MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/S&M



Splitting the Jump page
ACCEPTED 6-0

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

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

Support Split

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

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

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

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

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

Support Merge

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

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

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

Merging Macho Grubba
KEEP SEPARATE 5-2

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

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

Support Merge

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

Oppose Merge

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

Comments
}}

Merging Conjectural Minor NPC articles
MERGING 2-1

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

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

Support Merge

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

Oppose Merge

 * 1) It was already decided, Knifey Needle.

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

Merging with
KEEP SEPARATE 4-0

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

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

Oppose Merge

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

Comments
}}

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

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

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

Oppose Merge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support Merge

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

Oppose Merge

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Move to Paratroopa

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

Leave at Koopa Paratroopa

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

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

}}

Merging Wario Treasures
MERGING 7-0


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


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

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

Merge

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

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

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

Removal: Glitch Articles
ARTICLES MERGED 10-0

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

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

{{scroll box|content=

Delete or Merge Glitch Articles

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

Comments
}}

Microgames
SPLIT 4-9

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

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

{{scroll box|content=

Go by Lists

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


 * I can respect that. - Walkazo

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


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

}}

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

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

Proposer Gofer

Deadline September 1.

{{scroll box|content=

Merge

 * 1) Gofer

Keep it that way

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

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

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


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

Gofer }}

Split Bowser and Bowser Bones
KEEP MERGED 3-8

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

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

Proposer: Dodoman Deadline: Sept. 6, 2007

{{scroll box|content=

Split the Articles

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

Keep them Merged

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

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

Gofer

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

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