems to be the case with Babies Daisy and Luigi)). Anyway. When you say "remove any relationship [...]", do you mean from the relationships section or altogether? 05:30, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

That Trivia idea is kinda good... I'm on board with that. And, when I say "remove any relationship", I mean to remove the certain character relationship section, not the whole Relationships section as a whole.


 * Yup, I got that, what I meant was whether you only want to remove the "possible relation" from the relationships section or not mention it in the article at all. But if you say you're on board with the trivia section, I think I can support :P 06:36, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

First of all, this was unneeded as we already had solved this issue. Nice job, hur. Secondly, this is worded in a way that is completely wrong. You're making it sound like all relationship sections on the Daisy and Baby Daisy pages have no meaning and as you said are "baseless", That's your opinion, and saying that misleads any users into thinking there really is something bad about the sections. There's nothing more "baseless" about these sections than there are to any other pages. This was solved, you're bringing it back up, and you're not doing so correctly. Fixitup
 * The purpose behind the proposal is allowing each user to review the facts, discuss the matter and draw their own conclusions, so no real misleading is taking place. Beyond that, the war continued well past repeated protections, so the problem is obviously not solved. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Chris[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 08:25, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

I don't give a Rat Funk's squeek about what you think of this Proposal being "pointless", Fixitup. Cos' your little edit war with Toadette 4evur sure proved that the problem WAS NOT resolved. I am not at all saying that everything on their pages is baseless speculation. For example, Princess Daisy's relationship with Luigi is valid, since Nintendo is purposely hinting that relationship in basically every game the two have appeared in together. Stuff like Princess Daisy's relationship with Waluigi, and Mario's relationship with Diddy Kong should be removed... That last one is the most "WTF" of them all. This has been a delightful message from: - And don't you forget it!
 * I suggest you calm down. You're starting to sound like you're going off on me again. Anyway, I don't see how you couldn't have explained that already. Also, sections like that don't necessarily need to be removed. They just need to be reworded. Like the Baby Daisy/Baby Luigi relationship. Obviously that has enough information to back it up (meaning it's not baseless) same goes with the Baby Daisy/Baby Peach relationship. (obviously not as much, but still doesn't need to be completely removed or even thrown to a trivia section) Also, the Daisy/Waluigi relationship is backed up by their team names in Mario Party, their chemistry with one another, and their rivalry in Mario Strikers Charged. How is that baseless? I can understand a relationship like Toad/Mario being baseless in some manner, but as long as two people have a history in any manner, there should be a relationship section. Why are proposals always about removing, never fixing? Also, the edit war was over as you saw booster was the last one to revert Toadette4evur's final part in the edit war. He even asked them what reasoning they had, and they disregarded it until a while after. (Hm) Fixitup
 * Wow great, the information is now two times in the article, once in the relationship section and once in the trivia. What happened to our compromise? - 08:47, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

It went in one ear, and out the other, Cobold. ;)

WaYoshi... the section wasn't about romance, it was just about a relationship. Regardless, they're not real. Real babies don't talk or drive. I fail to see how an infant having a crush on another infant is impossible, especially under the circumstances. Fixitup

First off, I just see this proposal as a selfish way to get rid of the Baby Daisy section...again. I NEVER would have written the section in the first place if I knew it would spontaneously ignite edit wars and then lead to the deletion of all the other speculated relationships. Going by your definition, anything that is a possibility is merely speculation and should go. All in all, thats EVERY relationship section. Take the Daisy & Luigi relationship section. Clearly Nintendo is hinting at a relationship between the two, but it hasn't been OUTRIGHT CONFIRMED. But still, everyone still thinks of them as a couple. The same can be said with any other relationship, Nintendo hasn't confirmed that Luigi is jealous of some of Mario's abilities, and yet no attention is brought to that about being speculation (you even refer to this section as being fine). The Baby Daisy section was deleted quite literally for having the word "May" in it, and thus being unconfirmed. While yes, it's not confirmed, neither is the regular Daisy and Luigi section, but still it's hinted at. You can't just delete SOME articles for being mere speculation and keep the others while they too are speculation. While yes, other sections might be a little more supported than than others, but Proof is proof and you can't just deny it. -Moonshine

All these proposals just because of the Baby Daisy page! Anyway, my position here depends on exactly what you mean by "speculation". Is this about all ideas that haven't been confirmed by Nintendo, or just ones that seem unlikely and have no official evidence?

You DO know who is the cause of all these Baby Daisy-related problems, right? What I mean is relationships that are complete fan-made BS, like Princess Daisy's relationship with Waluigi, or Mario's relationship with Diddy Kong, or Princess Peach's relationship with Wario. Stuff like Mario's relationship with Luigi, or Peach's relationship with Bowser are fine, since they do have backgrounds worth calling official/notable. And Daisy's relationship with Luigi, I do believe that IS official/notable, seeing as Nintendo is purposely implying that in almost every game they appear in together. Even their bios in these games says stuff relating to them being in love with each other. Stuff like Baby Daisy's relationship with Baby Luigi, that should be moved to the Trivia section.
 * Are you honestly blaming this on me? You're the one that brought this back up when it had finally settled down again, not me. I already told you how I backed that up, also, if you are referring to specific relationships, maybe you should actually try to fix them yourself before making a big proposal about it? We just had a proposal of someone wanting to remove trivia, and since no one supported it, we decided we should try our best to integrate any information into the article. We don't put things in trivia because someone doesn't find them important enough, we put them there because there is NO place to put them in the article. At the most, the Baby Daisy/Baby Peach relationship should be changed, not the Baby Daisy/Baby Luigi relationship. Why do you think they would be in two GIANT GOLDEN STATUES with each other if they weren't meant to have chemistry? Also, like I said before, sections like Daisy/Waluigi DO have information to back it up. Just because there are sections like Diddy/Mario doesn't mean you have to make a proposal saying we should remove anything considerably speculative. Everyone should know that we would have to consider most sections speculative, and that includes Mario and Peach! This proposal is useless when we could go through articles and fix such things like we had before you made it. Fixitup - Peace

The situation was resolved? Ha... HA... HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! That was the best joke I've heard all week, Fixit. The situation was clearly not resolved. And, what do you do with a big situation like this? You start a Proposal! I can't just remove it all without getting everyone's opinion on the situation. That's what Proposals are for. And regardless of what you think, relationships like Daisy/Waluigi are meaningless, something 11 other Users have agreed on. Even if you think this Proposal is pointless, it doesn't matter. For, you see, I actually MAKE a Proposal to see what OTHERS think, instead of going ahead and getting in an edit war to try and get MY way. Hmph, fine.


 * Wow, I'm not going to start calling you immature names or anything, but I can say if I wasn't holding myself back I would. If you refer to booster's talk page, you can see that the edit war was resolved. Also, I didn't start that edit war, I was simply a part of it, and a small part at that. Just because people agree with you, doesn't mean anything. What's their reasoning, that it's speculative? How is stating their past experience with each other to back up a point speculative? That's exactly what the Mario/Peach relationship does. I don't care if people agree with you, I still haven't received any feedback with reasoning that proves how it is more speculative than other relationship sections. Do you realize the Japaneses wikipedia even has a relationship for them? That means it's world-wide common knowledge.Fixitup
 * I'm going to say this as nicely as I can. You think it was resolved 'cause you got your way. Sorry if I sounded rude to you here, but DP's got a good point.


 * Wow, if you're going to change your comments to make yourself look better, then so will I. Fixitup
 * I would say that he has more room than you.


 * Stop pointing fingers and discuss the issue at hand. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Chris[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 21:24, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

Do we have evidence of any kind that these freaken babies have a relationship of any kind? And I mean direct, documented proof, not conjecture, not fan crap, not 'Oh, look! They are next to each other on a menu screen! OBVIOUSLY they are bestest frends4leif!!!!!!!'. -- Chris 00:23, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, Baby Daisy's relationship with Baby Peach seems kinda... Fan-made to me. Her relationship with Baby Luigi has SOME proof; a statue of the two dancing in the Daisy Circuit stage. That said, its hardly enough to merit its own section, or even be considered truly official.

I don't see why the regular statue of Daisy and Luigi get acknowledged to further their relationship, while the one of the Babies get swept under the rug. If people take the one of the adults as a sign of a relationship, why does no one do the same for the babies? Moonshine
 * Because when people meet, they become best friends forever, with no exceptions, right? -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Chris[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 19:57, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
 * That is totally irrelevant. Again, I don't see why this is getting flamed. It is NOT baseless, a giant statue of the two babies dancing has to mean something. Sure her relationship with Baby Peach might be cutting it, but the Baby Luigi one is certainly not. -Moonshine
 * It is not irrelevant. Your first point was that just because the adults are friends (which is also debatable) the babies should be too. Secondly, you're suggesting that a state of two characters stands for this and that. Can you show me text confirming that? Can you show me pictorial evidence of this, besides one stinking statue?   Please don't mistake a heated discussion for a flame war. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Chris[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 17:34, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
 * How come no one is responding to the points being made here? I think you all know why. Fixitup


 * I know that the Baby Peach one was overly speculative, but the Baby Luigi one is not. I can't prove that Baby Daisy has a crush on Baby Luigi, but nor can I do the same for half the OTHER relationships mentioned in the wiki. Proof is proof, even if it's just one little statue. Just because this isn't as supported as others doesn't mean it should be completely dismissed.Moonshine

Because we have lives. Anyway, while lots of these relationships (i.e. Daisy/Waluigi) have been hinted at by Nintedno (or at least thrown out there by some cheeky team name, or whatever), speculative aspects of any article are best relegated to the Trivia sections; just to clean things up and make us look more professional. - Walkazo
 * Oh you're cool. Sure, but that doesn't mean that it's baseless speculation. Fixitup

Agreed with Walkazo. And lol at your "we have lives" comment. BTW, how come you haven't voted, Fixit?
 * I haven't voted because this proposal isn't worthy of my vote. I'm not going to cast my vote in a section you labeled as supporting baseless speculation when that's not what I am supporting. Also, we don't have to remove anything. You see how the Waluigi/Daisy relationship might say something like, "But their true relationship is unkown". That's what we should be removing, not, "And as shown in Mario Strikers, they have a disliking of eahcother". The second example shouldn't be considered speculation, and you're showing it off as if it was. For example, we could keep the Baby Luigi/Baby Daisy relationship, just take out the part where it suggests that they have more of a relationship then shown with the trophy, same with Baby Peach and the picture. Using factual information isn't speculation as long as you're not speculating anything while using it as back up. Fixitup

That's kinda arrogant of you, but, OK! I don't care if you think it's not worthless speculation, half the people around here believe it is. I see no point in making a section about Princess Daisy's hatred of Waluigi based on gameplay elements. It doesn't make sense.


 * That didn't go off as correctly as I thought it would. I don't think I'm too good to vote on this, I think I shouldn't vote on something that doesn't give me an option to support my opinion. Hatred? That's a going pretty far. Also, I haven't actually seen anyone else say they agree with you about the Waluigi/Daisy relationship. And anyway, what does the fact it's a bad relationship have to do with anything? Luigi/Daisy and Mario/Peach's relationships are based on gameplay too. You're not giving any reasoning behind the fact you think it's speculation. How does it not make sense? Elaborate, please. I don't see how facts don't make sense. Also, even if this does end up going through, do you honestly think that means that gives you the right to just get rid of any information like this? You're not allowed to remove information that isn't speculation, regardless of the outcome of this proposal. So far, no one has proven to anyone how the Waluigi sections is baseless speculaiton, same goes with the Baby Daisy/Baby Luigi section. Everyone knows that there is information to be used, we just won't be able to come to any conclusions with them. Fixitup


 * What we're taling about here is speculation, Fixitup : | You haven't given any good examples of proof that Daisy hates Waluigi, because there aren't any.
 * I just said to DP that I don't think Daisy hates Waluigi, and that the section doesn't say she hates him. It was shown in Mario Strikers Charged that they had a rivalry. They have bad chemistry in MarioSBB. Their team names often explain a bad relationship. What more do you need to provide the foundation for a relationship at the least? HUH?... Fixitup

Can we at least agree that the Baby Daisy & Baby Luigi can remain in the form of a trivia section like time q suggested?-Moonshine
 * You know what I like to do in these situations is this: peel back the speculation and post the fact: Baby Daisy does have a fountain/statue/whatever of her with Baby Luigi, just as their older selves do. Period. You don't have to write any more.  Let the reader come up with his or her own theories.  Remember: as an encyclopedia, we can, and should, just post the facts.  Don't stress yourself trying to think of what Nintendo is saying, just report the hints, and don't conclude.  20:16, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Wow, at least someone can get at the truth here. Fixitup
 * Thanks. So, I guess what you could say on the article would be to mention the hint in a section about Mario Kart Wii, or maybe just a section on... I dunno... influence on Mushroom World culture?  It's a toughie.  00:27, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

That was very rude, Fixitup. I'm-a go now before I get scolded, though...
 * What are you referring to? Also, why haven't you responded to the fact I gave you reasoning as to why the Waluigi/Daisy relationship isn't baseless? Fixitup

I was thinking of creating a page dedicated to the characters' relationships. I took the idea from this page, where users can put their evidences about the topic. Why not make such a page, something similar to the BJAODN article? 23:47, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
 * For starters, that'd be a fanon page. Stuff like that belongs on a fanon site. 21:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)


 * Not really fanon, as you can see, the article shows some evidences about the relationships. However, putting a personal opinion like a fanon comment, could be possible vandalism (my idea is talk about the relatonships, but this time, with facts and theories as references and not speculations or fanatics) 00:03, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

}}

Subspace Army Enemies
MERGE 11-2

So, I've been going through the Wiki, and I've noticed a lot of articles being made on the the Subspace Army enemies. IMO, these articles are worthless. Yes, I know, it's amazing that I have a limit to the Smash Bros. content on the Wiki, but I believe the Subspace Army enemies are too minor to have their own articles. I propose we merge them all with the Subspace Army article.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}} Deadline: May 8, 2008, 17:00

Merge with Subspace Army

 * 1) I am the proposer, and... Blah blah blah.
 * 2) Per DP.
 * 3) Per DP.
 * 4) Per DP.
 * 5) Per DP - I already redirected a whole bunch of the enemies before, but now it's starting again... D:
 * 6) Per DP but...
 * 7) 1337Yoshi Per everyone else.
 * 8)  MarioGalaxy2433g5   {Talk/Contribs} - Per all
 * 9) - Per DP.
 * 1)  MarioGalaxy2433g5   {Talk/Contribs} - Per all
 * 2) - Per DP.

Keep 'em split

 * 1) - Those are just as notable as Melee Adventure mode enemies, who all have articles undebated last time I checked.
 * 2) Per Cobold

Comments
Eh, to be fair, they're more major than Condor. At least they have a name. --Blitzwing 06:38, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

And I didn't want that article made. My point being, THERE IS A LIMIT! <_<
 * Blitzwing, this proposal could be what you're looking for. I'm sure you've noticed this before, but sometimes one proposal dominoes into another, with the new proposals being supported by the results of the previous one. 20:19, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

At least have one on Primid, please?
 * Yeah, having a Primid one would be nice, IMO.
 * There's always room in lists for a main article template, right? 20:19, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps Primid could be an exception... Ehhhhhhh... That's debatable, I think.
 * But articles like Octorok, ReDead and Polar Bear are okay? I don't see them being any different to Subspace Army enemy articles. - 09:22, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Those articles should be merged into their own page as well...
 * Which would have a conjectural name. Or simply "List of enemies". I don't think we can put all those Subspace Emissary enemies into the Subspace Army article, I'm not quite sure where they all belong. - 09:54, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Seeing as all the SSE enemies are members of the Subspace Army, they DO fit in that article... And, making a list of enemies... How's that bad? Dude, you make articles on simple ENEMIES, then we'll have to make articles on Assist Trophies and Pokémon... =|
 * Yeah, things are debatable around here, and there's no clear line. In my opinion, we should have enemy articles. Thus I am voting for keeping them. This doesn't mean I would support Assist Trophy/Pokémon articles either. - 11:34, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
 * IMO, we should have a page titled "List of Enemies and stage hazard in the Smash. Bros." series. I don't understand why we have articles on completly random things like Tingle, Ultimate Chimera and the guys Cobold listed above. --Blitzwing 11:40, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Agreed, Blitzwing.
 * Enemies have always had more importance than things like trophies. I'm with the merge side I think just because of the stubbiness factor.  01:20, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

}}

Coconut Mall Department Stores
MAKE NO LIST OR SEPERATE ARTICLES 12-7

In Mario Kart Wii, the Coconut Mall course has many little stores, advertisements, and other things like that. I think we should make articles for each of these, such as the one I already made, Coco Burger. If a store exists in the game and we can give the article enough information, I think we should go for it. What do you guys think?

Okay, just to clarify the options: The first one means that we make a list of all the places in Coconut Mall,similar to the list of Mario Kart sponsors. The second one means you don't want to.

To clarify even further: Yes, the first option means that a separate list will be made. Separate from the sponsors list. Because the stores in the mall are not sponsors of Mario Kart.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User:Tiptup_Jr./sig}} Deadline: May 9, 2008, 20:00

Make them/Make a list!

 * 1) So... yeah. I'm the proposer and all. Reasons stated above.
 * 2) Walkazo - A LIST. Not seperate artciles; they'd be stumps and a waste of space. However, since we have that Sponsor list, we might-as-well have one for the stores too. It's all valid information, even if it's just a bunch of easter-eggs.
 * 3) - What Walkazo said.
 * 4) Per Walkazo.
 * 5) GreenKoopa - Comments or questions?See comment.
 * 6) Per Walkazo and Arend.
 * 1) Per Walkazo and Arend.

Oppose!

 * 1) This is the most ridiculous Proposal I've ever seen. They are merely stores and posters; No REAL information is EVER given. They are just easter eggs/minor additions, nothing more. And, Stumpers, play the game first before you assume the stores and posters have information... Uh-oh, that sounded kinda impolite. D= On that note, quite a bit of the information shown on the example given by Tiptup Jr. is kinda false... I don't remember seeing any menus or anything of the sort.
 * 2) Supertroopa Per DP. This way can't work because we can't have seperate articles of every single insignificant easter eggs as said before by DP. This has to be a wiki of more important information rather than more articles about shops that are advertised on a course of like Coconut Mall.
 * 3) The main the you see of the stores is a poster that says stuff you can't read. Like DP said, WHAT info is given about them: nothing. This is just plain stupid. Plus, like 90% of the Coco Burger article is false. Pictures on a wall, that isn't much of a menu. If you don't believe me, I just checked.
 * 4) Another stub article we don't need. Just merge into List of Mario Kart Sponsors.
 * 5) Per DP. Plus it's rather futile to have articles on things that don't even effect game play.
 * 20:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT) Merge into List of Mario Kart Sponsors and move that to Mario Kart Advertisements (since the ads themselves aren't sponsors).
 * 1) In my defense it was assuming good faith.  Whatever though. Per Ghost Jam.
 * 2) Booster -- Per Ghost Jam. Just put them on the sponsors list, perhaps in their own little section.
 * 3) MarioGalaxy2433g5   {Talk/Contribs}-  per all
 * 4) Why we should make a list for them if they contain no info and no image of the foods. (It like the foods from Paper Mario but they had info.)
 * 1) Why we should make a list for them if they contain no info and no image of the foods. (It like the foods from Paper Mario but they had info.)
 * 1) Why we should make a list for them if they contain no info and no image of the foods. (It like the foods from Paper Mario but they had info.)

Comments
I think making these articles would make the Mario Wiki a more complete guide to Mario's world and would help people find as much information as possible about Mario Kart Wii. We could also put what type of Miis appear in each advertisement, like a female for a certain store, and a male for another. Just a thought.

Tiptup Jr., please always add a reason next to your vote, otherwise it's invalid. Even if you're the proposer. :/ 05:53, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Since there is no actual information given on any of the stores and posters in this circuit, any information added to the article will be speculation and fan junk...

What's about putting info of these things on the List of Mario Kart Sponsors? --Blitzwing 07:37, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Seems like a good idea, Blitzwing.

Technically, the stores in Coconut Mall are not sponsors of Mario Kart, they're just... there. Maybe we could make a separate article with a list of Coconut Mall stores, instead of one article for each store?

I 99.9% want to say oppose because this seems like a waste of time if theses stores are just random easter eggs in a Mario Kart course-- but I haven't ever played the game yet, which is the 0.1% holding me back from voting. 09:44, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Add them to the List of Mario Kart Sponsors. THIS I COMMAND!!!

"This is the most ridiculous Proposal I've ever seen."

- User:Pokemon DP

Obviously, you've forgotten a little thing called Pie (otherwise known as Proof there is a God). Also, they can't be merged with List of Mario Kart Sponsors since they aren't sponsors. I think they should be added to List of Mario Kart Sponsors, but only if the page is then moved to Mario Kart Advertisements. 20:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Agreed with Plumber. The Pie Proposal was at least funny. :(
 * It's nice to know that you can't really call something around these parts stupid without referring to one of my creations. XD -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Chris[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 15:49, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Really, only if there really is enough information. If not, then consider merging it. User:Nothing444sup? 00:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

DP, are you saying that all the information on the article example given by the proposer was false fanon? That would change things quite a bit, really. 01:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

All that information is false, yes. I don't remember any menus or anything of the sort.
 * So why haven't we deleted/removed false data from that article than? 01:16, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

For evidence, perhaps?
 * Well, you're heading the opposition so do as you wish, but can you at least make a note of that so people don't get confused? 07:52, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Er, Yoshitheawesome, your vote isn't really valid since Stumpers changed his vote. 15:53, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Once this proposal fails there should be another one concerning lists of stores only. The options could be "No List", "Seperate List", or "Sponsors List". By the looks of it, one of the latter two options would win that proposal, so the information will get onto the Wiki one way or another. And that's what matters, right? - Walkazo
 * No offense, but the only way I see a list working is if there is enough information. While I do feel the Coco Burger has a fairly decent amount of information for a non-affective store, I doubt that all stores would have enough info for even their own spots on a list. But, I don't own the game, so I couldn't say for sure. 20:53, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
 * According to DP that whole page just about is fanon. I have no idea, but he doesn't want to take it down for the sake of example... I dunno.  If anyone knows what is real and what isn't can you please take care of it?  21:51, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Regardless, it is FAR too minor to get its own article. A... Minor cameo with no significance other than being a minor easter egg, with it's very own article? ...Uhhhhhhh... Logic is lacking in that plan.
 * Can you please clarify this: is that article fanon or not? 21:32, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

The general article is true, but the entire menu is fanon. And the Pianta getting angry... Ehhhhh, not so sure about that one.

Tiptup Jr. should clarify the voting options. What does "Make a list" mean? Make a list separate from the Sponsors list, or make a list and put it to the Sponsors page? Because if you're thinking of the latter, several people currently opposing should better put their vote to the support section... Still, in case the support side wins, the only thing we'll know is that the information is going to be included in the wiki somehow. Whether in a list or as separate articles will still be unsettled... so I don't think it's a good idea of merging "Make separate articles" and "Make a list" into one voting option. 13:47, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

To all those saying these Coconut business aren't sponsors, I was playing the game with a friend the other night, who pointed out that the race is taking place in the Coconut Mall, so it, and any business therein, is sponsoring the race. Same with NASCAR. -- Chris 14:55, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Okey, I think we should make a list... and put it in a List of Implied Buisnesses page. We could do that with other small... easteregg... things, like YOSHIKART in other Mariokart titles and those Supa Koopa Sneakers Koopa the quick mentions in SM64. I'm writing this in comments to explain my vote. GreenKoopa - Comments or questions?
 * I'm fond of this idea. Didn't we have a List of Implied Businesses article at one time? -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Chris[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 23:32, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Actually... Since the buisnesses are ALL on Coconut Mall, I think they should be added to the Coconut Mall article. Thoughts?
 * That works too. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Chris[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 23:32, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Oh, the menu in Coco Burger is not false. If you drive up and look closely enough, you can see the menu items.
 * Uhh, when I mess around I run into walls for no reason, and when I did that on Coconut Mall, I didn't see any menus at all.
 * Question: why was my vote removed? *Is too lazy to look in history*
 * It had no valid reason. I think it was just something like "Hmm... just merge it". 04:44, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Oh kay. Lemme fix it.

So... Can we all agree to add all this information to the Coconut Mall article?
 * I can't think of any reason why not. 00:42, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
 * I'll contact the proposer about this. 'cause strictly speaking, currently more voters vote against making a list, and to include the information in the Coconut Mall article would be like making a list, basically. Given that there doesn't seem to be an opposition to this idea, though, we might remove the proposal, with Tiptup Jr.'s approval. 04:28, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
 * We should definitely do that. 20:44, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

}}

Super Mario Galaxy signposts merge
MERGE 13-10

For a long time now, I have been considering a merge of four articles, Gil Board, Phil Board, Bill Board, and Jill Board. All of these are very similar talking signposts that appear as minor characters in Super Mario Galaxy that provide hints hints to the player, such as how to perform a wall kick or control Mario's Boo suit. As these articles are all very short and the characters playing only miniscule roles in the game and essentially non-existant roles in the Mario universe as a whole, I suggest these four articles be merged into a new one entitled "Boards (Super Mario Galaxy)".

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User:Snack/Sig}} Deadline: May 12, 2008, 17:00

Merge into "Boards (Super Mario Galaxy)"

 * 1) (As said above)
 * 2) Per Snack.
 * 3) Per Snack, as long as the images don't end up deleted.
 * 4) Walkazo - Per Snack.
 * 5) Per Snack.
 * 6) Per all. (Hey wasn't that the same idea I wrote in on the Talk:Bill Board?)
 * 7) The subjects are too minor for separation (more so than Ashley and Red, for example).  Plus, they are stubs, and on one of them, literally half of the text was conjecture (about being related to the other boards, for example).  Remove that, as should be done per current Wiki policy, and they are DEFINATELY stubs.
 * 8) Per All.
 * 9) Mushroomkingdom.nl Per All
 * 10) User:Yoshitheawesome. Per all.
 * 11) RedFire Mario Per all
 * 12) User:Reecer6 Per all
 * 13) - They're too minor. Are you going to have an article about everything that mentions it's name?

Keep them Seperate

 * 1) Per Stooby. Plus, they're not even stubs, almost defeating the purpose of merging.
 * 2) HyperToad Per Stoob.
 * 3) Per all. They are just simalar,not the same and are different charecters that are not in a group.
 * 4) Per all.  They're not even stubs, so, no reason to merge them.
 * 5) They seem just about like the different Paper Mario NPCs to me, and they're decided to have their own articles.
 * 6) CountBlumiere Per all. They're different characters, so they should have different articles.
 * Uh, Per all. They ain't stubs.
 * 1) Aren't they also in Super Paper Mario? Anyway, they shouldn't be combined, because they may be in other games. Also, per all.
 * Uh, Per all. They ain't stubs.
 * 1) Aren't they also in Super Paper Mario? Anyway, they shouldn't be combined, because they may be in other games. Also, per all.

Comments
I removed two votes with invalid reasons. Canama, Ashley and Red are also different characters, yet they are merged, so this logic doesn't work. However, I'm still not sure if all of the oppose voters have valid reasons. "Officially named" isn't reason enough to make a separate article, neither is "each has their own image" (again, cf. Ashley and Red example), and probably "they're not stubs" isn't either. Though I have no example for this. 04:36, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

To all those saying the Board should be kept split because they're different, the Isle Delfino Birds are also different (They have different colors and gives different things when you kill them), and yet they got merged. The Boards doesn't seems to have a whole load of differences from each other apart from their names. --Blitzwing 06:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

I dunno where to side here. The arn't stubs, but they ARE short. Hyper Toad  @


 * I'm with HyperToad here. 18:07, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

}}

Super Mario Bros.:The Lost Levels Worlds
MAKE EXTRA ARTICLES 14-0

I have noticed recently that none of the worlds in Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels have their own article. I realize that the reason for this is probably that the game is too similar to the original SMB to have it's own pages for the worlds, but it is a COMPLETELY separate game. There are new backgrounds, different and more challenging levels, backward warp zones, trampolines, overworld bloopers, etc. Another reason it may not have these articles may be because the game was never originally released outside of Japan, but though Super Mario All-Stars, Super Mario Bros. Deluxe, and the virtual console almost every country has had the opportunity to play this game. So, I propose that just like the original game, we should make one article for each world and have the world's four levels on the article, amounting to eight new articles.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User:Glitchman/sig}} Deadline: May 13, 2008, 17:00

Make new pages for each world

 * 1) Per myself.
 * 2) Per Glitchman. Isn't SMB:LL's only real similarity with the original SMB the two games' use ofthe same graphics? Is DP's opposition really legitimate?
 * 3) They're different levels, which is enough for me.
 * 4) Grandy02: There are many similar graphics (though they are even not exactly the same), but the levels are definitely different, so they deserve articles.
 * 5) - The levels are about the only things that were different in this game. They are not modified versions of the SMB ones, but newly designed ones.
 * 6) - Per Cobold.
 * 7) Walkazo - Per all.
 * 8) I changed my vote, seeing how each level is entirely new.
 * 9) Per Glitchman.
 * 10) -It does it on most games,Even if it is simalar and people want to compare it to the original.
 * 11) If it's all completely new, and enough users have played it to be able to write about it, then yeah, I'm for.
 * 12) -Per Stumpers.
 * 13) [[Image:RPGMarioin3D.PNG|24px]] Clay Mario [[Image:RPGMarioin3D.PNG|24px]] - Per the thought that Super Mario Bros. 1 and the Lost Levels are completely different
 * 1) [[Image:RPGMarioin3D.PNG|24px]] Clay Mario [[Image:RPGMarioin3D.PNG|24px]] - Per the thought that Super Mario Bros. 1 and the Lost Levels are completely different

Comments
Perhaps my opposition isn't valid... I've never played either game, so I have no idea what the differences are.
 * Well, the levels are laid out differently, enemies can be found in different locations, the graphics are slightly enhanced, and the game has many new features to each level. I think that about sums it up. 00:49, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
 * But, basically, they are still the same levels? If so, I tend to oppose. But I haven't played the games either. 04:29, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Hmmm... Now I'm not sure what to vote for... I think I'll stay on the Opposition side for a little bit. There's still 7 days left, after all.
 * They created entirely new levels. There are no "differences", you'd have to mention everything for that. - 13:29, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Cobold's right. Some are completely new. H yperToad ( t alk &middot;  c ontribs)
 * All of the levels are completely new, actually.
 * All the overworlds too. - Walkazo

The only thing I'm worried about is that not enough users have played SMB:LL. It is a Japan-only game, after all. Well, there is Super Mario All-Stars, but that's from a while ago. 17:38, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
 * I see your point, but SMB:LL was released on the virtual console all over the world too, even though it was taken off the market in Europe and Australia after two weeks. I have SMB:LL on the VC myself, but I could still use some help with the articles.
 * Okay. 12:52, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

}}

Smash Bros. Series Articles
NO ARTICLES ABOUT OTHER SERIES 12-11-3

Currently, this wiki has article on the Super Mario series (as a whole), as well as Donkey Kong. I think we should have articles on and ect. This espically goes for. This could mention the series appearences in the Marioverse (e. g. SSB, M&S) and a brief section about the series it's self, perhaps.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|HyperToad}} Deadline: May 14, 2008, 17:00

Make the Articles

 * 1) They are something that at least come in contact with Mario in Smash, so they should have their own articles.
 * 2) Per Yoshitheawesome.
 * 3) I think we should every seies instead of one. Pikachu appeared more in games with Mario, 5 Final Fantasy characters are playable in Mario Hoops 3-on-3, and Link and Samus "cameoed" BOTH in Super Mario RPG along with a Final Fantasy boss (SMRPG and MH3O3 are from Square(-Enix)). Mario and others from Mario Series ALSO "Cameoed" in a Legend of Zelda game!

Only Sonic

 * 1) - Yes, I, the proposer, have changed my stance. Sonic has background as a rivalry with Nintendo.
 * 2) Per the common sense of the comments below.
 * 3) -  Per the fact that I was the one to suggest it. And also per my comment below,
 * 4) I like this idea just because it would be nice to see all the Sonic info in one place.  Maybe that's the only page we need... could it be a merge of all Sega topics.  Just a thought.
 * 5) - Per Blitzwing.
 * 6) Per all
 * 7) I am ONLY voting for the Sonic series article, nothing else.
 * 8) - I'm choosing Sonic, because the Mario & Sonic game can be a series in the future and Mario is in the game besides series like The Legend of Zedla. Per all
 * 9) - I feel that, as a Mario Wiki, this should focus solely on the Super Mario series and its related subseries.  That said, due to the Sonic the Hedgehog series being historically regarded as the main third-party rival to the Super Mario series, the series bears a form of relevance to the Super Mario series as a whole despite the fact that neither side appeared in a game together until Mario & Sonic at the Olympics and Super Smash Bros. Brawl.  The same can't be said for all that many other series.
 * 10) - Comments or questions?If we keep the SSBB articles about Samus, Snake, ect. the CHARACTERS, and dun make articles about Sonic games and just sonic as a series.
 * Per Blitzwing.

Nope

 * 1) This is supposed to be the MARIO wiki, we already have to much to do with the SSB series as it is, so we shouldn't bring the Sonic and Metroid series in JUST because they appeared in the smash bros. games!!!
 * 2) Per the More Intelligent people above me.
 * 3) We are a Mariowiki, not a Nintendowiki. Since we a Mariowiki, we should not have articles about other series, when we are a Mariowiki.
 * 4) The Donkey Kong series is actually part of Mario contunity as he is a big 8 member. Whats the use of have Metroid when SSB is the only series it has appeared close to the Mario series...And Sonic series has no right to be here unless you define Sega as nintendo
 * 5) Just because they appered in a few mario games doesn't mean we should make a page for it. Leave that to sonic wiki.
 * 6) This is a Mario Wiki, not a Sonic Wiki. :/
 * 7) Like many above me, this is MarioWiki. We should not have articles about other series. Sonic & co., Samus, Link, etc. already have pages for their roles in Mario games. They shouldn't have pages for their roles in non-Mario games.
 * 8) Sonic games are fun, but that doesent mean that his articles should come to MarioWiki. Come on, thats just common sense there. Whats gonna be next, Ness appeared in Smash so we can have all of Mother's articles???
 * 9) - These series have only appeared in crossover games. Those games aren't really supposed to be [art of the series. And it's too minor anyway. And, per all.
 * 10) Per Storm Yoshi.
 * 12:10, 11 May 2008 (EDT) - No way. Mario's "rivalry" is not a good reason we should create an article on the Sonic series. I'm fine with making articles on items, characters, etc. related to him but creating an article on his whole series would add too much focus on him. Even if it's one article. The Sonic series status is on par with all other series and a "rivalry" and one set of crossover games (Mario & Sonic) do not make him more important.
 * 1) - The "rivalry" is not important enough to have its own page. We already stated it on Sonic's and on SEGA's page, no need for anything more on the Mario Wiki.

Comments
As I said in the vote headers, I wouldn't oppose having an article on the Sonic series, which would provides (very) basic information about the franchise and details how it affected Mario. For example, the Transformers wiki has an article on "The Gobots", which were the main competitor of Transformers some times ago. The article gives information about Gobot without having too much non-specific Transformers information and also have a section about how Gobot got referenced in Transformers and vice-versa.

Considering that Sonic was Mario main competitor back in the 90's, I think having an article on it would be about right. -- 18:01, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm with Blitz on this one. The Sonic series can get its own article; There's already a lot of series information on Sonic's very own article. Perhaps Pokémon as well, but maybe not. But as for everything else, big NO.

How 'bout a list?

nty. I think the character articles are enough.

Uh... if that's everyone's reasoning that we are a MARIOwiki, then why do we have SSB at all?
 * Because Mario plays a big part in SSB. And uh, because a ot of our editors are SSB fans, duh. -- 08:12, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

The reason I'm opposing is because there IS a limit to the amount of Smash information allowed here. : |

Ok, Mario plays a large role in SSB, I understand that. Why do we have articles like Blizzard, Waddle Dee Toss and Condor (yes, I regret supporting that now) but not this?

Well, I don't fully understand your reasoning for wanting to create articles on the seperate series. I mean, we have the character articles that detail cameos and whatnot, isn't that enough? :\

I suppose. What about the Sonic series though?

Hmmmmmm... That's quite possibly the ONLY exception. If you look at it, whereas Pokémon is the second best-selling series after Mario, have they REALLY had such a vicious rivalry? Have they REALLY taunted each other so much and considered each other a major threat? Not really. Sonic, on the other hand. Both series have posed as a huge threat to each other in the past, and their history with each other is far greater than any other series made to oppose Mario. Sonic and Mario have a long detailed history, so a Sonic series article would definitely be valid, IMHO. So long as it only details the series' history with the Mario series, nothing more.
 * So what exactly are we going to do with a Sonic (series) article? Are we going to go through every single game and describe how its sales affected Mario's sales? Are we going to compare Sonic Spinball to Mario Pinball Land? Are we going to compare Sonic's countless battles with Dr. Robotnik with Mario's countless battles with Bowser? Are we going to say how many similarities the series had? It's common knowledge that Sonic and Mario were big competitors in the early-to-mid-90's – especially in the 16-bit era. I still don't find this to be a good idea. Creating an article on the Sonic (series) is opening a door that we're constantly going to have to re-close. Users will come along, see that we have an article on the Sonic (series), and demand that we make articles on the Metroid (series), The Legend of Zelda (series), Star Fox (series), Pokemon (series)...etcetera, etcetera. I mean, this could even cause users to want an article on the Dance Dance Revolution (series) for obvious reasons; then that would lead to users wanting articles on the Karaoke Revolution (series), which would lead to an article on Rock Band, which would lead to an article on the Guitar Hero (series)... Do I need to go on? This is gonna make chaos on the wiki. >_> No offense, HT.
 * Not if we come to a consenses that only Sonic is allowed. I think the whole "Sonic is Mario's rival" thing get way exagerated. And no Stoobs, we wouldn't include trivial things like Sonic Spinball and MPL. >_> And nobody here is stupid enough to want to make articles on Gutair Hero.
 * Alright. As long as we make it completely clear, I'm on board. 11:56, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
 * While I agree that a Sonic article might be a good idea, I'm leery to vote. We've already had three attempts in the last few months to circumvent the consensus that Conker and Banjo should be kept off the wiki. As I seem to remember us already agreeing on a Sonic article at one point, I see this as the fourth attempt to mess with consensus. -- 20:13, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

Wait, what exactly is the proposal for? Just for making articles for serieses, right? Not making articles about things in the serieses??

Well, the Sonic article would probably just detail the Sonic series' rivalry with the Mario series, and how it's had a huge impact on Mario. Storm Yoshi, please read our reasoning before choosing to leave out the Sonic series article just cuz you hate Sonic... : |
 * Guys, SEE COMMON SENSE HERE, we don't have articles about the Zelda and Metroid and Star Fox and (perhaps more notably) Banjo & Conker, so why should we just have Sonic?! And in case you all forgot, this is the MARIO wiki, and Sonic not only doesn't have enough to do with Mario to have his own articles here, he wasn't even made by Nintendo!!  I mean c'mon, this is insane to make articles about him!!  You all know there will be more proposals suggesting the deletion of them, right?!
 * Holy bloody Marry, calm down, no need to get all pissy-pissy from soemthing that minor, gee -_-. It isn't entirely unreasonable to makes an article on the Sonic series considering that both franchises mocked each-other on various occasions and eventually had a much publicized crossover. That's certainly more notable that Metroid being a part of SSB or Banjo & Conker appearance in Diddy Kong Racing. -- 17:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Wait, I'm confused, no one answered my question! This is only for making an article Sonic the Hedgehog (series) right? Nothing else? If it passes, we're not going to start making articles all about the characters/things in the Sonic series, right? 18:03, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Only an article about the series. -- 18:09, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
 * (calms down) Well, I guess if it's just one article and not numerous other articles about Sonic games and stuff, it would be acceptable. I still disagree, though.
 * But as others have said the article would be dealing with Sonics rivalry with Mario', so it's not quite like talking about a diiferent game series itself, more like talking about how it affected Mario, making it perfectly in accordance with this Wiki. -
 * And that brings up another issue. There is no official...well, anything, stating that Mario and Sonic have a rivalry. Nintendo and Sega, sure, but this being extended to the mascots..... -- 16:38, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Thanks, Blitzwing. 12:56, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

Couple random thoughts, one of which has nothing to do with anything but in its own screwed up way kinda relates. One: If we did this, it might be a good idea to link the game titles and characters who have no relevance to Mario (for example, Jet the Hawk) to the Sonic Wiki, that way, we don't have to make seperate pages for every single character and every single game, but we can still provide information (or more accurately, a source of information) on the characters who don't matter to Mario. Two: Bulbapedia has a good plan of action with regards to the Smash Bros. series:  Only if it bears relevance to the series. This may be a good idea here, too. Three: Singly out of curiosity, why no Banjo-Kazooie and Conker? ~ 22:25, 10 May 2008

I think what some opposers are missing is that an article would NOT include everything about the Sonic series (like an article "Sonic (series)" in a Sonic Wiki would do) but of course only the facts that are relevant to the Mario series... 15:13, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
 * I don't mean to sound like a moron, but what happens if this proposal ties? 13:32, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
 * I guess it just stays on this page until one side pulls ahead by one vote.
 * Thanks. I've never witnessed a tied proposal. 17:58, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
 * I thought it would be archived, but listed as "No Quorum". 18:56, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
 * I thought that was for proposals with less than 3 votes? Well, we'll find out shortly. 19:04, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

}}

Split Para-Beetle from Parabuzzy
SPLIT 9-1

I was looking around the wiki one day and I saw that Para-Beetle is a redirect to Parabuzzy. I checked the talk page, and saw that users had said the name was changed. Now, this did not make sense to me, simply because I had not heard from anywhere official that Para-Beetles got a name change. So I say we split the two pages, as they are a separate species.

And also... I do not believe that, when split, the two pages will become stubs. This is because once they have all the information possible on their topic, they won't be a stub.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|InfectedShroom}} Deadline: Tuesday, May 15, 2008, at 17:00

Split It

 * 1) I'm the proposer. :O
 * 2) Per InfectedShroom.
 * 3) Per IS, as long as we're not dealing with stubs here.
 * 4) - If you look at the pictures, Para Beetles don't have legs and Parabuzzies do. Plus, they behave differenty: if you jump on a Beetle it supports you, but if you jump on a Buzzy it's wings fall off. It's not just the name that seperates them, so they should be split.
 * 5) Well, duh. Why shouldn't we split them. Like Walkazo said, they behave to differently, so per her.
 * 6) They are separate enemies that do different things as said previously by Walkazo.
 * 7) Different enemies that have spanned multiple games... well the Buzzies have... anyway, definately for splitting them since there's enough info.
 * 8) Upon closer inspection, it turns out that the two are different species and I had never heard of Parabeetle being called Parabuzzy until now. -- 13:30, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
 * 9) Per the Shroom that is Infected

No Split

 * 20:39, 8 May 2008 (EDT) Sorry to disagree with you IS, but I think they are supposed to be same species.

Comments
Yeah, Walkazo makes the point I was gonna say if I was put in a corner: they are biologically different. Also, remember this proposal and it's outcome? The winning side argued that Sufits are a separate species because of their biological makeup. And, more specifically, that they have legs.
 * You're right, but I need one more piece of evidence that they're different, and then I'll take my opposition away. The addition of legs is probably just character development. After all, their names are both supposed to be Para mixed with Buzzy Beetle, so I think that means they're the same. If you have evidence that they're different, tell me. 13:05, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Parabeetles have different-colored shells. They would have different wings, as Buzzies have a bigger sprite than the Beetles(:P). Images: Parabeetle: http://upload.scribblewiki.com/images/upload/6/67/Parabeetle.gif Parabuzzy: http://upload.scribblewiki.com/images/upload/3/37/Para-buzzy.gif Notice the size difference? The smaller wings would look bad on the Buzzy. Not exactly decisive evidence, but great evidence nonetheless. Also, I'll have more evidence soon.
 * http://upload.scribblewiki.com/images/upload/2/23/Comparison.png Image explains it all. also, look at the image above and its caption.
 * But I don't think all of those sprites are real. What are the two small sprites from? I know the red one is from SMB3, but what's the other one from? And the comparison image, I think the red one is just an edited image of the blue one. The red legless one and the blue one with legs never appeared in a game together, I think.

Pikax, that example is bad. Kuribo is Goomba's Japanese name. It's the same thing. CrystalYoshi, that sprite isn't doctored from anything. They appear in Mario 3 as 2 different enemies.
 * Parabuzzies are in SMB2? No, the article says they first appeared in SMB3. And I'm also talking about the comparison image: the images in them are from a Paper Mario game, right? But there were no red, legless parabuzzies in that game, only blue ones with legs.
 * You didn't read what I said very well, did you. I said they appeared in Mario 3. Also, IS was just saying a buzzy shell would make a parabeetle look bad.
 * Yes. I created those images. I'm saying that if there were Parabuzzies in SMB3, they would be unable to use the Parabeetle's wings, as their sprite is larger. And the PM sprite was an example that if Parabeetles were in PM, they would look considerably different, as they wouldn't have the bottom half of the shell.
 * Sorry, T4E. I read it wrong and thought you said "They appear in Mario 3 and 2 as different enemies. InfectedShroom, what you're saying is that the small Parabuzzy sprite is a SMB3 Buzzy Beetle that you added wings to? And the Paper Mario-ish Parabeetle is a Paper Mario Parabuzzy that you edited? And also, you might have convinced me. 18:24, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
 * More or less.

http://hocuspocus.penguinia.net/rii/pm2/buzzy.png


 * Also, the above image shows what I used to make the PM image. It has all of the part, and I pieced them together. I'm sure you can tell what I mean now. ;)

}}

Trouble Center
DON'T FORCE USERS TO DO TROUBLES 9-1

On this wiki, there have been many Not Taken spots in the trouble center. Sometimes, this spot can go for a long time, basically never getting it done. I propose we should make automatic match-ups for troubles. (Meaning, a user posts up a trouble, and one random user gets to do that trouble.) But of course, the user does not have to do it. If he/she refuses another user gets it. If this was done, much more troubles would get completed.What do you think?

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Goldguy}} Deadline: May 16, 2008, 20:00

Agree

 * 1) Reason stated above.

Oppose

 * 1) The User could be inactive.So the trouble could take a very long time to/never get completed.
 * 2) Something inherent to any Wiki is that a user cannot be forced to do anything.  So, the chance that the user decided would be one who had it in there ability to fill the trouble and was also willing is very low, even when you cycle through multiple users.  You'll need to get a technical mastermind to confirm this, but I believe the only way we could do this would be through a committee of users doing this by hand.
 * 3) You can't force Users to do something. It's cruel! I actually think the Trouble Center should be removed...
 * 4) Per all. The trouble center is redundant. 99% of the time, users just ask other users (or Sysops) for help on their talk pages.
 * Per Stumpers and DP, forcing users to do things is bad. Besides, I also agree that the Trouble Center should get removed.
 * 1) Oh. Now I understand what this proposal is about. :P Per Stoobs. And yeah, the trouble center is no longer used. X_X
 * 2) I don't think the Trouble Center should be removed, it is useful, but per Stumpers and Lakitu Bros.
 * 3) - The wiki is and stays voluntary work. Nobody is forced to do anything.
 * 4) If the user isn't forced to do anything and, after a while, the problem is passed on to someone else, what is the point of this system? It changes absolutely nothing. --Pikax 06:28, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

Comments
Hey, Goldguy: You might want to support your own proposal. ;) 18:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Honestly, I agree with DP. This mess has been around long enough. I've had two proposals about this already. I still think they way we did it before the Trouble Center was better.

For those who don't remember those days, we just created a challenges page for each user and other users randomly added sets of challenges for the user to complete. We got a lot more done then than we do now. -- 02:11, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

Yeah. The old way is normally the right way.

NO!That's not what I meant.Any user can refuse until one user takes it.
 * But do you think any user is really gonna want to do that? Everyone will refuse. Having users get to choose things is the way to go. I don't think I'll vote, though, because I don't really know anything about the trouble center. 18:26, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

}}

NWFC Chat add to sidebar
NO EXTRA LINK 6-3

It's a pain to type "/j mwikionline" all the time when you enter chat. Why not have a seperate thing on the sidebar that says "Wifi Chat" or something which is a direct link to "/j mwikionline"? We could get some more users who dont know the room by name into the room and we can get more wifi competitors! i mean is it just me or are the same users in that room every time we go check? i mean i only go in when someone tells me to go in and i bet alot of people do that too.i feel it should be publicized to our community .Wonder how many users new this room existed before i made this Proposal. Just my point.

i mean image average guests coming in and wants to Brawl, Race, or what not? We could get a whole new breed of online social mobility!

Any Goers?

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: -- {{user|WarioLoaf}} 23:43, 10 May 2008 (EDT) Deadline: May 17, 2008, 20:00

YAY

 * 1) - I'm the one who proposed it, if i said NAY i'd be the wiki idiot wouldn't i be?
 * 12:02, 11 May 2008 (EDT) - Maybe not on the sidebar, but I do consider it the most important sub-chat of #mariowiki. Of course, its not as important as the main channel, but there should be a link to it in the intro message of the chat saying "please do not organize online matches here, do so in #mwikionline", or something like that.
 * 1) - I for one didn't even know this place existed! Makes me wonder what else i didn't know :o

NAY

 * 1) – no no no. #mwikionline is a sub-chatroom of #mariowiki, not equally separate from it. It's easy enough to tell users what to do to get there from #mariowiki.
 * 2) - Per Wayo. It would be really annoying for people who didn't want to go on the chat. If you want more people there, ask them to come.
 * 3) Per Purple Yoshi. For people like me who don't go on the chat, that would jus be extremely annoying.
 * 4) Per all. It just seems like it would be kind of annoying.
 * 5) - Come on, dont be THAT lazy. It takes like 2 seconds.
 * 6) - Yeah... Uh, WarioLoaf, you must be REALLY lazy to make a Proposal asking to make something that takes, like, 2 seconds easier for you. XD Per all.

Comments
I have redirected Mario Wiki Chat to the chat room so you can just type that into the search bar, easier and simpler (if i wasnt aloud to do this just let me know...:/) }}

Mario Kart Wii Karts and Bikes
USE NORTH AMERICAN NAME IN THE ARTICLE TITLE ONLY 14-0

Mario Kart Wii Karts and Bikes have different names in the North American and the PAL versions of the game. Currently, the pages are called like e.g. Sugarscoot (Bon Bon), the first being the NA name and the second the PAL one. I am under the impression that we never used both names in one article name, and it also isn't needed. I think it is enough to simply state the PAL name in the article itself, and leave the NA name in the article title.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Cobold}} Deadline: May 18th, 15:00

Use North American name in the article title only

 * 1) - The article names should not be cluttered up, the added note is unnecessary when using redirects.
 * 2) Per Cobold. The North American Name is what we use for everything else, so we should not create confusion.
 * 3) Per Cobold. I was going to move those articles to just their NA name, but I didn't know if some new rule had been passed where there had to be 2 names.
 * Per Cobold, plus with the PAL name in brackets, it looks as if it was used to distinguish the article from another one with the same name, such as Mario Tennis (N64) and Mario Tennis (GBC)...
 * 1) Per all. This sound like a great ideas so wikiers can know American names.
 * 2) Per all, as long as the European names redirect to the page.
 * 3) For consistency's sake.  Plus, if you did that to all the articles, you'd end up with a Wiki full of links to redirect pages rather than articles themselves.
 * 4) - Per all, expecially Glitchman.
 * 5) - Per All
 * 6) I support as long as the European names are mentioned somewhere in the articles. If these are going to be removed from the articles, I will change my vote to an oppose. --Pikax 12:56, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
 * 7) Booster - Per All.
 * 8) Per All. -Canama
 * 9) - Per All.
 * 10) Yes I may be against the ameracanizing of this wiki but we can just put this kinda stuff in the trivia section can't we?

Comments
I would like to add that having PAL names in the article name only is against the Importance Policy as it is currently. - 12:08, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

Princess Grapes Butterfly: Er, are you sure you know what the proposal is about? You're voting against keeping both NA and PAL names in the article title. 18:48, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

...Lol, I already moved all the pages back, Cobold. XP
 * That's the easy way. But it is always helpful to have a proposal backing yourself up. :P - 11:46, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Someone changed them back to Sugarscoot (Bon Bon). We REALLY need to enforce what we have decided. There's really a HUGE fight between NTSC and PAL people. What can we do to make sure everything doesn't keep on changing? It seems like NTSC won, but everything's still changing. Any ideas? 15:32, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
 * We wait until the deadline is over. - 15:33, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

}}

Badges
MAKE NO NEW PAGE 5-1

I was looking at "Unused Badges" and I found alot of "Unknowns" and what not. So I was asking, if that info is not filled in, why is it part of the page? I also looked at the little green badge with a sun in the middle of it, and someone wrote down " It's possible to make the sun in Flower Fields shine more with this badge" or something along the lines of it. But there are no sources for that line. So if we dont have any information or any sources and other stuff like that, why not make a seperate new section for it? It would go well and when we find the information we an merge it in the Unused Badge's page again, so it will look more neater and proffesional. I propose that we should make a new page for these unknown badges, and when information is found, put them in the unused badges again. EDIT: I am trying to say that the "Unused Badges" page is too informal, it needs some fixing up to do. So for now, why dont we put the Incomplete page template or either make a new page for the badges that have no info on them. Now anyone see what Im sayin? Anyone with me?

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Super-Yoshi}} Deadline: May 19, 2008, 17:00

Make New Page

 * 1) I am the proposer, so I say yes

Don't Make New Page

 * 1) This proposal could use examples and specific references.  It is far to general and confusing to me right know.  Page and section were used interchangably above, for example.  Please clarify and repost.
 * 2) Per Stumpers. This proposal is too vague for my liking.
 * 3) - Any unused sprites should be at the Beta Elements page. Unless we're planning to split that, I don't see a need for an Unused Badges page.
 * 4) Per Stoobs. Plus, why would we need a new page? We already have a seperate section for them. :S
 * 5) - Per all.

Comments
It seems to me like you want to remove the parts of the article that are incomplete. that defeats the point of the Wiki, which is for people to both consume information and add what isn't there. You'd be hiding the incomplete information from users who might be able to make it complete. 23:33, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

I don't understand the proposal. I see you're saying that some of the unused badges section is missing information or has no sources, but why does that mean it should have a seperate page? Since I don't get why, I'm leaning towards oppose. It's 1:49 on May 17. Am I allowed to do to show the time?
 * Hmm, I see your point, but Stumpers has a point too. Give me a few days to decide if I ever do.

}}

Create Smash Bros costumes page
MAKE NO NEW PAGE 9-3

I was just thinking about how we could have a page where users could look at the costumes and see descriptions of their appearance. How this could be done, you ask? A contributer(s) with an SD card could take small resolution pics of each costume and fit them into one image. Since each character has a unique set of costumes, with some even resembling other characters, I thought this would be a good idea. The table would look something like this:

Mario

(insert pic of all costumes)

Costume 1: Mario's basic outfit.

Costume 2: Fire Mario.

Costume 3: Mario's normal outfit with red and blue switched.

Costume 4: Wario's color scheme.

Costume 5: Brown hat, overalls and gray sleeves.

Costume 6: Green hat, sleeves and tan overalls.

So, opinions?

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|huntercrunch}} Deadline: May 19, 2008, 10:00

Make New Page

 * 1) My reasons are given above
 * 2) I have to agree with his comment. Besides, we have a lot of Brawl stuff in the characters articles, so let's lessen some out. I also think this is a good idea.
 * 3) I have un-retired only for this proposal. Let's do it! It's okay to make some minor pages that deal with cosmetic stuff.It gives the reader an idea of why they wear the costume, and Brawl needs more individual pages. So, let's a-go!

Don't Make New Page

 * 1) - Per stumpers with his idea on no individual articles, but sections on each character.
 * 2) Per Ninjayoshi
 * 3) This is a bad idea, we already have too much info on the SSB games as it is, a new page for each costume would result to hundreds of pages and, added to the pre-existing SSB pages, thousands.
 * 4) Per Stumpers and Glitchman.
 * 5) - Per Stumpers' comment below and per Glitchman.
 * 6) See my comment.
 * 7) Per Ninjayoshi/Stumpers
 * 8) per anyone with a better reason than me
 * 9) Per all

Comments
Wouldn't this be better on the Smash Bros. section in each character article? 00:34, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Agreed.

I'm not suggesting a page for each costume, that's just silly. I'm proposing a SINGLE PAGE. Just to clarify.
 * A single page for each character, or a single page for all costumes of all characters? If it's the second one, I guess it would be okay, but a section for this in each character article would also be good. 1:54 on May 17
 * I think he means one page for ALL the costumes of all the characters. -

}}

American Spellings
MAKE NO CHANGE 13-2

This proposal wasn't inspired by the above one or anything, but kind of coincedential, lol. Anyway, I've noticed for a long time now about the inconsistent American and English spellings for certain words in articles. Some examples would include Colour, Favourite, Centre, and some others; although it may not seem important(and it probably isn't all that much). I'm not saying one is better than the other, I'm just saying we should stay consistent.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Garlic Man}} Deadline: May 19th, 15:00

American Spellings

 * 1) - This wiki was made in America, and is based primarily on Americans. I think we should stay consistent.(As said in the proposal itself)
 * 2) Per GM

Oppose (use either)

 * 1) Its whoever spells it first. Not to an Americans Enjoyment >_>
 * 2) - Using exclusively American spelling simply because a lot of our contributers are American is complete BS. Nowhere does the rules says that the wiki is American, and that's being disrespectful to editors that comes from other part of the word.
 * 3) - There is no need to create any consistency in spellings that are so minor as to whether there is a u in favourite or not. Per Blitzwing.
 * 4) - Per the comments below, but especially per Blitzwing.
 * 5) - There words are somewhat universal. People on both sides understand what they mean. Unless there's paticular confusion, nothing needs to be changed.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) - Beggars can't be choosers as they say.  If a UK speller wants to contribute, let him/her use his/her favorite spellings.
 * 8) american spellings and brittish spellings are pretty much the same except for like 1 or 2 letters people will understand if brittish spellings are used I mean I use both
 * 9) Per Stumpers and EnPeached. --Pikax 12:58, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
 * 10) Per all! Per All! PER ALL!
 * 11) Per Stumpers, EnPeach, and Hemu. I agree about what there saying.
 * 12) Per All.
 * 13) - Per all, this is an international Wiki, so people shouldn't be surprised/irritated by international spelling.

Comments
I'm not sure I completely understand; is this just moving articles to their NA name? Or, is it fixing the British spelling to be American? I've been doing the latter since I came here, and if that's what the proposal's about, I don't see its point. It's kind of hard to tell English citizens to spell like Americans; they grow up spelling how they do. Sorry if that sounds blunt.

Slightly confusing. I use a spell check, so I don't know what it would pick up differently, but I don't think we really need a proposal for this.
 * I have to agree with FD09 here. 11:46, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

The oppose should be to turn down the proposal and continue with the old way of dealing with the problem. As it stands, you're asking us to either go with the US or the UK spellings, you don't leave an option for leaving it as it is. 23:35, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
 * That's why I haven't voted. :| 23:37, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
 * I'll just add that, then. :P 23:39, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
 * You guys have good points, but I'm not in the mood for taking sides yet.

}}

Merge Super Mushroom to Mushroom
NO MERGE 14-1

I think we should merge the Super Mushroom article to the Mushroom article. Why? They're almost THE SAME! I mean, look at the beginning phrase of the Super Mushroom article. It says: "A Super Mushroom is a red Mushroom that allows whoever eats it to grow to an enormous size". The normal Mushroom is also red and also will you grow. However, the Mushroom have some other effects in other series. But, notice the images on the Super Mushroom article. You'll see an artwork of Mario Kart Super Circuit. But in other Mario Kart games, it's called Mushroom. Also, the Golden Mushroom was sometimes called Super Mushroom. In SSB series, they are called Super Mushrooms, but they are still the same.

I also readed on the Super Mushroom article that a Super Mushroom appeared in Super Mario 64 DS that will let you grow. But on the Mushroom article, there stands information that has the same meaning. And there was only ONE red-capped Mushroom in that game! So both articles has information about the same item.

So, now I told enough information from why we should merge the Super Mushroom Article to the Mushroom Article. When we have merged, we can maybe (I say "Maybe") make a Disambiguestion page with the name "Super Mushroom" (I told that the Golden Mushroom also sometimes was called Super Mushroom).

Sooo...

Do you also think that the Super Mushroom article should be merged to the Mushroom article? Or do you think of NOT?

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Arend}} Deadline: May 23, 2008, 20:00

Merge the Super Mushroom Article!

 * 1) What do you think? I'm the proposer!

Don't Merge it!

 * 1) I'm opposing because "Super Mushroom" and "Mushroom" are two distinct items in many (all?) Mario RPGs.  You bring up a very good point which made question my oppose: the two articles do need clean-up.  How to go about doing that for an item that is the same in the platformers but different in the RPGs is a tough question.
 * 2) While I do think some things should be moved from one page to the other, I think that they are things that should have independant articles. Also per Stumpers. -Canama
 * 3)  - Per all.
 * 4) To follow on from what Stumpers said, the Mushroom and Super Mushroom are distinct items in the Mario Kart series as well. --Pikax 06:17, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
 * 5) - Per Stumpers.
 * 6) Per Stumpers. I have some issues with those two pages, actually. The main picture on the Mushroom page is actually a Super Mushroom (It's from New Super Mario Bros.). Plus the Mushroom page doesn't cover enough about all Mushrooms in general, and the Super Mushroom page doesn't cover enough about it in platformers.
 * 7) Per all. They're not stubs, so why be merged?
 * 8) - Per all.
 * 9) Per all. I'd say more, but everyone else has me covered.
 * 10) Normally I'd agree with Arend here, but they both aren't stubs, have images, and are officially named, so....yeah.
 * 11) I'm agreeing with Stumpers. Those articles need clean-up, that's all.
 * 12) - Per Stumpers.
 * 13) -Mushroom talks about ALL of them but super mushroom is a type and offical name.
 * 14) Are they two different articles with detail and no stubs.

Comments
I thought we solved this problem long ago by combining all mushrooms into the main mushroom article. -- 21:03, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

Pikax, in Mario Kart series, there ia an item called Golden Mushroom, who is SOMETIMES known as Super Mushroom. You didn't really readed the proposal fully.
 * Can you give us an example of the Golden Mushroom being called a Super Mushroom? -
 * I'm pretty sure that MK64 is the only place it could be. Someone should check.  19:17, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Check the Europese Mario Kart DS site for example.
 * Thanks, Arend. Europese!

}}

Featured Article Voting Modification
CHANGE THE CURRENT SYSTEM 12-7

Browsing the current FAs Nominations on this Wiki, I have noticed users complaining about two types of votes. (1) Support votes cast because of personal favor to the subject of the article, aka "fan votes", ie "Peach deserves the nomination." as opposed to, "Well written article about a notable character." (2) Oppose votes that do not specify enough information for supporters to fix the problem, ie "This article has poor structure." as opposed to, "The Mario Kart information should be placed in one section." I am proposing that, in light of votes such as these, we give the users power to remove votes on Featured Article nomination pages in the same way users have power to remove votes from the Proposals section (see the top of this page for more information) with a few modifications to prevent the posibility of three users teaming up.

Briefly, this would mean that if three users believe a support vote is a fan vote or an oppose vote is is impossible to appease without further comment from the opposer, the vote could be removed. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THREE SUPPORTERS/OPPOSERS CAN REMOVE RIVAL VOTES BASED SOLELY ON OPINION! ONLY FAN VOTES WITHOUT FURTHER REASONING OR OPPOSE VOTES THAT ARE NOT CLARIFIED CAN BE REMOVED! IF AN USER IS DISCUSSING HIS/HER VOTE ON THE NOMINATION PAGE, THE VOTE CANNOT BE REMOVED WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THREE SYSOPS AND/OR USERS OF HIGHER RANK.

An oppose vote that has been appeased can be removed in the same manner if the opposer is not in discussion.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Stumpers}} Deadline: May 26, 2008, 17:00

Support (Give Users This Power)

 * 1) This would prevent an article from being supported on the basis of the subject rather than the article.  Additionally, oppose votes that do not enable the improvement of the article could be removed, both of would allow the FA process to more effectively serve its purpose of improving articles and celebrating good editing.  It would also prevent users who have opposed and now left the page from bringing the process to a halt.
 * 2) - Per Stumpers. This will also probably decrease the likelihood of flaming on FA pages. It just clears things up for everyone, making it a lot simpler than it was.
 * 3) - You're not going to remove my opposed vote are you? XD No, I think this is just common sense, if someone doesn't think an article is good enough to be featured, they HAVE to explain WHY it isn't so someone can DO something about it!
 * 4) - Per all
 * 5) Per Xze
 * 6) - Per all. I am sick of votes like that.
 * 7) - Per all. SoS always said that Fan Votes have just as much relevance as a serious vote. What a bunch of crap. Fan Votes mean the person likes the Subject, not the Content. -_-
 * 8) - Fanatic opinions don't really support the article itself, and sometimes users sign for opposing the article to be featured, because the articles can't be featured without any reason.
 * 9) Per all I agree. (It might prevent flaming.)
 * 10) Per all
 * 11) Per all!!!
 * 12) Per all flaming is not for things like Featured Article which is for good articles not good characters

Oppose (No Modifications to the Current System)

 * No. Sorry, but giving users the power to remove support votes is a very bad idea. SoS is absolutely correct here, they won't change anything if there is just one oppose vote, so we really shouldn't care about them. And SoS had another really good point: if a supporter says "B0wzA r000lzz!!!1111!one!!1", how do we know that he really refers to the character, not the article? Why should we force supporters to give a reason for their vote, when all they can really say is "good article", "looks good to me", "I like it"; basically, how can one give reasons for support, without mentioning every criteria the article has to meet in order to become a FA? Sorry, I know I'm talking like SoS, but that doesn't make sense to me.
 * 1) Per Time Q, plus, with regards to oppose votes that aren't specific enough, there must surely be a better solution than what Stumpers is suggesting. --Pikax 15:34, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
 * 2) - Per Time Q and Cobold in the comments. Removing the "fan-votes" is purposeless since the supporter might aswell say "Per X", and if anything, this new rule will creates a lot of pointless flame war in the FA Nomination page comments.
 * 3) - Per all. Don't get me wrong, I hat fan votes. I do believe, however, that this is not the system that is necessary for removing them. If any three users can remove any vote (essentially), then that means that there could be unnecessary conflict. And a user may not be in the discussion any more simply because (s)he is on vacation, grounded, on hiatus, forgot about the vote, etc. Perhaps if there were a warning system, I would be more likely to support this idea. ;)
 * 4) - Per my comment below.
 * 5) - KInd of harsh, don't you think?Per SoS and TimeQ
 * 11:40, 26 May 2008 (EDT) It doesn't matter if we remove fan-votes, because they could just as easily say "Per someone else with a real reason".

Comments
I know this vote gives more power to sysops under rare circumstances. Supporters are free to specify that every sysop except me should have this power, just so that you know this proposal is not a ploy to give me more power. 23:41, 19 May 2008 (EDT)


 * While this is a good idea, I also think that they would be fights and edit wars on which vote gets removed. Also if it does get removed, will the user be able to vote again? -
 * Of course they could vote again. 13:50, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

I'd also like to mention this: The vast majority of support votes, especially for articles such as Mario, consists of what seem to be "fan votes". Now, wouldn't it make things really complicated if for any of these votes we required three users (btw, what does "higher rank" mean...?) to support the removal of the vote? Not only it would make things complicated (and the comments section really long and unclear), it also serves no purpose, because as said above, FA support votes basically change nothing. Sure, there is the tiny possibility of five "fan votes" being collected for a bad article, without any other users noticing that, making it featured after a week. But I guess that won't ever happen, because, well, first we need five votes (there are several users observing the Recent Changes, including me - if I noticed such a case I would try and find a valid oppose in order to let the article stay unfeatured), and then there's still one week left to oppose. So this possibility practically can be excluded. Now, there's no reason left to worry about so-called "fan votes", right? 05:07, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
 * But what about the other half of the proposal? About oppose votes that aren't specific? --Pikax 11:45, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
 * If I disagree with one part of the proposal, I necessarily disagree with the whole proposal. Still, I think the "unspecific oppose votes" part is reasonable. Users should have the power to remove such votes. I just wonder whether this needs to be proposed, or whether it goes without saying. Current rules state: "[...] Others will object to the nomination if they disagree that the article is good enough; they will then supply reasons for doing so, and ways to improve the article (errors, style, organization, images, notability, sources). Supporters adjust the article until the objectors (with reasonable objections) are satisfied. [...]" To be very exact, it isn't mentioned explicitly that opposers need to give specific reasons (where in the article is something wrong?), so Stumpers' proposal probably has a point. Sometimes it's better to lay down rules officially than to assume them tacitly. Still, I think the proposal will have very bad consequences, if it goes through in its current form. Unlike oppose votes, deciding on the validity of support votes is just biased and pointless. 15:20, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm sorry...but Son of Suns himself said that fan votes were just as important as well-reasoned votes? When the heck was that? 17:52, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Yeah, I remember that someone, probably him, said that fan votes don't matter because a thousand fan votes can be ruled out by a single opposing vote - as long as there is one, the article can't get featured. There would not be much difference when forcing fan votes to get removed - a single user would make an acceptable point, the rest goes "per XXX", as here in the proposals. - 17:56, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
 * True. Besides, I still wonder what such an "acceptable" point would be. What makes a support acceptable? What more can you say than "The article is FA worthy"?

Stooben Rooben and Princess Grapes Butterfly argue that the rules Stumpers is proposing could help prevent flame wars. But Blitzwing has an interesting point - arguing about whether a vote should be removed or not is much more likely to cause flame wars rather than to prevent them. Sure, arguing about the validity of oppose votes already happens, and there's nothing bad about that. But allowing to decide on (and, before that, discuss) the validity of support votes will open the door to useless and long discussions - and possibly flame wars! - which, at the end of the day, would be based solely on opinion.
 * Time Q, I know you can tell the difference between a valid support and a fan vote. Can you tell the difference between these real votes? "She's so beautiful and make Princess Peach as a featured article!" vs. "Stooben Rooben  Okay, the article isn't as bad as I thought. It was just that first part, which I fixed."  Now, the policy you quoted above looks good, doesn't it?  The problem is confronting a user who has not followed the guideline, standing by an oppose that dose not specify what should be done.  This came up on the Princess Peach nomination the other day.  "Page still contains much speculation, misplaced information, etc. When I'm done COMPLETELY reviewing the page, I will support."  You look at this and it's pretty good.  It points out what is wrong.  The problem is that it makes generalizations (often speculation isn't viewed as such by the writers; misplaced information is something that needs to be discussed, but cannot be if information isn't specified; what does etc. pertain?  Again, can't be discussed).  Then, there's the solution: for the specific opposer (not the Wiki as a whole) to fix the problem.  In other words, the problem cannot be solved by supporters and the FA process is halted.  There's validity in your concerns about needing a rule like this, but even with the policy Time Q quoted, there is no way of enforcing it if the user doesn't see that his/her oppose doesn't help the process.
 * I don't really have concerns about the "oppose vote" part of your proposal. As I said above, I'm not sure if it's really necessary, but it certainly doesn't hurt. All my concerns are about the "suppose vote" part. You gave an example for a "fan vote" in your proposal discription: Peach deserves the nomination. Perhaps that was just a bad example, but Peach might refer to the article just as well as to the character. Now imagine a situation when three users stumble upon this ambiguous sentence and interpret it as: >Peach as a character deserves the nomination. [I don't care what the article looks like.]< According to the rule you're proposing, they were allowed to remove this - possibly perfectly valid - vote. Obviously that's unfair. So I think I proved that the "support vote" part of your proposal might have bad consequences. What about good ones? Well, I certainly can't see any, and you didn't mention any either. Your only point seems to be that there are some people whining about those "useless fan votes". I agree that so-called "fan votes" are useless. But 1) there's the problem of telling whether or not a vote really is a "fan vote" (sure, sometimes it seems obvious, like your example She's so beautiful and make Princess Peach as a featured article! shows. But how do you know that the voter doesn't actually care about the article? Why should (s)he explain his-/herself for thinking an article is good? How can one give reasons for that?), and 2) caring about those "fan votes" would be even more useless than the votes themselves. They don't hurt anybody. In short, seeing no advantages in limiting support votes, actually seeing several dangers, I ask you to remove the "fan vote" part of the proposal.
 * Unfortunately neither of us can remove the fan votes part of the proposal without removing the entire proposal altogether, as set forth by the precedent the latest censorship proposal, which fell appart when the proposer removed/edited the content of the proposal after people voted. While I see your point, I'd like to challenge your argement: do you have any specific instances in which a user has used a subject's name to refer to the article rather than the subject?  Also, I'm not following the logic of your comment.  You took the quote I gave and used it out of context, which defeats your purpose.  The first part without the second part does sound... sort of... maybe like it could be a very vague support, but the second part is what clarifies it (you admit that later).  But, the FA pages always have the votes in context.  I'd like you to do me a favor and test your theory out about the subject/article thing being a problem by looking at a real nomination's support votes... let's stick with Princess Peach:


 * 1) good article with lots of details and no glaring ommisions
 * 2) Now its better than the last time.
 * 3) If Princess Daisy is nominated, Princess Peach deserves it also.
 * 4) She's so beautiful and make Princess Peach as a featured article!
 * 5) Per everybody, it's a greatly written article for a great character
 * 6) Peach deserves it
 * 7) Peach is the greatest she deserves a page right next to Daisy!
 * 8) G0 Featured Articles/N/Princess Peach I think Peach is great as both a regular non-playable character and as a playable on in RPGs and sports games. She's also a HECK of a lot better than Daisy or K. Rool for that matter.
 * 9) I say yes to peachy nomination
 * 10) 10 Nitendo has done so much with Peach in the last couple years. Making her such a strong character in Melee and Brawl and releasing Super Princess Peach. She really is working her way up!
 * 11) Peach needs to be nominated always being kidnapped and all...
 * 12) Okay, the article isn't as bad as I thought. It was just that first part, which I fixed.
 * 13) Per all.
 * 14) Not bad. I added a bit to the SMB2 part, but otherwise, it looks great.


 * I've removed the names, but nothing else is changed. Which of these would you call fan votes? 17:52, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Yes, you can remove a part of this proposal: 1) You're the proposer. 2) There's enough time left so anybody who has voted yet can change his or her vote if feeling the need for doing so. [Plus, if you did remove one part, you wouldn't lose any supporters - currently, they support both parts of your proposal. Now, if you removed one part, why should they suddenly stop supporting the left over part?] 3) There's no rule against that. That Bob Hoskins proposal was something quite different, because it got essentially changed. (Besides, if I remember correctly it was finally removed because the proposer was believed to have said that it should be removed. <- Probably embarrassingly poor grammar, but I hope you know what I mean. ) Now, before I reply to any of your other comments, let me ask which quote you mean I have taken "out of context". I really don't know what you're talking about, sorry. 18:14, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
 * "Peach deserves the nomination. She's so beautiful and make Princess Peach as a featured article!" You took the first sentence, called it a "bad example" of a fan vote, and then later said it wasn't a bad example because it was clarified with "She's so beautiful and make Princess Peach as a featured article!" 18:27, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Ah, okay. You got me wrong then. In your proposal _description_, you quoted: Peach deserves the nomination. In your comment, you quoted: She's so beautiful and make Princess Peach as a featured article! You didn't quote both sentences together, so I thought those were two independent votes. 18:31, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Numbers 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,11,12,13, Sounds like opinions(*cough* & 7 was my sis cough&) Oh and Stumpers the still two users name that you for got to move.
 * Thank you for pointing those out.. 18:27, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Okay. Stumpers, first I'd like to thank you for replying to my comments. You could easily ignore my objections and win with currently 11 supporters against 4 opposers, so it doesn't go without saying that you're actually replying. But still, there are several questions open. Let me list them:

Unanswered questions:
 * Why force supporters to explain their votes? From my point of view, a support vote is a suggestion. Supporters suggest that an article is good enough to get to FA status. No one needs to justify that. Only opposers should have the duty to explain their view.
 * What should a "good" support vote look like? I fail to see what an "appropriate" reason for a support should look like. "The article is good"? "I like it"? "The article meets every criteria needed for FA status"? Either I'm blind, or it is impossible to explain your support "appropriately".
 * You say [...] THE VOTE CANNOT BE REMOVED WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THREE SYSOPS AND/OR USERS OF HIGHER RANK. What are "users of higher rank"? Who determines that? Before this is clarified, the proposal is way too vague to be actually applied. Similarly the next point:
 * You say 3 users (or rather "sysops and/or users of higher rank", but I'll simplify it to "users" for this purpose) are required to remove a vote. That means, as soon as three users agree that a vote should be removed, it will get removed. But what about users who oppose the removal? How many opposers are needed to reject the removal of a vote? One? Three? Five? None (i.e. as soon as there are three users who think a vote is invalid, the vote will be removed, no matter how many opposers there are)?
 * My most important point, and the question I'm really eager to get an answer to (because I don't think there's an answer): Why care about support votes? As pointed out above several times, they don't change anything (except when there are five of them and no oppose votes, but that's really hypothetical and can easily be avoided). Why make any trouble about them, when we could so easily just ignore them? I assume it's just a personal antipathy. One which I do understand. But personal antipathy is not a reason to ban them. I also assume it's some kind of satisfaction for you (and I'm not talking specifically to you, Stumpers!) to see those unloved "fan votes" get removed. That's kind of stubborn, in my opinion. After all, "fan votes" don't change anything. To put it in a nutshell-- what are the advantages of limiting support votes?
 * My last point: Why risk pointless discussions and flame wars about the validity of support votes? Basically, we got two options. First, we might continue to allow any form of support votes. To me, it seems obvious that this won't cause any flame wars. Alternatively, we could allow users to remove support votes, as you're proposing. Even if all users agree on the invalidity of a vote, this will flood the FA nomination pages. Let alone a situation where there are different opinions on the validity, and where actually a discussion (and possibly a flame war?) starts.

I would really appreciate it if you could try to answer these questions (and, in case you find that there is no answer, modify the proposal accordingly). The topic may seem minor, but I think it's more important than it looks like. 19:46, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Hey, you're taking the time to worry about the proposal, it's only logical and ethical that I do the same, because you have some very valid points that are making me think. Here's a rundown:


 * Why force supporters to explain their votes? I would consider simply saying, "The article is high quality" to be a valid vote, just like it is on the proposals page.
 * Users of Higher Rank This is to prevent the flame wars you're talking about. These users would be sysops, bureaucrats, and everything in between.  Of course, I'd be happy to forgo this power myself, even though I'm a sysop, since this proposal isn't about increasing my power.  If it would help your doubts I can add a provision to the proposal that says, "all sysops except Stumpers and all bureaucrats."
 * What about users who oppose the removal? Point taken, although I doubt you'd have a situation where you'd see it, I'd support a majority-rules system, with three users required on either side to make it go through.
 * Why risk pointless discussions and flame wars about the validity of support votes? Quite simply, I wanted to give more power to both the opposers and supporters of articles, so that power wouldn't become unbalanced. 20:05, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Hey, Stumpers and Time Q, I feel kinda posh correcting a sysop, but be sure to sign with and not your sig. ;)
 * Heh-heh... thanks! All this discussion makes it feel like a talk page.  00:09, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
 * True. While we're at it, I wonder whether Hemu's reason is valid. There's no direct relation between flaming and the current FA system, and there's no proof whatsoever that the system Stumpers is proposing would help to prevent flaming. Before actually removing his vote, I wanted to bring that up here.
 * "At any time a vote may be rejected if at least three active users believe the vote truly has no merit or was cast in bad faith. However, there must be strong reasons supporting the invalidation." You're going to need two other users to support that, and I'm not one of them: there was a minor flame associated with an oppose vote about three days ago.  16:35, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Well, I never witnessed any actual discussion on whether a vote should be removed or not. When it wasn't appropriate, someone removed it. That's a weak argument, I know, because there's still the rule you quoted. But there's another rule that outweighs it: Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so, not, e.g., "I like this idea!". There's no strong reason whatsoever for Hemu's vote. But wait, I see he has put "per all" - the "phrase that's always appropriate" (no, I don't want to ban it, even if it's annoying).
 * "Featured Article which is for good articles not good characters" There's his reason, and since several people are against this proposal because of the fact that, in their opinion, per all means an automatic acceptable vote, he did say per all. 12:21, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

}}

Site Logos
ACCEPT IMAGES CONTAINING SITE LOGOS 13-3

I have always had this huge pet peeve on any wikipedia site, especially this one, over how bad images look when they contain a site logo. This includes character artworks, screen shots, and any other images that are not for a users personal use. Sometimes they're not really THAT noticeable, but when you resort to using imagery just because you don't have it in spite of it having a sites logo stamped on it, it's depressing to see articles get featured or even nominated when they contain low quality imagery such as this. On a side note, a lot of these logos can be digitally removed which in the case of editing an image before upload is completely harmless. If you don't know how, then make a note of it when you upload the image, or better yet, in the images description. It's not hard, it's quick, and it makes a big difference. Regardless, I don't feel images containing site logos should be permitted for upload on the supermariowiki unless it is for user purposes (talk pages etc.) If you oppose this, you support the idea of keeping images which lower the quality of our wiki. If you support, you agree to make it so that no images with site logos may be allowed on our wiki without at the very least having them edited out of site.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|ForeverDaisy09}} Deadline: May 27, 2008, 17:00

Support (Remove+Refuse Imagery With Logos)

 * 1) - Images as suggested lower the quality of any page they are associated with, and are simply put, an eyesore.
 * 2) - FINALLY someone notices this problem!!  I agree with ForeverDaisy09 in all aspects, it's an annoying and pointless problem that can be fixed.  How could you say no to this?
 * 3) Per all. -Canama

Oppose (Continue Accepting Images Containing Website Logos)

 * 1) - As you said: people can edit the logo out. But not all people. Microsoft Paint makes it very difficult, and it's not easy in Photoshop. And as Wayo said: it's a very hard rule to enforce.
 * 2) - Per my comment below.
 * 3) - Per Tykyle.
 * 4) - Per Tykyle.
 * 5) - Per Tykyle.
 * 6) - Per Tykyle. I also want to note that just because we oppose this proposal, does not mean that support the lessening of quality on this wiki. It could just be that we think an image is an image, regardless of a small logo.
 * 7) With images on any Wiki, here's how it goes: you get an image you can legally use that illustrates what you're looking for, no matter how cruddy.  Then, the low quality image serves the purpose of being an informational aid AND a request for someone to upload a higher quality image (like one w/o a site logo).  Because we're here to provide information rather than be an art show, anyone who says that information in picture form should be removed just because it doesn't "look good" is lowering the quality of the Wiki.
 * 8) - While they are annoying, they shouldn't be removed completely. What if no better image can be found? While I'd prefer no logos, sometimes, there is no other choice.
 * 9) Per Tykyle and DP
 * 10) -They may be the only option,and if left up a user can edit it out by copy and paste
 * 11) Per Tykle
 * 12) - Per all.
 * 13) -Per all.

Comments
All I can say is good luck trying to enforce this, and fix it now... 17:54, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Images with low quality or site logos are merely tolerated, but definitely not encouraged. I don't see any policy change in this proposal. See Category:Quality requested. - 17:59, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Well, I think FD09 is proposing to get rid of these images, i.e. to introduce a policy which forbids uploading such images. That would be different from "merely tolerating" them. Did I get that right?
 * Basically, I think that sounds right. -

FD09: I do not "support the idea of keeping images which lower the quality of our wiki." That would be ridiculous. Most people do not support that, as it would be stupid. I believe that if an image can show more than text, even if that image is lower quality, it is beneficial to the wiki. This is probably the mentality of other users. And we should have a list or something of all the images like that, as I can easily edit them. :/ OOps. Cobold's Category is what I wanted. ;)
 * The main point is to prevent such imagery from being used on our wiki. The point is an image is meant to visually show something, and when that purpose is interrupted with an ugly site logo, it's purpose is no where near an acceptable standard. -

I fully oppose this proposal. Images with a website logo or a water-mark should only be removed if an appropriate alternative can be found. In other words, these offending images should be replaced, not removed; furthermore, images such as these should not be immediately refused, especially if the article in question lacks any images at all. --Tykyle 18:54, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Like I said right above, bad images take away the purpose of imagery at all. I already suggested an alternative just to make it that much easier. -
 * A small, 75 x 25 px watermark does not take away from the imagery. And that alternative (of digitally editing) is not great, as many users are probably unable to edit the mark out.
 * Just for the sake of argument, I'll point out that if we have a member with the time and a reasonably new copy of Photoshop the watermark can be removed. -- 22:42, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Regardless of weather or not this goes through, we all still have the ability to edit site logos out of images. You don't always need to be good with the computer, or even have a good art program to edit out logos. I use paint more than photoshop to edit out site logos. Don't act like everyone is helpless just because they don't have photoshop. Also, it is still my opinion that these images (with site logos) do lower the quality of pages, regardless of what information they provide. A good example would be a screen shots section. It's not there to show you a crappy image of a character from the specified game, it's there to show off the quality of their appearance in that game. -
 * I wasn't acting "like everyone is helpless just because they don't have photoshop." I was saying that some users may not have the skill to professionally remove a web logo. And not all screenshots are meant to show off the quality of a certain game. As Nintendo doesn't always make good graphics, screenshots aren't always meant to show the quality of the game. Ah, well, I'm done with this conversation.
 * Ok, let's take IGN's images for example. Great quality, but watermarked/logo'd.  Definatly not a "crappy image", but it has a watermark.  It doesn't instantly turn to "crap" just because there's a mark in the corner.  And, I should remind you: often editing out a logo means editing out a chunk of the image itself.  So, if you feel that black spots on images is preferable to logos...  18:05, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
 * So you automatically assume editing out a logo means putting a black censor block over it? That's cool. : | -
 * I kinda agree with the oppose people here, but I don't have a strong enough opinion to vote. 10:52, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
 * FD09: What would rather have, an article with an image that has a logo or no image at all? Sometimes, that's all we can get in at that time, it's not like we're going to get a perfect image on the 1st try. Besides, half the time the logo barely visible. It's nothing to make proposal about.
 * You can make a proposal on almost anything. I would rather have no image. Obviously that's why I made this proposal. Nice job understanding that. -
 * Please cut the sarcasm. 00:39, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Sure thing, yo.-
 * That's for understandin', bro.

}}

Repeal "Featured Article Voting Modification"
REPEAL PREVIOUS PROPOSAL 10-0

I'll just cut to the chase here: I propose we repeal this proposal.

Now, this proposal was accepted very well. Many people thought that it would be the best option available for the wiki. It seemed so at the time. However, there are many faults in this system:


 * As per this comment, the votes can be removed as soon as three users call for the deletion of a vote. This can mean a five-minute discussion and then a deletion of any vote.
 * The original proposal said: "ONLY FAN VOTES WITHOUT FURTHER REASONING [...] CAN BE REMOVED!" Now look at one of the support votes for Paper Mario: "Awsome!" It is obvious that it is a vote without further reasoning. It is anything but obvious, however, that it is a fan vote, because it possibly refers to the quality of the article. So, can this vote be removed or not? Pointless discussions could evolve around issues like this.
 * Flame wars could be a big factor in this system. If a (*ahem* volatile) user opposes a vote of another easily distressed user, it could be a long and bad flame war, and would probably draw other users in. This would cause tension and distrust between the users and may lead to other problems.
 * Anyone who opposes a removal does not need to give a reason. Take the comments of this page for example. Time Q is able to just oppose the removal and is not forced to give his thoughts on why it should stay.
 * It's a useless system. One single oppose vote can cancel out an infinite number of support votes. Which gives us the question: Why do we need this system in the first place? Also, only five support votes are necessary to Feature an article with no opposes. So, most of the time, there are already enough legit votes to feature an article even if all the fan votes are removed.

To cut a long story short, the new system tries to regulate things ("useless" support votes) that don't need to be regulated (because support votes don't really matter). There is no need whatsoever to regulate support votes. If the rules were simple and clear, we could accept them (even though they would still be rather useless), but they pose several problems, as pointed out above. There was one good thing about this proposal, however. This was the following portion: "[...]OPPOSE VOTES THAT ARE NOT CLARIFIED CAN BE REMOVED[...]"This was the one good thing because it allowed users to get rid of oppose votes that were impossible to appease or unneeded to the article. I also propose that, after repealing the current system, that we restore this option for users. The restoration would come with some differences from the original proposal, however: Five users, including a sysop, must vote to remove the vote, and each remover must have a valid reason for the removal.

You now have our opinions. Users of the MarioWiki, you must now vote on what you think is best. Take your time, review our points, and make sure that you make the best decision possible.

{{scroll box|content= Proposers: {{user|InfectedShroom}} and {{user|Time Q}} Deadline: Thursday, June 5{{sup|th}}, 2008, 17:00

Support (Repeal proposal and restore the option to discuss oppose votes)

 * 1) - My reasons above.
 * Per IS and myself. In short: There are several problems arising with the new system, some of which surely could be solved, but it's simply not worth the time and work, because it's a simple as that: Support votes don't change nothing, only oppose votes do. Even so-called "fan votes" don't hurt anyone, ergo no need to waste our time discussing them.
 * 1) Per IS and Time Q. Before we know it, all the FA nomination pages will be empty if we keep this system.
 * 2) Per IS and Time Q.
 * 3) Per my opposition of the Proposal in the first place.
 * 4) - Per IS and Time Q.
 * 5) - Per my opposition of the proposal in the first place.
 * 6) - My reason for creating the original proposal was to force users to actually clarify their oppose votes once they were cast instead of leaving behind generalities that left the supporters in the dark.  The proposal was backed because of the fan vote aspect rather than the oppose vote aspect, and frankly if I could go back and "do it over," I'd like to remove the fan vote aspect.  Per most of/all of Time Q's arguements on the original proposal.
 * 7) There is no reason to remove support votes. Removing oppose votes easily can be a problem, as featured articles meet requirements to get featured the next day already. It might not give the opposer the needed time to rethink his vote and add different reasons to it.
 * 8) A fan vote has just as much value as a "per" vote. The opposition will fix any flaws in the system, so it doesn't matter if we remove support votes in the first place.

Comment One
I'm beginning to think that I voted too quickly and rationally on the last proposal. I didn't really think through with what I was saying should be done to the FA pages. While I find it quite necessary to remove fan support votes (due to the fact that they are merely biased votes about the character and not the article itself), I also find non-descriptive oppose votes to be invalid. If a user merely states, "the article has bad writing", or "some areas need expansion" it does not help the decision to feature said article whatsoever. I feel that oppose votes should be quite informative as to what that user feels is wrong with the article. For example, rather than stating "some areas need expansion", one should state "while parts of the article are thoroughly written, I find that the Yoshi's Safari, Super Mario Galaxy, and Other Appearances sections are quite minimal". I'm not requesting that every opposer speak in "fancy words", I merely believe that the opposers state precisely which section(s) require work; by doing so, others can fix the "bad" area(s) of the article, making the article more suitable for an opposer to become a supporter. 18:59, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Well, that's what we are trying to fix here; if a oppose vote is too vague, the users shall discuss it, and if the original opposer does nothing about it, their vote can be removed, as we don't know which sections they are talking about. ;)
 * Thanks. I'll support then. 23:18, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

Comment Two
There is only one certain thing about our FA problem: there is no simple solution. It is our own users who are not as professional as Wookiepedia and the other successful non-Wikipedia wiki communities out there. We are more loose on purpose to make others feel welcome, and with the good things that come with it come some drawbacks as well. There may be no solution at all, as long as users continue to care mostly about their Userpedia content and their status in the community, not just how our articles are coming along. 21:53, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
 * (Yes, I know this is not related to the proposal, but I need to get it out of my chest)


 * I see your point, but you're off by a bit. The users as a whole aren't any more professional at Wookiepedia, Bulbapedia, etc. than they are here. They just happen to be blessed with a large number of skilled editors, as we are. All communities have issues with users who care more about status than editing. All. Look at Wookiepedia that limits the amount edits to ones userspace, or Bulbapedia that has suspended all userspace edits entirely. What you seem to be expecting from the community is nearly impossible. --

I find kinda ironic (and rather hypocritical) that you patronise users over the "lack of proffesionalism" of their edits even thought you haven't yourself made any signifiant mainspace contribution in over a year. Hypocrisy much?
 * I'll be the first to admit that I am in the same club as Wayoshi, but let's not turn this into anymore than just a discussion. --

}}

Humourous Image Captions
ALLOW THEM 20-6

'Nuff said. Nah, I'm just kidding. OK, so, a long, long time ago, we removed clever/witty/humourous image captions from the Wiki. The only one I can remember so far was the Groove Guy caption, which stated "Groovy.", but there were plenty across the Wiki, I'm sure. While most would consider this "unprofressional", with clever headers like "Sharp Shooting" or "Mario and the Seven Koopa Hotels", which were deemed allowed in a previous Proposal, surely we can stand to add humourous captions to images (of course, so long as it abides to the rules).

And note, I'm only proposing humourous image captions. I'm not proposing any major changes to the article itself, just the images.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Pokemon DP}} Deadline: June 5, 2008, 17:00

Allow Humourous Image Captions

 * 1) - I am the Proposer and my reasons are given... Blah blah blah blah, just vote.
 * 2) - Per DP. This would certainly make the wiki a better place.
 * 3) - Yeah, seriously, I agree with DP! I love funny captions, especially if they're random. The gaming magazine I read has heaps of good ones, and it really brightens it up. And most of the captions are pretty useless, like a picture of Mario would say something like "Mario wearing his trademark outfit" or something (I made that up).
 * 4) - Hmm... Per Blitz. Captions can tell a lot about a picture. So long as good captions are not lost, this is a good idea.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) - Per Blitzwing, et al.
 * 7) - Despite the fact that this proposal seems a bit pointless, I'll side with DP.
 * 8) – see comment below
 * 9) Provided that users don't go over the top with this, I see no reason to oppose.
 * 10) - Per DP, but I'm gonna have to say I won't want captions like this to reappear...
 * 11) - I think it would be a great addition. It would improve the Wiki in my opinion.
 * 12) - Kirby Wiki has this and so does Zelda Wiki. I would say Zelda Wiki is more mature (the series being so) so why not here?
 * 13) - Per DP
 * 14) - Per all
 * 15) - It will give the wiki a nice touch.
 * 16) - Per Pikax
 * 17) - Per Blitzwing
 * 18) 1337Yoshi - Per all.
 * 19) - As long as they're still informative, I'm all for hilarity.
 * 20) - The wiki would be better if we have one

Do Not Allow Humourous Image Captions

 * 1) I can't believe no one's opposed this after all the fear we have of Flame/Edit Wars on this Wiki.  Does anyone else feel that this could be a source of conflict between users?  What if User A makes a caption that User B reverts on the basis of it not being as funny as the previous one (which happens to be his).  Users already get possessive of pages, but that leads to their improvement.  What happens when a user gets possessive of his/her humorous caption?
 * 2) I originally didn't oppose this because I figured my opinion wouldn't count, but I'm doing it now anyway. First of all, one of the reason I opposed the BJAODN proposal was because I had a feeling it would spread. Second, writing on this wiki should look profestional in my opinion, as we want to be taken seriously, right? If so many users want humorous image captions we have BJAODN for that. The page was made for the reason of being funny, so why does anybody have to put funny stuff in article? Third, there's this place called Marios Wiki that some of you might find intresting. Fourth, Per Stumpers, minus his last two sentences. Fifth, this comment was waaaaaaaaay too long... ._. (Note from Stumpers I just removed those two sentences)
 * 3) Per Stumper's influential comment.
 * 4) - This isn't going to change anything, but Per Stumpers.
 * 5) - Per Stumpers, I'm concerned about those flame slash edit wars also.
 * 6) - Per Stumpers and HyperToad.

Comments
I don't know what you mean by "humorous" and I don't know which "rules" you're talking about the captions should abide. I love humor and funny image captions are appropriate for gaming magazines. But you should remember that the MarioWiki attempts to be an encyclopedia. Have you ever seen an encyclopedia with "funny" image captions? I haven't. I'm not saying that the wiki shouldn't be "fun", but when it comes to articles, they should be as neutral as possible. There's also a difference between the "creative headers" you're mentioning and humorous image captions, in my opinion. The headers aren't humorous, they're merely an alternative to simply putting the game title as the header. I'm leaning towards oppose, but perhaps you could explain a bit further what you mean by "humorous"?
 * Actually, the Transformers Wiki is an encyclopedia with "funny" image captions, and it's used and edited by personallities that have worked on the Transformers brand, so please don't pull out the "IT'S NOT ENCYCLOPEDIC!!!!111!" bullcrap.
 * I wouldn't say it's bullcrap, 'cause that's how I think it is. Thanks for the example though. The image captions on this wiki (I randomly looked at Decepticon) are way too "funny" in my opinion. I mean, nobody of us would want to change the general style of articles to a more "funny" style (at least I hope so), so why should we do that with image captions? It wouldn't fit the general style of the wiki.
 * Yeah, that Decepticon article was a bit too informal, but I dion't think that's what DP's going for with this proposal. His "Groovy" example's good, because it's funny but not unneccesary, especially when the alternative is "A Groove Guy": 99% of the time that would result in a "no duh" from the reader, sorta like "A Pirate Goomba is a pirate Goomba." If there's nothing worthwile to say about the picture, then there's no harm in a bit of wit; as long as its done in moderation. -

What Walkazo said.

I see no problem with it, it adds to our reputation as carefree, not too strict on the rules like Wikipedia. 22:03, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
 * I think Wayoshi is right, I mean, we're just a wiki about Mario, we don't always have to be super-serious. But is this just for allowing witty captions and leaving them alone, or would we try to hav mostly funny captions? The first would be okay, but the second would be overkill. Which one is it? 16:19, 30 May 2008 (EDT)
 * I'm pretty sure it means that if there's a good, reasonable caption, we don't change it to a witty one. If there's a bad caption, like "A Goomba," we shall add a more witty one.


 * Also, (no to offense Blitz) the Tranformers wiki's captions are overkill. They, like Time Q said, are a bit too funny. We sholdn't go that far with them. Well, that's my opinion, at least.
 * Well, I agree that the Transformers Wiki is maybe a bit too lax concerning images caption. I just brought it up because I think their policies influenced this proposal (I think).
 * Well okay, but would we start racking are brains for something clever just for image captions? That doesn't seem necessary. I mean, they're fine, and they should be allowed if someone thinks of one. But trying to think of one for every single image caption that doesn't really present information... I see a lot of bad jokes ahead.

...We don't need witty captions on ALL the images. Hell, we don't need a caption on all of them, full stop. This is kind of an optional thing; If the current image caption is pathetic (like the "A Goomba" example) or if there is no image caption, then feel free to add something clever and witty. It's not a neccessity.

Yes, we can do without the really lame ones. (One example is, "Waluigi, in his normal attire, wearing a purple shirt, black overalls, and orange elf-like shoes." from the Waluigi page. Anyone with eyes enough to read can see that he's wearing that)

Well, that's okay. I'm not actually going to vote, but it's a landslide already. }}

Last names from Super Mario Movie
KEEP NAMES FROM MOVIE 24-7-1

For some time now, I've seen last names for Mario and Luigi to be Mario Mario, or Luigi Mario, taken from the movie. I don't really consider the movie canon, because they were never proven in games. So I am proposing that we take away the last names from the movie.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: Clay Mario

Deadline: June 14, 2008, 20:00

Take away the last names from the movie

 * 1) - Per my proposal
 * 2) - Per Clay Mario.
 * 3) - Per Clay Mario.
 * 4) - Per all.
 * 5) Dryest bowser-per CM
 * 6) -Per Clay mario. They may only call them mario bros. because mario is more recognised, and usally the main one.
 * 7) - Per Clay Mario.

Keep the last names from the movie

 * 1)  Well, actually the last names are Mario, because when they say Mario Bros., they are saying that they are the Mario brothers, that makes them Mario Mario and Luigi Mario.
 * 2) Per Tucayo.
 * 3) Per Tucayo. All the info has to come from something Mario related, and which the movie is related.
 * 4) Booster -- Their last name isn't from the truest canon, but they are the Mario Bros. TSMBSS also used Mario as their last name. Also, nothing seems to dispove this theory, aside from the fact that their last name is never mentioned in any game.
 * 5) - content from the movie is alternate canon, and we already have rules how to deal with it. When the last name is mentioned somewhere, there should be a note that it is indeed from the movie and not from the games. It also should only appear in the initial section and in the movie section, perhaps in the personal description section, but not anywhere else.
 * 6) Per Tucayo - that Mario bros. point is impossible to object to.
 * 7) - per all. As a very small side note, Nintendo Power also said the last names are "Mario."
 * 8) - per all. And InfectedShroom is right; Nintendo Power did say their surname was "Mario." Although... I just found a video from 1988 where Inside Edition does a segment on SMB, and they interviewed NOA's head of advertising at the time. He said Mario and Luigi didn't have a last name. I found the video at DevilDucky.com. Still, it could have been retconned since then.
 * 9) Ultimatetoad (see comment below)
 * 10) - The movie is as "official" as any game.  That means, regardless of it being canon or not to the games, it still has a place on this Wiki.  That includes names.  However, I would support a proposal that would make separate articles for the movie incarnations of the characters, because they are so different and deserve individual personality and history sections.  But this proposal?  No way.  The Wiki should preserve all of Mario's history, not just video games.
 * 11) MC Hammer Bro. Per Stumpers (and see comment below)
 * 12) Per Tucayo.
 * 13) Ninjayoshi - Per all.  Also, InfectedShroom is right.
 * 14)  It's the Mario Bros. what makes Mario be Mario Mario and Luigi be Luigi Mario, They didn't invent that in the movie.
 * 15)  Per all, mostly Stumpers. The Mario Movie may not have been canon but it exists so we have to mention that it at least exists.
 * 16)  Actually, they're Mario Brothers. So, e.g. if I'm called Bimmy Nerd and my brother name's Jimmy Nerd, we're Nerd brothers. ;)
 * 17) They are the Mario Bros.  The first game was titled Mario Bros. and the series is the Super Mario Bros.  which means Mario and Luigi's last names is Mario.
 * 18) No way! The movie may not be canon but it's part of the legacy that is Mario! You can't take that away! A mario fan should know not even to bring upsomething so ridiculous! plus its the only thing we have towards their names so lets keep that way!
 * 19) i agree they are known as the mario bros. so the name should stay the same. unless the nitendo company gives them a last name it should stay as mario
 * 20) Toadster_04 It is Mario. Confirmed by Nintendo on the old Nsider forums, if that counts for anything. Their house in Paper Mario/TTYD also has their last name (MARIO) on it.
 * 21)  I vote to keep it, as there seems to be more argument that it would be Mario, and nothing really disproving it, other than a 20-year old Inside Edition newscast that's likely been overruled.  And why is it always the movie given precedence on this?  The Super Show did it first.
 * 22) Why would they be called "Mario bros" if it wasn't there last name? Almost everything in these games are never directly pointed out, but the hints make it pretty obvious.
 * 23) - Per all the points listed above by variuous users using slightly different wording.
 * 24) Aren't Mario and Luigi's parents called Mr.Mario and Mrs.Mario in Yoshi's Island?  I know that their mom is at least Mama Mario.  Wouldn't that make Mario their last name?

Make a seperate Section/Article for Non-game info

 * 1) - Per comments below.

Comments
Uh... KP, you can't do that.

Double votes I'm sure is against MarioWiki Policy.
 * Plus you probably used ~, which can't be used.

actually, I use because I don't have time to make a sig subpage. So, I just use the user template.
 * is fine when you don't have a personalized sig in it. -
 * I didn't notice, but I put you... sorry... I mean KP. He used his sig.

I think that even if if was in the tsmbss it still may not be true. because the show was not made directly by nintendo.
 * All Sports games except for Mario Kart, all Mario RPGs and Mario Party, all Donkey Kong games before Jungle Beat, and the Yoshi games were also not directly made by Nintendo. Not to mention the crossover titles. That's not really an argument. - 11:31, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, is there any proof from the games that the last name is Mario? If there isn't, I'd support. Sure, they are the Mario Bros., but maybe they're just called that since Mario's the leader. If we put "Mario" for Mario's name in the infobox, it's not saying his last name definitely isn't Mario, it's just saying that his first name is all we're sure of. And that seems true now, with this controversy. The question is, why would parents name their kid Mario Mario? Well, things in Mario don't have to make sense, actually.

I guess there is slight evidence because, in Dr. Mario, his name is Dr. Mario. Usually the last name would follow the title. But then again, things in mario don't have to make sense, it could be his first name.
 * The Dr. title preceds both the given name and the family name, so it can be both. - 11:33, 7 June 2008 (EDT)


 * However,in Dr. Mario, Princess Peach goes by her last name (family name) (nurse Toadstool and not "nurse Peach").
 * Even Mario calls her "Toadstool" sometimes, and you wouldn't expect him to call her by her last name, so that argument doesn't really count. 08:30, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Cobold has a point, sometimes Mario games are made by third-party developers. But when its made by third-party developers, usually, there are no significant changes. For example, Mario Superstar Basbeball, developed by Namco doesn't feature new enemies or characters.
 * Almost. These are what you call second-party developers. They create games (/TV shows) using Nintendo's property. What would be the use of the term "third party" if there wasn't a second? -

In the SMA comic, Bowser calls Mario & Luigi "The Mario's" keep-em. - Ultimatetoad

Well if you look at many websites and other media (mario fan based or not) the last name of "Mario" has been used. Plus why would nintendo call the game " Mario Bros. " if Luigi had just been introduced (without knowing wheather or not he'd be the "side kick" and or "the new leader")? One more question: what is the way the Japanease would call to brothers in this manner? Would they use the older brother's first name? Beats me. Ok I'm done!- MC Hammer Bro.
 * Considering Mario Party team names such as "Green Bros." for Luigi & Yoshi, I think that "Mario Bros." actually isn't meant to say that Mario is their last name, but Mario is the main guy. See "Baby Mario Bros." etc. - 17:08, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
 * But Luigi and Yoshi aren't really brothers, either.-

I'd like to challenge this proposal's validity to a certain extent, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. It was my impression that proposals were here so that we could discuss the way information is presented (merges, splits, features, placing spin-off information in separate sections, etc.), right? Another area we could vote on is how in depth to go. (include Banjo articles, include cries and other noises in the quote section, Snufit Ball, etc.) Originally I just assumed that this proposal was one of the latter, but what I'm thinking now is that this proposal really isn't fair. It would be fair to vote for movie information to be separated from main character pages (after all, the storyline is different, personalities are different, backstories, even species... the list goes on.) say onto a different page like "Mario Mario (film character)" or something. However, this article is saying that we would be allowed to mention all movie information in a character's article except for their full names according to the movie. Not only would this confuse readers and new editors, it's a little flawed.

We shouldn't be selectively chosing what points of information are included and are not. Either all official video games should be here or they shouldn't be. Either the movie should be here or it shouldn't be. Not mentioning "Mario Mario" as a full name would only be acceptable if the movie was not covered by this Wiki. Otherwise it's confusing. We'd need to change our policy to say, "We cover the Mario video games, comics, and TV shows completly. We also cover the movie, except for Mario and Luigi's names in the film."

To wrap this up: we can limit the number and type of pictures or quotes we post. We can chose not to cover the strategy of each level. All this is because of our job as a Wiki: to create an easy-access method for Mario fans to immerse themselves into the complete series. However, failing to mention a key fact, such as Mario's full name in the movie, is big. What if we didn't mention the history behind Princess Peach's name change? How about the change in Yoshi's voice? It's about time that we on this Wiki acknowledged a key fact: There is canon and there is nonfictional history. Who completely different things that the Wiki must cover, lest we be forced to call ourselves a "guide to what, as established throuh proposals, our users feel is canon to the Mario storyline" instead of a "Complete guide to the complete Mario series". Which would you rather read? 03:15, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Well then, why not have a section about the two possibilities? Even though we cover the movie, that doesn't mean we consider the movie to be part of the continuity. 07:56, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I haven't voted yet, because this proposal needs another section; I agree with Crystal Yoshi here. I think the article should have a sepreate section, with everything non-gamical in there; comics, cartoons, Movie, etc. But the main infobox at the top of the article should stay Mario. The diferrent non-game section could perhaps have Mario Mario. Or, as suggested somewhere else, we could make a seperate article. or something, I guess. EDIT: A new section following CrystalYoshi's comment has been created.
 * If it was JUST the movie, sure, but it seems to have become far more widespread than that.

I strongly disagree with making a new section for every different incarnation of Mario. They're doing that right now on Wikipedia with Sonic the Hedgehog characters, and it's an extremly stupid process. They are the SAME person. - Ultimatetoad
 * The reason I would support splitting articles up into Mario and Mario (film character) would be if the situation would be like on the Daisy article: the movie section is huge, and splitting would be a way of shortening the article. We would need to include a blurb on the main article including the main article template with a link to the movie article, though.  This whole thing about different incarnations of Mario appearing in different mediums is all fanon, which is not allowed on the Wiki.  Seriously, just expand those sections you want off the article to a crazy extent and then it will make sense from a Wiki standpoint to split them.  Canon doesn't have to come into play at all.
 * Actually, I agree with Ultimatoad. They represent the same person (even though they might be in different continuities). I didn't really realize what I was voting for. Here's what I think would be the best solution: in the infobox we should just put "Mario" (I think someone said that Nintendo stated that Mario and Luigi don't have last names, anyway). And, we should have a section on the page that talks about Mario's last name being "Mario" as a possibility (and maybe other non-game possibilities as well). It's just that Canonicity says that the movie is alternate-canon, so we should try to have Mario's information from games be the one we use for stuff like this.

Well, at the same time, I don't think that movie & game info should be mixed. They should each have their own seperate section, just in the same article (see Princess Daisy). Maybe we should just make the intro to the Mario article look like this "Mario (Mario Mario in some Media...." I should mention that I also oppose the recent mixing of cartoon show & game info in the Mario article. They should be discussed seperately, just in the same article. - Ultimatetoad
 * I'd like to hear your reasoning for that last point. 11:01, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, lets see if I can do that without babbling or confusing myself:

1. The Mario from the Super Mario Bros. series, the Mario from the Super Mario Bros. Super Show! Series, and the Mario from the Super Mario Bros. Movie are all the same character, just put into different situations.

2. Mario does not have a real "backstory" inside the games, any more than Mickey Mouse or Kermit the Frog has one in their respective shows. Notice how each game can easily stand by itself: You don't need to have played Super Mario 64 to understand Sunshine. There is no real "Mario Continunuity" or timeline (no official one, at any rate).

3. Thus, every appearence Mario makes should looked at as a "canonical" appearence.

4. So, the Mario article should not be grouped according to appearence, but Media type: Appearences in:

Games Televsion Theater Movies

etc. - Ultimatetoad


 * Thanks for explaining! I would support you in this except that the biography section for Mario is in chronological and release date order (Yoshi's Island first, and so on).  Many (not all) of the alternate media sources have their own place in respect to certain games.  Just as Yoshi's Island comes before Super Mario Bros., The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3 occurs just after Super Mario Bros. 3.  So, either we just list by release date and medium, or we attempt to keep chronological order and then we have to include all sources in one section.
 * Can we just say "Mario (Mario Mario in some sources)" in the infobox? That would make things a lot easier than having this long, complicated discussion. But honestly, Nintendo created Mario, and has Nintendo ever said that his last name is Mario? If not, I'm voting support. 13:45, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Well, I'm not sure what you mean by, "Nintendo," since Nintendo is a huge company incapable of speach, but an "Official Nintendo Source" (I'm assuming that's what you mean, right?) has. It happened in Nintendo Power.  The reason I'm being a stickler is because the movie is one of the official Nintendo-affiliated creations, so one could see the movie the movie as "Nintendo" saying that the last name is Mario.  10:17, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I mean has an official Nintendo source, or has someone who's part of Nintendo, ever said that their last names are Mario? Think about it this way: Toad's article doesn't say, "Toad is a human who plays guitar and turned into a Goomba" in the main section. It does in the movie section, only. So we can say "In the movie, Mario's last name is Mario", but we shouldn't consider that to be the case except in the movie section. Unless, of course, this has been confirmed by Nintendo. 18:23, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Okay, I got ya. All I have for you is the Nintendo Power thing, then.  I think your solution is fine.  This whole proposal is going craaaaazy!
 * Nintendo Power is not the most fantastic source, BTW. I think that they even said that "Mario Mario" was just an assumed surname. Just thought I'd point that out...
 * I really don't see what's wrong with "Mario (Mario Mario in some sources)". But I'll let the others decide for this one. 08:59, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Me neither, although I think it would be good to specify the sources rather than say, "some sources." 11:52, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
 * That's what the imbedded citations are for. And remember not to use your sig here. -
 * I'm pretty sure those are more meant to give a webpage or book that you found something in, like saying, "Sigeru Miyamoto (2010). Super Mario Continuity.  2011 ed." <--P.S. I want that book.

}}

Orange Yoshi & Brown Yoshi
MERGE 7-3

On this Wiki, we currently have articles that are technically conjecturally named: Orange Yoshi and Brown Yoshi. They are named in the same pattern as we saw in Yoshi's Story for the green, red, yellow, pink, blue, and light blue Yoshis. The articles say that Brown Yoshi appears in Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island and Yoshi's Island: Super Mario Advance 3. In the latter his shoes and saddle were recolored to match the current shoes and sattle of Orange Yoshi. The article claims that Brown Yoshi was replaced by Orange Yoshi in Yoshi's Island DS. Yet, in all of the artwork for both of the games we claim Brown Yoshi to be in depict Orange Yoshi instead of Brown Yoshi. This includes the soundtrack album as well. Another claim is that Brown Yoshi made a cameo in the Yoshi's Story introduction. Take a look: That's Orange Yoshi, without a doubt. I've also noticed that all of the in-game artwork of Brown Yoshi (seen only in the Japanese version) appear to have replaced Orange Yoshi with Brown Yoshi!

So what does this all mean? Provided that no one has an official source that I don't know about, there is no proof that Orange Yoshi and Brown Yoshi are simply a recoloring of the same character, done as a result of technical limitations of the Yoshi's Island engine. My biggest support is that all artwork outside of the game shows Orange Yoshi. If there really were two different characters, why would Nintendo choose to draw Orange Yoshi rather than Brown Yoshi in promotional artwork? Or to chose Orange Yoshi instead of Brown Yoshi for the Yoshi's Story cameo?

The proposal: I'd like us to merge the two articles together under the title "Orange Yoshi." Of course, we'd need to include info regarding how Orange Yoshi looked Brown.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Stumpers}} Deadline: June 18, 2008, 17:00

Support (merge)

 * 1) My reasoning is above.  In my opinion, we have simply mistaken the color intended to be orange to be brown instead.
 * 2) Ultimatetoad. (Stumpers' note: his reason is below.)
 * 3) Ninjayoshi - Only these Yoshi articles should be merged. Otherwise, per Stumpers.
 * 4) - Per Stumpers and the fact that Brown Yoshi is a tiny article.
 * 5) - Per all. Plus, having all the conjecture, controversy and subjective images on one page will make it easier for readers to understand the matter and make their own deductons.
 * 6) - Per Stumpers
 * 7) - Per all.

Oppose (keep separate)

 * 1) I see no reason for this. It hasn't been proven they are the same, and I think they should have their own articles.
 * 2) I agree with hypertoad. There is no proof! None whatsoever!I don't know why it's done the way it is but they are seperate, you know how I know? Because they are different colours! unless these nintendo people are colour blind I think it's pretty safe to say they are different yoshis.
 * 3) Why is this necessary?  Orange Yoshi might be a recoloring, but there are dozens of reasons that could account for  Brown Yoshis not appearing in newer games.  Maybe Nintendo just found them ugly.  Or maybe, like all Dinosaurs, they just went extinct :P

Comments
Just a note to everyone who doesn't want all Yoshi's merged, you should know that I am a separatist in light of the six Yoshi characters in Yoshi's Story. This proposal has nothing to do with that. :)

I removed my above comment to try to avoid confusing peoples........ but, yeah, I always thought the Orange Yoshi article was weird... - Ultimatetoad

Just about the latest oppose vote, no, I have no quote that says, "Those Yoshis are the same." However, you do not have one that says, "Those Yoshis are different." I have noted the fact that there is no Brown Yoshi in the artwork, it is always replaced by the Yellow Yoshi, even when we claim that a Brown Yoshi is in the game. Can you give me proof about your way? Because I've seen plenty of characters who have had color inconsistency between games, even sometimes in the same game. Remember Bowser in Super Mario 64? He changed colors for the last boss battle. Birdo from Super Mario Bros. 2 USA/Super Mario Advance? It changed colors for certain boss battles. Remember Yoshi in Mario Power Tennis? He changed colors whenever he did a defensive power shot. Princess Peach's hair and dress color changed after the NES days. Does that mean there are two Princess Peaches? Color differences, especially minor color differences between games like the one we're talking about with Yellow Yoshi, haven't meant anything... especially when the first game was on a system that was less technically capable than the other. 13:09, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Very true! We can't afford to get that picky or the Wiki will become a mess of newly-defined conjecture linking fragmented artciles. ("It is possible that Princess Toadstool decided to change styles after the events of The Lost Levels thus making her Pricness Peach Toadstool of later games; but the two could be also be sisters and the readhead could have been tragically killed, married, or otherwise sent away before Super Mario Bros. 2; but there is no proof..." - it's just an impossible example (since Peach was depicted with her normal blond hair in all promotional artwork for the NES games), but you see what I mean) -
 * I really like the point you made on your vote: changes like that should be mentioned on the page, if nothing else for historical reference, but also to allow people to hypothesize. I'm glad you see where I'm getting at.

Just a note on the latest vote: you say that there could be dozens of reasons. You only gave me a couple, the last of which was speculation. 23:18, 17 June 2008 (EDT) Well there could be dozens, doesn't mean that I can think of dozens. :P I'm sure that there are a lot of technology issues that I'm not savvy enough to understand that could account for not putting Brown Yoshi in more recent games. But merging the articles, and saying that Brown Yoshi was recolored is speculation, since we have no proof that Nintendo intended to replace Brown Yoshi with Orange Yoshi. If Nintendo originally wanted an Orange Yoshi, they could have included him in the game, so there must be some reason that they chose brown instead of orange. P.S. the second reason was a joke ;P }}