MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/10

Species from Adventure Mode In Melee
Okay, as many of you already know, we merged the Subspace Emissary enemies in to one article. But I noticed recently that the enemies from Adventure mode in Melee, such as Like Like, Octorok, Redead, Polar Bear, and others still have articles by themselves. I propose these should all be merged into one article, followed by their trophy descrpition, similar to the Subspace Emissary article. Those enemy articles virtually have nothing to do with Mario, and are likely not worthy enough of having their own articles.

Proposer: Deadline: August 14, 2008, 17:00 EDT

Support

 * 1) Per my proposal. (I haven't made one in a while, I just realized...)
 * 2) - Per Garlic.
 * 3) - Merging/Splitting really shows our position on importance, so this is good if we want to take the importance of of SSB, but still keep the info.
 * 4) -per all
 * 5) - Per all.
 * 6) - Per all.
 * 7) - Per all, as long as each enemy has the same amount of information about it.
 * 8) - Per all, no doubt.

Comments
If this proposal goes through, what exactly would be the page that would have the enemies?

I agree with this proposal, but i tihnk we should also get rid of minor stage-hazard like Tingle or Ultimate chimera (Or whatever the heck it's spell)


 * Palkia: I haven't decided what the article name would be, but I guess something like "List of Adventure Mode Enemies" or something along those lines.
 * Blitz: Those articles should probably be merged with the stage themselves. (Though Tingle has a different role in Brawl than he does in Melee).

Trophy Locations
I was reading the page of trophy descriptions for Super Smash Bros Brawl and noticed that the page lacks of locations of the trophies. I was in need of finding a few and hoped the page would help. It was rather discouraging to find no trophy locations at all. My proposal is that we add the necessary locations of each trophy, such as which challenge to complete, if it needs to be hit by a trophy stand in the SSE, if it just has to be found in coin launcher, etc. I don't wish to make this a complete guide, just a simple description of how to get a certain trophy.

Proposer: Deadline: August 15, 2008, 20:00 EDT

Support

 * 1) I am the proposer, my reasons are above. I'd also like to say that Dom makes a good point in his comment below, which is how I think the page should be like.
 * 2) - I agree, I went to that page once to look for trophy locations but, alas, there was nothing. The only problem is...does anyone remember where most of the trophies came from?
 * 3) - Per Luigi001 and Glitchy. Any plyars having trouble trying to find the trophies that happened to stumble upon here could figure out where to look/how to unlock. I could provide how to unlock the trophies in the Challenges section under Vault in the game.

Oppose

 * 1) - Per tanookkitails. Well only a few have got locations, you get some by doing certain things, and others with the Trophy Stand, so is merely useless.
 * 2) - One of the big reasons I'm against this, is because it has nothing to do with the Mario series. I mean, if this proposal gets passed, some will feel the urgency to put Sticker locations as well, and that really doesn't help back up The Importance Policy.
 * 3) - The Mario Wiki isn't a game guide. Get some official guide or go to GameFAQs for that.

Comments
Tanukkitails: I'm saying to put that they're found randomly on stages, or the SSE, or etc. I'm not saying put "this trophy can be found on......" I mean to say is to put "trophy is SSE" or "Found in coin launcher" and etc.
 * Tucayo:It is not useless! There are many trophies that can be unlocked via certain things, like completing challenges, playing certain things with specific characters, etc. It will actually prove more of of a use than you think.
 * well, i didnt mean that, i meant that it shouldn't be in the trophy descriptions page, it should have its own page.
 * I don't see what your saying. Do you mean make a page titles something like "List of trophy locations in SSBB?"

- Considering that most of them are random when found in the SSE mode, without set locations, this seems a bit pointless, but I suppose you could write on the page a paragraph explaining this randomness issue, but with the ones that have set ways of being obtained - their means can definitely be added.
 * Good point. It suppose at the top we could put "most trophies are found in coin launcher, SSE randomly, etc." But then we put what trophies need if they are under a challenge, how or what to do.

I used to be against this but he convinced me.

Let me clarify. I do think a few make good points for opposing, I still think this proposal is worth a shot. I don't want to make this a guide, but what I mean is note somewhere on the page that most trophies are found at random, but also put what challenge to complete if a trophy is unlocked via one. And I have no idea how the matter of stickers came up, because, while from the same game, are mainly unrealated. Basically, I'm saying put what challenge to complete to get a trophy, and for the others just note somewhere on the page that they are found at random.

Removal/Merging of non-Mario articles
This sort of follows up on my Melee enemies proposal. I noticed articles like Leon Powalski, Mei Ling, Otacon, Colonel Roy Campbell, etc, of articles that have nothing to do with Mario himself, but rather created from interest of the Super Smash Bros. Series. Those characters never interact with Mario in any of his games, nor do they affect them. I say they should either be completely removed, or Merged into their respective Stage/Character articles (Character meaning Snake, Fox, etc. Stage meaning, Lylat Cruise, Shadow Moses Island, etc.) Those articles make it seem like Super Smash Bros. is secondary importance or something. (Not, of course)

Proposer: Deadline: August 20, 2008, 17:00 EDT

Support

 * 1) - Once Again, Per my Proposal.
 * 2) - I agree. This is a mario wiki, not a super smash bros. wiki.
 * 3) - I say they should be completely removed from the site since this is a Super Mario Wiki.
 * 4) User:Luigi3000 -Merge with the stage and all will be peaceful Per Garlic!!!!
 * 5) -since ssb has only some to do with mario i gotta agree

Oppose

 * 1) - See below comments. Also, the proposal is a bit too vague about how the removals/merges will be handled, and I don't want to see any useful information scrapped.
 * 2) - It would be a confusing concept, especially for new readers/contributors.  No other character articles on the Wiki would also be about other characters.  For example, if a user looks up Mario, he won't learn about Princess Peach's birth.  However, if a user looks at Solid Snake, they would learn about Mei Ling.  If a user looks up Mushroom Kingdom, they won't find information about Piranha Plants.  However, if a user looks up Termina Bay, they'll learn about the turtle.  This is going to not only cause confusion in the new readers, but also new contributors, meaning that experienced contributors like you, Walkazo, and me, would now have to also be on the lookout for confused people adding information about Banzai Bill to the Princess Peach's Castle article and information about Zelda to the Link article.  On the other hand, if we make series articles, we can merge all of the minor subjects into one, much like we do on List of Implied Characters.  In the event that a subject from the series is major, like Link, for example, we could include a short blurb and link users to Link's article (no pun intended) using the main article template.  Not only does this solve the problem of whether Link, Zelda, Sheik, or Ganon will get information about Legend of Zelda content, but it also is much simpler.  There's no need for a lengthy set of rules to read just to figure out where a bit of information should go and where to link the redirect pages.
 * 3) Booster -- Per Stumpers. At least merge the minor non-playable non-Mario characters onto their own pages or something.
 * 4) - Per Stumpers. And my opposal in the first place.
 * 5) - They're all characters in their own right, therefore they should have their own articles. End of.
 * 6) -per all
 * 7) -F***! I hate this proposal. PER ALL!
 * 8) - I agree with Stumpers 100%. it would be really confusing
 * 9) - What Dryest bowser said. Also, if we do this, then we can remove EVERY template what has any mean with the SSB series!
 * 10) - This isn't Wikipedia, we shouldn't be merging anything.
 * 11) - Even if this is a mario wiki, SSBB is a mario game.
 * 12) -. Per all, as a mariowiki, we must inform the most possible about mario games, including SSB
 * 13) - Per All

Comments
How will you decide to merge or remove the articles? I'd just split the support sections into "Remove" or "Merge". Cuz I really don't want those articles removed. :\

Problem here: an article about Sonic is about the character, not the series. Same with Snake. The article is about the fictional individual rather than the series behind him. Also, that's going to create a monster of an article for characters like Samus, and how do you propose that we decide whether to deposit the Legend of Zelda series on Link, Zelda, or Ganon? The entire Pokemon series on the Pikachu, Jigglypuff, Pichu, Mewtwo, or Lucario articles? Here's a solution to that problem: series pages. We could create a page for each series that has crossed over. There could be a short blurb up top regarding when the series crossed over, and then the article would have all the content from that series that crossed over, with each character, item, etc. getting its own section. Any subject, such as a playable Super Smash Bros. character, could get a short blurb as well, with a "main article" link to their larger article. 15:01, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
 * I like Stumpers' idea. In fact, I've always wondered why we don't have series pages: we might be the Mario Wiki, but it's still felt like a glaring omission. -
 * I like that idea.
 * I don't. Seems like it could easily be used as a way to shoehorn in Banjo and Conker article(s). --

Stumpers: I wasn't talking about the biggies (Sonic, who was in Olympic games and Brawl), but rather those characters who don't even really show up, but rather just make codec calls from somewhere, and have nothing to do with anything. Sonic and Snake and Samus and all those people can still have own articles; just not "Otacon", and those others.
 * The problem is what to do with those minor characters. As Stumpers said, merging them with the main characters and the stages will result in large, unruly articles, and confuse navigation surrounding those series. Yes, the minor characters shouldn't have articles, but a better way to deal with them are series articles. -

Should I make a proposal for merging into series lists? 16:30, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Yeah, something like that would be great. -- Booster
 * Once this one ends. -

I have a feeling a bunch of people misunderstood my proposal; oh well. Anyway, could we at least merge Colonel Roy Campbell, Mei Ling, Otacon, Slippy Toad, Peppy Hare, Krystal and Navi into List of Cameos?
 * NO!!! - well, in my opinion...
 * Wasn't the proposal about whether to merge Roy Campbell with Snake, etc.? Don't you worry, though.  Based on how many people supported the series links idea, you'll probably get your wish.  Here's my idea: we don't truncate the articles at all, we just merge.  The original articles will then become redirects to their section on the "Metal Gear Solid" (or whatever) pages.  Trust me, I know from the list of implied characters, this method works very well when implemented correctly.  13:58, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Wow. Your argumentation is mind-blowing, Arend.

I don't like the series page idea. As Ghost Jam said, it could be used to shoeorn in unrelated series. And beside, do we really need to have a page on Metal Gear because Snake happened to be in the same game as Mario? i think something among the line of "List of minor Crossover characters in Super Smash Bros" would work better.
 * Or perhaps even a "List of minor Crossover characters" in general. (e.g. Big the Cat and other Refs in Mario & Sonic).

I'd just like to say now that I object to WikiMario's vote. Yes, we are a Super Mario Wiki, not a Super Smash Bros. Wiki, but the reason we have Super Smash Bros. articles is because Mario plays a significant role in the series and even some of the minor characters from other series (such as Otacon and Slippy Toad) still have certain roles that cannot be overlooked.

So let me get this straight before I vote. Stumpers, your idea is to merge articles based on the series they come from? Such as merging Pikachu, Jigglypuff, and other Pokemon themed things into one big article? I would be in for that. I see nothing wrong with unimportant Sonic articles or other Nintendo Series into one thing for each series. So like all the Mario & Sonic at the Olympic games characters and refs like Vector, knuckles, Cream and all the others would merge into one big Sonic page?
 * Not quite, but I'll spell it out completely when I propose the idea. For now, let me tell you what I'm thinking.  First, we would create several articles about series, such as "Sonic the Hedgehog (series)," "Legend of Zelda," and "Metroid (series)."  These articles would both outline the way in which the series has crossed over with the Super Mario series.  Then, it would have one section for each character, location, item, etc. that has ever crossed-over with Super Mario.  On the "Sonic the Hedgehog" article, that would include Green Hill Zone, Sonic the Hedgehog, Big the Cat and others.  These sections will be complete replications of the current articles.  All the text from "Big the Cat" will be transfered to the "Big the Cat" section on the "Sonic the Hedgehog (series)" page.  The Big the Cat page will then become a redirect to the Big the Cat section.  However, major characters, such as those playable in Brawl and Mario & Sonic, will keep their pages.  Instead of simply copying over their entire articles for the series page, we will write a short blurb and link to the subject's main article.  From there we can deside through more propsals if characters are major enough to deserve their own article, and of course if a character is wrongly merged we can easily revert the merge because no text is lost.
 * For your examples: Pikachu and Jigglypuff will have their articles still because they are playable characters in Smash. Palkia, Entei, and other non-playable Pokemon will be merged with "Pokemon (series)."  The referies of Mario & Sonic will be merged to "Sonic the Hedgehog (series)" while Tails and Shadow retain their articles because they were playable in Mario & Sonic.  If you think that "playable = article" is not a good guideline, let me know.  17:41, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

Alright. I see what your saying now. I like the idea. Sonic referees are indeed very minor, so yeah, those should merge. Same with Pokeball Pokemon. What about stages from brawl that come from minor franchises like Hannebow(sp?), Pictochat, and other like that?
 * All stages qualify for their own articles. -- Booster


 * Well, from what I understand I think Stumpers means that we would merge the stages with the series pages. Such as Brige of Eldin and Termia Bay going to the new Zelda series page. That would still leave articles like Pictochat, Battlefield, and others, though. -
 * Speaking from observations regarding "merge" proposals, the less that is merged, the more likely the proposal is to succeed. We don't want the Smash Bros. editors to think that we are negating the importance of their edits.  For the purpose of this "experiment" I would say we should merge little cameos and references first, then step back and assess whether stages should be merged as well.  Right now, I'd say not because, in a series like Mario or Zelda, we're looking at something like 8 stages, and stage articles are rather long.  I think items would be merge-worthy, though.  What do you think?  22:55, 18 August 2008 (EDT)


 * I see your point. I think right now own main concern should be items, Pokeball Pokemon, cameos, and the trophies already mentioned in the wiki. Depending on the outcome of the proposal we should then turn our attention to the stages like you said. -

E.T. Templates
Currently, we have both and, and Garlic Man and I have had some disagreement over how it should be dealt with. I say the Alien template should be used for all species and characters not originating on the Mushroom World, while Garlic Man feels we should keep Cosmic Species. My rationalle is that typing is easier than , his is that the Cosmic Species template was around first. To avoid edit wars, I've brought the issue here, for more feedback over what we should do. Also, I feel it would be best to use this instead of the current configurations for whichever template we decide to use: it uses terms from both existing templates, and improves organization overall.

Proposer: Deadline: August 23, 2008, 20:00 EDT

Use Alien Template

 * 1) - Per myself.
 * 2) - "Alien" is an in-universe term.  "Cosmic Species" is not.
 * 3) - I personally think this is a ridiculous proposal, as it is mostly about what name to use, but I like the fact that "alien" is easy to write. Oh, and if that's not enough reason, per Stumpers.
 * 4) - Per all. For instance, Cosmic Species is just changing the name.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) - Like the proposal about changing "Species" to "Character type", "Cosmic Species" is unnecessary nitpicking.
 * 7) - Per Walkazo. (Yes, I did make those templates; feel free to rub the error in my face. o:)
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) - Per all

Use Cosmic Species Template

 * 1) - Sort of contradicting on what Stumpers said; Alien, in fact, the dictionary definition is: "a resident born in or belonging to another country who has not acquired citizenship by naturalization", or a "Foreigner", or "a person who has been edtranged or exluded". What this means, is that Aliens are always something invading from somewhere else, so for instance, Shroobs are aliens, because they invaded Earth, and the Mushroom Kingdom. However, Luma is not an alien, due to the fact that it is in it's designated "home", where it belongs to be. In fact, if we twisted the definition of "Alien", we could even say Sonic is an "Alien" to the Mario series. Alien does not necessarily mean outer space, but Extraterrestial does. By saying extraterrestrial, we are signifying that the species/characters can be either ally or enemy. Aliens, although not neccesarily enemies, show that they are somewhere where they do not belong, and thus are invading, or there without permission of some sort. So, the "Extraterrestial Characters and Species" template seems more appropriate. I hope that makes my point clear.
 * 2) - I agre with garlic man "Alien" is someone from a different place that doesn't neccesarily mean other plent like Cosmic Beings
 * 3) I've seen that the Cosmic Species and characters template appears to have more links then the Aliens template. So, yeah...
 * 4) In proper Mario games, they never use the word Alien. Anyway, Cosmic Species is more...mario-ish.
 * 5) See below.
 * 6) - Per Garlic. Although the definition of "alien" has been twisted to mean "extraterrestrial being", that is not its actual meaning. Illegal immigrants are "aliens". Do they come from another planet? No. The proper term is cosmic/extraterrestrial beings.

Comments
I've only included options for one or the other now, as we can't have two templates about the same thing. Another idea I had was to limit Cosmic Species to Super Paper Mario extraterrestrial enemies, as then we might be able to include variations of the species that are found in other dimensions, but I felt this would confuse the issue a bit too much. -
 * Garlic Man: just because something is not native to a certain place doesn't mean they don't belong there. A Luma came to the Mushroom World, but it was born in space: it's not a native species, ergo, it is an alien. If you want to get into semantics, we can't even call these things Extraterrestrials because we're not talking about Earth we're talking about the Mushroom World.
 * Arend: the only reason Cosmic Species has more links was because Garlic Man added them, after reverting my edit on "Aliens" that bolstered its link count, I decided to come here instead of retaliate on my own.
 * Anyway, I stand by my assertuion that writing "Alien" is easier than "Cosmic Species", though I've designed a new template (see the last line I added to the Proposal) compromising between the two sets of terminology. -
 * Oh, no, Luma was NOT in the Mushroom kingdom, except at the very end of the story, if my memory is correct. Mario was the one who went to outer space to chase Bowser and Peach, and met the Lumas. The Lumas never actually went anywhere besides the observatory. Mario was the "alien" in this case. Also, saying that "Writing Alien is easier" is a lame reason, and has nothing to do with the proposal itself.
 * And at the very beginning; but the point is, Lumas were on the Mushroom World, and that means they can be labeled as "aliens". This is why I suggested the compromise-template - so people won't get bent out of shape over the words. For example, included things that aren't actually fire, yet the name is used because it is descriptive and simple. If you want to add a template about "extraterrestrials", you'd try trying in  or  long before  comes to mind. Yes, I know you can always seek out a different article that has the template to find out the proper code, but people are lazy, and they get side-tracked (myself included). "" seems like a more natural title for these creatures. -
 * Actually, the Cosmic species template was originally made for creatures like Cosmic Bullet Bills, Cosmic Goombas, Cosmic Bloopers, Cosmic Toads, Cosmic Tox Boxes, most of which later got merged into their respective articles. So, it became a template for any kind of species found in outer space, whether alien or non-alien, covering a wider variety of species.

like i said in my vote aliens can refer to anything not from the same place as such Beanish are aliens to Toads
 * Exactly. The Beanbean Kingdom and the Mushroom Kingdom were two different places; When cackletta sneaked into Peach's castle, she was an "alien"; but, not from outer space.
 * Garlic Man: your template is not called, "Extraterrestrials" - it's called "Cosmic Species." So why were you arguing that extraterrestrials is better than alien if your template is called "Cosmic Species"? I'd be supporting you if you were using extraterrestrials. As to the word cosmic: "–adjective 1. of or pertaining to the cosmos: cosmic laws.
 * 2. characteristic of the cosmos or its phenomena: cosmic events.
 * 3. immeasurably extended in time and space; vast.
 * 4. forming a part of the material universe, esp. outside of the earth." As you can see, cosmic has four definitions, where as extraterrestrial is,
 * "–adjective 1. outside, or originating outside, the limits of the earth.
 * –noun 2. an extraterrestrial being: a science fiction novel about extraterrestrials conquering the earth." In other words, extraterrestrial is much closer to what you are thinking of, especially if we use, "Extraterrestrials," because that is always a noun, and that always means "an extraterrestrical being"
 * To the user that said aliens are not mentioned in a proper Mario game, you're wrong, but it doesn't matter: it appeared in an official Nitnendo published title (actually, all throughout the Mario Party series) and therefore should be considered official, canon, or what have you.
 * I'm fine with using an unofficial term, but just make sure that it actually applies to the subject at hand.

So is this a proposal about which template we should use or what we should call the template?
 * What we should call it. All subjects of the "alien" and "cosmic species" templates will be merged to the chosen template.  12:56, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
 * I've actually made an improved template (the link's up in the proposal too) with more species, higher organization and clearer terminology that I will put in place of whichever template is chosen. -
 * Just a small note, Walkazo, about your template, the Cosmic Tox Box enemy is no longer called that. ;)

I think the main thing that's got everyone so hung up is that the Cosmic Species template's header doesn't match. It does make it abundantly clear that we are referring to creatures from space. Whether it's official or not has no bearing on the outcome. It's about clarity.
 * Yes, that's exactly what I'm trying to say. And saying that "Alien is a shorter word to type" seems more like an excuse than a reason; the cosmic species template, while the name is longer, is still more accurate as to what it has on the template. Everything on the Cosmic species template are "cosmic species", while not everything on the "Alien" template are not "aliens".
 * Actually, the characters in the Cosmic Species template aren't "cosmic species", whereas they're all foreign to the Mushroom Planet and are aliens in that sense of the word (a sense that is made clear in the new template headers).

Mario Super Sluggers Cutscenes
Currently, we have an article entitled Challenge Mode Cutscenes (Mario Super Sluggers). So my question is; is this article really needed? I mean all it is is the story of MSS in it's own article. It really doesn't have a point. Shouldn't it just be included in the main article? And having this page gives me a feeling that we need an article about cutscenes in Super Mario Galaxy, or Super Mario Sunshine. (Note how on those pages the cutscenes are merged nicely with the Story/Plot sections.)

I'd also like to address the length matter. Number one: Does it really matter about how long the article is? Look at the SSBB article's story (or the Subspace Emissary in it's case.) It's extremely long, but no one is complaining about it. And second of all, I don't mean to put every single bit of information from the page in the actual article. All we need is the major details, because, like Moonshine said, we don't need to know who threw what to who. And as for the pictures, I say we use the best ones and put it right next to the story section, or, if we still want the pictures, make a gallery at the page's bottom that has them in it, and call it Challenge mode screenshots or the like.

Proposer: Deadline: August 28, 2008, 17:00 EDT

Merge into main article

 * 1) Per myself (above and below.)
 * 2) Per 001. I don't think it would make it long; I mean, just look at the Super Smash Bros. Brawl article, it has info on just about every cutscene in the Subspace Emissary, and that article would be way longer even if the cutscenes for MSS were added to the article.
 * 3) Per my comment below. As said below, if we merge it, we should shorten it significantly.
 * 4) Per All. The Challenge Mode stuff should be there with most of the images.
 * 5) Story mode of a game? Any modes don't get articles because that would leave little to say in the game's main article.
 * 6) - Per all. Also, the Cutscene's page is too gaudy as it is, so merging it would be a good time to cut out the superfluous charts and screenshots.
 * 7) - Per Cobold. See my comment below for why I question the oppose votes.
 * 8) - Per Cobold. The exact same thing happened with the Mario Kart (series) article.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) Per Palkia47.
 * 11) According to Stoob.

Keep Article

 * 1) - The MSS Page has enough info. Also, the cutscene article of MSS is detailed with everything what happens, for just 4 Cutscenes! And the article is already long enough to deserve a standard place on this Wiki. Other cutscenes, like SMG and SSBB aren't detailed, because there are many, many cutscenes of those games, and are long either.
 * 2) -Getting rid off them would take a while and if we merge it with anything else that article would be much longer so keeping it makes the most sense.
 * 3) - I also say that this should stay a separate article for the SMW. As others have pointed out on this section of the proposal, if this were to be "merged" with the main Mario Super Sluggers article, then it would be way too long. Besides, as long as this article has active links to to the main Mario Super Sluggers article page, then I don't see any need in merging the Mario Super Sluggers cutscene article. What we do need to know, however, is what criteria needs to be met to view the fourth and final cutscene so that we can make any necessary edits on that part of the cutscene article itself.
 * 4) -It's extremely spoiler filled, and extremely lengthy. I don't want to give people the excuse of taking out the galleries, shortening it by taking out sentences, or whatever.

Comments
That's not entirely true Infected Shroom. Notice how on the SMG page there is a nice little paragraph about each cutscene. It doesn't have all that who is involved or the picture galleries. I mean, do we really need those? All we need are little paragraphs on the cutcenes, not an entire article. If we have the article, we may as well make one for every game with cutscenes.
 * Yeah, it is true. First off, the SMS article doesn't have a giant table with all the characters on it. Also, the "Story" in Sluggers is supposed to be unlike the story of any other sports game. And no, technically we don't need them. It just makes for a better experience when reading the page.

All in all, I think that the Cutscenes page is essentially just the story of MSS, which the MSS page is missing. The story, especially in this case, is far more important that what's on the MSS page now. Why do we have an in depth explanation of Toy Field but no story? The page really needs to get it's priorities in order. It's not hard to cut down the cutscenes page. Simply merge it with the MSS page, give it it's own section entitled "story" and it's done. There's no need for each scene to have an infobox, and there's no need for 10 pics per scene either. You could put like 1 or 2 pics in the section, and get rid of the rest. Also, most of the info is unneeded and over-descriptive. We don't need to put 'who Mario threw the ball too in the intro' and things like that. If we do this then the MSS page won't be THAT long. But if we were to merge it the way it is now, I agree that it would be too long.

OK, to the opposers: IT'S AN ARTICLE ABOUT THE STORY OF A GAME! We may as well call it: Story (Mario Super Sluggers). And who really cares if it make the article too long? No one's complaining about the length of the SSBB or Mario articles! I mean seriously! Even if we put every last bit of information from the article in the MSS article, it would barely be half the size of either of the two mentioned articles! And what's so bad about taking long? There's no time limit to how long an approved proposal must take to complete it! All you have to do is copy & paste, then edit it to fit in the MSS article! Do you get my point, opposers?
 * Yes, I do get your point. However, if I had total control over this wiki, I would split up the Mario and SSBB pages myself. And actually, you'd probably copy it, find a spot for it, and then paste it. 'Least, it's what I'd do.
 * But the fact is, they're not split like the MSS one. I still think that the cutscenes could, and should, be shortened if it's merged. -

I've looked at the reasons for people opposing and it may just be my way of thinking, but I don't think any of them are actually good reasons.
 * I agree Pikax. Too long, too many spoilers, etc are not really good reasons. (No offense.)
 * I'm moving my list of reasons for the oppose votes being terrible down here so that I can format it better.

Why I object to the objections:

Arend An article about a game should have all of the information about the game. I can understand if, for example, the Mario Kart: Double Dash article only has information about each vehicle's statistics and not why they look like what they look like because such information does not pertain to the game. A game's story, however, does pertain to the game, therefore it should be shown in the game's article and not given a separate article.

tanokkitails Surely merging two articles together means that all of the information from both articles remains, except possibly very unimportant information, and the information that isn't removed is reformatted if necessary, which is exactly what Luigi001 says will happen. Arguing that the process will take a while is just plain stupid. Typing up Mario's article probably took a while. Would you have opposed to the creation of Mario's article? I didn't think so.

Merit C As well as my reasons for objecting to Arend's vote, I noticed that you said that the merge will make the article too long. Since when has an article's length actually mattered (apart from a minimum length to be suitable for FA status)? In fact, an article being long implies that it has plenty of information. I know you can argue that copying and pasting "I like cheese" umpteen times makes the article longer without adding information, the cutscene article isn't just a load of waffle.

ForeverDaisy09 Aside from the reasons I opposed tanokkitails' vote, several game articles (Mario Kart DS and Super Smash Bros. Brawl, for example) have spoilers in them. Why should Mario Super Sluggers be any different?

Let me know if you disagree with anything I've said.

Oh, what the heck. I don't even care about this proposal. I withdraw.
 * Dunno, but I still oppose. And if the articles are merged, I think you gonna be sorry to yourself, but I'm not sure.
 * What is that supposed to mean?
 * Basically, it means "Too many spoilers" and "Too long" are invalid reasons.

Princess?
Currently, Rosalina's page is just called Rosalina because she is never called a princess in the games. But I found official proof. This is the first part of Rosalina's bio in Super Mario Galaxy. The whole bio can be found at the end of Rosalina's page.

Not much is known about Rosalina, the lonely princess who wanders the cosmos in the Comet Observatory, a giant starship that travels the celestial expanse.

Now we found proof, I think we can move the page. But before doing anything, users must agree with this. What shall we do?

Proposer: Deadline: August 28, 2008, 17:00 EDT

Change to Princess Rosalina

 * 1) Super Mario Galaxy has spoken.
 * 2) Per Arend,and because she wears a crown
 * 3) - Per Mr.Arend
 * 4) if shes a princess than call her princess rosalina pretty simple.
 * 5) I agree with all above.
 * 6) I agree with that. After all, he's using canonical information. Canonical information is the most precious information that could belong to Super Mario Wiki. So, let's do this!
 * 7) I agree with all above. As per (Princess) Rosalina's bio, she is known as a 'Princess' in Super Mario Galaxy
 * 8) omg obviously she's a princess! she was originally planned to be related to peach, the info in the guide and game booklet lists her as a Princess! She wears an effing crown and has a brooch that is close to peach's and daisy's who are also princesses! how can you say she isn't a Princess. The info we have is official! You can't change official no matter how much you want to!
 * 9) I have beaten the game at least three times, and in all three times she is refered to as Princess, so, as is the scientific experimental proposal, three times is the charm, and makes it one of the laws of nature. Nof sed
 * 10) I have beaten it 10 times and it calls her princess 4 times!

Keep Rosalina

 * 1) Wearing a crown means nothing. I get a crown in my Burger King Kid's Meal. Am I a king? No. She's not royalty of any sort. I oppose this proposal.
 * 2) -- Whoa, whoa, wait up, here. Just because it says she IS a princess, the game never calls her by the title "Princess Rosalina". It calls her Rosalina. You know how Bowser is not King Bowser? Yeah, because he's Bowser. Nowhere is Rosalina ever fully called "Princess Rosalina". I oppose. (obviously)
 * 3) - Per Garlic. Plus, even if we did discover an official mention of "Princess Rosalina," just plain Rosalina would outweigh it because it is used more often.
 * Per Garlic Man. Just because she is something doesn't mean the article should be called that.
 * 1) -- Per Garlic Man.
 * 2) - Per Garlic and AgentCH (below). If its not seen in the game or manual, then it probably had to be from a guide. We don't exactly allow information from guides (ie. seen in the MKWii Guide as Peach and Daisy are cousins).
 * 3) - Per Garlic Man. There are no citations anywhere on that page to prove that she is in fact a princess. If Nintendo has given no proof, then it is clearly speculation.
 * 4) - It's probably a translation error. If anyone remembers the travesty that is Sonic 2006, Blaze was called a Queen in that game's profile, yet she's supposed to be a princess. It could be a one-time thing. That, and the fact that Rosalina was a princess in concept development before ties with Peach were broken off. I think we should, however, mention it in the article... Provided it's from a tangible source (second or third party sources shouldn't make a difference).
 * 5) - Per all.
 * 6) - Per all. Another example being Mario. We all know he's a plumber, but we don't call him "Mario the Plumber" in the title.
 * 7) - Per all. "Princess" is not her official title.
 * 8) - per all and see comment.
 * 9) - Per Garlic. We don't call Baby Daisy and Baby Peach "Baby Princess Daisy" and "Baby Princess Peach" because they're not given such titles in the games they appear in.
 * 10) Per all. princess dosen't have to mean royalty. It can be discription, not a title.
 * 11) Per all, including Master Lucario's LOL comment, and in particular Garlic Man's comment.
 * 12) - Per Garlic and my own reason below.
 * 13) - I have no proof.
 * 14) - Per Garlic Man and Pikax. I'd also like to add that we don't call Mario: Mario Mario, or Luigi: Luigi Mario. We call them what they are usually called. It should however be noted that she is a princess.
 * 15) - Per Garlic Man.
 * 16) - no source given. Check my comment below.
 * 17) - Per all.
 * 18) - Per All.
 * 19) - Per Garlic
 * 20) Per Palkia47. Doesn't the Mario Party 4 guide say that Luigi has a crush on Daisy?  And yet, it is still often stated that Nintendo's only official word about Luigi and Daisy came in her trophy in Melee.
 * 21) Even if it says she's a princess in the bio, no instruction manual or game addresses her as one.
 * 22) Even thought she might be a princess, she's never been called by the title "Princess Rosalina". That, and just plain "Rosalina" sounds better. And it's used much more often.

Comments
I'm leaning toward opposing, since "Princess Rosalina" is not her official title. But I'd like to hear a few more opinions, considering she is a princess.
 * I have placed a part of Rosalina's Official bio in the proposal. She is called a princess in the bio.
 * Just where is this official bio from? As has been said before, it's not said in-game that she's a princess, and I just checked the manual and it doesn't say anything either. Is this from a guide? A Prima guide, perhaps?
 * I agree with AgentCH. Prima puts fake stuff in their guides. For example look at the MKWii guide. They say Waluigi owns Waluigi Industries and Daisy is Peach's cousin. Totally fake. No Proof from NP.

Wow, after I placed my oppose, there was a rush of opposes following mine... I feel Special. :P Anyway, I do also agree with AgentCH, because if it's not in-game or in-manual, then it's probably not our most reliable source. We may as well move Mario to (hey, a red link!).

The term princess could be just a "nick name" and not a true title. The "princess that wonders the stars" Princess could be saying that she is a legondary person. Or maybe just because she is beautiful (I never said that. I've just heard people say she is ;) ). I think that it is just a play on words.
 * Oh, then should Princess Peach move to Peach, and Princess Daisy to Daisy.
 * No, because (from what I know) they are both referred to as "Princess Peach" and "Princess Daisy", respectively, in the games. Rosalina is never referred to as "Princess Rosalina".
 * Peach is called a princess, but Daisy is never called princess in every game she appeard in. In Super Mario Land, Mario just calls her Daisy. Other games she appeard in are spin-offs. Daisy (and Peach) aren't called princesses in these games. Daisy is only called a princess in game manuals.
 * But she is given at least once the title "Princess Daisy", isn't she? Because if she isn't, maybe we should think about moving her page to "Daisy" indeed.
 * I did a little research. On the European Mario site (who doesn't exist enymore), Daisy wasn't called (unlike Peach) a princess. Nintendo said Daisy isn't called a princess in later appearences. But even in Super Mario Land, Mario didn't call her a princess. However, in Daisy's Smash Bros Melee a trophy discription, she is in one line called Princess Daisy (this is the only time she is called Princess Daisy in a game), but the title of the trophy still is just Daisy. Manuals also make great use of Princess Daisy. This is the only in game refearence I found. I Mario Smash Football/Super Mario Strikers, when you select Peach, Peach will say Pricess Peach, but if you select Daisy, Daisy will say just Daisy.
 * I agree with you that Daisy's trophy description shouldn't be taken as proof, because I heard they often contain mistakes. But I believe manuals are perfectly valid and reason enough to keep her article as "Princess Daisy".

Bio where? Page what? The proposal fails to cite its references. The question in the comments wasn't answered. Enough reason to oppose. - 16:43, 23 August 2008 (EDT)
 * I found this bio on Rosalina's page. I thought it was from the American game manual. I don't live in the US or UK. Game manuals can differ per region. I was wrong.

Considering more often than not, Peach is referred to as Princess Peach on official sites, and Daisy is just called Daisy, I don't think Rosalina should be called Princess here. Think about it on a leveled set of the terms use.

I would just like to state if you oppose her being Princess Rosalina, you don't deserve to be a Mario fan.
 * So do you want us to call Bowser "King Bowser" as well?
 * IF YOU DONT THINK MARIO IS ITALIAN YOURE NOT A TRUE FAN

IF YOU DONT THINK BOWSER TRUE NAME IS "GREAT DEMON KING", YOURE NOT A TRUE FAN
 * Sorry to tell you but "Demon King" is already taken. Final boss in Fire Emblem: the Sacred Stones.

IF YOU DONT THINK LUGI IS IN SM64 YOURE NOT A TRUE FAN

I would just like to state that if you use the same broken way of thinking as The.Real.Izkat, You're a, true, moron. --Blitzwing 16:41, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

I would like to note that in the story book thing she reads to thhe lumas there's a castle in the background this is probably a conicedince and if not she's still only called rosilina in the game.tanokkitails.

Bowser is a King. He calls himself a king in Mario & Luigi Superstar Saga, when he regains his memory. As is Rosalina. Totally a princess, (hot one too)
 * And as said above, Mario is a plumber. Still, we don't call him "Mario the Plumber" in the article. Get why?
 * Or do you want us to call Bowser "King Bowser" as well, even though (to my knowledge) there aren't any games in which he is given the title "King Bowser"?


 * LOL. You have no proof at all, so yeah - end of story.

Hey - so should we put "Princess" in the infobox or not? 16:20, 27 August 2008 (EDT)
 * It doesn't seem so.
 * That was Nintendo's name for her before the game was in final form, so it should be noted somewhere. 15:56, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

I'm not voting, but if neither the game or manual calls her "Princess Rosalina", we shouldn't call the article that. We can say in the article, "according to her bio from whatever, she is a princess. This is not confirmed in the game or manual." Luigiweege:If she hasn't been called Princess Roasalia in any of the just let the page be called Rosalia until further notice.
 * Stumpers: Just note it in a trivia section.

Okay, I was reading through, but I kinda lost the thing. However, Daisy has been referred to as the Princess of Sarasaland on various official occasions, such as her in-game bios. I find that, while she's rarely if ever referred to as Princess Daisy, calling her Princess Daisy isn't exactly as big of a stretch as it would be with Rosalina, because Rosalina, as it stands, is being debated on shaky information. ~ Shrikeswind

Whoa, I voted on this proposal? I wasn't going to bother voting because the outcome was so one sided at the time (it still is, haha). Anyway, The deadline passed some time ago, so why is this still here? It's pretty obvious that everyone wants her article to stay the way it is, so can we get rid of it now? Or is this still up for other reasons? -
 * Yeah, I missed this one. Just like to note that Daisy has been referred to as Princess Daisy, in the Super Mario Land manual (p. 3: "[...] Now, he wants to marry Princess Daisy of Sarasaland [...] where Princess Daisy is held captive [...] and rescue Princess Daisy? [...]")

Super Mario Western Show
On YouTube it has become a phenomenon, simply by searching the title. I mean, it's Mario noteworthy I would think, if it's become popular -- I just wanted to see if anyone had an opinion to share on this.

Proposer: Deadline: September 3, 2008, 17:00 EDT

Oppose

 * 1) - We only incude official Mario information here, not fan-creations.
 * 2) Per Walkazo.
 * 3) - If they're ever endorsed or licensed, we can mention them.  If they become prominent, like being on TV, you can mention it on TV Sightings or the respective page.
 * 4) Per all. (I've always wanted to put this, and only this.)
 * 5) - Per Time Q.
 * 6) - Per Stumpers and Walkazo

Comments
Walkazo: If you think about it, the Mario Bros. Comics, TV shows, Movies, w/e, are all "fan-creations", mind you. :\
 * But they were published works, meaning they had to get licensing, etc.; there's a HUGE difference between that and YouTube. Also, we already had a proposal about Flash fan videos (a long time ago), like The Rise of the Mushroom Kingdom, which lost. -
 * Our definition of "fan-creations" are those which are created with no official connection to Nintendo whatsoever. Additionally, parodies, such as those on the Simpsons, are included on the Sightings pages.  However, the comics, TV shows, movies, manga, anime, and even the coloring books were officially licensed by Nintendo, which means they are just as official as titles such as Mario Hoops 3-on-3, in which another company requested Nintendo's permission first rather than having Nintendo ask them.  Mind you, I'm sure that at least one of the alternate media sources was created as a result of Nintendo approaching the company responsible, such as Valient or DiC.  So, unless you're about to start calling a variety of video games, "fan-creations," you're going to want to know the difference between 1st Party, 2nd Party, 3rd Party, and fan-creations.  Ah yes, speaking of: another "canon" source in which Nintendo didn't publish it was Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games.  If you remember, that one was overseen by Sigeru Miyamoto, so I don't think that publisher should be grounds for defining fan-creation either.  20:14, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

Release date formatting
After a discussion on the Main page talk lead to no decision, I thought I'd make a proposal about it. There are two ways of formatting for the release dates in games infoboxes I have in mind:


 * (JP) November 21, 1990
 * (US) August 13, 1991
 * (EU) April 11, 1992

or


 * http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9e/Flag_of_Japan.svg/22px-Flag_of_Japan.svg.png November 21, 1990
 * http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a4/Flag_of_the_United_States.svg/22px-Flag_of_the_United_States.svg.png August 13, 1991
 * http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/Flag_of_Europe.svg/22px-Flag_of_Europe.svg.png April 11, 1992

Though the text form is currently in use, I'd like to change existing "USA" to "US" and "AU" and "AUS" to "Aus" there. Or use the flag system. Because this is mainly a graphical problem, I think we can bend the proposal rules here and don't require a reason for voting.

Proposer: Deadline: September 6, 20:00 EDT

Use country flags

 * 1) Looks nicer.
 * 2) No worries about consistency, since images can be updated like a template and the whole Wiki would be affected. (USA Flag can apply to NA b/c there is no North American flag and Nintendo of America is based out of Washington, USA)
 * 3) It looks more proffesional, and it helps people who are too dumb to know which country the 2 letters stand for. AS LONG AS YOU INCLUDE AUSTRALIA!
 * 4) - There's no worries of "which abbreviation is better". The flags say it all.
 * 5) - At one point, way back when the wiki was new, we were intending to do this away.
 * 6) Per all. It looks much better than abbreviations.
 * 7) per all, though we should include latin america, bacause the release date often differs from the one of the us
 * 8) Per all.  Tucayo raises a good point, as well.  I'd say the US flag (per Stumpers), Brazilian flag (per population), European flag, Japanese flag, and Australian flag are good for starters, and we can work out the details at a later point.
 * 9) Per all, a pic tells more than 1000 words...

Comments
Hmm, I don't know which would be better. Either seems just as useful as the other. (BTW, I did add a Keep as Is section, just in case)
 * Isn't the text form already what we have currently? - 15:34, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

I am extremly insulted that you did not include Australia in the list. Whether there are flags or not, my country must be included.
 * I took Super Mario World as an example, which doesn't have an AU release date listed and I excluded it because there wasn't an Australian flag on the example page on Wikipedia I used to copy from. Of course we're going to have one if we go for the flags, and we might even get one for Korea and China as well. - 16:59, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Hey, Dom: No one's going to forget Australia of all countries. And of all users, Cobold isn't going to be US-centric.
 * We can sort out which countries to include for release information as articles are worked on. For the most part, I get my release information from a combination of GameFAQs and MobyGames. -- 21:47, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
 * OK, you got away with it this time. It's good to know that you will include my country. Australia is more important than, say... Uzbekistan. Do they even get video-games? BTW, do I have to do this diagonally moving across thing?

Tucayo, what flag should we use for Latin America? - 17:58, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Maybe Mexico's? --

Mexico is sometimes considered North America. And why isn't canadian flag used in North America release date? It could imply that we are racist towards Canada, and we don't want that.
 * R, wha, Racist towards canada?? Dude, Americans and Canadians are the same race, geez...
 * Yeah, "racist" isn't the right word for it. Fortunately we're used to being shafted, so don't worry about it. -
 * I thought we were doing it b/c NoA was situated in the USA, but I could easily make a combination Canada/USA flag (with a diagonal from two corners to separate). Of course, question is, how could I get around the fact that both the blue stars and the top of the leaf should be in there...
 * Could try the NAFTA flag. It's kinda stupid looking if you ask me, but the NAFTA flag is basically the US stars on the left, the Canadian leaf on the right, and the Mexican eagle in the center.  It makes for a useful choice in spite of the stupidity of the image (opinion) and the lack of NAFTA love because it features all three of the flags.  You can see it on NAFTA's Wikipedia page.
 * I'm not 100% sure this is correct, and I don't necessarily agree with it regardless, but I think the idea is based on the size of the country population-wise when it comes to regional flagging, for example, because the USA has more people in it than Canada, the States flag is picked over the Canadian flag. I call for this solely on the fact that it's the only one available at this point.  In that case, the Latin American flag would be best chosen as the Brazilian flag.  The European flag would be choice for Europe.  That's my take on it, population until an alternate availability arises.
 * Regardless of the reasons, most sites indicate North America with US flag. I say we just go with that. Let's not turn this into the Great MarioWiki Mediation War of the Northern Americas. --
 * Hey guys, what about having both flags?
 * http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a4/Flag_of_the_United_States.svg/22px-Flag_of_the_United_States.svg.png http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cf/Flag_of_Canada.svg/22px-Flag_of_Canada.svg.png Undecember 33, 3009.
 * Would work, as it are only two flags.
 * A thought occurs. Maybe if we make animations for the flags.  We'd be able to keep Canada out of the shaft, and we'd have a viable option for Latin America. -
 * I think that would be quite a lot Latin American flags. Animations are too distracting in my opinion. - 14:23, 3 September 2008 (EDT)~
 * Good points. Still, the idea solves problem spots like Latin America due to the fact that we wouldn't have a zillion flags taking up space. -
 * It seems like too much hastle. Pretty much everyone accepts the US as the "poster boy" for North America, and NoA being situated in the U.S. makes it even more reasonable (i.e. no one can complain it's just because the US is bigger and creates biases, etc.). -
 * Don't worry about Latin América. The Dates are the same as North America, at least recently and about NoA products -
 * Well, you're the defender of Canada right now, so as long as you're okay with us USAians doing this, ok. This is good: you and Cobold are also thinking the USA flag so I don't have to feel biased. :3
 * Uh Walkazo, Canada is at least 100,000km² bigger than the US. - 10:21, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
 * The United States has a larger population, if that means anything. -
 * I meant "bigger" as in more people, more power, etc. (actually, the metaphor for Canada and the US is the mouse and the elephant, respectively). Most of Canada's empty wilderland anyway (in fact, most of our people live clustered along the US border), so our geographic size doesn't really matter in most cases. -
 * I'm glad there's someone else around here who likes geography as much as I do. =3

Generally speaking, most gaming sites only list release information for North America, Japan, Europe and Australia. If we start listing every country under the sun, article pages are going to need collapsible release lists. --

Mr.L
I know some people are gonna hate me for this but I propose we merge Mr. L and Luigi. I know he's an enemy In Super Paper Mario but no were else. His page is a near copy of his section on Luigi's article, he only appears three times (once in Luigi's clothing), and finally, he is Luigi, only brainwashed.

Proposer: Deadline: September 7, 2008, 15:00 EDT

Support

 * 1) -Above text
 * 2) -- While it's debatable if they are the same character, the Mr. L article is an exact copy of already existing material in the Luigi article. Seems redundant.
 * 3) -- This makes alot of sense. I can see that the opposing like to make articles about one thing. Tsk tsk.
 * 4) It was agreed that we only had articles on alter-egos if their powers were different from the main ego. Mr. L was merged before, I don't know why it was split. 20:23, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Oppose

 * Aw, nobody's going to hate you for it! We're not that bad... right?  Still, though: if we merge Mr. L and Luigi we'll also be doing things like merging Dry Bowser to Bowser, Shadow Mario to Bowser Jr., and Dr. Mario to Mario.  I prefer to keep such articles separate because then its not such a blatant spoiler when you type in one name and it turns into another character.  (ie imagine if someone didn't know Mr. L was Luigi and he got linked to the Luigi page... spoiler!)
 * 1) - Per Stumpers, who took the words from my mouth.
 * 2) - Per Stumpers. Plus, Mr. L is almost a character in his own right; his mentality and even some of his skills and abilities (like his knack with machines) are different from those of Luigi. As for how poor Mr. L's page is, I'll probably work on it soon.
 * 3) - Per Stumpers; and no, I don't hate you, Tanokkitails.
 * 4) - Per All
 * 5) I agree with Stumpers
 * 6) - Per all.
 * 7) - Per all.  Mr. L is, like Yellow Yoshi says, almost a character in his own right, in a similar fashion to S. Mario and Junior (except the personality changes more than the appearance in that case, though Mr. L does have a different look than Luigi based on the outfit.)  I don't hate you for this proposal, but this proposal should come no further, for certain death awaits it with nasty, big, pointy teeth.  =P
 * 8) - Per Stumpers. BTW, I'd ROFL if anyone didn't know Mr L was Luigi.
 * 9) - Per Stumpers. I think the Mr. L and Luigi pages are completely well as separated pages. And besides, there is certain information about Mr. L that is only found on his page and not Luigi's. For example, Mr. L's stats, Card description and Trivia about him can't be found on Luigi's page. On a side note, I saw YellowYoshi398's page about Mr. L, and I think it's great! All right, just a few little corrections to be made here and there, but what gives?
 * 10) Per all, seeing as my game STARRING Mr. L as the main villain will be sent to Nintendo and I doubt they have a better idea.
 * 11) Per all, you CAN'T merge Mr. L and Luigi because, though they ARE the same person physically, mentally they are nothing alike.  P.S. I WILL hate you for proposing it!!! Just kidding. =D
 * 12) Per Stumpers, who said just what I was thinking when I first saw this. Perhaps the information on Mr. L in the Luigi article could be cut down to size, and a "Main article: Mr. L" link provided.
 * 13) Per Agent cH and Stumpers.
 * 14) I think that the character articles are long enough! An effective articles keeps it simple.
 * 15) Per Everyone.

Comments
The ironic thing is, after a little while the Mr. L page was deleted(due to a sysop's decision), I brought it back, and now there's more talk about it being merged/deleted. Kinda funny, lol. I'm not going to vote, just because I know who's gonna win, but Per Stumpers.
 * Not so much funny, as it is interesting to see how different people handle Mr. L (like all the nutters who try to insist they're different people, and all that fanon jazz). -

Sorry about the hate thing I just a little shook up from a similar proposal on wikipedia were at least 25 users upossed and called me s**tfacetanokkitails Also I'd like to note that In the first sentence It says he's luigi so since this proposal won't pass we should probably change that.tanokkitails
 * Yeah, well Wikipedia sucks. Anyway, just because we're not merging the articles doesn't change the fact that Mr. L and Luigi are the same person: nothing in the article needs to be changed. -

Stumpers: Just like to point out, just because we merge one set of characters doesn't mean we automatically need to merge a different set. There is such a thing as 'circumstance'. --
 * I'm aware of this "circumstance" of which you speak - I'm more thinking about the "domino effect" which often occurs in the name of "consistency." But you are right - provided people don't propose on five different merges at once, we'd be fine. 13:59, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

Just like to say that the first sentence of his article says he's luigi,so I should probably change that

I just want to say that I believe that the Dry Bowser article has information that is not in the Bowser article. The Shadow Mario artilce has information that is not in the Bowser Jr. article. The Dr. Mario article has information that is not in the Mario article. The Mr. L article has no information that isn't in the Luigi article.

Pokemon
After a previous proposal of mine that was proposed to create the Raikou and Suicune article, I had taken a look at one of the user's votes and it said that they should be merged. Afterwards, I looked at Pokemon articles, and the ones I found where Palkia, Dialga, Cresselia, and Entei (I am not sure if there is any left). While making a bigger appearance than a Pokemon in a Poke Ball, it's quite best to have those four articles merged with the Pokemon article. As from what I'm seeing, Entei should stay, though, as he can be played on as a stage. So, shall we merge all four articles, merge Palkia, Dialga, and Cresselia, or don't merge at all?

Proposer: Deadline: September 10, 2008, 17:00 EDT

Merge All in Pokemon Article

 * 1) - In all honesty, I don't like the idea of Pokemon taking up a butt-load of space on a wiki dedicated to the Super Mario franchise.  In the cases of Ivysaur, Charizard, Squirtle, Pikachu, Jigglypuff, Mewtwo, Pichu, Lucario, and Pokemon Trainer, I say they should be split off due to their playability, but all other Pokemon just don't deserve a seperate page because they aren't all playable in a game alongside the Mario characters.  Even playing ON Entei isn't worth a page dedicated to him.  You might as well mention his stage on the Pokemon page, because it's such a miniscule amount of information to say "He appears as a stage in Super Smash Bros. Melee."
 * 2) - Per Shrikeswind, this is Mario Wiki  not Nintendo Wiki.
 * 3) - Per Shrikeswind.
 * 4) - Per Blitz.

Merge Palkia, Dialga, and Cresselia

 * 1) - Personally, this is what I see is best. My proposal, so per me.
 * 2) - Palkia, Dialga and Cresselia are all pokemon that make appearances on the Spear Pillar stage in SSBB. This sets them apart from all the other pokemon but not from each other, so this is the best option.
 * 3) Yea, per all. But how does merging these into the Pokemon article make this a "Nintendo Wiki?" Quite frankly, merging them makes us less of a so called Nintendo Wiki than we already are.
 * 4) Per Palkia. I personally think that Dialga, Palkia, and Cresselia should be merged with the Spear Pillar article.
 * 5) per Pal theese are all Spear pillar pokemon.
 * 6) - Per Palkia47.
 * 7) - I'm voting here rather than above simply because I don't know what we'd do with the Majora's Mask article if we rule that Entei (a stage) doesn't deserve an article.

Keep Split

 * 1) They are stage elements affecting gameplay, the policy around here is to give stage elements an article. 20:08, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Comments
Once again, may somebody add the deadline for me? I'm not well with it.
 * Thanks, Time Q.

Not sure where to vote on this exactly, but here's where I stand:
 * All of the playable Pokemon and PT qualify for their own pages.
 * The Entei stage can have an article, provided it talks more about the stage itself than Entei as a Pokemon.
 * All Poke Ball/Saffron City/Spear Pillar Pokemon should be merged, though. Stage-specific Pokemon could perhaps get descriptions in their stage articles though. -- Booster
 * I agree with Booster. For the stage-specific Pokémon, what they do on the stages should be included in the stage's article; everything else should be in the main list of Pokémon only. -

Poll Proposals
Since the Voting software thingy is working I propose that to keep the Propasals more oganized and easier, we put the voting software thingy instead of using so much room with all that writing of disagree and agree. I mean it's just one click and your done and then you just leave a comment on the bottom. Good idea right?

Proposer: Deadline: September 12, 2008, 20:00 EDT

Leave it

 * 1) - If it's not broken, don't fix it. The point of voting is so we can say why we think an idea will or won't work; as it is, votes without valid reasons are removed, so this "thingy" wouldn't work at all.
 * 2) per Walkazo... took the words from my mouth.
 * 3) Per Walkazo ... ("I follow the strongest side...that is all I have ever known." - King Bulblin)
 * 4) Per Walkazo.... and King Bulblin 0_o
 * 5) Per Walkazo. Plus if we did that, sorting out fan votes and reverting ideas would be very hard.
 * 6) Per Walkazo, couldnt have said it any better
 * 7) Per Walkazo; the system is fine.
 * 8) Per Walkazo. There's no problem with the voting system why add something extra if ya don't need it?
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) I think the system is fine, per Princess Grapes Butterfly.
 * 11) The one click voting would be nice, but what's the problem with our current voting system?

Waffle Kingdom Locations
Well, since the Waffle Kingdom is only spoken of in the Super Luigi Series novels briefly, do we really need an article for every location mentioned? It seems a bit useless to make an entire article on something we've never seen that also doesn't play a significant role in any of the games or other incarnations of the Mario series. So, it seems like a good idea to merge all of the locations with their own section on an article titled "Waffle Kingdom Locations" instead of a whole category.

Proposer: Deadline: September 19, 2008, 20:00 EDT

Support

 * 1) I agree, as much as I love the Waffle Kingdom there really isn't alot of information since Luigi is amazingly vague when it comes to details.Most of the articles have one or two paragraphs. If on the off chance a game or something is ever made with more info, maybe they should be split again.In the mean time, merged.
 * 2) I like the idea of having an article for every objects and locations of the Waffle Kingdom. While they're more developed than most of the other Implied articles, they're still pretty barebone.
 * 3) Better this idea, because each of those have each enough info for going to the list of implied, however, all items and implied persons/characters would also go into that page.
 * 4) - It would be easier for people to learn about the Waffle Kingdom if it's all in once spot rather than spread out amongst multiple little articles. While it is technically an "Implied Location", it's a pretty substantial place; and seeing it relegated to the List would be a shame.
 * 5) All those locations don't need their own articles, but the topic is too complex to be completely merged into List of Implied Locations, so one article for it should stay.
 * 6) Booster - There's a lot to say about the Waffle Kingdom. It would feel out of place merging it all onto a list full of other, even more obscure and irrelevant places.
 * 7) Per Walkazo.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Per all -Canama

Add to list of implied..

 * 1) tanokkitails- It makes sense to merge but List of implied locations would be better
 * 2) Ghost Jam - per current policy.
 * 3) Per all. Besides, there's the huge chance that Luigi actually made all this up, and paid all his "partners" to say stuff. Really, if you were Luigi, wouldn't you love to say you were actually doing something while Mario was off on his adventure? And besides, explain how he managed to show up at a lot of your battles if he was at the Waffle Kingdom?
 * 4) Per Ghost Jam. It could be incredibly easy if one were to just do something like this.

Comments
You might want to vote for your own proposal, Crystal Batamon.

It was also mentioned by Luigi in Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door.

Actually, current Wiki policy states that any character, organization, location, entertainment, etc. that does not physically appear should be merged with one of the "List of Implied ___s" page. For example, the Waffle Kingdom would be on "List of Implied Locations." So, if you just want the articles to be merged into that, please remove your proposal. If you feel it would be more applicable to create a separate article for the Waffle Kingdom locations because they are more fleshed out than other Implied Locations, keep your proposal here.

Oh I didn't know that Stumpers, my bad.
 * No problem. What we're looking at simply is that "oppose" would be the same thing as "merge to List of Implied Locations."  P.S. Why is that your bad?  Our policies are so involved these days and there's actually quite a few such as the one I mentioned that aren't actually written down.
 * Me thinks we should take the time to jot these things down some place. I didn't even know about this policy, I voted based on my trust of Stumpers. -- 20:51, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Definitely. Glad to hear you trust me.  Sometime in the last year a proposal outlined topics about unseen subjects - it came from articles such as that one about Old Man Skoo - stubs all the way because the character was just mentioned in passing.  22:31, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Wiki Appearance: Light Red
Alright folks, I guess I did get a little too bold in giving you too many options on changing on something that has stayed constant for our 3+ years - our skin. Well, I took all things into consideration, including the Encyclopedia feedback section, and I think I came up with a winner. Hopefully. :P

Screenshot 1, Screenshot 2

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v506/Kimi12715/MarioWiki/mainwikibanner.png http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v506/Kimi12715/MarioWiki/mainwikimainbg.png

Proposer: Deadline: September 26, 2008 20:00 EDT

Switch to This Skin

 * 1) Freaking awesome.And SM64 Mario looks better than SMW Mario. GO WAYOSHI!
 * 2) Don't listen to those n00bs, this is epic win.
 * 3) Not sure about the logo, but the back is good. It just FITS a Mariosite! why? It has 8-Bit Mario's and is red, the color Mario wears.
 * 4) It looks a lot better especially the logo. Now, the color is a bit messy but that can be changed in seconds so overall It's good.
 * 5) Awesome! But maybe tone down the background red a bit.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Good, but how and why do you propose to change it?
 * 8) It's good, but could be better with a different logo, like the mariowik2 one below.
 * 9) Despite your comment on my talk page, I vote your idea. The current skin is too bland and boring as well as somewhat ugly.
 * 10) Looks Better.
 * 11) Current one looks bland. I support Wayo, despite him trying to close userpedia which is the reason for my retirement. Use mario mini.
 * 12) Good idea. Let's shake things up a bit!
 * 13) Hey, very nice skin. Much better than the old one. And I support the idea of changing the logo too. SM64 is much better than SMAS's Super Mario Bros. ALL HAIL WAYOSHI!!!
 * 1) Hey, very nice skin. Much better than the old one. And I support the idea of changing the logo too. SM64 is much better than SMAS's Super Mario Bros. ALL HAIL WAYOSHI!!!

Keep with the White

 * 1) Your first proposal had many users state that we should oppose/propose. The logo needs a major change, but IMO that one wouldn't suite it. Besides, why can't you just create a monobook.css? The white background looks fine to me. It sorta gives that "Wikipedia" style look, which makes it look proffesional. However, these are just my opinions related to the wiki. I deny this proposal.
 * 2) The new one looks friggin weird. TOO MUCH RED o_0 . And the Mario logo thing is just far too weird for my liking.
 * 3) I like the way it is. The new look is rly weird and it looks horrible. Keep the old and awesome one
 * 4) - The background's not bad, but not good enough to be worthwhile. It'd be a novelty for a little; but our focus should be on information, not background colour (building on what Super-Yoshi said). The logo isn't that great either: it's too faded-out, and lacks "umph".
 * 5) The background doesn't really look good enough for the wiki. I think we should have the same skin the wiki has right now and I agree with Storm Yoshi.
 * 6) - Per Super Yoshi.
 * 7) - the background would get boring quickly an as for the logos,the Mario mini one is creepy,and the other one isn't colourful enough.
 * 8) Per Walkazo. Also the logo's letters should of have a out line.
 * 9) Per all! So far I still think the white background is better. And the old logo looks better than the one shown above. (It kinda of creepy any other logo ideas?)
 * 10) Mario's always been a very colorful series, but the new skin is very pink rather than colorful.  I know you were looking to make it look like different varients of Mario's color red, but it ends up looking either, in the best case, faded, or in the worst case, efeminent (no offense intended wish that comment - I'm just saying that an efeminent color scheme does not fit the series: Super Princess Peach is currently the only efeminent game in the series).  The logo is also lacking, I'm really sorry to say.  I'm not sure how to improve it, really... but the previous opposer was right about the words at the very least needing outlines.  Thing is: you're trying to replicate Super Mario 64's style but it just isn't working because the letters you're using aren't stylized as they were in the SM64 logo.  Besides, don't you think the logo should reflect on the entire series, or at least on certain pivital points (ie SMB, SM64, and Galaxy)?
 * 11) According to Stumpers. The background offers pink tones rather than red tones, and the edit zone, why in that color as well? Talking about the logo, not bad, but compared with the SM64 style of the title, is poor. I would rather the old logo's font style that reachs a bit of such style (although it may be inspired from the Super Mario World style)...
 * 12) OMG! It looks ugly! No offense, Wayoshi.
 * 13) It looks like a picnic blanket, plus i like the logo we have.
 * 14) Per all. Personally I like the wiki's skin the way it is. But that's me. And that logo is kinda creepy!
 * 15) Per all. No. Just no.
 * 16) I like the background, but the head is disturbing somehow. Might as well stay with the white.
 * 17) - Per all. Not that I care, considering I just made a .css... Ah well. I like the monotonous white skin.
 * 18) - I prefer the original, myself. I like our current, more professional-looking logo better (Nothing on you, Wayoshi, of course). Plus, I think the red background is a bit obtrusive and could become distracting to readers' eyes.
 * 19) - Per all. I said: PER ALL !!!!!!!!
 * 20) - Here goes my rant. OK, this opposal is slightly biased as I hate the colour red, but that's jsut one reason. I think white looks more proffesional and is easier on the eyes. And as for the logo - that's...that's just really scary. I'm about the 500th person to say this, but it looks kinda dinky with the text over his eyes, and his face is kind of... dumb-looking. However, I do think our current logo should be changed somehow. So, I appreciate your excellent effort at redesigning the Wiki's style, Wayoshi... but, maybe you could try a different one that more people like.
 * 21) - I prefer the current skin.  It gives the site sort of a library-ish look.  Which I like, because I'm editing from a library.  Besides, we don't want to annoy the obsessive compulsive users.  Besides, the pink look makes the place look gay, no offense.
 * 22) - Wikis are always white, the basic layout and colors are fine. I've honestly never cared for the logo since it's not very...professional looking but this new one is not any better. I think a logo contest for the site would be cool.
 * 23) I prefer the original.
 * 24) - I can't imagine ever switching over to something else. This style has worked for us and makes everything appear smooth and crisp. Not to overuse the word, but it does look professional this way. The red is a bit harsh on the eyes and it looks too busy back there. In addition to that it makes the site seem kiddy. Is this really what we want our readers to see? Keep in mind how many people use Wikipedia and are accustomed to the layout there. I've always viewed our layout as Wikipedia-esque with a Mario spin. The new design just throws that all out the window and that should not be. Good job on the redesign aspect and all, Wayoshi, but the way it is now seems perfect to me.

Comments
I'm aware Mario's eyes are covered by the A & R. I could put all the text at the top and Mario at the bottom, if everyone else prefers such, but I like the hidden effect. 22:40, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I admire that you are putting much effort to produce a good wiki Wayo, and I congratulate you for that. It must have taken a long time to do both, but still, per my response up above.

That screenshot looks exactly the same as our skin but with a different logo. : | I personally don't like that logo either, Mario should be semi-transparent not black and white.

Ok, technically, I don't like this text and the logo at all (the one seen above in the Proposal), but, while looking through, I thought of a logo... yet, I doubt it'd work. My brother made an other logo. It has 9 Mario games on the background. 3 Mario 2D games, 3 Mario 3D games and 3 Mario Spin-offs. What do you think.

That look better than the logo that Wayo made. (No offence.) It pwnz!!

I think I will soon see that Mario mini logo IN MY NIGHTMARES.

Arend's logo is pretty decent, although Mario looks kinda funky. --Blitzwing 11:10, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Arend's brother's logo is very close to what I was thinking of when I wrote my comment about your logo, Wayo. I think it's very unfair to ask you to keep coming up with ideas and to keep having them get shot down, so maybe we should make a main page talk and/or forum thread about this subject and get lots of different ideas from various users and then we can put the best ones together?  14:11, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Only if everyone agrees in wanting to change the skin, and too many want no change at all. 16:14, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Pretty much everyone wants to see a new logo, though. Perhaps we should have a contest?  16:31, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

I have to agree that arend's brother's logo is far better than the one we have, and I still think a slight change in the skin colors could help. And if that doesn't work, things like (very) faded background images for the content and such would be cool.
 * How about a background with the clouds from Super Mario All-Stars or something? I dunno... something like that where we used the games' backgrounds as our background images would be pretty sweet IMO.


 * Stumpers: I want the current logo to stay, though... D:
 * I secretly like it, too, but I wouldn't mind it being updated. ;) I'm a sucker for the old school titles, but there's been so much more content since then.
 * I think a contest would be a fantastic idea.
 * Per Stooby. That Icon thing of Arend's bro pwns!
 * Lol, that was my idea! :) I think we'd need to have a proposal as to whether the logo needs updating... something like "Either keep the old logo or have a contest to decide a new one."
 * Agreed. And if we do have a contest, I already have an idea for a logo.
 * Crazy! A contest sounds ftw :D

I like Arend's brother's logo, though I think it would look better if the red faded to yellow (instead of pink) for the lettering -
 * That actually gives me an idea for the contest: if we limit ourselves to "rough drafts" of sorts (ie those versions of logos for which we haven't yet received input from the community) we're going to be limiting the quality of our eventual logo. In other words, why don't we first have a general, open-forum style logo page, where people post their logos and get ideas for improvement.  Then, the next week, we open up a new page where people would post their final versions of their logos.  We could then vote off logos as follows: after three days, top 50% make it to the second round, then the top three make it to the final round, and then only one makes it to be our logo of course.  What do you think?  00:54, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I was worried about "works in progress" being used (hense I commented now, instead of waiting for the actual logo-voting), and I think your solution is a brilliant way to avoid that. -
 * Sounds brilliant. - 01:27, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Thanks very much! So we should start a proposal about whether or not we should replace the old logo, and if so that we should use that system?  12:18, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Well, I suppose we should have a proposal on whether or not the logo should be changed. The options could be: Change the logo, or have a contest.
 * CoooOOOOOOOOooooooonteEeEeeeeeeeeeeeest! Sorry, White Stripes reference. Anyhow, good Idea.
 * Wouldn't the options be "Keep the old Logo" and "Get a New Logo", with the contest expalined in the proposal? Also, I think the old Logo should be included in the contest (hypothetically, if 6 people votes to keep the old one, but 10 voted for a contest, and then their votes were split so that the highest new logo had 4 votes, the actual best bet would have been the old one). -
 * Yes, sorry. I was in a hurry.  Didn't mean to write, "Heads I win, tails you lose."  You have to keep in mind that you'd also be splitting the votes of all the people who think the logo should change if we went with your second idea.  However, I could see making the old logo an option in the contest just in case all the new logos are garbage.  What do you think?  22:46, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
 * That's what I was sorta getting at. If more people want to keep the old logo than any one of the new designs, leaving that option out of the final decision would yield results that don't accurately reflect the will of the huddled masses. And since we want to please the most people, that would be bad. -

Maybe if there were a possibility of using either of the two skins, I might have supported this proposal.

This is absolutely bias. There is seriously no point of letting users decide. Anyway, if it was agreed with people with the power to do this like Sysops, wouldn't they change it back if they had complaints. Personally, I perfer the red, but w/e.
 * Wait... what? Why shouldn't we let the users decide?  The whole point of proposals is so that our Wiki is more democratic than the rest out there.  How do we have a bias going anyway?  Against red?  Nope.  Against Wayo?  Definately not - that guy's amazing.  Against mario mini?  Well, maybe.  14:48, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
 * It's easier for the Sysops to get feedback now than deal with angry Users later. -

Hey Wayo if you like that colour background so much use it on your page!
 * That would only be pleasing you. Wayoshi can do whatevr he wants on his own page.
 * I'm starting to think this is becoming too much work for too little of an outcome. Why can't users just make their own monobook.css if they aren't happy with the sites current appearance? It seems simple enough. 18:04, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I guess because not everyone is able to do the coding, and because visitors too might want to see a different skin.
 * Yeah. I made that point on the previous proposal I think, and those who want the proposed design can receive the code from Wayoshi, put it as their Custom Css, and it would be fine.

I like both of you guys' ideas, but seeing all of the opposing votes, we might as well start asking Wayo to give us the code.
 * We still might want to consider a logo contest, though...
 * But if you think about it, everybody could just make their own logo(or use another users'), and be happy with it; it seems compromisal(for the lack of a better word).

I don't have the requirements necessary to accomplish your task, but the contest would be an awesome choice. Y'know, they don't have this kinda stuff on Bulbapedia; this wiki is much better.
 * Time Q: If a user has trouble making a monobook, couldn't he or she ask another Sysop/User with a monobook for help? And if they were embarrassed, they could just copy someone else's monobook coding and customize it as they see fit. Stumpers and R.O.B 128: I tend to agree with Garlic Man on this issue. After thinking things through a little more, users could add their own logo to their monobook. The contest is a good idea, but alas, not everyone would be happy with the outcome; the same goes with the skin. 20:18, 24 September 2008 (EDT)


 * I agree with Stooben's idea since I'm being neutral in this arguement. It would help ease the tention and make everyone (sorta) happy. And the wiki itself would not be affected (plus you also have to see if the back round would cause certain fonts to be illedgible) so it should also be tested.
 * Following up on what I said earlier, as well as Stooben's comment, I think the overall white, neutral skin is appropriate for the default wiki; people may say it is boring, but it will not cause complaints about uneasiness on the eyes. Time Q: Also, for new users, the welcome template has a link to the CSS info page, and they can refer to that.

Regarding logos, anyone think that a Mushroom would fit nicely? I'm no graphics artist, so I wouldn't be able to actually desgin one though. Many wikis often use a roundish logo to compliment Wikipedia, and a Mushroom only seems fitting. -- Booster
 * That could be an adequate logo if it had "Super Mario Wiki" on it, yes.

I think we're missing the point of a new logo or skin here: we want to be presentable to the users who aren't going to be hardcore and making their own skin for a minor specialty Wiki like ours (which is going to be a good 98%). I think the consensus is that our current skin is a good way to do that, but there's a lot more discord surrounding the logo, as you know. Our logo becomes a Wiki's "face" (at least according to the fan Wiki buffs over at Wikia). Therefore, it's very important that we agree on that. For example, we all think of one box art image when I say "Super Mario Galaxy." Even if a gamer was to make his own box art and insert it into the box on his personal shelf, that would not change the fact that the world thinks of the official SMG box art when they think SMG. The current logo has been in place for years - perhaps it is time to see if it can't hold up to the work of some of the new image buffs we've gained since it was first made.
 * Yeah, per Stumpers, that's exactly what I meant. You can't just have a random logo and tell users to make their own. I'm referring to guests who don't want to register, just visit the wiki, yet they should have a proper logo. I'm not saying that anything is wrong with our current logo, though, only that telling users to make their own skins and not caring about a standard one is the wrong approach.
 * A similar discussion came up the other day between the sysops on a completely different issue: we can think of very creative yet complex ways to ensure than a particular user will be able to customize his/her Wiki experience to his/her liking, but we as experienced, involved editors need to keep the casual visitors in mind. Passing users assume things about a Wiki as we all know from being passing users.  One such thing is that our presentation is the best we can do, and we want everyone to see it.  Asking users to each make their own logo and skin is backwards: rather than ask the majority of users to create their own logos, we should choose the logo that the majority agrees on, and let the dissatisfied minority make special skins for their personal use.  I think that we have determined that the majority likes our current monobook skin, but we really have varied opinions in terms of the logo.

This might have been covered already (haven't sifted through all the comments yet, sorry), but, Wayoshi, is it possible to just add these layouts as default skin options, premade monobooks I guess? --
 * That's a good Idea. If we can't do that, we'll need the code from Wayoshi so that we may enter it into our personal Monobook.

That a good idea R.O.B so the users who like Wayo design should get the code. That will maybe keep them happy hopely BTW So are we going to have a contest or not? Please don't! Classic logos seem better but Arend's logo seems cool too.

The striking is not funny. This page has no room for jokes; this is a serious issue.
 * Getting back to the point – I do like Ghost Jam's idea. Is it possible that you could make something like,, , etcetera; then you could add them to a MediaWiki page that could create a dropbox in each user's personal preferences? Ex:


 * Skin
 * Default (Light Blue)
 * Red
 * Green
 * Yellow
 * Etc.
 * Logo
 * Default (Current Logo)
 * Logo 1
 * Logo 2
 * Logo 3
 * Etc.


 * Maybe that would work; and if users still weren't happy with those skins and/or logos, he or she could create her own monobook. As for guests that are just visiting the site, I believe that the current logo and skin is fine for a first glance. Then, if said user were to join, he could set his own skin/logo preferences.
 * How easy would it be for other people to create their own monobooks and could this site handle it if there were over 50 or over 5000 different monobooks?
 * GhostJam and Rooben: That's a brilliant idea. I don't know why myself and other Wikia & Wikipedia editors didn't think of it: multiple official skins!  Of course, we'd still need a standard, but it severely takes the pressure off of picking just one.
 * ROB, humour isn't bad at all unless it doesn't offend anyone, and it's on topic :D. Also, I think the predefined skins would work. We could make sub-pages branching off of the MarioWiki CSS page, with examples of what the Wiki has to offer, for those who want a change from the classic look.

No offence, Wayoshi, but I prefer the wiki the way it is. Your idea is okay, but too red. Arend's wiki logo looks good as well, but just keep to the current wiki logo, okay. P.s. If any of you would like to help me on the list of ways to die on SMG, I'm letting you type your suggestions at the bottom of my userpage,okay.

Holy bananas, I never expected 38 votes. Thank you, all, for at least putting in your opinion on the issue. It is unfortunate that I am seemingly the only one that knows how to make an effective skin change – otherwise, we can extend the proposed "logo contest" to something more. The whole idea was to change as little as possible from the main skin, while still giving it a small "Mario" red touch...I think even though technically I was very close to the original colors, I was way farther than I thought. I'll wait to see what we do about the logo, see if more people decide a slight change would be good, then perhaps try revising again.

For all those who liked this skin, go to User:Test/monobook.css. It is a shared account of Steve & mine for the obvious reasons, so don't go banning it for sockpuppetry or w/e. I will edit that file directly if I decide to retry.

Smash Bros. Moves
In light of recent applications of our importance policy, many users would like to see minor Super Smash Bros. subjects merged. One such suggestion has been to merge the special moves with the characters’ pages. For example, Hand Grenade, Remote Controlled Missile, Cypher, C4, and Grenade Launcher would be merged with Solid Snake.

This merge would decrease the emphasis placed Smash Bros. while still retaining all Super Smash Bros. content. If this proposal passes, the following assurances are granted (1) ALL content from a special move page must be transferred to its respective character page BEFORE the special move page is blanked. This includes pictures. (2) ALL special move pages affected will become redirects to their appropriate section in their characters' articles. In other words, you will still be able to easily look up each special move. It will simply no longer have its own page. (3) The Super Smash Bros. Special Moves page will still be in place.

If you would like an example of how this would look, please see here. Please note how the image templates and stub templates carried over. Trophy information when applicable has now been moved down to the larger trophy information section. The only real change is that images have been made smaller. For the purpose of example, I have including the SSB Moves template at the bottom of the section. Unless people really want it to be there, when/if I merge the moves, I will not be including the template. Let me know.

Proposer: Deadline: October 2, 2008, 17:00 EDT

Support

 * 1) - Per myself above.  This merge will retain all information about the Smash Bros. series, but it will present it in a way that will not give unequal attention to the Smash Bros. series over other cross-overs.  We need to either follow the importance policy by measures such as the one described in the proposal or we need to modify the importance policy.
 * 2) - I completely agree with Stumpers.
 * 3) - You have my full support on this incentive. It's about time this happened.
 * 4) - I'm all for this. From what I gather, moves pertaining to Mario characters will be merged as well, yes?
 * 5) - This is a great idea. The wiki needs a little less focus on the SSB series, and some more on the Mario series; I don't want anything to drastic to be changed, so this seems like just the right way to do things.
 * 6) - Per all.
 * 7) - I suggested this ages ago. I didn't want to create a proposal after the debate didn't work out. This step should be all right to put some weight onto the Importance Policy, it was only a theory before.
 * 8) -I didn't like this initially but when I looked a stumpers test page It made sense.Per all.
 * 9) - For those who want the Smash series info, it is still there, and for those who want less focus on the Smash series, there would be fewer pages about it.
 * 10) - Per all. It'll make navigating the SSB information easier as well.
 * 11) - Per all. It makes navigation more easy, and less stubs.
 * 12) - Per all. Could look up on SmashWiki.
 * 13) - Per all
 * 14) - This is the Mario Wiki, not the Smash Wiki or the Nintendo Wiki.  Merge 'em.
 * 15) I'm pretty much tired of them.
 * 16) I highly agree on all of this.  Making separate articles about special moves is foolish and a big waste.  After all, they're THAT character's moves, so place them in THAT character's article.  Already I merged Lucario's special moves onto its main article.
 * 17) I agree. It is much more orginized. And a few are stubs.
 * 18) Im useuale ageinst mergeing but this is not smash wiki.
 * 19) I agree with this proposal, lets merge and keep it mainly Mario related.

Oppose

 * 1) It's not like the move articles are stubs or anything, they can stay.
 * 2) - Per Phailure

Comment
Just a question to those responsible for the random quote generator: many Final Smash articles include quotes from Masahiro Sakurai. Will we need to remove these in the event that the character page has a quote at the top? Alternatively, we could merge quotes into the actual text, like so: In his Super Smash Bros. Dojo! entry for Peach Blossom, Masahiro comments, "[insert quote here]."

Booster: It does also apply to Mario characters. 23:19, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
 * About your first comment, you could just use  23:41, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

Well, this what I've actually wanted (and some others) and this will definately prevent vandalism. Srsly, we would have to patrol 195 articles if there isn't a merge. Plus, I think somebody went a little too far when they put that Diddy Kong can perform "Diddycide". That's a technique that is only meant to be on Smash Wiki. Are you going to merge the moves for the Mario series characters too, Stumpers?
 * I was considering only merging non-Mario characters, but then Blitzwing and Stooben suggested to me that we merge all the moves. So, yes - that is the current plan: Fireball, Cape, Mario Tornado, and Jump Punch will all be merged with Mario.  If anyone would rather this not be the case, please speak up.
 * Say wut? Fireball is in more than just Smash Bros., you know. Screw the importance policy.
 * Please try to remain civil.
 * Just as Mario's cape form from Super Mario World will not be merged with Mario, neither will the article Fireball. We will be merging the SSB section from the article into Mario, but in its place we will be lightly mentioning that fireball became an attack, with a link to the Fireball section in the Mario article.  As much as its worth, I can tell you that it is not my intention that this proposal lead to all major Smash Bros. elements being merged.  I'd like to refer you to Yangus, White Mage, and Knuckles.  They have articles, and so I see no reason why we should merge characters from Smash Bros..
 * Sorry about giving my honest opinion being rude. Anyway, I'm all for Stumper's last comment, although i think Final Smashes should have there own pages. Another option could be to make an article like " Movesets (Super Smash Bros.)".
 * I'm going to say that this idea of yours will not work. FSs will be merged with teh characters.
 * Actually, it might work. It's an idea I toyed around with after Cobold brought up the topic of merging SSB articles.  Phailure: don't forget that you can make your own proposal even if this one passes that would change the way we present data.  So, for example, if this proposal passes and we merge the pages as shown above, you could then make another proposal offering up an alternate solution.  Just some advice from having watched a bunch of proposals going down: give people time to get used to this proposal and to weigh the pros and cons before you put forth another proposal.  If people are just starting to use a new system that they just approved of, they're unlikely to notice its defects, and therefore more unlikely to vote for a new system right away.
 * Stumpers:Works for me. R.O.B. 128: Fine... but at least Giga Bowser should get a page, since he was a boss in Melee.
 * Noted. I'll be sure to only merge the Final Smash portion of the article.  If you'd like a mock-up done I'd be more than happy.

M&SG: Please do not act upon a proposal until it has passed. Did you make sure that all text and images were transferred over?

Well, it pretty much looks like the merge is gonna happen. :P If it's that big a deal, it's fine with me.

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: October 4, 2008, 17:00 EDT

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.
 * 14) Who would oppose this smart proposal, huh?! Per Stooben's brain and 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.
 * Wow. I think you recognized the problem very well. And your compromise sounds fine. There's only one thing that makes me wonder if it'll work: Once a world article is big enough to be split, it might already be featured. And I have a feeling that there will be many users opposing the split, because the world article would lose its featured status this way.

Dom: Holy carp this is a huge discussion. I just want to say that these level articles all seem kind of pointless to me, I mean who wants to read about random levels which are just numbers in worlds? They're just different arrangements of obstacles, platforms and enemies, that's it. So, they kind of suck.

Good point Dom. Hmmmm Stoob's test page remind me of this page World 1 (SMB).
 * Dom, I don't see your reasoning here. Just because they seem pointless to you, does not mean they won't help others on the wiki. Level articles, not only show the layout of the stage, but as I mentioned, shortcuts, items, artifacts, such as red coins, dragon coins, etc. Saying that an article "Sucks" is not specific enough either. If you actually read the comments above, you will see that level articles do have worth, and are even potential to become featured.
 * But that's his opinion. And all these votes are opinion-based, thus they are all valid. The only time a vote is not valid is if it has no reason to back it up, or if it violates policy. I understand where you are coming from Garlic Man, but in aspect, saying the articles have worth is no different than saying they have none at all.
 * Yes, I understand. The same can be said for world articles as well.
 * Hence why I never said "this is the right way to do it". I just found it the best way to me. This proposal is past its extended deadline with a three vote difference. Close?

Trouble Center

 * Too sporadically used: basically on average once a month
 * Most of the uses are incorrect – user or syntax related instead of articles
 * The troubles are rarely solved
 * Users usually ask directly on user talk and get a faster solution that way, because watchlist notification < user talk notification

Proposer: Deadline: October 11, 2008, 20:00 EDT

Put it to Rest

 * 1) – hope the bulleted list helps convince others
 * 2) - I've been thinking about this for a long time. I hardly see anyone ever use it, and when they do, their trouble(s) are never answered. Most people ask a Sysop or experienced member on his/her talk page more commonly, as Wayoshi said. People are more apt to get a fast response that way, than with a dead trouble center. I for one never used it; I always asked someone else for help, as many others have done with me.
 * 3) Per all
 * 4) - Per St00by. Holy crap I also agree with Wayoshi :O (for the first time :O)
 * 5) Per all. It hasn't been used in months.
 * Per Wayo. We've had this before, and decided to try a comeback. There was no comeback, so I think it's finally time to bury it.
 * 1) - Its useless. As already stated, its hardly used anymore; and when any user puts a question up; it's hardly answered.
 * 2) Per all, it definetly is easier to use user talk.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) Booster - I sometimes forget that it even exists. Anyways, it's been pretty useless for over a year.
 * 5) - Ay. Let's be rid of it.
 * 6) - I barely knew it existed until this proposal. 0_o
 * 7) - Per all. In the year I've been here, I've never seen it used. Of course, once we do delete it, someone's gonna think of a use for it, but... :P
 * 8) - Let's delete it, but we should make it clear to new users that they can ask for help on the Main Page talk if they don't know any users to ask.
 * 9) Per all. It's nothing but a waste of space. No one uses it, so it's time to let it go.
 * 10) Per all who shall tear it down! (not really though, XD)
 * 11) - Per all. If people need help but don't know who to ask specifically, the Main Page talk and/or MarioWiki_talk:FAQ should be enough to take care of them.
 * 12) - Per all. I looked at it once ages ago and noticed its lack of action and accuracy, so yeah.
 * 13) - Per Stooben Rooben
 * 14) -I used It once, the last time I bothered looking almost all from when I first joined were still there,and finally no ones used It.We gave it a chance worked for a while and crashed.Per all.
 * 15) Per 1337. It's never been ******* used.
 * 16) Per all.  There are plenty of other ways to get information.
 * 17) Per all. Just like the last version of Toonami, this was a failed experiment.

Keep it Running

 * 1) - Really bad idea. It's like you don't care about newbies.
 * 2) - This isn't so much because I like the Trouble Center or not (I myself can rarely if ever find it,) but more because I find there are several things about the Trouble Center that need some improvement.  Look, I can barely even find the thing, and some folks might not know it even exists or, if they do, what it's for.  I feel that we should run an experiment with the Trouble Center by giving it more publicity, and if that fails, then we determine what to do with it, because the way things stand, the Trouble Center's NEVER get any customers.

Comments

 * Even though all of the above is true, It's still pretty useful.
 * Like I said in my post, new users should post concerns on this page or alert one of the sysops - that's what we're here for.
 * Or if you need help with something else, you can always contact one of us.
 * We even mention that on the welcome template, so we actually do care about new users.
 * Yeah. Like everyone said, people rarely respond to to the trouble center. We're HELPING newbies.

Dudes, hypothetically speaking. I first posted a comment in the Proposals after coming from the Main Page's "Latest Proposal" box. Otherwise, I wouldn't have known it had existed. Why not try something like that for the Trouble Center? I mean, folks like me just go to the front page, see what's up, and if the answer's "Nothing," go on and do what they were doing. Folks like me would be more apt to go to the Trouble Center in the case that we made news of it.
 * Your idea is good. However, it would most likely be too much effort for something that wouldn't work. I'm glad to see you want the Trouble Center to stay, but I don't think lack of publicity is really the problem. It has a link on the sidebar, and that's really all it needs. Even The 'Shroom, Wiki Maintenance, Featured Articles, Forum, and Chatroom have just a link on the sidebar, yet they all get heavy traffic. I think the concept of the Trouble Center pretty much died out quite some time ago. I've been here almost a year, and I think 3 times I've seen it used.
 * True, I won't deny that. But I think that in case of emergency, one should break glass.  A final chance using the most effective way theoretically possible, then when that fails bail, or in this case, pull the plug.
 * This is the third proposal about getting rid of the Trouble Center, I think we can safely "pull the plug", because the fail bailed many times.. --Blitzwing 16:49, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Agreed.
 * Just for the record, this is actually the fourth proposal on this topic. I started one last summer and deleted it after being told to 'give it a chance'. --

Third I thought it was the second. Any way I agree with Blitzwing too. The Trouble hased been used. Well it has been some user spamed it or ether post some stupid junk. (That thing is so old it might break down on it own.) Since the propsal is going to past, so far some users think that it best to ask question to System Operatiors (Sysops) or the Main page.

FINALLY, someone sees the light. I've been cleaning out Troubles every now and again for months....anyway, I'm all for going back to how it was BEFORE the Trouble Center. That is, each person is given a challenge list with challenges set by other users. It gave a person more of an incentive to help, as it was like a game. --

Merge Goomba with bellhop goomba
I feel we should merge bellhop goombas with regular goombas Because they are just goombas in bellhop suits also They are the same thing just differnt looks.

Proposer: Deadline: October 11, 2008, 20:00 EDT

Merge

 * 1) Per what i said.
 * 2) Per Iggy. There's not really any basic proof they're any different, so merge it is. EDIT:See below proposal. :P
 * 3) they sould merge, as the bellhop goomba page even says there is no difference besides looks.

Keep Separate

 * No, they are considered a sub-species of Goomba's.
 * 1) - Per S-Y. Plus, they are officially named.
 * 2) Per S-Y! No just no. There not Goomba there a sub-species like S-Y said.
 * 3) - Per S-Y. They're different from regular Goombas and are a different species (but, rather called "sub-species"; as said by PGB above). While they act like a Goomba; and attack like a Goomba; they are not the regular Goomba.
 * 4) - Per all. Plus, this would requie merging Rhinestone Goombas, and perhaps other obscure Hotel Mario sub-species that have slipped my mind...
 * 5) - I'm not sure why they should be merged and not Pirate Goombas, so it makes me worried that this is either about limiting Hotel Mario content or will lead to limiting content rather than merging alternately dressed Goombas.
 * 6) Booster - Per all. Bellhop Goomba is a Bellhop Goomba.
 * 7) - They are officially named and look different from the ordinary Goombas. They might act like the normal Goombas, but a lot of enemies have similar patterns.
 * 8) - Per All.
 * 9) - Per all.
 * 10) - Per all.
 * 11) WTFudge!? per all.
 * 12) - Keep itself at his place. Otherwise we would have a Goomba page longer than Mario. Also many Koopa or whatever sub-species are kept seperate. So let's do it here, too.
 * 13) - We have Beach Koopas split from Koopas, and we KNOW they're the same.  We only have enough knowledge on Bellhop Goombas to know they are some kind of Goomba and not necessarily the same Goombas we see in other games.

Comments
Think about it guys we merged Pumpkin Heads with goombas and there way differnt so we should merge bellhop goombas because they are not any differnt from regular goombas. -
 * Pumpkin heads weren't officially-named though.
 * Per St00by. If it isn't official, then they don't have an article about it. And just a tip, try to outline your proposal with more details instead of just two simple sentences. For Example, St00by's proposal has many details and whatnot in it.

As far as I know, you can't remove the "Protection" of the Bellhop Goombas, unlike the Pumpkin head. Just throwing that out.
 * Oh well that was kinda embarrasing, not signing my comment just like that :o. And Per Blitz
 * Hey Grapes, whos this Y-S guy? he sounds pretty neat. I wanna meet him :D
 * ROFL...

Oh crud I didn't notice that till nao. (ROFL...LOL) XD Sry 'bout that I'll fix it.
 * lol np


 * Okay I fixed it. :p

Iggykoopa Wait so your tellling me bellhop goombas are a sub species when they act the same and are just goombas in hotel outfits. But the pumpkin heads are not a sub species well there are no simularets beetween goombas and pupkin heads also one hit for bellhop goombas and goombas while it takes two for pumpkin heads

Um exscuse me, but umm pumpkin heads are Goombas. If you star spin them, the pumkin breaks revealing a regular Goomba. (See Talk:Pumpkin Head)

Iggykoopa, instead of putting your name before your message, please put this at the end of your message:  . Also please post new comments at the bottom. Thanks!

Iggy, just to clarify, "sub-species" is just a fan word used to describe an enemy or species that is obviously a modification of another species. For example, Paragoombas are obviously the developers referencing back to Goombas and Paratroopas. Honestly, we use it way too much, and as I can tell from your confusion, it really is misleading. "Associated Enemies" would be a better, albeit vaguer, term.

Wait so your telling me the bellhop goombas are sub sprcies when on the page you say there is no difference but the pumpkin head goombas are not just becayuse they were never named

Um please sigh your comments. Thanks!

Ok just to set the record straghit i do not want to merge rhinestone goombas with regular goombas and the reason being they are much faster then regular goombas also they act differnt.

To your point Princess Grapes Butterfly think of this if you hit a winged goomba does it become a regular goomba yes but does that mean they should be merged no so by that logic we should un merge pumpkin head goombas and regualr goombas.
 * Please try to use more full stops in your comments so they are easier to read, Iggykoopa. Thanks.

Uh they are merge.
 * What?

The Pumpkins Heads.
 * Ah. I thought you were referring to Bellhop Goombas.
 * No. :D

Spliting goombas and pumpkin Head goombas.
I feel we sould unmerge goombas and pumpkin head goombas because they are differnt from regular goombas For two reasons first they look differnt and they are stronger and second on the whole if you star spin them they become regular goombas that is true but think of this if you hit a winged goomba it becomes a regular goomba but do we merge it with regular goombas no.

Proposer: Deadline: October 12, 2008, 15:00 EDT

Unmerge

 * 1) Per what i said.

Stay merged

 * 1) - We merged them because Nintendo themselves never separated Pumpkin Heads from Goombas - that was our own speculative decision.  However, the other Goombas have specifically been given official names, and we feel that we should respect Nintendo's decision by giving separate articles to subjects with different names except when two subjects are way too similar (ie two enemies that always work together, for example)
 * 2) - Per Stumpers. They were never officially named, thus they were merged. Pumpkin Goomba is not a Pumpkin Goomba – it is just a Goomba.
 * 3) - Look, they were named officially, if you didn't read the page, or our comments on your other proposal. Also Per Stumpers.
 * 4) Per all! They're just Goombas with head armor! It doesn't change there species.
 * 5) - Per Stumpers. (he always makes good points)
 * 6) - Per Stumpers. I mean, we don't have an article for SMG's helmeted Goombas, now, do we?
 * 7) - Per Stumpers and Princess Grapes.

Comments
Like i said if you jump on a winged goomba they become regular goombas but do we merge them no so with that logic we should not merge regular goombas and pumpkin head goombas. Iggykoopa

But think of this those fish things you Call ???? Have there own page when one is just a blurp with a sharkfin also there are some you merged even with the fact that they have names like pat-the-bats. Iggykoopa

Ok but on that point they never called them goombas so they should just be called pumpkin head goombas Iggykoopa

Heres just a tip Iggy, get some facts about what your going to write a proposal about, create it in a proffesionally looking way (eg: using full stops, adding puncuation, grammer, etc.) so we can get more detail on what your implying too. You should get to know what your going to propose about before writing a proposal. Nothing personal, just a tip. Lol I just noticed, everyone whos opposing starts with an "S". And Btw Iggykoopa, asked for you to follow the proposal rules, and use    instead of signing it with just Iggykoopa. So I ask nicely to sign it with the proper format, please. Thanks.

Ok first of all super-Yoshi Dont tell me what i should and should not do i made this proposal and to say i do not know what im talking about well screw you. Also Think of this your whole thing on nintendo never named them is funny because why should that matter i mean because think about it bellhop goombas were never in a nintendo game There for there not nintendo charecters.
 * Bellhop Goombas were in Hotel Mario, a NINTENDO game. And your banned now. Come say "Screw you" to my face next time, k? Ill deal with it.
 * Aww man, I was about to chastize him (have I ever mentioned how I hate Edit Conflicts?)... Anyway, Nintendo didn't actually make Hotel Mario, but it's still a Mario game and everything in it is as official as Mario himself. And in response to Iggy's other arguments: we have an article for ???? because that's what the Blurp with a sharkfin on it's back is called in Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga, whereas "Pumpkin Goomba" was pure conjecture. And as for Pat the Bats, it doesn't matter how silly the name is, it's still their name; they're still valid enemies. -

The Pumpkin heads can have their protections removed and be turned into normal Goombas, you might say the same about the Para-Goombas, but they appeared in a dozen of games, and they have an actual name. --Blitzwing 06:47, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Now wait just a minute. If you remove a Bellhop Goomba's uniform, it turns into a noral Goomba. So why are we voting to NOT merge Goomba and Bellhop Goomba?
 * The Bellhop Goombas uniform can't be removed ingame (Man that sound perverted), duuuurrrrrrrr. --Blitzwing 07:46, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Touche. But still, why merge Pumpkin Heads and not Bellhop Goombas?

See Knife quote in Talk:Pumpkin Heads

1337, do you mean These helmeted goombas ?

Goombas
I say we should split the Goomba article into two articles: Goomba and Goomba (SMW). The SMW Goombas appeared in more than one game (Seriously, I've seen round ones in Super Mario Galaxy), they have differend Japanese names and they look different, unlike the Bellhop Goomba proposal (see below) and I hope this is not like Arend's disaster Rosalina proposal.

Proposer: Deadline: October 15, 2008, 17:00 EDT

Split

 * 1) This is my proposal.
 * 2) - I'm not sure that they were in Super Mario Galaxy not having played the whole game, but yes, Super Mario World did feature "Round Goombas" rather than "Goombas" in the Japanese version.  Just as we separate Kamek from Magikoopa (he is known only as Magikoopa in Japan), maybe it's time that we also pay attention to how Nintendo of Japan names separate subjects.
 * 3) - Per all.
 * 4) - Per all. Since they are officially named, I have no objections.
 * 5) - Per all. I wondered why I couldn't find info on those guys... :P
 * 6) - Per All. btw, There's indeed a different species of Goomba in Galaxy, but they're not round, just smaller and with a duller skin.
 * 7) - Per all. The thing about the Goombas in SMG is indeed correct.
 * 8) - per all

Comments
Ain't and round Goomba basicly a Goomba or a sub species. (I'm sorta confused.)
 * To the supporters: Do these have an official name?
 * They do in Japan (as both Yoshikart and Stumpers mentioned): "Kuribon", which should be enough to allow the split. While we're on the subject, another enemy I know that clearly is not the same species as its name-sake is Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga Boomerang Bros.; but as far as I know, the Japanese names are the same as well, so it's more problematic. -
 * Thanks.

Say, if this proposal pass, would the page be called Kuribon or Goomba (SMW)?

<- Is this what your talking 'bout. Anyway doesn't Kuribon means Little Chestnut people.


 * I would call it "Goomba (SMW)" because of the fact many people don't know the Japanese name (Kuribon), so they compare their look. And, what do they look like? They look like little Goombas. Of course, there are some experts knowing the Japanese name but we simply redirect to 'Goomba (SMW)'. My opinion. -
 * Or you could just make "Goomba (SMW)" a redirect to "Kuribon" – that seems like the more logical way to tackle the issue, since that is their official name.
 * Yeah, that would be the best way. 18:44, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
 * And the point of that comment was...?
 * I think YoshiKart was ether Fabbergased or had no comment.
 * Flabbergasted
 * It means to shock to say anything. (Well in this case to shock to type comment.)
 * Ah, that makes sense. Thanks.
 * Ah, that makes sense. Thanks.

You're welcome.

you should call them Kuribon!

Userbox Page
Recently, I stopped by the userbox page and found it to be absolutly unacceptable. Users add new userboxes at will, and often don't care for things such as, I dunno, GRAMMAR? So, I'm prposing that we lock up the Userbox page or at least trim it down. If you want to make a new userbox so badly, don't place it on the main page.

Proposer: Deadline: October 15, 2008, 17:00 EDT

Don't lock
REMOVED VOTE: - Right now I'm busy enough operating the rest of the Wiki, but maybe the other sysops aren't.  Regardless, I have to say, userboxes themselves are useless, so I don't see why a useless userbox would be a problem. Plus, what are your criteria for determining whether a userbox is useless or useful? Since other sysops are cool with trimming the page down, I no longer object. However, I'm keeping this vote here for everyone who "per'd" me.
 * 1) Per myself. Anyways why lock just because if some userboxes seem useless. There just for user whom want them. You don't have to use the new ones that just pop up. The userboxes page is for every user to post a userbox (as long as there aproperate.)
 * 2) - Per Stumpers' original vote. Userboxes are epic, and someone may want to create their own.
 * 3) - As long as the userbox is appropriate, I don't see the problem.  Besides, even if that article is locked, we'll still be able to make our own personal userboxes for our user page.
 * 4) - I really see userboxes as an eyesore, nor would I ever use them. However, I do see where they may be appealing to others. Quite simply, the fact that they're constantly being used entirely makes up for the fact that they're cheesy and an eyesore.
 * 5) - More will get done if dedicated Users of all ranks can hack away at the garbage (as opposed to just the Sysops, who have more important things to do than this inconsequential community fluff).
 * 6) - As long as the grammor improves,anyways i make tons of userboxes.
 * 7) - First, Timn, if you want better grammer in the userbox page, you should spell it right.  Next, the userbox page is alright, but we should delete duplicates.  The ones we delete do matter though.  If one is a more complicated and desired one, the one that is less complicated and desired.  Get the picture?
 * 8) - A dreadful idea. I can hardly figure how to do a userbox and I'm trying to put some in my page. If the page is locked, I would be unable to access it and, therefore, I would have to keep my personal page as simple as it is right now. I suggest that it is improved.

Trim down

 * 1) Per what I said.
 * 2) -Both sides have a good point we should have criteria for userboxes {ie:This user likes luigi. OK. This user is friends with [insert username here]. NO} It shouldn't be that hard delete some keep others and we really need to trim down the userbox section other [I had to remove my own cose the page had trouble loading].
 * 3) - That page has been chaotic for quite a few months now. Many of the userboxes on there aren't needed, as they are simply edited from other similar userboxes. Also, the "This user is friends with __" have absolutely no reason to be on there; these userboxes, if created, should be created only for users to give to their friends. (Just like I used to do.) The page takes ridiculously long to load due to the mass amounts of images and coding on it as well. It's a MarioWiki page, not a User page. It's a fine page for referring to how to make basic userboxes, (ex: This user is an advanced gamer), etcetera. These userboxes that say, "this user's favorite character is Mametchi/Luigi/Francis/whatever" are entirely unnecessary – there only needs to be one userbox for that "genre" of userboxes – This user's favorite character is ___. The userbox can be edited from there to the user's liking. Take my userbox tower for example: Most of the userboxes on there were created/edited by me, but I don't recall ever putting them in the userbox page.
 * 4) - This is definitely something that needs to be done. As Stooben said, one genre of userboxes that can be customized to the user's liking. Specific, one person/object/etc. userboxes should not be put of there.
 * 5) - Per Stooben. Took the words right out of my mouth.
 * 6) - I'm switching sides to back Rooben... that's the second time this week.  Per Stoob.
 * 7) - Per St00by.
 * 8) - Per all.  Strange as it may be that I don't even have a page FOR userboxes yet I have an opinion, really, failure at grammar and over-complication bother me.  That, and I have actually been turned off of making mine based on how many userboxes there are.
 * 9) - Per Stooben. I think users can create their own userboxes, but it isn't necessary to put them in the userbox page.
 * 10) - Per all. Besides, altering existing Userboxes on one's specific User Page is fairly easy, so if someone really wants to say something unique, they still can; while those of us with cruddy computers can still see the general boxes without fear of freezing.
 * 11) - Per all

Comments
Okay, I take that back. But if you had stopped by before I cleaned it up, you'd see how atrocious it's become.
 * Rather than locking the page, what about just eliminating all of the excess userboxes? Take this, this, and this for examples: they could easily be trimmed down to basic userboxes that could be edited to a user's liking. Also, if there was a "Trim Down" option on this proposal, I'd vote for it.
 * Same here. The Sysops have enough things to do without having to worry about something as frivolous as Userboxes. Simply let the Users who care about Userboxes keep them tidy, and be done with it. -
 * But that's the whole point. The page isn't kept tidy. It overloads the bandwidth with all the pictures and code, and most are used by maybe one or two people: the people that made them and decided to stick them on there. I have plenty of userboxes that I created myself without needing to put it on the Userbox page.
 * Walkazo: You've conivinced my to change my mind. Now that I think about it, sysops DO have better things to do :l Phoenix Rider: Ditto. Palkia47:True, but they still don't need to clog up the page.
 * Since Stumpers switched his vote, I have a question about those who said "Per Stumpers". Since Grapes and Palkia have additional reasoning to their votes aside from "Per Stumpers", would their votes still be valid? With that being said, would Super-Yoshi's vote be the only invalid one?
 * Good question. I assume that we can now take "Per Stumpers" to be "Per what Stumpers' original vote said."
 * Sounds good.
 * Done.
 * Glad I looked at the comments before editing. I was going to point out that anyone who was 'per'ing a now nonexistent vote wouldn't be counted if said vote still read as such when the proposal closed. --

When I feel like making a new Userbox, I just 'steal' one from another User page, or make a new one. I never use that Userbox page, it seems kinda pointless. Like a blunt arrow.
 * Ditto.

Okay, first there's voting on whether or not is should be locked, and then there's voting to trim it down (but no header to vote for leaving it the way it is?). No one's voted on both issues yet, but can we? This is more like two proposals in one, which is a bit... screwy. -
 * I think since we were talking about the sysops being busy, we're not going to want to lock it to all but the sysops... but maybe a new user block would work.
 * Good idea. And I could change the voting choices to "Don't change it" and "Trim it down".
 * Triming down sound better. (Because some computer/Laptops can freeze if there too much kilo bytes.) Plus there is some stupid userboxes like, This User thinks that Luigi shouldn't be called Mama Luigi.
 * Protecting it from the new Users and their userbox-fever is definitely a good plan, as are cutting out some of the more superfluous ones and adding that extra header for the people who disagree. -

Phailure: Just swapping "Don't Lock" for "Don't Change Anything" isn't right: those votes are now misplaced and should have been removed like mine. -

''SuperMarioFan14 You'll be still able to ascess the Userbox page. Lock the page only due one thing and thats make the page unable to be edited.


 * Speaking of your vote, Walkazo, you currently have two votes. Be sure to delete the old one. (or move it as I did my old vote if someone per'd you)
 * Right now I'm voting once on the locking issue, and once on the trimming issue; as I said before, this proposal is messed-up. If it isn't going to be about locking or not locking anymore, but about trimming and leaving it as it is, the sections pertaining to locking and all the corresponding votes should all be deleted. But then the people would need to vote again, and time is running out before the deadline (which brings to mind an older discussion about changing proposals). -
 * Yeah, that was my mistake, I wasn't really thinking about the votes needing to be recounted.
 * Um, this passed three days ago. Why is nobody archiving it?