MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/2



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

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

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

An article must…


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

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

How to vote:

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

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

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

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

Use this New System

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

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


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

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

Unused Image Deadline
ALLOW MORE TIME 9-0

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

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

Proposer: Chris Deadline: September 6, 2007, 17:00

Allow More Time

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

Comments

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

Super Mario Sunshine "Secret" Areas
KEEP 2-5

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

Proposer: Deadline: September 9, 2007, 15:00

Delete them

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

Keep them

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

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

Cool User Lists
DELETE 12-6-4

Many users have a section on their userpage listing other community members they like. Often there is unnecessary conflict and even (pardon) stupid flaming when a user removes someone from this list. I say we get rid of all of these sections – there's no need to hurt anyone's feelings over any one of these. True friends – online or offline – can't be simply added or removed from your life on a list. We have a good group dynamic overall in our community, so let's not wreck it. Another option is to rename & rephrase all these lists so they are neutral, such as "User Neighbors I Know", though removing users could still bring questions and trouble.

Proposer: Deadline: September 19, 2007, 17:00

Delete Them All

 * 1) – reasons in description above.
 * 2) saying some people are cool and leaving some out is a recipe for bad blood.
 * 3) Bastila Shan You guys are right,
 * 4) Agreed, I removed my Cool Users list already.
 * 5) If the wiki had a few hundred active members, then I could see sections like these working. The way it is, no.
 * 6) Walkazo - Per Xzelion and Ghost Jam.
 * 7) - After reading the above... Per all the other dudes... *Goes to delete his*
 * 8) User:Fixitup - Makes perfect sense to remove them.
 * 9) Even a neutral one will one day cause a problem somewhere.
 * 10) Wayo is right. You couldn't believe how long I wiated to be in one,seems right not to make people do that like me.
 * 11) - i will remove mine right now. I agree fully.
 * 12) I agree. These lists might hurt someone's feelings.

Rephrase for Neutrality

 * 1) - per my comments.
 * 2) Zach121- I think that they should change the name to wiki friends
 * 3) -I'll just descibe if I met/talked to them and how I helped them or how they helped me.
 * 4) Change name like alll guys above
 * 5) no need to totally DELETE it. Dude.
 * 6) -What's wrong with having one. Look at mine! Mine is neutral.

Keep As Is

 * 1) The only people who flame about these things are the people who don't edit.
 * 2) Luigibros2 As long as it ain't flameing or swearing at another user it's fine.
 * 3) – Cool User lists were made simply to list friends and make others feel liked. It's silly to start flame wars over them, and that seems like something very few people here would do.
 * 4) Per Yellow Yoshi

Comments
Could we do something like, users we've come across? or at least something like that.
 * That would be the option "Rephrase for Neutrality". - 16:26, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

oh.....

While I agree that we should nuke the cool user list, I have the impression it would create a flame war as bad as the one over the removal of featured article. Thus, I'm kind of neutral on it. Glowsquid

I havn't seen a flame war, yet, but its stupid to fight over something like this!


 * Fg flamed Glowsquid in chat.
 * To be honest it doesn't matter if we rename it or not, everyone knows what is it, no-mater what the name, at this point renaming it would be useless.
 * Agreed. For something like this to work and not be a problem, we would need a far larger number of active users than we currently do. -- Chris 17:46, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

can i do two? 0_o
 * What?

Re-Add Banjo and Conker Articles
NOT PASSED 8-9

I've been thinking about this for a long time, and this proposal is to gauge how users would react to the re-inclusion of Banjo and Conker info into the wiki. Banjo and Conker first appeared in Diddy Kong Racing, and their series developed out of that game. As such, Donkey Kong, Banjo, and Conker are believed to exist in a greater DK Universe (and an extension of the Marioverse). As we have been redefining our view of remakes, that they are not replacements but supplements to the originals, I feel Banjo and Conker should have a place here. Just because Diddy Kong Racing DS is a remake that removed these two characters does not mean Banjo and Conker don't have their origins in the Donkey Kong series. Ultimately, there are many reasons for their inclusion in this wiki, and many reasons for their exclusion. All are valid. I don't want to start any flame wars, and I do not want make this a big deal. Please keep all discussions about this respectful. I just want to see if a majority of users would like Banjo and Conker content reintegrated at this time, or if they do not. Somehow I feel this info will eventually become a part of the wiki, as they are part of the greater world Nintendo and Rare created out of the Donkey Kong series, but this may not happen for a long time.

Here are the details of the proposal that would go into effect:


 * Banjo and Conker related articles can be recreated on the wiki. First we should go through deleted edits to restore as much as we can, then start editing and creating articles like normal.
 * Banjo and Conker series would be added as Tertiary Importance to the Importance Policy.
 * Additionally, this proposal would also move all crossovers (including Super Smash Bros.) to Secondary Importance.
 * This proposal would also prohibit articles about the Star Fox series and Grabbed by the Ghoulies. Tricky from Diddy Kong Racing exists in a separate continuity from Tricky EarthWalker from the Star Fox series, although the latter is a out-of-universe reference to the former.  In Grabbed by the Ghoulies, no major characters return in a major role (there are some minor cameos, just as major Jet Force Gemini characters appear as cameos in Banjo-Kazooie, and Jet Force Gemini is not a part of the Banjo-Kazooie continuity).  This differs from Diddy Kong Racing, where Banjo and Conker were major characters who spun off into their franchises.

Proposer: Son of Suns Deadline: 21 September 21, 2007, 20:00

Recreate Banjo and Conker Articles

 * 1) Son of Suns - I am the proposer and I have included some of my reasons above.
 * 2) Never thought they should have gone in the first place.
 * 3) User:Ultimatetoad (nope tiptup wasnt in pilot, but still....I agree with SOS)
 * 4) – Even if it is somewhat far-fetched, Banjo and Conker are part of the Marioverse and therefore deserve inclusions here.
 * 5) --Per YY398.
 * 6) Per all of the above...
 * 7) Sir Grodus – Per SoS.
 * 8) Glowsquid While I don't belive Conker has enough tie to the Marioverse, I believe Banjo is related to the marioverse, see my comments below.

Leave Banjo and Conker Articles Out of the Wiki

 * 1) If we do that we would have arcticles on everything in the zelda series the metroid series and you get the idea....as they were all in Super Smash bros which is a crossover.
 * 2) per cobold
 * 3) Walkazo - As I see it, the Donkey Kong Series is a spin-off of Mario and therefore the Banjo and Conker series are spin-spin-offs. They're just to far removed from Mario to be included in Super Mario Wiki (in my opinion).
 * 4) Per Cobold
 * 5) – most of both of these series is out of Marioverse.
 * 6) MarioWiki. Mario. Not Donkey Kong. Not Conker. Personally, I feel that extended universes should be limited to a single article per.
 * 7) After hearing that thing about Tiptup, I believe Banjo could make it in. Conker, however, has no relations to the series other than Diddy Kong Racing, and he was even taken out in the remake, meaning he has no real relations to the DK series, thus, no relations to the Mario series.
 * 8) - Conker's Bad Fur Day isn't a game that can be featured on a children's wiki, it has too many adult themes.
 * 9) per walkazo!

Comments
I agree on everything you have said except two things you may want to take into consideration
 * 1) We should Import them from the Rare Wiki at Wikia since they may have been lengthened a little in there time there.
 * 2) We should bump crossovers down to a class lower than Tertiary, instead of Secondary, as Secondary is for series that originated from the Mario series, not crossovers from another series

02:05, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
 * OMG, I just remembered. The Conker games are very much sick, aren't they? M rated, correct? Wouldn't it be bad for the young children who come here if we make articles on the rude content in the Conker series?
 * A wiki is an encyclopedia. It is not meant to be censored, it is meant to tell information. Also, Vruet, we only make articles about those in the Smash Series., and none of those other series developed from the Mario series. 02:26, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Yeah but this wiki is full of young people so we should keep it censored aslo those series are gonna make people asking if they can upload zelda arcticles and stuff as they are in a crossover-Mr.Vruet 02:37, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

As Plumber said, an encyclopedia is for information. Using the "A kid could see it!" logic, any depiction of genitalia in paper encyclopedia should be censored since a kid can read it.

Conker? I am kind of neutral on it. However, I'm all for the re-inclusion of banjo content sincee Titup, a minor character in both Banjo Kazzoie and Tooie (I think he was also in pilot, but not too sure.), reappered in DKRDS. Glowsquid

Walkazo: Well, actually, Mario could be considered a spin-off of Donkey Kong. Glowsquid


 * I know, since Mario's first game appearance was Donkey Kong. But as I see it, that game is more related to Mario games than it is to Donkey Kong games plot and gameplay-wise. It's just like Super Mario Land 3: Wario Land, it's the first real Wario game, yet it's in Mario's name. Then there's the fact that Nintendo immediately started making Mario games, while it took years for Rare to come out with Donkey Kong Country, for all we know, they were simply recycling Nintendo's discarded Donkey Kong character, and the same might even be true for Banjo and Conker, since they came from Diddy Kong Racing, Rare was just a bit more speedy in developing them in their case. All in all, it's all quite muddled. - Walkazo

To Plumber, we can import from Rare Wiki, but only Banjo and Conker content of course. We created that wiki, so we have the right to re-import the information. For crossovers, I think it depends on what the crossover features. For example, Super Smash Bros. features Mario, so it's one degree away from the Mario series. However, Wario vs. Bomberman features Wario, who is one degree away, so this crossover would be another degree away. Maybe? Well, we can sort all that out again later, but for now crossovers will be Secondary if this proposal passes.

To others, this is an encyclopedia. We don't need to censor information for children. It's all available on Wikipedia anyways, which I am sure many of you frequent. And why should we censor information to children? Don't they have a right like any other person to choose what they want to learn about?

And people have already asked if they could include other Zelda information and we simply explain they can't. Problem solved.

I think Walkazo has the best reason for opposing: in her opinion, they are too far removed. Users have to decide how far they want to follow the spin-off series, as Banjo and Conker are spin-offs of spin-offs. I am willing to go that far. Well, that's my two cents. -- Son of Suns


 * Thanks for the mention, but just so you know, I'm a girl. - Walkazo


 * Explain your censoring point to parents. I don't think they all think that way. - 12:32, 15 September 2007 (EDT)


 * Quite a few adults work on this site - why should we be penalized because there are kid users too? Why should the Super Mario Wiki be any different than Wikipedia, which has a lot of kid users but articles about fellatio, sex, rape, murder, suicide, drugs, alcohol,  etc.?  If we are to be taken seriously as a source of information, we have to get out of this child-censoring mindset.  I just think kids need to be given more credit.  They are not stupid - they have free will like any adult.  They know what is appropriate for themselves.  Children need to be given more rights, instead of being sheltered their whole lives. -- Son of Suns

SoS, for once, I disagree. Wikipedia, one out of a hgundred users is a kid. Mariowiki, I think you are like one of 3 adults. Why should us kids be penalized because of that?


 * How are you penalized? You don't have to read the articles.  And I am sure there are a lot more kid users on Wikipedia then you state.  And you don't know how many adult users visit this site, especially when blogs from adults references this site as a source of information.  Books written by adults even reference this site.  I just wish some users would keep an open mind.  -- Son of Suns

Let me give my opinion... Leaving out of account whether a game like Conker's Bad Fur Day would be appropriate for children - why in the world would an article about that game be not appropriate for children in any way? The article describes the game. I guess the game is M rated because of containing violence? Well... so what? The article won't contain any violence! I don't understand why you seem to confuse promotion for a game with information about a game. Or do you think history lessons in school should be abolished in order to protect children from information about wars? Would be quite dumb, right? / Time Q 13:09, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
 * The article wouldn't contain violence, but it would possibly contain the sexual themes. Also, screenshots would have to be selected carefully. - 13:10, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
 * I agree on this; if there are screenshots which might be unsuitable for children, they should better be left out. But I don't understand why some users are against even creating such articles. / Time Q 13:18, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

You both make some very good points. We will not be writing articles promoting the game or any behaviours in the game, but merely describe them academically, and respectably (if this proposal passes that is; it's something I believe in, but will not force upon people). It's not like we won't be sensitive to children in regards to certain material, but it doesn't need to be censored. These articles will be purely informative, and avoid raunchiness (we will use academic terms, instead of lower language). That's what Mario Wiki is all about - writing objective, informative articles. =) -- Son of Suns

I wonder... Why we couldn't create a template that would warn the reader about offensive/innapropriate content and put it on the Conker Bad fur day-related page? Glowsquid


 * We could potentially, but we don't necessarrily have to. What is offensive to people is completely objective.  I'm sure some people would object to Daisy showing her stomach in Mario Strikers - so should she be included in this template?  Wikipedia does not have such templates, and I don't think we need it.  But whatever happens happens. -- Son of Suns

I think people are blowing this "sensory issue" way out of proportion. As Son of Suns said, we'd be using academic terms to describe the more mature subject matter, and since this is an encyclopedia and should contain all the information pertaining to Mario as we writers can find. It's not our fault if people find one thing or another offensive, as long as we write about it in good taste we're just writing the truth. Also, as SoS pointed out, there's no telling what people are going to get fussy over: I know people (myself included) who disapprove of Mario slaughtering thousands of Goombas on his way to save Peach - that's pretty violent. Then again, so's Bowser forcing his children to fight Mario, or Ash forcing his pet electric mouse to fight firebreathing dragons in Pokémon (and the Super Smash Bros. series)... The point is, there's a lot more than Conker's Bad Fur Day that will get (some) people mad on this site, and we can't help that. If worse comes to worst, we can put up a general warning on the main page. That way we can be sure no parents are gonna come busting our chops, and not have to worry about what subject matter would warrant the use of a "warning template" on an individual article. - Walkazo

Max2, if they made a Mario First Person Shooter rated M, would we cover info in that?
 * What the? Where did that come from? Think about it logically, Shigeru Miyamoto would NEVER do that.
 * He allowed Link to be in a Soul Calibur game, which I'm pretty sure has blood, etc. to some extent. -- Sir Grodus
 * Er, Twilight Princess also has that stuff, but to a lesser extent. It is M. I was talking about Mario games. Shigeru Miyamoto would never make a Mario game like that.


 * Soul Calibur has Ivy....and you thought Flurrie was voluptuous! Also, Mr. Miyamoto will die someday - who knows where Nintendo will take Mario (or Microsoft when they buy the rights to Mario) with him gone? And to be fair, Conker is a pretty good squirrel - he rarely swears, and only does so when parodying popular movies many of us have seen (like the Matrix and the Terminator). -- Son of Suns
 * I was fairly sure that Conker was a very bad squirrel. Either that or my Brother-in-Law lied to me. And, by Conker, I meant the series as a whole. And, we are not talking about Sould Caliber, that is NOT mario-related. We are talking about wether Banjo and Conker are Mario-related or not.


 * Even if we DON'T bring Conker back, we should still bring Banjo back, and Conker was not as bad as... Some stuff...
 * I still don't think the Banjo series should be able to make it into this. It is not related enough to the Mario series, and neither is Conker. And, what do you mean it isn't as bad as some stuff? What stuff?

Well, Conker's Bad Fur Day is rated M for a reason. But we would not be promoting the rated M material, we would be describing academically, as Wikipedia does. I do believe Banjo and Conker are related to Mario, as they went on adventures with Donkey Kong and Diddy Kong prior to the events of Diddy Kong Racing, as stated by the instruction manual. They were all buddies before the events of the game. -- Son of Suns
 * What do you mean you won't be promoting the rated M material? And, BTW, it is rated MA down here. However, I still don't think we should put any Conker and Banjo stuff in it.


 * A lot of other people have already wrote about this, so look above. Anyways, we would objectively write about the series as we do any other series, instead of saying the content is good, which is subjective and POV.  Also, DK lives in the same world as Banjo and Conker.  Squawks the Parrot even delivered letters directly to Banjo and Conker, proving they all live together in the same universe. -- Son of Suns
 * It just seems to 3rd Party-ish to be in this Wiki.


 * Technically, Rare was a 2nd party at the time of most of these games, so it was a part of Nintendo proper. But now it is either a 1st or 2nd party....to Microsoft.  I'm not trying to upset you or anything.  I think the whole maturity argument is not that valid.  But if you feel that it is too far removed from Mario (you can't deny it had its origins there), that's cool with me. =) -- Son of Suns

I must also note there is a moral to Conker's Bad Fur Day. It's not just empty jokes - it all leads to a very dramatic and emotional climax, where a real lesson is taught to the players. -- Son of Suns
 * I am just telling my thoughts on this situation. If we lose, we lose, I don't care, really. I just feel it is too distant from the Mario franchise. But, I, by myself, cannot choose wether it should be put here or not. So, whatever happens, happens.
 * Cool man. I feel exactly the same way. =) -- Son of Suns

Just for the record, if a Mario First Person Shooter was made, we would cover it. It being a Mario game and this being a Mario wiki. -- Chris 02:18, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

I don't think the maturity thing is a valid oppose, as nothing should get in our way of contributing to the wiki and making more articles. If some really have a problem with a content, we could put on the top of the page. Also, Vruet, none of those series originated from the Smash series, so we wouldn't make any further articles about them. 02:50, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

RXCUSE ME MR. DP!!! KIDS ARE OBNOXIOUS THESE DAYS!!! Forgive me, but what the H*** is THAT supposed to mean. We have hundreds of kids on hear already..... a couple weeks ago, I was one. And for the record, do you know how easy it is for a 11-12 yr. old to go onto sights based upon mature content? A MARIO WIKI will be the LAST thing Parents worry about. - Ultimatetoad
 * One, no swearing. Two, no flaming. Three, that is my point. If a Mario Wiki is the last thing they will worry about, how devastating would it be if they saw something like the Conker series on here?

1. Sorry, mornings are always a bad time for me. Two. I was'nt actually FLAMIJNG him i don;t think, but his comment did insult half the users here. 3. In my opinion, they WOULDNT CARE. There's worse stuff out there then a game with a bit of gore, and little sexual innuendo in it. - Ultimatetoad
 * One, its OK, but it is still not a good excuse to swear. Two, yes, you were technically flaming, and how do you know it insulted many people? Three, yes, there is worse stuff. BUT, their parents would probably think "You can go on MarioWiki, it is a safe website for you to browse", or something like that. How bad would it be if they noticed the Conker stuff, they would never allow their children back on the Wiki again.

And, i've seen my cousin playing it, thats all there really is. I've seen worse stuff on average on any one episode of family guy, which children without cable can watch every sunday..... As for the too far removed stuff just how too far CAN it be? The DKC series is often considered a seperate series from the Mario one, and it obviously provides a different flavor then most mario games, but it's here. What about the Donkey Konga series? It's a spin-off of a Spin-off, but we cover that. - Ultimatetoad

1. Yes I know, again sorry. 2. the users here arent insulted by being called obnoxious? O.K, maybe half the users here arent kids, but I know at least two below the per-teen level. 3. I've seen sexual innuendo, in my cartoon watching days. on Cartoon Network and Nickolodeon. WORSE STUFF then this wiki wil convey. The Conker games, I'll admit, may not be appropriate for a 7 or 8 year old to play, but the wiki articles will be appropriate for them to read. - Ultimatetoad
 * But, Donkey Kong has appeared in more than just one Mario-series game. And, what you just said actually further told us to leave out Conker and Banjo. You say that the Donkey Kong series should not be here because it is completely unique. If that is the case, Conker and Banjo couldn't even make it here, because their only Mario-related appearance was in a Donkey Kong game. The point is, Donkey Kong has appeared alongside Mario in more than one game, Conker and Banjo haven't.

I did not say we should take DKC out because it's too unique. I Meant we should leave it in. Again, it all comes down to how far wer're willing to go for a spin-off.... and heres another interesting thought: Was Rare planning the Banjo and Conker games BEFORE or AFTER Diddy Kong Racing? If before, they may have made the games even if DKR was cancelled.... which would have made all the difference, as therw would have been no connection to the marioverse. - Ultimatetoad

Another thought: if we allow Banjo and Conker in here, and one day Bottles gets his own series, will we let that series in? - Ultimatetoad
 * Who?

A Banjo caharacter... that would be a spin-spin-spin-off. But, as far as i'm concerned, all things in mario's universe should be covered, and TipTup proves that banjo is indeed in Mario's universe. Conker, has no such proof that I know of, so whatever, but of Banjo we have facts that show his homeland is located in the same world as Mario and Donkey Kong's is... otherwise, how could TipTup have gotten there.? - Ultimatetoad
 * I guess Banjo could make it in... barely. Conker, however, I'm not so sure about. In my opinion, they are both TOO 3rd Party-ish.

Maybe we should make a third category... and, for the record, Tiptup's appearence in BK and BT was'nt just a cameo, he was a tangible character that gave you rewards. - Ultimatetoad
 * Well, after hearing that, I guess Banjo could be allowed. However, er, isn't their a Banjo game coming out for the XBox 360? If so, what should we do about that? You still don't have my vote on putting Conker here.

Ummm... put the info on here? this is'nt a nintendo only wiki, we have info on games like Hotel MArio, even though there not Nintendo developed. Heck, we could even make an article on Microsoft and the XB360, if this passes through. - Ultimatetoad

Conker's a bit harder to place, i'll admit... - Ultimatetoad

And, heres a fun fact: There HAS been a MArio FPS. - Ultimatetoad

I would agree to add Banjo but leave Conker out, not because of "It's too mature!. stuff (Which for me, is total b****ck.) but rather because there is no tie to the Marioverse past his appearance in Diddy Kong Racing. - Glowsquid, I reallty thinkthis need a 3rd option.

There... two new options. - Ultimatetoad
 * Good. Man, I never thought this would become the Proposals biggest argument yet. :P

Cobold Max2 & Xzelion: Since an option to add Banjo content but leave Conker out have been added, and your reasons for opposing are against Conker, could you please change your votes, or the reasons behind them? Glowsquid

SOS, have you read ANY of these reasons? why did you take the two new things out. - Ultimatetoad


 * You can't change the proposal like that. Banjo and Conker are friends. Their series emerged from Diddy Kong Racing, neither had a franchise before. Tiptup is not a Banjo character per-se, he can be considered a cameo character. I moved all votes to oppose, so you may have to change your comments or votes. Just pick yes to both or no to both. If you accepte one you have to accept the other, as Tiptup is a cameo character. Also, Banjo and Kazooie appear in the Conker series, so those two series are connected that way. -- Son of Suns

BJ is a stuffed head and Kazooie's an umbrella, THATS a cameo. But You can TALK to Tiptup, and he gives you items. Thats not a cameo. And also, is'nt this supposed to be a democracy? three users agree with this idea, but you don't so you can remove it? Did'nt you leave a few months back because another user was doing the same thing?!. - Ultimatetoad

From an edit summaries: "It's either both or neither, as Banjo, Conker, Donkey Kong, and Diddy Kong are friends" + :You can't change the proposal like that. Banjo and Conker are friends. Their series emerged from Diddy Kong Racing, neither had a franchise before. Tiptup is not a Banjo character per-se, he can be considered a cameo character. I moved all votes to oppose, so you may have to change your comments or votes. Just pick yes Banjo and Kazooie appear in the Conker series, so those two series are connected that way. -- Son of Suns to both or no to both. If you accepte one you have to accept the other, as Tiptup is a cameo character. Also,

The fact than they are "friends" is irrevalant (plus, it sound retarded.), Conker is completly absent Diddy Kong Racing DS, a remake of the original, some (including me) think that remake are of an higher level of canon than the original game, however, even if Banjo himself is not present, he still somehow have tie to the Marioverse since Titup, a minor Banjo character made an appearance in DKRDS, if they are not in the same world, how he managed to get there? However, the same can't be said for Conker, who has nothing to conect him to the Marioverse appart for his (rectconed) appearance in Diddy Kong Racing.

Sincerely - Glowsquid

You have to wait for this proposal to expire before creating a completely different one. This is the proposal. Users can't just go around changing every proposal, adding millions of options. I gave these two options, pick one or neither. Also, Slippas appear in Conker's Pocket Tales. -- Son of Suns
 * Really, is he specifficaly named "Slippa"? That change everything, then. Actually, no, it don't. Because in both universe exist a simmilar creature/character don't mean the two are connected, it's the same thing as Tricky, really.

Glowsquid

Are they REFFERED to as Slippas? If so, then maybe... although a species is different then a character in some ways. - Ultimatetoad


 * Now that I have to do some research on. It's pretty clear that enemies such as Slippas and Armys are in the game.  But sometimes things aren't named, so let my research it.  But again, this is the proposal, so please adjust your votes.  And I think the fact that Donkey Kong, not simply Diddy Kong, but Donkey Kong himself went on adventures with Conker is very notable, just as is him advanturing with Banjo.  If that connection wasn't there, I wouldn't support this proposal.  -- Son of Suns

When did Donkey Kong go "adventuring with Conker"? and Actually, Glowsquid has a point. A certain type of fish may exist in both North America and Australia, but that deosnt mean it had to start out on either. A man named joe coolex, though can only be in one place at one thime: There can only be one of him. The same is true with the Slippas and tippy. - Ultimatetoad

I just did some research - Armies could not be in CPT because it was released BEFORE DK64 ever came out. - Ultimatetoad
 * Uh, Army appeared in DKC, a big army was a boss in DK64 thought.

Glowsquid

Still, the fact than some creatures in Conker Tales are simmilar to other DK creatures is for me, irevalant. Creature that looked, acted and (Not sure) named exactly after the Chain-Chomps appeared in a few Zelda games as enemies. Should we star doing Zelda article because of that? Glowsquid

Armies are in Donkey Kong Country. Banjo: Even before the start of his future partnership with Kazooie, Banjo isn't one to turn down the chance of an adventure. So when Squawks brings the message from his pal Diddy Kong, the Honey Bear stuffs a few things into his trusty backpack and takes to his heels.

Conker: Another friend made by Diddy Kong on one of his endless adventures with Donkey Kong, Conker is also an exploration nut who'll jump at any chance to break free of a squirrel's less than exciting daily routine. He's eager to join with Banjo as the bear passes through. +

This proves a connection between Diddy Kong, Donkey Kong, Conker, and Banjo. Plus Squawks the Parrot delivers letters to Conker and Banjo, as stated in the story. The parrot does not deliver a letter to Timber or Tiptup or any other character, as the rest besides Krunch live on Timber's Island. Diddy Kong wants extra help, so he sends Squawks to the homes of Banjo and Conker, who do not live on Timber's Island. The Banjo and Conker series emerged from the Donkey Kong series. If DKR was a flop, the Banjo and Conker series may have not been created. It's not all about characters, it's about where franchises come from. The WarioWare series comes from the Wario and Mario series, but no WarioWare characters have ever appeared in a Mario game. Does that mean we don't include those characters? No Conker characters have appeared in a Donkey Kong game. It's the same thing.

And the same species cannot emerge in two different places. Law of natural selection prevents that. -- Son of Suns

How does that little selection prove anything? Donkey is'nt even MENTIONED in Banjo's profile. and snakes are a very common basis for enemies, CPT and DKC have very different graphical styles, I see no way for you to conclude that these snames in Conker's Pocket Tales are Slippas. - Ultimatetoad


 * I thought Banjo was already taken care of because of Tiptup. ;) -- Son of Suns

Should the WarioWare series be removed from the wiki as Wario is the only major connection? -- Son of Suns

For what we know, Banjo and COnker games may have been in making before Diddy Kong Racing, wheter Diddy Kong Racing may have allowed these two guys to have a game is pure speculation. Unlike Conker, The Wario Ware character didn't get removed in a remake of thhe original game. Glowsquid


 * There hasn't been a remake of a WarioWare game. Plus, according to official wiki policy, originals are as valid as remakes in terms of canon, so these are moot points. -- Son of Suns
 * Actually, it did. Mega Party game on the Gamecube. Anyway, I'm out of here, we are all for the re-inclusion of Banjo content (And I'm sure we don't mind Conker,either.), and yet we are fighting about who should be in and who is not, that's ridiculous.

Glowsquid

I'm not really arguing with you, SOS, but while the link between Banjo and DK is a Character, Conker's link is practically nothing. - Ultimatetoad

Think in terms of franchises. Say Mona got a game that took place in a new world, with all new characters, with no references to Wario or anything else from the WarioWare series, we would cover that series, right?

Also, I think I am upset that my proposal was changed. I have no hard feelings against anyone, but you can't just subvert the whole proposal. If you just want Banjo, you'll have to oppose this proposal then start a new one later. -- Son of Suns


 * Mona is a big part of the WW series so it only seems right that we'd include her spin-spin-off game, and Banjo and Conker were a big part of Diddy Kong Racing, so her series' inclusion would mean their spin-spin-offs would have to be included too. An interesting dilemma, however I think it sould depend on how similar the Mona series was to WarioWare, if it were as disimilar as Banjo and Conker are to Donkey Kong games I'd say we should leave her out. But that's all theoretical and all we're dealing with is Banjo and Conker, and I stand by my opinion that they are too far removed from Mario and shouldn't be included any more than they are now. - Walkazo

Right. I'm NOT disagreeing, again (you'll notice my vote is still in the C&B section). The reason those other options were created were to suit some users who felt that way. (Many other proposals, I will point out, have more than one option) I still agree with putting Banjo & Conker in the wiki. - Ultimatetoad

I know. Again, this is the proposal I wanted. If you want something different, wait until this proposal expires. Okay. New start. -- Son of Suns

Mario was briefly mentioned in Banjo & Kazzoie, just wanted to point that out. Glowsquid


 * That's true. What I love about this proposal is that we are finding all these connections.  Like I said above, I wanted to learn how people feel about Banjo and Conker content on this wiki.  It's very interesting to hear everyone's viewpoints and counterpoints.  That was my main stimulus for creating this proposal.  -- Son of Suns

A poster of Berri can be found in Banjo-Tooie. -- Sir Grodus

I'd just like to address some earlier statements: WarioWare isn't really a spin-off of the Wario series, since it still stars Wario. I think of it as a sorta sub-series, like Donkey Konga is for Donkey Kong. Wario and Donkey Kong are clearly main characters in the Marioverse, so there should be no question about whether or not these sub-series should be included. - Walkazo

I find kind of funny how everyone is complaining about the possibly offensive content on the Conker-related page, and yet, the Bob Hoskins page is not censored. Glowsquid

Hey, kids? All this talk about who was in what is irrelevent. OMG, Chain Chomp-like characters in a Zelda game? That's called a cameo, put it in the trivia section for Chain Chomp.

This is getting out of hand. The proposal is for Conker and Donkey Kong, focus on the simple part of that for now. If it comes to pass that all is readded, we can debate about the inclusion of mature content and Tiptup then. -- Chris 18:40, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

Improvement Drive Idea
ADD THE DRIVE 9-2

I think we should have a project similar to Featured Articles and the Pipe Plaza, where, instead of pointing out the best articles, we point out the ones that need Work, so users can all work on one project, instead of everyone editing the "featured article" status ones, and leaving articles like Doopliss un-edited.

The process would be similar to Featured Articles. We make a new page about the project, where we come together and list the articles we think are shortest, but have potential. Then, we might make a box on the main page to show what the article is. Each article will get one week on the main page, again, similar to Featured Articles.

I know no-one may say yes cause I'm not someone who edits, but I think this would help users, ecspecially new users, who may be nervous making an article. This does not mean we will have stub articles, and I frankly think this project will prevent them.

Proposer: Max2 Deadline: 22 September 22, 2007, 20:00

Give it a Try

 * 1) Supporter, reasons given above
 * 2) Sounds like a good idea!
 * 3) -Per Max2
 * 4) Minimariolover10 I agree. It won't fail. Plus, we have no idea what to edit, and recently messages aren't replying fast.
 * 06:57, 17 September 2007 (EDT) I'll help, it seems like a neat idea.
 * 1) I think that would help!
 * 2) Per Max2.
 * 3) I think it's a great idea, and could work.
 * 4) – Sounds good. It's at least worth a try.

Nah

 * 1) These projects always seem to fail. I don't think we're ready for it yet.
 * 2) See my comments

Comments
Are you thinking about something like PAIR; or an Improvement Drive, where we pick one article a week or month, feature it somewhere and encourage all users to work on it? Or are you thinking something else? It would be nice to get a better sense of what you are thinking, cause I am all for helping users getting active and making improvements. -- Son of Suns

Yeah, an Improvement Drive. That's exactly what I mean!

Okay. I think you need to clarify some points. You should state above what this would entaiil exactly. For starters, you can answer these questions and put them in the proposal itself. Would users vote for an article to be improved (the one with the most votes gets featured)? Would the article be featured for a week, a month, etc.? And would the article be featured on the main page (like, This Week (or month)'s Collaboration is: so and so) with a link to that page? -- Son of Suns

Ok. Is this clarified enough? I added descriptions of the aspects of the project, how to set it up, and why I think it would work.


 * Yes. That makes sense.  One more question: would one of the secondary goals be to get improvement drive articles to FA standards, if the subject is notable? (An aside: even Doopliss is a notable subject - it could become an FA.) -- Son of Suns

Well, as most users say, the goal for every article would be to become an FA. i'm ont saying we only improve articles that can be FA articles, this is mainly just to cut back on stubs and short articles.


 * That makes sense. I wish you the best of luck with this project.  I don't know how I feel about this yet, as previous improvement drive/collaboration projects have failed.  We'll see what happens. =) -- Son of Suns

It seems to be sort of popular with the crowd. Except Plumber.


 * Projects like this have been tried before and failed, perhaps we should wait till we have a larger community and more editors.

I wish more people knew about MarioWiki at MFGG, then we'd sure get a lot of new users! Though I hope kingmetroid doesn't come.

While many simillar idea have all been tried (and failed miserably.), this one seem to actually have a decent following, why not give it a try? Glowsquid


 * Who would head this project? Max?

I guess I would. or let someone else take over it if they want. And, Xz, this wouldn't fail. We might not get every article up to like FA Status, but people will work on it. I also know me being in charge was likely a "no" factor, and I'm not saying to change your vote, only that the whole thing is actually well thought out and simple enough that anybody could join in on it.

Subsized Categorys
KEEP AS IS 1-1

Every once in a while, a category that can have too few enteries shows up. Such as Category:X-Naut's Weapons (Though it's deleted), so I think that those should be prevented like stub articles.

Proposer: Lario Deadline: September 22, 2007, 20:00

Prevent Them

 * 1) This is important

Keep Them

 * 1) They are still categories. I think that stuff like that should exist if it's not only one article.

Comments
I think we should just do a case by case basis, like new articles. We ask: "Is there enough for its inclusion?" There's no way to prevent someone from creating categories - we just have to decide if they are needed when it happens. I don't think this proposal can do much, so I am not voting either way. -- Son of Suns
 * I agree. - Walkazo

New Subject Articles
REGULATE 6-0

This proposal would put a bit stricter standards on what articles can be created on new subjects (i.e. those with the Newsubject template). While most are fine, such as the Super Smash Bros. Brawl articles, some are not. I am mostly referring to the mass of fan conjecturally named Super Mario Galaxy articles. Many creatures and planets are given conjectural names, despite the fact they may disappear entirely, or may never be officially named (the planets may just be a part of greater officially named galaxies, and should just be described in the galaxy article in the first place). This proposal would not delete all these articles. They will stay until they can be organized when Super Mario Galaxy and other games are released. However, if this proposal passes, all new subject articles will be regulated from that point on. The criteria would be that the subject must be officially named by some means. Although these names are still considered conjecture until the game is released, they are still officially conjectured names, and will have a name (even if it's changed) when the game is released. All other conjectural information that is not officially named should go in the unreleased game's article (or in the articles of species, characters, places, etc.). The information is fine, but it's not article worthy.

Proposer: Son of Suns Deadline: 24 September 24, 2007, 17:00

Regulate the Creation of New Subject Articles

 * 1) Son of Suns - I am the proposer and my reasons are given above.
 * 2) Here here, I've been wanting a crackdown on those Super Mario Galaxy articles for a long time.
 * 3) Per above. I also don't like this "cosmic species" concept, when it has never been said that the guys are indeed from a different species.
 * 4) Glowsquid Completly agree. I find ridiculous that we have an article on Cosmic Tox Box, which act exactly like a regular Tox Box, simply because it's appear in Super Mario Galaxy.
 * 5) I agree with everything. Those articles are very small, not officially named, and then named by fans, it is ridiculous.
 * 6) – Per SoS.

Comments
Again, I will note this proposal will not delete all these articles in one fell swoop. You can argue on individual talk pages if you think a certain article should be merged, and take action if there is a consensus. Or you can just wait for the game to come out before making changes. But if this proposal passes, we won't allow something like this Super Mario Galaxy article fiasco happen again. -- Son of Suns

Add Banjo-Kazooie Artciles
DO NOT ADD BANJO CONTENT 2-7

The RecentAdd Banjo - Conker Articles proposer was denied, mainly because of Conker. People thought that he was either too mature, or too hfar removed. Banjo however, has no such problems. His games have all been rated E so far, and the inclusion of Tiptup in Diddy Kong Racing, Diddy Kong Racing DS, Banjo-Kazooie, and Banjo-Tooie, Seems to me worthy to merit Babjo for inclusion on this wiki. As previously stated, Tiptup's appearence in BK - BT was not a cameo- he was alive, and tangible. Nor was it a simple cross-over: Banjo's first appearence was DKR, making the series a SPINOFF of Mario. Other series that included Mario characters/enemies (LoZ,F-Zero, Tetris....) were made with there title characters first appearing in one of there own games.

Sooo... vote, and all.

Proposer: UltimateToad Deadline: Saturday, September 29, 2007, 16:00

Add Banjo Articles

 * 1) Ultimatetoad
 * 08:37, 26 September 2007 (EDT): Yes! Even my brother has been thinking if Banjo-Kazooie articles should be made for a long time now. I even have more proof: In Donkey Kong's room in DK64, there is a locker with a picture of Banj and Kazooie's heads on the side. Not, only that, but one of the mole children from Banjo-Tooies was holding a DK doll! There are connections!

Keep Them Out

 * 1) Son of Suns - Conker is as connected as Banjo is. Both franchises developed out of the DK series, and both live in the same universe as Donkey and Diddy Kong.  I don't think it is fair to have one without the other.
 * 2) If Conker's out, Bajo's getting the door slammed in his face as well.
 * 3) - They are still too far from the Mario series, Tiptup doesn't change that, his only "Mario" appearance was Diddy Kong Racing (DS), too.
 * 4) Walkazo - Per Cobold.
 * 5) – Per SoS.
 * 6) Per Cobold.
 * 7) Too minor.

Walkthrougth-style level article.
ALLOW WALKTHROUGH ARTICLES 7-8

Most article about level's are fine, however a few (BLIZZARD!!! is a big offender.) read like something out of a player guide. Level articles should state:
 * 1) Where it take place.
 * 2) The enemies that are in it.
 * 3) The special gimmick (If there's one.)

This is an encyclopedia, an article shouldn't tell where to find that last Flower or how to defeat Koin. If I want that kind of information, I'll go on Gamefaq.

Proposer: Glowsquid Deadline: September 30, 2007, 15:00 EDT

Prevent the creation of that kind of article and rewrite those already here.

 * 1) Glowsquid I am the proposer and my reasons are given above.
 * 2) Glowsquid is correct. This isn't The Mario Online Encylepedia of Guides minus the bad name. Sure, non-rpg enemies can have it, but levels are wrong.
 * 3) ChaosNinji Per Minimariolover10
 * 4) Walkthrough doesn't work. Encyclopedia style does.
 * 5) Walkazo There are plenty of websites dedicated to Walkthroughs, Super Mario Wiki is here to focus on plot, setting and character.
 * 6) Per all, Seems too Game FAQy.
 * 7) I agree. This isn't IGN. Walkthrough level articles should be rewritten. BLIZZARD!! is WAAY too long!

Allow the creation of this style of article.
Son of Suns - Well I do agree many of these level articles need to be re-written in a more formal and in-universe tone, anything that happens in the level is official, and should be reported. This is an internet encyclopedia, so we can have as much info as possible on any subject. Plus, info from player's guides is official, so why shouldn't it be included here? However, maybe the level articles should have a special "Expanded Walthrough" section or something so users don't have to read the walkthrough if they don't want to.
 * 1) - Per Son of Suns
 * 2) - If no guide they'de all be either a bit short or stubs!
 * 3) Booster - Per Son of Suns. Yes, I usually tend to agree with him. I guess we think alike.
 * 4) Per Son of Sons
 * 5) – We shouldn't go too in-depth, but a quick walkthrough strikes me as fine.
 * 6) Hmm... I'm all for getting rid of the "yous" and all of that, but seriously, that stuff is describing the level.  In my opinion, you should only delete what you can rewrite if the information is true.  ...and the walkthrough data is true.  So what do you do?  You describe it and say "how Mario got through it." and now how the player should do it.
 * 7) Per Stumpers.
 * 8) Per Stumpie

Comments
SoS: There is a distinction betweeen describing what happen in a level and telling the reader what to do. Describing how the level jump from a fortress theme to a lava theme, forest theme... ect and what happen in each portion is interessing and encyclopedic. However, telling the reader how to get the DK Coin hiden by the Zinger in Castle Crush isn't encyclopedic. How is the fact that the fith Red Coin can only be accessed by geting the key and killing the Coin Bandit behind the door encyclopedic and revalent to the Marioverse? I agree we should describe in-depth, but we shouldn't go overboard.

Sincerely, Glowsquid


 * I definitely agree the style needs to be changed for a lot of articles, instead of describing what to do, one should describe what's in the level. However, what is "encyclopedic" for a wiki about a video game series?  You can't pick up a "G" encyclopedia and find a GO! GO! MARIO!! entry.  We have nothing to emulate, so saying it is unencyclopedic is a moot point.  What we do know is that everything in the level exists in the Marioverse, and is therefore relevant. -- Son of Suns
 * Well, most encyclopedia have an entry about a notable park, do said encyclopedia tell you to cross the rivers and other natural obstacle as well as giving tip like "Bring your map!" while giving away the location of every single tree/rock? No? Well, that's the same thing here. Mushroom Way is a great example of what we should do for stage writting, it's very detailled and yet, it don't use walkthrought-style writting (Kill that guy, go punch that block for X reward... ect.) -

- Glowsquid


 * Ah. That makes more sense.  Still, I don't think new articles should be prevented because they have a different style.  They are two different ways of showing the same information.  We shouldn't stop an article from being created when we need the information, regardless of what form it's in. -- Son of Suns


 * Well, by "preventing", I don't mean deleting the article and warn the user who created it, but rather add the rewrite tag and (maybe) give the user a small reminder about how he should avoid this style of writting. That how it should be done, IMO. -

- Glowsquid

Also, if we just ignore this, the Wiki will be scrap full because of some levels not like this, while a bunch are, making it a mess! We must get rid of all walkthrough to make it seem more perfersonal, like Wikipedia itself.

Lario: Not really, a level article can be detailed without having to read like a walkthrought. I think I'll do an example.

Detailled Style (Note, all of this is amde up.): "Grab these Coins!" is the sixth level of World 2 in Yoshi's Revenge. The level initially start out in a castle filled with lava, however, the subsequent section take place in a cave full of Bandits." ect.

Walthrought-style: "Yoshi should jump on the raillift paltfrom above to gain acces to a bunch of red-coins, try to avoid the jumping sparky and try to defeat all the Fly-Guys holding the red-coins. Then, jump on all the Para-Troopa to get the flower..." ect. (I think you get the idea.)

See? You can have plenty of info without making it seem like a walkthrought. - Glowsquid

I am striking my vote through, so it won't count in the end, but I want my original reasonings to stay. Also, others agree with my original assessment, that a walkthrough style article is fine, and their votes are still valid. As Glowsquid stated, articles like this won't be deleted on sight, so I don't mind what the wiki decides on how these articles are written. I doesn't matter to me whether they are walkthrough style or not, just as long as they are not deleted. -- Son of Suns

Moogle and Stumper: Yes, what happen in the levels is canon. But there is a problem, for what we know, Yoshi might not have got the fourth flower in Make Eggs, Throw Eggs, Donkey Kong might not have found the Bonus Barrel in Reptile Rumble, an article about a level should describe what happen in this level, not tell the player how to do this level. Knowing that X level is the only appearance of the Ghost Barrel is encyclopedic, telling the reader how to get the third flower in Watch Out Below! isn't. as I said earlier, Mushroom Way is a great example on how a level article can be detailled without falling into walkthrought-style writting. Glowsquid
 * I agree with Glowsquid on this one. A level article on this Wiki should, in fact, describe what happens in the level, and maybe some of the features in the level, but they should not go on about what to do and what no to do. That is walkthrough style, which is not something an encyclopedia should cover. We don't tell others how to finish a level, we tell them about the level.

To all who say thaat what happen in the level is canon: Yes, you are right. But the problem is, we don't know what happened exactly in this level! Nintendo never told "Yoshi jumped on X and then collected X thingie." For what we know, Yoshi might never have bothered to collect these coins and might have accesed the Extra level by other means. Plus, how is the fact tht X flower is in X location in X levels revelant to the Marioverse? Should we tell the location of every ? Block? Glowsquid


 * To play Devil's advocate, some items are important to actually complete a level, such as the five Flowers on every level in the Yoshi's Island series. You need to collect those to get 100% completion.  You don't need to hit every ? Block to get a 100% completion in the Super Mario series.  The location of Flowers is still important regardless if you say what someone should do to get it, or you simply state where it is in the level.  And wouldn't level articles be awesome is they were totally complete, stating the location of every single ? Block and every single coin?  We could have the most detailed level articles ever! -- Son of Suns


 * I think we should look at the "levels" as if they were simply "stages" in Mario/Yoshi/Donkey Kong/whoever's journey. Yes, in the game you need to smash all the blocks to get 100% and get all the flowers and kill all the enemies etc. etc., but it doesn't work like that in real life. Now I'm not saying Mario is "real life" or anything, all I'm saying is that we shouldn't look at the games as games, but as actual events in the (fictional) lives of Mario and the others. Therefore, instead of writing walkthrough-style articles, we should focus on the plot of the level (i.e. Mario walks through the forest and encounters Wigglers, Goombas and a Fishin' Lakitu). We could still include game-centered facts (like the # of coins, etc.), but perhaps in a different section of the article from the initial overview? - Walkazo


 * Walkazo described it infintelly better than I could. And no, level article wouldn't be "tottaly awesome" if we included the location of every single coin and ? block. Let's say Wikipedia page on the molecule would describe the location of every molecule in the universe, that would be awesome, right? But is the reader advanced in any way in his knowledge of what a molecule is? No? Well, that's the same thing for the Coins and ? Block.

Glowsquid


 * Why did you choose Mushroom Way as your exemplar article? The article describes how to get every single item in the entire level. Why can't that be the same for other levels?  The Mushroom Way article is good because it describes everything in explicit detail - shouldn't we hold the same standards for other articles?  And that molecule example doesn't make sense.  All the article would have to say is that molecules make up everything.  Thus we know the location of all molecules - if there is something there are molecules.  But you can't say a level is made up of coins.   -- Son of Suns


 * Errmmm, you got me on the molecule point. But I still say Mushroom way is examplar ,unlike what you say, yes, it contain an enormemous of info, but unlike BLIZZARD!!!, it dont tell the reader to do X action to get X item or how to kill X enemy, it describe the geography of the area, the special gimmick (The spinning flower and Toad giving you an item.) and all the enemy in it, unlike BLIZZARD!!!, which bassicaly tell you how to do everything.

Glowsquid

I am not saying BLIZZARD!!! is the best article, but even if it is re-written, it should state the location of important items, just as the Mushroom Way article does (regardless if the article says "Yoshi had to go under the snow to get a Flower" or "a Flower is located under a pile of snow in the second section of the level"). -- Son of Suns


 * Ahem, you are right. As Walkazo said, maybe we could have a sperate section ("Important Item location"?) describing the location of the various importants item.

Glowsquid

"Representing"
KEEP AS IS 6-1

Many articles say they look similar or represent when just because they are the same representing species. For an example, Sidestepper's trivia says that they resemble Dovo, however they don't. Dovos do not like anything like a Sidestepper, and they probably weren't even remembering Sidesteppers when making the game. Sure, some represent other things, but not most of them. I'm saying to remove the trivia that says that they represent these that aren't truly representing.

Proposper: Minimariolover10 Deadline: September 30, 2007, 23:59 EDT

Support

 * 1) My reasons given above

Oppose

 * 1) Son of Suns - I don't think this is worthy of a proposal. If you feel something doesn't look like something else, just remove the trivia, or debate it on the talk page. A lot of enemies do resemble each other, and the Super Mario Wiki attempts to make connections between enemies and games.
 * 2) Glowsquid - What SOS said.
 * 3) - This should be decided separately for each case. Also, Trivia sections should be limited to a minimum.
 * 4) Per Cobold
 * 5) Walkazo - Per SOS and Cobold.
 * 6) – Per SoS and Cobold. Your Dovo/Sidestepper thing was a good example of a possibly unnecessary Trivia entry, but it's probably something that shouldn't be taken to Proposals.

Comments
Yes, I know, but in some cases it isn't connecting. And about it not being worthy, I want other users to know SOME don't look similar so they could clear it if another doing this job is missing it.


 * Therefore you should be bold. Not everything needs a proposal.  Make the changes you feel are correct. -- Son of Suns

FA Support
NO QUORUM 1-2

The FA system was replaced numerous times, only to go back to the same flawed system. No mistake has been corrected that a supporter must give a reason to support, and I have seen many users support saying "I like character he should be an FA". Well, no longer.

Proposer: Deadline: October 5, 2007, 20:00

Support

 * 1) Reasons above
 * 2) Per Plumber

Oppose

 * 1) Son of Suns - Just because an article is nominated doesn't mean it will become an FA. If it is not FA worthy, opposers will oppose, and if supporters do not change the article, the nomination will eventually be dropped.  The rules state that inactive nominations will be deleted in a month.  You need to have more patience - the FA process takes a long time.  It's not even October yet.  And it's not a big deal to have a few nominations.  All a support means is that you agree with the FA requirements.  Are you proposing someone just lists all the qualities already listed on the FA page?  We would then have to remove every sigle support vote right now, because not everyone is listing every single criteria.  It doesn't make sense to have to provide a reason to support, cause all your reasons are already listed on the FA page.  All a support means is that you will work on the article.  If you don't - oh well, the article does not become an FA and the nomination is eventually deleted.

Comments
So I'm clear, your's proposing that users have better reasons for voting on FAs, right? -- Chris 01:33, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

You are not clear enough, if you mean that support vote for FA should have a better reason, I deffinatelly agree. Glowsquid


 * Maybe make to were we don't need to make comments but take out the supports like "Bowser rules", "Long live King K Rool", "Who doesn't Love Daisy?" ETC.


 * Maybe they both support the article and like the character. Some supports even say this article isn't very good, but it could be, and we allow those.  Maybe supports just shouldn't have reasons next to them? -- Son of Suns
 * I mean that a support vote for an FA should have a valid reason like our proposals need a valid reason to support. 21:33, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

X's right let's take down those votes User:Mr. Guy

It's not just America
NO NEED FOR CHANGE 3-5

This is something that upsets me greatly almost everywhere, not just on this site; people seem to assume that the only place where games are released in English is America. In most of the profiles here, things are said to have happened in "the American version." I want this stopped; it's not fair on other English-speaking countries. It should be refferred to as the "English version," or at the very least, "the American and European version."

Proposer: Davidk92 Deadline: October 2, 17:00 EDT

Support

 * 1) Davidk92 - My reasons given above.
 * 2) Yeah. Either though I do live in USA, a lot of users are still from Europe! It's not like USA is the only country that has the internet.
 * I agree with you two because for example I live in Australia and in the mario party series koopa kid is called mini bowser!

Oppose

 * 1) There are differances between the American and PAL (Australia and Europe) games.
 * 2) From a research standpoint, to say that something is true in the European version just because it's true in the American version is a falsity, like DP says above.  I know it feels like users like me have forgotten about Europe, but as we only play the American versions, you really can't point fingers.  Whenever you see something that's true in the PAL versions as well, I hope you'll change it to say: American and PAL versions.  Everyone's just contributing what they know about, so represent Europe for us, ok?  Oh, and on a side note, no, I'm not coming back from hiatus yet.  Just checking up on things.
 * 3) - The versions are indeed different, just check Luigi's Mansion. The PAL version can be noted at some points, but the problem is that it has many different languages which may all have different names.
 * 4) Walkazo - Per above, the two versions are often different, and if they're not, it should say "Engish version". Also, us Canadians get the American games too, so it's not really the United States version, but the North America version, just so you know.
 * 5) Per Stumpers.

Pers, I agrees...
NO NEED FOR CHANGE 1-11

Okay every time I go on here I noticed several users say "Per ___" "I agree" or "___ is right" but I think these shouldn't be said all the time because whoever say those are to lazy to think of something.

Proposer: Mr. Guy Deadline: October 2, 2007, 17:00 EDT

Prevent constant these

 * 1) - These are plain annoying

Just let them

 * 1) – I don't see how they're really a problem. They're still reasons; they're done simply because people do agree and don't want to completely repeat each other, not because they're too lazy to think of something.
 * 2) Ironicly, Per YY
 * 3) - When you force everyone to make up their own reasons, you have a set limited number of votes there can be.
 * 4) per Cobold. We have so few active users, limiting ourselves further is suicide.
 * 5) --Per YY398.
 * 6) Walkazo - A lot of the time whatever comment I would've made has already been said, it'd be stupid to say the exact same thing, and as YY398 said, way to repetative. By saying Per_ or whatever we're proving that we actually read through it all and thought about it before signing our names. How's that lazy?
 * 7) Per everyone (indeed, I am too lazy to think up something that others have already put into words)
 * 8) -C'mon, we can't all think of different reasons. Sometimes we have the same opinions.
 * 9) Per the other guys, what if you thought of it, then saw someone else had already said the same thing?
 * 10) I don't think that that is a problem. I don't even think this proposal should have even started because you know this would have been the out-right winner.
 * 11) Theres nothing wrong with it because people write it because obviusly someone else has already said it.

Comments
And by the way, you shouldn't call others "lazy" when you're not adding a "Comment" headline, not making a line break, not even filling in the deadline. - 10:41, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Yeah, and shouldn't this be under Miscellaneous? It's not exactly a removal. - Walkazo
 * Yes, it should and has been moved accordingly. -- Chris 23:15, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Thanks. - Walkazo

"Creative" header
KEEP CREATIVE HEADERS 4-6

Some lenghty article are broke up in section, each section having it own header. Some article, such as Yoshi have section-header that differ from the plain (Insert name of the game here.) formula. The problem is, those header make the wiki look informal and amateurish ("Humble Beginnings " is not something that I would qualify as profesionnal, really.), also, the fact than there is two style of headers might confuse the new users. This can really get confusing if the section don't mention the name of the game (Which is quite often.), the proposal is to get rid of all these "creative" header and replace them with more professional-sounding one.

Proposer: Glowsquid Deadline: October 6, 2007, 15:00 EDT

Crush 'em

 * 1) Glowsquid I am the proposer and my reasons are given above.
 * 2) Mr.Vruet That's a good idea accually.
 * 3) Walkazo - I find some of these creative headlines way to cutesy for an encyclopedia, and sometimes the actual game isn't even mentioned in the section. While we don't necessarily have to label each sub-section as the game it concerns, we should make sure it is totally clear what game we're talking about.
 * 4) I agree, they are not very encyclopedia-like.
 * 5) I'm supporting this view simply based on this: we sould be naming our headers in character/location articles based on the events in the games.  For example, in the Isle Delfino article, one could head up the section for Super Mario Sunshine as "Shadow Mario's Vandalism" or "Shadow Mario's Attack" or separate it into one of those and "Mario's Arrest".  I'm actually against separating an article into sections based on the subject's appearances in games.  It should be more flexible, but that's another argument entirely.  In short, I think things like "Daisy DS" are not sutible as a replacement for "Role in the DS Tourament" or "Mario Kart DS" Apparance, even though some of the headings we've seen are cute and fun.  It's an encyclopedia, you know?  We don't have room for creativity except where tying story threads together is concerned.

Let them be

 * 1) Son of Suns - I think I started this trend. I got the idea from Wookiepedia.  Events are described in-universe, so I tried to create headers that described the events in the game.  I think sub-headers can be "creative", but should sound more encyclopedic.  Headers should describe a character's role in a game or the general events of the game.  However, I don't think all articles need to be written in this style.  Unlike Wikipedia, it's okay to have different style articles here, and users can decide how they want to order an article.  King K. Rool might work better listing events game by game by release date, but Yoshi might work better with "creative headers", as some games take place in the past.  I think a lot of sub-headers need to be written better, or changed (which you are free to do Glowsquid) but I think the style is just fine.  And I don't think it's confusing - it just shows the variety of writing styles on the wiki.
 * 2) - per SoS.
 * 3) Per Cobold
 * 4) -We should be DIFFERENT. We don't have to be like the other "I have to be orgainised" wikis.
 * 5) Fixitup- They provide a nice way to catch interest and even combine certain sections that would otherwise look odd. (Would you rather have something that says 'Prince On the Rise' to say 'Mario Superstar Baseball & Mario Golf Toadstool Tour'???)
 * 6) MOVING MY VOTE!  My view is way more in line with this side.  Here's what I originally said... with only minor edits: I'm supporting this view simply based on this: we sould be naming our headers in character/location articles based on the events in the games.  For example, in the Isle Delfino article, one could head up the section for Super Mario Sunshine as "Shadow Mario's Vandalism" or "Shadow Mario's Attack" or separate it into one of those and "Mario's Arrest".  I'm actually against separating an article into sections based on the subject's appearances in games.  It should be more flexible, but that's another argument entirely.  In short, I think things like "Daisy DS" are not sutible as a replacement for "Role in the DS Tourament" or "Mario Kart DS" Appearance, even though some of the headings we've seen are cute and fun.  All we need to do is make sure that the headers reflect the events in the game rather than something silly like "Humble Beginnings" (use Delivery or something)

Comments
SOS: By "confusing", I meant it might confuse the new user on hwo to write those headers, what to do, a creative header or a plain one? Glowsquid


 * Oh I understand, and I think new users will either pick a style or just ask someone for help, or even pick a different style based on the article they are writing. -- Son of Suns

One of the problems with this proposal is that some articles, such as Goomba, group many games under one header. It would be foolish to split the header into multiple headers listing each game, especially when there is not a lot of information. Also, a long header listing every game in that section would not make sense. And, according to Chronology, headers should be listed in a relative chronological order. If we just stick to game names as headers, we would have two Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time sections in certain articles.

I guess I am confused what a "creative" header is or not. That is a very relative term. What would this proposal do exactly? What is a "professional" header? I do believe the header needs to give reference to the events of the game and the name of the game needs to be mentioned in the section, but I don't believe a header needs to simply say the name of the game. Sections are supposed to name the game they are talking about - that's the source of the information. It's wiki policy, but some users may have forgot to put the name of the game in. We simply need to correct those errors. So.....what would this proposal change? -- Son of Suns
 * Errmm.. By "Profesional", I mean that the header left no doubt about what it's talking about without reading lile something out of a fanfiction or an a promotional ad. Header like "Bowser Strike Again!" doesn't tell the reader what it's talking about, and sound like something out of an ad. However, header like "Mario third adventure" is already a little better, since the reader have an hint on what it's talking about and it doesn't sound too POV-ish.

I don't think splitting up an header in each is "foolish, like you say. They appear in a game, it's notable. There's not a lot of information? Add some more! As for the Goomba appeatring in both past and presents in PIT... well, I can't say anything about that.


 * So as long as the header refers to the events of the game (such as "The Invasion of Dinosaur Land" or something), the header is fine? And I think it is important to have some games under one header, as long as the paragraph(s) state what games are being talked about.  For example, in the Goomba article, I combined games that take place in the past to show that Goombas had a small role in games that take place in the past.  This section also combines info from other titles that refer to past events (such as Super Mario Bros. and Mario Superstar Baseball).  I also combined the events of Super Mario Bros. and Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels in another section, as the second game does not add much info to the first - not everything can just magically have more info added to it.  Additionally, there is a section that descibes the events of Super Mario Land, Super Mario Land 2, and the Wario Land series.  The paragraphs are written to make sense of all the information as a whole, not divided into sections.  By forcing a section title into the article, the entire flow can be disrupted.  I think writers should be given more freedom.  I can't stand articles that have tons of section titles but one sentence per section.  It is okay to consolidate information if it makes sense.  Each article will have its own unique circumstances, so how the article is divided into sections should have its own unique rules.  I do agree a lot of titles are silly - but you can change them.  Be bold and active.  It's not a big deal to make them more professional looking.  "Bowser Strikes Back" can easily become "Conquering Mushroom World" or something like that.  -- Son of Suns

Anyway, I don't even think we can't make sure of which game we are talking about. For example, "Bowser Third Strike" might refer to Super Mario Bros. 3 but it may also refer to an obscure game that was released before, like Super Mario Bros. Special. "Mario First Aventure" might confuse those that don't know Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island exist and think Donkey Kong is Mario first game -Glowsquid
 * Well, looking at SMB3, you could talk about "The Koopa Troop Strikes the Mushroom World" for example. First, second, third and all that jazz is just confusing, you know?  17:23, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

To Fixitup: The thing about "Prince On the Rise" is that no one's going to understand what it's talking about. If I was looking for a section in an article on Mario Superstar Baseball how would I know to look for it under "Prince on the Rise". I'd have to scroll down the entire article looking for the right section, and if it is a large article like Bowser or Mario that'd take a while. I'd rather be able to navigate the site quickly and efficiently than have interesting headers. Besides, the information itself is interesting enough as far as I'm concerned, it's about Mario after all! - Walkazo
 * I'm pretty sure that was just an example to show the difference in styles. I think we can give Fixitup the benifit of the doubt on this one: I'm sure Fixitup knows that there's nothing to with royalty in the two games.  Looking past that and at the whole issue, when discussing a character's life, we write in universe.  As such, wouldn't one logically conclude that we shouldn't be identifying events by their games?  Besides, some games have lots of information that would be better divided into multiple categories, while other games would be better suited as a single section (like if there's ever a game that's a direct continuation, sort of like Mario Lands 1 and 2... yeah, I could argue for their separation as well.  Again, context sensitive.) (by  -- the coment continues on the next paragraph)


 * Yes, I agree that there's no room on the Wiki for things like "Humble Beginnings" (Mario: Yoshi's Island) and "Daisy DS" (Daisy: Mario Kart DS) and "Monkey Love" (Donkey Kong: Donkey Kong Arcade--even though it was Cranky Kong who was in love) and other (I hate to be mean, but...) opiniated and/or nonsensencical headings. But, naming headers after games is only going to limit what we can say.  19:29, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

Community related issue on Main Page:Talk
REGULATE ISSUES ON MAIN PAGE 6-2

After talking a bit with Son of Suns, I think that community-related issue should'nt be brought up on the Main page talk.

Why?

First, the constant drama make us look like a bunch of idiots, remmember when Max2 threatened to leave for the first time, or when Wayoshi was revealed to be a spammer on the chat? Those ridiculous events very likely turned a lot of potential users off. You hate a guy and want to ramble on how much of a waste of carbon he is? Fine, but do it on the forum, geez.

Second: This site is an encyclopedia, something most seem to forgot. You can chat with anyone at any time via the chat or the User talkpage, you can create sub-page that are not even related to editing such as sprite comic or fan-fiction archive, you can upload fours personnal image of your and waste our precious image space, this is being very generous. Some may being more inclinated toward the community side, I understand this choice. But please, don't mess with the editing space! This can be very annoying for users that don't want to be involved in more social-activities.

Proposer: Glowsquid Deadline: October 6 21:00 EDT

Prevent community-stuff from being brought up on the Main Page Talk.

 * 1) Glowsquid I am the proposer and my reasons are given above.
 * 2) Per Glowsquid
 * 3) Per Glowsquid
 * 4) Per the other guys, who per Glosquid. :P
 * 5) I agree. Per Glowsquid.
 * 6) Glowsquid has got his reasons and are well stated and have brought my attention to say that community-stuff from being brought up on the Main Page Talk should not be put up.

No, let it stay the same.

 * 1) The Main Page talk is a community portal, as well as being a place of minor topics of discussion for those who cannot use the forum
 * 2) My reasons are given in the comemnts.

Comments
Wayoshi's event had significant effect on the wiki itself, as he resigned from his administrative rights. It's a somehow bad example. - 12:37, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
 * And..? It still very likely turned off a lot of potential users and may also have annoyed a few veterans, while the event did affect the wiki overall, it was started out of something community based that wasn't related to the editing aspect and should have been brought up on the forum. Glowsquid
 * I don't think so. Also, the "turning off of potential users" is a very weak argument. It is a place for the Main Page talk to announce one's resignation as a sysop/bureaucrat/whatever. - 15:38, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Ahem, I agree that the Main Page should annouce the resignation of someeoen since it affect the editing side of the wiki (Less prevention of vandalism, ect.), however, the original "ZOMG! Wayoshi is Willy!" thing should have been brought up on the forum since it didn't have much to do with the editing aspect. Glowsquid
 * As long as it only concerned the Willy on the Chat, of course. I can never tell them apart, all of those Willys. - 15:43, 1 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Willy = Wayoshi trolling on the chat.

Willy on Wheel = The guy who made an enormemous amount of sockpuppet and vandalised the wiki.

Hope to have helped. Glowsquid

Wayoshi/Willy also hacked into Hk's account and vandalized the main page. 23:44, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

First: When you came to the wiki, was the main page talk the first place you went to? Didn't think so. And second: User talk disscusions are hard to follow, as they cover multiple pages and if you don't know exactly what your looking for, you'll never come accross it randomly. Third: Suppose you are a guest visiting the forums and here about march of the Willys, you've got no clue what it is and it dousn't tell you anywhere, you don't wan't to register just to ask the question, so would probobly you try the main page. Fourth: Please don't say things like; "this probobly stoped a lot of users from registering" you need proof before you say thing like that, and I'm sick of it. And don't bash the comunity side of the wiki, it's rude, and just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's harming the wiki.
 * A reason why I don't comment on the community in any way. You can easily get into flaming. Cobold - the unpleasant welcomer... 14:40, 3 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Oh my gosh Cobold! You do this all the time!  What is wrong with you?  Why can't you just make a comment on the Mario Wiki community?  You are such a jerk and I hate you. -- Son of Suns  And of course I'm kidding - c'mon guys.

Peachy:


 * 1, While it has no 1000% chance of happening, it's till very likely.
 * 2: Belh I guess you are right on that.
 * 3: Duh, it's not my fault if the topic creator isn't clear.
 * 4: Duh, there's no sure way of proving this. But I don't think that seing user flaming the hell out of each-other for thing such as stolen sprite and some guy doing supposely bad thing on the chat is very invitating.
 * 5: I just think that there should be a clear distinction between the community and the editing, the former is slowy taking over the latter.

Glowsquid

Glowsquid has a point, Peachy...

About what?
 * 1: Still, that's not very many people. And I havn't seen much of a problem with this.
 * 2: Yes I am right on that.
 * 3: I still don't know what March of the Willys is.
 * 4: This isn't as big a problem as you make it out to be.
 * 5: No comment.

Glowsquid
 * 1: How can you be sure, if you dismiss my "People may turn back" point by saying we can't be sure, why are you doing the EXACT SAME THING with this point?
 * 3: It was sone guy named "Whilly on Wheel" who made alot of sockpuppet in a very short spase of time and spammed the wiki, clear?
 * 4: Even if it don't mess with the number of users, it still hurt our image as an encyclopedia badly, do you see scientists stopping their research to quarrel about thing like "You stole my pencil!"?


 * 1: It's because I'm a hypocrite.
 * 4: Yes, that is true.

I think you two (Glowsquid and Peachycakes 3.14) are handling this pretty well so far. It's nice to debate. However, I do want to say that I don't think Glowsquid is "bashing" the Mario Wiki community by creating this proposal. Sure he has different values when it comes to the wiki (as do I), but I don't think he hates the community. The fact that he created a proposal to let the community decide shows he values what the community as a whole has to say. If this proposal does not go through, I'm sure Glowsquid will be content knowing the community decided what should happen. And that's all I have to say about that. -- Son of Suns

Please don't mention what happened about me earlier. It still bothers me. Also, I think we should just monitor worthless sections about comics & user stuff and leave it to wiki issues. 20:33, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Ahem, sorry, It's just that the whole event may be perhap the ur-example of unneeded drama into the wiki.

Glowsquid

We shouldn't limmit stuff we can talk about. Sure, things like "Super mario world is the ROXORZ" shouldn't be written, but we shouldn't outright ban all stuff to do with the comunity on the main page.

Ermmm... at the limit, thing involving both the community AND the encyclopedia could be accepted (Such as someone hacking into another user account and messing with it.), however thing like "That guy said something mean on the chat and he hate us all!" shouldn't be brought up on the Main Page talk, we have a forum for this kind of thing. Glowsquid

Move Chat Exclusively to Forum
DO NOT MOVE 4-8

The Super Mario Wiki has two primary functions: one – create the greatest database of Mario knowledge in the world, and two – unite a community of Mario fans to a common place. The wiki has been successful in both areas, although at times these two areas interfere with each other. Users interested in the community have used the encyclopedia as a playground for fun. Issues in the chat have flamed wars in the wiki, etc. This could turn off potential new users, users who could be great writers and know a lot about the Mario series. I think we need to make the distinction between the two functions clearer. Therefore, I am proposing that we move the Chat exclusively to the forum. Since the forum is a seperate website from the main wiki, new users will not encounter all the fighting in the chat, which is easily accessible from the wiki right now. As such, most community related content will be located off the main wiki. The wiki is first and foremost an encyclopedia, and should be treated professionally (but with fun). However, this would not deny community-focused members a forum and chat for their ideas and randomness. The areas will just be more distinct. User sub-pages will still be allowed, so users can still collaborate on comics and stories. I am just tired of problems in the chat affecting the main wiki, when I feel they should be dealt with on the forum where more community related content is located. Sysops can work on the encyclopedia, while moderators can monitor the forum and chat. As such, sysops can hopefully work on the wiki without having to manage community-related problems. Don't get me wrong. Both parts of the wiki are important - but they should not interfere with each other. Right now, I think the chat is one of the main interferences that can be remedied by moving it to the community-based forum.

Proposer: Son of Suns Deadline: October 7, 2007, 15:00

Move Chat to Forum

 * 1) User:Son of Suns - I am the proposer and my reasons are given above.
 * 2) Glowsquid Per SOS.
 * 3) Chat=Much less edits, and per SoS
 * 4) Per Son of Suns

Leave Chat on Wiki

 * 1) No. I personally think it belongs on the Wiki. If I recall, someone has proposed this before, and the outcome ended up keeping it on the Wiki. Also, what Xzelion said makes sense. What you said makes sense as well, but keeping it on the Wiki will attract more members.
 * 2) – the chat will retreat to inactiveness again, which will defeat the secondary purpose of this wiki, partially. Also, who says an upset user is suddenly going to complain in a forum thread instead of user talk by instinct? Most likely, they will think user talk will get an offending user's attention faster than a forum thread – the new messages box is more noticeable than the PM text, thus chat issues and therefore flames will still be brought up. Thus, the overall reason for my oppose is that the move will not correct the current issue.
 * 3) Per Wayoshi.
 * 4) -I don't think moving it will be a difference. There will still be people. Besides, think of the innocent people who will miss out as well.
 * 5) Per Wayoshi.
 * 6) Wht force people to go to the forum when they could do it here?
 * 7) All the reasons above for the chat to stay on MarioWiki.
 * 8) Zach121 Agreed with above the chat should stay

Comments
Only problem about this, is not everyone has an email address (needed to access chat on the forums) and wish to chat are at a crossroads.

wel, it'll prevent spam, and also silver mario! :P


 * I don't see how it would prevent spam.


 * If you need an e-mail to use the forum, it would at least prevent anonymous users from accessing the chat. And by going from the wiki to the forum to the chat, there would be more levels between spammers and the chat. -- Son of Suns
 * Before it was moved to the wiki (though it was only about a day), guests were able to open the chatroom. 23:44, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
 * You needed to be a registered forum member to access the chat.

It might create a bad impression, the forum is a sub-section of the wiki. And if you have to register to do it it might put off those who just want to see what the place is like.
 * Guys, Steve changed it to anyone, logged in or not, could access the chat on the forum. Here is proof. 20:48, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

Fanvotes
TIE 3-3

Okay on several featured article pages there are fan votes, however due to a recent fight this is getting nowhere so let's just have a proposal on it.

Proposer: Deadline: October 8, 2011

Prevent them

 * 1) 100% Unneeded
 * 2) The FA's are supposed to be about the quality of the article, not wether you like the character or not.
 * 3) -Per DP. Remember Doopliss?

Keep Them

 * 1) Son of Suns - How can you prevent a fan vote? Any vote could be a fan vote.  Votes with justification could be fan votes.  Votes with "per so-and-so" could be fan votes.  And since the FA system does not favor a majority, it does not matter.  One oppose will stop a million support votes.
 * 2) - Per SoS.
 * 3) per sos

Comments
Err... We already have proposal about this very matter. - Glowsquid


 * I guess this is against "fan votes" while the other is that support votes need to be justified. So they are a little different. -- Son of Suns


 * Besides, the first proposal isn't written very clearly. - Walkazo

Anyway, I'd also like to say that while fan votes seem a bit arbitrary SOS's point about the FA system not going by majority has stopped me from voting. If the fan votes don't actually effect the outcome, than I don't feel they're doing any real harm. However, I would also like to say that "per so-and-so" isn't a fan vote, it's just saying that the person's voting for the same reason(s) as another person and simply doesn't want to reiterate those reasons. - Walkazo

Well a fen vote is something like "I like Bowser"
 * That's what I'm trying to say basically, though also if there are no reasons given it will be removed. 23:44, 2 October 2007 (EDT)


 * That means all support votes should be removed, as they don't list all the criteria on the FA page (that's all a support vote means without having to rewrite the criteria for every single vote). Some votes even say the article is poor in some criteria - so those would be removed as well (even though Plumber stated that's okay - but no justification is not?).  And once you start removing support votes - well, there will probably be no more FAs for a long long time, as a lot of people vote for both the article and the article's subject.  Those votes push an nomination to the 5 support vote minimum.  And how can you qualify a fan vote?  WaluigiFan voted for the Waluigi article - he hasn't supported any other FA nominations.  Should his vote be removed? I know if see Puprle Yoshi voting for a Yoshi series related article, I will suspect he is only doing so because "Yoshi" is in his user name.  Should his vote be removed?  I don't know - I don't know if he is voting for the character or the article.  No one knows.  Even if they justify the vote with a reason, that does not mean they are voting for the quality of the article.  And that's not a bad thing.  Again, a support vote does not mean the article will become an FA - it is simply a pledge. And Purple Yoshi - the Doopliss article is really really good compared to what it was before.  If a fan hadn't voted for it, it would still be a very very bad article.  But because of a fan vote, the article has been transformed.  It may not be FA quality, but it is getting there, all because of a fan vote.  Fan votes get users excited about working on articles - even experienced users.  When I see the nomination template on the top of an article, if I like that character, I know I will want to work as hard as I can to get the character and the article on the main page.  The ends do justify the means in this case, as fan votes will not automatically given an article FA status, but its nomination via fan votes can get users excited to work on the article, simply because it is their favorite character.  As long as articles are getting better, who cares why they are?  Fan votes should stay.


 * And after all that, I must say I think your main concern with fan votes is the votes from users whose only edit is the FA supprt vote itself. In the  Improvement Drive, I made the rule that you have to have at least one edit that is note a vote somewhere on the wiki.  Something to think about.  -- Son of Suns

Articles on Websites
REMOVE ARTICLES ON WEBSITES 9-3

A while ago, the Smash Bros. DOJO!! article was created. It's, up to now, undecided whether we should create articles on websites.

Proposer: Deadline: Saturday, October 13, 2007, 20:00 (EDT)

Delete articles on Websites

 * 1) - It's useless, the websites are self-explanatory, and we have the Links page.
 * 2) Walkazo - Per Cobald, the information on the Links page is all anyone would need to know until they actually go to the site (however the page could be cleaned up a bit).
 * 3) Per Cobold, and these sites are not part of the Marioverse.
 * 4) Per Cobold.
 * 5) Per Cobold.
 * 6) We have Links...
 * 7) -Per Cobold, you explained it all.
 * 8) Per Cobold. And, in my opinion, websites have too little relation to Mario.
 * 9) Ultimatetoad - Per what everybody else said.

Create articles on Websites

 * 1) Websites give info about games, and are about a certain game, that gives them enough right to have an article. Also, some websites give additional info not found in games, such as Wario's Warehouse.
 * 2) Let only the important ones be created like the Smash Bros Dojo and other important games that everone is talking about
 * 3) Agreed With King Mario
 * 4) User:Gowser YES! There should be. Websites are helpful! We should keep the articles, espicaly DOJO.

Comments
To Uniju: Websites are not part of the Marioverse, but neither are most of the games themselves. Mario and Luigi don't have a copy of Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga at their house. Should we get rid of video game articles then? Websites are sources of canonical information, just like video games are. -- Son of Suns
 * Only some websites are official. For instance, Lemmy Land does have lots of info on some games, but most of it is fanon (fanfiction, fan-made biographies, fan-art, etc.). As for the games themselves not being part of the Marioverse, that's kinda correct, but they do cover Mario and the others' escapdes during a certain period of time. The subject matter of the games is part of the Marioverse, and it's easier to just include them within an article about the game itself (or within an article about a game's level). If we did it otherwise it'd be hard enouph for us to navigate the Wiki, much less newcomers or visitors. -Walkazo

I was only referring to official sites of course. You should know me by now. =P

All I am saying is that we have articles about the official "sources" of the fictional universe, such as games, comics, and movies. Why should that be different for websites? -- Son of Suns


 * I figured you only meant official sites, but I just wanted to make my point about unofficial sites for the sake of clarity (and for everyone who doesn't know you yet). - Walkazo

Okay, what are we? We're a Wiki about the Super Mario Bros. series that goes very in depth. Sources that are not from video games are considered non-canon. No other specifications given that will say anything about websites. So, we're not going to find our answer in that definition. Let's look further: definition of Mario video games -- labors of the developers that provide us with in-universe information. Other mediums, such as TV, are considered non-canon. BINGO! Check it: other mediums -- TV, movies, comics, toys, commercials, magazine articles regarding game storylines, conclusions made and names given in unofficial strategy guides. Wouldn't websites be considered another medium? OH, SNAP! That brings in lots of gray area, don't it? What I would do if I were you is to look at each website and consider: can this be put as a section on a game article (like the zillion websites from Nintendo.com)? Should it be placed as a secondary source on the links page (ie IGN, etc)? Should it get it's own article? Anyway, my opinion about DOJO is that it should be put under the game's article. But I don't favor making a policy for everything! 12:07, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
 * And what would be, according to you, a website worthy of its own article? - 12:12, 8 October 2007 (EDT)


 * I don't think we should put website articles under the games' articles. For DOJO it sounds like it might work since it's only about Super Smash Bros. Brawl, but what about all the other sites which are about many games? Or what about the un-official sites that only include canocal information like The Mushroom Kingdom.net, would we have to leave them out? I feel we should keep all the info on the websites together, like on the Links page. We could always expand the link page to include more info than it already does (though I personally don't feel this is neccesary). In theory it is reasonable to include websites just as we include comics, movies and TV shows; but if we start making articles about Mario websites I'm worried that things are just going to get muddled. - Walkazo
 * Yeah, that's what I'm worried about, too. Too much emphasis on sites would be kind of messy.  And, Cobold, I purposefully didn't mention a site that deserved an article because I don't know of any that do currently.  Anyway, sorry if I offended you, Cobold.  I was in a hurry when I wrote that.  As far as the Dojo article, I would merge it with SSBB, but as far as the Mushroom Kingdom.net, I would put it on the links page with a paragraph blurb, sort of like the article for Dojo is currently.  Then again, I've been on hiatus for some time, so I don't really have much information about the other issues surrounding the Wiki.  17:10, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
 * I don't see from what I should have been offended, so you don't have to worry... ;) - 08:31, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
 * That's good! You know, all this website info could be posted in the game articles under a "Marketing and Promotions" header or something like that.  22:22, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
 * That could work. The information concerning other forms of marketing could be included there too, like all the stuff surrounding Super Mario Bros. 3. ButI still think the majority of the information about all websites should be kept on the Links page. - Walkazo
 * If this is passed, then all the information should at least be on a list, I mean Wario's Warehouse has a trove of information not found elsewhere as the site itself was taken down. 20:21, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
 * As I see it, a "website article" is like the Smash Bros. DOJO!! article, with the statistics and informatipn about the website. Wario's Warehouse is about information released on a website about Wario and Waluigi, so I don't think it really counts as a "website article" and therefore wouldn't be deleted. - Walkazo

Deleting stubs
DO NOT DELETE STUBS 9-5

It seems we have a rule that any new Stub articles are to be deleted. However I think that instead the rewrite template should be placed on the article, and if it isn't rewritten in a certain amount of time, it will be deleted, as simply deleting new Stub articles may discourage some newer users, also having SOME info should be better then having NONE, right?

Proposer: Uniju :D Deadline: Oct. 15, 2007, 20:00

Support

 * 1) I am the proposer, and my reasons are given above.
 * 2) Glowsquid Stub may eb created because the editor don't have much time or there isn't much to say to begin with, I saw perfectly sized and well written articles deleted because of that retarded rule, I still say that one-liner (X is a character in a game, Pirate Goomba is a Pirate Goomba.) should be deleted, thought.
 * 3) Walkazo - Per Uniju and most of what Glowsquid said.
 * 4) Some info is better than none.
 * 5) Deleting stubs should not be brought up because it makes it unfair to other people who can't find information and need more time to do this. Also people can't think of anything to do and my conclusion is in one word which some people would agree to me, time, it is not enough and therefore stubs should not be deleted because of this. This is per to Glowsquid. "Some info is better than none." Peachycakes 3.14 is quite correct. Info is valuable and should not be judged on how little it is. If there is some information, as long as it is worthy information, as long as it is true, it is information and should not be deleted. Therefore, stubs should not be deleted because of the reasons above.
 * 6) Caith_Sith - Per Peachycakes
 * 7) -Per Uniju. We can expand on it anyway. What is maintenance for?
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Snack Per Uniju... Dang, I was going to say something wlse, but I forgot what D: Oh wait, I remembered! I was going to say that if we are going to delete/merge into other articles new stub pages, why not do the same for older stub pages? Would make a lot of sense...

Oppose

 * 1) Stub articles should not be made, full stop. We need a lot of information on the subject, not one or two sentences.
 * 2) You can always find at least five things to say about something, what game it is, what it looks like, etc.
 * 3) Per Plumber
 * 4) Wario Land 3 is labled as an stub, should it get delelted?
 * 5) Per all

Comments
DP, what if its something small that doesn't have a lot of info to put? Should we make some kind of list, "Articles that aren't big enough to be articles"?
 * I am highly against all Stub articles, articles that don't have much information should NOT get their own articles. Unless it is from an unreleased game.
 * Having SOME info is much better then having NONE. Without these articles our encyclopedia is incomplete, who cares if there isn't much info, it still exists, and deserves an encyclopedia entry.
 * I'm not saying they shouldn't be in the Wiki, I'm just saying they should NOT get their own article. Articles that have very little information to offer should not be made into an article, but rather be merged into something that is very closely related.
 * Say its a Mini-Game article, all other mini-games get articles, so why not? Should we have some big list "All mini-game articles that where too small", "All item articles that where too small"? Thats not what encyclopedias should do, we should simply have an entry for everything, no matter how little info there is.
 * The Mini-Game articles are of decent size. And, remember, we said to delete NEW Stubs, not the Stubs already made! Also, those list names are pathetic.
 * They may be pathetic, but their what we would wind up needing. "NEW Stubs" we should be able to make them, as many Mini-Games or Micro-Games would wind up having stub articles. We are an encyclopedia, and should have an entry for everything, no matter how little info there is.


 * However, this also encourages laziness. People can just increase the number of articles they make without putting any actual content in.  And then other users are less likely to put that information in, as the article is already created.  The problem is not that articles don't have enough information, it's that users are too lazy too research the subject in question, thus producing tiny, informationless articles.  Anyone can say a mini-game is from a certain game.  But should that article be allowed, when someone later might actually write everything about the subject?  -- Son of Suns


 * Like I said, IF the article doesn't contain enough information, then a rewrite template should be placed on it, not a deletion tag.


 * That doesn't solve the problem. Users are more likely to create a new article than expand an old one.  So it may be better to allow someone to create an already expanded new article than create one with no information that no one will expand in the future. -- Son of Suns


 * We are a wiki, there shouldn't be such thing as an article no one will expand, theres a lot more editing then creating new articles going on, or will your idea change that eventually?

I'm just pointing out what I have observed after over a year at this wiki. For example, a lot of Super Paper Mario article stubs are still stubs. No one has expanded them. And I do know a lot of users feel special when they create an article. It becomes like a child. You made that before anyone else could! All this shouldn't be the case on the wiki. It's sad that is how people act - any article should be expanded because of an expand tag. But I think a lot of users are attracted to the prospect of creating an article without actually putting the effort into expanding it. Therefore, by deleting new stubs, users will be forced to actually put effort into creating a new article and find a new appreciation for the research needed to create a new article, not the opiate of simply creating a new article. -- Son of Suns


 * Or it could discourage a newer user from creating new articles, this idea can, and often WILL back fire.


 * I think that's the point. Discourage bad new articles.  If new users know they cannot create high quality articles, they can work on other things, not the creation of articles.  That's not a bad thing.  Discouraging users from doing things they are not ready for is not wrong, but forces them in the long run to improve the quality of their edits or work in other spheres.  -- Son of Suns
 * SoS has a very good point. If we do NOT delete New Stub articles, it WILL promote laziness, and encourage others to make incredibly crummy articles. If we delete the New stub articles, then Users will know they CANNOT make crummy articles, and thus, will work hard to make a GOOD article with a lot of information. Uniju, is it also possible that you, and all the people who voted to keep New Stub articles, are also lazy and don't want to make good quality articles?

For me, the problem is not the concept of delleting the stub itself, but rather the "standart" for a stub size. For example, Do-Drop describe the appearance of the creature, it's behavior and where it's found, and yet, it's tagged as a stub. I saw quite a few good article delleted because they were shorter than the average size. However, I agree that one-liner like "Pirate Goomba is a pirate Goomba" or "Elder is a character in Super Mario Rpg: Legend of the Sevens Stars" should be delleted. Glowsquid
 * I agree that Stub Articles shouldn't be deleted just because they don't have as much information pertaining to their subject matter as most articles. As many other users have said before, some info's better than none. However, I don't feel simple one-liners should be deleted. The "Pirate Goomba" artcile can easily be expanded to include what games the character was found in, a picture and/or a description of a Pirate Goomba, etc. Many people oppose letting these one-liners be created because it will supposedly stop other users creating bigger articles, but I doubt this is the case for all users. I.e. before I joined up it'd always drive me crazy to come across stub articles on stuff I knew about and could expand upon. However, when I discovered there was no article on another subject I knew, it didn't get me as riled up: I just figured all the info was part of already-existing articles and didn't warrant getting its own article, and left it at that (though I know better now). I don't know if anyone else shares my (old) way of thinking, but I just thought I'd put it out there. - Walkazo
 * ...Like Glowsquid said, everyone is thinking of stubs as "One-liners" when almost all stubs have a lot more info then that, if an article does not state what game its from, it means that the user who made it most likely never played the game, and only made the article because he/she was browsing the "Wanted Articles List", and say it on there, which almost no one will do.

Just wondering, why do we delete new stubs and not old ones? There's no real difference.
 * The difference is between stubs that have about a paragraph of information as compared to a single sentence. Usually, stub articles start out as sentence long articles and because of the "new" stub articles are often the shortest.  Uniju, would this proposal delete articles like those on the "Game & Watch" series?  If so, I'm against it.  If not, I'm for it.  19:04, 15 October 2007 (EDT)