Talk:Princess Daisy

More Like De-Organizing
I'm aware this page doesn't dit the same format as all other character pages, but it's not like the other characte rpages aren't messe dup. This isn't messed up so mutch as it is different. Which makes sense considering the character doesn't appear in that many main story games. I thought there was some specific in place that allowed the page to be different becaus eof her vast spin-off appearances. Same with Waluigi and so on. Also, if any pages need re-organizing someone should fix the more important pages like Mario and Peaches first. Aaand, this whole site sitll needs overhall, bluntly. Panchito
 * We have a policy regarding this, see here. Please don't undo edits that follow this policy. If you don't like it, you should discuss the policy itself. But the point is, each of Daisy's appearances is just as valid as the game appearances, so they all belong in the History section. 14:35, 19 November 2009 (EST)
 * Time Q, as far as I remember the Daisy page was given special reason to stay like this, which DID have a lot to do with her appearances. Also, you didn't even reorganize it well. And, why are you even editing Daisy's page? You should know that I have this page covered. Another question as to why you are editing her page, uhm Peach's page is a ridiculous pile of mess. This just feels like you got your way by reverting my proposal and now you're ruining the only page I care about, which has been in this format for months, regardless of that link. You're basically trying to thwart anything I do. Is there a reason you're editing Daisy's page and not anyone else's? Because it's not in the right format? No, because neither are other pages which seem like they should be more relevance to you. This is ridiculous. FD09

Hm, honestly..Princess Daisy's page was one of the few pages that was absolutely fine. Maybe you should spend your efforts fixing pages that are actually in need of fixing, like Mario's for instance. Your changes were quite useless and just made everything jumbled together. Toadine

So pretty much I'm going to change it back soon. If TimeQ cares he would show up before I revert the page to talk about it here, if not it's obvious he was just waiting for someone to edit the page again. I have already contacted multiple others about his actions. It is clear this isn't about the format of her page so much as it is getting his own way when other pages are in far more need than Daisy's. Also, like I said, he didn't even do it correctly. So I will give it more time but I think others can see what's going on here. I can help make the page right, but that's only going to happen when we have the right standards (not atm) and other pages are fixed first, per walkazo.FD09


 * To clarify a few things. 1) NOTHING of what I do is to upset you, so please stop thinking I have anything against you. 2) The reason I edited this page is that I searched for "Appearances in Other Media" in the searchbox. Articles with those sections are not organized according to our policy, because we don't separate appearances in "games" and "other media". Daisy was one of the first pages that showed up in the search, so I edited it. I also edited Beanstalk, so please don't think I chose this one to upset you. 3) Obviously it is me who is in the right in this matter, because I think I did organize everything correct according to our policies. 4) What did I do wrong in your opinion? 5) Who said there was a "special reason" for Daisy to stay in the incorrect form? 15:50, 19 November 2009 (EST)
 * Two more things: You have no right to be the only person to cover this article. If you want this, make your own wiki and protect the article from all other editors. Super Mario Wiki is community work, and if you publish something, you agree that it may be edited by others. And secondly, I have no time to edit each and every article here. The reason I chose this one is that it was already organized in great parts, I just needed to incorporate a few more sections into the History section. 15:58, 19 November 2009 (EST)
 * Clearly you can see how it's noticeable that regardless of the excuses you seem to have come up with, you appear to be attacking my personal preferences and actions. As it is true the wiki's standard was not being followed, I find it interesting that you just happened to run into the problems on this page instead of the other pages like mentioned. I didn't mean to imply I was the only one who could edit this page, but I did mean to imply that your edits were unneeded. Still, one day I will get this format to change, and I WILL have my way. Nothing personal. Oh, and also, I'm going to show you exactly what you did wrong. You'll see, or you won't. Just leave me be and be happy with the fact you're basically still getting your way. I hope you're happy. FD09
 * Also, maybe you should check the contribution. I would say by logic I could be the only person allowed to edit this page, but that's irrelevant to the point. FD09
 * This is really getting personal here and I think we should continue this discussion on our user talk pages. But let me assure you that I do NOT intend to attack your personal preferences and actions. I'm sorry if I seem to be, and I admit that it looks like it from your point of view. First the proposal, now this, of course it looks to you like I am attacking you. But believe me, when I edited this article, I didn't even think about you. I already explained how I came to edit this article rather than Mario's or some other. So much for the personal issue. As a matter of fact, I'm in the right here. I followed the wiki policies, while the article's form you're defending does not. So the question can't be whether I had the "right" to edit the article; of course I had. The question is if it was something personal against you, and only I know that, and I assure you that it was not. Of course I can't prove that, I can just ask you to believe me.
 * Completely apart from that, I don't like you're attitude towards the wiki. No, you're NOT the only person allowed to edit this page, and you're NOT the only one to decide over the fate of the wiki. 16:31, 19 November 2009 (EST)
 * Maybe you should read more carefully. I said I COULD be the only person allowed to, not that I should or even at all that I am. Also, maybe you should go fix Luigi's or Toad's pages. They have other media sections but I checked recently and you haven't done anything there. Also, I don't like YOUR attitude to this wiki. Regardless of the fact a page might be better in a format that breaks the standard ( A BROKEN STANDARD ), you want it to follow that broken standard. FD09
 * All the time you failed to explain why you think the standard is broken. It's obvious that you don't like it, but what are your reasons? You should read more carefully too, I already explained why I haven't fixed Luigi's or Toad's pages. And I know you said you COULD be the only person allowed to edit the page, but assuming that is ridiculous enough. This is community work. 17:06, 19 November 2009 (EST)
 * All the time you failed to explain why you think the standard is broken. It's obvious that you don't like it, but what are your reasons? You should read more carefully too, I already explained why I haven't fixed Luigi's or Toad's pages. And I know you said you COULD be the only person allowed to edit the page, but assuming that is ridiculous enough. This is community work. 17:06, 19 November 2009 (EST)
 * Failed to explain to you why the standard is broken? For starters that was largely covered in the proposal you seemed to think you know so much about. If you recall the reason the proposal was taken away was because of the BROKEN STANDARD. How can you even act like the standard is not broken? Just go to my talk page and see what walkazo said. There's your explanation. Ridiculous huh? Regardless of the fact this is a community wiki and a group effort, "I" "ME" "FOREVERDAISY09" am largely and "majorly" responsible for this page and many others relating to it in many manners of speaking. I have hundreds more contributions to this article than even the next user.

AND, the idea that you don't understand why this standard is broken is literally laughable. I'm done discussing this with you, as long as we're pretty clear on our differences, and of course, the things you don't understand. FD09

I think both of you need to calm down, I mean seriously. It's quite obvious that you two have some type of personal conflict or whatever and if this edit that mashed all of the information into a complete pile of mess was just out of spite then, TimeQ, you really need to grow up (If your feud is in fact the cause). Anyway, I will agree with FD09 that your changes to follow such an unorganised standard of character page layouts was an extremely poor decision, especially considering Princess Daisy's page was laid out in an extremely well-structured manner prior to today's edit. FD09, I think your sense of ownership over this page is causing you to overreact somewhat so maybe you should just cool off for a while..? I mean, you don't really own this page. The wiki community has every right to edit it.

To wrap things up, this entire Wiki in general is a mess and I think, TimeQ, that you and the other Admins/Mods/whatever you are need to really come up with a good, and organised method of arranging these pages. FD09's proposal was a great idea and I don't know why it was revoked but this place needs to change. I am willing to offer my complete assistance if it's ever needed for restructuring if there is ever a decision to change the format. Toadine
 * As far as I recall the Proposal was nullified not because the idea was bad, but because we already had many structure-changing proposals over the time, which causes the wiki to follow four different organisation methods. The editors' concerns should be to uniformate all articles to one standard, rather than adding a fifth organisation pattern into the mess. If I remember this correctly, then that was what caused the proposal's reversion. - 17:23, 19 November 2009 (EST)
 * If you need your memory jotted, go to my talk page and walkazo's talk page and look at the discussion about it. I'm literally right now trying to tell walkazo that we need to make a new standard that does make everything work. That's what I've BEEN saying. I easily agreed to work on it, and that it could be done. FD09

I will not continue this discussion here. It has nothing to do with this specific article anymore. We should move it to the forums or our talk pages. 17:19, 19 November 2009 (EST)

Wait a minute. Since when did the Manual of Style become an enforced policy?-- 18:14, 19 November 2009 (EST)
 * If the Manual of Style is not an enforced policy, what is it then? Anyway, what is written in the Manual of Style was decided through a proposal, so basically it is an enforced policy. (Edit: Now I see what you meant. Still, the proposal still counts, so it's policy.) 18:17, 19 November 2009 (EST)

Shouldn't we create separate page for organization, since that part is enforced?-- 18:49, 19 November 2009 (EST)
 * Hm, I think so... or just make the Manual of Style an enforced policy. I was surprised to read that it wasn't already enforced. 19:00, 19 November 2009 (EST)

Cultural impact
I see that section incomplete with a under-construction label on it. It has passed a long time for somebody to help us with this and if we cannot fill that section then, I-ma afraid I gonna to unfeature the article by having a single section empty! D:
 * Pft, what? You'd have to unfeature it for having a single section that's incomplete? Regardless, it would be pretty stupid, no offense, to unfeature the article rather than temporarily remove the section. I'm just taking my time is all. There'll be some stuff there soon. FD09
 * Stupid? not sir, A featured article MUST not include any improvement label on it like rewrite, stubs, picture-needed or under-construction, meaning that the article is incomplete of sort. We have enough time to complete that info, but leaving it long enough, it is likely I have to unfeature the article for a single but significant defect.
 * Okay, you clearly don't get it. It would be silly to remove her article from featured status, temporarily even, just because one section is presently flawed. The point isn't even that though, the point is you could simply remove this section temporarily so as to solve this minor issue. Yet you seem to think going as far as removing the article from featured status is the answer. Do you get it? Look, just contact me if you plan to do something "brash" and make sure I get back to you on it first, because I'll remove it myself for the time being if that's what it takes to satisfy your reasoning. FD09

Quotes section for Daisy's article
I've been checking through this section of the article, and with all due respect - I find it to be overly long. Before I attempt to do maintenance on this, aren't a majority of those same quotes on other "List of Quotes" articles for the Mario game articles themselves here? --M. C. - "Mario Gals" Fan! User Page | Talk Page 14:32, 11 December 2009 (EST)

I wouldn't really know consideirng those articles "suck" and last time I checked them they didn't have Daisy's quotes. lol Explain this to me though, since when did you figure there was a limit to the size of the quotes section? User:ForeverDaisy09


 * I didn't say there was a limit; I was hoping to keep the "more memorable" ones in regards to Daisy's persona. And there are a few that need to be spared, obviously. Right now, it's like a HUGE database of every single quote that Daisy has said in the game installments, the majority being something that just about any character in the Mario series would say. --M. C. - "Mario Gals" Fan! User Page | Talk Page 21:30, 11 December 2009 (EST)
 * Alright, as long as the articles actually have the quotes you remove and you keep the good ones I don't see an issue. User:ForeverDaisy09