MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/1

Wiki
None

Forum
}}
 * 1) Hk
 * 2) Silent but deadly! SuperLuigi821 You lost everything. Way to go genious.
 * 3) I agree. Forum should be used more. Plus there are a lot of wiki glitches. Sorry, but I   am   Confused  23:44, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
 * 4) Original plan, and how it's going to stay.
 * 5) This plan seems better... Think of all the annoying edit conflicts that could happen on the wiki.
 * 6) Edit conflicts made me choose this.
 * 1) Edit conflicts made me choose this.
 * 1) Edit conflicts made me choose this.

Move Chat
TIE 4-4 Troll mentioned has died down, thus result is KEEP ON WIKI

In order to deter trollers and protect this silly little anniversary thing, it has come to the attention of many that the chat should be moved back to the forums. This move has not previously been opposed, it has merely been put off.
 * Unfortunately, this might lower the number of users in chat. If enough users support with strong supporting arguments, we may get this through the system at a higher speed.
 * This would deter trolls in the future.
 * No real troll attack on the anniversary thing.

Proposer: Hk Deadline: 17:00, 6 June

{{scroll box|content=

Let it lie where it is

 * 1) – The chat needs to be open to everyone – compromise could be for Steve to unlock the restriction on the forum.
 * 2) Stumpers It's much more appealing where it is... I mean you just click. Boom.
 * 3) Bottle Wizzerd - Nobody can troll forever. :/
 * 4) --Shyster 19:01, 4 June 2007 (EDT)-I think willy is gone for good. Bottle Wizzerd is right too.

Move Chat to Forum

 * 1) Hk-As is said, many users are for this change, and this will definitely deter trolls.
 * 2) Keeps trollers away from forum, some might not even know where the forum is
 * 3) While it is more convenient to use the Wiki Chat, the Forum Chat is less suceptible to hacking and random IP chatting. Sorry, but I   am   Confused  21:31, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
 * 4) Forums, without a doubt. It'd prevent spammers and the like. If one is too lazy to simply go to the forums and access the chat, then they shouldn't be on it. Eggbert

Comments People seem to believe this Willy guy is going away soon. Take a look-- he's been here forever. One of the first big things I did on this wiki a year ago was move pages back to their rightful name after Willy had his first bout of fun. He ISN'T going anywhere.
 * This is what it says in the block log about Willy: 07:55, 18 June 2006 Porplemontage (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Willy on Wheels (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (troll), and that was about a year ago. He's struck several more times, and keeps coming back.
 * This Willy is another Willy who idolizes the first one. 20:32, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
 * There have also been several other past Willy attacks that follow the same same pattern, plus Silly Dan, plus StarNeptune, equals Willy won't quit. Besides, Plumber, think of the horrible nasty things hes said about YOUR sister. Although, the entire thing could be WarioLoaf.
 * Personally, Willy and all who worship him will never calm down. There is no educating the unreasonable.
 * Exactly. How many of us have tried to reason with ALttP and failed? The unreasonable are, and I tried hard to figure out how to phrase this, but there really isn't a word, un-educatable.
 * We have successfully reasoned with Willy already, and he wants to be a good user. I stopped him, also by reacting normally and continuing his remarks like he was starting a conversation. 20:50, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Supposedly, in chat, he said that he wanted to become a good user, but can't control himself. Then he said something about p***s and p**p, so we don't believe him that much. >_<
 * You reasoned with him? I doubt it.
 * We talked to him, but I doubt he'll do anything to reform.
 * I wonder why nobody trusts anybody? 20:57, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Its tough to trust someone who acts like Willy. Savvy?
 * He's had a lot of chances, and blew them all.
 * 3D, vote for the change.
 * Maxlover2 had a lot of chances and blew them all but one. 21:05, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
 * OK, we know. But this guy, I beleive, will never change. And I think the chat should stay where it is. We can just kick Willy when we comes.
 * Maxlover2 isn't a troll.
 * When he first cmae here, he knew none of the rules. Like me.
 * And me. Maxlover2 was a troll, on Wikipedia. He came here to spam, but 3D was nice to him, so he stopped. 21:11, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Seriously? Wow. Anyway, I personally beleive he is a spammer, and a spammer he will stay. Sorry. Look at Peachycakes!
 * Look, Willy is a buffoon, and he won't stop. Look at what he said to your sister, he's a sick freak, how can you forgive him?
 * And all that stuff about "My p3|\|15 grows like ice cream" and "I like to eat creamy p**p".... AAAH! IT'S SICK!
 * Personally, I never had a problem before on the forum. Plus, on the forum, it is required to give out e-mail confirmation. I don't think Willy is dumb enough to give out his e-mail just to harrass us. Sorry, but I   am   Confused  21:31, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Is there any need to still have this proposal? Willy was unmasked and is gone for good, so there's no need to move the chat anywhere now... o.o ~ Bottle Wizzerd
 * Is he really gone for good this time?
 * You must really tell me all about it, but not now, for it grows late.
 * And yes, Wizzerd, the proposal stays open anyway so we can find out what the people want.
 * He IS gone for good, it was WL the whole time, seemingly. And the opinions now are flawed, since the main problem was Willy. He's gone now, so I don't think all opinions are accurate now. ~ Bottle Wizzerd
 * WL was NEVER Willy. The addreses never matched.

}}

PAIR
ACCEPTED 8-0

Panel for Article Improvement and Recognition This acronym has nothing to do with the purpose of this feature, it's just something easy to remember. Credit to Hk for name :D

PAIR is the new [proposed] system to replace Peer Reviews, which were scrapped after no edits. Credit to Stumpers for inspiration/beginnings of the idea behind the system. It partially would use the "FlaggedRevs" extension on MediaWiki, which will work when MediaWiki version 1.11 will come out (we are on 1.10 right now). That is, if this is voted in, we can wait for 1.11 to come out (it can come out at any time), or start ahead of time, doing things manually. Let me explain the basis for how this will work:
 * Any user who has been on the wiki for a certain amount of time (3 months?) and who has at least a certain amount of edits (500?) will be able to "review" a revision of an article for accuracy (all facts are true), depth (details, everything needed present), and readability (grammar/spelling, flow of sentences) on a scale of either 1-4 or Low, Medium, High, and Exceptional. This user right is called "editor".
 * A user assigned by bureaucrats [me] the "reviewer" user right will be able to validate these reviews and make it official. The revision is now called "stable", and in the article a link to the last stable version is provided in a tab. Additionally, reviewers will be able to review articles the highest rates possible (4/Exceptional), while editors are limited up to 3/High. These users would be chosen for activeness and major contributions to articles, showing their writing prowess here and can be trusted with properly reviewing an article.
 * A combination of 3-6 editors and/or reviewers should work on an article, with at least 2 reviewers. Enough so that there's input, but not too much or it becomes a vote like previously.
 * Any comments should go in a section of the talk page – a template would signify this.
 * When two reviewers finds that the accuracy, depth and readability are all at 4/Exceptional, the article can be nominated for FA status.

By manually, reviews would be temporarily done on the talk page until 1.11 comes out.

Proposer: (started by ) Deadline: 17:00, 13 June {{scroll box|content=

Use the System

 * 1) – everyone is laid out fairly, efficient, plenty of capable users to make the system work consistently
 * 01:28, 7 June 2007 (EDT) Well, I'm a little confused on the specifics, and it might be too complex, but y'know what? We won't know until we try, so full steam ahead IMO.  Heh, heh... I'm voting for an idea I started... I feel kinda cheat-ish.  Thanks for working out the details Wayoshi!
 * 1) - Sounds fair. But we'll have to see if we can concentrate on the same article long enough to have a proper result.
 * 2) This may just be perfect.
 * 3) I helped design the system, actually. Wayoshi modified my details.
 * 4) – If this doesn't work out, we can alway go back to the old way.
 * 1) – If this doesn't work out, we can alway go back to the old way.

Comments
This is probably too early to tell, but here's what I'm worried about, and it's inspired by Cobold's point. For this to be effective, we're going to have to make this system as fast as possible so people don't get bored. Are there any ways that we could trim down on the system? It might work as is, but I just don't want to have it go for a bad run and then have everyone abandon it like the Peer Reviews. It also might help if we could see this visually, like with a diagram. Who knows, though. Maybe all this needs is just a chance to see the system in motion. In any case, I think this is our best bet to keep the FAs. 12:59, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
 * What we need is for everyone to make an effort and get involved. There's nothing we can do if no one tries. Reviewers especially should watch pages they review (I may force is as a default) and continually look at their watch pages for updates. The editors/users may be responsible for contacting a reviewer to review/validate an article for FA nomination. 16:18, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
 * How about we stick a section on the main page that features the current under-review articles? That might get people's attention, especially if it's one they worked on ;)  21:49, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
 * This proposal has reached its deadline. What now? - 09:15, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Well its 8-0 in favor of having it, so it get accepted. But from what I heard we need a mediawiki extension. 10:28, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Sweet... well, as usual, if you need any help, please let me know. :) 14:59, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

}}

Monitor Cursing
MONITOR 12-2

Cursing is a nasty thing, and there are children on this site. Should it be banned officially?

Proposer: Deadline: 20:00, 16 June {{scroll box|content=

Ban it hard

 * 1) -Its a nasty thing.
 * 2) Pokemon DP - Yes, I say definitely get rid of it.
 * 3) Agreed, last thing you'll need is some parent griping about what their kid learned here. Eggbert
 * 4) Maybe for the wiki and discussion, but I think that some (as long as it's not too bad) should be allowed on the forums and chat. Hisak
 * 5) I'd like to see curse words totally purged from this wiki, whether it be in userspace, chat, the forum, or anything.
 * 6) It should only be permitted when in a quote from the Marioverse or when referring to the location hell, or as the description "hellish" etc. Also, people should be allowed to use ****, *bleep*, etc. on userpages for humorous reasons only, but never like, "You are a ****" because we're smart enough to fill in the blanks. --Stumpers lol, I'm kinda moderate on this... maybe I should be in a third category.
 * 7) RickyMario: Cursing? Get rid of it! I am only 12 and I hate cursing!
 * 8) Get rid of it.
 * 9) Words liek Hell seem to be ok... I swear a lot, but swearing on a Mario wiki? COME ON!
 * 1) RickyMario: Cursing? Get rid of it! I am only 12 and I hate cursing!
 * 2) Get rid of it.
 * 3) Words liek Hell seem to be ok... I swear a lot, but swearing on a Mario wiki? COME ON!

What'd be the point?

 * 1) I don't cuss, but I don't see the point of banning it, either.  Why is it that a person can say "idiot" but not "asshole"?  What makes the latter word more offensive than the first?  They both mean the same thing! Waluigi Freak 99 16:17, 3 June 2007 (EDT)
 * 2) Ultimatetoad

Comments
This is really just to get some use out of the system, as we all have enough foresight to determine the results on this one.

It depends on how extreme some of the words are. Maybe only if the word is actually used in the Marioverse ("Hell" in the DK Rap), but that's the only exception. Actually, "Hell" isn't too bad, since The Underwhere is modelled after it. But again, only when necessary, if ever. Booster
 * Boosty, it should never be necessary.
 * I agree, but what should we do in the rare case where it's actually appropriate (DK Rap)? Booster
 * Heck, I dunno. Use that word there. Heck.

There's no word censor in MediaWiki. I'm not sure if there is an extension for one. 14:29, 3 June 2007 (EDT)
 * This would be a personal challenge for users, and the entire community would need to make a conscious effort on each and everyone's own part. Plug-ins don't solve everything, and really shouldn't.
 * Take that back. 14:36, 3 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Lol. No. :P
 * This isn't a laughing matter. You're criticizing the reliability of an extension, a piece of coding. 14:41, 3 June 2007 (EDT)
 * If coding is so powerful, why can't it do all the work? I wasn't insulting it or its reliability. Just citing the fact that they can't do EVERYTHING, and probably shouldn't.
 * WF99, please take away the offensive comment. The second is traditionally considered vulgar and unnacceptable in modern society.
 * But we can't say that the rap's line was "He's one heck of a guy!" That would be a lie.  Something like writing "scared the h*** out of him" shouldn't be permitted of course, but as a referrence to the location, I think that's fine.  However, before using it, we should consider comparisons to the Netherworld, which is a place in the Marioverse (see Shadow Queen). --Stumpers
 * HK, why is it traditionally considered vulgar? It means the same thing as "idiot", which is not traditionally considered vulgar.  Who decided that it is unacceptable?  Some guy somewhere?  As I said, I don't cuss, but I don't see anything wrong with it, and I don't allow my activities to fringe upon the decisions of some guy somewhere.Waluigi Freak 99 13:08, 4 June 2007 (EDT)
 * I absoulutely understand where you are coming from Mr. Freak (Can I call you that?). All I'm saying is that in today's society, idiot is considered a milder version.
 * The thing is, neither word belongs on the writing portion of this Wiki except in quotes from characters, people, etc. However, if you guys wanted to use it on your talk pages (not to each other, I would hope) I don't know why we would have a problem.  Perhaps what we need is a note on the main page that warns users about the content on user talk pages?  I mean... if the word idiot offends people... it's not like I think the user pages should turn into full blown R-rated content.  16:36, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

Oh, what the hell? I'm sorry, but this is the stupidest thing I've seen you people argue about. If a curse word is needed as part of a quote/script/site name/game name/whatever, so be it. This is an encyclopedia, not My First Dictionary First Grade Edition. Actually, that would be better. Most of those dictionaries list curses too. Only a few instances of blatant profanity being a problem can be sited. Don't make a problem out of nothing. -- Chris 23:48, 4 June 2007 (EDT)
 * I think we're talking about user fairness, especially in chat. Any Mario quotes with profanity, if it ever comes up, will be shown in full here, or nearly in full, here. If this is accepted, when I create the policy I'll mention that is applies to the community, not the encyclopedia aspect. 23:41, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Ummmm...... EVERYONE curses, me, you, and ... well..... a greayt proportion of all humanity. Personal Attacks are already banned, I don't see the need of banning the occasional vulgar phrase. And what, may I ask, describes a "curse word"? Is there a specific requirment? I think this is dumb.... - Ultimatetoad

We want this site to appear professional. How about we just not use these (censored for the sake of kids but you know what they are): fu**, co**, sh**, bi***, as*, cu**, fa*, ect. There should already be rules against racist slurs and insults against groups of certain people, re***d, ni**a, ch**k, ect. If it's used in certain context like location or not as an insult, it can be acceptable, queer, hell, gay, ect. As for the childish ones like dork, idiot, loser, I would be surprised if any of you actually use those in insults. '''PLUS THIS IS A MARIO SITE. THERE'S NO SWEARING IN ANY OF THE GAMES, CHILDREN COME HERE'''. Just use symbols, it's not that hard. - Yoshi Mastar
 * The one instance in Donkey Kong and any other "in game instances" will be allowed as exceptions. Elsewise, avoid it as much as possible. This will be said in the policy I'll draw up if the proposal is passed.
 * FYI DB you have "Im just some idiot that does cra**."

It definately should be allowed in the encyclopedia if it ever comes up. If somone is can read they have most likely heard every swear word, and if they havn't they will not be scared for life. They are part of the english language and if there is a purpose for on of them to be used in the database they should not be censored. It not this websites job to babysit children. p.s. asshole and idiot do not mean the same thing in any context. several of you seem ot be confused about this. Threegee

I changed it...


 * No Prob...

Alright, there are only two times when I could see it, because there are two "swears" in the whole of the "Marioverse" thing. The first is obviously the DK64 rap, and the second is a NPC in Mario Tennis: Power Tour, who says, "We suck!" referring to a school that lost a championship. That's it. Finito. End of story. Why is this being such an issue? :) 01:23, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

What about the obvious Underwhgere=Hell thing? As Threegee said, it is not our job babysit kids on this site. It should be used when it is needed, and Suck is NOT a cuss word. - Ultimatetoad
 * Look: THe few times its necessary in an article, sure, fine, go ahead. But the Ban is affecting OUTSIDE of articles.

So why shouldnt we use it when talking among ourselves? If it is appropriate, like saying "Damn it!" when something bad happens, and not doing it excessivly..... - Ultimatetoad

But, even right there, when you said "not doing it excessivly" that's still a sort of ban... I don't know. Maybe we should just put a message on the front page that notes that talk pages are fair game. Oh, and btw, suck isn't a cuss, I know. It is rude, though, and you wouldn't find it on an encyclopedia page ;) 00:30, 12 June 2007 (EDT) }}

Welcoming Committee
ACCEPTED 7-1

I propose a Welcoming Committee  that will be run by yours truly. The welcoming comtiee will make sure Every User gets a welcome, welcoming will not be restricted to just Committee members everyone can help. The Committee will also help users with user stuff and mariowiki stuff, a Committee member will have had to be aroud for a while, be able to handle stress, and great knowledge of WikiSyntax. I see how this Committee will do no harm, besides all it will do is help.

Proposer: Deadline: 15:00, 24 June

{{scroll box|content=

Support

 * 1) Let's help them!
 * 2) Hk -- Erm... Yeah. Newbies are important. We all go through that stage.
 * 3) – wasn't sure at first, but the continual help afterwards convinced me.
 * 4) – Although a lot of the committee goals seem like simple user duties, newbies do indeed need help and a team dedicated to answering their questions seems like a pretty good idea.
 * 5) n00bs are the future of our wiki! with SOS gone we need more users contributing.
 * 1) – Although a lot of the committee goals seem like simple user duties, newbies do indeed need help and a team dedicated to answering their questions seems like a pretty good idea.
 * 2) n00bs are the future of our wiki! with SOS gone we need more users contributing.

Comments
Bean, you need a better reason than that, and I already said we could help newbies without a committee, Hk.
 * I end up helping everyone, it'd be nice to have some guys that can help too, and if we have an "unofficail Comitee" why not make it offical, this will end up helping the wiki and making it better.
 * Well, I don't think it should be run by anyone. A committee is usually run by everyone. And if everyone can participate, it isn't really a commitee.
 * But they don't, and now they'll ask the people in the Committee.
 * Why do you need to be in charge? Something like this won't benifit from having a ruler.
 * Everyone comes to me anyways >_>, and besides there has to be someone in charge.
 * Why does there need to be someone in charge?

So I can add comittee members, cause you don't want a new user showing up and asking someone for help but they don't know what to do. all I'm saying is I want people who know what their doing to be the comitttee. And the leader (Me) make sures that they know what their doing...You don't members who can barely help themselves on it.
 * But you said anyone can be on the commitee. 17:39, 17 June 2007 (EDT)
 * No I believe I said anyone can welcome ;)...
 * PLUMs, when I first got here, I was really confused. Help pages?  Didn't know where they are and I still have to request help because there are still so many topics not covered by those pages, but are instead on Wikipedia in "wikispeak".  I dunno.  Basically, if I had gotton one of those nice templates when I came, it would have helped somewhat.  But, yeah.  23:10, 17 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Oh. Well, I still don't see a reason why the commitee can't vote on new members and needs a leader.

Well if this get added, I'd certainly consult the other guys before adding new members...
 * Oop. I was assuming the idea would get fleshed out as it was implimented.  Maybe what we should do is have a trial period?  00:18, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

}}

5 Links
KEPT 6-4

I propose to remove the Only 5 links in sig rule. It doesn't seem to make any sense.

Proposer: Deadline: 17:00, 25 June

{{scroll box|content=

Support

 * 1) Strong Support Wayoshi, just because you only need 5 doesn't mean everyone else only needs 5. I, for example, need 6 really.
 * 2) --This is a silly rule.
 * 3) come on! i mean you should be able to have more than that!
 * 1) come on! i mean you should be able to have more than that!

Oppose

 * 1) – User, user talk, and any 3 out of the following: user comic, user story, contribs, email, external link. 5 is a perfect amount.
 * 2) Gofer
 * 3) – Five links is enough, if not too much; any more is just annoying.
 * 4) – It is quite hard to click on the links which are only a single character wide. Pretty pointless if you ask me.
 * 16:51, 22 June 2007 (EDT) – sorry guys, but the other users are right, it does get confusing. Sigh, this means I'll have to remove one of me links. 16:51, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
 * 16:51, 22 June 2007 (EDT) – sorry guys, but the other users are right, it does get confusing. Sigh, this means I'll have to remove one of me links. 16:51, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

Comments
Most people don't look at all five links so they're useless, and its annoying when i try to respond to someone and I have to llok through all the links.

It should be no more than 10, but 5 is too little.
 * And ten is too much.
 * Yeah, 9 seems about right.

7 is OK, right?
 * 1 for userpage
 * 1 for talk
 * 3 for subpages (these 3 are wayoshi's plan)
 * 2 links to other pages (these are what most people want/need)

That's fair, right?

Maybe 8 to play it safe. Actually, just leave the links alone if you don't want to click them. And just click their userpage one, and go to the talk tab, Gonzo.

2 "Other" pages usually = other userpages or articles, which are either banned or useless. 18:51, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

again. Just because you think they're useless doesn't mean they are.

Yeah. Max's plan seems good, but he left out contribs.
 * Take SLS for example i have to hover over all his links to reply to him, and even his userpage is annoying to find.

well, that's a different story. How about at least 6 links?

The userpage is almost always the first one. And SLS's one is the first one.
 * Why do you need more than five links anyway, 1 for userpage, 1 for talk, one for contribs(maybe) and then three(or two) for subpages.

For Fantendo.

What he said. and article links. and about... 2 users actually have 3 or more subpages.
 * why exactly do we need article links? and if only a few users have 3 Subpages then there really is no need to have more than 5.

because, it's convinient... and it's helpful... and just because You and washi don't need them doesn't mean we don't.
 * and cause you and pumber need them doesn't mean everyone else does.

Well, we'll see how many do at the end of the week.

I feel very strongly that is a silly rule. Just because one or two people find something useless doesn't mean it is.
 * alright after looknig over all the sigs Heres the stats: 51 Sigs = Less than 4 links, only 19 = have More or around that number.

I think 5 is a perfect number. Userpage, talkpage and subpage, nothing more, nothing less. I hardly see the point in linking wiki articles, I can see why people link them, but geez, why adding even more slot for something tottaly pointless? And that signature check was a godsend for me, when you fear that Plumber send you a message because his sig will lag your computer, you know there's something wrong. Gofer
 * lol, I'm sorry... I use a pretty good computer. But, I will admit that Banana-Plumber is a little annoying to see 10 times on a talk page... but it is cute.  If this is a lag problem I would say that you should be the deciding factor. 00:23, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

}}

Writer Guidelines
ACCEPTED 7-0


 * Added by Wayoshi, from Talk:Main Page

Recently, a discussion has arrisen in regards to the future of the Big Eight page. Several users, including myself, see an issue with the amount of fanon in the category. Please view the talk page for individual ideas. Main concerns include the lack of any such category in the Marioverse and the level of favoritism involved in choosing characters. Another idea is that the Big Eight page would do better under the title MarioWiki:Big Eight as it is more of a guide for writers on the Wiki than an actual Mario element. Please post ideas for change or support for the page as is! Thank you! 13:52, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

If we make this a guideline, we'll have to make the other pages guidelines (i.e. Marioverse).

Proposers: and Deadline: 20:00, 29 June {{scroll box|content=

Make them Writer Guidelines
{{scroll box|content=
 * 1) {{User:Max2/sig}}
 * 2) {{User:Cobold/sig}} - AAAHHH!!! - Seriously, they're better as guidelines.
 * 3) {{User:YellowYoshi398/sig}} – Although I'm not 100% sure about Marioverse, most of these seem like they'd be better off/less fanon-ish as writer guidelines.
 * 4) {{User:Stumpers/sig}}While the Marioverse is a little sketchy, the Big Eight and Filler Characters appear to be simply determined by us. This means that it would do better as a MarioWiki category article in my opinion.
 * 5) {{User:Plumber/sig|The Marioverse could be debated, but the Big Eight is definately a guideline.}}
 * 6) User:FixitupSigh, this isn't what this article particularly needed yet. Oh well, patience.
 * 7) -- Sir Grodus (note: Sir Grodus commented below.  Please do not delete this comment! --Stumpers)

Comments
What exactly would it mean to make them writer guidelines? Want to know quick. User:Fixitup
 * We mean make them helper articles. Remember the importance policy?  Didn't have much impact on which articles you could write for, right?  This would be the same way.  19:02, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

I fail to see how making an article like this a guideline will fix anything. What we need to do is decide who should really be a part of the big eight or decide to take down the article! I see no improvement right now and find it unfair. Am I understanding this correctly? User:Fixitup
 * Making it a guideline removes the implication that it is an official concept. However, it is not.  By making it a guideline, we are left with a list of major articles on dynamic subjects that are frequently accessed to constantly update when needed.  19:42, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

Ok that makes that better, but I still don't see how this solves who should be a part of the big eight and who shouldn't. This just doesn't provide me the options I was hoping for. User:Fixitup

Sorry to step in, but if you oppose, you should vote, not just comment. 22:22, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, the problem is I'm not sure how to resolve the selection thing. :( Oh, well. Baby steps I guess.  01:13, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Um..well if you were reading carefully I ended up supporting making it a guideline I'm just upset that the only thing being done is that so whatever, time to vote. User:Fixitup

They're basicly fan conceptions, same with Filler Characters. -- Sir Grodus }}

Maintenance Committee
ACCEPTED 5-0

I propose a Maintenance Committee that will be run by democracy. The committee will ensure that Orphaned pages will be linked, unused files will be tagged for deletion or used, unlabeled PIs will be deleted, and other maintenance work will be done. Anyone who is up for it can join the committee.

Proposer: Deadline: 15:00, 30 June {{scroll box|content=

Support

 * 15:37, 23 June 2007 (EDT) – it hurts.... me?
 * 1) I ended up doing some the other. I love the name PLUMs made for it too.
 * 2) I think this is a great idea it gives people a chance, should have joined earlier GO DEMOCRACY!!!!
 * 1) I ended up doing some the other. I love the name PLUMs made for it too.
 * 2) I think this is a great idea it gives people a chance, should have joined earlier GO DEMOCRACY!!!!

Comments
I'm putting all new committees on the Wiki Maintenance page (to expand it). I might rename this the Technical Committee. 17:15, 24 June 2007 (EDT) }}

FAs Beback
ACCEPTED 4-0

I propose that the FAs, old rating system, old FAs, old FA noms, all of that, be undeleted and restored. The PAIR extension may take a year or more to update, and this way is simpler. Proposer: and Deadline: 20:00 July 3 {{scroll box|content=

Start Using Them Already

 * 1) I'm a little impatient so let's go! 22:14, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
 * 2) I want to see them soon, so let's start them up now
 * 3) This will bring back the old FAs and noms, also, just to let you guys know. - see below.
 * 04:31, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

Comments
I already started a poll here, so I pushed back the deadline and transferred votes. Hope you don't mind. 02:25, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
 * Well, it's a big of a problem with the voting system that everyone votes for his favourite articles, not for the best ones. But one year? That's just too much. - 04:31, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

}}

Userbox System
DECLINED 4-1

I propose we split the userboxes up into subpages and have a new page. Before adding a new userbox the user puts the userbox on the "Userbox Voting" page, then e vote if it should be kept or not added in. This will cut off not so great userboxes and crashing my CP when trying to add new ones XP. Also another reason for this is people are flying sloppy userboxes in to prevent the picture from being their PIs, thus filling the page will odd userboxes. Proposer: Deadline: 17:00 July 20th. {{scroll box|content=

Support

 * 1) Of course 8D

Oppose

 * 1) -per PLUMs
 * 2) – what is this? Having to approve and/or restrict userboxes – which is supposed to express the user and help get their userpage going with info about themselves relating to Mario – feels like we're unwelcoming users right from the start.
 * 01:52, 17 July 2007 (EDT) Very true. It's complex enough as it is.  If there's an issue with people expanding their personal image count through userboxes, it should be brought up with a proposal for images used in userboxes to only be very small, so that they would only be useful in said boxes.  Whoa... can you say run-on?
 * 01:52, 17 July 2007 (EDT) Very true. It's complex enough as it is.  If there's an issue with people expanding their personal image count through userboxes, it should be brought up with a proposal for images used in userboxes to only be very small, so that they would only be useful in said boxes.  Whoa... can you say run-on?

Comments
Well I'll keep it clean and voting wouldn't be odd...
 * Could you explain the new system a little more? It's still kind of confusing...  22:54, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
 * It'd work like proposals pretty much, also userboxes can't be about anything. Also i got the idea from wookiepedia

}}

Monobook Reskin
REJECTED 7-3 This may sound VERY insane to all of you, but I would like the wiki reskinned to black? This is not because it looks slicker (though I think it does :P ), it is because it saves power. Just use www.blackle.com as an example (Currently 112,468.241 Watt hours saved). If this is accepted, anyone who likes the white can just ask me to make the wiki look how it used to again.

Proposer: and  23:49, 24 July 2007 (EDT) Due Date: Tuesday, July 31, 17:00 EDT {{scroll box|content=

Support

 * 23:49, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
 * 00:04, 25 July 2007 (EDT) I was with PLUMs while he decided to make this a proposal, and I would like to reiterate the environmentally friendliness of MY OWN skin. Check it out, it looks slick, too.
 * 00:15, 25 July 2007 (EDT) Saves energy.

Oppose

 * 1) – Our default skin is a fair one that works for our plentiful guests. If you are concerned with energy, do you part by making your skin dark. We're not changing the appearance of what's now a high-frequency site for activists. Secondly, this shouldn't be a proposal, this is Steve's decision.
 * 2) -What Wayoshi said.
 * 3) - In my opinion, a black page looks unusual especially in the MediaWiki software, and might more scare away new visitors than attracting them. You can still, like the others said, use your own monobook skin.
 * 4) It could scare away young and new users, it looks freaky, and you have to ask Steve anyway.
 * 5) – Black and other dark colors don't seem to fit the theme of a Mario wiki well. Like everyone else said, you can change your own monobooks if you want.
 * 6) - It would hurt eyes, and it would also be (As Max2 said,) scary for the children.
 * 7)  its too dark, have you seen boo mansion? it make mario look evil.

Comments
You can change the text color you know.

We'd have light blue text, it looks nice.

Should we perhaps take it up with Porplemontage? He did create the default monobook and you can't do anything without his permission regardless of whether this proposal is won. Ask him first. 00:17, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
 * And slick or nice in whos opinion, most users aren't fans of dark colors. If you wanna save energy you should probably change your monobooks.
 * And most users aren't fans of dark colors isn't an opinion? I just wanna save more energy than I already am. 11:19, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
 * Tch. I'll just make a note on the main page for all environmentally concerned users. And stop telling us to change our own, mine is ALREADY more friendly to the environment than you can imagine. The Blued doesn't look creepy, it looks very nice, I use it everyday. Xzelion shouldn't have a say in this, considering the MWUserpedia incident...

Don't do it. Hk, it's dark and creepy. I'm not trying to insult, but make your own Emo monobook, don't change bright colors most of us enjoy. Either way, Steve will say no.

Take back that Emo comment if you know what's good for you.

All I'm saying is, go be dark and creepy somewhere else. There are a lot of people here who hate black. More than you 3 who like it.

Max2, this has NOTHING to do with black or how it's cool. It's about the fact that it consume less power. Gofer

It'll consume less power because NO BODY WILL JOIN WHEN THEY THINK WERE ALL GOTHS OR SOMETHING. And then we'd have to change the logo, which teve would like never say yes to, I've heard.

The power play is that black costs less energy to power up.

and then there would be a huge decrease in new guests. Face it, Mario is for kids. Kids like bright. Not dark.

If it costs less energy to run, that means it also costs less MONEY....

but at the cost of less users. Don't we want more users?

Isn't Steve on a frugal streak as of now? I mean, look at the ads!

Why is black instantly associated with evil, creepy, Goth, and Emo? That's actually a bad stereotype, you guys. Jeez. Because something is dark, that doesn't mean its diseased or something.

It doesn't cost me anything more or less. The "causing less energy to run" argument takes place on the user's side because their monitor will use less energy to display the site. -- 15:55, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

That's how i thought it would work. Too bad for me!

why can't you think of like blue or something?

}}

Scroll Boxes
REMOVED 4-1

The template is used in Big Eight articles for galleries, quotes, and navigation templates to make the articles look shorter. If the proposal of removing them is accepted, the template should still be kept, as it is used outside of the Big Eight articles as well.

Proposer: 15:11, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Due Date: Friday, August 3, 20:00 EDT {{scroll box|content=

Support Removal

 * 1) - In my opinion, they are really hindering the article flow and style, creating errors when trying to edit sections coming after the scroll box, and might simply annoy readers, including me.
 * 2) I agree
 * Ya,
 * 1) I completely agree with Cobold.

Oppose

 * 1) It cuts down the size of the article.

Comments
also said he doesn't like them. - 15:11, 27 July 2007 (EDT) }}

Banner Change
ACCEPTED 3-0

Proposer: Fixitup 15:32, 30 July 2007 EDT Due Date: Monday, August 6, 17:00 EDT {{scroll box|content=

Support

 * 1) – anything with the same artwork. Itadaki ended up looking nice!
 * 14:22, 4 August 2007 (EDT) As per Wayoshi, though External Links needs Bowser somewhere behind Wario and Waluigi.
 * 14:22, 4 August 2007 (EDT) As per Wayoshi, though External Links needs Bowser somewhere behind Wario and Waluigi.

Comments
I think we should he atleasts Mario, Luigi, Bowser,Peach,Yoshi,and Wario in the banners.
 * Um, just to get this straight we're voting for new banners? So Support is to support new banners and opppose is to just stay with the most recent ones?

Basically. Fixitup

The above is something I whipped up. There is a version of the WIKI STUFF banner without Toad and another without Yoshi, I added them because there ended up being room. So everyone please tell me what you think and how I could improve or if they are fine as is. Fixitup
 * I would suggest making WIKI STUFF less bright on the right-hand side. 22:54, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
 * Shouldn't we just take this straight to Steve? Like I did last time.
 * The first is better IMO

I left this message on Plumber's discussion page and thought I should address it to anyone else who wanted Bowser as well. I know you probably like Bowser but putting him in with Wario and Waluigi without making it look god awful isn't possible. He just doesn't blend well there and to make him proportioned is just out of the question. Trust me, you don't even wanna see how far I got before noticing it wasn't gonna happen. Unless you can actually get me a perfectly transparent bg for all of the Itadaki Street DS art then I can't do it. Fixitup }}

Featured Images
OPPOSED 4-3

There is already the, we should use it. The system will be exactly like the original FA system.

Proposer: 14:19, 12 August 2007 (EDT) Due Date: 17:00, August 19

{{scroll box|content=

Support

 * 14:19, 12 August 2007 (EDT) It's about time we got a new project and put that template to use.
 * 1) Seems Like an excellent Idea too me, unlike those anger management classes I got twice Walkazo (and Pantaro Paratroopa) This message was PP's.
 * 2) Compitition is fine.  I mean... we got rid of the FA already, and everyone's just sitting around sorta and being confused at the new system.  Ugh... it's so... EXTENSIVE!!! Agh!

Oppose

 * 1) "Could create Competition" ~Wayoshi Like, everywhere ---
 * 2)  – no need to assess images. The template is used to give a current FA an illustration on the Main Page, that's all. Max2: I'm not so worried about competition for people finding better images, I just think we're not big enough to sustain a steady supply of spectacular images. Many that are uploaded are quite small.
 * 3) Per Wayoshi
 * 4) Besides, images are harder to assess than articles because of their nature. There's no style or depth to be talked about.

Comments
Actually, there's plenty of style to talk about. If you don't think you can think of something to say about a picture, then maybe we need to practice here. Example: Princess Peach in Brawl Here I go:

Princess Peach (SSBB) The official artwork for Princess Peach for the game Super Smash Bros. Melee showed a considerable diviation from her original appearance. Typically, Nintendo renders its Mario characters in the style of a simplistic cartoon. However, the Smash Bros. team has acted against this tradition for each of the princess's appearances, allowing her heavy detail on her hair, dress, and face. There you have it. Example #1. That wasn't too hard. :) 13:24, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

Super Stumpy saves the day. or something. }}

Trouble Center
TRY A COMEBACK 7-5

Face it, folks. The Trouble Center has been rarely used in 2007 after an initial burst, I don't think at all this summer. It's meant for newbies or the experienced to get article help where they cannot, such as knowledge of classic or obscure games. But, both of these kinds of members have fallen through: very few newbs become full members here and usually ask a veteran instead or don't have any questions for article content; veterans work at what they are strongest OR are more involved in sub-communities such as Fantendo or Userpedia instead.

Our community is just not big enough to sustain the ideal function that was set last year. Oh well, but we would survive.

Proposer: Deadline: 17:00, 23 August {{scroll box|content=

Drop It

 * 1) – community size too small to reach ideal goal, thus it has fallen through like a dead weight.
 * 2) It was a good idea, but right now I think it's function would be better served through main page postings, rather than a complex array of pages that only will confuse newbies.  Oh, that brings up another question: what's going on with the featured articles?  Could the new system just be too complex or am I just confused?
 * 3) The multiple sub-pages of the Trouble Center would confuse many newbies, especially considering 99% of them have trouble with the simplest syntax. They can always just ask more experienced members.
 * 4) Per Stumpers and Phoenix
 * 5) I've had calls up since April or March and they haven't been taken. I just don't think it's serving it's main function.

Try a Comeback

 * 1) - it has potential to become very useful again, maybe just a team needs to fire it up again. All it needs is maybe sometime on the sitenotice...
 * 2) - It will always be used people will always need help not everyone is good at this and not everyone can get certain pictures for arcticles.
 * 3) – It seems like a useful feature, even if it is used sparingly. We could try to revive it, and it would be worthwhile if these efforts were successful.
 * 4) Bastila Shan As far as i know, this gives the newer users a chance to help out vets which can really boost the moral and make them long-term editors, it seems cool In my opinion.
 * 5) its practically a help desk, it helps people with there problems.
 * 6) Its not even on the sidebar >.<
 * Yes, it deserves another chance.

Comments
um... veterans leavig is true. and that the Trouble Center is like never used... and the fact that some of our users spend way more time at other wikis... but we're sure as heck not low on community!

Nobody knows about it cause itsn ot on the sidebar. }}

New Feature: Chronology
ADD POLICY 8-0

This is a proposal to impliment a new writing policy that would give order to writing about Mario's fictional universe. Chronology provides a framework for writing about Mario's "history", as well as settle disputes about where to place items in a "History" or "Biography" section. The intent is not to say what we are writing is the official chronology, only Nintendo can say that. The purpose of the chronology policy is to provide a guide for writers when trying to place the order of games in a history section.

Proposer: Son of Suns Deadline: 20:00, 31 August

{{scroll box|content=

Add

 * 1) Son of Suns I am the proposer and my reasons are given above.
 * 2) Mr. SoS has a point.
 * 3) - Very well written guideline, can create more consistency between articles around the wiki.
 * 21:34, 24 August 2007 (EDT) it would clear up a lot of confusion about the Marioverse.
 * 1) – A helpful guideline and good way to keep chronology consistent.
 * 2) Per the reasons given above.
 * 3) i agree with knife.
 * 4) Walkazo Right now many articles have history/biography sections with dissimilar ordering of the games. This proposed timeline will certainly put an end to that confusion (as others have stated above) and is an inspired idea.

Comments
To Plumber, we would simply be putting them in order of release unless it was obvious that it must be somewhere else. Luigi's Mansion is not speculation, it is in order of release. References are made to the game in titles released afterwards, so it cannot be at the end. We are not speculating on its placement, we are putting it where Nintendo gave it to us. -- Son of Suns
 * Ah, OK. 13:46, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

}}

The Terrible Big Fandom
DELETED 9-0

Ok people, I'm just sick and tired of even seeing the words "Big Eight". The article is totally nothing but fanon cruft. I think we should just get rid of the article and any mentioning of it within other articles. When you look at it this way all the article is saying is "Uh ok these eight characters appeared playable in early spin-offs before other people and a lot of them are used a lot in their own games or a mainstream game so they are the most important eight characters and since a lot of people think so it is a fact.". Maybe I'm exaggerating, but I don't think so. Oh and, no adding or removing of any characters could fix this thing. WE MUST DESTROY IT WITH FIRE (no not literally)

Proposer: Fixitup Deadline: 17:00, 24 August {{scroll box|content=

Kill It

 * 1) I never thought much about it before, but now that you mention it, it sounds like a waste.-1337Yoshi
 * 2) - The Big Eight (and the Marioverse) have already been made writer guidelines. As such, the Big Eight references in articles should indeed be removed, and Marioverse should be replaces with Mario series.
 * 3) – Per Cobold.
 * 4) – Definitely. I was thinking the same thing, but Cobold worded it better.
 * 5) – Whoa, that much dirt on one part. And the references that contain "Big Eight", *makes a thumbs-down* DE-LATED!!!!!!!!
 * 6) I say we kick its big, eight butts out of the Wiki! Go, Fixitup!  (but you gotta admit, I helped weaken it earlier... :D)
 * 7) It is not official by Nintendo, only made up by fans. Get rid of it.
 * 8) its fanon info.
 * 9) agree with like everyone. Just because they were all in Mario Kart 64 doesn't make them any more special than the other people. Besides, it causes fights.

Comments
While some characters are obliviousy important than other, deciding who is a Big Eight and who is not is more of an opinion than anything. Per example, do Toad really qualify? Sure, he have his own game... but all he do nodaway is appearing in some spinoff. I don't see the point in it, anyway. Gofer
 * We would have to edit the writer guidelines as well, to say these are general terms used by fans, but are not actual canon and should not be mentioned in articles. 12:41, 17 August 2007 (EDT)
 * I agree, some people are obliviously more important than others, but yeah I couldn't agree more. I'm not sure how the writer guidelines work, but the point of this is to simply rid of any existence of the article.Fixitup

}}

Reformat Featured Articles...again!
ADD POLICY 9-0

Featured Articles are an important part of any wiki, and I think it is about time we get users excited about featured articles again. I am propsing we do away with the new PAIR system, and institute a new, simpler system I developed (but heavily based on the successful Wookiepedia FA guidelines). By making the nomination process open to more users, and making it simpler, we will encourage people to get involved in the FA process. This new system will be like the original, but stagnant nominations will be removed after a month of inactivity. That way, we can avoid having huge lists of nominations if no one is working on the articles. All new featured article nominations would have to be recast. If we do not have a featured article by the time the new main page is up, we should invite users to help the Super Mario Wiki find its first featured article. Here is what the featured article nomination page will look like:

The featured articles of the wiki are articles that represent the best the Super Mario Wiki has to offer. This is not a way to showcase the articles of your favorite characters, items, or the like.

An article must…


 * …be well-written and detailed.
 * …be unbiased, non-point of view.
 * …be sourced with all available sources and appearances.
 * …follow the Manual of Style, and all other policies on the Super Mario Wiki.
 * …not be tagged with any sort of improvement tags (i.e. rewrite, expand, etc).
 * …have a proper lead that gives a good summary of the topic and can be used for the front page featured box.
 * …have a reasonable amount of redlinks.
 * …have significant information from all sources and appearances, especially a biography for character articles.
 * …not have been previously featured on the Main Page. Otherwise, it can only be restored to featured status.
 * …include a reasonable number of images of good quality if said images are available.
 * …be notable and have significant content – some complete articles like Spiny Shroopa do not have enough information to become FAs

First, nominate an article you find is worthy of featured status, putting it at the bottom of the list below; see criteria above. Note that a previously featured article cannot be featured on the Main Page again; however, it can be restored to featured status if there are no other featured articles in queue. Others will object to the nomination if they disagree that the article is good enough; they will then supply reasons for doing so, and ways to improve the article (errors, style, organization, images, notability, sources). Supporters adjust the article until the objectors (with reasonable objections) are satisfied. The article is placed on the featured article list and added to the front page queue. Also, if, at least a week after the article's nomination, that article has five supports and no objections, it will be added to the queue, and will be officially known as a "featured article".

How to vote:

Before doing anything, be sure to read the article completely, keeping a sharp eye out for mistakes. Afterwards, compare the article to the criteria listed above, and then either support or object the article's nomination. If you object, please supply concrete reasons for doing so, and how it can be improved. Please cite which rule your objection falls under. Failure to do so will result in your objection being considered invalid. As stated above, any objections will be looked upon by the nominator, supporters, and anyone willing to improve the article, and action will be taken to please the objectors. Once all objectors' complaints have been solved (or the article has five supports and no objections after at least a week), the article will be added to the queue and be officially known as a "featured article".

Also remember to add nominated at the top of the article you are nominating.

Every Sunday the next article in the queue will be highlighted on the Main Page as featured, marked with the featured template and removed from the list of nominations. The beginning of the article then appears on the Main Page via the featured articles template. Nominees that are inactive for a month will be eliminated from the nominations list.

Proposer: Son of Suns Deadline: 17:00 4 September 2007 (EDT)

{{scroll box|content=

Use this New System

 * 1) Son of Suns - I am the proposer and my reasons are given above.
 * 2) - PAIR was a flop.
 * 3) – I guess it's the old system with more checks for validity. Fine with me, it always seems templates like  are hours of work eventually wasted for me :P.
 * 4) - This is a good system for featured articles. However, the PAIR system helped me to improve the article a lot, helping me to get it into a status in which I can nominate it. I'd like it to stay as a non-compulsory feature, if it's okay.
 * 5) Yes, a simpler system would be used more often.
 * 6) I agree with SoS's reasons.
 * 7) I like it.
 * 8) - See Comment below.
 * 9) Xterra  1(talk)  (work)  (?) (Maxthon) I guess.....

Comments
To Cobold: I can keep the templates in existence so people can review freelance. 13:11, 29 August 2007 (EDT)


 * PAIR reviews can still be used to help people improve articles, but they will have no effect on FAs. We can use any system that helps people get articles to the highest quality! =) -- Son of Suns

The system is good, but whatever we decide, we need to get a system and lock it in. As of right now, rules governing FAs have been all over the place. }}

Super Mario Sunshine "Secret" Areas
KEEP 2-5

Pages such as The Shell have been created as pages in their own right. I don't think that they are special enough to be credited in their own right simply because they are "Secret" areas. Besides, you actually need them to finish the game. I'm a little put off by the existence of PipeProject: Levels, however, because they are technically levels.

Proposer: Deadline: 15:00, 9 September

{{scroll box|content=

Delete them

 * 1) - As above.
 * 2)  Per Phoenix Rider

Keep them
Luigibros2 ]]as per above
 * 1) Son of Suns - For now, I am saying keep, because these levels appear to be officially named (The Shell article does not have the conjecture tag). As an officially named sub-area, these should be given their own articles. Also, sub-levels such as the Princess' Secret Slide and the Secret Aquarium from Super Mario 64 have their own articles.
 * 2) Why would we delete stage articles? They have every right to deserve articles.
 * 3) Walkazo - I don't see why they should be deleted, they're actual levels after all, and the whole point of Super Mario Wiki is to get as much Mario information available to people as possible, including stuff on all the tiny little levels, sub-areas and worlds of the Mario series. Since it takes slightly more effort to get to Secret Areas, it makes sence to give them articles seperate from the main areas they're found in. For now, anyway.
 * 4) [[User:Luigibros2|
 * 1) Per above.

Comments
Walkazo - The Shell is a place, and while the corresponding mission is calles "The Shell's Secret", it's not actually a "Secret Level", which is what I think all the confusion is about here. And while we're on the subject of Super Mario Sunshine places, I think there should be a category for Super Mario Sunshine Places. That way the sub-areas and the normal areas can be viewed along side each other. }}

Unused Image Deadline
ALLOW MORE TIME 9-0

Recently, a user uploaded an image at 23:07, 29 August 2007. Said image was marked for deletion as an unused image at 23:13, 29 August 2007, six minutes later. While I believe the tag was placed there in good faith, it was still a case of jumping the gun.

A while back, I made a note that an image should be used as soon as it is uploaded and was backed by Wayoshi. Now, however, I feel that I was a bit to hasty. I'm seeing more and more images that are being marked for deletion as unused images very shortly after said images where uploaded. I know from experience (as do a great many of you) that sometimes dropping images into articles doesn't always work out, for various reasons (a bit of wikicode is malformed, said images looks like crap in chosen placement, etc.). For these reasons, I'm thinking we should extend the limit a bit. Lets say one day for personal images and 12 hours for everything else. What say you all?

Proposer: Chris Deadline: 17:00, 6 September

{{scroll box|content=

Allow More Time

 * 1) – reasonable time limit, though I feel if a bit of investigation were done to the contribs of the uploader, less issues would come up, as we may discover errors in wikisyntax. Btw, I may be able to list all such images in DPL, not sure
 * 2) seems fair.
 * 3) - I argued on this already, it's needed especially when a used image gets removed from a page. We don't know who removed the image, and if everyone agreed to do so.
 * 4) - I Agree with every single word being spoken on this.
 * 5) -They need more time. Besides, they might find a way to put it in. This has happened to me before.
 * 6) - It should be left more time, he probally was starting to use it, then got sidetracked.
 * 7) http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/9276/papertoycf7.gif Paper Jorge! I give paper cuts so stand back! http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/9276/papertoycf7.gif Half-an-hour is fair. Six minutes is not.
 * 8) - It's rather unreasonable to delete an image right away if they see it hasn't been used for a couple hours, for example. I'd say give at least a day.
 * 9) what pj said.

Comments
}}
 * Well, seeing as this is now a proposal, I'd like to note that this, as a guideline, would govern people who mark images more than the uploaders. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Chris[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 20:35, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Splitting the Jump page
ACCEPTED 6-0

The Jump page has many officially named jumps with enough content for an article on the page. Should they all be split?

Proposer: 14:34, 26 July 2007 (EDT) (started by ) Due Date: Thursday, August 2nd, 17:00 EDT {{scroll box|content=

Support Split

 * 1) - The Super Mario Wiki has its own section for special moves, so it is pointless to put masses of them on the same page.
 * 2)  14:36, 26 July 2007 (EDT) They all have sufficent content.
 * 3) theres enough info for them to merit there own articles.
 * 4) – Most of the jumps seem worthy of articles and have enough information.
 * 5) they do have enough content, thank me for that :). I propose we at least keep a short list of Jump related moves however.
 * 6) Read Plumber's comment below (the first one)

Comments
We'll just use  14:45, 26 July 2007 (EDT) }}

Merging Paper Mario (Chapters) with Paper Mario
MERGING 5-0

The PMTTYD chapters article was merged with the game's article, so should we merge these articles for consistency as well?

Proposer: 14:34, 26 July 2007 (EDT) (started by ) Due Date: Thursday, August 2nd, 17:00 EDT {{scroll box|content=

Support Merge

 * 1) – we did this for PMTTYD, so what makes Paper Mario's chapters any more special enough to remain separate?
 * 15:01, 26 July 2007 (EDT) same as Knife
 * 1) - The storyline is the main part of a game. It's unreasonable to split exactly that from the article.
 * 2) I agree with Knife.
 * 3) I agree with Max and Knife.

Comments
You are offering Support Split and Oppose Merge. That's not fair. :P - 14:58, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Hmm, what a weird mistake I made. 15:02, 26 July 2007 (EDT) }}

Merging Macho Grubba
KEEP SEPARATE 5-2

We have a separate articles for many forms, but should Macho Grubba get to keep his article? We have articles on simple forms like Fire Mario or Cape Mario, but we do not have articles on Mr. L and Rookie (Bowser's alternate alias in MLSS). Does Macho Grubba deserve the same fate?

Proposer: 14:34, 26 July 2007 (EDT) Due Date: Thursday, August 2nd, 17:00 EDT {{scroll box|content=

Support Merge

 * 1) – Macho Grubba is only a form encountered in a boss battle once. I'd say Mr. L deserves an article more Macho Grubba since he antagonized Mario's crew almost half of the game (though I'm not saying we should split Mr. L either).
 * 2) - What Knife said.

Oppose Merge

 * 1) Macho Grubba is a boss with a unique moveset, as well as being a tranformation of Grubba.
 * 2) We can't be inconsistent. Rookie and Mr. L are merged because they have no different powers from their normal forms. But Macho Grubba has different powers than Grubba, warranting an article. Plus, we must be consistent, as you don't see Fire Mario merged with Mario, do you?  15:30, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
 * 3) Macho Grubba is a boss, and also progres's the story line. Macho Grubba should deserve his own article.
 * 4) He is a seperate form. If you merge this with Grubba, then just merge Sheik with Zelda, or Zero Suit Samus with Samus.
 * 5)  as fire mario has its own, macho needs its own, fire mario is a level up, while rookie is just a different identity.

Comments
}}

Merging Conjectural Minor NPC articles
MERGING 2-1

Do each of the conjecturally named Minor NPCs deserve an article? Are the NPCs in the Paper Mario series more special than other NPCs in the other RPGs just cause they have tattles? You decide.

Proposer: 14:34, 26 July 2007 (EDT) Due Date: Thursday, August 2nd, 17:00 EDT {{scroll box|content=

Support Merge

 * 1) Gofer Having article on Unnamed, unimportant character is rediculous.
 * 2) Merge them into one page. It is pointless to have articles with such low information.

Oppose Merge

 * 1) It was already decided, Knifey Needle.

Comments
Wasn't this decided long ago? 15:37, 26 July 2007 (EDT) }}

Merging with
KEEP SEPARATE 4-0

Are Luigi's NPC Partners in PM2 considered important enough to be added with the playable partners of Mario's Partners?

Proposer: 14:34, 26 July 2007 (EDT) Due Date: Thursday, August 2nd, 17:00 EDT {{scroll box|content=

Oppose Merge

 * 1) this doesn't make much sense since they are more like NPC than partners and have never helped Mario.
 * 2) Even the person who put the template on (me) agrees with Knife.
 * 3) What Knife said.
 * 4) – Like Knife said, these are only partners in the loosest sense. They don't fit in with the partners on.

Comments
}}

Merging Piranha Plant in the Generator with Goop Generator
KEEP SEPARATE 3-0

Essentially, the Piranha Plant in Generator is part of the Goop Generator, so does that mean they have to be on the same article?

Proposer: 14:34, 26 July 2007 (EDT) (started by ) Due Date: Thursday, August 2nd, 17:00 EDT {{scroll box|content=

Oppose Merge

 * 1) They are only inside the generator. If we kept that tradition, we might as well merge everything into the Earth article, which would be merged into Outer Space, which would be merged into the Marioverse.
 * 2)  15:32, 26 July 2007 (EDT) It is not the Generator, it lives in the Generator. Should Earth be merged with everything?
 * 3)  - Species do have a high ranking. Objects like the generator do not. If anything, Goop Generator should me merged with Piranha Plant in the Generator. But I doubt it's necessary.

Comments
"Species do have a high ranking. Objects like the generator do not. If anything, Goop Generator should me merged with Piranha Plant in the Generator. But I doubt it's necessary." Why did the above vote by me get removed? What's wrong with it? I have a reason. Please explain yourself. - 16:05, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Mario is a part of the Mario Bros, shall I merge them? And shall we merge the Koopalings into Koopaling?

Ummm... sure? I didn't even vote and I'm being attacked... 16:33, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

You're the one that proposed it. not me.
 * He didn't propose it, he just moved it. There was an ongoing discussion on the talk pages of the related articles. Also, you cannot compare things like that. - 16:36, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Proposing it doesn't mean I support... sheesh. 16:35, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Sorry. And, the plant is part of the generator. Not THE generator. }}

Merging Yoshi (species) with the Yoshi colors
KEEP SEPARATE 3-1

Do the colors of Yoshis deserve articles? Most are color variants of the Yoshi (species). Does this mean we have to mere them all?

Proposer: 14:34, 26 July 2007 (EDT) (started by ) Due Date: Thursday, August 2nd, 17:00 EDT {{scroll box|content=

Support Merge

 * 1) There can be a section about the colors of Yoshis, similar to Toads. I don't see many distinctive properties about the Yoshi colors and they should be merged into this article.

Oppose Merge

 * 16:10, 26 July 2007 (EDT) They deserve articles with Category:Sub-species.
 * 1) different personalities, major differences in Yoshi's Story (So 've heard), and they are much different then the Toads, who are pretty much all the exact same.
 * 2) – In games such as Super Mario World, Yoshi's Story, and Yoshi Touch and Go, colors of playable Yoshis have affected gameplay, and while Yoshi colors such as Blue Yoshi have been officially named, Toad colors have not. Yoshi colors strike me as worthy of articles.

Comments
"Major differences in Yoshi's Story (So 've heard), " Actually, the only diferences is that they like better (Read: They gain more health when they eat one.) the fruit that matche their color. Really, Only the Black & White yoshi stand out of the crowd. And where the Yoshi with different colloration showed a different personality? I played SMW, SMW2 and YS, and they din't seem to act different. Gofer

I am waiting for a response, where did indivual colored Yoshi showed different personnality? Gofer


 * I don't really think they ever have (not that I've played every game out there), save for some individual Yoshis (like Yoshi and Boshi and the PiT Yellow Yoshi) who seem to have personalities regardless of their color. The SMA2 manual did give its Baby Yoshis personalities based on their color, though, by applying adjectives such as "hotheaded" to the baby Red Yoshi.

Actually, Yellow ones have always had that personality *no offence YY* Lazy and hungry. }}

Moving Koopa Paratroopa
DON'T MOVE 2-0-4

The flying Koopas are currently under the article name of "Koopa Paratroopa", their official name from Super Mario Bros. However, I believe that we should use a name from more recent games, such as Paratroopa or Parakoopa as the article name.

Proposer: 09:16, 10 August 2007 (EDT) Due Date: August 17th, 20:00 EDT {{scroll box|content=

Move to Paratroopa

 * 1) - It's their most-commonly used name.
 * 2) - Per Cobold

Leave at Koopa Paratroopa

 * 1) User: Walkazo Changing it to Parakoopa could be just as silly as changing Pink boo, the name used in several games, to Red Boo, the name used in Mario Party 8.
 * 2) It sounds more official this way.
 * 3) It's the full name.  The fact that the abbreviation has been used in its place in later games really doesn't mean that the name has been changed.  I would say that something like this would only be applicable in the case of Bloober's name change to Blooper.
 * 4) per Stumpers

Comments
Parakoopa should still be a redirect, at least.
 * Of course. Just like Peach should redirect to Princess Peach, etc.
 * And Mario should redirect to "Mario Mario"?
 * I don't think so: that was his name only in other media. Rather, I would put Mario Mario as a redirect to Mario.  Here's the thing: they're called the Mario Bros., but that doesn't mean their last names are Mario.  It's just an assumption we've made based off of information from the Real World.  Who knows how it works in the Mushroom Kingdom?  Besides, remember how Wario and Waluigi are called Wicked Bros.?  Perhaps the ___ Bros. thing doesn't even signify brotherhood.
 * In Yoshi Island they are brothers as they were delivered to the SAME Parents User:Walkazo
 * I wasn't saying they aren't brothers. Simply that relying on the whole ___ Bros. concept to work as it would in our world isn't trustworthy, though, you see?  All I'm saying is that we don't know their last names.  13:42, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

}}

Merging Wario Treasures
MERGING 7-0


 * From with Grodus said on the template talk page, I'd like to add a bit more. First off all the articles state are:


 * Number of the Treasure
 * Description
 * Retail Value
 * Episode
 * All which would be covered in the table, this would very much be like the Badges page. Any thoughts comments?

Proposer:  (started by ) Due Date: August 17th, 20:00 EDT {{scroll box|content=

Merge

 * 1) - Per Above
 * 2) Gofer Theyy are too minor to warrant an article.
 * 3) – there's 130, right? And they each have the same info? Sounds like a job for a table page.
 * 4) - Too minor objects, and too many of them.
 * 16:40, 10 August 2007 (EDT) too many orphaned pages appearing.
 * 1) Per Cobold.
 * 2) I find it ironic that my support was deemed "unsupported" by someone who writes "per so-and-so" after all of his posts.  Please don't get rid of my vote.  All I said was that we should do this only if we have a way to link readers to the part of the page where the item is, and not just to the top of the page.  Here, I'll through in some good, hard boiled support. "Too many pages is nasty." Yay... it's been said before!

Comments
Also all of these show up on the Orphan Pages.
 * Because of a bug. 14:21, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
 * No actually I linked them to the MOD article and they're all gone :P

OK, this proposal already ended!!! Yeah; and I finished working on the table; but it needs more infomation about the rest of 130 Wario's Treasures! *goes moving this part* Let's get a move on to the tables I MADE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! }}

Removal: Glitch Articles
ARTICLES MERGED 10-0

Glitch articles are a problem, as we could have thousands upon thousands of them, although none of them have been officially named. I am proposing that we eliminate all conjecturally named glitch articles and either merge them to a "List of Glitches" article (similar to the Beta Elements page) or just erase them completely. If this proposal goes through, someone can take action to create a List of Glitches page. If no one cares, the articles will simply be removed. Either way would be fine. However, the Minus World article should be kept, as it has been referenced in Mario games and has an official name. A list of glitch articles can be found here.

Proposer: Son of Suns Deadline: 20:00, 31 August

{{scroll box|content=

Delete or Merge Glitch Articles

 * 1) Son of Suns I am the proposer and my reasons are given above.
 * 2) Sir Grodus I had this idea a while back, but forgot about it. And yes, putting the glitch articles all in one place seems best; though I'm not opposed to just getting rid of them completely, since I see no real use in having them anyways.
 * 3) – 1000s of minor errors in programming are better put on 1 good-sized page
 * 4) I think they should be deleted, but also keep the Small Fire Mario page because it appears in a few more games.
 * 23:09, 24 August 2007 (EDT) glitches are unintended results of the developers, thus they are non-canon. I don't even think they should get a list page.
 * 1) – Most glitches aren't notable enough to merit their own articles, and, as Wayoshi said, there are just too many of them. A List of Glitches page is a good idea.
 * 2) - I agree with YY
 * 3) Agree with YY, Knife, and Wayo.
 * 4) Walkazo - I agree with YY, Knife, Wayoshi and Max2. Also, lots of glitches don't even have their own articles, being mentioned in the "Trivia" or "Glitch" sections of their games' artciles only. It's a pain to find these glitches in the Wiki, but they don't have enough info to be anything more but stubs. Lump all the glitches together and it will make everyone's lives faster and easier, deleteing them will just make the people who want to read about them angry.
 * 1) Walkazo - I agree with YY, Knife, Wayoshi and Max2. Also, lots of glitches don't even have their own articles, being mentioned in the "Trivia" or "Glitch" sections of their games' artciles only. It's a pain to find these glitches in the Wiki, but they don't have enough info to be anything more but stubs. Lump all the glitches together and it will make everyone's lives faster and easier, deleteing them will just make the people who want to read about them angry.

Comments
}}

Microgames
SPLIT 4-9

We've had list of Microgame pages, like WarioWare, Inc.: Mega Microgame$! Introduction Microgames and individual Microgame articles. This proposal is to finally set whether we should go by list of Microgames or make an article for each Microgame.

Proposer: Knife Deadline: 20:03, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

{{scroll box|content=

Go by Lists

 * 20:08, 25 August 2007 (EDT) Since microgames tend to be 5 seconds long (unlike mini-games), I don't see why we should give each one of them an article. I think we should keep boss microgames though.
 * 1) i've played a little micro-games before, and there really short, i go with knife here.
 * 2) Microgames don't have enough information to make it one article.
 * 3) - Per the three above. They're just way too insignificant.

Make Articles for Every Single Microgame
Luigibros2 ]]I all ready started to make Micro game articles I don't my work to go to waste.
 * 1) I think they do deserve an article.
 * 2) Son of Suns - Every single microgame is officially named I believe, and it is my personal wiki philosophy to support an article for any officially named game element. Also, microgames change a lot based on the difficulty.  New challenges are added, as well as new characters and backgrounds.  One microgame soemtimes feels like three microgames in one with a common objective.  There is a lot to be said about each microgame.
 * 3) What Son of Suns said.
 * 4) They should each get their own article...
 * 5) I must say that I have shared Mr. Anakin's thoughts on this subject.
 * 6) They all have enough info. The problem is no one will ever take the time writing them.
 * 7) Keep them as full articles. I believe they could be created in a infomative way since I started writing the microgames starting with the first WarioWare game. Here are some examples of microgame articles written by me: Crazy Cars, The Maze That Pays, and Super Wario Bros..
 * 8) Dude, if you are gonna put them on one big list, put all the Mario Party Mini-Games on one big list.
 * 9) [[User:Luigibros2|

Comments
I just want to say that any micro-game article will probably have more information than many of our item articles, especially Paper Mario items (This item can be cooked with this item and another item. This item heals 25 HP. vs.  This micro-game was developed by this character.  To play the game, the player must do this.  On higher difficulty levels, more enemies appear.) Some articles don't have a lot of information, but that does not mean they don't deserve to be articles. Also, I don't think we should split up any current lists of micro-games until the articles are created (and not be created as stubs). -- Son of Suns

Everyone seems to think a microgame article would be like this:

"(name) is a microgame where you must (whatever)"

But they wouldn't. They could have info on all difficulties, levels, a few of them have cheats, and the like.

Although (most) Microgames do have more to write about than their name and what you do (as Max2 pointed out), they still don't have enough to be full articles. It's a pain to have to go from tiny little article to tiny little article, it would be faster and easier for people to learn about the Microgames if they were all together in one big article instead of 1000s of little ones. And this same mantra should be applied to other stub-esque articles, like Paper Mario items (as cited by Son of Suns), glitches, and many, many more. - Walkazo


 * I believe a "full article" is relative term. To me, I feel anything that is officially named is worthy of an article, regardless of size.  Although the article may be small, it shows the world that we feel everything officially recognized by Nintendo should be recognized by us.  Everything is important, and everything official deserves an article.  Categories and list pages can organize this multitude of articles.  If someone wants to read all the Microgame articles, they can go to the Microgame category.  Although this takes a few extra clicks of the mouse, this tiny effort is symbolic of the effort Nintendo went through to create the subject.  Now I am not going to start any flame wars over this, and I will agree to merges if the community does.  But ultimately, the philosophy I just mentioned will be one I will always advocate and hold on to.   -- Son of Suns


 * I can respect that. - Walkazo

My comment is directed toward Pokemon DP: The difference is that the Mario Party ones are mini-games, whereas the WarioWare ones are micro-games. The ones from the Mario Party series have much more bulk to them and therefore warrant their own articles. Microgames on the other hand, are small and rapid-fire, over in seconds. Not worthy of their own article if you ask me.


 * Mini-games from Mario Party and microgames from WarioWare have the same amount of "bulk". The only difference is that mini-games last longer.  Both have players repeating the same action over and over - mini-games just make you do the action over a longer period of time. -- Son of Suns

}}

Merge Zeus Guy (Snifit) with Zeus Guy (Bandit).
KEEP SEPARATE 1-11

Both species were once on the same page, however, Plumber splitted the page in two without asking anyone first. I say the twop page should be merged since the two species have the same name.

Proposer Gofer

Deadline September 1.

{{scroll box|content=

Merge

 * 1) Gofer

Keep it that way

 * 1) They are different and deserve different arcticles.
 * 2) They are completely different species.
 * 3) – Per above; they're different species.
 * 4) They are DIFFERENT...
 * 5) Yep, they are different enemies. You can't merge them just because they have the same name.
 * 6) Walkazo and PP Different enemies! One is a Bandit, the other is a snifit! Different species for crying out loud, mergeing them because they have the same name is crazy!
 * 7) Keep, they are differant enemies. Although, Plumber should've asked someone before spliting them.
 * 8) http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/9276/papertoycf7.gif Paper Jorge! I give paper cuts so stand back! http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/9276/papertoycf7.gif They're two different species with the same name.
 * 9) - Separated like this, it's easy to avoid ambiguity and thus, confusion.
 * 10) There different keep them apart--Luigibros2 20:08, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
 * 1) There different keep them apart--Luigibros2 20:08, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

Comments
If then, I guess we should split the Merlee (aswell as the other shaman) article to the various PM incarnation, they are different. Gofer

Gofers got a point, and they are both called zeus guy. but i'm staying neutral.


 * That is only assumed, not officially stated. - 14:52, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
 * But then, so is the Zeus Guy thing. They act different, look different, but have the same name.

Gofer }}

Split Bowser and Bowser Bones
KEEP MERGED 3-8

I think Bowser Bones deserves his own article on the Wiki, seperate from Bowser.

Now before anyone gives me that "but they da same person omgz" stuff, let me just say that Mario is also the same person as Raccoon Mario, Metal Mario, Superball Mario, and Fire Mario. But then again, they all managed to get their own articles. Oh, and don't tell me that he doesn't deserve an article because he was in one game only. That's Superball Mario's case as well, and, excluding remakes, Raccoon Mario's.

Proposer: Dodoman Deadline: Sept. 6, 2007

{{scroll box|content=

Split the Articles

 * 1) Dodoman
 * 2) Per guys whose name are Dodo
 * 3) no reason not to, I agree with the claims above completly.

Keep them Merged

 * 1) Son of Suns - They shouldn't be merged because Bowser Bones is an unofficial name.  The skeletal Bowser is just named Bowser.  It's the same character and the info seems more important in the Bowser article itself - I would rather read about Bowser's death and afterlife in the Bowser article than have to go to a entirely different article.
 * 2)  - No need for an additional conjectural article.
 * 3) Gofer Per SOS.
 * 4)  Per Son of Suns
 * 5)  Per Son of Suns.
 * 6) Walkazo - Per SOS. Besides, for all we know Bowser's been a skeleton plenty of times already (NSMB's not the only time he was dumped in lava, after all). His many deaths and afterlife experiences are better placed within his article, not a conjecturaly named one based on only one of those instances.
 * 7) Per Son of Suns and Walkazo.
 * 8)  Per all of the above :P.

Comments
I don't think you can argue that because forms of characters have their own articles, all different forms of characters should have their own articles. I don't think, for example, that we need an article for Mario's paper airplane form from PM2. If you want to argue for Bowser Bones having his own article, you have to point out that he is important enough to warrant it. (I don't know, haven't played the game.) Is the name even official? - 16:42, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
 * Well... he's a boss, that seem notable for me. I don't think he has an official name, I have the official strategy guide, and he's only reffered as "The skeletal version of Bowser."

Gofer

Anyway, I find kind of funny that we have a proposal for splitting a conjectural minor form, but we don't do the same for the officialy named Super Show alter-Ego that cluter up the article. Gofer

As Cobold said, just because some characters have artciles concerning different forms doesn't mean they all have to. I think it should be based on how much can be said abouit the different forms. In the case of Raccoon Mario (for example) you can talk about how Mario becomes a Raccoon and how that enhanses gameplay, as well as out-of-game stuff like how Raccoon Mario is practically the mascot for Super Mario Bros. 3, and how much the Raccoon suit was featured in the TV show based on the game. Meanwhile, for "Bowser Bones" all we can really say is that Bowser falls into the lava, becomes a pile of bones that behaves like a Dry Bones before getting smashed by Mario and dumped into a potion by Junior forming Bowser one again. That's not enough info for a whole article. - Walkazo }}