MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/11



Siblings Template
COMBINE 13-0

I've noticed that the Siblings template, though useful, is in need of a change, notably, the fact that, on looking, one cannot actually tell which characters are, in fact, siblings. For example, Mario has two characters between him and Luigi, or on a much more dramatic scale, Dixie Kong and Tiny Kong are on complete opposite ends of the template. Some characters, like Kat and Ana, have this remedied with the word "and" in some form. My proposal, in order to clean this template up, is to do that with all characters with an unlinked 'and' between them, for example, Mario and Luigi. Naturally, this wouldn't apply to, say, the Jellyfish Sisters, as they don't have an and in their name, or to, say, Kat and Ana, who already have an and which is a part of the page name. They would be arranged alphabetically by first character's name, so it would be, say, Mario and Luigi after Baby Mario and Baby Luigi, but before Punio and Petuni.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Shrikeswind}} Deadline: October 18, 2008, 20:00

Combine

 * 1) Per above.
 * 2) I had actually thought about doing this, but I was too lazy. :P Per Shrikeswind.
 * 3) Whoa, great idea. That'd definitely organize it a little more.
 * 4) - Per all. I don't think a proposal was necessary, however...
 * 5) - I thought about colour-coding this template a few months back, and even came up with the organizing principle; but I never proposed it because it looked bad. This idea blows mine out of the water!
 * 6) ~Per all.
 * 7) - Per All. This is gonna help s stay organized, too :P.
 * 8) - This is actually a very well done proposal, especially for a first.  Anyway, this would increase the usefulness of the template, and as Walkazo showed us, is plausible and aesthetically pleasing.
 * 9) - Per all.
 * 10) - Always those little bitty things... anywho, per all.
 * 11) - Moo. That's Cow for 'per all'.
 * 12) - per all.
 * 13) - Per all, its easier to look that way

Comments
Jeez, I hope I did this right. My first proposal and I feel like an idiot doing it. Any help would be much appreciated. -
 * You did a good job. ;) Kudos.

Er... Could you link to the template, please? :') I'll go find it myself, but it would be nice for people who newly see the proposal.
 * Here ya go.

As I said in my vote, I already did the research and came up with divisions for the siblings a while ago. I saved my work, and just went through and converted it to this idea, and this is the result. If you like it, Shrikeswind, perhaps we can use it as the new Sibling's Template if (or rather, when) this proposal passes? If there's anything amiss, please tell me. -
 * Nice template! :) It's very well organized. I might have an idea for an even more well organized version of it though.
 * I was thinking the template could look like a cross between this, and what you have as a prototype, but the outcome wasn't real good. So, your way is definitely the better way.
 * Thanks! I was thinking of dividing it up a bit like that too; but yeah, there were too many single siblings, one-link pairs, and small families to make it worthwhile... -
 * That's almost exactly what I was thinking, and no less that's a better way to do it, especially considering, for example, the Koopalings. Thank you Walkazo.
 * My pleasure :) I love template work. -
 * Should this be archived?

}}

L Block
DON'T MERGE 1-8

I was stopping by to check on blocks recently, and I saw that L Block had almost no info. I have a feeling L Block should be merged with M Block.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Pink Boozooka}} Deadline: October 23, 2008, 17:00

Merge

 * 1) - I'm Paperphailurethemariomonster99, and I think M Blocks and L Blocks are the same!!!!

Don't Merge

 * 1) - I have 3 reasons why it shouldn't be merged. 1) It is officially named, 2) It affects gameplay differently, no matter how slight a difference it has from the M Block, 3) It is almost the same length as the M Block. With an expansion, the articles will be fine separate.
 * 2) - I agree with Stooben's third point.  Plenty of articles on this Wiki are short and would, in their current states, be better merged, but there's so much potential for those articles that it would be a waste.  I'm thinking of minor characters from Mario Tennis: Power Tour for example.  Yeah, I know that after I voted for the merging levels into world articles it probably seems weird that I'm opposing this, but that was a presentation thing, whereas this is not.
 * 3) - Per all.
 * 4) - No way there two differnt boxes.
 * 5) - Ay. Per all. L Block can be expanded into a good-sized article. And iggykoopa, I do believe you are voting in the wrong section.
 * 6) *sigh* There are different blocks that are officaly named. They can't be merge those blocks aren't the same.
 * 7) - Yep, Stooben Rooben 'nuff said. Read my comment below.
 * 8) - Per stooben, they are 2 different things

Comments
I don't like blocks.
 * now thats ugly :( (lol jk)

Well, Dom, blocks happen to be a major part of the Mario series. Deleting these articles would get you immediately stripped of your powers if you had them. Blocks are awesome. No questions asked. We're done here. *closes briefcase and walks out the door*

Hey, ROB128 - I've noticed that everyone on the Wiki hates my opinions no matter what I say. I feel even more worthless now. But seriously, BLOCKS. What could be less interesting? I wouldn't truly consider deleting the block articles - but maybe merging them all into a Blocks article - but since everyone hates my ideas - there was no point in saying that. Oh, and Super-Yoshi - are you calling me ugly? Oh yeah, and ROB - I don't exactly have any powers to be stripped of - I'm a useless contributor with no special rank like Sysop or anything. I probably never will be due to life circumstances. }}

Mame Block and Bagubagutchi
DRAW 5-5

I recently passed by Mametchi's page and found a user had merged Bagubagutchi and Mame Block in to the one article. We need the pages as someone might need the info.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|BeeBop!}} Deadline: October 24, 2008, 20:00

Split

 * 1) Per my proposal
 * 2) -per all
 * 3) Per BeeBop!
 * 4) - Look at my comment below.
 * 5) - The reason we're merging things from Super Smash Bros. is because it isn't a spin-off from the Super Mario series, but features Mario.  However, that doesn't mean that a crossover subject in a Mario game should be merged and such.  If that was the case, we're looking at merging together the moves, etc. from the Final Fantasy characters in Mario Hoops 3-on-3 as well.  Is this really something we want?  To simply say that this one character in Mario Kart GP is a "special case" is bogus.  If this proposal fails, we'll have to merge Mario Hoops topics accordingly, etc.  As I stated below, this proposal is invalid to begin with: BeeBop! is asking for us to vote on whether we should be able to enforce the fact that the previous proposal was inconclusive.  I could take action on this proposal right now.  In fact, I should - it's my duty as a sysop to see that users don't act on failed or null proposals.

Keep it Merged

 * 1) - Fine. I didn't want to do this, but I oppose because there was already a proposal about this last month, and it merged the two.
 * 2) - Per IS. Besides, the more stubs we have on this site, the less professional it looks.
 * 3) Per all. Ugh we have a past proposal to merge then because they're stubish. And stub aren't good for this wiki.
 * 4) - Per All.
 * 5) - Information from series other than Mario aren't this Wiki's focus, so lumping the corresponding Stubs together into presentable articles is perfectly reasonable.

Comments
Umm I think they have a proposal to merge all those items together since they're stubish.
 * Yes. And it passed. Besides, you can find all the info... In the one article. This proposal is not necessary.

I was looking over the archived proposals and there is no one up there about these two items but i know there was a proposal but to your point InfectedShroom it did not pass i know that for a fact because i lead the charge ageinst it i belive win it dissaberd the tally was 11-8.
 * Ever heard of using periods? And it seems that the fact that a proposal passed or not is irrelevant, because the proposal was deleted without being archived. I'm looking for a history now, though...
 * Here. The proposal was removed, but it was not decided. I guess this proposal is valid.
 * If this is the case, doesn't that mean that a lone user acted on a failed proposal?

So that means somebody merged the items together after the propasal falied.
 * Yeah, so if the proposer just cancels this proposal, no action is taken, just like the previous proposal. In short, the proposer could have just undone the user's edits instead of making another proposal and gotten what (s)he wanted.
 * So, perhaps the proposer should just do that? 16:20, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Exactly, if (s)he pulls the proposal right now, (s)he wins the proposal. So, continuing this proposal just gives him/her the chance of losing.
 * But it tied. 3 and 3?
 * Essentially what is going on is this. (1) 1st proposal to merge the subjects was pulled by the proposer, who changed his mind and wanted the subjects to remain separate. (2) A user merged the subjects anyway, breaking policy. (3) Therefore, had someone brought this to our attention, the sysops would be obligated to undo those edits.  Instead, the new proposer created a proposal, asking the Wiki to do what the sysops would have had to do in the first place. (4) Thus, the issue is back out into the open, and could swing either in this proposer's favor or not.

Walkazo: But, this article is about the mario series. The character and the item appeared in Mario Kart GP 2. It makes no sense to merge the item with the character while leaving all the other Mario Kart GP Item intact.
 * They may be in a Mario game, but the blocks are essentially items from Tamagotchi. Personally, I'd be perfectly happy seeing all the Mario Kart GP items merged (it'd beat the slew of the red links and stubs by a long-shot); and for that matter, I'd be fine with the non-Mario content of Mario Hoops 3-on-3 merged as well (though I'll admit my Mario elitism is probably unreasonable by most standards). This is the second proposal in a row where an issue brought up over one game is really a matter of Mario Wiki Policy; this time, the proposal's foundings are already questionable, so perhaps it would be best to just remove it (as Stumpers has been advocating) and prevent any confusion, hastles, and/or double-standards. -
 * Walkazo, I agree that the MKGP items would be better merged. The ones that appear in other MK or Mario games could have links to their greater articles, but as it stands there are, what, 200 of them?  All very minor, kind of like the badges or recipes in Paper Mario.  What I don't want to have happen is to see all other series that cross-over with Mario get lackadaisical coverage.  We set out to cover all aspects of the Mario series and many aspects of the Smash series, so I feel that what we do for cross-over content in Smash should not necessarily be applied to the Mario series.  So, I'd be up for merging ALL MKGP items together because they are minor, but I wouldn't be up for merging some of them because they are minor in relation to the Mario series.  In any case, we shouldn't be dealing with this on a point-by-point basis.  Just like we didn't merge, say, Sonic and Snake's special moves a while back, I don't think we should merge just Tamogotchi (especially when the Pac articles are still unmerged).  22:41, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Sounds good; as long as the horrendous amount of stubs and non-articles goes down, I'm happy. But wouldn't we need another proposal to merge all the MKGP items? Come to think of it, it'd probably be easier if these sort of proposals dealing with individual articles could automatically be replaced with proposals concerning the underlying problems which the case-by-case instances bring to light... -

Oh my god you guys are such hypocrites manily you super yoshi you dont souporte the merge of minor paper mario items but you do support the merge of these items why is that? is because they are not in america and the stubish thing all minor items are stubish
 * ...You do realize that proposals are about what other users think about the idea. I've been here longer than you, don't call me a hypocrite. If you don't like us, then we aren't forcing you to stay. All I said was Per All, because I thought everyone was correct on the merge side.
 * Oh I just realizzed that was my old proposal, lol.

}}

Sightings: Change to References?
CHANGE "SIGHTINGS" TO "REFERENCES" 12-0

The pages are currently listings of outside references to the Super Mario series. For example, Movie Sightings includes information about Super Mario Bros. 3 in The Wizard and Game Sightings includes information about the Mario statue in Animal Crossing. Now, the term "sighting" has many meanings, including, from Dictionary.com, "1. The ability to see. 2. The act or fact of seeing: hoping for a sight of land; caught sight of a rare bird." among other, less prominent meanings. As you can see, sightings refers to one person viewing something in reality, not something in fiction. Someone could make a "sighting" of Charles Martinet, but could not make a "sighting" of Mario. For our purposes, the term "references" is much more appropriate. Therefore, I propose that we rename the Sightings pages in this matter. At the same time, I'd like to make the titles more professional (Game --> Video game, Movie --> Film). Note that because of the new naming, we will be merging comics, books, and magazines into one article, because they all are print/literature sightings.

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

Support

 * 1) - My reasons are detailed above.
 * 2) - Per Stumpers.
 * 3) - Per Stumpers.
 * 4) Per Stumpers.
 * 5) - Per Stumpers.
 * 6) - Per all.
 * 7) - Per All.
 * 8) - Per Stumpers.
 * 9) - Per Stumpers.  Really, this seems like an obvious one.
 * 10) - Per All, and or Stumpy.
 * 11) - Per Stumpers. Srsly.
 * 12) - Per All. I have a dictionary at home and you are right!

Comments
The full title change would be as follows:
 * 1) Advertisement Sightings --> Promotional references
 * 2) Animation Sightings --> Animation references
 * 3) Book Sightings --> Print references
 * 4) Comic Sightings --> Print references
 * 5) Game Sightings --> Video game references
 * 6) Magazine Sightings --> Print references
 * 7) Movie Sightings --> Film references
 * 8) Musical Sightings --> Music references
 * 9) Television Sightings --> Television references
 * 10) Theater Sightings --> Theatrical references
 * 11) Website Sightings --> Internet references

Please debate these. Any debated changes will only be altered to reflect the sightings --> references change (ie Game Sightings would become Game references if people debate changing it to Video game references).
 * Good changes. :) Though, I'd like to suggest merging Comic sightings into Literary references, since they both are a form of literature. "Theater references" could be changed to "Theatrical references"; And "Online references" could be changed to "Internet references" perhaps?
 * I like. I don't know if there is even material that would apply to this, but I had a sudden thought that a subsection to 'Internet References' could be 'Memes'.
 * Noted and changed... GhostJam, make sure you're also cool with the changes I'm going to make (it's still early enough to do that... so now we have a three-way merge (Stooben, you're absolutely right, and magazines are technically literature as well, so I've merged the three into "print references." Sound good?
 * Agreed; print references sounds great.

Also, if this goes through, we will be capitalizing the 'r' in References for these titles, yes? I don't guess it matters, just my personally obsession with symmetry. -- 13:47, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Hmm... maybe, maybe not. Capitalization should really only be used when you have a proper noun... so it's kind of like, whose obsession do we go with?  Yours with symmetry or mine with proper capitalization?  It could really go to either side.  Since we're trying to make it more professional, I think lower case is the way to go.
 * Aye, capitalizing the "r" doesn't make much sense. Just look at Wikipedia. Symmetry is one of my biggest pet peeves (as seen in many templates and pages I edit :P), but the lowercase "r" seems the best way.
 * Since they're the page titles, wouldn't the "R"s be capitalized? With the exception of newspapers, I've found that titles are generally capitalized with only minor words (i.e. "and", "the", etc.) left lower-case. Sub-titles can be left with only the first word capitalized, but not major headers, as far as I know. Plus, it looks better. -

(seems interested in this situation) So... basically we are going to move the hundreds of sightings to actual articles? Is it like moving this entry, that Wario cameo appearance in the game The Legend of Stafy 3. That guy helps Stafy in this area, :P Here's the pic. Another question, how will the references section of the article look like? Obviously we have several images of sightings in the wiki database. What are we supposed to do to manage the images there? With the gallery perhaps? I may be a crat, say sound smart, but I also ask questions like other normal users. :3
 * When merged into "__ Sightings", I'm assuming they will look like the Implied lists – neatly organized.
 * RAP: We're just moving the sightings articles and merging a few of them. I don't plan on touching the character articles in this regard... I hope you're not saying that there's some crazy syntax thing going on with the sightings articles that I don't know about! :O
 * Crazy syntax is awesome. :o
 * Awesome crazy syntax is a crazy syntax.
 * Eh, never mind. I think I got confused all of sudden while reading this Maybe I will read more slowly... I might... Yes, I will support the article move for a more professional name feel. XP Then again, those sigh--I mean references actually need cleanup. I did game references and promotional references. ;3 ...And talked myself into making a crazy syntax table for mainly to restructure those pages. XP

PhailureMonster: thanks for confirming that a print dictionary agrees. Those are usually considered to be more reliable! }}

PM: Minor Items
DON'T MERGE 1-8

I've been looking at the Paper Mario series articles lately and found that due to the massive amount of recovery and side-quest items there are a LOT of tiny stublets related to these items. I think that all these pages should be merged and all the links go to their spot in that page. To merge or not to merge?

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Gyroid X}} Deadline: October 29, 2008, 17:00

Merge

 * 1) To merge, its horrible to have to look on thousands of stubs

No Merge

 * 1) - While it is true that there are many stubs, the more major subjects still deserve articles.  For example, Yakkey is a character, Peach Doll has since appeared in multiple sources, Sneaky Parasol plays a very major role in the story... etc. etc. etc.  This proposal isn't even fleshed out enough to define which Paper Mario special items we'd be merging.
 * 2) - Stumpers, stop stealing my words! You always make excellent points, as you do here.
 * 3) - Per Stumpers.
 * 4) Per Stumpers
 * 5) - Per Stumpers.
 * 6) - Per all.
 * 7) - whether subjects get articles or not is not decided by how much there is to say about them, but how important they are in the games. Any item that actually appeared and wasn't implied, and is fundamentally different from other items, may get its own article. If not, we could merge half of the wiki's pages.
 * 8) - Per cobold. It's like next were going to merge minor enimes into 1 article, then merge charcters charcters that are only in 1 game, minor games,and so on.

Comments
You're going to be a little more specific on which items you want to merge. I believe you're referring to those in categories such as Category:Paper Mario Special Items correct? I think you may need to make your proposal more specific... what would be the name of the new article, would we have one for each game, etc.
 * And if you'd like, I can make an example of what it would look like, if you were to be more specific.

Would you be merging Yakkey?
 * Thanks, Dom. :D


 * This proposal needs to be more specific. While it is annoying to load up about a hundred three lined pages, there are some that are important and need to stay. Some articles should should definite by merged, while some need to stay separate. 20:14, 25 October 2008 (EDT)


 * I was actually talking about all the recipes and recovery items and whatnot, not key items. I think Yakkey counts as a key item. :P
 * Tell you what - why don't you rewrite this proposal and be very specific about which pages you want to merge. Then, you can retry this proposal, since many users were against this proposal because it had too much gray area, perhaps you'll have better luck.  If you want, you can take down this proposal before it passes and start fresh right now.

}}

Rating Companies
DON'T MERGE 3-6

The rating companies doesn't really have have a effect on any video games left alone Mario games.The only time we need to keep it in as it's own article if it's a item,place,game,Characters,Enemy,kart,block.The rating companies doesn't fit any of them.The only effect it has is which people play the game and the front of the box =P.So I think we should merge it.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Dark Lakitu 789}} Deadline: October 29, 2008, 17:00

Merge

 * 1) Per myself above
 * 2) -- They're pretty pointless here.
 * 3) -- Per Booster.

Don't Merge

 * 1) - Merges should occur when (1) We are trying to decrease our emphasis on a subject, ie Super Smash Bros. and/or (2) When an article has been expanded completely and it is still short.  Neither of these conditions are true.  This Wiki is just as much about the real history of the Mario series as it is the in-universe content, and as I noted below, two of the articles are definitely not stubs and the others have yet to be expanded completely.
 * 2) - Per Stumpers. Also, the rating companies are what deem Mario and all related games 'kid-friendly', so they do have an actual effect on the Mario series, despite the fact that they make no in-game appearances.
 * 3) Per Stumpers. (BTW would the page look messy?)
 * 4) Per all. expicely Stooben Rooben.
 * 5) - Per Stumpers.
 * 6) - Per Stumpers.

Comments
Why don't people bother using links and proper grammar in their proposals anymore? Anyway, to save everyone else the hassle of tracking down the articles themselves, I'm assuming "Rating Companies" refers to Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB), Pan-European Game Information (PEGI), Computer Entertainment Rating Organization (CERO), and Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC). -


 * I don't get it... some of those are pretty good, and only PEGI and CERO are currently stubs. What's being lost because the articles are separate?
 * I don't see a point in targeting only one group of companies either. (Not that I'm dismissing the validity of your proposal.)
 * Did you know that I created the OFLC article!? Pretty impressive, huh? I hope Stumpers was referring to my article when he said 'pretty good'! BTW, I've noticed everything minor seems to be getting merged these days - isn't there a point of having individual articles?
 * I was referring to that, actually. :) Yes, there is a point to individual articles: it increases the emphasis on the subject and allows us to completely expand on the topic more easily.  It's like when Wikipedia splits... say banana into "banana" and "history of banana".  They do that because they feel the subject is so important that it deserves more than one article.  Merging means that the subject is so unimportant that it doesn't even deserve one whole article.  It's all about the amount of info we can say on the subject without overstepping the boundaries of what we cover.
 * Thanks for the informative comment there! LOL at the banana example - quite random.

}}

Article Organization Standard
SET NEW STANDARD 12-0

For quite some time now, we have given guidelines as to article formatting, but we have not set a single standard. This has caused many problems for the Wiki, including the conflicts over the formatting of the Mario and Daisy articles. Our previous formatting ideas came from the idea that certain sources were of a higher canon than others and thus should be separated from lower canon sources in the articles. This was detailed in Canonicity prior to its recent rewrite which removed that speculation. Unfortunately, that means that our primary article organization is based off of fanon. For example, our section on video game appearances is called “Biography,” implying that none of the sports spin-offs and alternate media sources “happened” in a character's life. Whether we believe this to be true or not, it is not the Wiki's place to make such speculation.

This presents us with a unique opportunity to kill two birds with one stone: if we establish a standard for article organization that is not based on speculation, the speculation will be removed from our articles AND the argument as to how articles should be organized will be settled.

I propose that we give each individual source a section of its own. Then, each section would be placed within its respective medium. We would have a separate section for video games, television shows, comics, the movie, etc. Furthermore, each of these sections would have subsections for each series. The central Mario platforming series would have a section, as would Mario Kart, Paper Mario, etc. For titles that do not fall into a series, they would be placed in a section called "Individual Titles" or some equivalent. Each of these sections and sub-sections will be organized by release date. So, for Mario, you would first have the video game section, which starts with the Donkey Kong series, then moves to the Mario series, and so on and so forth. However, when the events of a title has explicitly occurred prior to those released earlier in its section, such as Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island in the Mario section, it can be listed earlier. Another example would be Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins, which can be listed just after Super Mario Land.

For those who are confused, I am willing to make a mock-up of this concept. For those who still want to see the video game sources lined up in the way they currently are, please remember that Chronology was designed just for you.

Why does this idea benefit the Wiki?
 * 1) Removes speculation: Organizing by media and series is an objective concept that Nintendo often uses itself. Compare this to our current method: trying to organize events in the order that WE believe them to have happened, something that Nintendo has never done.
 * 2) Creates a standard: now that MarioWiki:Canonicity has been rewritten, we need a new standard. I also want us to have a standard that we all agree on, not one that a sysop back from the early days of the Wiki created before we had the proposals page.
 * 3) Frees us from having to connect storylines. If each appearance has a different section, we do not need to speculate and claim that "After doing this, the character did that," or worry about balancing the inconsistencies such as those between Yoshi's Island, The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! and the Nintendo Comics System.
 * 4) Allows for expansion of alternate media appearances, such as those from The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! It is very difficult to write about the entire series in a paragraph of a subsection in the alternate media sections as our current organization has us doing.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Stumpers}} (with input from Cobold, Blitzwing, Ghost Jam, and Rooben Stooben among others.) Deadline: November 3rd, 17:00

Support

 * 1) - My reasons are detailed above.
 * 2) - I think that the current way the articles are structured is rather random and not really official. The change is necessary.
 * 3) - Per Stumpers, all the way. This should finally help get articles in order – the way they should always be.
 * 4) - Per Stumpers.
 * 5) - Per Stumpers, he got inspired
 * 6) - Per all. This seems like a really good idea.
 * 7) - Per Stumpers. Less arguements and stuff are going to happen this way, and our wiki will be much neater and organized.
 * 8) - Per all.
 * 9) - Per all, per all, per all. Period. The wiki will be greatly cleaned up with easy to access information when this proposal will be effect.
 * 10) Per Stumpers.
 * 11) Per Stumpers.
 * 12) This is a great idea and will really help with organization. Massive kudos.

Comments
Thanks, Tucayo, but I gotta give credit to the other sysops as well - it was really a group effort. I just nailed down the specifics.

I still think dividing the video games by individual series is too much. Yes, those of us who do want to see the strictly chronological order can look on Chronology, but you could just as easily say the people who want to see the series' history can look on the Series' Pages (i.e. Mario & Luigi (series)). Plus, casual Users and Guests may not know enough to go searching the MarioWiki pages; whereas the Series Pages are mainspace and (should be) linked to on the articles themselves. Even then, all the Chronology page gives us is a list, and if we want to find out about what Mario does from game to game, we'd have to go from game to game; whereas the Series Pages offer a bit more up front. Plus, it's not rocket science to figure out Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door is the sequel to Paper Mario; so if someone did want to find out what Mario did in respects to the Paper Mario series only, they'd just have to scroll down the chronologically-organized biography looking for the "Paper Mario" titles. But it doesn't go both ways: as they are now, most biography sections don't include dates; and even if they do in the future, it's harder to look around for the first thing to come after "September 1993" than the next 3-D "Super Mario...". True, that's when you'd whip out MW:Chronology; but it seems like too much hassle for half of us just to spare the other half a fraction of the time and frustration. What I'm trying to say is that we already have the option to read history by series, and we always will, so what need is there for this extra step? I agree with the proposal otherwise, so I'm not voting against it - the Wiki needs change, just not that much. -
 * Something that I was considering while writing this proposal was that, even if this isn't the ultimate fix we find, it's a good one for right now. If you can think of a better way, please, PLEASE make a proposal.  We've been banging our heads trying to figure out how to not follow any fanon while still acknowledging the fact that the overall Mario series does appear to have a continuity within it, just not a very well defined one.
 * That's one thing that poses a big problem: Nintendo has confirmed absolutely no chronological order to their different types of media. This is one of the few tasks the MarioWiki that we have do to completely from scratch. I for one, think it's well worth it, despite any obstacles we may run across.
 * By organizing by series, we can free ourselves of any conjecture we previously had to make when we clumped all the video games together. Another method would be to list appearances by release date.  However, the downside of that is that you can't place past events from later released appearances earlier in the article.  For example, we know that Yoshi's Island came before Super Mario Bros., but we don't know how Yoshi's Island relates to Yoshi Touch & Go. Is it before, after, during, or an alternate timeline?  By dividing into Mario and Yoshi series, we free ourselves up from that.
 * MW:Chronology has already established that games explicitly set at certain points in time are exempt from the release-date-order (such as Super Mario Land 2: Six Golden Coins coming immediately after Super Mario Land; and Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island being set before all other games), so couldn't that be carried over to the articles? As for the muddled Yoshi series, I don't think organizing by series would make it any easier than by date (for example, SMW2: Yoshi's Island is as closely elated to Super Mario World as it is to the later Yoshi titles, which confuses things further: where does one series end and the next begin?). Yoshi Touch & Go has no plot, but what can be gleaned from the gameplay suggests it is a "retelling" of Yoshi's Island, and can therefore be listed alongside said game, like how Super Mario 64 DS is incorporated with Super Mario 64 in MW:Chronology. Lumping the games together by series is invoking as much conjecture as going by release dates; and considering all the cross-series references and carry-overs, it would seem more likely Nintendo did not mean to divide the games like this. For instance, Bowser's crush for Peach was introduced in Paper Mario and then incorporated into subsequent games such as Super Mario Sunshine, which is part of the 3-D series begun before Paper Mario was released. For this reason, listing SMS before PM would be confusing, but necessary according to ordering by series and their seniority. Super Paper Mario also references series that come after Paper Mario started (i.e. the Sammer Guy Mustard of Doom named after Fawful of Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga); though you could argue these are merely jokes for the player's amusement, and not as consequential as actual plot elements. -
 * Actually, Bowser's love for Peach was introduced in The Great Mission to Save Princess Peach and then in Super Mario Adventures (it could also be argued that The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! also used this concept when Bowser wanted to marry Peach, but it was largely for political reasons).  Examples of video games taking ideas from earlier alternate media are numerous, even when it comes to references and jokes for the player: the Pal Pills were a reference back to an item from Super Mario World television show episode "Rock TV" for example, and Nintendo of America openly embraced the idea of Mario coming from Brooklyn even after Yoshi's Island contradicted the Super Show's backstory.  However, since many users (including yourself) argued against the merging of video games and alternate media sources into one big appearances section, myself and the other sysops had to think of another solution.  You're arguing that video games should be blended together because each series is not presented as its own separate continuity with different characters, locations, and themes.  Yet, I can and have argued that video games and alternate media sources should be merged for the same reasons.  Remember when I implemented that idea into Mario and his parents' articles?  As you pointed out and I agreed, it was a mess of speculation.  You also forgot something about Chronology: it's designed for users to speculate on how the sources fit together.  So, here's my and the other sysops' logic: if placing sources together in a chronological order requires speculation (for example, can you cite me specific proof that says Paper Mario came after Super Mario 64?), then why should we do it?  We're here to write about official Nintendo material rather than to speculate about it, right?  So, how can we not speculate?  We must sort by an objective standard rather than a subjective one.  We must be able to clearly say, "This source fits this real world, non-fanon condition(s)."  Rather than, as you said, base our organization on what we "gleaned from gameplay suggests,"  One early idea of mine was to sort sources by date exclusively, and making the articles clearly historical from the point of the real world?  That was one of my first ideas, but it was denied.  What the sysops and I cooked up and I am now proposing is objective criteria, and it will organize those ridiculously long appearance pages.
 * I just wanted to apologize in case my above message seemed harsh or irksome. I reread it now, and it does seem a little arm-twisty.  So, anyone who read it, know that yes, I do believe what I said, but no, it wasn't fair to say it the way I did.  I'd like to give Walkazo credit for standing up for the removal of fanon with the Mario's parents article, and I'm very grateful for it.  Otherwise, I'd probably still be pounding away at articles, speculating like crazy trying to put all the pieces together.  So, thanks, Walkazo and I hope you weren't offended in any way!

This Proposal is like quantum physics - it's too confusing for me. If I understood it properly, I'd have my say in this. I am extremely dumb, but it's mainly because Stumpers is too smart...
 * You, good sir, are much too kind! But, if you can't understand it that means I wrote it badly.  Is there anything in particular you'd like me to clarify?  Is it just the reasoning for the change or would you like me to make a mock-up to show what the change will be?
 * Going back to the above conversation; to be honest, I did feel like I was being scolded for stubbornly arguing against your idea, Stumpers, but your apology was really nice - thank you! Anyway, I did find specific proof that there is some sort of inter-series continuum: FLUDD's video analysis of Mario at the beginning of Super Mario Sunshine. It first shows him jumping over Bowser in Super Mario Bros., then battling Iggy Koopa in Super Mario World, and finally him swinging Bowser around by his tail in Super Mario 64. I can't guarantee FLUDD showed the videos in the order that they occurred in the Marioverse, but it would make the most sense if it did, as computers use pretty standard organization principals (the other option would be alphabetical order, but in that case, SM64 would come before SM World); speculation aside, it still proves the three series coexist. And unlike most cross-series references, this is an actual plot device: it shows how FLUDD identifies Mario as a Koopa-fighting crusader worthy of its assistance. -
 * Aw... thanks for not being mad at me (I deserve it if you are). I've been pretty stressed out this week, so just know that I didn't mean to scold you, and that NO one, especially NOT you deserves that.  Again, I'm really sorry about that!  I'm nearly certain we can confirm that the main Mario series is definitely in a straight-shot continuity, with the two exceptions Yoshi's Island and Super Mario Land 2.  Reasons like the ones you mentioned and the continuity between the titles is pretty blatant.  Super Mario Bros. 2 (Japan) directly connected itself to be after Super Mario Bros. 1.  Super Mario Land would have taken place next by release date (and thus SML2 would come right after), which then explains Super Mario Bros. 3's storyline, stating that Bowser had been unactive for a very long time.  I'm not sure how official it is, but many users have told me that Super Mario World is apparently the bros. going on a vacation to celebrate the returned peace in the Mushroom World.  You can see, there's no down time in the story, really.  Then, after that they brought in the spin-off Super Mario Kart and the explanation of Mario's birth in Yoshi's Island.  A lot more spin-offs and real world time passed before we got our mitts on Super Mario 64.  It's between World and 64 we first start getting this messy video game continuity: the games with a storyline come out with much greater time between them and more spin-offs happen, none of which connect themselves directly with the plot of the others (but you should know, I totally think they are part of the continuity personally).  So, what I'm saying is this: the part of the continuity we KNOW is set in stone is the main series video games.  Their storylines always spell out the context, even if it's just connecting back in various ways (Sunshine showed that Mario remembered Luigi's Mansion and that F.L.U.D.D. knew of his past exploits.)  And, I would further argue that the RPG series is married at the hip as well, which itself is a straight shot continuity between SMRPG, Paper Mario, M&L, PM2, etc. as well.  Elements have spilled over greatly, and have established that they are part of the main series continuity (Kamek remembers Baby Mario and Luigi, Beanish characters in PM2, etc.).
 * So, what my message here is this: I myself am of the theory that MarioWiki:Chronology is the closest thing we can get to a continuity, and I stand by it. I would like to stress that article organization and continuity don't necessarily have to go together.  We may find it more advantageous to sort by series, we might not.  In any case, if this doesn't work out as well, rest assured the sysops and myself will keep trying to find a better way, and I'll be looking to you, Walkazo.  Thanks for all your help on the Wiki!

Response to Stumpers, from Dom: Well, one thing that makes it confusing is that this is the biggest, wordiest proposal I've ever seen - there's so much to try and take in. And the huge amount of comments here proves it must be pretty complicated. I think I would get this if you made a mock-up of what the changes would be - I am a visual learner so yeah. Although I'll admit that I still look at the Proposal and it goes over my head. It would be great if you could demonstrate the changes... Man, I feel really dumb.
 * Sure, I'll work on it. I'm not sure if I'll be able to get it to you before the weekend is over, though, because I'm super busy from the Saturday morning on. :O
 * In that case, I'm going to wait until I see the mock-up before I say anything else; a picture's worth a thousand words, after all. One thing is bugging me, though: italicization. So far, the game, show and movie titles are being italicized, but not the comics, which, according to this, is wrong. If we're already going to be reworking most articles for the new policy, I think it would be a good opportunity to address these sorts of trivialities as well. Anyway, pertaining to your earlier response, Stumpers, you're being far to kind; we all make mistakes and holding you to one slip-up you immediately apologized for would be wrong. -
 * Okay, here's the mock-up. You'll notice two changes if you're very familiar with the article that weren't outlined in my proposal.  I moved some text that didn't call on a particular game, such as relatives, implied birth, etc. to the top of the page.  If you guys wanted to use the introduction to give an overview of the character which could connect games, etc. together in MarioWiki:Chronology order, I don't think anyone would mind.  We need more information up there anyway, and that would allow you to talk about anything that is lost through this layout rather than the chronological one (such as Peach's birth).  The second change is that I removed an image that was making the article look messy with the new headers... not much of a change, but I still felt obligated to note it.  And Walkazo: you're absolutely right.  We should adopt that (proposal time?).

}}