MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/16

User Highlights
I know Mario Wiki isn't Userpedia, but I feel guilty when I find out somebody's prrromotion to a higher user rank just happened and I didn't congratulate them is an annoyance. The same with birthdays. Yes, I am a Userpedia user, but I'm thinking more about people limited to only Mario Wiki. It could just be a small box showing something, (sorry about putting myself in this, but oh well: "Hyper Guy's Birthday is coming up on___" or "User___ has reached Sysop rank) just a small box with a bit of information about the users, who could be recognized for their efforts on Mario Wiki, might make our community look much, much better by giving users credit, no matter how small the alert is. (NOTE: I'm not talking about edits! Just marking important moments for our brilliant users) THANKS FOR READING THIS!

Proposer: Deadline: August 28, 2009, 20:00

Oppose

 * 1) If you mean a box on the Main Page, it isn't necessary. For the promotion issue you stated, the promotion is usually listed in the Pipe Plaza, usually as, "*Insert User Name Here* has been promoted to *insert rank here*! Congratulations!" And the problem with the birthdays can be solved with the 'Shroom (we have the calendar, one of the sections is for birthdays). If anybody is not content with what we have, then that is too bad for them.
 * 2) The wiki isn't a forum, so we will not have a database for something like birthdays - creating an automatic system or handling it manual sounds like too much work for me. If you want to congratulate certain users, write down those users' birthdays on your own list. SysOp promotions are noted on the Pipe Plaza.
 * 3) – Per Cobold
 * Per all.
 * 1) - Per all.
 * 2) Per all.
 * 3) - It's simple, not a forum, there's already one that exists for the site. Per Cobold.
 * 4) Per all the Main page is for the wiki not the users

Merge Keys Articles
Yeah, I was just looking at the articles linked to this template, and most of them are stubs. That is why I am suggesting that the community allows me to go ahead and merge them, as well as turn the original articles into redirects and changing the links so that they lead to the merged article. An example can be found here, and the discussion page will be a replica at first, but it will be so that users can change it as opposed to suggesting changes to me (such as moving images, sections, fixing links, etc.). So, to reiterate, if you want to suggest a change to my example, do the change on the talk page. If you have other comments, put them below on this page. NO COMMENTS GO ON THE TALK PAGE! ''Note: A change in the proposed article has been made. See my large comment below.'' Proposer: Proposed Deadline: Saturday, 22 August 2009, 20:00 Extended Deadline: Saturday, 29 August 2009, 20:00 Date Withdrawn: August 28, 2009, 21:43 GMT

Support

 * 1) I think this will improve the articles. Per Walkazo.
 * 2) - I like your article. It's long and combines a bunch of stubs. To Time Q below, the need would be that there are currently too many stubs. but I saw a problem. There is only supposed to be one image requested tag at the top if you have multiple sections because at the top it says "It has been requested that image(s) be added to this article/section" See what I mean (it says images).
 * 3) Per SMB.
 * 4) Yeah, what's with all the keys anyway? The articles are terrible!
 * 5) - Per my comments below. Supplementing the nameless key list in Key with "List of Keys in the Paper Mario series" and  "List of Keys in Super Mario 64 DS" pages in place of numerous stubs seems a more organized way of doing things. Use (and  in the sections for the few keys who merit full articles) to make the lists presentable.

Oppose

 * I see no need for doing this change. Those keys are unrelated to each other, they all deserve their own articles (or at least some of them, which means we can't merge them all together). If they're stubs, we should expand them rather than cramming them all together in a rather unattractive list.
 * Per Time Q. Additionally, as you have it set up, all the categories and navboxes are applied to the article as a whole, which is rather imprecise. To someone who's unfamiliar with what's going on, it may seem that (e.g.) Category:Animate Objects applies to all of the items on that list. In fact, it applies to just two. And having some items under the subheader "key" when the article itself is also called "key" is redundant.
 * Per All!
 * 1) - Per all.
 * 2) - Per all
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) per all.
 * 5) - Some keys may need to be merged, but not all of them, like you suggest. Per Time Q.
 * 6) Yes they could be in an "Other Keys" article, but there are some important keys.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) - Per all.

Comments
Marioguy1, I fixed the problem. Does it look good now?
 * Yup, I was there when you fixed it. I'll strike that point in my article.

I think the Key article itself should stay (and the introduction should be expanded a bit to explain more about the essense of Mario keys), with the rest of the keys going into a "List of Keys" page. Yakkey should keep his seperate page, since he's a character, not just an item. Skeleton Key also has enough appearances and information (plus, its animate) to merit its own article as well. The list entries for Key, Skeleton Key and Yakkey would all use to link to the separate articles. -

I think Marioguy1's vote is invalid. The only reason he states is "I like your article", which is not enough. Why would it be a change for the better? Please expand your vote, otherwise I vote for its removal.

Ok, hopefully I fixed most of the problems. The minor Paper Mario keys would all be merged, as well as a few of the other Super Mario 64 DS keys (Mario Key, Luigi Key, Wario Key). The bigger Key article, as well as the Skeleton Key article and the Yakkey article would be left alone as seperate articles. This would allow to stay, and the Keys category to remain as well. Any more suggestions?


 * That still suggests that (eg) "Wario Key" falls under "Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door Special Items," which is wrong. And the fact that there's really no simple way to get to Key, Skeleton Key, or Yakkey from that article is also inconvenient.
 * What? We have the to link to Key, Skeleton Key, and Yakkey. So, should we split the list into two lists (one for the Super Mario 64 DS keys and one for the Paper Mario keys)? We could still have the Paper Mario series keys on one article, even though they would share categories, I think it would be easy to tell due to the beginning of each paragraph having the game it appears in.
 * Actually, there's been talk that templates like should be scrapped, seeing as they're just categories in template form, and are often based on "common sense" as opposed to canon (i.e.  vs.  and ). But that's beside the point: as I said before, those other independent articles should be linked to via  in the list, though with the two lists idea, that'd only be needed for Yakkey, since Skeleton Key  has a series unto itself (barring the conspicuously pageless Bowser Keys). Considering how the three SM64DS Keys can almost be combined as-is, I think the two list idea is good. I'm always a fan of combining stubs and saving space; all that can be done to expand those key articles is writing their exact locations (Walkthrough fare, IMO) and maybe some more context - but after a point, it starts to look off-topic and/or reachy. Also, the "if it's named it gets an article" mantra seems to be an underlying part of this discussion; to be frank, I've always felt that ideal was misguided. The keys in Luigi's Mansion essentially play the same role as the Fortress Keys and Ruins Keys, except the named PM keys get stubs while the plain LM key merely gets a section of the Key article. If the "Key"s from LM, SMB2, SMW, SMW2:YI, SM64 and SSBB are shoved together, why not the "___ Key"s from the Paper Mario series? It's a double-standard born of the desire to not have dozens of "Key (game X)" pages, which is understandable, but also fixable if we weren't so bent on having dozens of "___ Key" pages instead. The list(s) just needs some fixing-up; with proper retooling, it won't look so bad. -

Allowing YouTube Videos Outside Userpages
Before you all think, "It's been like that for a good while, why should it be changed?!", think about how better articles could look. Sometimes when I make edits, like I've been editing the Pyoro pages recently, I don't want to keep on writing things I know don't make much sense, but I can't show a viewer of the page an example of how the game would be played, and so that users can check if I'm right or not. It could also encourage people who don't want to read long articles. Instead of sitting on a chair for hours on end, they can scroll down the page until they find a YouTube video explaining it for them. I'm not saying we should stop writing and just spam YouTube videos on the pages, but this idea came to me when a friend asked me the other day, while I was showing him an article so he could see what you can do when you join, he asked "Y'know, I'm not actually reading all this c**p, can you just add a YouTube video on here or something?". After that, I started thinking about other people's opinions on this, and I personally think adding YouTube Videos to pages outside user pages would be like adding pictures to a book!

Proposer: Deadline: August 30, 2009, 15:00

Support

 * 1) - Per above.
 * 2) - Why Not, per Hyper Guy!
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) I am Zero! It depends on what video, it's quality, is proffesionally done, and how small is the article, because, if the article is big then it will take a longer time to load. Zero signing out.
 * 5) Yoshi! I think they should extend it to Shroom pages.
 * 6) Per HG
 * 7) Hmmmm... yes, this proposal makes sense. I mean, if the youtube video is properly sized (and agreeing with zero) and professionally done, this proposal is a reasonable one. Also, on the Zelda Wiki they have youtube videos on their pages and honestly, their pages don't take that long to load.

Oppose

 * 1) Some pages, like Mario's, and really big, and, for some computers, are long to load. With Youtube videos, these pages will be extremely long to load.
 * 2) – Per Itachi 96. We can always external link to YouTube videos.
 * 3) see comment section
 * 4) Per all
 * 5) - Per Steve comments
 * 6) - Per all.
 * 7) - Per all.
 * 8) - Per Itachi 96 and Steve's comment below.
 * 9) - Itachi 96, your reason is invalid to me. Per my reasons below.
 * 10) Per Itachi... (about the comment about "per all"...) Yes It´s true some old computers and the memory fulled this would be a nightmare.
 * 11) - Per all!
 * 12) - The way the proposal puts it, I oppose. Youtube-Clips should not be added to replace text ("Just put a youtube video on here")! This is an online-dictionary and dictionaries are things to be read, so people saying they "won't read through all this c**p" are no valid reason to change something. At least that's my oppinion!
 * 13) - Using youtube videos on articles would make them less professional besides stealing words from text.
 * 14) - Couldn't we use references for that? That is what is currently happening is it not? Why change tradition if it is not necessary? These are all rhetorical questions by the way. Per Yoshario.
 * Per Itachi, Cobold, Edofenrir, and Coincollector.
 * 1) This is why not. Yeah, this link.
 * 2) Per Itachi, Cobold and see comment

Comments
An external link would work fine in your example. Right now we host all our content when it comes to articles--the text and images. Embedding videos and making them part of the actual article means we are outsourcing content which relies on YouTube and their servers, as well as the user who uploaded the video. Having embedded Flash in the articles looks sloppy. Most everything can be described in words and if videos are an option we could rely on them too much; "This video shows how the gameplay works." Blah Blah
 * I agree. YouTube videos would also take away content from the article, as people might say they don't need to describe what is shown in the video. -


 * Seconded! And think about all the stubs that would be created by just having articles with one single video and the comment "Watch the video" below it.

It's a wiki, it's supposed to have content in usually a text form, a reference to an external link TO a YouTube video is better. The video would extend loading time, like on Peach's page mainly, and content and formatting may be harder to replicate. Also, just a little off-topic note, I hate it when someone says "Per all."

I'd say it might be useful in some points but it should be handeled VERY careful so that this feature is not overused or the Wiki will be overrun by Youtube-Videos, rendering the articles useless.

I think we need seperate pages for youtube videoes for example: Luigi's Mansion cutscenes would be nothing but youtube videos of cutscenes for the said game. Or Glitch videos would be a good page! Lu-igi board 05:05, 29 August 2009 (EDT)

If we bring Youtube information into this site we'd be relying on so much another web site. Take wikipedia. We only make few reverences to its articles and place links onto articles with necessary articles rather than copying and pasting everything.

No name, no vote, no creator's username, delete, Version 2
Alright a few months back we had a proposal known as "No name, no vote, no creator's username, deleted poll" which is a small rule for the poll selection page which organized voteing, the proposal pass, but when it pass the poll selection page was no longer used (which sucks because it just happen with no warning and a lot of users like it because it was a lot of fun. I still think the Poll selection page should still be running), so I came up with the idea to apply this rule to the FI and proposal page (I'm not sure if the FA has the support or oppose system, but if it does then it will be apply to that page also.). For all the new users who don't know what I'm talking about it's just basically if you don't put your username under support or oppose then your vote is deleted. note: This doesn't apply to the "comments" section but if a user forgot to put his/her name then just let them, you, or someone else put there username in.

Proposer: Deadline: September 5, 2009, 20:00

Support

 * 1) I am Zero! (creator) The last one pass very successfully, because think about it why make a section if you are not going to support it yourself? There's no reason to oppose since if it pass then it will make a turn for the better for everybody. This proposal will make the pages I just said more organized. Zero signing out.
 * 2) Yoshi! I don't like it when a niminator doesn't support it himself but I see no real reason to have to add creator after your user name as  above it usually says nominated by.

Oppose

 * 1) - So... If i dont say who i am when i vote, my vote gets deleted..... Stupid.
 * 2) - Per all. We dont need to delete those right off the bat, it's often just a misunderstanding and once the user is told, he/she will almost always change it.
 * 3) - If this doesn't apply to the comments section, and a user could fill their username in there, then why not in the Support/Oppose section? There seems to be no need to remove a user's vote because they didn't sign it, someone else could for them.
 * 4) Per all except Time Q.
 * 5) - Just add, yeash. No need to make someone worry about not having their vote there like someone did to me.
 * 6) - Per all.
 * 7) No. Just no. I don't vote on some of my proposals (such as the recent amendment to the No-Signature policy that requires coding). Sometimes the proposer might understand the reasoning of both sides, and can't make up their mind. So, as I said, I oppose this.
 * Per Yoshario. This is a rule that probably wouldn't do much harm, but it wouldn't make sense either.
 * 1) Per all.
 * 2) Per all

Comments
I am Zero! Oh ya, I forgot that part, I was thinking of the poll selection page. Zero signing out.
 * we already use that...

I agree with the no name no vote part but I dont think the no username of creator is pointless. Don't most creators vote after they already have published it?
 * The no name rule already exists with the no-sig policy. I don't think we have to rewrite it.
 * Time Q: Have you noticed that the top six votes all per you in a way?
 * Yeah, hehe. I guess that either that means my reasons are really good, or they're all just lazy. :P

What happened to the other votes?
 * The proposer unwarrantedly deleted them.


 * I'm kinda confused too oO -

I am Zero! I altered the proposal so much I have to delete the votes and start all over, because some people aren't getting the picture. Zero signing out.

I struck my vote and those that are "per-ing" me for now. Anyone of the users concerned feel free to replace your striked votes with a valid one.

I am Zero! Well if you put it that way, well ya it's stupid, but overall is good. Zero signing out.

I have to say that I don't really get the point (what keeps me from voting). So an unsigned vote will be deleted, but another one can fill in your username and then it's fine? Wouldn't it be easier to just tell the person that he/she forgot to sign the vote? I don't understand it. To me it seems like the bold text and the rest contridict each other. Someone please enlighten me.

- Sorry Time Q but you crossed out your vote and your vote has no logic. Plus, your vote is messing up the number system, it looks like there are seven people yet there are only four.
 * I know it has no logic (anymore), that's why I crossed it out >.< But there are still some people per-ing me, so I left it there for now. I'll remove it soon, but I wanted to give the other users the chance to update their votes. By the way, you're vote has no reason and thus is invalid.
 * The "per all" votes still count, since they support other voters' opinions, not just your defunct vote. -

I am Zero! * sigh * It was a success last time, so I wonder what did I add or remove to make this one a failure? Zero signing out.

Create spoiler boxes
Over on a couple wikis, they have boxes that toggle(show/hide) that contain any information that may give away the ending plot. I propose that we do the same thing. That way, people can't say that they just figured out the entire plot of the game without a warning. Now I know that we already have those warning things, but my eyes tend to linger and other people's probably do too. I would need lots of help to create and place these if this proposal goes through. So if it does, help would be appreciated.

Proposer: Deadline: September 7, 2009, 17:00

Support

 * 1) Per above
 * 2) I actually think it's a good idea, and have no idea why people oppose for this. Per Electrobomber.

Oppose

 * 1) - It's too much hassle. Really, people should expect spoilers if they read anything on the Internet; the fact that we even bother warning them puts us ahead of the vast majority of websites out there (not to mention people who troll forums just to spoil plots). Our job is to deliver all the facts we can, and bending over backwards to accommodate people who don't want all the facts is counter-productive.
 * 2) - Per Walkazo.
 * }: Per Walkazo
 * 1) - Wow, Walkazo's making a lot of sense today, first that comment and now this. Per Her.
 * Per Walkazo. To be honest, even the spoiler templates we have seem sort of unnecessary to me. I mean, we're an encyclopedia trying to cover all Mario-related stuff, and of course this includes spoilers as well. Putting those templates in articles seems unencyclopedic to me. Just my two cents... anyway, no need for even more spoiler warnings.
 * Per all. I also agree with Time Q, I don't find those spoiler templates useful, either.
 * Per all.
 * 1) Per Azzy.
 * 2) Per Walkazo
 * 3) Per Walkazo.
 * 4) Per Walkazo.
 * 5) Sorry, Electrobomber, but we already have a spoiler template, and what you're suggesting sounds like a lot of work to do.

Comments
we already have them :)
 * So, if the wiki has them... are they in use? Sorry, i checked. They are.-
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he's not talking about the -thingies, but about something that hides the spoiling contents from the visitors eyes and reveals it when clicked on. -
 * Yes, you're exactly right, Edofenrir. The spoiler template is "those warning things", as mentioned in the proposal; Electrobomber is suggesting we put the spoiling information in show/hide boxes. -
 * oh, sorry :embarassed: i didnt understad the proposal ver good :/
 * there, is the proposal a little easier to understand now?

Even Out Removal Votes
OK, I am very annoyed when I see an inconsistency on a wiki and as I look at the proposals page and the FA page, I notice that there is an inconsistency in the number of votes it takes to remove the invalid votes. On the proposals page, it takes three and on the FA page it takes five, why the two-number difference? If this proposal passes, those numbers will even out so that there is one universal number so that someone doesn't mess up like that guy :( Anyways, I've created three voting groups just in case someone wants one but not the other.

Proposer: Deadline: Thursday September 10th, 2009 (17:00.00)

Change FA Number

 * 1) - The FA Number is higher so making it lower would help to squish out those fan-votes because people love someone. On the proposal page I doubt there would be fan-votes. Oh yes and when this proposal ends, if even one of the numbers changes, I want it marked as a success (you know green ).
 * 2) - I support this, but only if the removal-votes have to be  accompanied by a strong reason to be valid (like it is now). I think three strong reasons are enough.
 * 3) - Per, though i am of the idea that we should delete ALL fan votes without going through this....
 * 4) Per all. But what are we going to change the number to? Four? Oh okay. I'm keeping this vote though. Three sounds more reasonable than five. And Per Time Q, too.
 * 5) Per MG1.
 * 6) Sounds fair. FIs need two, but that's too little in my opinion.
 * 7) - Per Marioguy1.
 * There's no reason for having two different numbers, so it's a good idea to even them out. Three seems like a reasonable number: experience has shown that there are hardly ever 5 users that vote for the removal of an FA vote. Oh, and just to clarify: Current rules state that one sysop must be among the voters that vote for the removal of an FA vote. This, of course, should stay the same.
 * 1) Per all.
 * 2) – Per all
 * 3) Per All.

Comments
@T.c.w7468: I think the proposer splitted the support section into two to avoid problems with this question. You just voted for decreasing both numbers of neccessary removal votes to 3. If you had picked the other support category, you would have voted for increasing both numbers of necessary removal votes to five ;3 -
 * Unless I wrote to change the rule it won't be changed.
 * Timmy Tim: I would of included FIs but do you know how many headers that would take?
 * You can't vote for the removal of FI votes.
 * I know, I was just saying, it was the same on the vote page too, before we canned it. I reckon that three is a good number for proposals and FAs.

Creations & Deletions
OK, this proposal is just to test out whether or not this idea is worth proposing. Anyhow, my proposal is to make a section on this page called Creations & Deletions to replace the section Removals. This way there will be more space so that to propose, say a Q&A Page, you won't have to put it under Miscellaneous. This could also help with those old proposals of creating and deleting committees. So that's basically it, vote now!

Proposer: Deadline: Friday September 11th, 2009 (20:00.00)

Create Section

 * 1) - OK, I think I made my point clear...

Comments
Couldn't the "New Features" section be used for creating something? –
 * And removals for deletes
 * Just to make things clear, Hephestus vote is not valid according to our rules, so currently, the proposal would be listed as "No Quorum" (The first of those if I am correct)
 * I, too, think that Hephaestus's vote is invalid.

Yes, I think too that Hephaseus's vote is invalid. Sure, why not is not a strong reason.

Give Patrollers CheckUser
Before you oppose this, please read it. If I'm correct, we used to have an extension for CheckUser, which means (if we don't have the extension anymore) there is one for our version of MediaWiki. CheckUser would help Patrollers if they are dealing with possible sockpuppets, but they couldn't tell whether they really are. It wouldn't give them major Sysop powers such as oversight, deletion, or protecting of pages; which would give the users in the Patroller group more power/responsibilities, while retaining its place as the "in-between" of users and Sysops without it becoming redundant. I feel this would highly benefit Patrollers in the case of huge spam attacks or when suspicious users sign up.

Proposer: Deadline: September 13th, 2009, 15:00

Give Them CheckUser

 * 1) My proposal. Also, see my comment below about the extension information.
 * 2) - I would find this very useful
 * 3) - So if it wouldn't do anything bad for the wiki then why not?
 * 4) If there's no harm in it, why not?
 * 5) This would make it easier for the patrollers to do their job.
 * 6) - If it helps to keep this site safe from trolls, then I second.
 * 7) - It seems reasonable to me and fair for patrolles to use this page.
 * 8) - Mah boi, I am seeing exactly where your coming from! If I were a patroller, I'd want a bit more power than the current things available for the patrollers. MORE POWER FOR THEM!
 * 9) Why not? It won't harm the wiki and it'll keep spammers out. Per all.
 * 10) - Per all. It takes too long when the Patrollers have to go and ask Sysops to CheckUser for them.
 * 11) - If you are giving them block, give them checkuser. Simple as that.
 * 12) - Power to the Patrollers! This thing will sure reduce the number of spammers.
 * 13) - Per all, I think this is a good thing!
 * 14) Great idea per all.

Comments

 * Here is a link to the extension: . It is also listed in our version information, so I guess we have it.
 * How would you go about getting this, would you just ask and Mediwiki gives it or would it be more complicated?
 * That is classified, I will note here though that Porple (the founder and owner of the Wiki) gave his approval for giving CheckUser to them (if this passes).
 * As of now, 21:54, 7 September 2009 (EDT), WarioLoaf has created a sockpuppet and has also trolled Userpedia. I feel this incident furthers the fact that it would be very useful for Patrollers to have CheckUser. It would further protect us from trolls like these.
 * Actually, a CheckUser is extremely necessary NOW

The proposal must pass in the appointed date. However, if you see any suspicious action (like moving pages into nasty words) don't doubt on giving that guy a permanent ban.

Delete Genre Articles
I have encountered a couple of articles in Category:Game Types and have thought that creating an article on each genre is redundant. Has Mario appeared in a lot of genres? Yes. But I hardly think there's a reason to create an article on each one. The only thing that would accomplish is defining what each genre is and what Mario games belong to it.

Proposer: Deadline: September 15, 2009, 17:00

Delete Articles

 * 1) – I am the proposer.
 * 2) - Maybe we could merge them all into the article "Game Types"...besides, the majority of those articles are stubs!
 * 3) - Agreed! I would even say that these articles are superfluous, because all the contents actually belong to the respective game-articles. A short summary of the genre can be given at the top of every game article.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Why need a separate article for each when we can just merge them to one article?
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per BabyLuigiOnFire good good proposal.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Per Marioguy1.

Comments
Uh, why keep "Three-Dimensional Game"? --Glowsquid 06:56, 9 September 2009 (EDT)
 * I was just about to ask the same question :D
 * I noticed that it is the only one of those articles that isn't a stub
 * Well, if this is the reason, I'm against the proposal - keeping this one article while deleting all the others is just inconsistent. I'll wait for Knife's explanation though.
 * When I think about it, you guys are right. I thought we should keep that since technically it wasn't a genre. I retract that statement. And yes Marioguy, I noticed them because they were stubs. Many of these stubs need to be deleted though.-- 14:09, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

Why not just merge them together?
 * This seems to be a good solution.
 * That's what I suggested!
 * Yeah, but "Game Types" isn't a good name for an article. However, plain "Games" is already taken, and there's not many other official-sounding names; Wikipedia uses "Video game genres", but that's only a slight improvement over "Video game types". -
 * I think Video Game Genres or just Genres would be appropriate enough because it is the common term in this jargon and everyone will understand it.
 * "Video Game Genres" would be better, since plain "Genres" could apply to movies and TV shows as well. Then comes the question of capitalization... -
 * "Video Game Genres"... The rules state that all titles must be capitalized, so there's little choice.
 * Oops, 'guess I missed that rule (note to self: review policy pages). -
 * I'm not sure, but I was told so by when I was new on the wiki. And well, I trust his statement. -
 * Well, Wikipedia doesn't capitalize all their titles, but I think it looks neater (or at least, more uniform, not to mention simpler to remember for linking purposes) if they are uppercase. However, lots of things are capitalized around here that shouldn't be (i.e. Mario and Luigi are referred to collectively as the "Mario bros." - note the lowercase "b", which is often erroneously capitalized like the game title Mario Bros.). -

Mario Kart Wii competitions
Ok, i kinda get annoyed when a new Mario Kart competetion comes out and I haven't taken part so i suggest that we say when a Mario kart comp comes out on the news template to alert everyone. Ans since Nintendo news doesn't do it anymore i thimk it would be useful to know when one comes out.

Proposer: Deadline: September 16, 2009, 17:00

Allow the MKWii comps

 * 1) Yoshi! Per Me.
 * 2) - Per YY127
 * 3) Per Yellow Yoshi. And why do not put back the tourney template then?
 * 4) - This was actually made official in Timmy Tim's proposal earlier but what's a second opinion going to do, per my reasoning in the proposal to put minor news into the template.
 * 5) I am Zero! I like the idea to post it on the main page but it would be better to post it on the competition template, and it would be a great idea to also do this with SSBB. Zero signing out.
 * 6) I'm always curious, so I'll be going for it
 * 7) I don't even have Wi-Fi - I'm totally gutted!
 * 8) I don't really care about the tournaments, but why not?
 * 9) I don't even have wifi, but this proposal is helpful for those who do and are interested, and it's something to refresh the news :)
 * 10) Per Marioguy1, this was the kind of thing I was refering to.
 * YY, you make a great point.

Comments
Is this for competitions among the wiki community or something more official? If it's for competitions organized by the wiki, that's what the MarioWiki Community box is for. It would only make the News box if, say, Nintendo was organizing something. The English here seems pretty bad. -- 19:38, 10 September 2009 (EDT)


 * I believe he's talking about these.
 * He's proposing to put those competitions in the template which should already happen thanks to Timmy Tim's earlier proposal.

Time Limit Before New Game Spoilers Added to Other Articles
First, I hope I've added this proposal correctly; my apologies if I've messed up somewhere. To the point, I'm proposing there be some sort of time limit, a statute of limitations if you will, before spoilers for an as-yet unreleased game begin to filter their way into other articles. For example, Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story is not out in North America yet, but as I was reading over several Partners in Time entries, I came upon numerous spoilers for the unreleased game. I understand if spoilers for BIS would be in the M&L:BIS entry, as that would be a "read at your own risk" situation, but should someone who is just trying to get caught up be forced to find out things they don't want to until they get a chance to play the game?

Proposer: Deadline: September 20, 2009, 15:00

Support

 * 1) - I am aware, that this is of little point, but anyways... My opinion is, that spoilers are something one has to expect on a wiki. But major spoilers should only be found on the respective games article or in a paragraph dealing with that game on another article. That means, a spoiler about M6L:BiS on the M6L:PiT is fine, as long as the paragraph it is in is concerning BiS in general. That would not just increase user-friendlyness, it would also make the wiki more orderly and more structured.
 * 2) - As per Edofenrir.  Looking back, it seems the bigger issue is more with the nature of the Trivia sections as a conduit for such spoilers to appear in other unrelated articles.  It's one thing to go into Bowser's entry and know which section to avoid, but another to look up a form of his from one game and see "guess what?"
 * 3) - Per all

Oppose

 * We're not a random fan site, but an encyclopedia, and as such are our task is to cover everything Mario-related in the most objective and neutral way possible. Thus, hiding information from our readers, no matter for what reason, is bad. If someone doesn't want to know something about Mario, they shouldn't read this wiki, it's as simple as that.
 * 1) – Per Time Q
 * 2) – Per Time Q. He said everything I wanted to.
 * 3) - This is censoring Bob Hoskins all over again, no, no and no again! Besides, if SMG had just come out two days ago and I somehow got it at that early date and got as far as I am in it now, how would I have figured out how to beat Bowser?
 * 4) - Per Time Q.
 * 5) Per Time Q
 * 6) - Per Time Q. We should just get rid of the Spoiler templates and say the entire site's a "read at your own risk" database (like everything else on the Internet).
 * 7) Per Time Q and Walkazo.
 * 8) - There's a warning.  If you ignore it, that's your fault.
 * 9) Per Walkazo.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) - Per all.

Comments
I agree with TimeQ, but i HATE spoilers.

Is there a way to add a spoiler tag or something, then? Again, not saying no spoilers at all, but spreading them throughout to articles only slightly related seems a bit like overdoing it. If I just want to learn more about Partners in Time, is it really necessary that the first piece of trivia I see in one entry spoils a game that's not even out yet before I even read the more relevant info? And Marioguy1, would that info not be in the SMG article? That would be a different situation from what I'm speaking of.
 * No actually, how to beat a boss is a spoiler :). BTW, you cannot propose to hide the spoilers from view in some kind of template that says "Click for Spoilers" as it hasn't been a month since Electrogoomba tried the same thing.
 * It is, but a Super Mario Galaxy spoiler in a Super Mario Galaxy article makes sense. What I'm talking about is akin to putting a Super Mario Galaxy endgame spoiler in an article about Super Mario 64 or Sunshine.

As far as I understand a major concern of this proposal is that spoilers are available outside of the respective game article, and I can perfectly understand that. Spoilers belong to the game's article or paragraphs in other articles that deal with that game. What situation would rectify it to post a spoiler outside of an article or paragraph of the respective game? Are there examples? -
 * Ah, you get what I mean. As noted, why am I being spoiled for Bowser's Inside Story when I'm just trying to read about Partners in Time?
 * How about some specific examples (i.e. individual pages)? I can think of many reasons for PiT articles to have M&L3 spoilers: one of the Super Mario Wiki's aims is to identify and present common themes running through series, and plots are an integral part to any RPG coverage, spoilers and all. Character articles are guaranteed to have spoilers, as will prominent items, enemies and areas is many cases. Granted, some editors might go overboard and spill the beans where a page could be perfectly complete without the spoilers, but other times omitting the spoiler would be denying the unconcerned (spoiler-wise) readers all the information we could give them, which goes against everything the Wiki stands for. -
 * Yes, in many cases, spoilers have to be pointed out for the sake of being informative. I won't argue that. But is there a reason why spoilers have to be given outside of a respective paragraph? I mean, there may be f.e. paragraphs like "Role in BiS" on a character article and putting spoilers in there would be fine. What I wouldn't understand is, when someone would put spoilers outside of an existing BiS paragraph. I mean, that would not just be unnecessary, but make the article itself appear less structured. -
 * All bets are off when it comes to Introductions, Trivia sections (which are discouraged, as they do make the page look disorganized), and other little bits like "Personality", "Powers and Abilities" or "Relationships with Character X" (another defunct section, by the way). The writers could be more discrete about the ending details, but I doubt more anti-spoiler rules will change that (we tell people to use proper grammar, but a lot of crud still gets posted day in and day out). -
 * Examples. The main one which led me to this was the first trivia item here: here. Various Shroob entries also reference a battle in the latest game, though those seem relatively minor by comparison.  I suppose this may act as much as a discouragement to the Trivia sections lamented above. -
 * That Bowsletta/Shrowser/Dark Bowser point is perfectly reasonable, as it is undeniably true that Bowser's essence is combined with that of the main villain of all three Mario & Luigi titles; not mentioning the trend would be a grievous omission. The fact that the Shroobs appear later also has to be included, as it is part of the history - the backbone of almost every page on the Wiki - of these characters; just as we mention every game Mario appears in, so too must the Shroob cameos be noted. -
 * But must it be put out there before the game is even out here? Can it not at least wait until the game ships? I understand why you'd want the stuff to be there, but is it really that crucial that it be up here before the game even comes out? And I know it's out in Japan, but are that many users going to be importing it first? -

We could just do like the ArchieSonicWiki and just add a blanket statement to the Mainpage saying 'Warning: These Wiki Contains Spoilers, Read At Your Own Peril', or something to that effect. --

New Policy
Sometimes, there's an article that is created with one or two lines of text. It starts building up after after a while. When we see these articles, we simply slap a stub template on it in hopes that someone will expand it. This kind of thinking has created more than a 1000 stubs. That means more than 1/10th of all the articles on the wiki are stubbed. We need to fix this proportion for the sake of the wiki. There is no quick fix, but we can reduce this if we add this new policy to the Rules.

Any article two complete sentences or less is subject to deletion under the following conditions:


 * The article is linked to from 9 or less mainspace articles. Links from a template page are acceptable.
 * The article has no images.
 * The article belongs to 2 mainspace categories or less.
 * The article has 4 or less different contributers, not including edits by sockpuppets or trolls.
 * The article is at least a week old.
 * The article is not a disambiguation page.

So basically, any two sentence article that fits under ALL these conditions is deleted. If an article has sentence fragments or redundant sentences, they will not be counted. An article like "Goomba Pirates are Goomba pirates. There are lots of Goomba Pirates. They appear in Mario Party 8. They are found on (whatever board that was). They throw players into a cannon and shoot them to the start if they land on a ! Space." will not work.

If this proposal passes, articles on the wiki will be deleted if they meet these conditions and will become an enforced rule and a new policy will be added. The editors in no way will be punished for creating an article under these conditions, unless it is vandalism. If you have any suggestions or questions about proposal, please leave them

Proposer: Proposed Deadline: September 22, 2009, 17:00 Date Withdrawn: September 22, 2009, 20:53 GMT

Support

 * 1) My support is a given.
 * 2) - Per Knife. We have many stubs, quality before quantity.
 * 3) - This rule is actually pretty good! It should be easy to attain it. Per Knife.
 * 4) Great proposal there are much too many stubs and it needs to stop.
 * 5) Per Knife and Tucayo. There are too many stubs that are sometimes poorly written and need to be expanded/marked for deletion by patrolers/sysops. There are about 1500+ Stubs and that needs to be fixed!
 * 6) - I think every article that happens to meet ALL the conditions mentioned above could be considered very extreme, even for a stub. Removing those shouln't be harmful.
 * 7) Super Paper Mario Bros. Per all. Good idea, we need less pointless articles that don't help.
 * 8) - He did what I suggested; now the limits are good.

Oppose

 * 1) - There was a (largely ignored) rule created over a year ago (I think) against creating new stubs, but as for existing short pages, it really has to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Putting more emphasis on merging short pages and deleting unnecessary stubs would be beneficial to the Wiki, but that's more PipeProject fare than Proposal.
 * 2) - A little picky, aren't we? Just because an article doesn't have as much information as your picky standards dictate it should, that doesn't mean you should remove perfectly valid articles.
 * 3) - Per all.
 * 4) - Per all.
 * 5) - I don't really understand how cutting down on stubs helps the wiki in the first place. Even if that was desirable, very, very few articles would fit under these rules.
 * 6) – Per all.
 * 7) - A lot of these "requirements" are arbitrary. Per Walkazo.
 * 8) &mdash; the overall concept is nice, but I just don't agree with it. Every article deserves a chance, and that's what we should be giving them. Per all.

Comments
What rule says that this proposal can be given a long deadline?
 * None, so I corrected it.

@Marioguy1: Actually he says that there have to be at least 19 links TO the page, not FROM the page. -

@Ralphfan: I loosened up the rules a little, but I think 2 categories instead of 1 is a better fit since we have so many categories. It still has to pass all those conditions before being deleted anyway, so I don't think it is too strict. @Walkazo: That is exactly what I have been doing. If we deal with these case-by-case, we will get nowhere. Stubs are created much faster than they are fixed/deleted. It has gone far beyond Pipeproject repair. This is more of a deterrent for future stubs and hopefully will encourage users to not to make short articles for the sake of filling a red link (the manual of style has that bolded, but that isn't an enforcable rule).

I thought we could manipulate the deadline. Sorry for assuming that.
 * Knife, may I add a suggestion? If the article has an image in it, it passes.


 * Good idea.

All rules are enforceable, so if you see someone creating a one-liner (to fill a red link, or for whatever other motivation) you can stop them. The old no-new-stubs rule also lets you delete new stubs; I think the problem has been that we don't always catch them right when they're made and later assume they were there all along (granted, that's what checking the History is for). Personally, I always worry about removing what little information the stub does provide: there should be more emphasis that when you delete a stub, you have to make sure the info goes somewhere else (i.e. delete a Level page and the info gets pasted on the World article instead). -

The no-new stubs rule. If you could point out where it was passed, I would have a better understanding of it. Even if it was passed, why isn't it on any policy page? While this proposal is also supposed to cut down on stubs, it has two major differences. The first being that new stubs are still allowed if any of the conditions don't fit. The second being that existing stubs can still be deleted. You are also worried about valuable information being lost. Don't fret. If a user creates an article with only two sentences, there are two conclusions:


 * The user doesn't know enough about the article and probably shouldn't be creating an article on it.
 * The subject in the article does not have enough information that can be written about it and should not have its own article.

I can't think of any two sentence article with information so valuable that it needs to be merged/stay as an article. I wish we had an extended deadline so that we can discuss this further, but we only have 3 days left.


 * I'll search the archives for the no-new-stub proposal tomorrow (I can't tonight because of time and computer constraints) - regrettably, most policies that pass via Proposals can only be found there (people love making new ideas, but if implementing them is hard, they don't always follow through). For some examples of informative 2-liner stubs (albeit ones that have images and templates) see Chocolate Islands 1 and 3, and to a lesser extent, Chocolate Secret. Some of the other Chocolate Island levels have a decent amount of writing to their name, but I think the whole lot could be merged into Chocolate Island quite handily. (I'll admit, that's more relevant to the old "should every level get a page" debate, but it's the only example I could come up with off the top of my head.) -


 * Those examples don't work for me. The first one has no important text and wouldn't be deleted under this new rule. The second one has 4 sentences (the sentences in the level template), therefore is not relevant at all. I believe the old proposals should be better organized instead of just archiving them by date, but that's a different issue. Let me know when you find the old proposal.

(Chat log) 20:36	Tucayo	when i was a n00b 20:36	Tucayo	and searched for a random article 20:36	Tucayo	i saw it didnt exist 20:36	Tucayo	and created it myself

I'm really torn on this proposal. As incredibly annoying as it is to see well over 1,000 stubs on the wiki that either haven't been edited in so long because it's such an obscure subject, because so few actually can find information on it, or even because of pure laziness, I still feel that all articles should be given a chance. If an article is just one line, then yeah, it's likely to be deleted as soon as a Sysop finds it, because there's always enough information for at least two well-detailed sentences, but just completely ridding all small stubs of having the chance to become a really impressive page seems rather extreme.


 * I understand. You're thinking about each stub having potential to be a great article. But as time passes, those stubs are less likely to be expanded. In general, older subjects often have less information. The potential is still there of course. Why does it hurt the wiki? We currently have 9500+ articles (as displayed on the Main Page). 1500+ of those articles are stubs (not two sentences). How is that anything but bad? Why are stubbed articles bad for the wiki? Because they mean the articles are incomplete and are under some kind of construction (I realize no article is really complete since this is a wiki). Why is page count important anyway? Because we seem to boast that statistic to all our visitors who go through the Main Page. I simply want to get rid of stubs to make that statistic more accurate.


 * Now some of you may be confused about how this proposal will help get rid of stubs. It is true that this proposal will affect only a few stubs. The main purpose is to cut down newer stubs from forming and encouraging users to provide a more complete article before creating it. When is the most information added? Usually when the article is created. We could just start enforcing the no-new stubs rule. However, that rule is also flawed. Users can simply not mark the subject as a stub or a good 4 sentence stub could be deleted. Even if a stub is deleted, it can always be recreated as a better article. Not all stubs are bad. It's the shorter ones with little hope of being expanded that need to be deleted.

I don't know... I really like the idea of getting rid of some of our stubs, since they are annoying and reflect badly on the wiki (and we really shouldn't worry about "losing info" when deleting such stubs; articles like "X is the Yth level in the Zth world of game W" have no info, and if they have, that info can be usually found on other pages as well). But on the other hand, I don't think I can agree with the rules you're proposing. As Glowsquid said, many of them are arbitrary, plus I don't think many articles would be affected at all. It just all seems to be a very specific rule of which many parts can be questioned and that wouldn't be of that much use. -- BTW, it does look like the deadline is going to be extended (this happens if there's more than 10 votes on a proposal but one side has a margin of less than 3 votes).

What conditions should be changed?--
 * Images (The article could be about an implied character important to the plot), the number of contributor (How does that matter?), mainspace categories (Again, what's the point) and the number of links (The subject could be not really linked to anything else). --Glowsquid 12:38, 21 September 2009 (EDT)

Well, I couldn't find any "delete new stubs" proposal after all; the closest thing I dug up was this, which actually reverts the decision to delete stubs on-sight. However, crappy one-liners have continued to be axed in the two years since that proposal, telling us that whichever way the rules happen to fall, personal discretion has always been the real denominator when it comes to what stays and what goes. That's why all these specific conditions are so unappetizing: they're meant to make it easier to systematically purge the Wiki of stubs, however they tie our hands when it comes to the grey areas. Many page-unworthy stubs will not fit the deletion criteria, so would we have to let them stay? Any page which already fits all the criteria will probably be deleted anyway, so aside from putting more emphasis on deleting things, this proposal doesn't add much to the Wiki's "unofficial" protocols. Quantifying things is good, but qualitative decisions have a place in the world too. -

... Actually, you do make sense. I was thinking about deleting this proposal before it becomes a long stretch of extended deadlines. Now that I think about it, the conditions hurt more than they help. I'm going to go back to what I was originally doing and just expand stubs. Of course, I'm only human and cannot possibly take care of 1500+ stubs by myself. I encourage you all to help expand them or at least stop creating stub articles. It may take a while, but stubs will eventually be gone. As for many of the wiki's other problems, we still haven't delved into them that well either. -
 * Okay. Cancelled proposals are now being archived, so feel free to remove it and archive it whenever you want (I'd do it for you, but my computer can't handle the archive pages and I can't use my brother's laptop right now). Many of the Wiki's policies and rules are sorely neglected, but we're always trying to rectify that. And ya have to admit, as Internet databases go, we could do a lot worse. -

Amend FA Size Requirements
Some smaller pages deserve to be recognized, so this proposal will replace the rigid 4000 byte minimum length and the 50+ entries stipulations with a general statement that: "All articles must have a reasonable size." While potential FAs will no longer be automatically rejected based on their byte or header counts, if they are overly short articles, their nomination will surely be rejected on that basis through normal voting procedure.

Deadline: Friday, 25 September 2009, 20:00 Proposer: &

Amend Size Requirements

 * 1) Per my comment below.
 * 2) - Don't judge a book by it's cover. Or in this case, don't judge an article by its size. That is what we've been doing, it's time to stop.
 * 3) - Relatively short articles can be well-written and representative as well, so why not removing the size-requirements or at least decreasing them? I'll support this.
 * 4) - Per me (see below).
 * 5) Shorter articles usually require less work to be good, but that doesn't stop them from representing the best the wiki has to offer.
 * 6) - Per all, how can we write 4000 characters about things like.... uh.... dunno, but here are some examples.
 * 7) - Per all.
 * 8) - Per all. There's plenty of great articles on the wiki -- or articles with the potential to be great -- that will never legitimately reach our current size limit.
 * 9) - Per All
 * 10) - Per all.
 * 11) - Per all.

Comments
The last proposal I made was starting to fail, so I rewrote it. Common sense can be used for the size, if it is a well-written article and meets all of the requirements except for the current size-limit, it would still deserve to be featured, except in the case of stubs. As I said, common sense can be used. 16:22, 18 September 2009 (EDT)

For the record, this was originally my idea (made in response to SPMB's original proposal): "'If smaller pages deserve to be recognized, lowering (or even eliminating) the minimum length of the FAs seems like a better way to go about things than installing a second system; the sizes of individual sections are already taken into consideration when people vote on FAs, so having the overall size of the page left to the voters' discretion doesn't seem unreasonable.'" Credit is as credit does... Or however that expression goes. -
 * Yes, you are correct. Sorry for forgetting to credit you, I'm pretty busy with other things, and often have to get up in the middle of editing and the such, which gets me off track. I have rewritten the proposal accordingly to correct my wrong.
 * Ok, thanks. -

Maybe you should also remove the rule that says the article must have 50 entries.
 * Good idea. Also, Time Q: you're right in that the absence of a size limit could be abused, however a lot of those FAs could possibly be written-off as jokes, or at the very least swiftly crushed by an overwhelming opposition. On the other hand, not having a size limit would prevent things like the Deanna Mustard debacle. -
 * "...or at the very least swiftly crushed by an overwhelming opposition": No, they couldn't. Opposers must have valid reasons, but if we remove that requirement, there wouldn't be any valid reasons they could bring up. Seriously, I think there could be fatal consequences if we let this proposal pass.
 * "It's too short" would still be valid even if there isn't a fixed amount of bytes. Comments like "Section X needs to be longer" or "it still needs more info on Y" are allowed, so opposing because of the overall length should also be acceptable. Also, the 4000 bytes bit could simply be replaced with "The article must have a reasonable size." ("reasonable" is used in two other rules, so why not here as well?). -
 * Well, comments like the ones you put are only valid as long as no one suggests to remove them. 'cause actually they don't help. The purpose of oppose votes is to tell the supporters what an article is lacking for FA quality ("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)." - from the FA guidelines). Comments such as "It's too short" don't help if the opposer doesn't explain what should be expanded; and for articles like the one I gave as an example above there's no way to explain what should be expanded since the article is already complete (there simply isn't any more info you could add). So if someone nominates an ultra-short article, there is no legitimate way to hinder it from being featured. (It couldn't even be unfeatured, since it'd be a valid FA.) This is a huge problem in my opinion.
 * Okay, then would this be a solid opposition: "It's too short to be an FA. Trevi Fountain simply has not played a large enough role in the Mario series to be considered important enough to showcase on our main page. All the relevant information and images that could be included in the article have been included, but that does not make it an adequate example of what the Super Mario Wiki has to offer."? And if that's not enough, I could go on saying: "While hard work has gone into Trevi Fountain, it pales in comparison to the effort put into larger pages, and would therefore be a misrepresentation of just how much time and commitment the editors have dedicated to this database as a whole." Really, it would be unreasonable for something like Trevi Fountain to be nominated as an FA, and if we acknowledge that with a "reasonable size" requirement, that should be as easy to police as any nominated pages that don't adhere to the current two "reasonable" stipulations (reasonable amounts of images and red links). -
 * Okay, you're right in that we already have two requirements that use the word "reasonable", so I could agree on turning the 4,000-character rule into a "reasonable length" rule. However, what is proposed here is to eliminate this rule completely. I can't support this, for the reasons I gave above. SPMB, I'd like to ask you to start this proposal over, proposing to require a "reasonable length" rather than get rid of the requirement completely.
 * I'm credited as co-creator, so I went ahead and rewrote it. I also incorporated Knife's suggestion. -
 * Okay, thanks. I didn't realize you were the co-author of the proposal.

Get Rid of the New Userspace Requirements
A mans userspace is his castle, so why is there so many rules on what should be on it and what shouldn’t. What’s on someone’s userspace is supposed to be like what describes them and if you are not allowed to go out of the lines of the requirements, you simply can’t do that. I think we should get rid of those rules so users can express themselves better. I really just don’t think those new rules are fair at all. Also, it will take a lot of users time a lot of time and effort to change their userspace to fit the requirements. Some of the user space rules I agree with, such as “no illegal game links”, but some like “No discussion not related to the Super Mario Wiki” and “No excessive personal information” are completely unfair. It is like living in a house, but you are only allowed to have stuff from “Home Depot” in it. "Home Depot" doesn’t sell all of life’s necessities, just like Super Mario Wiki doesn’t have all of the information you need. If this Proposal passes, users will be free to use their userspace any way the want to except there will still be no more illeagal game links.

Proposer: Deadline: September 26, 2009, 20:00

Support

 * 1) of course I would Support my own Proposal
 * 2) I'm with Egg Yoshi.  I have decided to retire because of these stupid rules.

Oppose

 * 1) Well... Rules are rules.
 * 2) - The server of this site has limitations too. A few restrictions are unavoidable if you look at the size of the community. If "user expression" becomes too excessive, the whole server will eventually collaps, and then you have absolutely no userspace left at all! Maybe you have noticed the server getting very slow from time to time? A little moderation shouldn't hurt anyone.
 * 3) - Per Edofenrir. There are plenty of sites dedicated to self-expression on the Internet, but the Super Mario Wiki is not one of them. Here, userspace is a privilege, not a right, and the only information we "need" to provide is located in the mainspace pages of the encyclopedia.
 * 4) - We are a Mario wiki not a user wiki, i recommend you to check Userpedia. I also say we should delete this proposal, admins?
 * 5) - Your userspace belongs to the wiki first and you second, and it's better for the wiki if these rules are followed. Also, these are not new rules, we've just started cracking down on those who break them.
 * 6) - Per all.
 * 7) - Why did we make these rules in the first place? That reason still stands. Next time you decide to make a proposal like this, I suggest you specify which rule you want to delete don't say all of them because all of these rules are for the wiki user's own good. A wiki should be a relatively safe place, these rules keep it that way. Don't delete the rules!
 * 8) - Per all.
 * 9) Egg Yoshi, if you are retiring because you can't observe our policies, then good ridance. I was, at first, against giving up my subpages, but I complied with the rules and went even further, as to get my user page itself deleted. I now only have proposal-related subpages for archiviing-sake. I see that many users also have stories in their userspace. I feel this should be moved over to Userpedia, in fact, that was the original reason why it was invented was so that we would have more space here, and that more users wouldn't get distracted with the stories. User-related content isn't the main purpose of this wiki, the Mario series and other related games is our focus. We have these rules so that our server will have more room for our main purpose. Per all, particularly Edofenrir and Twentytwofiftyseven.
 * 10) – Per all
 * Per all, if you're a member of this wiki, you have to follow its rules. You have no "basic right" to put whatever you want on your userpage.
 * 1) Per all.
 * 2) - You think our Userspace policy is restricting? why don't you head over bulbapedia and see their Userspace Policies, then come back and see what side your on.
 * 3) The rules aren't that bad. This wiki isn't MySpace, it's the Super Mario Wiki. We've gotten by just fine with the system we've got.

Comments
I don't know wether to suport or oppose, because it's true that rules are rules but I'm afraid the "only talk about MarioWiki-related stuff" rule is somewhat...strict, but I completely understand the "no excessive personal info" because there are some not-nice people out there, but I'm not gonna take sides for this one.

I don't see the problem with this. The rules were created to disburden the server and it is necessary if you look at how slow it gets from time to time. There's still the forum, the chat and userpedia left for personal discussions and contents. But sacrificing the whole wiki for the sake of self-portrayal? I doubt that's in your interest as well. -

THATS IT! I AM RETIREING FROM THE WIKI! I'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT DOING IT, BUT NOW ITS OFFICIAL! wWHO WOULD BE STUPID ENEUGH TO MAKE A WIKI WHERE YOU CAN ONLY TALK ABOUT THINGS ON THE WIKI! I will still rwrite my 'shroom articles and survivor, though...
 * To be honest... I would be that stupid. If protecting the own project from a possible server crash is stupid, then yes, I admit it: I would be stupid. And before making rush conclusions, note the comment of Tucayo below this, and understand what exactly will be deleted in the next week. Thank you. -

*sigh* WE ARE NOT GETTING RID OF USER PAGES, BUT OF USER SUB PAGES
 * Actually, if User Stories (or whatever) are embedded in the Userpage itself, those sections will also be removed. However, having a Userpage is perfectly fine: no one should feel the need to have theirs deleted; if they think they're taking up too much space, they can simply trim it. For sub-pages, we're asking that people not only cut back on content but merge as much of it together as they can, so that there aren't, for example, five sub-pages when one Userpage would suffice. -
 * I have a question: What are we going to do about the users who split their entire userpage into separate subpages?
 * THey will delete content that breaks the rules, and then put everything into their user page, anyway. whats the point in doing that?

I've had it up to here with this stupid wiki and its excessive rules. Therefore, I am retireing.
 * You're just calling the wiki's stupid because you don't want to follow the rules? Everything has rules, and the userspace ones are those, so, we must obey.
 * Leaving because you're unable to adhere to rules on that you agreed with creating your nick, and complaining if the admins eventually start to enforce those rules... No offense but that's just immature, if not pathetic. We are all different people who came together here to reach one goal: To create an encyclopedia about the franchise we love! We're a team here and everyone who contributes is a part of that team. If you don't want to support our team and even refuse to take userpedia as an alternative to your userspace, which would indeed greatly help out the server, then I wish you good luck in the future, but I also advise you to leave. -
 * Per Edo, and if you are retiring, then do not lose your time voting.

FunkyK38: Users are strongly advised NOT to move all their content to subpages and delete their main userpage because it makes navigating the information harder than it needs to be (even if they have a directory, one-stop-shopping is still the way to go: it's faster and takes up less space). -

hey, everyone has opinions. And anyone has the right to feel a rule is stupid. my entire wiki life is ruined with this rule, therefor, i quit. its not that hard to understand.
 * Isn't a wiki life supposed to be mainly focused on editing? oô That's what a wiki is for. -

OK, so maybe it dosn't have a complete affect on my wiki life, but I have a question. How does qriting about something that dosn't have to do with the wiki affect the surver?
 * It's a waste of server space because it doesn't serve the wiki. –


 * Everything you write here on the wiki consumes data space and weights the server down. It becomes even worse when user subpages are created. While it doesn't matter if you look at just one or two of these, if every user on the whole wiki does it, it becomes a problem. In some cases however, it is inevitable to create subpages. Therefore, to disburden the server, the wiki policy tolerates subpages if they are necessary and wiki-related, but requests to stay away from creating unnecessary userpages, so there are as less subpages as possible to help out the server. This is by no means ment to make fun of users, or to curtail their rights of self expression. It was even suggested to move all the content to userpedia, so your and the other users wiki lifes can continue unaltered, rather that just bluntly deleting them (the Admins would be allowed to do so, due to the fact that the policy already exists). There is absolutely no reason to acuse the admins of being mean, as they just did what is necessary. -

Why can't they just say "no more talking about stuff that dosn't have to do with the wiki?

NoT EVERYONE HAS A USERPEDIA ACCOUNT!
 * Then... uh... make one? Where's the problem? -

Not everyone on super mario wiki has one. i won't be able to reach some people
 * Getting rid of user subpages doesn't affect your access to other peoples talkpages. I still fail to see a problem. -

NO! I mean people won't be able to read it! Besides, i won't be able to talk to people about stuff that dosn't have to do with the wiki.
 * You know that you can read stuff on userpedia without an account, do you? I too don't have one, and I can read everything there without problems. And besides: There are plenty of messengers available in the internet, and if that dosen't work, there's still e-mailing. Just use your head. You agreed with these rules when you registered here, so everything is said that needs to be said now. -

you are still not understanding. Barely anyone I know here knows userpedia exists.
 * Then tell them! You've got your answers why this step is necessary and how it will disburden the server, so there's no further need of discussion. -

Ok, end of the discussion, Egg Yoshi, You can say in your user page "My survivor moved here" and you can communicate on our chat and our forum.

Merge & Split: Enemies Inside Pages
Clever title there. Anyway, I was thinking- Instead of having all the enemy names in Bowser's Inside Story on the same page, and then having to click a link to go to the page which turns out being a stub, and then having to click the back button on your browser, wouldn't it be much easier to split the enemies to split the enemies and merge all the enemy articles onto one page? I'll do this myself if there's enough good feedback. This saves having to tire yourself by clicking on different links all the time!

Deadline: September 27, 2009, 15:00 Proposer:

Oppose

 * 1) - I don't quite understand this proposal, but I assume you mean you want merge all MLBiS enemy articles into one article. I believe enemies are entitled to their own articles.
 * 2) Soo.... you want to take the enemy articles and merge them into one page, because they are stubs? Once more people get this game, they will get much bigger and we will have one big jumbled mess. Just give it time.
 * We're talking about a major Mario game here and we're the Mario Wiki, so there's no reason why enemies from the game shouldn't get separate articles.
 * 1) - This is the splitting of SMG Missions all over again except this time, we are not going to let it happen. OK, think of it this way: You are a regular person who is desperate to find out about this certain character from a series of your choice but then suddenly, that page is a redirect to a tiny little section on a larger page! You're not happy because you were for some reason expecting more even though it's all the same content just stuck together. Now, to make a long story short, You tell Bobby that you're sad, Bobby tell George and George tells Michael, Michael tells Alexa and so on. Now all those people don't want to come here :(
 * 2) - Per Knife, Luigifreak and Time Q.
 * 3) - Adding this info would mean adding the info of every enemy specific to a certain game. All those characters from SMRPG or SPM would be merged with the page and they would be enormous. Plus what do we do with enemies that are similar or appear in multiple games? Why would they get single articles and not the other ones? oh and per knife
 * 4) You want to split the enemies from MLBiS article, then split again, and then merge all enemies into one article? Ummm, it IS a good idea in some way, but, per all, it would get messy and nobody get you. I know you want to get rid of the stubs, but wouldn't it be much easier to just add more info? And why you have to click, and if you see it's a stub, then directly go back? Also why clicking on it and then clicking on back? You also can click on the other button to get a list and click on new screen? Also newer internet browsers uses tabs, which can be accessed as well with the middle button. So, no (no more lecture in this sentence because it rhymes).
 * Per all.
 * 1) Per all.
 * 2) Per all. What? You meant that you want to make an article of all BiS enemies? I somewhat disagree, and that WOULD be a good idea because of the less clutter, but people would have to scroll down a page entirely of Enemies. No, I do not agree with that, we should just keep it the same way it is.
 * 3) If you add all the enemies on to one page, it will get EXTREMELY cluttered and long. Per all!
 * 4) - Mario Enemies have gotten their own articles ever since, so I don't see a reason to change that habit for one specific game.
 * 5) - Per Walkazo.

Comments
Split to split to merge? Did you say it twice or something?

You want to split the enemy articles, split them again and then merge them all together? If you want to merge them, why splitting them in the first place? There's clarification needed here. -
 * I say it again: I'd like to vote, but I don't understand what this is about. -
 * Basically he wants to merge all the Mario and Luigi Bowsers Inside Story enemies into one article because he doesn't want to keep clicking on links that bring him to stubs. He being the creator.

Split Beta Elements into Sub-Articles
We all know that the Beta Elements page is incredibly long...the second-longest page on the wiki &mdash; It's chock full of images and good information on a ton of different games, (which isn't a bad thing), but I feel the article would be better off describing what a beta element is, and then having a list at the bottom of the page that lists all of the games we have beta info on. Which leads me to the second part of my proposal. Most of the beta element sections in that page are more than long enough to constitute their own page. This would make it easier to find a specific beta element in a specific game, and it would also make it much easier to load said page(s). For example, the beta elements for Super Mario World could be found at. This page could easily be found because there would be a link on Beta Elements to that page, as well as a link to it on the Super Mario World article.


 * An example of what the 'new' Beta Elements page would look like can be found here.
 * An example of what the Super Mario World beta elements sub-page would look like can be found here.
 * To be consistent, the same shall apply to the Glitches page as well. (Credit to Edofenrir and Walkazo for this idea.)

Proposer: Deadline: October 6, 2009, 17:00

Support

 * 1) &mdash; Per my reasoning above.
 * 2) - Per Stooby
 * 3) Per Dr. Rooben.
 * 4) Yoshi! Stoobys right, it is way to long.
 * 5) Per All.
 * 6) - It's not like me to simply per without adding my opinion, but Stooben Rooben summed it up perfectly.
 * 7) - Per All. This page takes like 5 minutes to be rendered after each edit.
 * 8) - Per Stooben. It'll be nice to be able to read about beta elements without my computer crashing halfway through loading the page. Smaller articles are also easier to organize, maintain and patrol.
 * 9) I am Zero! I like this idea very much, it is big hassle to load up the entire beta element page, the whole article is packed, and soon enough there will be to many games in that article which can make it hard to load. Zero signing out.
 * 10) – Per Stooben Rooben.
 * 11) – Per Stooben.
 * 12) Definitely a good idea. Per Stooben.
 * 13) Per above.
 * 14) - Buena idea Stoob.
 * 15) - Per all, and who whould oppose?
 * 16) - The new article looks great! So do the sub-articles, if it doesn't do something bad it must do something good! Per um...that guy!
 * 17) Per all, the article is too big, and splitting them up would be easier to navigate as well. I can't believe no one thought of this earlier.
 * 18) It's a win-win no matter what happens. It will help shorten that long list, and keep it more organized. Also, if it doens't work, we could change it back (which I don't think will ever happen). I'm supporting this big time!
 * 19) Per all, but what's the longest page?
 * 20) Per all, wholeheartedly!
 * 21) Per all.
 * 22) Per all I was just about to add a proposal about this but you beat me to the punch!
 * 23) That page is very hard to navigate. I can't find the game's beta elements I'm looking for sometimes. D: A split to make it more organized, yes, do it!
 * 24) I agree, it is incredibly long. I'd be happy to help with this!
 * 25) Per all.
 * 26) Per all.
 * 27) Per all.
 * 28) Per Stooby. The Beta Elements page needs to be better organized.
 * 29) *Read all of the above*
 * 30) Per all. Now THIS, is a great organization idea.
 * 31) I written this sometime in discusion for this article: "On my PC the scrolling slow down. Propably because these all PM:TTYD beta things. Can somebody split this?"

Comments
I think it would be better to have a catagory with a link to the sub-pages.
 * It's still necessary for us to describe what exactly a beta element is, though; so the article should stay. That said, we could add a to those sub-pages. --

Could something similar be done for the Glitches article? Of course it's only half as big as the Beta elements article, but... that's still big. -
 * Good point. They're pretty similar in nature, so if we want to be consistent, we should probably split both pages. -
 * I completely forgot about the Glitches page. :O Yeah, it'd be a good idea to split that page too. Thanks for pointing that out! --


 * I totally agree with this proposal but (just throwing this out there)couldn't we just merge the beta elements with the game page (since many glitches and beta elements are strewn about the trivia sections of the games anyways). Just an idea...
 * Theoretically, while that could work, it has been mentioned that for some games, having a section devoted entirely to Beta Elements are several pages long in and of itself. It would simply just be easier to create a separate section completely devoted it per each game if the section of the game was too long. HOWEVER, if the article in question was a stub, then, yeah, I could see the reasoning behind that.

Mario Baseball Special swings/pitches
The Mario Super Star Baseball special pitches and swings are in the same article (Peach's Heart Swing and Heart Pitch are under Heart Ball while on the Slugger's page, the character bios list them separately. The Slugger's special pages are being made right now and I'm wondering of the pitches and swings should also be merged into one page like the MSSB ones or if the MSSB's should be split.

Propeser: Deadline: October 7th, 2009 17:00PM

Split

 * 1) I think they should be split because one is an offensive special and one is defensive.

Continue like the other pages

 * 1) – Although this sounds ideal, they are moves in the same game that are related to the character. If we split everything based on offensive and defensive, this article would be a good candidate for splitting, and it is rather small as of now. We would end up with little stublets if we split these articles.
 * 2) S.P.M.B. has a good point. Lately, even I, would likes to have articles split, been merging them. We already have enough stubs right now, and we definitely don't need stublets.
 * 3) - Per Super Paper Mario Bros.
 * 4) &mdash; Per SPMB.
 * 5) - Per SMB (who I refuse to call SPMB)!
 * 6) – Per all.
 * 7) - Per all.
 * 8) - Per SPMB and BMB.

Comments
The pages have already been made, and someone made a really nice template for them (I think it might've been Edofenrir), but the Super Sluggers Star Swings are just as important as the Mario Power Tennis Power Shots. I made almost all of them, and they are good pages, in my opinion, and they haven't been deleted or made fun of, so I think they should stay.

Mario Power Tennis has a set of offensive shots and defensive shots as well, but the differences are much greater. Mario's offensive power shot uses a hammer while his defensive shot is a spin jump. Just compare each character's shots and you'll note the difference. However the pitches and swings are not so different. Mario fires up the ball and speeds it up in both, Peach turns the ball temporarily invisible in both, etc..-- 22:31, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

We don't need to have separate articles for the pitches, those were already in the first Mario baseball game. I'm just saying that the swings are different, and they have different effects.

Per FunkyK38. I think we already have a template for every Star Swing name. If there isn't, that should be a new proposal.

Change FA removal of votes rules
Well, if you have seen the Luigi nomination page, it is full of votes from the kind of "ZOMG LUIGI PWNS!!!" which are not valid reasons, and to remove them, we must go throught the sloooow process of getting 5 votes to remove them, which is as slow as annoying. So I propose any admin has the right to remove those votes who do anything but help. Who supports?

Proposer: Deadline: October 13, 2009, 17:00

Get rid of those votes

 * 1) - Per me.
 * 2) - Instant per for Tucayo.
 * 3) Luigi wouldn't be a featured article any time soon, but I think the fan votes are a waste of space and should get stopped immediately.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Users should have a good reason to vote, not LUIGI PWNS! Per Tucayo.
 * 6) I am Zero! Although sometimes not all the time I would consider that an actual vote, your right there needs to be a good reason why the article should go up. Zero signing out.
 * 7) Fan votes are completely harmless, but I dislike to see them cluttering the whole page like that.
 * 8) - Per Tucayo.
 * 9) - Per everyone.
 * 10) - Per everybody.
 * 11) - per Tucky
 * 12) How is saying "How can Luigi not be featured?! He PWNZ!!!" a valid reason? Or this: "Boo is teh total PWNAGE!!!" This sounds like the person is not even considering the article. He's probably just supporting because he thinks Luigi "Pwnz". And saying "Luigi PWNZ!!!" isn't any different than saying "Why unfeature Luigi? He PWNZ!!!"
 * 13) Wow, I changed my vote three times O.o Anyway, I feel that Tucayo has a point. Just as support votes for proposals must have good reasoning, I feel Featured Article nominations should have rules eliminating these fan votes. It only makes us look like a noob wiki, which we are not. Per Tucayo.
 * 14) - I have switched my vote because I can finally see light into this. As long as admins have to talk about it first, they have done well in the past and I have a feeling the will do will now. Even admins mess up but they became admins because when they do mess up, they fix it (unless they just deleted an image in which case, oh-oh)

Keep those votes

 * OK guys, before going "ZOMG, fan votes suck, let's remove them", please read this. First of all: You can't remove support votes from FA nominations, even if 5 users agree. And there are good reasons for that. "Fan votes", as you call them, do no harm. It simply doesn't matter if there are 5 or 500 support votes. As long as there is a single valid oppose vote, support votes don't matter. So why care about them? What's even more important is the point that what a fan vote actually is is unclear. I saw many people removing votes they believed were "fan votes" (probably in good faith), but most of the votes could actually refer to the page and thus were perfectly valid. For example, a vote such as "ZOMG LUIGI PWNS" looks like a "fan vote", but who are you to say the voter just talked about the character, not the article Luigi? Maybe he thinks that the article "pwns"? It would be unfair to remove those votes. Oh, and another point: Supporters are not even required to give "valid" reasons when supporting an FA nomination (what would such a reason look like anyway? Think about it - it could only consist of a listing of the FA requirements, which would be really redundant). Thus, you have no right to remove "fan votes" (votes without reasons just count as much as such with valid reasons, so why remove "fan votes"?). Sure, at first glance this looks like a proposal you can't oppose, but please think about it twice.
 * 1) Per Time Q. And didn't it get changed from 5 to 3?
 * 2) – Per Time Q.
 * 3) Per Time Q, They don't do much harm, but see my comment below.
 * 4) - Per Time Q
 * 5) &mdash; One "Luigi sux0rz!" vote on the opposing side would actually be harmful to the nomination, as opposed to fifty different "omg Luigi pwnz <3" votes on the supporting side. Per Time Q.
 * 6) - Per Time Q. Time Q and I helped create this rule in the first place if I remember correctly, and my opinion still stands.

Comments
Is it even allowed to remove supporting votes? The last time I tried that, SPMB reverted my removal votes and said it isn't valid. -
 * It isn't valid, and it shouldn't be.

I'm just wondering, but what happens if you had a valid reason to vote, but the administrators removed it anyway? -
 * Leave the admin a note on his/her talk page I'd assume. -

Pie Shroom: You're right, it did. However only for oppose votes (support votes still can't be removed).

Time Q: That's what I meant.

Who and why were my headers changed
 * I changed them because they were biased. Please don't use biased headers for proposals, but neutral ones.

TQ and Mg1: Do you know how many users join just to vote and never come back?
 * Yes - so what? Do their votes count less than those of people who are more contributive? Why should we make any difference here?
 * And surely even sockpuppets
 * If support votes do not need to have a valid reason, and they have no actual impact on the nomination... Then why are we even keeping them? They just consume server space and make the page overly long (and don't tell me that 40 lines of "OMGWTF CharaXY pwns da sh-, yo!!!" are of any use for the wiki). -
 * So you think we shouldn't have support votes at all? I'm not sure I got you right here, that's why I'm asking.
 * In case they don't have impact on the discussion, yes. However, if someone makes a support vote that is thoughtful and even adds a new view to the discussion, that is perfectly fine then. Having 50 votes saying "Shroom Crepe in PM pwns!!!12" shows us that we have to change something, though. Therefore: Fan vote prohibition to save the server! -

TimeQ, if someone says that "LUigi PWNSSS!!!!" it sounds very much like the person loves Luigi. If he/she likes the article, he/she should specify it. Besides, like I said, fan votes are no way going to make a nominated FA an FA, but they take up tons of space. Besides, a lot of those fan votes (e.g. Luigie PWNZ!) doesn't make our Wiki sound very, uh "professional"? -
 * Yes, it sounds very much like it, but we can't just assume that the voter loves Luigi and doesn't care about the article itself. We simply don't know it. You may be right about the "professional" part, but I think this is the prize we have to pay for staying fair and not just assuming wrong actions from our users.
 * I disagree. If someone says "LUigi PWNSSS!!!!", then by common sense it is the only right assumption to think that the autor loves Luigi and not the article. As LGM said: If the autor likes the article, he or she can say that and give a reason to verify it. The opposite votes are required to do the same thing, and nobody complains about that either! -
 * So you just assume that users are doing something wrong without actually being able to prove it. Even if you might be right in most of the cases, that's just wrong in my opinion. I commented on the "why oppose votes need to be reasoned and support votes don't"-thing below.
 * In my opinion it is not too much to ask to add a reason to a vote. I don't demand an essay of 2000 words, but a simple reason why the support vote is given. If a vote is deleted because it has no reason, it can simply be put up again with a reason attached. It's not like the user is losing his right to comment after one of his comments was removed. -

Cobold: Now you voted on both sides :)

TimeQ: use your common sense! Many of the users dont even care about the wiki, they dont even know the FA standards, they dont know what are they voting for, as we are not proposing the character to become an FA, we are proposing the article. Tell me why they dont do that in articles list List of Shops in Super Mario RPG, becuase they dont know about that.
 * This vote once again discriminates against non-admins like me or other users. How do you think we feel with them aloud to delete votes and us not, I'm guessing bad. P.S. If both my proposal and yours pass then there could be a problem...
 * So you think it's discriminatory that admins can do more things than normal users? Sorry but... that's the point of having admins. Having some powerful guys around that keep order. If you don't agree with an admins decision, go to the admins talk page and say why. It's as simple as that. -
 * Tucayo: My common sense tells me that it's wrong to judge people based on assumptions rather than facts.

OK guys-- This is what I think-- Since support votes don't matter enough, esp. with the case with Luigi, I don't think we should remove the fan votes entirely. Instead, I think we should remove the vote description of these votes, because these get emotional and very annoying. I think sysops should be able to remove the vote description, however retaining the vote (leaving only the voter's name on but nothing else). This will keep the FA page looking decent while preventing anger from people who put their fan votes one. However, I strongly support removing the descriptions, often they are emotional, redundant, and unappealing.
 * If Tucayos proposal is not going to pass, this would be a solution I can accept either. -

Just to clarify-- with "admins", you mean sysops and bureaucrats, right?
 * That is just to leave me out, right?
 * No, of course not. It's because "Administrators are Mario Wiki users who have Sysop rights" and I just wanted to clarify that.
 * TimeQ: see comments like these: "LUIGI ISN'T FEATURED EITHER?! My God! What has come to this world!", "If Luigi isn't Featured then the world has become sick and twisted!!!", "It's Luigi... what else do I have to say? ", Mario has had enough in the spotlight, hand it over to Luigi for once! ", "Hello!!!!!!! its LUIGI!", "Luigi rulzz!! He deserves to be on the main page. He wants to be a hero! Go Luigi", "If Luigi isn't the best then there's no justice in this universe. ", "IT IS LUIGI COME ON", "It's Luigi! Nuff said! ", "How could Luigi, who just so happens to be Mario's brother, not be a featured article?!?! ", "I'D say that Luigi should be a featured article because he is so cool! ", "Luigi deserves some attention, after all...HE'S THE GREEN THUNDER", "We need more Luigi! I support this idea completely! Go Luigi! ", "Go weegie! Go weegie! ", "Luigi is such a good character. Way better than Mario. I mean we had featured articles that were so dumb, like Mama Mario or Teacup Palace or any of that junk. Everyone! Support Weegee", "Luigi is awesome!!! ", "Luigi should be featured because Mario is. " "Luigi rocks and he has been under the shadow of Mario for to long", "hey guys I have Luigi's Mansion and I like him he's AWESOME!!!!!!!!", "Go Luigi! Green RULES!", "Yeah, I mean cmon it's WEEEEGEEE! Luigi is super-pimp. ", "Cmon everyone vote for weegee because no one pays attention to WEEGEE", "DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT!!!!!!!!!", "WEEGEE WILL STARE AT YOU IF YOU DONT!", "'m-a Luigi Number 1! Luigi rocks! I'm a new Mario Freak and I absolutely think Weegee is AWESOME!", "Luigi's awsome. No questions.", "Luigi's been in his brother's shadow for too long now. MAKE HIM FEATURED!!!". I hope you see my point.

Stooben Rooben: Doesn't make much sense to me. How is "Luigi sucks!" harmful, when "Luigi pwns!" is not? They're basically the same, except that one expresses love and the other expresses hate for Luigi. I don't get the fact why people make a distinction there. - The comment section seems on the verge of explosion with that many comments.

Time Q: The definition of "Administrator" actually varies: It depends on interperatation. I personally feel that "Administrator" is a blanket-term for Patroller, Sysop, or Bureaucrat.
 * Time Q: Ditto
 * SPMB: Not really. See my link, it clearly says that admins are users with sysop rights. Do you have any source that says patrollers are admins as well?
 * I guess if you want, you can see patrollers as semi-admins. But Time Q is right, we are no full-fledged admins, we're an interstage between users and admins. -

Edofenrir: Because the oppose votes are the ones that...er, I can't think of the right word, so for right now, I'll use "matter". If you have 20 support votes for the Luigi article that are all detailed and actually support the article's quality (not the character), but you have just one oppose vote with valid reasoning, that oppose vote will keep that article from being featured until someone changes the article to meet the opposer's requirement. Opposers don't have to meet the requirements of a supporter's vote because they see nothing wrong with the article. That said, the exact same would apply if all 20 of those support votes were "I like Luigi" votes.

And I don't really like the fact that the Admins are going to be taking action over something the entire community can handle; the only time Admins (solely) should handle something, is if it is an Administrative matter or is pivotal to the wiki in some way. (Ex: De/promotions, some policies, etc.) Administrators are no better than a normal user, nor are they more valuable. So why should it be up to them if a fan-based support vote gets removed? That makes it seem like the Admins are the only people whose opinions matter in an FA nomination.
 * True that second part, but at least some admins should observe this, so we can ensure that votes aren't removed because of personal reasons (e.g. I don't like that guy, so I'll remove his vote and claim that it was a fan-vote). -
 * Stooby: We will reach to a consensus, users can also say whose votes they think they are fan votes, and whose are not.

Ok, I really don't understand why you feel the need to delete these fan votes when there are already the necessary number of legit votes. On the Luigi page, there are at least 5 thoughtful, useful votes. The other votes are absolutely not harming the nomination in any way.

If you want to delete the votes for cleanup of the page, then by all means say so. However, your current arguments are quite faulty; you seem to be arguing for a simple triviality. I am not trying to make anyone angry, and am simply attempting to prove a point. It's probably already been said anyway...
 * We want to delete them because they unnecessarily enlarge the page, and, the more important reason, they appear highly unprofessional. If visitors see all the "OMG, Peachy Peach PWNS!!!1" comments, they will think our wiki is a big heap of amateurs who fail to be objective. And this is harmful then. -

Yes. Edofenrir nailed it right there. Fan votes are like big useless spaces of text that makes our wiki look BAD (OMG!!!!11!! Luidisug Nesds toa be feautered Y isnt hew feautefd!!???) (I typed that really fast)

Luigi and Boo FAs
I was on the featured articles page recently and I saw that the Luigi and Boo articles are still nominated. You wouldn't believe how many fan votes there are on the Boo one, and Luigi's has been there for over a year. I propose that the nominations should be deleted because of those things and can be started up again if the articles improve.

Proposer: Deadline: October 13, 2009, 17:00

Remove Luigi and Boo FAs

 * 1) - See above.

Keep Luigi and Boo FAs

 * Nah, keep those pages. We have no right to delete them. Nomination pages are only deleted if they stay unchanged for one month.
 * 1) - It is currently against this wiki's rules to delete those articles unless they are (as Time Q said) unchanged for one month. Breaking the wiki's rules is not what you propose here, here you propose to change those rules.
 * 2) Per all.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) They can get improved so they can get worthy of an F.I. status.
 * 5) If you do this, you might as well change how the FA system operates. Per all.
 * 6) - Though I am greatly against fan votes, they are no reason to delete the whole nomination. There might be some really thoughtful and intelligent comments under the support votes, even if they tend to get submerged by all the nonsense. You never know.
 * 7) It won't matter anyway. The FA system is in place for a reason.
 * 8) – Per all.

Comments
Note that this happened a while ago for the Bowser FA.
 * I can't remember that happened. And I don't think so, otherwise I would have protested against it :P

You saw Tucayo's proposal yet? Unless this is something different.

No, wait a minute. You want to delete old nominated FA's, right? Sorry

Change FA rules part 1
I have seen many FA rule changing proposals/problems recently so I'd like to clear everything up with some different rules that accommodate almost everyone. Rule: The rule that states you cannot remove support votes, I propose that rule be changed to "You need five users to agree that this vote is a fan vote before deleting it" so that Tucayo's problem with the fan-votes can be solved. Reason: Tucayo said it all in his proposal, some of these votes are just wrong.

Proposer: (With ideas from ) Deadline: October 14th, 2009 (17:00.00)

Allow Support Vote Removal

 * 1) - Read the proposal
 * 2) - This is really needed, the wiki should not be one-sided when removing votes!
 * 3) - Apart from my opinion that even three votes would be enough, I fully agree with this proposal. Fan votes don't have use for the wiki at all and there's no reason to keep votes that don't add new views to a discussion. They're just like comments, and comments do not count as votes as well. Also, per Baby Mario Bloops: Equal rights for both sides!
 * 4) - I told you, fan votes clutter up the support section. When somebody says, "Boo is teh reulz!" it's probably a fan vote and it sounds like our wiki doesn't know grammar or spelling. If the voter fears to have his/her vote removed because someone thinks it's a fan vote, then he/she should say how the article deserves to be an FA.
 * 5) good idea. Per all.

Keep All Support Votes

 * Since fan votes do no harm (see my arguments on the previous proposal), I'm against removing them. I can imagine very well a situation when 5 users agree to remove a perfectly valid vote just because it seems "fan-ish".
 * 1) I can see what would happen if 5 users decide to remove every single fan vote (and there's more than 20, usually) at a time. Also per TimeQ. The fan votes do relatively no harm, but they do take up space.
 * 2) See my comment on proposal above. (Since that is gone to the archives, what I said was that the vote description [the vote details] should be removed, while retaining only the name of the voter).
 * 3) Per Time Q.
 * 4) Per Time Q again
 * 5) Per Time Q. I pretty much have the same reasoning here as I did with the proposal living directly upstairs.
 * 6) - Per Time Q.
 * 7) – That would mean deleting any vote without a real reason.  That's it.

Comments
The reason why we can remove oppose votes, but can't remove support votes is simple. There are requirements that FAs must meet. Any article that meets all these requirements is of FA quality, but any article that fails to meet at least one of the requirements should not be an FA. So opposers of a nomination have to show which requirement is not met (i.e. they need a valid reason). Oppose votes that do not have such a valid reason can (and should) be removed. But how could support votes be reasoned? The only way to have a really "valid" support vote would be to list all the criteria, with comments like "fulfilled", "fulfilled", etc. Since this doesn't make sense, support votes don't really need reasons. Thus, they can't be removed either.
 * Then support votes should be mainly used to question opposing votes, or to prove them wrong. And too many fan votes without reason do harm the wiki. They consume server space. It's the same reason why we disabled comments for the BJAODN pages: because comments without content weight the server down. -
 * Server space, shmerver space. Sorry, but I can't hear that anymore. ;) With this reason, you can question everything. Cut down on the size of the articles? Sure, they just consume server space. Etc. And no, support votes should not question opposing votes. That's what the "Removal" section is for. Support votes come from users who think that an article should be featured, not more, not less.
 * Then tell me why we disabled the comments at BJAODN, or why I just cannot add "I think Ganondorf stinks and he shouldn't be an FA 'cause he's green in the face!" on the Ganondorf FA oppose section. Equal rights for everyone, but it is just not right like it is now. -
 * Hm, obviously I didn't explain the difference between support and oppose votes well enough. The opposers' task is to prove the supporters' points (= "this article is FA-worthy") wrong, by stating what is bad about the article. So they need reasons. Supporters, however, don't need those, because-- how would such a reason be like? "The article is FA-worthy, because it meets all the requirements." This would be the only possible "valid" reason. We can't force people to put that, it would be pointless.
 * Compare the Unfeature system. Here, both sides need valid reasons. Why? Because the supporters are of the opinion that an article is not FA-worthy, i.e. they have to point out what is bad about an article (similar to the opposers of FA nominations). UnFA opposers need to give reasons as well in order to prove the supporters' points wrong. Do you see the difference?
 * Ok, that makes sense. But then tell me why it isn't just enough to have one person to nominate the article. Why have, like, sixty people to jump on the already rolling train? I see no use in that, and unless someone states a significant advantage to have it like that, I cannot change my mind. -
 * You make a good point here. Support votes really have very little impact on a nomination, so it's a good question why we even need them. The only reason I see is that they prevent a nomination that nobody really cares about from becoming featured. Imagine someone nominates an article about a very minor topic. If no one cares about it, that means that probably no one will oppose it and the article is featured (despite perhaps being not that good). If we require 5 support votes, however, we prevent this situation. We need 5 users who at least care about the article and support it before it can get featured.
 * Maybe we could have someone to check the FA nomination category and check the significance of the article. Or maybe we just go ahead with the suggestion above, maintaining support votes but remove their reasons in case they neglect the article and just focus on the character. -
 * And besides: Comparing removing useless, baseless fan votes with removing valuable information from articles? I hope this is a joke. -

On the point about server space: Those comments create such a minimal amount of space, that the server probably doesn't even notice enough of a change to merit concern. (IMO, if you disable the comments allowed on BJAODN, you might as well make it a rule that people can't talk to each other casually on their talk pages.) But that's a different subject altogether, so I'll stop.
 * Just for clarification: You are aware that the comments at BJAODN are currently disabled, aren't you? -

Sorry, but that "reverts" my proposal
 * Not really, Tucayo. This suggests a different system, and the users are turning this proposed system, not the one you suggested.
 * No, actually he's right. This proposal conflicts his proposal. -

Change FA rules part 2
Here is the second part of my three part proposal Rule: The rule that says it will take a month of no editing to remove a nomination, I propose that this is changed to a month of no voting OR three months with no verdict AND more than five users opposing. Reason: Some nominations have way too many fans that just won't quit so get rid of the votes if there is a REAL reason to delete them (in other words if five people are opposing, they all agree)

Proposer: (With ideas from ) Deadline: October 14th, 2009 (17:00.00)

Keep The Long Noms

 * 1) &mdash; I personally don't think the wiki needs to be cluttered up with any more dead nomination pages than there are already. I remember when I originally nominated this page for FA status. The nomination page was thriving with activity for a while, but after progress on the actual article slowed down, so did the nomination page. Besides, it's not like someone can't re-nominate an article to be featured.
 * 2) – Per Stooben Rooben.
 * 3) - Per Stooben.

Comments
Maybe it's just me, but I don't quite understand this one... what do you mean by, "with no verdict"?
 * I think he means that a nomination should be removed if we can't decide wheter to feature an article or not (if the votes even each other out). -
 * Ok, I guess that makes sense, thanks. Not sure if I can support this though..
 * This'll get rid of those dumb articles clogging up the FA page and some server stress too!
 * I don't know which side to support: Could you explain your proposal in-depth?
 * Basically, I want to remove all of the nominations like Luigi's that have taken three months to decide. So I am proposing to impose a deadline so that the nominations don't remain on the wiki forever because let's face it, the Luigi nom is never going to be deleted.