MarioWiki:Proposals

 http://img33.picoodle.com/img/img33/9/9/17/f_propcopym_9045f2d.png A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed using the code. Signing with the signature code (~) is not allowed due to technical issues.

How To
 * 1) Actions that users feel are appropriate to have community approval first can be added by anyone, but they must have a strong argument.
 * 2) Users then vote and discuss on the issue during that week. The "deadline" for the proposal is one week from posting at:
 * 3) Monday to Thursday: 17:00 (5pm)
 * 4) Friday and Saturday: 20:00 (8pm)
 * 5) Sunday: 15:00 (3pm)
 * 6) Every vote should have a reason accompanying it.
 * 7) 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.
 * 8) " # " should be added under the last vote of each support/oppose section to show another blank line.
 * 9) Any proposal that has three votes or less at deadline will automatically be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
 * 10) All proposals are archived. The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of a sysop, the proposer can ask for that help.
 * 11) There are two topics that cannot be decided on through a proposal: the first is sysop promotions and demotions, which are decided by Bureaucrats. Secondly, no proposals calling for the creation of Banjo, Conker or Sonic series articles are allowed (several proposals supporting them have failed in recent history).

The times are in EDT, and are set so that the user is more likely to be online at those times (after work/school, weekend nights). If a proposal is added on Saturday night at 11:59 PM EDT, the deadline is the next Saturday night at 8:00 PM. If it is a minute later, the deadline is a day plus 15 hours (Sunday), as opposed to a day minus 4 hours.

CURRENTLY: , 28 2024 (EDT)

New Features
''None at the moment.

Removals
''None at the moment.

New Super Mario Bros. Level Articles
Looking through the site, I noticed we have some articles on each level of New Super Mario Bros.. I'm not exactly sure why. The levels of Super Mario Bros, Super Mario Bros. 3, The Lost Levels, etcetera, are all merged with their respective world article. (Ex: World 1-1 (SMB) is non-existent because it is already in World 1 (SMB)). So here's my proposal: merge the NSMB level articles with their respective world articles, just as we have done with the aforementioned articles. While many NSMB level articles have yet to be created, some look like this or this. Please take this as a rough example of what the world articles would look like merged.

Proposer: Deadline: 17:00, October 4, 2008 '''(Note: Ongoing discussion with small vote difference. Do not archive until settled.)

Merge

 * 1) - Per my statement above.
 * 2) - Per St00by.
 * 3) - There's no back story or info or even a name for NSMB levels except that what their theme is (eg forest or snow), and who will go to Mario Wiki to find that out?
 * 4) - There is very little info that can be put into those articles and all the levels in a world are prety much the same.
 * 5) - See below comment.
 * 6) - This wiki doesn't need articles for every little thing. Those would be to many stubs! I support this just as I support the merge for the Special Moves.
 * 7) - Changing my mind because of the featured article thing.  Plus, the mock-up shoes that it's a better system to drift around gathering information.
 * 8) - Per all above.
 * 9) - Per all above. ._.
 * 10) Per all!
 * 11) Per all! This sounds like a Brilliant idea!
 * 12) As you can see, I changed my vote. I thought about it and I realized that it's a great idea.
 * 13) Per all.

Keep Separate

 * First, what makes a level article-worthy? Super Mario World levels all get articles (which I think is good), so why not do the same for NSMB, SMB, etc.? The only difference here is that they don't have proper names, but most SMW level names only consist of the world name and a number as well. Levels definitely have enough content to write about in separate articles, so IMO we should allow level articles for any game. Secondly, we're talking about levels (you can write so much about them!) of a main Mario game, so I don't feel they should be merged into one single page. Finally, if we do merge them, we can't put the single levels into separate categories (such as "Castles and Fortresses", "Grasslands", ...).
 * 1) -Per Time Q,and I have found that merging levels loses info.
 * 2) - Per Time Q; in fact, if the proposal is declined, we could start a PipeProject to complete all of these levels.
 * 3) - Per TimeQ.
 * 4) - Per all.
 * 5) - Per all. We are a Mario Wiki, and we have and need the most Mario info we can get, and just having like two sentences on the World article isn't info; a description of the level in an article is info :D
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) - Per Time Q. All levels, IMO, should have their own page.
 * 8) Look there is no reason to merge levels we have enough information to create separete pages!
 * 9) - Per All. I would argue that the SMB/Lost Levels levels should too be splited.
 * 10) - Per all.

Comments
Time Q: I do see your point, and I actually expected someone to point this out. The reason why I didn't propose that SMW levels get merged, is because they do consist of more that solely numbers. Ex: SMB, SMB2, SMB3, TLL, YI, YIDS, NSMB, SPP, and probably a few others each have levels titled "World 1-1", or "World 2-1", etcetera. SMW does actually name their levels, albeit some of the names are less "wordy" than others. But, SMW has levels with titles like "Awesome", "Gnarly", and even "Yoshi's Island 2". While the all games have official level names (even if they are just a sequence of numbers), SMW is the only one to give their levels more original names. If we were to separate every "World 1-1", "World 1-2", "World 1-3", and so on into their own articles, we would have at least 32 disambiguation pages with the aforementioned titles. So, in this aspect, I find merging the NSMB level articles to their respective world articles makes navigation all-the-more easier. 02:29, 26 September 2008 (EDT)
 * You've got a point here, but I don't think navigation would be that much of a problem. How would having disambiguation pages make navigation more difficult? I'm still all for putting brief level summaries into their respective world articles (and linking to the actual level articles). The only thing that separates the "article-worthiness" of NSMB levels from the "article-worthiness" of SMW levels is that the former do not get names. But we have a lot of articles about things that don't have (official) names.

How is there a disambig,And dosent every one of the pages list the levels at the end of the page?

World 1 (SMB) isn't even complete yet! Before we consider whether to carry this action out or not, shouldn't someone complete all of the incomplete world/level articles first?
 * Time Q: The excess amount of navigation templates and disambig pages seem rather unnecessary. (I do admit I have created a lot of navigation templates. :P) We would have at least 32 disambiguation pages if we are to separate all levels from their respective world articles. Take SMB3's world articles for example: Grass Land is a nice, long article that gives a descriptive entry for each level in that world; not to mention SMB3's levels have practically the same level names. In my opinion, it would be better to have eight long, descriptive articles on worlds and their levels, rather than around 40-60 stubs. Expansion is possible on the level articles, but if we were to do that, we might as well separate any and all levels from their respective world article. Bob-omb Buddy: 1) Merging articles does not always mean loss of information. It depends on who's doing the merging and how it's being done. Take for example when I merged controller articles to their respective console article: I left the lengthy description of each controller exactly as it was and merely implemented it into the respective console article. Pikax: I can finish World 1 (SMB). 17:12, 26 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I agree that a few long articles are better than dozens of stubs. In fact, I'd even like to see the SMW levels merged, because empty articles like Chocolate Island with a list of stubs like Chocolate Island 3 are, frankly, irritating: you hope for information, but get next to nothing. If people want in-depth descriptions of each and every article, they should use Walkthroughs or FAQs (which we should find for them and link to, in order to continue to be a helpful, worthwhile resource for them); if they want to understand the Mario series as a whole, the sections within the larger world articles should be enough. However, Time Q's "what makes a level article-worthy?" point is valid: all levels should get merged, or none at all; because inconsitancy is just as distasteful. And finally, I think the numerous disambiguation pages can't be phased out anyway: because, people are still going to search for "World 1-1", and it will still apply to a multitude of articles, even if "1-1" is only the name of a single section within an overworld title. -

ZOMG to Garlic's comment! I was about to work on the level/world articles, but then this Proposal popped up. That's weird :blink:
 * Ah, then if it turns out that we will have to expand on those articles, I shall help as well :D!
 * Well, since a good portion of the opposers believe that the world articles wouldn't give enough level description (as opposed to the level articles staying separate), why don't you guys take this as an example of what I intend said world articles to look like? Though it currently contains only two level descriptions, I think you can get the gist of what the world articles would look like. 20:53, 26 September 2008 (EDT)
 * St00by thats a great idea. Of course, we would have to expand on the sections alot, but it won't take that long. If alot of NSMB players put their effort into it, that article would become huge. -
 * Thank you, Super-Yoshi! As you can see, I've expanded the example even more. I even added a section for the world's cannon. As of now, the article is over 8,500 bytes, and it is only halfway completed. So, if the article were to be written in this format, it would roughly be around 15,000-17,000 bytes, which is more than long enough to be a Featured Article. The article lacks several images, sure, but with enough searching I'm fairly sure we could find level maps or screenshots for each level.

What would be the problem about doing it like here? Brief level descriptions in the world article (that could be longer than in the Yoshi's Island example), with links to in-depth articles. This looks just fine to me and navigation is easy too. I really don't like the idea of merging stuff that has so much content you can write about. Plus, it's from a main Mario game, so it is of major importance. Plus, if we merge all levels into world articles, we can't put the single levels into separate categories.
 * I agree with TimeQ. Plus if we keep the images, wouldn't they make the pages' appearence look worse?
 * Time Q: That is a fine idea, but as Walkazo said, "inconsistency is distasteful". The brief level info can be hard to do, especially when summing up many levels that have similarities. The levels in NSMB all have the same atmosphere, enemies, and all that – the only difference being that they require different strategies to make it through the levels. IMO, the level summaries in World 1 (YI) are pretty poor. (No offense.) TWG: Well, take World 9 for example; each level has a map image, but they are laid out tastefully, just like World A. And, if that weren't to work, we could always do it like in this article.
 * I'm not understanding why Stages with names are superior to those without names. For instance DKC level articles are not affected by this proposal, while having about the same, if not less, information contained in the article itself. I don't beleive that names are what makes some articles inferior and less important, but rather the content, which can indeed be improved, if enough users work on it. I will contribute to NSMB, SMB, and other games that I may have. After all, levels could be anywhere from 1-1 in Super Mario Bros, or Bob-omb Battlefiled from Super Mario 64. All should be treated equally, not discriminated by game.
 * They're not superior. I just didn't think about it at the time. :P Also, I don't think the paintings in SM64 are really levels. I think their worlds... Correct me if I'm wrong.
 * Well, technically, they are "Courses"; but no other game, I don't think, uses that name, so. Also, even "Galaxies", are part of "Domes", which may be considered as Worlds, and the galaxies as levels within the domes and areas. I also noticed that I think the proposal changed to just NSMB now...
 * Well, unless anyone objects, I think this can cover SMW, YI, and DKC level articles as well. It seems like a good portion of peoples' reasoning for this proposal is that they are levels, (that operates in both support and oppose). As for SMG and SM64, Maybe we should make another proposal pertaining solely to those.

Iggykoopa there is no reason to merge levels we have enough information to create sepreate pages
 * The proposal should contain a link to one of the New Super Mario Bros. level pages. - 13:12, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Cobold: Good idea. I did so. Iggykoopa: I'm not sure if you're referring to all levels, or just NSMB levels. If you look at the level descriptions for the Super Mario Bros. worlds, they are fairly short, but almost as informative as possible. NSMB level articles can have a little more information, (as seen here), but it doesn't seem like many users are determined enough to make the articles that long. If we leave them separate, many users may just leave the levels as are – as stubs. If we merge the levels into their respective world articles, the whole article will be long, thus not a stub. Of course, once merged, the articles could always use some expansion, but I feel that it would be much better to have eight neatly-written, relatively long articles, than forty-something stubs out there.

We also have enough information to split off the biography sections of the character articles, but we don't. Having all the information on one page is much more accessible and also makes for great Featured Articles - which is the main reason I'm supporting this proposal. We need to see more effort for the level articles, and allowing for potential FA status would help beef them up, I'm all for it. Think about what we have as FAs right now: games, characters, and series. Why aren't their locations up there? It's because there are only a few, such as the Mushroom and Beanbean Kingdoms, that would be large enough for FAs, even with all of their information. When you break down a location, like one of these worlds, into smaller articles as we have been doing, there's not enough information left! So let's merge, be inspired, write our hearts out, and get these featured and move on to more articles!
 * Well said, Stumpers!

However, it still comes down to the fact that expansion is possible, and that merging together a bunch of small articles does not necessarily give you a good-quality article. For instance, Cheep-Cheep, having 13 sections, is a semi-long article. However, each section lacks information, and cannot be said that it has good quality. From seeing the example level articles up in the proposals, if images are added, the articles would become easier to understand, and overall informative. There still is a chance for those articles, and if be needed, there are many users who are willing to do the work for 4 informative articles, rather than a grouping of section stubs.
 * Garlic Man: Expansion is always possible; I never said it wasn't. I agree that merging multiple small articles into one doesn't make the article "good-quality", but it makes it 1) more efficient than multiple stubs, 2) it makes navigation easier, and 3) it makes the wiki look a little more professional. Now, let me elaborate on #3: The Cheep-Cheep article may need more information in certain sections, but it looks much better than a stub. Multiple stubs without images might make the place look to some; whereas if we were to merge the articles, it would be visible that the larger article still needed work, but it would have at least one image (the world's map), a descriptive infobox, several subsections – each describing the many levels in said world, and it would make it easier to traverse across the website for newer users, (and possibly some older users as well). Also take note of what Stumpers said: the biography sections are large enough to split off, however, we don't do that. Wouldn't you find the MarioWiki more appeasing and more professional if it had more articles worthy of being Featured? I for one get tired of seeing articles commonly repeated on the Main Page as Featured – and they're always pertaining to characters and games (occasionally game series). Locations are a vital part of the Marioverse. Look at the World 2 (NSMB) page: it's only as long as it's level articles. If we can expand the world articles by merging it's respective levels within it, and then expand those sections, the articles could be amazing. If done, the world articles could then be roughly 15,000-20,000+ bytes, as opposed to 1,000-2,000 bytes per world and level.
 * Actually, in my opinion, I don't really know if a group of stubs look better than a single stub article. Also, seeing the example articles, I don't see them as stubs. They have sufficient information. Of course, we can implement infoboxes into the level articles if it will help the article. I also had the impression you were stressing the fact that if we made world articles, they could become featured status. Seeing your proposal example, no offence intended, I don't see how it could become featured in that state; now don't get me wrong, because articles can be improved. Additionally, I don't think counting in "bytes" is very appropriate for articles, for it is not how many characters were used in templates, categories, etc, but rather the text and meat of the article itself. As for featured article status, I could point out each mistake on your article, but since they could be easily fixed(while lacking images), I will not; after all, this proposal is not to get those articles featured. It would be nice to see more articles qualified for Featured Nomination, but currently, I don't see potential in the example article, and don't see how we would be any better off, because I personally don't find much more information on the single article than the separate ones.
 * Perhaps the fault is with me and my emphasis on FAs. I did not mean to imply that merging the articles would instantly lead to FA status.  What I meant is this: we have a length requirement.  So, short articles (like Spiny Shroopa) will never be FAs.  That means that said articles are largely ignored and largely stay stubs.  I'm a huge fan of the Mario Bros. Super Show, but knowing that none of those characters' articles can ever be long enough to be featured is a great inhibitor.  Now, on the other hand, I made Baby Peach an FA in under a week, completely rewriting it.  Why?  I had a lot more incentive: having my work highlighted for the entire Wiki to see.  Now, why don't we use that incentive to our advantage here?  People are slacking on editing level articles (possibly for the reason I don't edit SMBSS articles much), so we should dangle the carrot in front of the horse, so to speak.  Let the articles become potential FAs (ie if someone puts more effort into them they may become FAs), and let's see them improve.
 * You made a good point; if determined enough, any user can completely revamp an article. I did similar things to Super Smash Bros. and Mario Kart (series), and eventually both got featured. What I'm saying is, those level articles could be severely improved; I would have done them right now, but since they're under a proposal, I can't. I had the same incentive to get those articles featured, and they did. When I nominate an article for featured status, if somebody opposes, I do everything to fix whereever they want me to fix. Because that's what I nominated them for. To get them featured. But I think there is a border between articles that stay as good quality and articles that become featured. I think level articles are a good example of the former.
 * I still don't really understand why you're against merging them. It seems from your comment that you recognize that FA status potential is a good incentive (the articles you rewrote could all be featured) and then people scramble to fix up the articles to meet the opposer's demands.  All around, it would seem like you're saying that FA status is a good thing.  But, then why are you so in favor of the un-featurable status of the level articles when they are in such a state?
 * Just because the levels will all be part of one article doesn't mean they won't be expanded upon. All we're saying is that it would be better if all that information was in one place. More people may even contribute to the smaller sections in the larger articles than they would to the countless stubs that are currently in place: undertaking large projects is daunting, while being one of many working towards a loftier goal is something anyone can do. -

Phew, now that's what I call controversial. It's a pity that we can't seem to find a compromise and that, no matter which side wins, there will be lots of people not happy with the outcome. Stumpers and Stooben, as much as I usually appreciate your ideas, your arguments here don't convince me. The "They don't have names"-argument isn't valid IMO, since on the one hand we have many articles without actual names, and on the other we also have cases where two or more officially-named things are merged in one article. I also don't quite understand your FA argument. Articles about single levels can become FAs. Of course, they must be expanded greatly, and must cover nearly everything about the level. When merging them into a World article instead, I think for each level there will be less information necessary to make it featured. Do you get my point? If you want to make a World article featured, you have to describe the World first and foremost. Of course, level descriptions are part of it, but compare it to a level article that shall become featured. For a featured level article, you expect it to cover really everything about the level, probably much more detailed than in a World article. The good thing about this is that World articles still can become FAs, too, if they have proper level summaries. And the argument that NSMB levels all have the same atmosphere is simply not true. You can always get more in detail, describing enemies, items, shortcuts, general layout...
 * I think we can all agree that the "No Real Name" idea's wrong. However, aren't shortcuts and general layouts the stuff of Walkthroughs and FAQs (as opposed to encyclopedias)? Items can easily be included in the individual sections which can be very detailed (just look at Super Paper Mario's chapter descriptions). A seperate section devoted to comparing and contrasting the world's enemies found in the various levels (organized as a chart) would probably be a greater asset than listing them per section (or per article, as things are now). -
 * I'm with Time Q on this point, but there's one thing I want to point out (In fact this idea has been swimming around in my mind for about a month now); I think both sides, Support and Oppose have many opinions and solutions that they need to express and respond to. Currently, the difference of votes is one or less. Tomorrow is the deadline of the proposal, by theory, but do you think it could be extended a few days, just so both sides can get their points cleared? I know this would create an exception, and it is not solely because I am opposing the proposal, but rather to create a chance for an actual concensus; something that may not happen in the next day or so. Would this be possible or not?
 * I agree. This issue is too important to be decided by the whim of a new user who comes and votes on the issue last minute (as of posting, most major users have voted and we are tied 11-11).  No offense to new users here - some are great, but some also just come, edit a few articles slightly, post on a few proposals, then disappear when it comes time to act on the proposal.
 * Oh, and about TimeQ's idea that any level article could become an FA - yes, we can expand like crazy, but please remember that as an encyclopedia we're supposed to create succinct yet informative articles about a topic. We would never, for example, write out a long description of where every single block in the level was.  Instead, we could show a picture or just mention the important blocks (secret vines, Starmen, etc.)  Do you get my meaning?  It's no good if we meet the character limit but just have a bunch of fluff.
 * Wow, gone 1 day and the amount of the proposal's comments exploded. I agree with Time Q on a few points: The "they don't have names" argument was a bit weak, and I see that now. I also feel quite uneasy with the fact that so many users would be disappointed no matter which side wins. I honestly didn't expect such a massive amount of feedback on merging articles. Now, I'd like to disagree with another point you brought up, Time Q:
 * "Articles about single levels can become FAs. Of course, they must be expanded greatly, and must cover nearly everything about the level. When merging them into a World article instead, I think for each level there will be less information necessary to make it featured. Do you get my point? If you want to make a World article featured, you have to describe the World first and foremost."
 * That's not entirely true. The minimum size for a Featured Articles is 4,000 bytes; I have yet to see a level article over 4,000 bytes; I've seen a few over 3,000 bytes, but even that's pretty rare. Please look here. The level description is over 3,000 bytes, extremely informative, yet fits into the article just fine. I don't see why that couldn't work. Stumpers: I'm not sure on one point you brought up: the one about new users' votes not being valid? Is that what you were trying to say? I don't know if there's a rule against it...maybe there should be.
 * I wasn't saying that exactly. Certainly, all opinions are valid, but what it comes down to is this: I don't want a pivotal decision about our presentation being made by a single user, especially a new user.  This will happen if we remain neck and neck and finally one user tilts the scale just before the deadline.  If said user happens to be a new user and to leave after a short time as many new users do, that is particularly unfair to everyone on the Wiki, because the user who ultimately made the decision does not have to stand by it, edit under it, and so on.
 * Ah, I understand now. ;) But, it is possible to repeal a proposal, right?
 * Stumpers: IMO, an encyclopedia has to give facts, the more, the better. While it might at first glance seem strange to describe the location of every single block (probably due to the fact that it's a lot of work and there's no article written in this way yet), it is facts and thus relevant to this wiki. We could make several sections per level article, one with just a summary and the most important info, and one "ultra-detailed". What would be wrong about that? Stooben: Just because there is no 4,000-byte-level article yet doesn't mean that there won't ever be. Of course, Super Mario Land levels might not have enough content to become FAs. But for Super Mario World, Yoshi's Island, New Super Mario Bros. etc., if you make separate sections where you describe the location of every Dragon Coin/Flower/Star Coin (i.e. the most important items), I believe you can reach the 4,000 byte limit.
 * Oh, I meant to add "However, it could be possible to make an article 4,000 bytes, as long as we had users that were determined enough", but I forgot. (Probably because I was doing some homework at the time. XD)
 * I added a note on the deadline to not archive yet (Although Time Q is the only one who usually does the archiving). On a different note, I do agree with Time Q that it is possible for a level article to become featured. Nothing in the requirements says that they cannot. Many levels have items, as Time Q stated, and many have secret passages, shorcuts, and other special artifacts such as Magic Whilstles, P Wings, Magnifying glasses, and many more things that are important to the game. Some levels in some games have large significance to the Mario Series, and definitely have the possibility of becoming featured.
 * I'm not trying to ignore your comment, because it does have some valid points – but, why the note next to the deadline? Haven't we had other proposals this close, yet still ended them by the deadline? I'm not trying to just close out the proposal because it's won (as of now), but I'm just wondering why exactly you did that?
 * Because this issue is much too important to be settled by one vote; this discussion is ongoing. Also, I don't know if there is an actual rule, but there is a template that says not to make major changes to articles being discussed under a proposal. Doesn't World 1 count?
 * Yes, I do remember that template. (I made it.) As for World 1 (SMB), if you look through the comments, you'll see a user requested that that article should be expanded. I did so, (a bit late, granted). But, either way, the article can be split or left alone. I would've remembered not to do that though, had I added the template to the article. Sorry.
 * I'd like to also make 2 notes. 1) I removed three votes from the oppose side, as they were all sockpuppets of . 2) I am willing to extend the deadline by 2 days, thus ending the proposal on Saturday, October 4th.
 * Hey, if Iggy was sockpuppeting, did you take appropriate action? Also, that makes the vote much less close than we thought it was...
 * I gave Iggykoopa a warning; I figured if he did it again, I would block him. I also blocked his 4 sockpuppets with an infinite ban.

OK, so looking back at all this, it seems like there's a big issue here. The supporters are saying that merging the stub/short articles we currently have would make nicer looking world articles (again, not FA status, just to clarify). The opposers are saying that, given time and effort, the articles could become beautiful works that may even reach FA status if they are complete enough. We have a big problem here: the opposers are talking about what could be while the supporters are talking about what currently is. Neither side is right! The opposers can't logically guarantee that all of the level articles will become brilliant and the supporters are contradicting the goal of a Wiki: to write as though you were working on a high-class encyclopedia, even while there are still shabby articles. We definitely need a compromise at this point in time, but no really good ideas are coming to me at the moment. I'd just like to say something, from a historical standpoint. Let me take two articles: Ashley and Red and Mario and Luigi's Parents. Both articles are about two characters who share an article because they are near inseparable. How, in the case of the former, I tried to work on it, fleshing out the individual details of each character, such as backstory, skills, and individual roles in the game storyline. That didn't work - the characters are just too inseparable at this point in the time to warrant two different articles that would essentially say the same thing. However, for the later article, as I've explored alternate media sources, I've come to realize that Mario's mother is a very separate character from his father because of her rolls on the Super Show. Currently, one of my goals is to rewrite and expand that article with the goal that people will realize how different the two characters are, and only then can we discuss the split.

Now, let's apply this to our situation currently: I can't assure you that I will be able to beef up Mario and Luigi's Parents to the point where the article will be split because I haven't yet done the expansion. However, having attempted the expansion on Ashley and Red, I have determined that I cannot have the articles split. Now, let's say that, just for now, we merge the level article together with a big understanding: as the opposers improve the level articles, us supporters will be open to the option of splitting the world articles back into level articles, but you first must show us that the levels can be split. This should be explored on a game-by-game basis. We can experiment on World 1 of NSMB, for example, and when that article becomes a behemoth of 10 or so level articles that each could stand independently (for example, meets or almost meets FA length standards or shows how the level is significantly different from the world), we can split the levels back to their current state. Does this sound like a plan? I'm only suggesting this because currently, no one has been able to point to any level article and say, "This is what we're talking about." We have no proof to the claims that level articles could be grand articles that could either be featured or could be if they could reach the character limit. Thanks so much for your time and consideration.

Changes
''None at the moment.

Miscellaneous
''None at the moment.