MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/12



Splitting the Capsule article
SPLIT 14-0

There's something strange around here: The capsule from SSB and the capsule from Mario Party series are merged INTO ONE ARTICLE, but, THEY'RE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT! I think we shoud split in into two articles: Orb, because it IS the Mario Party Capsule; and Capsule (SSB). Now you see, Orb is the redirect page, but this mustn't be a redirect; instead, the remaining article after the split will be an disambiguation of course. Still thinking to remain it so? There are reasons to split it:


 * 1) They look different (SSB capsules are looking like those medicine capsules (look at the Megavitamin), MP capsules and orbs are just... round capsules. You can even see what in a MP capsule/orb contains, never in a capsule).
 * 2) They ALSO work different, even because the game style differs (Orbs and MP capsules are placed on spaces, SSB capsules can be thrown anywhere).
 * 3) Effects are different TOO (SSB capsule: 1 o' the 8 chance it explodes, other seven will contain items, MP capsules and orbs will change the selected space in a Character Space, which effect will start when been stopped on).
 * 4) Color variations (The SSB capsule will always stay White/Red, the MP capsule/orb has a transperent part and a part which differs what for sort effect it has).

Have I proven truth now? Do you think so as I? Give your own opinion.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Arend}} Deadline: December 11, 2008, 17:00

Support

 * 1) - Per myself, of course
 * 2) - Per Arend.
 * 3) - The merging of two subjects who share a name but are different characters is something we should be combating per the results of the Star Rod proposal awhile back.
 * 4) - Per all
 * 5) - Per all.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) - Per Stumpers and Arend.
 * 8) - Per Arend, but they should be split in 3 pages, (Orb, Capsule (MP5) and Capsule (SSB))
 * 9) - Per all.
 * 10) - Per all. Why are two completely different things merged into on article?
 * 11) - Per all, especially our good old friend Logic.
 * 12) - Per all, especially Arend.
 * 13) - Per all!!
 * 14) Per all, mah boi!

Comments
To Tucayo: An Orb is just a different name for a Capsule, just as Toadstool is a different name for Peach, and we don't have an article for "Toadstool" and an article for "Peach." -- }}

Super Mario Amada Series
SPLIT 9-0

We currently have an article entitled Super Mario Amada Series that encompasses three works: Super Mario Momotaro, Super Mario Issunboshi, and Super Mario Snow White. Each was released in separate tapes and were not part of one grander three part serial, but were rather separate stories. Each was just shy of 20 minutes long, rivaling each full episode of The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! in length. Now, take into account that each of those episodes currently has two articles: one for the live-action segment and one for the cartoon. Thus, the three subjects are certainly notable enough for their own articles. I should note, only Issunboshi is long enough as it stands not to be considered a stub, but each video's article could easily be made as long. Thus, I propose we split the article into: Super Mario Momotaro, Super Mario Issunboshi, and Super Mario Snow White.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Stumpers}} Deadline: December 12, 2008, 20:00

Support

 * 1) - See my reasoning above.
 * 2) - They are part of a series of three individual cartoons, just as the Paper Mario series is made up of three individual games.
 * 3) Per all. These cartoons are all based on different fairly tale stories  and they are individual not the same, so these article should be spilt.
 * 4) - Per all. Not many people have watched the movies, but there's still enough information out there to make decent articles if we're willing to work at it.
 * 5) - Per all.
 * 6) - Per all, every episode tells a different story.
 * 7) - Per Stumpers.
 * 8) Alex25 - Per all.
 * 9) - Per all. Lawl, I wrote that section! :3 The Issunboshi one. :P

Comments
As an aside, the name of the article is fan-made as far as I know: Amada is the name of the company that produced them and "Super Mario Amada" was a term used by TheMushroomKingdom.net. The intro to Momotaro calls itself, "Super Mario Momotaro." If this proposal does not pass, we still need to change the title of the article. }}

Split Adventure Mode Enemies (SSBM) and Subspace Army into individual articles
KEEP MERGED 4-6

This proposal would give individual enemies listed in each of theses their own pages, reversing this previous decision. I am proposing this for several reasons. First, according to Canonicity, there is no official canon, so we should not discriminate between different types of enemies in the greater Mario franchise. Additionally, the Importance Policy says there are no restrictions on the number of articles that can be made for each sub-series or cross-over series. Fifty detailed articles (including descriptions, attacks, behaviors, locations, etc.) is better than a sub-par list that limits our knowledge of what some users may see as vital subjects. We should not be prejudiced against different series connected to the main Mario series; they are all equal in the wiki, and some users may find such information valuable. Why should their way of consuming the greater Mario franchise be denied by the wiki? A few articles about fifty or so Smash Bros. enemies is not going to overwhelm the wiki with Smash Bros. content, seeing that there is probably over a thousand Mario enemy articles, enemies that might have less information than the Smash Bros. enemies could potentially have. Plus we still have articles on all the Smash Bros. stages and items, so why not enemies? In the end all these enemies will be separated into their Smash Bros. related categories, so such information will still be separated from the main group of Mario enemies.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Son of Suns}} Deadline: December 13, 2008, 20:00

Support

 * 1) - Because I believe in a Mario Wiki that is open to various ways of appreciating the greater Mario franchise.
 * 2) - Per SoS.
 * 3) - Though there was a proposal to merge the Adventure mode enemies in one, I'm on this side.
 * 4) Per SoS.

Oppose

 * 1) - This is a Wiki designed for the Mario universe.  Enemies that have no involvement in the Mario universe should not have separate articles (ReDeads, Octoroks, Like Likes, Topis, Polar Bears, Subspace Army).  I know this, because I once did an article for a minor non-Mario character (Panther Caroso and Leon Powalski to name a few) and got in trouble for doing it.  If this were the Smash Wiki however, THEN it would be a different story.
 * 2) - I've visited many other videogame wikis, and I noticed one thing.  Super Mario Wiki goes into more depth over cross-overs than any other videogame wiki I know.  For example, the Zelda wiki does not have an article for Mario even though he appeared in all three Smash Bros. Games with Link, Nintendo Monopoly with Link, a cameo appearance with Link in Captain Rainbow, and had a few cameo appearances in Zelda games. Besides, if one wanted to look up Smash brothers enemies, wouldn't it make more sense to look it up on the smashwiki?
 * 3) - Per all. We are a Mario Wiki, and we need to show more focus on the Mario series than any other. Covering all things in the Donkey Kong, Yoshi, and Wario series are perfectly fine because they are extremely closely tied with the Mario series, but the Super Smash Bros. series is more of a Nintendo series than it is an actual Mario series. Certain Mario aspects may be found within the Super Smash Bros., sure, but those games aren't anymore tied with the Mario series than than they are with the Metal Gear, Metroid, and Zelda series.
 * 4) Per all. We arn't the Smash Bros wiki or Nintendopedia.
 * 5) - Per all. There may not be an official canon surrounding the games, but there is a difference between Mario (et al.) titles and Super Smash Bros. I'm also worried this might open the floodgate to many MORE articles about outer-series aspects found in SSB. There's still so much that needs to be done about our Mario content, and we should focus on that before getting side-tracked with SSB stuff.
 * 6) - Per all. I am aware I was the one who fought for making individual articles on SSB content in the past, but now I realize that we were putting TOO MUCH focus on the SSB series. Special moves are definitely more important than individual SSB-restricted enemies, but they were still merged with their respective character articles. So, yeah, I think SSB-restricted enemies should all be merged into one article so we don't become too much of a Mario (featuring Super Smash Bros.) Wiki.

Comments
Haven't there already been heaps of discussions about this very topic?
 * Yes, there were. There was a proposal for merging the enemies, which passed.
 * This proposal would reverse that decision. --
 * So that previous Proposal is now being undone - making the first one pointless... ooooooookay then... 0_o
 * Wikis are about change. We don't always get things right the first time around. --
 * SoS is right. Our main Page was also different first, and we had an older logo.
 * It's like everything is a paradoxical enigma... my computer chip brain hurts. Reversing a decision does not bring back wasted time, I'm just saying that. I have nothing against the Proposal, in case that's what you thought.
 * Might I suggest adding a link to the SmashWiki on those pages if this proposal doesn't pass? We'd be linking to another wiki that supplies a lot of information on the SSB series, which would help people realize that we should focus more on the Mario series. ...But, again, this is just a suggestion in case the proposal doesn't pass.
 * Good idea. External linking is always a good move, especially when it's to our fellow Wikis (who knows, maybe they'll even return the favour some day). -


 * If we really wanted to support our "fellow" wikis, we would move all our content to Wikia. Wikia would allow easy access between different wikis on Mario series, the Donkey Kong series and Smash Bros.  However, since we are an independent wiki, we have the option of building an inclusive community that encompasses a wide variety of series around a central concept (in our case Mario).  Smash Bros. is one part of this greater concept, and it doesn't serve the needs of our users to direct them to wikis not about Mario when we could easily support such content here. --

We have content about Itadaki Street DS, Captain Rainbow, and Doki Doki Panic all games very loosely tied to the Mario series. However we cover them all though Mario has much stronger ties to Super Smash Bros. than any of these games. Without Mario, we would not have Super Smash Bros. He is the core franchise of the series, and we are doing a great disservice to the Mario series, Nintendo, and this wiki by limiting article creation of Smash Bros. subjects. Again, users not interested in Smash Bros. do not have to read or edit these articles, and they will always be in their strict categories. You don't have to accept Smash Bros. as "canonical." However, since Nintendo has not stated what is canonical and what is not, many users may feel that Smash Bros. is strongly tied to Mario, and this connection becomes an important part of engagement with both series. By giving importance to one type of enemy over another, we are disempowering users and potential new writers. I strongly believe allowing users to work on more Super Smash Bros. articles is of greater benefit to the Mario Wiki and the content of the main Mario articles. It is not becoming "side-tracked" as Walkazo describes it, but invites users with special knowledge into the wiki, knowledge they can apply to both Smash Bros. articles and Mario articles. While someone's main interests may be in Smash Bros., they may also be big fans of the Mario series. However, if we say Smash Bros. is unimportant, then these writers will be less inclined to work on our wiki, both Smash Bros. and Mario content. On the other hand, if we open up our wiki to others, we can create an even better database of Mario knowledge, and foster a more inclusive Mario community. --
 * SSB already has more coverage than those three crossovers. We only have articles on Captain Rainbow and Doki Doki Panic themselves, not on the non-Mario aspects they include (as far as I've found). As for Itadaki Street DS, aside from the game's article we have pages about the playable characters (same as SSB), other characters that affect gameplay (pretty much the equivalent of Assist Trophies), and nothing more. As for "disempowering" people, there's nothing stopping them from writing nice big sections in a greater article about the non-Mario enemies. We're not saying SSB is unimportant, we're saying it's less important than Mario, and seeing as we're the Super Mario Wiki, that's not an unreasonable judgement-call. And if someone does get offended by that, do we really want them (and their stinky attitude) in our community? -


 * We have already established that Super Smash Bros. is of "lesser importance" than Mario according to the Importance Policy, but the importance policy also states that this not mean that the number of articles for particular series can be regulated. And I am very offended by your last comment, as it infers that some people are lesser, that they have a "stinky attitude," just because they want more recognition for a particular part of the greater Mario series (Super Smash Bros. is even included in the chronological overview of our Mario (series) article).  We should be open to lots of different people with different views, not labelling them and judging them.  We should be an accepting community, not a close-minded one that leaves out others because it does not match what "we" really want (whoever this supposedly unified "we" is anyways). What is important to the "Mario" series is not clear-cut, but a relative concept.  Indeed Subspace Emissary enemies may be more connected to Mario then the enemies of other related series, including the Donkey Kong and Wario series.  Subspace Emissary enemies actually worked alongside Bowser, and his Goombas and Koopas - that is they are explicitly connected to the main antagonist of the Mario series.  Many enemies from the Donkey Kong series and Wario series can't make a similar claim.  Mario and Smash Bros. are extremely interconnected.  Even the name Super Smash Bros. is directly related to Super Mario Bros.  These connections are very important, and I believe this wiki should not be effacing such connections. --
 * Just for information: The name Super Smash Bros. was made up for the western market, the original name only shares the word "Bros." (in tons of franchise names) with Super Mario Bros. (Dairantō Smash Brothers, literally "Great Melee Smash Brothers", is the franchise's Japanese name). Sorry for nitpicking, I couldn't resist. ;-) --Grandy02 12:44, 13 December 2008 (EST)


 * Haha, no problem. Nitpicking is a good thing!  Regardless, I still think the two series are extremely interconnected.  Oh, and Grandy02, you may have noticed that I changed the Adventure Mode Enemies article to not be a simple list of trophy information.  I think Stumpers said in an earlier proposal about merging SSB special moves that we can't lose content through the merge.  So I remerged that "lost" content back into the Adventure Mode Enemies article.  At the very least, regardless if we are divided on whether SSB elements should have individual articles or not, the content of the series should not be compromised.  As individual articles or as one larger merged article, we should provide as much detailed content as possible for all related subjects. =) --

}}

The 'Shroom
KEEP IT 3-15

This wouldn't be a full "removal" per say, that is – we wouldn't delete all of the pages, but maybe put a cascading protection on all of them, so it would end up being a joyful anachronism...

But let's be honest. Only 1/9 articles besides Director-related stuff was put in on time yesterday. Ever since I quit Directors don't do what they're supposed to do – recruit new writers, as the current director would say, AGGRESSIVELY, and not firing the ones that can't meet a deadline. All of this has led to declined activity the past two months, making it a shame to the sidebar. It's time to make it a thing of the past.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Wayoshi}} Deadline: 14 December, 15:00

Bai-Bai Nao

 * 1) – All in all...there is little need, demand or even care for the entire project now.
 * 2) Per Wayoshi. Failed project is failed.
 * 3) Per all.

Me No Wantz It 2 Go

 * 1) - I wasn't the greatest or more authoritative director YESH YESH YESH, but that's no excuse to penalize possible competent directors or the users who posted their sections in timely manner. Beside, considering comments you left some times ago, I am fairly sure you're only doing this to troll me.
 * 2) - Per Blitz.
 * 3) Per all. Long live The 'Shroom!!! They're still users that read and also work on The 'Shroom.
 * 4) - If it isn't hurting anyone, why should the 'Shroom end? Besides, life and other Wiki needs should come before the Shroom, so I think you can excuse the majority of my fellow writers who, like me, have finals coming up or in process.  I know that's why my Travel Guide isn't in (not to mention the Mama Mario article)
 * 5) - Per my comment below.
 * 6) - Per my comment below.
 * 7) - All our hard work gone? That's depressing, even for an emo like me :_: Also read my comment below.
 * 8) - Per Stooben's comment below.
 * 9) - Per all. Just because people hand it in late, doesn't mean we have to shut down the whole project. (Amost) Everyone gets it in at some point, and having it in late is better than not having it in at all.
 * 10) - Per Luigi001
 * 11) - Per Blitzwing. The 'Shroom is pretty important at times.
 * 12) - Per Blitz and Stooben's commentary
 * 13) - Per all.
 * 14) - I've never been late for the shroom (there was an error regrarding the forum, but still) we try our hardest, mbut we do have other things to do in our lives. As long as I still get my warning, I think the Shroom will be fine.
 * 15) - Why would we do this? It's a disgrace to people who put lots of work into it!

Comments
So, this proposal is just about firing the people who cannot meet the deadline, and protecting all the 'Shroom pages? Nvm, Wayo told me that we will stop creating issues and protect the old ones. So the 'Shroom will go down. I need some time to think my vote over :/ -
 * Right – I simply mentioned that the failure to fire incompetent writers led to this proposal. 12:49, 7 December 2008 (EST)
 * Wut!! Firing all the people who cannot meet the deadline but what if they're just an few hours late or a day late. Wut!!!! Closing down Teh 'Shroom but...

I'd like to point out that most sections weren't late yesterday: It was my own failure to update the page in a timely manner, which I apologize for.

Also, I must that making this proposal during the elector direction is the best/worst fraking lack of timing I ever saw. --Blitzwing 12:57, 7 December 2008 (EST)

A) I've been thinking about this for awhile, so this isn't a personal attack or any c-rap like that. B) There's no point to give a new director a chance, because the pieces are now all too disjointed. 13:09, 7 December 2008 (EST)
 * ...I don't really see the point in doing this. The 'Shroom was made as a community activity for any willing users to participate in. If users don't send in their sections, they get fired – unless, of course, they have a good reason for not sending it in. So maybe all of the sections aren't getting sent in on time, or even at all. That's not entirely the Director's fault; a large part of the blame should go to that section's writer, (unless, like I said, they have a good reason for NOT sending in their section(s).) I for one, have always sent in my sections on time, except for when I was on hiatus. Why is this? Because I think that The 'Shroom is a vital part in bringing the community together. I make my sections unique to make the readers feel more welcomed to other parts of the paper. If we have users that don't send in their sections without a good reason, then they need to be replaced by more responsible users. Sometimes, life gets in the way of things: You have to remember, almost all members of The 'Shroom are kids, so they have to worry about school, homework, chores, they could be grounded, they have friends, whatever. Life gets in the way, and that's understandable. If it's something as simple as "I didn't feel up to doing it this month", then they aren't an extremely responsible party. Getting rid of The 'Shroom will likely make a huge dent in the community of this site. While encyclopedic efforts are our number-one priority on this site, (no doubt), we wouldn't have an encyclopedia if it weren't for our members. And if our members didn't communicate between each other, or see what one another is capable of, then our encyclopedic intake would drop dramatically. The effort one puts in his or her section can also be looked at for what they could do as a Sysop. If their sections are neatly-written, are sent in on time (or a little late with good reason), and they show a good amount of responsibility, that can be looked at as a sort of key to what they could do as a Sysop – of course, they would have to follow the other guidelines. Nonetheless, The 'Shroom is a great part of this site, and it makes it really unique from all other wikis out there...especially all other Mario Wikis. Let a new director have a chance; maybe things will clear up a little more. IMO, The 'Shroom could be in a lot worse place than it is now. -- 15:43, 7 December 2008 (EST)
 * St00by made a lot of good points, but I see your point too Wayoshi. Sure, the Shroom's popularity and amount of coverage has been declining, but rather than shut it down completely I just think that a few major changes have to be made. First of all, every writer that has been tardy with their articles repeatedly, which nowadays is just about everyone, should be replaced. And we're also having a new director election at present, and a new director could obviously help with the release enforcement problems you mentioned. So I think a new director, new writers, and a redesigned community newspaper can effectively restore the 'Shrooms popularity. After all, Mariowiki is doing nothing but grow, so if we can restore the newspaper to its former glory it will be twice as popular as it ever was. Definitely worth keeping it around for a while. 23:37, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Question: Which section was the only one put in on time yesterday? Was it mine? Because I put it in myself as Blitzwing hadn't got round to it yet... Also, if we improve it then surely more readers will be interested... won't they?

InfectedShroom: I do read The 'Shroom.

He's not the only one. Sheese appreciate the facts that some users read The 'Shroom. (And maybe guest now and then read The 'Shroom)

I read it too. I would join if there were anything open, so there is still care.

The 'Shroom/Sign Up There are a few spots open.


 * Eh, fine. You all are right. I'll go all indifferent and remove my vote. :P

Answer:The 'Shroom/XXII/FTMV was the first thing added to this month's 'Shroom.
 * Thankyou for answering. Does that mine was the second section submitted!? Huh?
 * Nope. Yours wasn't turn in second. MarioWiki:The 'Shroom/XXII/Good Game, Bad Game was turn in second.

}}

Mario Cameos Outside of Mario Games Page
NO "CAMEOS" PAGE 1-8

I have recently been reading a lot of online stuff and watching a lot of television stuff. Also I have been playing some non Mario and non Nintendo games seeing Mario and other characters appearances. I think that we should make a page that states the cameos of all the Mario characters in Telivision and other Game Media. Please support me in this.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer Luigibros2 Deadline December 23, 2008, 17:00

Oppose

 * 1) - I oppose for a number of reasons. First, we already have those pages - References, Video game references, Television references, etc. Second, besides those references made by Nintendo, all others are unofficial, and unless they are extremely notable, we don't need to keep track of everything.  References made by other companies and fans are just as unofficial, and they either shouldn't be covered by this wiki or every piece of Mario fan work should also be included.
 * 2) - Per Son of Suns. I don't really think appearances outside of Nintendo franchises can necessarily be considered official, unless permission was given to that party by Nintendo.
 * 3) - Per Son of Suns.
 * 4) - I agree with Son of Suns - how would this be different from references.
 * 5) - Per SoS. We should only allow official stuff published by official people, if you know what i'm saying.
 * 6) - Per Son of Suns.
 * 7) - Per Son of Suns.
 * 8) Per all.

Comments
SOs not fan work there would be waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to much I'm only talking about like the game apperances and T.V.-- 13:09, 16 December 2008 (EST)


 * But what's the difference between a reference in a piece of distributed fan work and a reference in a piece of distributed work made by a non-Nintendo company? Both are unofficial. --
 * The Difference is - You said it yourself - One of reference is in a "Distributed work made by another company", which is more relevant than a random newground flash. I swear this whole "not official guuurrrrrr" hysteria will ends with the Hotel Mario and Mario Bros. Special articles being delete since they're not made by Nintendo and thus are not official (AKA: Nebulously defined criteria used to exclude everything the one who used it doesn't like). -- 15:42, 16 December 2008 (EST)
 * I thought things were considered official (on this site) as long as they were licensed by Nintendo.


 * Exactly. The difference is those two games were authorized by Nintendo (I believe).  Work by fans and random references by whoever are not necessarily authorized.  Why is a work distributed by another company more relevant than a flash animation?  I'm sure more people know about Super Mario Bros. Z than the "Video Games" song by KJ-52. That piece of fan flash animation has a greater impact on how the Mario series is viewed than some random song by a band no one has heard of.  Plus Super Mario Bros. Z is copyrighted material to Alvin Earthworm and Nintendods Productions.  How is that different than any other company? Fan works are being leaved out of this wiki because they are not considered official, or "nebulously defined criteria used to exclude everything the one who used it doesn't like." --

The one that should go is Publications References, at least the cover part, i mean, its not relevant that Mario appeared in a cover, and we shouldnt be including all the covers Mario appears in, because Mario has appeared like in 100 covers in the Mexican Club Nintendo, and we are not going to include them all, are we?
 * Agree, also wondered about the cover references. There are countless magazine issues all over the world which had Mario on the cover. --Grandy02 09:53, 17 December 2008 (EST)

}}

Merge Arwing and Wolfen
KEEP SPLIT 0-5

Where do I begin with this one? First off, the Arwing and Wolfen aren't Mario related at all (or part of the sub-species). They should be removed all together. But I digress, it is part of the Super Smash Bros. games. However, the Wolfen is VERY obscure. It only barely appears as a platform in the Venom stage of Super Smash Bros. Melee (it is so obsceure that I thought it was just another Arwing). Therefore, I propose that the Wolfen should be put as a sub-article in the Arwing Article.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Jaffffey}} Deadline: December 23, 17:00

Oppose

 * 1) - First, you are ignoring the other functions of Wolfen.  They also shoot fighters in the Corneria stage and is part of Wolf's entrance. Second, even though you don't think they are different, to some users (like me) they are very different subjects and would not make sense to have one as the sub-section of another.  A Wolfen is not a type of Arwing, nor is an Arwing a type of Wolfen.  While Paragoomba would make sense merged as a section of the Goomba article, as they are related species, the same cannot be said for Arwings and Wolfens, as they are not related.
 * 2) - While I would support a motion to merge minor cross-over topics, such as both the Wolfen and Arwing, into series pages (so, "Subjects from Star Fox series" or something), I don't support the merging of specialized cases such as this proposal is advocating.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) Correct me if i am wrong, but arn't arwings for  the Star Fox team and wolfens for the Star Wolf team? If so, they are two different "species" even if they look alike. Dooplis and duplighosts look alike and act alkie but they have different persinalitys. This is almost the same case in wolfen and arwing, as they are used by different people.
 * 5) - Per Stumpers.

Comments
"Not Related"? ... Well, they're two kind of spaceships that appears in the same series, they do the exact same thing and appears in the exact same places. Seems pretty related to me. --Blitzwing 17:03, 16 December 2008 (EST)


 * My point is you can't say one is the off-shoot of the other, so how can you merge them under one title (which you could do with all the Goomba sub-species and the Goomba article)? According to the official trophy descriptions, they are two different types of starship. --


 * List of Starships in Super Smash Brothers Brawl, which could draw in a few other articles as well. --

}}

A little out of control
NO "RE-ENFORCEMENT" OF RULES 1-6

I'm pretty sure it was stated that rules for a signature image requested that they be easy on the eyes (nothing particularly distracting) and be within a certain size, correct? Well, I'm not pointing fingers at anyone directly but a lot of users actually have either large signature images that break up text lines or distracting gifs. It hasn't been a major problem for me, but it might become one in the future. In short; I think that if gifs are to be allowed in a signature, the rules should be reinforced and the gif should not be especially distracting.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Leirin}} Deadline: December 24, 2008, 17:00

Support

 * 1) - Per my reasons above.

Oppose

 * 1) Sorry to inject some reality into this proposal, but who is to decide what is distracting and what is not? Sorry, I mean it was a good idea and all because some sigs can be annoying, but what rule could be made to prevent "distracting sigs"? I think you need to make this proposal a lot more specific.
 * 2) Per Glitchman.
 * 3) - Per Glitchman.
 * 4) - Per Glitchman and my comment below of it being too much effort for too little of a benefit.
 * 5) - Per all, if you were a bit more specific, then maybe I would reconsider my vote.
 * 6) - Per all, a sig is merely for fun. and who really minds if its distracting? It's not like every one has to be 100% focused.

Comments
I'm sorry, but this proposal needs to be rewritten to be much more specific. Please give us some objective qualities to vote on, please: just saying we need to enforce rules more will not do anything, pass or fail.
 * To Leirin: The fact that a lot of users have "distracting gifs" or "overlarge images", whatever in they're sigs is not something that needs a proposal solely as a way to tell the Sysops to enforce the rules. We try to handle as many problems as we can, and frankly, breaking signature rules minimally doesn't reach the top of our list of problems. Just remember that you too can tell people that their sig is violating the PI policy. If they give you any problems or refuse to fix their sig, report the problem to a Sysop. We're doing the best we can to keep things in check, and a big movement we made was allowing only the use of on this page, and not sigs. If a signature has broken coding, violates policy, just let us know. There are around 4,000 sigs on this site, and for the Sysops to ensure that every one of them is in check is asking a bit much of us. We have a lot of encyclopedic and administrative duties to take care of, so what we can do with our free time is very limited.
 * I've never heard of a bigger hyperbole on this site – the correct number of signatures is approximately 400. 23:55, 21 December 2008 (EST)
 * IT'S OVER 9,000! But seriously, in defense of Stoobs, it would be rather difficult. Oh, and one question (completely unrelated to this proposal...): can we use our sigs on FA nomination pages? Or not?
 * There may be over 9,000 Users, but most of them don't have sigs. In response to your question, from what I've seen, everyone who has them's been signing the FA and Poll nomination pages with their sigs; I'm pretty sure the rule's only for this page, though that does beg the question, "why?" Like the Proposals, the Poll page might benefit from -only signing; also, having the rule on one voting page and not the other seems a little strange. However, it'd be too hard to enforce the rule if it were applied to FA nominations, because there's so many seperate pages, whereas here the rules and the content are all together. Time stamps also might be beneficial on the FA pages when it comes to removing outdated votes, so disallowing ~ might be a bad idea. Same with Talk:Main Page - it may get onerous after a while, but regulating the sigs there would not work out. -
 * Ah. Thanks. :D

}}

Replace the current Importance Policy
ADOPT NEW POLICY 12-0 This proposal would replace the current Importance Policy with a less hierarchical, more inclusive policy based on Canonicity. The proposed new policy can be found here: New Importance Policy. This would serve as the basis for the new policy and could be revised as necessary.

As you can tell, the current Importance Policy is extremely convoluted, as we are trying to base our wiki on levels of connections between series, which itself is a highly speculative act. Based on the chart, series such as Mario Kart may actually be of "secondary" importance, as it is a spin-off of the main Mario series, while WarioWare would be of "tertiary" importance, as it is a spin-off of a spin-off (Mario series to Wario Land series to WarioWare series), and the new Pyoro series would be of "quaternary" importance, as it would be a spin-off of a spin-off of a spin-off. As you can tell, this gets extremely subjective based on your own personal point of view. We should have a more flexible policy that does not establish superficial "levels" or "ranks" of importance. Just as there is no recognized canon, we should not have a hierarchy of supposed importance. Instead this new policy establishes what is and what is not allowed based on all official sources approved by Nintendo, and also allows for "less connected" subjects to be merged, organized, etc. as deemed necessary by the community. Ultimately I feel this new policy makes more logical sense than our old policy.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Son of Suns}} Deadline: December 30, 2008, 17:00

Support

 * 1) -- Per my reasons stated above.
 * 2) - Per SoS (now I wish I hadn't revised that Importance Policy image since it's outdated, but oh well).
 * 3) Per SoS
 * 4) - should remove more speculation on "canon"
 * 5) - Per SoS and Cobold. As long as this won't flood the place with Banjo and Conker articles, I'm fine with it (series pages are just fine).
 * 6) - Per Walkazo. And if it clears anything up about my vocality on this matter, I'm not new user. I'm InfectedShroom who got a name change.
 * 7) - Per SoS, we need new importance policy. It lasted us 3 years, almost, I guess, it's time for a change.
 * 8) - Per SoS, the current policy is just plain ridiculous (okay, not everything, but you know what I mean). This new one looks much better.
 * 9) - SOS, Look at the weather! Partly cloudy with a chance of good ideas!
 * 10) - Per Son of Suns. A lot of sections in the Importance Policy are either highly outdated, or conflicts with statements made earlier in that page, or in other rules enforced throughout the site. If we change the Importance Policy to be more explanatory, and more accepting to partner series, writing will be much clearer for new users, as well as older ones that have seen big changes.
 * 11) - Per SoS
 * 12) - Yep. Per SoS.

Comments
Perhaps I am mistaken, but I believe that this proposal breaks one of the rules for proposals. Your New Importance Policy says "...we cover all franchises, series, games, etc. that have emerged from or spun-off from the original Donkey Kong arcade game, Mario's first appearance in any media. This includes all Nintendo-authorized video games about Mario, Donkey Kong, Wario, Yoshi, Banjo, Conker...." The last rule for proposals says "...no proposals calling for the creation of Banjo, Conker, or Sonic series articles are allowed..." So, doesn't this need to be changed?


 * This proposal is not calling for the creation of Banjo or Conker content, as such content is already allowed under Canonicity and is available on the wiki.  This proposal would only clarify the rules regarding such content. Personally I feel that rule should be eliminated, but this proposal is not calling for the mass creation of Banjo and Conker articles, which is banned by the rule based on previous failed proposals. --

Ah, thanks for clearing that up for me. I will still have to think my vote over for a bit though.

I would like suggest that the Importance Policy should be moved to MarioWiki:Coverage if this passes since the phrase "Importance Policy" seems to call upon classes and rankings, and coverage implies more of classless, equal information (which is what we're going for here). 12:40, 23 December 2008 (EST)
 * Soooo.... Please excuse my stupidity; would this proposal allow the "...mass creation of Banjo and Conker articles..." on the wiki? It seems to me that it would. Canonicity says nothing particular about Banjo and Conker. Or maybe I'm completely missing the point, which is entirely possible.
 * It would allow individual articles on the Mario, Donkey Kong, Yoshi, Wario, Banjo, Conker, and Pyoro series equally, so, yes it would. However, the Banjo and Conker articles can only be ones that Nintendo authorized, so Conker: Live and Reloaded and Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts and Bolts would have no place here other than some mentions in other articles. 13:26, 23 December 2008 (EST)
 * Got it. So, just trying to clarify here, but we would include information on Banjo-Kazooie, Banjo-Tooie, and Conker: Bad Fur Day, among others. Is this correct?

Actually we already have articles about the Banjo (series) and the Conker (series), which is the minimum requirement that can be allowed under the new Canonicity (which was re-written after the former proposals passed). Any content from an officially licensed Nintendo game (Banjo-Kazooie, Banjo-Tooie, Banjo-Pilot, Banjo-Kazooie: Grunty's Revenge, Conker's Pocket Tales, and Conker's Bad Fur Day) is allowed, but not content from Conker: Live & Reloaded and Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts - those would count as unofficial appearances, but would be notable enough for some mention in a trivia section or a summary at the end of the series articles or something like that. And this proposal would not explicitly allow the mass creation of Banjo and Conker articles. We can add as much official content to the wiki, but that does not mean the creation of articles. So if this passes, separating the merged Banjo series and Conker series may require a seperate proposal, or a discussion on their respective talk pages. This proposal only reinforces that such content is allowed, but not the form it takes (i.e. merged series article vs. individual articles), as the last section in the new policy discusses. Basically, content is okay, but whether everything in the series gets individual articles, categories and templates is a matter that will have to be resolved later. At the very minimum we would have the general series page with individual entries on characters, items, etc. -- P.S. And yes, "Coverage" is a better term than "Importance Policy."
 * Alright. It's clear now. Thank you.

Son of Suns: there's a couple holes in your argument against the Importance Policy Chart. As explained in the text of the Importance Policy Page, "Mario" meant everything that had "Mario" in the title (including Mario Kart, etc.,) not just the mainstream Mario titles; it also infers WarioWare is covered under Wario, so in that case, Pyoro would still be a tertiary game. I'd also like to point out something that no one (to my knowledge) has addressed: Banjo and Conker aren't from a "Donkey Kong" title, but from Diddy Kong Racing; so by your argument, they'd be quaternary, just like Pyoro (though I'm still siding with the Importance Page and saying they're tertiary, and Diddy Kong Racing secondary). However, I totally agree that the "Importance Levels" are a bad way to try and organize the Wiki (I especially don't like how the crossovers are quaternary, as they are at least as important at the spin-spin-offs (Banjo, et al.), in my opinion). I think this would be a better way to go about things, but I also think the Banjo, Conker and Pyoro aspect should be clarified a bit more. The aforementioned chart had much to be desired, but the nebulous nature of this new policy means it is wide open to interpretation, which we do not want; if we're going to enact a new policy, we should know exactly what will happen and what will or will not be created. I'm all for series pages and Banjo, Conker and Pyoro content therein, but this opens a back-door to creating individual articles down the road - something I'm against. My reasoning, and my own suggested "Coverage Chart" can be seen here. There are no levels of importance, but Banjo, Conker and Pyoro are allotted less coverage on the grounds that they aren't as interconnected with the other Mario series. I also discuss an enhanced coverage of crossovers, but I am fine with your own suggested method - my only beef is with the uncertain future of Banjo, Conker and Pyoro content. -
 * OK, just a small interjection here: why are we thinking so much into the Pyoro "series?" The so called series is simply a recurring minigame of the WarioWare series. Yes, I do know that it will soon have it's own game in the DSi Ware thing (for, what, 300 points?), but I still don't think that it will ever become it's own freely standing series. We are thinking way too far into the future, if you ask me. Also, I think that, as a recurring minigame and not a series, we should include as much information on it as we can. I mean, what other wiki will have information on it? Just my thoughts.


 * Also, I removed my vote because I'm having trouble deciding. I actually like the "...extremely convoluted...superficial "levels" or "ranks" of importance..." and the "...hierarchy of supposed importance..." Call me an idiot or whatever, but I'll decide later.
 * I think the real issue is about (as always) Banjo and Conker, but this whole thing was brought up again when an issue about the Pyoro game was brought-up, here. Since they're all in the same boat as far as spin-spin-offs go, we're now including Pyoro when we discuss Banjo and Conker. -

I feel we (or at least I) do want interpretation. I do want flexibility. I do want the ability to change the wiki as needed by the community without recreating policies every couple months. The problem with a few past proposals and policies is that they dictate a certain way articles must be created/organized based on random criteria. This proposal is more flexible in order to accomodate the needs of the changing community. This proposal would only reinforce the Banjo and Conker series pages - if a majority of users would later want to create individual articles, so be it. That should not be denied because you personally feel they should not be created. The matter should be subject to a democratic vote, not a dictatorial policy. As we have not had any proposals on Pyoro, as many articles about that mini-series can be created, unless the communty decides otherwise. Perhaps they will be merged on day. Perhaps not. Perhaps Banjo will be unmerged and Conker will stay merged. I feel it should be for the wiki to decide on an individual basis, not based on a strict policy, which leads to assuming certain series are more important than others (which your Coverage Chart does on some level by placing series under other series and thus should not have more artcles - it is very similar to the current speculative Importance Policy). The decision for article creation should not be part of an official policy, but community decision (based on proposals, talk pages, etc.). Personally I feel Banjo and Conker should have more articles than WarioWare, because there are clear geographic and historical links between Donkey Kong, Banjo, Conker, Diddy Kong, Squawks, and Mario; the same can not be said for WarioWare (besides Wario). Banjo and Conker are more interconnected with the greater Mario franchise than WarioWare, and thus should have as many articles or more than the WarioWare series. But that's my personal opinion, and should not be reflected in an official policy, just as your opinion about them having less importance should not be used to justify less articles for Banjo and Conker content. By offering flexibility, we can change the wiki based on new circumstances, instead of being stuck in stasis. -- P.S. To Bloc Partier, we'll still have hierarchies of sorts, but they will be established by the community, not by a subjective overarching policy in place for all time. I added a section about our current regulations to the new policy. This policy will not destroy barriers between Mario and other series - it only removes the speculation of what is more canonical. The wiki can still decide what the wiki's focus is collectively while keeping official information.

To Walkazo, perhaps that was too harsh wording. Your essay seems open to change as well, which is why I feel we should just keep the policy open. Perhaps at the bottom of the policy we could list major proposals that have passed to provide the specifics regarding each series, but also note these rules is subject to change (but must be obeyed until they are changed). In regards to Banjo and Conker content, they are to remain on their individual series pages unless the wiki decides otherwise at a later date. Again, Pyoro is up in the air, as there has been no proposal about it. A section keeping track of proposals regarding article creation would give explicit instructions without affecting the main policy. --

Also, this policy would not mean we couldn't create series articles based on other franchises. Again, as long as the content is retained, it can be organized any way we agree upon. So your Star Fox and Sonic series articles are a definite possibility, although I think the main series of Itadaki Street is actually Dragon Warrior. =D --
 * Yeah, of course we'll decide how much coverage Banjo and Conker get democratically (and if we were a dictatorship, I ' d hardly be the one making the rules); I was merely voicing my concerns, just as this proposal is you voicing your ideas. Personal pronouns have a nasty habit of making one seem like an egomaniac who only cares about what they themselves want, but it's hard to not use them in response to certain types of proposals - I don't know if people share my view: I can only speak for myself. Now, about my Coverage Chart: it's based on a web I drew (on a piece of paper) showing how the series branch off from each other. Wiki syntax makes 2D representations kinda hard, so I compromised with the indenting on the chart - it's meant to represent a family tree, not a hierarchy. Moving on... You raise a good point about WarioWare being less connected to the other games as Banjo and Conker as far as in-game aspects go (if you ignore all the Mario-themed microgames), however WarioWare is trademarked by Nintendo, whereas Banjo and Conker were never directly owned by Nintendo - they were, and still are, Rare's creations. That's why they went with Rare when it was bought-out by Microsoft (whereas things like Donkey Kong remained with Nintendo), which is another source of problems surrounding the inclusion of Banjo and Conker material. You say Conker: Live & Reloaded and Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts aren't "official" because they were made during Microsoft's ownership of Rare, but I ask you, why? They aren't fangames or black-market swag, they're legal, valid aspects of the Banjo and Kazooie series. My opinion on this matter is solely a result of reading this article, so I could be way-off, but as I see it now, whether it's Nintendo's fish by way or Rare, or Microsoft's fish by way of Rare doesn't matter, it's still a fish, and it's still Rare's catch. The whole thing confuses the issue of what is and isn't official (one of the reasons I'd just as soon stay away from Banjo and Conker for now), but most people don't actually care about who owns what, and would just notice the lack of recent Banjo and Conker information... -

I'm currently neutral on this proposal, but are the Banjo and Kazooie series really spin-offs of Diddy Kong Racing? As far as I know, the Banjo and Conker games were already in development before Diddy Kong Racing's release, and the two characters were put in for advertising the future games. Would anyone call Fire Emblem: Fūin no Tsurugi a spin-off of Super Smash Bros. Melee because Roy appeared first in the latter game? Banjo's article also tells that he starred in Diddy Kong Racing for advertising Banjo-Kazooie. The user KingMario pointed that out. Not that this would change something to this proposal, just wanted to tell, since the series articles say they are spin-offs which might be incorrect. --

Who knows if someone from Warioware isn't going to appear in the DSI Pyoro game?

And as Bloc Partier pointed out above, Pyoro was alway a recuring character in Warioware (Storyline-wise, he's even the reason the series exist), meanwhile, Banjo and Conker were only two guys put in a spin-off of a spin-off to advertise their own games and who were taken out of the remake. The Pyoro\BanjoConker comparison is full of holes. --

Some responses:

1) This proposal is not about Banjo and Conker, which cannot be denied under the current Canonicity policy (this would have to be changed to make Banjo and Conker content from official Nintendo games illegitimate).  This new Importance Policy will instead ensure such content is placed in two articles (in a database of close to 9000) instead of hundreds of articles being created and Banjo content being placed in Mario categories, etc.  This policy serves as clarification - a place where the rules developed in proposals can be seen and thus followed.

2) Actually Banjo and Conker were "owned" by Nintendo at one time, just as Mario was "owned" by Philips at one time. Rare was a second party owned by Nintendo and was given official approval to create Diddy Kong Racing, the Banjo series, and the Conker series and were allowed to create those connections, establishing a clear link between all three.  Similarly, Philips was allowed by Nintendo to create Mario games such as Hotel Mario. If we decide to base articles solely on the present instead of actions in the past, we would have to eliminate most of the articles on Super Mario RPG, as the characters are now owned by Square-Enix (a third party company), not Nintendo. This is shown by Geno's inclusion in Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga. He is a copyright of Square-Enix, and thus should not have an article if we include only characters "owned" by Nintendo.  Nuts & Bolts and Live & Reloaded would not be included here based on  Canonicity, which only allows content from licensed Nintendo products, which those two games clearly are not.

3) I'm not actually sure where the Pyoro "comparison" came in, as it is not part of the proposal but part of the old Importance Policy which this proposal is trying to change. Again, Banjo and Conker have established connections both in the games and in the fictional universes, and thus have a "label" of "spin-off" (which is as artificial as calling Mario Kart a "spin-off" - it's just a label).  What is important is that there are clear connections between the three series as established by Diddy Kong Racing.  Based on  Canonicity and  Chronology, remakes are no more "true" than the original, so just because Banjo and Conker were not in Diddy Kong Racing DS makes no difference to their relative importance (but may be important for how we organize such content).  Just as we don't get rid of connections made in Super Mario 64 because it has been remade, the same applies to Diddy Kong Racing DS. And the label of "spin-off" does make some sense based on the clear connections made in the fictional universe. This is made explicit in the story of Diddy Kong Racing (as described by the official instruction booklet). When Wizpig attacks Timber’s Island, Timber sends a letter to Diddy Kong asking for help. Diddy Kong responds by writing letters to his friends Banjo and Conker, asking then to come along on his adventure. Diddy Kong then has Squawks personally deliver the handwritten letters to Banjo and Conker. This establishes a clear historical and geographical connection between Diddy Kong, Banjo and Conker. They don’t simply meet for the first time in this game, they have been friends for a some amount of time before. Also, the parrot Squawks is able to fly to Banjo and Conker, establishing that they all live relatively close together.

Also consider the official profiles for these characters.

Banjo (page 24): "Even before the start of his future partnership with Kazooie, Banjo isn’t one to turn down the chance of an adventure. So when Squawks brings the message from his pal Diddy Kong, the Honey Bear stuffs a few things into his trusty backpack and takes to his heels."

As above, this establishes a connection between Banjo, Diddy Kong, and Squawks. This references also indicates that Diddy Kong Racing chronologically takes place before Banjo-Kazooie, that this part of the Donkey Kong series is a part of the same continuum as Banjo’s timeline.

Conker (page 24): "Another friend made by Diddy Kong on one of his endless adventures with Donkey Kong. Conker is also an exploration nut who’ll jump at any chance to break free of a squirrel’s less than exciting routine.  He’s eager to join up with Banjo as the bear passes through."

Conker not only has an explicit connection with Diddy Kong and Banjo, he is also connected to Donkey Kong himself. All four of these characters met before the events of the game, establishing the geographical and historical connections made above.

There are also some more minor references that not only establish links between the worlds of Donkey Kong, Banjo, and Conker, but to Mario’s world as well.


 * The character Tiptup is in both Diddy Kong Racing and Diddy Kong Racing DS, as well as Banjo-Kazooie and Banjo-Tooie. Tiptup and Banjo first met in Diddy Kong Racing, and would chronologically later meet up again twice in the Banjo series.  His relatively major presence in all these games indicates a strong link between all four titles, even if Banjo and Conker were not included in Diddy Kong Racing DS.
 * In Banjo-Kazooie, the character "Gnawty the Beaver" looks exactly like the Gnawty enemy from Donkey Kong Country and Donkey Kong 64. Gnawty could be considered a representative member of his species, just as Yoshi is to the Yoshis and Toad is to the Toads.
 * In Banjo-Kazooie, a picture of Conker’s girlfriend Berri can be found in Rusty Bucket Bay. Gruntilda also mentions Conker the Squirrel in her quiz at the end of the game.  Additionally, not only Donkey Kong but the original Donkey Kong Mario battled, Cranky Kong, is mentioned by Gruntilda.
 * In Banjo-Tooie, the character Goggles has a Donkey Kong doll.
 * In Banjo-Tooie, the toilet character Loggo is clogged up with paper. Kazooie tells him to call a plumber, then suggests that Mario might be free.  Loggo then states he doesn’t think Mario is in that line of work anymore.  This conversation indicates that it would be possible for Mario to travel to Loggo’s location if needed, and that there is awareness in Banjo’s world that Mario’s profession has changed throughout his many adventures in the Mushroom Kingdom.

4) The last point is, regardless if Banjo and Conker were in development, Nintendo did not have to release the games. They owned Rare and did not have to license their products nor did they have to create connections between Donkey Kong, Banjo, Conker, Diddy Kong and Mario.  New characters are always being created to promote new franchises.  Wario was created and placed in a Mario game then immediately had his own series, just like Banjo and Conker. Ultimately Nintendo made a choice and established this connection and approved the continuation of the Banjo and Conker series.  We should respect that choice, just as we respect Nintendo's choice to make a game about a jumping carpenter and a stubborn ape instead of a game about Popeye and Bluto. --

I agree that Banjo and Conker have more connections story-wise to the main DK/Mario series we cover than WarioWare. But also WarioWare has some, the by far strongest one being Wario himself, who is a very important recurring character in the Mario series (that can't be said about Banjo and Conker), but Diamond City and the Wario Bike have also appeared in the Mario Kart series. In terms of story-unrelated references, WarioWare surely has more content (all those Mario-related microgames and mini-games and the Mario Paint content). Anyway, if I understand this proposal right, it does not mean that we create articles on everything in Banjo and Conker, but can also have just one article per series instead? I'd go with the latter one, because of the lack of appearances of Banjo and Conker in the Mario/DK series, unlike Wario, who is a recurring character in the Mario series (and Pyoro being a recurring character in WarioWare again). But then it should also include the Microsoft-published titles, even if they aren't authorized by Nintendo, they are still official for the two named series. So, please tell if understand this proposal right. --
 * I think you understand the proposal (and if you don't, then I don't either), and I also agree that the Microsoft games should be included. After all, by allowing the trademarks for Banjo and Conker to remain with Rare, in a way, Nintendo was sanctioning the creation of future Banjo and Conker titles. Nintendo leases out its characters all the time (i.e. the aforementioned Hotel Mario), and this time it sold its characters instead. As for the Super Mario RPG example, that sounds more like a double-standard than a justification of keeping the Microsoft content out: if the SMRPG characters owned by the third-party company Square Enix are still "official", why not the Banjo and Conker characters now owned by Microsoft? If we include those series at all, we're making a judgement call concerning canonicity: the characters started out in a Mario (spin-off) game, therefore they are canon, and everything they do is canon. "Everything" includes Conker: Live & Reloaded and Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts - if we're dealing with canonicity (and have already established these games are legal commodities, not fan creations), why bring Real World economics into it at all? Also, the Banjo-Kazooie Wiki doesn't discriminate between the pre- and post-Microsoft games, so why should we? Moving on, most of the cross-references between the Banjo, Conker and Mario series that Son of Suns kindly provided us, seem, to me, no more major than the many Zelda-Mario connections. Video game companies like to establish links between their franchises - it's fun (and it's free advertising), but compared to Grandy02's WarioWare appearances in Mario Kart, it's not very significant. -


 * I am afraid that this proposal will go too far, which is why I hove not yet voted. It seems to me (currently, my opinion could possibly change) that it is just a quite complex mask to bring back Banjo and Conker articles. I don't want that to happen. I love Banjo-Kazooie and its sequels, but I do not want articles about them here. And I really don't want Conker stuff here, for the same and different reasons. I believe that the series articles are fine, but this proposal seems to hint that the wiki will go much further than just the series articles if it passes.


 * Also, I don't see why we can't cover more WarioWare stuff. To me, Mario and WarioWare are clearly related, and only by complicated, legalistic logic can we deduce that Mario, Conker, and Banjo are somewhat related. Yeah, I understand the tier thing, with Mario at the top, then Yoshi, Wario, DK, then Banjo/Conker and WarioWare, but if anything, that's screwed up. You can argue that the Wario series are spin-offs of Mario, and the WarioWare series is a spin-off of Wario, but I fail to see how that puts the WarioWare series on the same tier as the Banjo & Conker series because the former is clearly closer related to the Mario series than the latter. So yeah, that's just my opinions and reasoning. Please excuse my lack of italics.

I think all three of you stated things perfectly. Banjo and Conker are definitely less related than WarioWare, and that's why they are only allocated series pages (as listed in the regulations section). They aren't that important, but that does not mean they are completely un-important to the Mario franchise and thus should be left out. The Banjo and Conker series pages are good compromises - providing coverage of a connected series but preventing the creation of hundreds of Banjo and Conker articles (this is stated in the policy, based on the comments provided by Walkazo). Addressing Bloc Partier's concerns, this policy would do away with complicated degrees or tiers of seperation and connection between series, which is very speculative. So while Banjo, Conker, and WarioWare may be on the same "tier" (based on certain interpretations), we can say Banjo and Conker are less important than WarioWare, which means all Banjo and Conker content gets stuck in two articles, whereas WarioWare are given individual articles, showing their greater importance to the Mario franchise. As far as Microsoft titles are concerned, the series pages features sections about games for Microsoft systems, but under Canonicity it would be hard to say whether the two Microsoft-only titles could be represented here, as they are not directly licensed by Nintendo nor was the production of the games approved, as Microsoft can do whatever it wants with Banjo and Conker (probably), whereas I am sure Phillips had restrictions on what it could do with Mario (i.e., couldn't make a game about Mario shooting up drugs or something). So those games would have some mention, but MarioWiki: Canonicity would likely prevent complete coverage, as the Mario franchise is controlled by Nintendo and Nintendo has no say in what Microsoft does. -- P.S. Looking over  Canonicity, information from the two Microsoft games could count as notable mainstream appearances of Banjo and Conker, and thus such content could be allowed on the series pages. However, such content would not be completely protected - if the wiki agrees the content is not notable enough for inclusion, then the content may be dropped. The other games are licensed by Nintendo, and thus their inclusion is allowed under MarioWiki: Canonicity. What is "notable" outside Nintendo's licensing is subject to debate.
 * Sounds good. You're earlier comment stating that the proposal "would not explicitly allow the mass creation of Banjo and Conker articles" and that that "may require a separate proposal" (emphases my own) particularly worried me ("weasel words", and all that), but now that you've clarified they will only have series pages, I'm fine with the policy. Perhaps we can make another Proposal concerning the Microsoft games, so they're not floating around in the limbo of uncertain notability (once this one runs its course and tells us exactly what policy we'd be building upon, that is). -


 * Right. Bad choice of words on my part.  This policy is only about content, not articles.  As stated at the end of the policy, article creation would be dependent on proposals, then listed at the end of the policy so everyone has quick access to decisions regarding what the community has determined deserves articles and what does not deserve articles. --
 * Alright! Thank you so much for the second clarification. It cleared it up a lot. Cheers!

This must surely be the longest section of comments for a proposal? Or have there been bigger ones? BTW, I'd never heard of this weirdo called Conker until exploring this Wiki, and judging by his appearance and the fact that I don't know him, I'd say he's pretty gay and no-one likes him.


 * I find your choice of words very offensive, so please watch what you are writing in the future, especially on proposal and talk pages. And Conker is one of my most favorite video game heroes of all time! =) --

}}

"Relationship with other characters" sections
DON'T DELETE RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER CHARACTER SECTIONS 13-16

Most (All?) of our articles about major characters have sections detailing how they interacts with other major characters, I could do a tl:dr rant explaining why these sections irks me, but I will be short here:


 * They're poorly written. ("In Mario Party 6, Wario and Toadette's team name is named Secret Friends. This may refer that Wario and Toadette were once friends, secretly.')
 * They're unneeded. The Mario sub-section on the Bowser page could be basically summed up as "Bowser really hates Mario but team-up with him anyway"... something that anyone with half-a-neuron could have learned from reading the article. Beside, do you think anyone come on this site thinking "I'm a So wanting to read about Peach being friend with Toadette!"?
 * They're the perfect breeding ground for speculations (X and Y have [Z] team name in Mario Party! THEY'RE MUST BE A DEEPER CONNECTION!!!) and idiot wars ("Daisy is Lugi ture luv!!!" "NO ROSALINA IS!!!!!")

In short, Relationships Sections are an embarrassing poorly-written mess of informations rehashed from the Biography. Let's kill them, WITH FIRE.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{user|Blitzwing}} Deadline: January 5, 2009 17:00'''

Slash 'Em

 * 1) - Because I'm a totally voting against my own proposal.
 * 2) - Per Blitz
 * 3) - Per Blitz, let's burn them AGGRESIVELY =3
 * 4) I always wondered why those exist...
 * 5) - Per Blitzwing, 99% of these sections are a waste of time. For the other 1%, just add the information as a stand-alone section: to use Son of Sun's example, I'm sure a Mario-Peach Relationship section wouldn't seem out-of-place in either of their articles.
 * 6) -  Well, we'll delete the ones who have not been in a proper game together, like Wario and Toadette.
 * 7) (AKA InfectedShroom... >_>) - Let's cut them up and roast them on spits. See? Slashing and burning. But, seriously, most of them are ridiculously speculative and, while some are quite hilarious, utterly unnecessary.
 * 8) Per Blitz.
 * 9) Per Blitzwing, and also Walkazo's response to my comment below.
 * 10) Per Walkazo.
 * 11) They are just severely based off of a single person's point of view. Per all.
 * 12) Per all -
 * 13) -Per Walkazo and a note: I HATE DAISY...but I love Luigi.(I needed to say this)

Keep 'Em

 * 1) Why can't we just keep them and make sure that they're free of nonsense? I think the sections are good information about the character.
 * 2) - Some of the official comments from Nintendo placed in those sections would not make sense anywhere else (such as commentary on Mario and Peach's relationship).  It does not make sense to outright delete them, but instead work (re-writing, cutting, editing, etc.) on them to make them better.  If we just deleted things because they are poorly written, we should probably delete most of the articles on this wiki.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) Per all.  Look, while ALOT of the information bites the big one, the Interactions sections can be done WAY better.  You can see it under Waluigi, in fact, who only has three characters, Wario, Luigi, and Daisy, who are all associated with him in some way (Wario, his partner, Luigi, his nemesis, and Daisy, his apparent love interest.)  He has interacted with Mario and Bowser on numerous occasions each, but has no information regarding them because Mario and Bowser are not major connections.  Only Wario, Luigi, and Daisy are.  Also, calling something poorly written is a mark of low motivation.  If it can be fixed and needs to be fixed and you can fix it, then why not fix it?  A poorly written article is an easy fix.
 * 5) Some are not useful, because they are not important. But somes are useful, like the Mario/Peach or Waluigi/Wario relantionships. Some must not be deleted.
 * 6) - I say do not delete the sections because some of the information (e.g. Mario/Peach, Luigi/Daisy, etc.) is very (if not slightly) important. If we were to delete articles/sections from this wiki because they are poorly written, then there would only be a few articles on this wiki. But editing the sections is a better idea. Per Son of Suns.
 * 7) - Per all.  There may be some bad ones, but we should just fix or remove those instead of getting rid of all of the interactions with other characters.
 * 8) - Per all. Removing the relationship section is like not mentioning Luigi is Mario's brother.
 * 9) -Per all. Keep them, but some definitely need to be improved.
 * 10) - THIS IS WRONG. You have no idea how valuable some of the interactions sections are on some pages! Some have GREAT information. Removing ALL of them is RIDICULOUS!!!
 * 11) - The sections are exceedingly important, as in Mario/Wario, Peach/Toad, Bowser/Bowser Jr., Luigi/Daisy, etc.. Deleting the sections is completely and utterly ridiculous. Just rewrite them, and make sure they're free of nonsense like "Mario hates Bowser", "Luigi loves Daisy", etc.. Per all, especially Son of Suns and Shrikeswind.
 * Supporting this proposal means supporting the removal of each and every of those sections, even if there are some that are actually useful. And since there are some useful ones (see Son of Suns's comment, for example), I can't support this proposal.
 * 1) - There are really poorly written and unneeded sections, but it should be decided case by case whether it needs to be removed or to be rewritten. Just deleting all relationship sections even if there are useful ones is no good.
 * 2) - I do agree that sometimes they are of overly-speculative nature; but that should just be a reason to improve them, not get rid of them.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) Per All

Comments
While most of these sections I run across seem to be poorly-written, speculative, and sometimes way too extended (I hear rumors there was a Diddy Kong entry in the Mario relationships section?), that does not mean they cannot (in the future) be well-written, informative, and kept to a close circle of important character relationships. It could be a great place to provide all the official connections between two specific characters. For example, the Princess Peach section in the Mario article does a decent job of listing all those comments made by Nintendo about their ambiguous relationship. I found it to be very helpful, and I would not want that information to suddenly disappear. If it could just listed under a general "Relationships" section (instead of one sub-divided into many sections about individual characters) we could focus on a few key relationships - relationships Nintendo has provided a lot of commentary on, such as the Mario-Peach relationship, as opposed to the Mario-Rosalina relationship listed in the article, which is basically a plot summary of Super Mario Galaxy, but doesn't tell us anything about their relationship. So basically, I don't think we should completely delete these sections, but find a way to highlight those specific relationships Nintendo has actually offered commentary on. --
 * Then we can place the good informations in a note in the relevant game or in a Trivia section. --


 * So that means the Mario-Peach information would be unorganized and scattered throughout the article, or a three paragraph entry in the Trivia section?? --
 * THREE PARAGRAPH ENTRY THREE PARAGRAPH ENTRY THREE PARAGRAPH ENTRY. --

After additional thought and EBAL PEER PRESSURE I have come to the conclusion I do not clearly support either position and will thusly abstain from voting.


 * Blitzwing: Don't spam. Anyway, as I said in my vote, the really major developments can get sections of their own. And as Blitzwing said in his first post, notes can be made in the proper games for the more minor aspects. They're part of the "Biography" section, after-all, and for things like Mario-Rosalina, the game is all there is to them. -
 * Yeah, that makes more sense. But then this proposal seems irrelevant, as some relationship sections will have to be retained, such as Mario-Peach and Luigi-Daisy.  There is nothing wrong with taking the initiative and writing articles better, even if that includes deleting repeated or unnecessary writing (such as some aspects of the Relationship sections). --
 * It's not irrelevant. Deleting all the relationships on all the articles (excpet Mario-Peach, Bowser-Peach (on Bowser's article only), Luigi-Daisy and perhaps Wario-Mario) is a pretty big thing, and if Blitzwing just did it someone would probably make a stink about him not getting community feedback first (heck, that's why I haven't done it yet). Plus, the proposal makes the whole thing more structured; it's not just a couple Users fed-up with the one-liners, but a new way to approach inter-character relationships. It also gets more feedback on which relationships do merit sections, so no one can say, "you just made a Daisy-Luigi section because you want them to be together! >:P" -


 * Yeah, I guess some users might get upset, although I personally wouldn't care as long as the edits were of better quality than the originals. I say its "irrelevant" because, regardless if it passes or fails, the outcome will likely be the same - more focused relationship sections.  So I guess it's good that attention was brought to the issue, although it probably could have been done on the main talk page. =) --

If an article itself makes it obvious how said character relates to another character, there's no need for an extra section on these pages. However, if it's too difficult to fit this type of info into the rest of the article, then maybe these sections can be kept on articles that don't make it clear enough. I can't decide which side to support on this proposal.
 * Well, as SoS said, either way results in the removal of the pointless relationships and the development of the worthwhile sections. It's semantics, really: do you wanna say you're hacking away the bad stuff, or building up the good? Personally, I like deleting stuff, and I hate the one-line relationships, so I say "Slash 'Em" ;D -

Time Q: Who says I won't follow on with Walkazo's idea of keeping the few relevant section under a different name? }}

Codec Conversations
KEEP CODEC CONVERSATIONS ON THE CHARACTERS' PAGES 4-5

Ok, as you may have noticed, we have each of Snake's codec conversations three times, in the character's page, in Mei Ling, Otacon or Colonel Roy Campbell's and in the List, so I say we erase the ones in the character and talker's pages (leaving a link to the list, of course) and only leave the List one.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer:{{User|Tucayo}} Deadline: Tuesday, January 13th, 17:00

Support

 * 1) - Per me
 * 2) - Per ^that guy up there^
 * 3) - Reducing unnecessary data from the server sounds logical. Per Tucayo.
 * 4) - Per Tucayo. You could probably even use the  template.

Oppose

 * 1) - Opposing on the grounds that, while I find that these codecs should only be on one page, this proposal is all or nothing to the wrong page.  There's no choice in this proposal, it's either keep it as is or just leave the list.
 * 2) - It should be kept on the page of the character the conversation is about, just like trophy descriptions appear both in the full list and on the pages of the respective characters. Goombella's tattle logs can be read both in a full list and on the enemy pages, too.
 * 3) - Per Grandy02. The lists on Mei Ling, Otacon and the Colonel could be removed for a mere listing of which conversations concern that particular character and a link to the main list if the reader wants to find said conversations; but like the tattles, the fighters should keep their "copies" of the codec conversations.
 * 4) - Ah. I see the error in my ways. Per Walkazo.
 * 5) Per all.

Comments
So, wait, it's either leave them in all three or only have them on the list? Forgive me for not seeing the logic behind that. From my perspective codec conversations are like a character bio, so should be on the character's page only. So how do I vote?


 * If you "Support," you are saying delete the conversation content from the three character pages and only keep the list. If you "Oppose," everything will stay as is, meaning the conversations will be on all three character pages AND the list of conversations page. --


 * So, basically, my opinion that, say, Mario's codec conversation should only stay on Mario's page is unrepresented. That's seriously weak.


 * Correct. That is not an option.  However, if this proposal passes, the Mario conversation content would be deleted from his page. --


 * So let me get this straight. In order to keep the codec on Mario on Mario's page, I need to down-vote this, but that also means that I'm voting against an opinion that, aside from the major detail of WHERE the codec goes, I agree with.  One question remains unanswered:  Where is the logic behind that?


 * That's democracy in action. Anyways, depending on the results of this proposal, you can always introduce a new proposal with different options about this subject. --


 * Fine, but it's still stupid. :P

I don't think it should be erased on the charater pages which are the subject of the talk. The trophy descriptions are also both in the full list and on the character pages. But there isn't an option to vote for this... --Grandy02 14:15, 9 January 2009 (EST)
 * Well, somebody missed the conversation. You gotta down-vote this if you think it should stay on a page other than the list.

Grandy02: Well, I was also planning to do a proposal to just keep one time the throphy descriptions, but it looks kinda bad
 * Oh, there IS a Tattle Log. Didn't realize that, deleted what I wrote.  Jist is still the same, though:  I think multiple pages is stupid but it shouldn't be reduced to just a list.


 * - Tucayo, wanted to know how the link would be provided to the dialogue if the proposal is approved. Per Shrikeswind as well, but I can't decide just yet.

Question: Assuming that the codec conversations could be considered an "official profile," they would go under each character's "Official Profiles & Statistics" sections, correct? Therefore, they should not be removed from each character's page, but rather ONLY appear on each character's page, correct?


 * Answer: Well, yes

Ralphfan: it would be a "See Also" or "Main Article:" }}

Merge Axem Rangers
DO NOT MERGE THE AXEM RANGERS' RESPECTIVE ARTICLES 1-12

I propose we merge the individual Axem Ranger articles (e.g. Axem Red, Axem Black, Axem Green) with the main Axem Rangers article. My reasoning being that most of these articles are rather short, and that they include no information that could not added to the main article. So... who's with me? Alright, I suppose I should have gone into a little more (okay, a lot more) detail in this proposal.


 * For one, these articles are a bit repetitive. Besides a section about their personalities and the stat boxes, there's nothing more to add besides what's already in the Axem Rangers article.
 * Sure, they have different personalities, but in that case, you could point out that Kat and Ana, the Koopa Bros., Dribble and Spitz, and even Exor's various part have varying personalities, and yet they all share their articles.
 * Also, these characters aren't even that major, appearing as a boss battle in one game.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|The Gravitator}} Deadline: January 13, 2009, 17:00

Merge 'Em

 * 1) Per my comments above ^

Keep 'Em Seperate

 * 1) - They are individual characters with different characteristics, special attacks, and battle behaviors.  Just because they are short now doesn't mean they couldn't become much larger in the future, perhaps even longer than the Axem Rangers article as it stands right now.
 * 2) - Per SoS.
 * 3) This proposal isn't specific enough with details other than length. Just because an a few related articles are short, does not mean that they need to be merged. Now if these articles were basically repetive info, then why not merge them? But the Axem Rangers, as SoS has said, each differ greatly in personality and characteristics that they are worthy of separate articles.
 * 4) - Per SoS
 * 5) Per all. One they are all different characters with different persona, different colours, and different appearances okay etc. Like SoS said they're short but in the future, users might expand the page and added more info and other stuff.
 * 6) - Per all. There's no point behind merging perfectly valid articles into one. We'll just have to wait for someone to expand them.
 * 7) Per all, they we're all different, like SoS mentioned.
 * 8) -Per all.
 * 9) - Per all. The Axem Rangers, like SoS said, differ from one another. And, although you claim the articles are short, they're not. Axem Red is 2000 bytes, and the others are close to 1500.
 * 10) - Per all.  Since they aren't stubs and they each have different personalities, they should be kept separate.
 * 11) - Per all. They're different characters, so they deserve their own articles.
 * 12) -Per all. Just it.

Comments
I'm sorry, but even with your revisions, my opinion is still the same.

Just because the articles are currently repetitive doesn't mean they can't be rewritten to be more original in the future. Just because other articles are merged doesn't mean these articles should be merged. And just because they appear as a boss in one game doesn't make them "minor" subjects. What is a "major" subject is POV. Personally I find these characters to be very important. --
 * If he's thinking what I think he's thinking, then he sees the Axem Rangers as a group, not five individuals. I agree if that's what he's thinking, because I don't see, say, Axem Pink as an individual to be as important as the Axem Rangers as a group.  That said, I'm not voting because it's really not worth it TO vote, not only because it's a flood against but also because really, I just don't think this a serious enough issue to consider.  If there wasn't enough information regarding the Axems individually, I might consider voting (for the merger,) just as much as I'd consider voting for articles on each individual grain of sand on Delfino Plaza if there was enough information regarding them that had nothing to do with Delfino Plaza from the stand-point of the game.  Since there is (for the Axems) I don't and since there isn't (for the sand) I don't suggest it.


 * I might add that the important difference with these characters is that you fight six specific entities in this battle: Axem Red, Axem Green, Axem Yellow, Axem Pink, Axem Black AND the "Axem Rangers," the combination of all their power in one entity. It's similar to Super Dimentio being a merger of Dimentio, Luigi, and the Chaos Heart, or Bowletta being a combination of Bowser and Cackletta. --


 * I understand The Gravitator's point because they aren't very long articles (mostly stats). However, I think it would be really hard to merge them all.  It's not gonna happen.

}}

Revise Article Organization Standard
CHANGE THE ORGANIZATION STANDARD 13-0

This proposal would slightly revise the previous article organization standard. Instead of organizing appearances in the "History" section of an article based on the "type" of media, this standard would eliminate that criteria and simply list appearances according to the release date of the various series. Part of the problem with the previous standard was while the intent was to eliminate speculation and conform to Canonicity, it instead reinforced subjective separation of content into unrelated and unhelpful sections. Not all media of the same "type" are actually the same. For example, under the previous standard, appearances in the Nintendo Comics System and Club Nintendo would appear in the same section, although the two comic series are completely unrelated to each other. Additionally, what constitutes a "type" of medium is very subjective. Some articles have sections about "Film Appearances," "TV Appearances," "Cartoon Appearances," "Anime Appearances" or "Appearances in Visual Media." The Super Mario Bros. Super Show may be in the Cartoons section but not the Anime section, but in other articles the anime and the Super Mario Bros. Super Show are all in one section. Furthermore, the Great Mission to Save Princess Peach could be placed in a Film section alongside the Super Mario Bros. movie, but if the article was divided into Anime and Film sections, where would this anime film fall? There is no standard on what constitutes a medium, and the media can be generalized to the point where information not from the games is basically placed in an "Alternative Media" section like it was before the previous proposal.

Instead we should organize articles according to the release dates of clearly defined series, sub-series and independent titles, regardless of supposed "media." Series would be arranged by the first appearance of the subject in the series. We would go by the date of the appearance, not the date founding the series (unless, of course, they appeared in the first game of the series). So in the Mario article, the Mario Kart series section would appear after The Super Mario Bros Super Show series section, as Mario's first appearance in the Kart series was after his first appearance in the show. This would allow us to avoid speculative grouping according to media, as well as reduce the number of section and sub-section headers. With this standard, only two section/sub-section headers would be needed. One for the series, and then a sub-section header for individual games (if mentioned - for certain articles we may only want to summarize appearances in an entire series, such as Mario Kart, instead of having a sub-section for every game in the series). Episodes of a television or comic series would be organized as sub-sections of the series section, as if they were a game in a video game series (again, if mentioned). Completely independent titles not part of an established series or sub-franchise, such as Luigi's Mansion, the Super Mario Bros. movie, and Super Princess Peach, would be placed as regular section headers (akin to a series section), instead of being placed in an "other titles section" (which is not very helpful, as the games are not related in the slightest). With a standard like this, we could effectively organize articles while keeping section headers to only two degrees. It also keeps content from different series from "leaking" into each other. So you wouldn't go from a Super Show episode to a video game to a Super Show episode to a comic episode to a Super Show episode. All episode or game entries would be placed in their respective series. This proposal would also mandate that the section headers state the name of the series and games, instead of "imaginative" titles describing the events of the game. That way people can easily find info from the source they are looking for, instead of trying to figure out what game the section titles refer to.

Furthermore, this proposal would eliminate organizing information in the History section according to the in-universe "chronology," simply because it gets way too confusing and complicated. For example, both Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island and Super Mario Momotaro feature the "birth" of Mario, so they would have to be placed earlier in the article. Instead, I think we should simply organize appearances by release date. Chronological references between different games, sources, etc. can still be made in the article, they just wouldn't be organized according to the complicated fictional chronology. So Yoshi series information may appear later in some articles, although you can say that the events depicted in SMW2 and Yoshi's Island DS occur before the events of most other sources. However, to provide a lead-in to the rest of the History section, as well as summarize chronological events before the actual appearances, we could add a "Background" section to some articles under the History section, but before moving on to the actual appearances. In the Background section, we could summarize events in the "past" or other references about the character to help readers contextualize the rest of the information. So information about Baby Mario, which is simultaneously the same as but different from Mario, would be placed in the Background section of the Mario article. The rest of the article would focus on adult Mario appearances. This could also be used for articles which feature back-stories not actually depicted or interacted with in the game. So the Star Spirits article could feature a Background section explaining they have existed since the beginning of time, and the Shadow Queen article could have a section about her war against the world before being sealed away for a thousand years (leading to the events of the game). Lastly, these guidelines would be added to the Manual of Style for future reference.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Son of Suns}} Deadline: 17:00 January 13

Support

 * 1) - Per above.  I feel this revision will be easier to follow than the previous standard.
 * 2) – Release date may be the only certain thing to rely on. :D
 * 3) - Per SoS.
 * 4) I feel like this'll make pretty crazy and drastic changes, but it looks OK to me. Per all.
 * 5) - Per all.
 * 6) - I like how it would put things in chronological order.  Anyone else think this is really complicated?  Also, per Tucayo's comment below.
 * 7) - *Finally finishes reading the whole thing* ... Per SoS; it seems more logical to do it this way.
 * 8) - Per Wayoshi.
 * 9) - Whoa, this definitely required quite a bit of effort to put together. Either way, per SoS.
 * 10) - Per SoS.
 * 11) - I support for several reasons (1) Showing information in both chronological order and historical order is something that we should have been doing from day one.  This standard allows for that to a much greater extent than our old one OR my new one. (2) Organizing by media is, as SoS pointed out, sketchy and more subjective than we'd like.  It also doesn't allow for historical presentation, ie showing that Toad appeared in the Super Show after appearing in SMB2 (3) We've seen how my organization standard works (Mama Mario) and SoS did a test edit to see how it would look with the new organization - it looked fine.
 * 12) - Per all.
 * 13) - Per all.

Comments
Well, I am fine with the current standard, but this may help. I say the games should be organized by release date, but something like a timeline must be created, it just creating a list of the games, without information
 * The current standard actually is like what you see on Mama Mario, it just hasn't been implemented on very many articles. But, yes, as you said, we do need to note continuity where it is apparent, such as those listed on the second page I linked you to.  18:50, 10 January 2009 (EST)


 * Also check out List of Chronological References for some specific examples that can be used in articles. --

}}

The Partroller Rank.
KEEP IT 1-13

Should we really restore this rank or get rid of it for good. Sor far this power has return but no user has done a proposal to restore it, Because we had a past proposal to get rid of the rank for certain reasons, and that proposal has won.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer:{{User|Grapes}} Deadline: January 20, 2009, 17:00

Get rid

 * 1) I say we remove this rank. And I can think six reasons why. 1 You have to got to special edits then Patroll Edits just to revert something and that just takes to long if a vandal is on the loose. 2 When you are on Patroll edit it show one edit that a random user did which really suck (You can skip it be then it shows another user's edit). 3 You can't block trolls. 4 Patrollers can't even patroll pages. 5 You can't see the red ! like the sysop can. 6. Patrollers can't acess the Block IP special page. That's all I have to say. 7. Oh and they can't block too.

Keep it

 * 1) It's actually really good if you think about it. It shows how a user handles more power. It also helps because it gives a user practice for being a sysop in case they become one. If the Sysops thought it was really useless, then they wouldn't have restored it.
 * 2) - Per my comment below.
 * 3) Per Toadette
 * 4) - Per all. Peachycakes: please sign with   .
 * 5) - Per Toadette and Stooby
 * 6) - Per all, as St00by mentions, this is the perfect stepping stone for users who do not have the potential yet to be a sysop, but they do have the potential to be trusted enough and have some of the abilities as a sysop.
 * 7) - Per Stooben's epic comment below. It's a good idea to have an in-between rank as a test, rather than having a huge division between User and Sysop.
 * 8) - Agree in response for all. The Patroller rank could be needed, cuz, as the Mario Wiki gains popularity through cyberspace, many users want to join here to contribute too. But there are some guys who enter just wanting to corrupt the wiki in various ways. Fortunately, most of the time, the site is protected under the hands of the other good contributors, not only sysops, but other users who want to maintain the wiki against vandalism and thus, they can deserve some attributes (as the patrolling rank) to continue with their duties.
 * 9) - Per all.
 * 10) – Keep it.  It's the only way for new members to understand their place on the Wiki.  Don't want new members to be vandalizing the Wiki by deleting images and articles.
 * 11) - Per Coincollector.
 * 12) - Per all.
 * 13) - Per all.

Comments
This is my first proposal so I'am sorry if it looks bad.

It was removed in the past. But now the sysop and 'Crat are trying to bring it back.


 * I'm having trouble deciding. I think the rank would be useful given the chance to work correctly. However, there are currently too many technical difficulties. Convince me one way, please. PS: You did a fine job, Grapes. ;)

Thanks =3

For the record, there was a proposal a long time ago in which keeping the Patrollers won (see here). I tried to find the archive for the more recent proposal (late March, 2008) that vetoed the rank, but without success. Anyway, I don't even see the point of having Users vote on administrative decisions - like promotions and demotions, I think that should be left to the Administrators. Users have a say in Wiki content and the policies that concern them, but Patrollers will not change the content of the Wiki, nor is reestablishing them a change in Wiki policy. If the higher-ups think it's a good idea to bring back Patrollers, who are we to argue? -

Here's my take on the original Patroller status:
 * Patrollers are considered a step in between users and Sysops. They have the ability to use rollback, they have the ability to mark articles 'as patrolled', and they also have the ability to block vandals that are attacking the wiki. Basically, Patrollers are here to help out the Sysops protect the wiki and keep it clean. They're pretty much an 'assistant' to Sysops, as they have the ability to stop spam, but they have to look up to their superiors – Sysops and Bureaucrats – in order to delete and spam pages created. They also require Sysops to use checkuser to see if someone is a sockpuppet of a vandal or whatever. As such, Patrollers are not useless, and are in fact helpful to the wiki.
 * Patrollers are promoted based on activity and trust. Yes, we promote Sysops for the same reason, but users that are promoted to Patroller instead are promoted to that position for a reason. If we feel that a user has done good work on the wiki, is ready for a promotion, but isn't ready to get the full-blown Sysop package, then we give them Patroller powers. Once promoted to Patroller, they have a shot to get promoted to Sysop if they handle the job exceptionally well. Being a Patroller is the perfect trial period to see how a contributive user handles having more power under their belt. Should they take on the responsibility notably well, keep contributing as always, and manage their powers well, then they may get nominated for Sysop. Once again, this is only if they handle the job well. Wouldn't you rather us promote a user to Patroller, where power is increased but still limited, in order to see how they handle having more power, rather than giving them all of the privileges of a Sysop?

Now, I'm going to talk to Steve about giving Patrollers a more convenient way of using rollback, (through a page's history), and give them the ability to block users, just as they had before, it will be seen that Patrollers are more useful and can conveniently use their powers to help stop a problem.

Next, I'd like to note that the "Patroller Power!" proposal of March 2008 did not propose that we get rid of the Patroller position, but rather that we give them more power. I won't lie: I supported giving Patrollers more power back then; the reason why I did so was that Pokemon DP told me I was a nominee for Patroller. My vote was clearly biased, but I later found out that I was never a nominee for Patroller. The reason why the Patroller ranking was revoked was because it was proposed that Patrollers gain the ability to delete pages. With a discussion between the higher-ups, the Patroller ranking was removed because the proposal that passed &mdash; supporting Patrollers to be able to delete pages &mdash; pretty much stated that Patrollers have all the abilities of Sysops with the exception of checkuser and page protection.

Lastly, I find that decisions pertaining to promotions, demotions, and the insertion/removal of positions should be decided solely by the Administrative Staff &mdash; the Sysops and Bureaucrats, as Walkazo pointed out. Users should be more concerned with the encyclopedic aspect of the MarioWiki, not the Administrative aspect.

To Toadette: The Sysops didn't bring Patrolers back, Steve did, abruptly.

To all: Generally speaking, proposals that are on topics that are considered administrative (usergroups, policies, etc.) are removed, as administrative subjects should be discussed by the administrative team. However, since the community seems to clearly divided on the subject, I'm inclined to leave the proposal as is to see how things play out (if any other sysops disagree with this, please, do what you feel needs to be done). --
 * Steve brought it back abruptly because the sysops were talking about it in the forums (I think). At least that's what I got from Stoobs' message to Steve. So it wasn't all Steve. Just so you know. I might be wrong. -

That sure is one epic comment, Stooben. Oh, but more importantly: I'm confused... so has this rank actually been brought back already, or is this just discussing whether to do that or not?

Its back. M&SG and I are patrollers.
 * Thanks for letting me know (although I actually found out just after posting that comment). Wait a minute... you're a Patroller but you're wanting to remove this rank!? How does that work? Now I'm more confused. Oh, and don't be so hard on yourself Grapes... I'm surprised it's your first Proposal even though you've been here so long, but trust me, I've seen some terrible Proposals before, so your is much better.

Well this rank is kinda of hard to use. And I have stated seven reason why this rank kinda of sucks. Um what do you mean by don't be so hard on your self?
 * You seemed convinced that your Proposal looked bad, that's what I mean.

Well Grapes, let's take a look at your seven reasons:
 * 1) You have to got to special edits then Patroll Edits just to revert something and that just takes to long if a vandal is on the loose.
 * 2) When you are on Patroll edit it show one edit that a random user did which really suck (You can skip it be then it shows another user's edit)
 * 3) You can't block trolls.
 * 4) Patrollers can't even patroll pages.
 * 5) You can't see the red ! like the sysop can.
 * 6) Patrollers can't acess the Block IP special page.
 * 7) Oh and they can't block too.

St00by just mentioned you can block people as a patroller, so 2 reasons are out, since you said they can't block twice. You can also block someone straight from Recent Changes if you can't access the BlockIP thingy, but that leads to the same page, so, that means theres a glitch or something. So 3 reasons are out. Patrollers can patrol pages by going to Special:Patrol Edits or something like that, so thats another reason knocked out. Also, Special:Patrol is built like that, so maybe Steve can do something about it, or change the coding, I dunno. You can patrol edits from Recent Changes too, if you need too. Just look for users that are not sysops, since their edits are patrolled automatically. The red ! is just there to help you see if the edit isn't patrolled yet, it does suck I guess that you can't see which pages are patrolled, or aren't. Well that's my intake on your reasons, i've never been a patroller before, so I don't really know.
 * When I was a patroller I could see red exclamation marks and could patrol pages excluding my own edits. I also could block users. No deletion. - 17:08, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Really. I don't see any of red ! or patroll pages. And I can't block users. Is there something wrong with rank??
 * There seems to be some permission errors with the rank as of now, but I've contacted Steve about fixing them. Once he does, the rank should be just like it was meant to be.

Okay. }}

Add a Youtube Embedding Feature
NO SUCH FEATURE 2-17

Whoa, it's been months since I've been here, but I'm back. Happy new year everyone. Forgive me, I have forgot the proper format for a proposal, so correct me if I'm doing this wrong which I probably am. Getting back on topic, I think we should add a youtube embedding feature so we could watch some Mario trailers or walkthroughs, etc. on youtube. So, what d'ya think?

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Clay Mario}} Deadline: February 1, 2009, 15:00

Support

 * 1)  - Reason given above.
 * 2)  - Per Clay Mario.

Oppose

 * 1) - There was a similar proposal about this a while ago and it failed. It's too much trouble to get the formatting set up, just link to the videos at the bottom. Plus, YouTube videos are murder if you use an old computer (mine crashes when I try to access video-containing sites).
 * 2) Per Walkazo. It takes people long enough to load large pages (i.e. Mario.) Finding videos and adding coding would be a bit irritable, and loading pages even worse.
 * 3) - It would more than likely make articles worse because of crappy quality and placing.
 * 4) - Australia's internet speeds are pathetic compared to the US (or so I've heard), so I always do whatever I can to load less data. And also per Walkazo.
 * 5) Zafum - I've seen other wikis that use youtube videos and they stink, as well as look unformal. Per all.
 * 6) - It would just be to difficult k. Per all.
 * 7) - Okay, I like the idea I really do. To tell you the truth not many people have new PC. I had a hard time getting the laptop I have right now. With the way things are now people don't have the newer PCs. Most people still have old PCs. Old PCs can lag or even crash when a Youtube video or any video is playing on there. Can't we just link them. If people had money and more people had newer PCs I would say yes.
 * 8) - See my comment.
 * 9) - Per all. YT vids really bog down computers, depending on the video's quality; putting that directly on an article could be horrible for this wiki. Just leave a link at the bottom of the page, as long as its a useful video or is a good citation.
 * 10) - I tried this a while back, sorry, it ain't happening.
 * 11) - Per all.
 * 12) - Per Grapes (lol)
 * 13) We can't have videos on games like Conker's Bad Fur Day even Super Smash Bros. Brawl it can scare little kids.
 * 14) - Per all.
 * 15) - Nooo way we don't need that kind of junk here.
 * 16) - Per all. Why do we need walktroughs, anyway?
 * 17) - Per Walkazo.

Comments
Don't we already have this feature? --
 * Yeah, but it can't be used on Mainspace articles.
 * Oh okay. Thanks. --

Wikia has this feature. Besides, we can embed it in a way where the video just doesn't automatically start, I think, therefore not crashing your computer.
 * Videos never automatically start.

I don't care. I would like to have one but if you have a slow or an old PC it can make it lag or even crash. With a faster and newer PC maybe it would be alright. --
 * Unfortunately not everyone has newer and faster compters, and those of us who don't shouldn't be penalized for it. YouTube videos are already externally linked to around the Wiki, and a lot of the time, even if the videos could be imbedded it would make the article look bad (i.e. imbedding one clip of The Great Mission to Save Princess Peach would not work out, whereas linking to a page with videos covering the entire movie makes perfect sense). The external linking system already works fine, and changing it would do more harm than good. -
 * I think we should just link the videos. If the way things are now I don't think anybody will be getting a new PC soon. I had a hardtime getting this laptop. If people get newer PCs then maybe we would go for it. I know alot of cousins and friends who have old PCs models.

Son of Suns recently decided that, because of their low quality, images pulled from normal quality YouTube videos cannot be put on a featured articles. Would an article with a YouTube video embedded on it then not be acceptable as a featured article?

On the other hand, we could upload a video under the ogg. format, which Wikipedia does employ most. This will result that any video uploaded will be played by Java.
 * That might be better: computers that can't handle ogg. files merely don't load them, instead of crashing (or at least that's what mine does), so it hopefully won't inconveience anyone too much. However, if animated images are considered gaudy (see this discussion), wouldn't videos end up in sorta the same boat? -
 * You can't stop an animation, you can only cry in horror as it's sheer awfulness destroy the eyes and ruin the rest of the page. --Blitzwing 07:01, 26 January 2009 (EST)
 * The OggHandler extension to make OGG playing an embedded javascript function (currently utilized by Wikipedia very well) is only available in 1.11+. Remember we're stuck in 1.10.2, so we're stuck with users having to find an OGG player on their own. 21:40, 26 January 2009 (EST)

Regardless of what happens with this proposal, I have a question regarding walkthrough videos. Would videos made of someone playing the game count as "official" or as fan-made content? --

If we could use embedded youtube videos, we'll have to add only videos that talk or show what are we talking about in an article, even though it is acceptable to show certain videogames' intro or a gameplay - if there is one, of course. However, it's hard to find a decent video from such site, and thus, a page of this wiki would look less professional and formal if we put a video containing some editions made by informal users (like subtitles, comments and so on).


 * In response to SoS's question, I think we'd have to classify walkthroughs (etc.) as fan-made. The games might be official, but how they're played, how the dialogue is voiced, and any commentary isn't. It'd be like if someone posted a game summary, but explained all the discontinuities themselves - the summary part's okay, but we wouldn't want to quote the whole thing on our articles because of the fanon. External linking to walkthroughs should be okay though, because they are an invaluable source of info, and hopefully the readers/viewers have enough common sense to differentiate between the canon and the unofficial aspects of the video. -

Sorry Clay Mario, I shouldn't have voted. Whichever side I'm on is always opposed by you lot of users. -__- - }}

Template Reorganization Guide
INTRODUCE GUIDE 16-0

I think we need a guide called "MarioWiki:Navigation Templates" in order to fully understand the actual purpose of navigation templates. Many of our nav templates are useless, huge, or otherwise poorly designed, (be it clunky, having colors that are rather blinding, etcetera). (I've made quite a few of those, back in my n00by days. :P) So, please bare with me as I try to tackle all I think should be changed with nav templates. (I'm pulling some of this from Talk:Dragon Wario for further reference.)

I feel navigation templates are a vital part of this wiki. Not only are they important aesthetically, but they also help people navigate from one page to another easily. The problem is, not all of them are really organized well, and make navigation hard, rather than easy. I feel the following rules should be set in stone:

1) All navigation templates should be collapsible completely. This means all the way down to one row. Then, said templates should be reorganized in an easy to navigate manner, be it by alphabetizing it's contents, or by grouping them together and alphabetizing them. (That's my favorite way to do it, as you can see with many of my later templates.) By doing so, navigation templates take up exactly the same amount of space, but can be enlarged with the click of a button to find exactly what you're looking for. Though this can slow down some computers considerably, a way around that is to conceal navigation templates on articles with many of them. (Ex: Mario, Bowser, Princess Peach) I have tested that with putting the showhide feature on a page in order conceal many navigation templates, they bog down browsers hardly at all. 2) All navigation templates should refer only to any one of the following:
 * Game-specific templates — when making a template based on one game, you should break it down into four main sections: Locations, Items, Enemies, and Bosses. Other sections can be added if necessary. (Examples are, , and .)
 * Series-specific templates — this should mainly be used to target an entire series of games with one common feature. This one feature would be broken down into its appearance within each game in the series. (Examples are, , and .)
 * Species-specific templates — this should only be used with enemies with a large amount of species, as well as a reasonable amount of characters based on said species. (Examples are, , and , and even .)
 * Item/Object-specific templates — this should only be used in order to group items or objects of similarity into one template. This would also refer to terms and such found throughout games. (Examples are and, as well as  and .)
 * Character-specific templates — this would refer to a series of characters that have a solid link proven between them. (An example is .)

Having said all that, I feel that this policy would enforce a regulation between all navigation templates, making thinks perfectly synonymous. I will require the help of others to help put this policy fully in place, as it is a huge load. (And I may become inactive soon, but I'm not 100% sure. So please don't think that I've purposely left the place because I didn't want to tackle the burden!)

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{user|Stooben Rooben}} Deadline: February 9, 2009, 17:00

Support

 * 1) - Per my reasons above.
 * 2) - Ok I see, Per Stooben.
 * 3) - Per Stooben. This is long overdue.
 * 4) - Perfect - can't wait to see how it turns out!
 * 5) - See my comment...
 * 6) - Per Stooben's long, informative and very accurate explanation (as usual).
 * 7) *yawns* Per Stooby
 * 8) - Aye. Per Stoobs.
 * 9) - Per all!
 * 10) Yes, per St00by. Some templates are just messed up.
 * 11) - Per the wiki world of the people who voted teh "support" option. ;o
 * 12) Per All.
 * 13)  I'll have to agree per myself, it sounds helpful
 * 14) - You raise a good point something like this is needed for the betterment of the site.
 * 15) - Per all. Stooben has done it again.
 * 16) - Per all.

Comments
How is "" a species? It seems if we allow something like that, we open up the doors to templates like Undead and Fish and anything else related to a type of creature, as opposed to an officially named species. --
 * My bad. I forgot to add the last section of the proposal when editing that comment I made on Talk:Dragon Wario. It's fixed now.


 * What does that mean though? Element-specific templates?  "Elements" (be it Earth, Wind, or Oxygen) have never played a strong role in the Mario series.  What does Element mean anyways?  Would a "Metal" template be appropriate for all Creatures and Characters made of the Element Metal?  That part of the proposal seems the most flawed and will just replicate the poor templates we already have.  Element templates appear to be "useless" (not related to any official concept unlike the other templates), "huge" (can be filled basically indefinitely - is Mario a fire character cause he can shoot fireballs? - there is no way to establish a clear boundary between what is and what is not "related to fire) and "otherwise hideous." --
 * Okay, the "hideous" part was kinda harsh, so I reworded that. About the element-specific templates: from what I read in my dictionary, "elements" refers to earth (being of rock and/or metal), water and fire. "Air", or any of its variants, were never mentioned as being an element; neither was anything else. Ice is the same as water, only frozen. However, I looked up the aforementioned terms on Wikipedia and some of its cited sources, and it didn't mention any of them as being an "element". Merriam-Webster has failed me again. Only because the term "element" can refer to "any object that is used in the creation of something", as I read on one of Wikipedia's citations, I am removing that part of the proposal. The definition I have of "element" is poor, and I apologize for trying to implement it into the wiki. I do, however, feel that the other template categories I mentioned are specific and have a strong enough definition to stay in place. =)


 * I believe the concept of "Elements" came from the Greeks and the Chinese (independently). The Greeks said everything was made of four elements (Water, Fire, Earth, Air/Wind).  Indeed, I believe it took time for all four categories to actually be developed.  The Chinese had a similar system, except Metal was its own independent category.  Currently, we have over a hundred elements such as Oxygen, Iron, Gold, Uranium, etc.  They are the elements that make up eveything.  But anyways...I think the rest of the templates are pretty specific and strong...expect maybe Dragons (although maybe that just needs to be trimmed down to characters and creatures that have actually been called dragons, as opposed to creatures that kinda look like a dragon...a lot of those creatures actually look like seahorses).  But yeah, the other templates seem a lot stronger. --
 * I remember the concept of "elements" being brought up in my Greek History class, but it was extremely vague. In all honesty, I wouldn't be surprised if the Greeks and the Chinese introduced the concept to at least part of the world; then, the Romans probably stole the concept, as they seemed to be so notable for doing so. (:P) Right, back on-topic. I feel that some entries in the Dragon template should be dropped, ironically. While I feel the template is useful, it has some questionable entries, (like Blargg and Pinwheel). Other than that, I'm glad you agree that the other templates seem strong!

I still say (and  and, for that matter) have worth as navigational tools. They prevent articles from being template-less (and neglected as a result), and they are actually less speculative than one would think (i.e. Bowser's pretty draconian, but he's been left off, whereas the Super Mario Land seahorse-like enemies are there because of their leader, Dragonzamasu). Moving on to my next (unrelated) point, what about templates dealing with specific levels in a game, like and ? They're too large to incorporate into the game templates, but too usefull as navigation tools to scrap. The Galaxy template also has to do with another possible category: Location-specific templates, like. Some of these areas might be able to be incorporated into the games from wence they came, but they are also quite usefull on their own (smaller templates can be easier on the eyes). I love template work, so I'd be more than happy to help out with this whole thing. -
 * I kinda have to agree with what you said about the Dragon/Bird/Fish templates. They are quite useful, and they at least fall under the "Species-specific" category. (Though, I still fell needs a little bit of trimming, and maybe  and  could be organized a tad better.) On to point two: Level-specific templates fall right under game-related templates. Usually, levels, (or locations with some game templates), are implemented into the game templates to begin with; but if it makes the overall game template too large, then they should be made into their own template. However, the same wouldn't really apply to Characters, Enemies, or Items from a specific game, as they should always be compiled into the game's main template. Ehh...I'm not real fond of having location templates. It's too hard to say "have location-specific, but still game-specific templates". We've had templates for "Beaches", "Subterranean Locations", and other things, and they really prove pointless. If a template as small as  is standing on its own, it should be implemented into the main SMS template and done away with. Like ; the locations are small enough to fit into that template without being too large.

What about implementing something like Wikipedia's Tnavbar in templates? Also, the Chinese elements are Wood, Fire, Earth, Metal, and Water. However, the names are mostly superficial. They aren't really related to those things.

That's completely right. I see many templates rediculously long, just because they contain the same elements as category pages have (an example: Subterranean locations ) this really horrible template should be removed because it contains all the links as a category page must need. If that's the case, we are making "shortcuts" from going to category pages and ignore the order for all pages. In accordance to Stoob; for overlong templates, I recently installed the Collapsible function for navigation boxes using javascript. Thus, there is now a simpler way to hide the content of those navigation boxes, as well as preventing some glitches that appeared when used the show/hide function. I'm on a personal project under the name of "Template pipeproject" where I usually check all templates present, making some edits and fixings on them.

This is slightly less important, but: Should there be strict regulations on the colours of templates, such as them having to relate to the subject of the template? (Obviously, some subjects would not relate to any particular colour) A while ago I changed the Subterranean Locations template colour from an unfitting blue to a logical brown. Oh, and also: With that template, I Moved it from "Template:Sub" to "Template:Subterranean Locations" because calling it "Sub" looked lazy to me. So should there also be rules that Templates have full titles rather than abbreviations... or is that insignificant? It probably is, knowing my theories...

To respond to Walkazo, Dragon, Fish, and Bird articles would never be template-less, as they will always be in game-specific templates. But perhaps like Dragon, Fish and Bird need some trimming. For example, Craw is in the Bird template, although I don't know if they are explicitly called birds. They are bird-like, but they may not be recognized as birds in-game. --

CC: I appreciate your support. And I forgot to mention that you found a new way to collapse templates with ease; it makes the task a lot less difficult for us all! 2257: Implementing that onto the wiki may not be a bad idea at all. We'll have to see if it's completely necessary first, but nonetheless it may help. Interesting! I learn something knew every day! Dom: Good points! Generally, template colors should complement each other, as well as the subject they deal with. However, because it'd be too difficult for one to actually decide which colors would be entirely deemed as "subject-specific", I'm afraid that we would just have to edit the templates as we see fit. We can, however, make sure that all templates have good colors that complement each other, rather than a blinding fusion of colors. As for making a rule for specific templates...that would also be pretty hard to determine what's an appropriate abbreviation and what's not. Personally, I feel that the only templates that should have abbreviations are game- and series-specific templates, and those would only use the game's most common abbreviation. (Like Super Mario Bros. 3's is "SMB3", but Yoshi's Safari and Yoshi's Story both share "YS" for their common abbreviation.) --


 * Wait (double take)...can you simplify this?
 * Gladly. Which part would you like simplified?
 * Gladly. Which part would you like simplified?


 * Oh, shoot, what about location templates, such as Template:Kitchenisland? And also, level template. The ones that show all the levels in a certain world, like Template:YoshiLevels. Those are quite helpful.
 * I already asked both those questions (and interestingly, we both chose as an example). Levels and Locations are going to be incorporated into their parent game unless that'll make the template too large. Therefore,  would be merged with a Super Mario Land 3: Wario Land template, but  would stay separate. -
 * Heh, I suppose I could have read the comments before posting. :P My bad. And thanks for the answer. ;)

Did you say all navigation templates be show hide. When I enter a page with a show hide it does a weird glitch, and my laptop lag. :(
 * Yes, all nav templates. But may CC's new collapsing coding will resolve the lag.

Yeah but. The show hide templates does an odd glitch on my laptop. The template open by it seft and then lose the [show] button, then the [show] button reappears in 3 seconds. Lastly my laptop freeze for a 5 second. }}

Create Good Articles 2.0
NO "GOOD ARTICLES" 2-6

Hmmm... how to start? Oh, yes. I'm sure many of you have seen articles that are very good, but not good enough to become a FA (like Luigi's Mansion or Koopa Troopa), so I propose we create a new category called "Good Articles", this will give an acknowledgement (long word) to this articles. In order to become a FA, an article needs to fulfill all of this, so a Good Article will only need to fulfill most of them, excluding points number 7 and 9, and changing the 4000 characters to 2500. Who's with me?

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Tucayo}} Deadline: February 10th 2009, 17:00

Create

 * 1) - Per... ME!
 * 2) - Well I guess it would work ok, I see. Per Tucayo.

DON'T create

 * 1) - Instead of arguing about what is a "Good Article," we should focus on getting articles to FA status (which itself is a long process - now imagine if we were having debates about if certain articles are Good, not bad but also not FA level).  Also, there are no details for how this system would actually work.
 * 2) - Per Son of Suns. If users actually worked on improving articles and making them FA's, it would probably be way better.
 * 3) - Per SoS. There would be no point, an article should just be plain well done to be nominated as an FA. BUt how could you nominate a..GA?
 * 4) - Per me.  Who to decide that non-lengthy articles, not long because it doesn't have to be, is not a "good article"?  The little ones with good, rock solid information should still be considered "good". Debates about what articles good and what's not good is rather dubious.  We don't need this.
 * 5) - Per Son of Suns. Not worth the trouble, plus "Good Articles" sounds unprofessional.
 * 6) - Per Dom who is "per-ing Son of Suns. And yes, Good Articles does sound unprofessional.

Comments
In all honesty, this sounds like a pretty good idea. However, before I vote, I'd like to ask a question. Exactly which standards would an article need to meet in order to become a "Good Article"?


 * 1,2,4,6,7 and 11

They have this on wookieepedia.

Okay, thanks Tucayo!

On Wookiepedia, they have a Good Articles system - but that is only for articles that basically meet all FA requirements except for achieving a certain level of content. Here, that would be the 4,000 characters rule. By Wookiepedia standards, an article that filled all FA criteria except rule 11 would be a Good Article. The criteria Tucayo provided left out rules like must be sourced with all appearances and cannot have an improvement template on the page. So these "good articles" may end up being not very "good" at all. --


 * Well, it sounds better like that


 * Might I suggest making "Good Articles" fit the same profile as a FA, with the exception of rules 6, 7, and 9? And change the 4,000 character rule to 2,500 characters?


 * Come again?

Stooby: Sounds good, should i specify that in the proposal?
 * I'd recommend Since it's your proposal, it's up to you.

K, done, but it seems that pont 6 is important, so I didnt include it

Wikipedia has these, and it works for them. Besides, it'd be a good way to highlight articles that are as good as they can be, but not good enough to be featured. On the other hand, we may have too few articles for it to be prudent to have GAs and FAs.
 * I think it's too much trouble for what it's worth to set up a GA system here - Wikipedia is HUGE, so it's worthwhile there. However, I do see the benefit in allowing smaller well-written articles to get recognition. Maybe there should be a simpler "Good Article" system that allows smaller articles to be featured every few weeks (like what's been set up for Featured Lists). -
 * Not a bad idea. We have some short articles that are really great.
 * That is most definitely true. The level articles are a great example.

}}