MarioWiki:Proposals

http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r149/Deadringerforlove/dessert1.jpg A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed using the code.

This page observes the No-Signature Policy.

How To
 * 1) Actions that users feel are appropriate to have community approval first can be added by anyone, but they must have a strong argument.
 * 2) Users then start to discuss on the issue. 24 hours after posting the proposal (rounding up or down to the next or previous full hour, respectively, is allowed), the voting period begins. (The proposer is allowed to support their proposal right after posting.) Each proposal ends at the end of the day one week after voting start. (All times GMT).
 * 3) Every vote should have a reason accompanying it.
 * 4) Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the Comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may not remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. The voter can remove or rewrite their own vote at any time, but the final decision to remove another User's vote lies solely with the Administrators.
 * 5) " # " should be added under the last vote of each support/oppose section to show another blank line.
 * 6) All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week.
 * 7) If a proposal has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail by a margin of three votes. If a proposal reaches the deadline and the total number of votes for each option differ by two or less votes, the deadline will be extended for another week.
 * 8) Any proposal that has three votes or less at deadline will automatically be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
 * 9) No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
 * 10) Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation. However, the proposer can request that their proposal be deleted by a Sysop at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it.
 * 11) All proposals are archived. The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of a Sysop, the proposer can ask for that help.
 * 12) There shouldn't be proposals about creating articles on a underrepresented or completely absent subject, unless there is major disagreement about whether the content should be included. To organize efforts about completing articles on missing subjects, try creating a PipeProject.
 * 13) Proposals cannot be made about System Operator promotions and demotions. Sysops can only be promoted and demoted by the will of Bureaucrats.
 * 14) If the Sysops deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to remove it at any time.
 * 15) No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters, and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.

The times are in GMT, and are set so that the user is more likely to be online at those times (after work/school, weekend nights). If a proposal is added on Monday night at 23:59 GMT, the deadline is the night of the Tuesday of the next week at 23:59 PM. If it is posted a minute later, the deadline is 23:59 PM of the Wednesday of the next week, since midnight is considered to be part of the next day, as 00:00 AM.

Basic Proposal and Support/Oppose Format
This is an example how your proposal should look like, if you want it to be acknowledged. If you are inexperienced or unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. Then replace the [subject] - variables with information to customize your proposal, so it says what you wish. If you insert the information, be sure to replace the whole variable including the squared brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information", not "[This is the inserted information]". - ===[insert a title for your Proposal here]=== [describe what you want this Proposal to be like, what changes you would suggest and what this is about]

Proposer: Voting start: [insert a voting start time here, f.e. "2 January, 2010, 14:00". Voting start times are 24 hours after the time at which the proposal was posted, as described in Rule 2 above.] Deadline: [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the voting start, at 23:59 GMT.]

====Support====

====Oppose====

====Comments==== - Users will now be able to vote on your Proposal, until the set deadline is reached. Remember, you are a user as well, so you can vote on your own Proposal just like the others.

To support, or oppose, just insert " # at the bottom of the section of your choice. Just don't forget to add a valid reason for your vote behind that tag if you are voting on anoother user's Proposal. If you are voting on your own Proposal, you can just say "Per my Proposal".

Talk Page Proposals
All proposals dealing with a single article or a specific group of articles are held on the talk page of one of the articles in question. Proposals dealing with massive amounts of splits, merges or deletions across the Wiki should still be held on this page.

How To

 * 1) All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom). All pages effected must be mentioned in the brief description, with the talk page housing the discussion linked to directly via "". If the proposal involved a page that is not yet made, use to communicate its title. The Deadline must also be included in the entry. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links. Place  under the heading.
 * 2) All rules for talk page proposals are the same as mainspace proposals (see the "How To" section above), with the exceptions made by Rules 3, 4 and 5, as follows:
 * 3) Voting in talk page proposals will be open for two weeks, not one. There is no 24 hour delay between the posting of a talk page proposal and the commencement of voting.
 * 4) Talk page proposals may closed by the proposer if both the support and the oppose sides each have fewer than five votes.
 * 5) After two weeks, a clear majority of three votes is required. Without the majority, the talk page proposal will be listed as "NO QUORUM".
 * 6) The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.

List of Talk Page Proposals

 * Split SSX on Tour from Video game references. (Discuss) Passed
 * Split Mushroom (Super Mario RPG info) into Mushroom and (Discuss) Passed
 * Merge Rainbow Boost into Boost Pad. (Discuss) Passed
 * Split Dragon into and . (Discuss) Passed
 * Split Entei's info into Pokémon and . (Discuss) Passed
 * Split Dark Koopa into Dark Koopa and . (Discuss) Passed
 * Merge Yo'ster Isle with Yoshi's Island (Discuss) Passed
 * Merge Pale Piranha into Piranha Plant. (Discuss) Deadline: 3 April 2010, 23:59
 * Split from Piranha Plant. (Discuss) Deadline: 3 April 2010, 23:59

Notable "Unofficial" Games
Why isn't there a section for notable "unlicensed" games? The page on Canonicity states that "fan creations, such as fan-fiction, fan-made video games, or fan-theories, are not to be referenced within our articles". I understand the "no-fanfiction" part, but I've seen what seems to be fan theories on several pages ("he is possibly a ..., but this is uncertain") and the page on Super Mario Bros. Special mentions the unofficial NES port.

My suggestion is not referring to crappy recolors or "Super (word) Bros." or the like. I refer to well-received fan-hacks such as...
 * The games of Dahrkdaiz (NES): I especially refer to Mario Adventure, a hack of Super Mario Bros. 3 that essentially rebuilt the game from the ground-up.
 * The Super Mario Bros. Deluxe series (SNES): A series of three Super Mario World hacks that import the levels of Mario 1, 2, and Lost Levels respectively plus a few bonuses – such as World-e in Lost Levels Deluxe.
 * Kaizo Mario World (SNES): Hack of Super Mario World that has become rather well-known for its insane difficulty.
 * Mushroom Kingdom Fusion (PC): A massive crossover-game featuring Mario and Sonic characters among many, many others. Has its own Wiki.

I also refer to "pirated" games that, although unofficial, have nonetheless been well-noticed by the fan community.
 * Super Mario 3 Special (GBC): Port of Super Mario Bros. 3 that, although very accurate in some respects, does not control very well. Uses a rather obscure mapper, which renders the game unplayable in most Game Boy (Color/Advance) emulators.
 * Super Mario World (NES), aka "Mario World NES": A 1995 release that ported quite a chunk of its source material despite the NES' limitations (no Banzai Bill, sorry!) – including the original game's "magic", as it were. There are two versions of this game, one of which may be a prototype of the other.
 * Kart Fighter (NES): A Super Mario Kart/Street Fighter II hybrid that predates (and may even have inspired) Super Smash Bros. Released by Hummer Team (same company that made "Mario World NES").
 * Somari the Adventurer (NES): A hack/port of Sonic the Hedgehog starring Mario, with a lot being ported from the source material. Released by "Somari Team".
 * Super Boy (Sega Master System/MSX): A series of four games that use Mario sprites and music.
 * The Great Giana Sisters (Commodore 64/DS): Game series that was a direct attempt to rip-off Super Mario Bros. Apparently these were "official" (not pirated) games, with the latter licensed by Nintendo.

And there are other games – such as Super Donkey Kong (NES), Donkey Kong Country 2 (NES), Super Mario 4 (GB), Mario Lottery (NES), and a few others – that capture the spirit of the games in this Wiki while still being unlicensed.

Basically, I propose that this site should devote articles to at least a few of the games which, although unofficial, are rather noteworthy in their own right (and in the positive sense, for the most part). If anyone wishes to know more about any of the aforementioned games, please let me know – but I won't link to ROMs.

Proposer: Voting start: 24 March, 2010, 18:20. Deadline: 31 March 2010, 23:59 (GMT).

No "unofficial" games should be included

 * 1) - per BabyLuigiOnFire's comment
 * 2) - unofficial games should not be mentioned. We cover the Mario series as made by Nintendo.
 * 3) - Per comment below.
 * 4) Per all
 * 5) Per comment above.

Comments
No fanon should be allowed. We should only talk about official and stuff that are true in the Mario series. The only content we accept is stuff sponsored by Nintendo. Plus, this site isn't made for fanon. Make a wiki, or something else that deals with this. We are here for official Mario stuff only. I don't want fanon flooding pages either.
 * Making articles on hacks & bootlegs is not quite "fanon", but I agree that if it's not official (i.e. at least licensed by Nintendo), this Wiki is no place for it, no matter if it "captures the spirit" of the official games (which most of the games mentioned among the examples don't even do; Super Mario 4 for instance is a terrible hack of a Crayon Shin Chan game). How would it be decided if something is "worthy" of being covered anyway? Obviously everyone would add their own creations to the Wiki, and if things like these were allowed, we couldn't even stop them from doing that. Add to that the fact that none of these are legal and you have enough of a reason not to cover them.--

@Cobold: Your comment has a problem. Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games was made by Sega, a bunch of games were made by Hudson Soft, Diddy Kong Racing was made by Raveware, and Mario hoops: 3 on 3 was made by a company I forgot.


 * @KS3: No, he's right. Those were all supporting companies that helped make the game. Check the back of the box (or is it front?) and find the official Nintendo Seal. If it's there, than it was made by Nintendo. If it's not there, then it wasn't made by Nintendo.
 * The Nintendo Seal of Quality doesn't have to mean it was made by Nintendo, it just means it was licensed by Nintendo. A lot of Mario-related games and merchandise weren't made by Nintendo but are still officially licensed. These hacks and bootlegs are not.--
 * Basically, games that you can find on stores and ads and have that Nintendo/SEGA/Whatever logo on the bottom right hand corner is feasible to add on this wiki.

Delete FA Nominations that are going nowhere
While checking the FA nominations I noticed some noms have been there for like 2 years(!) and they aren't going anywhere. Lets see, the Luigi nomination, one of the most popular Nintendo characters, and who naturally, has a LOT of fans. The nomination vote says "Dude this artical rocks!!!!! If you don't choose it I will!!!!!!!!". Is that a vote? Well, sadly, by our standards, it is. That nomination has been there for a lot of time because naturally, all the fan boys support, and while many users oppose, the nomination can't get deleted after it isn't edited 1 month, which doesn't happen at all, because some random day, one of these fanboys come and add a vote. And so we have to wait for another month, and the same thing happens each time, so it won't get removed. Believe, I have seen MANY users that register just to support an FA nomination, which leads me to another thing I will propose in the admins board.... What I propose, is that if after 2 months the article hasn't become featured, we archive the nomination, because it won't become featured! Who are we trying to fool? And I also propose the article is not ellegible for re-nomination before 2 months, and JUST IF MAJOR CHANGES HAVE BEEN APPLIED. EDIT: Time Q pointed out a flaw. So, the only nominations that will be deleted are the ones that have lasted for more than 4 months, and that have at least a .5:1 opposers to supporters ratio. So, what do you think?

Proposer: Voting Starts: Monday, March 23th 21:00 Deadline: Monday, March 30th 2010, 23:59

I can see those nominations are not going anywhere

 * 1) - Per me.
 * 2) Per Tucayo.
 * 3) - Per Tucayo.
 * 4) Per proposal. You know it's not going anywhere any time soon if the nomination lasts longer than 2 years. Ouch.
 * 5) Per proposal. And there are nominations for articles WE KNOW won't pass, but they will stay here for at least month. And there are nominations that last for 2 years (and growing)! Luigi's nomination, for example, is here ever since 2008! WHOA!!!
 * 6) Per proposal. That Luigi nomination has been here FOREVER!!! and it's going nowhere.

Let the artical nominations stay forever

 * 1) Per the comment of mine that is below.

Comments
Tucayo, shouldn't the headers be non-biased (and you spelled "article" wrong)?.
 * They are not biased, they are creative, but they are non biased, still. And that is a pun from the nomination reason for Luigi :)
 * I do think the first one is biased. More opinions?

If the nomination page gets deleted, someone will simply renominate it. And if you point out the thing about the major changes, that someone will simply argue for hours with you. -
 * Well, they will have to wait 2 months, and I think everyone can see what major changes are. It will be obvious if the article has changed since it was last nominated. If you have any suggestion please tell me :)

...Isn't that the rule already? Except, I thought the current rule kept the nominations for only one month... I could be wrong.
 * There is, IIRC. This proposal proposes to change it to 2 months :)
 * Um, but why would you change it if you're trying to delete the nominations? I guess I'm missing something here.
 * Nominations are deleted if they are not edited for one month. However, there's no rule to delete nominations that are frequently edited but don't pass.

I don't think this is a good idea. 2 months seem too short to me. Also, your proposal doesn't consider special cases; for example, say after 1 month and 25 days, there are no opposes and at least 5 support votes, which means the nomination will pass after one week. However, according to your proposal the nomination would be deleted because 2 months have passed. This is obviously bad. Also, nominations with only one single oppose vote would be treated the same as nominations such as Luigi with lots of opposes. Do we really want that? I think it would be a better idea to find a system that allows us to delete nominations based on the amount of support and oppose votes. However, this needs to be discussed carefully, best on the FA talk page, rather than proposing a rule in a hurry that could have bad consequences.

Tucayo, this is exactly what i asked you. Badges, Geno, mama Mario, all those articles that have been featured latley you could not vote for!
 * I don't get your reason for opposing, Raphael.
 * @Time Q: Ah, thanks, I missed that part!

Where did all my supporters go.
 * They all added their votes before voting time started, so I had to remove them, sorry.
 * Oh, it's OK then :) For a reason I highly doubt most of them will re-support it....

.5:1 ratio? This would mean that the Luigi nomination can't be deleted.
 * My bad, I had said "supporters to opposers" I mean "opposers to supporters". @KS3: Thats not true.

Raphaelraven: You could always vote to unfeature them if you think they don't deserve to be featured...
 * @BLOF&Revirsinator: i opposed because not long ago i sent Tucayo a message asking why the articles that we get to vote for on the FA page never get featured, and the ones that do get featured (i.e. Mama mario, geno, shadow queen, badges etc...) we dont get to vote for. I hate to say his answer didnt help much. So, i fwhat im saying is true, theres no point in this proposal so we should just go and delete all the FA nominations B/C theyll never get featured!!!!!!!!

If this passes, we should also make a proposal on deleting FI proposals that don't get passed within a few months (like this)


 * But the voting system is entirely different than the Featured Article one!

Removing FI Votes
I go on the Featured Image page every day. Latley, I've noticed a lot of votes that say, "I just like it," or "I just don't like it," or "Yay!" or "Yes," and even plain old "No." I think every user should state a specific reason of why he/she is supporting or opposing, even if it is a s simple as "Bad Quality". If there is no reason, there's no point in voting at all! As most of you know, when voting for a Featured Article, users have the right to say why they want another users support/oppose vote removed. If other people agree, that vote is removed. I say we should add this feature to the Featured Images page, so we can remove support/oppose votes as we fell fit.

Proposer: Voting Start: 25 March 2010, 14:42 Deadline: 1 April 2010, 23:59

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) Per everybody else in the commens section.

Comments
This was brought up at least once before and is a very bad idea. Voting on FIs is a highly subjective thing, which means that in most cases you vote for an image because of your personal opinion. Thing is, you can't force people to reason their personal opinion, that's absurd. Also, look at the archives, when we started the FIs almost nobody put any text there beside their username, and it worked perfectly this way. Seriously, I think people are making way too much fuss about the FIs. It's just images that you support because you like them or oppose because you don't like them! If people can't accept that, the best way to deal with this is getting rid of the FIs completely.
 * Whether one likes a picture or not is an entirely subjective thing; a picture may appeal to one person, but not to someone else, not because of flaws in the image, but because of personal preferences. If someone likes the proposed FI, then they will support it because of that; if they don't like it, they will oppose. I don't think we can force them to state a specific reason why they (dis)like it, since that can be very hard to impossible to precisely point out, and something like "I like it because it looks nice to me" isn't any more informative than just the "I like it" vote.--

All I have got to say is that opinions are subjective; even I have a problem supporting a picture without a "good" reason. That's why featured images is a nice concept, but it doesn't fit with our factual-oriented wiki (and that's also why we had at least 2 proposals on removing it.)

Man, we should make a rule about this: Remember, all votes are based on opinions of the picture. It's ok if you don't like it, but someone else thinks it's super special awesome. We all have different opinions whether a picture is good or not. Or something like that.

Change Featured Images Archive Formatting
Yesterday, I checked the archive for the Featured Images, (as a guest), and the page was like huge, probably bigger than the Princess Daisy page. We already did it to the MarioWiki:Proposals/archive, why can't we do it with the FI archive page??? It would be similar to the test4 that RAP is creating.

Proposer: Voting start: 21 March 2010, 13:00 Deadline: 29 March 2010, 23:59

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.

Comments
I don't think this needs a proposal. Yes, we should split the archives, that's common sense. It's just that nobody has done it yet.
 * Yes, per Time Q. I can get to this tomorrow.

Create Separate Articles for Super Mario Advance Remakes
Ok, we seriously need to unmerge the "Super Mario Advance 2: Super Mario World" and "Super Mario World" articles, as well as the "Super Mario Advance 4: Super Mario Bros. 3" articles. First of all, there is plenty of room on this wiki to create a couple new articles to accommodate these SEPARATE games. Second of all, it creates the illusion (or disillusion) to Mario Wiki readers that these are the same games, just different ports. They are NOT the same game! Let's take the former, for instance. The GBA ramake has more levels, updated graphics, play as Luigi, et cetera the list goes on and any honest person knows what it is. The latter, among the updated graphics, how about all those new E-Reader levels? They are not the same game and should not be merged together like that. Why not merge "Super Mario 64" and "Super Mario 64 DS" together then? The status quo with the GBA and NES/SNES games is just as stupid, if not more stupid. A remake isn't the same game. "Super Mario Bros. Deluxe" is NOT "Super Mario Bros.", people! It's NOT the real game! Third of all, tons of younger gamers who were were either pooping themselves or not ever born yet when the original games came out were introduced to the games through these remakes and they deserve articles to read about the games that they were introduced to. I'm not saying the GBA games were bad. I think they were brilliant. Putting nostalgia aside, in all honesty I think they are BETTER than the originals. But they are not the same games! They're different! They need their own articles!

Proposer: Voting start: March 20, 2010, 4:26 Deadline: March 27, 2010, 23:59

Create separate articles for these separate games

 * 1) - Per above
 * 2) per proposal. If this stays merged, then Super Mario 64 DS should be merged into Super Mario 64.
 * 3) - We should, you see, we have the article for Super Mario All-Stars and even Super Mario All-Stars + Super Mario World and those are compilations of remakes.
 * 4) - I agree with the proposer.  The way it is now seems very inconsistent.
 * 5) - Per all.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Super Mario Advance 3: Yoshi's Island would be better off merged with Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island if anything. I say split 'em.
 * 8) Sonictoast Support
 * 9) I totally agree.

Leave as is

 * 1) I have played three of the SMA games, and they are almost exactly the same as the originals, besides the fact that some things were added. Since they are very similar to the originals, they do not deserve their own article, and would be better off merged with the SMB2, SMW, SMW2, or SMB3 articles (depending on which Super Mario Advance it is).
 * 2) - Per FF65 with the facts of that their is not enough differences for them to be their own articles. You will be pretty much copying the original articles themselves, just with the differences added in. It would be more consistant to have them together, since they are big enough to be separate articles.
 * 3) - There is little more to say about the Super Mario Advance games than what Super Mario Advance (series) already covers - that being everything in which the remakes differ from the originals, which is all the unique information we could possibly put into their individual articles. I see no point in splitting that article into four stubs, it works well the way it is.
 * 4) What would we put in the articles of the remakes? The Super Mario Advance (series) article already has a bunch of info on them, like Vellidragon said. Also, per Fawfulfury65 and Baby Mario Bloops.
 * 5) The four Donkey Kong Country remakes have a similar amount of changes, so these would need separate articles as well then. I don't think this is necessary, the changes and the few additions can also be described in the articles of the original games, otherwise it gets redundant and confusing. Especially in the SMW and YI remakes, there are so less changes that they are not worth their own articles.

Comments
The Super Mario Advance games already have a seperate article (for the whole series, since there's not that much to say about the games that isn't already said in the original game's article): Here. I looked at the Super Mario World article though and it indeed has a "changes in the GBA version" section; how is that necessary with the GBA remake being covered in the other article? Also, some variations of the SMA games' titles still aren't redirecting to the correct article (though I already fixed some of them); I'm guessing that's where the proposer got the idea that they didn't have their own article. I guess it's redirect fixing time again.--


 * Well, each and every SERIES has its own article encompassing the whole series (Such as "Mario Party"). But I still think each GBA game is good enough, unique enough, and different enough to enjoy the benefits of its own article.  Think of all the younger gamers introuduced to these games through the GBA.  They may want to look up an article for any said individual game.  A unique article for, say, "Super Mario Advance 4: Super Mario Bros. 3".  The status quo is all just really, really confusing for such people.  There is plenty different in the different games, plenty plenty plenty.  Enough to say that they are not the same games at all.  Each of said GBA games should have their own unique article as if the original (S)NES game never existed.  I'm not saying don't mention they are remakes in the articles, but you get what I mean.  --


 * I would like to point out that the articles were once separate. A proposal decided to make the one page and mention each remake in the NES articles. I would find the proposal, but I'm too lazy at the moment. If you mentioned the other proposal in yours, please excuse my comment. Also, please use ":" when indenting; It makes the page look much cleaner. Thanks. ;)


 * Where does it say there is a rule against overturning a previously passed proposal? I just want to say that I find it so daft to include blurbs about the GBA remakes in the articles (I do think they should be mentioned and linked to in the NES articles, but they should both have their own articles) for wonderful classics like Super Mario Bros. 3 that essentially made the world love Mario in the first place way back when, and simultaneously neglect to give the awesome GBA remakes their own articles under the pretension that they are the same games when they are different in so many ways.  As I mentioned, the graphics are improved in the GBA remakes, among many other things.  If, say, Super Mario Advance 2: Super Mario World had its own article, it would be filled with screen shots unique to that game.  That's just one of endless examples and reasons that Mario wiki users should not stand for the status quo.  If I mentioned all the reasons it would fill the entire page.  --
 * Since the previous proposal was long enough ago, you may now post this proposal to overturn the previous decision. Yes that is correct.
 * We would still like to hear all those reasons. I see no problem in having two kinds of screenshots that are of different kind of graphical quality coexisting within the same article - the game Donkey Kong (Game Boy) has two kinds of screenshots, one when played on the Game Boy, the other in color when played on the Super Game Boy. There is no problem with the screenshots there. You shouldn't worry about the length, it's your proposal and you may support it with as many words as you want to.
 * What do you think makes the GBA remakes more worthy of an article than New Play Control: Mario Power Tennis? - 08:55, 20 March 2010 (EDT)
 * Cobold, I know you did not just compare my proposal to that piece of crap "New Play Control: Mario Power Tennis". The quick answer is that MPT and NPC: MPT and the exact same games, except the latter has crappy controls.  MPT was a solid title for the Nintendo GC, and I think Nintendo was just being greedy releasing the so called title which you speak of.  The release of the inferior version a short time ago did not just occur by happenstance; it is a clear cut case of avarice.  It was a case where the Wii controls just did not work.  Other than a new epic phail control scheme, it was the same game etirely.  Not a darn thing different about it.  Super Mario 64 DS is its own article.  Why is that?  Because it would be absurd to combine the DS remake with Super Mario 64.  And combining the NES and GBA versions of the aforementioned games is every bit as absurd in my humble opinion.  Almost every single argument for allowing the DS version of SM64 to have its own article can be made for the NES/SNES games (the GBA/NES games might be even more disparate!  The original SNES/NES games didn't have any voice overs!  Charles Martinet's voice was added to the characters in the GBA versions) like more playable characters(Luigi in the GBA games), more levels, updated graphics (more so in the GBA games to its NESSNES counterparts, although the DS graphics were slightly better than the 64's in SM64DS), more Dragon coins (and more Stars in 64DS, 150 to the original's 120.  and SMA:SMB3 had even more added levels than SMA:SMW with the E-Reader!  and they were remarkable levels!  Unique levels!).  So as you see, the argument for allowing said games to have their own articles is even GREATER than SM64DS having its own article (which it does).  CASE CLOSED.  --
 * Ah, my apologies. I didn't mean to imply that you couldn't continue this proposal. Go right ahead!

KS3, the second part of your support vote doesn't seem to make much sense. Why would Super Mario 64 DS need to be merged into Super Mario 64 if these stay merged? The Super Mario Advance games are only merged with one another, not with the games they are remakes of. Super Mario 64 DS can keep its own article as long as the Super Mario Advance games aren't part of the articles on the original games, which they currently are not. Stating the Super Mario Advance (series) article should be split because of Super Mario 64 DS not being part of Super Mario 64 makes no sense to me.--
 * Vellidragon, no one is saying that if this doesn't pass that means SM64 should be merged with SM64DS. Were saying it would be completely stupid to merge 64 with 64DS because they are two totally different games.  And if you nay sayers would have read my earlier comments, you'd had seen that there are even MORE reasons to give each GBA remake its own article because they are even more different. If a movie is remade, is the remake of that movie the same movie?  NO! Could you play as Wario, Yoshi, or Luigi in the original 64?  Nope!  God knows, gamers spent until 2004 looking for luigi in the original 64 all in vain!  It was all fake!  There were no giant turnips in the original American SMB2!  I know a lot of people who hated the original and loved the GBA remake (of American SMB2 only, of course.  All the other original NES/SNES were remarkable classics).  And I never even mentioned Super Mario Adance: SMB2 before, which would be covered by the passage of the proposal.  For comments on other games, see above.  To say that these new articles would be stubs is absolutely ridiculous!  Those wonder GBA games, the finest games to be found anywhere on the Game Boy Advance!  Nintendo at its FINEST!  You dare insinuate those wonderful classic articles would be stubs?  That is an insult to Mario, an insult to Nintendo, and an insult to all Mariowiki users.  Is the "Super Mario 64 DS" article a stub?  NO!  That's a remake!  A remake comparable to the original.  But its not the original.  Its not the same game, and neither is any of the GBA remakes!!  --
 * I was replying to KS3's support vote, which clearly states that "If this stays merged, then Super Mario 64 DS should be merged into Super Mario 64", so yes, somebody is saying that :3 I wasn't replying to the proposal itself, sorry.--

If this proposal passed, would there also be separate articles on DKC GBC, DKC GBA, DKC2 GBA and DKC3 GBA? They have as many or even more differences to the orignal games. Is that really needed? --Grandy02 16:17, 22 March 2010 (EDT)


 * Grandy, to answer your question, this proposal's passage will not affect any DKC games. There are not as many differences in those, I think they are more just handheld ports.  However, if someone sometime in the future decided it would be best for the wiki that those DKC games get their own articles, I would read the proposal and all the arguments for and against in the comments section, and then ponder my decision, and then, based on which decision I feel is best for the wiki, vote based on that decision.  But DKC games are irrelevant.  Focus on the issue at hand.  Just as SM64DS is different enough to merit its own article, so do these games, as you are aware from what are have said, differ even more rigorously.  --Marwikedor
 * Well, these are the major changes I remember from the games (excluding visual and acoustical changes):
 * SMA: Several new objects, enemies (including one new boss) and areas, score added, Ace Coins and Yoshi Challenge. Game can be saved.
 * SMA2: Collecting all Dragon Coins replaces them by Peach Coins, checklist for the levels, Luigi has different abilites.
 * SMA3: Six new levels.
 * SMA4: e-Reader support for new levels, items and enemies.
 * And now in the DKC remakes:
 * DKC GBC: One new level, three new mini-games, Game Boy Printer support, collecting hidden stickers for printing.
 * DKC GBA: Two new mini-games, behaviour of all bosses changed more or less, collecting photos in an album, time attack mode, "Videogame Hero" mode.
 * DKC2 GBA: One new boss, three new mini-games, a feather in every level, collecting photos in an album, time attack mode.
 * DKC3 GBA: One entirely new world, one new boss, three new mini-games.
 * From what I remember, there are actually more differences in the DKC remakes than in the remakes of SMW and YI. Correct me if I'm wrong. But if it is true, the DKC remakes would need separate articles as well for the sake of consistency. --
 * There's more changes in SMA2; there's a feature for saving anywhere on the overworld, dragon coins can be found in castles, there are new block types (like question blocks which several coins pop out of that fall to the ground) and Yoshi's abilities are changed (he can spit out a lot of enemies which he previously swallowed immediately). There are also some other minor changes in level design (mainly making the levels a tiny bit easier) in SMA2 and in SMA4 as well. Not that it matters much which remake has more changes in comparison to another. Any remake with an amount of changes comparable to the Super Mario Advance games would each need its own article as well if this passes, and the changes in the DKC remakes are quite numerous, so I do agree this would apply to them.--

Shouldn't this be placed in the Super Mario Advance article??? This only describes stuff on Super Mario Advance games, so why be placed on here???

SonicToast and Starman's votes (number 8 and 9 support) do not have valid reasons.
 * YES THEY DO! How the heck is "I support the proposal" and "I agree totally with the proposal" invalid reasons?!!!  And per all is a valid reason?!!  They agree with what I am proposing that is their reason!  They agree with the platform!!!  God!  Someone always has to cause trouble!  "I support the proposal" and "I totally agree with the proposal" means "Per proposal".  It means the exact same thing!!!

Split all Super Smash Bros. moves into separate articles
Before I start, let me say that I am aware of the proposal that merged them. With that said let me continue.

For about two years now, all the moves that belong to a character in the Super Smash Bros. franchise (such as Rollout, Flare Blade and Final Cutter) have been merged to their respective characters. But now I ask this one simple question: Why do we have an article for every single other move and the SSB moves are all merged? All moves aer just an major and important as the other, so I don't see why SSB moves have to be merged. The SSB franchise should be treated exactly like the Mario franchise, so I'm proposing to split all the SSB moves into their own articles.

Proposer: Voting start: 21 March 2010, 14:00 Deadline: 28 March 2010, 24:00

Split Moves

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal.

Do not Split Moves

 * 1) -- Please view my first comment below.
 * 2) - Now, I think that's uncalled for. They don't need separate articles, and it was good that they were merged. If this is a consistency issue, then we should take this on the other way around, since many move articles are stubs.
 * 3) - Per all.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Four words: A crapload of STUBS! and per all.
 * 6) Well, there would be many stubs, and they would have to be remerged together.
 * 7) - Per all.
 * 8) - Per all.

Comments
And there was a failed attempt here
 * That wasn't a failed attempt, he just deleted it.
 * Well, for at least three of your examples (Twist Dunk, Water Bomb, Splash Bros), I would recommend making a single page for all moves from the same game. Ultra Hammer would be kept separate because it's an item, but having a single page for the other three examples would certainly be better. However, keeping Smash moves on each person's page would be far more efficient since the moves are unique to each character and having one page for all the moves would be just giant.
 * Wait wait wait! I thought that it says into separte articles! It wouldn't be one page, it would simply be into separate pages. And if you still mean what I just said, they would merely be bigger than most small pages that aren't stubs. That is all I have to say.
 * Calm down. I know what the proposal is for. I'm saying that I do not support because it's more efficient to have them on the character articles, and that my suggestion about his three examples would not work for the Smash moves. It's highly inefficient to have to keep clicking back and forth just to see individual moves. So... I shall continue to oppose.
 * I'm never angry, I was just making sure that you didn't think of it as one page. Yes, I agree with the facts of merging the pages that should be merged (the offensive moves together, defensive moves together, etc). But, I do like the idea of having them split from the main characters page, since they are so anxious. So, with my thoughts, I'm going to stay neutral.

Maybe we could just split them into "X's moves in the Super Smash Bros. Series" or something.

Change the structure of the main character articles
As many of us are aware, the Super Mario Wiki has joined forces with and  and created the Nintendo Independent Wiki Alliance. As an active user of both Bulbapedia and the SMW, it has come to my attention that the quality of Bulbapedia's Pok&eacute;mon articles (eg., , etc) are of much higher quality (in terms of structure) than the Super Mario Wiki's main character articles (eg. Mario, Luigi, Princess Peach, Yoshi etc.).

The structure of Bulbapedia's Pok&eacute;mon articles can be found. I propose that, now that the Super Mario Wiki has allied with Bulbapedia, we should raise the standard of our articles to a similar standard to that of Bulbapedia, starting with the main characters.

Proposer: Voting start: 22 March 2010, 19:33 Deadline: 29 March 2010, 23:59

Support

 * 1) per what I wrote above.
 * 2) - Per SE and Tucayo.
 * 3) The example is MUCH more organized than the jumbled mess of game appearances we have...
 * 4) Well, the examples are about minor characters and are better than our main character articles, It is illogical to wait any longer to fix the articles.

Oppose

 * 1) - Mario and Pokémon are incomparably different, and reformatting our wiki to be like Bulbapedia would not work. We have to deal with many more games than they do and have been given much less structure to do it with by Nintendo; we can't make nice Canonicity statements because we have no canon to work with besides release dates, and we can't afford to make "History" a place to talk about character development when there's so many appearances we have to deal with first. But even if we do leave the development in the "Characteristics" section (currently known as "Character Information" on the more up-to-date pages), simply put the appearances in "History" as they're set up now, set aside the fact that your template doesn't include any mention of Stats, Tattles and other minutiae which currently go at the bottoms of our pages, and ignore the entire "Alternate Media?" debate, the new template still requires us to reorganize almost every single page in the entire Super Mario Wiki. Like the Sysops said last time a proposal was made about the History Organization Standard, we haven't even finished reformatting this place based on the last change or even the change before that, and making another, even more radical change is not a wise move - not until we're done playing catch-up. The last thing NIWA needs in its first few months of existence is for one of the founding wikis to turn itself inside-out. Maybe we could look into making a few smaller changes, but a complete overhaul of everything is NOT feasible, and changing the "main character articles" only would be extremely inconsistent and would make us look very disorganized.
 * 2) Per Walkazo and his mighty wall of text.
 * 3) - Per Walkazo. She seems to be right about this, I think.
 * 4) - Per Walkazo. It appears that were still not done with the reformatting for the majority of the articles.
 * 5) - Per Walkazo. It's a good idea, but it is too drastic and it doesn't make sense in this context.
 * 6) - Per all. Change over the way the character articles are shown currently is an unexpected twist and a cumbersome work on redoing them all by other new means. Just because we made an alliance that doesn't mean we must follow all the ways that the other wikis propose. Bulbapedia has a way to show an information and the Zeldawiki has its own way likewise.
 * Per Walkazo.
 * 1) Per Walkazo.
 * 2) Although the structure seems to be better organized than the one we currently have now, Pokemon and Mario are very two different types of games. Like some others say, we don't have to exactly follow the way Bulbapedia is structured.
 * 3) It could work for Yoshi (since he acts like a Pokemon) but it would break consistency. Per all
 * 4) Per all. What do you think of making a "diet" for Rosalina. "Gender differences" won't work, and she travels everywhere, so "habitat" doesn't work. Same thing with Luigi and Pauline. It might work for Yoshi or Birdo, but that breaks consistency

Comments
Hmmm..... remember that we can't use thing as "Gender differences", "habitat", "diet" and those things :/
 * Yes, the BP article structure is tailored for Pokémon information. -

@Silver Eevee: Perhaps you could show us an example of what an article might look like in the new format. This will allow us to see exactly the format you're proposing. Just a suggestion.
 * @ Bloc Partier: Sure, I'll get one up in my sandbox straight away.
 * Okay, it's done. '''Please go here
 * Hm. Characteristics being at the top I agree with, personally; I always thought it was a bit odd when a character's physical appearance etc. is listed below their appearances games. As for games, I like how those are currently arranged by series, and it enables one to sum up all of a character's appearance in a sub-series like the Super Mario Kart series where there are often not too many differences between a character's role in individual games; if we split them up into individual titles rather than series, those would all need a different sub-section. I also don't think we need seperate sections for cartoons and comics like on Bulbapedia. Neither any cartoons nor any comics based on the Mario series have a comparable degree of prominence as the Pokémon Anime and Manga. The frequently used "in other media" section encompassing everything that's not a game does the job quite well. As for names in other languages, I disagree with those being part of the Trivia section. Names in non-English languages are hardly trivia; Bulbapedia does not combine those sections either, in fact.--
 * Thank you! Well. Hm. This is quite a drastic change. I'll certainly have to think about this one. I will, however, point out to everyone that this is an extremely drastic proposal and that any voters should very carefully consider the advantages and disadvantages of this proposal; if it succeeds, it will overturn countless proposals before it that have changed the ordering of articles. In fact, some articles have not yet reached the standards of the last massive reorder. Just a warning.


 * I also have one question for the proposer: Will this affect tiny articles such as Dark Paratroopa? If so, would we have all that initial information, like appearance and whatnot, in the article? And what about the games the character appears in? Just curious.
 * Thanks everyone for your interest. As for Bloc's question: no, probably not, as the smaller articles like that are still important but all the categories and stuff isn't nessecary.
 * Ok. Thanks for the info. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to disagree on this one.

Characters' Order
I notice when I read a bunch of articles on different characters and games they have a section on their list of characters, and the order of each character on every different article is different and disorginized, so I came up with an idea.... well three ideas of how to orginized these characters on every article: (I will use characters from Super Mario Galaxy as an example on all ideas)


 * Chronological Order (Games Only): In this one, the first character to appear in gameplay will be first, then the next character will be second, then the third one, and so on. If two or more characters appear at the same time then it will go on alphabetical order. Example: Mario, Peach, Bowser, Rosalina, Bowser Jr., and Luigi


 * Importance: This one will make the order out of the character's overall importance in all Mario games. Example: Mario, Luigi, Peach, Bowser, Bowser Jr., and Rosalina


 * ABC: In this one all the characters will be organized alphabetically. Example: Bowser Jr., Bowser, Luigi, Mario, Peach, and Rosalina

Proposer: Voting start: 22 March, 2010, 19:33 Deadline: 29 March, 2010, 23:59

ABC

 * 1) - Seems the most objective way. And there can't be different opinions on how to order them
 * 2) It's the most helpful for people who doesn't play the Mario series, or at least the game. It could also be helpful for people who regularly plays the games too!
 * 3) I have no idea how it will work chronologically, and importance will be full of oppinions.
 * 4) per all.
 * 5) I am Zero! I change my mind, chronological will get confusing and importance, well the list will obviously go as: Mario, Luigi, Peach, Bowser, and either Daisy or Bowser Jr., after that there will be a bit of a debate. Zero signing out.
 * Per Tucayo.
 * 1) Well, the other ones are very confusing for novice users who want to know about the Mario series and would have much debate about the order of enemies, and this one has a basic alphabetical order that can not change.

Comments
I'm not sure if I understand the "chronological" thing. The character to appear in gameplay first? Do you mean arranging them by when they debuted, and then by when they appear in that game if several debut in the same one (e.g. Mario and Donkey Kong)? Even then, several may appear at the same moment. A chronological order of sorts would make sense though seeing how that is how the games are arranged. I'm tied between that and alphabetical order at the moment. Maybe a combination of both even; by date of debut, and then alphabetical if muliple characters debuted at the same time? May be too needlessly complicated that way though. "Importance" I am against, since deciding which character is more "important" is an extremely subjective matter, and subjectivity doesn't belong here.--
 * I agree with Vellidragon about the importance thing. If I had to pick one, I'd think alphabetical order would be the trustiest way to handle this, because it is the most objective one. -


 * I am Zero! Vellidragon I like your thinking of a Chronological Alphabetical order I'll change the rules for the chronological one. Well using SMG as an example again chronological basically mean, the first character you see in gameplay is obviously Mario, he goes to the castle to see Peach, she'll be second, then Bowser attacks, he'll be third. And what I mean by imprtance for example is not like I like Luigi better then Mario so I think he is more important, it is more like their participatience in each game put together. Zero signing out.