MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/25

__NEWSECTIONLINK__ 

Allow autoconfirmed users edit other users' userpages
DON'T ALLOW 1-34

Recently I have seen red links, redirect links, etc. on other peoples userpages along with deleted images and I was wondering if us autoconfirmed users can edit their userpages for errors, etc. It really doesn't make sense that only sysops get to edit this so I set up this proposal. Also, on Wikia we get to edit others' userpages along with most other wikis.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Kaptain K. Rool}} Voting start: March 19, 2011 14:30 GMT Deadline: March 26, 2011 3:30 GMT

Support

 * 1) - Because I made this proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) Sysops only edit userpages if they need to. This would let almost anybody put anything on your user page. It's just pointless anyway.
 * 2) - I agree with Yoshiwaker.
 * 3) - Per all. You shouldn't be allowed to mess with other people's userpages.
 * 4) I am Zero! Per all. Zero signing out.
 * 5) Per all
 * 6) Yes, let us support vandalism.
 * 7) - Ask a sysop to fix it. I believe the "Keep Your Hands to Yourself" extension was added to the wiki by Porple because vandals were messing with user pages. It makes complete sense that only sysops and the user that owns the user space gets to edit it. And nobody cares if you can edit others' user pages on Wikia, as we aren't Wikia.
 * 8) No way, I'm sorry, but there's really no reason...
 * 9) Imagine a vandal coming onto your userpage and replacing all of your personal information with fake, unnecessary and inappropriate information that could be offensive to you. This is why only sysops can edit other peoples' userpages. If there's a problem with a userpage, you are expected to ask a sysop to remove it. It only takes a minute to ask.
 * 10) - Per all. Only Sysops can be trusted with these powers. In my opinion, you've made just another proposal to suit your personal wants.
 * 11) Per all. I like how you have control of your userspace and I don't want a vandal messing up my page, even if I can revert it later.
 * 12) I don't want some random person editing my userpage.
 * 13) Per all.
 * 14) - Per all.
 * 15) Per all.
 * 16) Ummmm editing another person's page? Most users are autoconfirmed, and you never know when someone could VANDILIZE!
 * 17) - None of your points is significant enough to outweight the benefits this extention provides.
 * 18) I've just imagined how my userpage was edited…that's……:(
 * 19) I think once a vandal moved a sysops userpage.
 * 20) - Per all.
 * 21) - Per all.
 * 22) - Per Bowser's luma and Yoshidude99.
 * 23) Per all.
 * 24) Only if we autoconfirmed users can ONLY have the ability to remove fake new message boxes, but this is all or nothing, so I say nothing. Per all.
 * 25) - Where to begin...hmmm...oh yes, no! There is too much vandals around the wiki to even let this happen. Not only that, but some users don't want other users putting crap on their page.
 * 26) - Per my comment below and the rest above.
 * 27) - Per all. Plus, why give normal "everyday" users (I guess you could say that) access to editing other users' own pages? If you ask me, that makes no sense.
 * 28) I like my userpage and don't want anyone editing my page.
 * 29) Okay, so if your proposal passes, I'll erase everything and put on it "?". You could lose a lot of data that way. Per all.
 * 30) Aren't talk page messages enough to offer help? "Your link to [Mario]] should really be Mario . Glad I could help." Or would it be better to have your entire user page destroyed except for that one correct Mario link.
 * 31) - Per all.
 * 32) per all
 * 33) Definitely opposing. Having people wreck up your own userpage isn't fun. Why don't inform them about the error on their talk page instead?
 * 34) I hardly have anything on my page but I still don't want someone making changes to it.

Comments
@Yoshiwaker: We can revert vandalism if they do put junk on our userpages and we do need to help the community too.
 * @Kaptain: Is there ever any really good reason to edit someone else's userpage?
 * Err yes... to replace images and fix red links.
 * I don't think that's a very good reason, but I'll just stop arguing because this would go on forever.
 * @Kaptain K. Rool - Well, that may be true, but what happens when some vandal whams your userpage? I mean, do you really want to be constantly looking over your shoulder and reverting edits every other day...? 15:52, 18 March 2011 (EDT)

I think we would need to talk to Steve about this even if the proposal did pass...
 * Also, on Wikia we get to edit others' userpages along with most other wikis
 * How many of these edits are actually good edits? About 1 in 10, I say. Judging from my userpage at Kirby Wikia, those who have edited it besides me have only inserted derogatory remarks or just complete rubbish on it.

Imagine a vandal coming onto your userpage and replacing all of your personal information with fake, unnecessary and inappropriate information that could be offensive to you.

This. What if people go to my user page and say "I hate (insert any Nintendo character here)!"? It offends me a lot when Kirby or Diddy Kong gets insulted.

Basically, if a user page has any red links, let the Sysops handle that stuff. That's why the Sysops are here; if you want a user page fixed, just contact me or any other Sysop.

@Kaptain K. Rool - Adding on to what I said above: you say we need to "help out the community" by "removing red links, redirect links...along with deleted images," but technically, userpages are not really part of the community in this context. Pretty much the whole point of it being your userpage is that it's, well, your userpage. If other people start editing it left and right, then it's not really just yours anymore is it? That's the one thing that sets userpages apart from every other article on this wiki. In your argument, it seems to me that you're almost saying that the prospect of complete (and possibly recurring) userpage obliteration is better than some of the fairly minor problems you list above. Long story short: the only part of the wiki that we are responsible for improving is the articles. 17:48, 19 March 2011 (EDT)
 * Look you're just embarrassing yourself with this proposal. It's not going to pass by any means.

I can see it possibly working if you could lock off sections of a page. Which would be FANTASTIC! for many articles. E.g. All of the stuff like release dates for past games that aren't going to change could be locked off. But until then...No.
 * Once upon a time, I used Wikia. And a tale from my past would have to be when I was trolled there. How was I trolled? Well, a user went to my userpage and repeatedly replaced it with insults.

Caw?
 * Spam?
 * Confused?
 * Without a reason for existence?
 * Guys, please don't leave anymore comments about an insubstantial comment.
 * The third line of text here pretty much makes this entire proposal invalid... 05:25, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

}}

Merge all of King Koopa's alter egos into one article
Merge to King Koopa's alter egos 20-3-0

On The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! King Koopa has many alter egos. These alter egos are just him in a different costume. The costumes don't give him any extra abilities, they are only seen for one episode, and while wearing the costumes, King Koopa is no different from when he's not wearing the costumes. Thus, I propose to merge the alter-egos of King Koopa that currently have an article (Al Koopone, Captain Koopa, Emperor Augustus Septemberus Octoberus Koopa,Kid Koopa, Koopa Khan, Koopa Klaus (alter ego), Moon Man Koopa, and Robo Koopa (alter ego)) into a single article. I'd prefer merging them to King Koopa's alter egos, but I'll also add a section to merge them to Bowser.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Reversinator}} Voting start: March 20, 2011, 15:50 Deadline: March 27, 2011, 23:59 GMT

Merge to King Koopa's alter egos

 * 1) Per my proposal.
 * 2) - Per Reversinator.
 * 3) - Per above.
 * 4) - Per all!
 * 5) Per Bloc Partier.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) If they give no special powers and only appear in one episode, then why have separate articles in the first place?
 * 8) Per Reversinator
 * 9) - Alter egos really don't need their own articles.
 * 10) Per Mariomario64.
 * 11) PER ALL
 * 12) MergemergemergemergemergemergeMERGE! Per all (merge).
 * 13) - Per Reversinator's comment below (the one after mine).
 * 14) good idea. per all. Because they were a separate article to begin with. We can do this now, and then allow another proposal if people really want the page to be part of Bowser.
 * 15) D'accordo
 * 16) per all
 * 17) Per all.
 * 18) I am Zero! what the heck happen to my original vote Per all. Zero signing out.
 * 19) Per all except M&SG
 * 20) per all

Merge to Bowser

 * 1) I honestly think this idea is better. Per a- There's no one above me!
 * 2) Bowser is no different than the alter egos, thus, it should merge to Bowser.
 * 3) Per all? Yeah... but even better you can just add a link that redirects to the alter ego page.

Comments
I agree. Just as how the Super Strikes and Mega Strikes were merged together, these alter egos should be merged together.

How are you planning on merging? Are you going to add a new column to the table, or do something altogether different.
 * I was planning on adding a new column and giving a short description of the alter-ego's role.

Before merging King Koopa, I suggest that you merge Robo Koopa to Robo Suit, because I feel that information belongs there rather than being deleted. Also, what are we going to do with the Featured Article status on Robo Koopa if this proposal passes?
 * The powers of the suit should go there, and like I said before, I'll give a brief summary on King Koopa's alter egos. And if it's merged, there's no point in keeping the FA status.

Although I believe the pages have enough information to stand by themselves, I'll stay open to any opinions before voting, as I never watched The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!.
 * Most of the info is basically the plot of the episode.


 * Will this proposal unfeature Robo Koopa? I'm not sure the articles that will be merged will be the same quality.

While this is going on, how about merging all of the pages on the (sort of borrowing my brother's idea here, please don't add a megabyte of protests to my userpage, again) Super Paper Mario people, and other single-appearance things?


 * @Mpeng What the heck are you even talking about? King Koopa (Or just Bowser) has nothing to do with Super Paper Mario.


 * @UltraMario3000 - Didn't say he was. I guess this isn't the time or place.

I think Robo Koopa should keep its own article, and FA status - if it's long enough and good enough, what's the point of merging and losing a great article. Instead, we can just use. If we merge it, we're bound to lose some information and that's not good for the Wiki.
 * But that would be inconsistent. Besides, all the information can easily be saved. Robo Koopa (episode) already has a complete record of events, so shortening the alter ego's History into a summary isn't an issue. The Trivia about the RoboCop and Terminator reference can also go into the episode page, and the Powers and Abilities chart can go into Robo Suit (along with the other Trivia point about the "destroy you miserable little meddlers" button). So the only thing we'd be losing is an entry in out list of FAs, but that's a small price to pay for a much more efficient and consistent organization of Koopa's 30+ alter egos. -

}}

Merge Minor NPCs with their location
DON'T MERGE 1-16

There are a lot of articles for minor NPCs in RPGs that are too minor to be their own article. I believe we should merge them with the location where they are, so they can be found easily. Also, many of these articles are stubs anyway, so it would also get rid of some stubs.

{{scrollbox|content= Proposer: {{User|Yoshiwaker}} Voting start: March 27, 1:00 GMT Deadline: April 3, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) - Per my proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) Per opposing comments.
 * 2) Per Zero.
 * 3) Per Zero
 * 4) - It might get rid of a few stubs, but it would also get rid of some pretty decent articles. I also think the location articles wouldn't really benefit from having those NPCs slapped on them.
 * 5) No way! Per all!
 * 6) Per Zero.
 * 7) per zero
 * 8) What's your definition of minor NPC? If it's "a character that has little to nothing to do with the main plot", that would include Culex, Jinx, and etc. I don't want any of these merged! If not, let me know in the comments and I'll change my vote.
 * 9) - Per all, including the anti-merging stuff being said in the comments.
 * 10) Per al. Who's al? All.
 * 11) Per All. Even if they are minor and  non-playable, they still are characters. CJARACTERS ARE IMPORTANT, MINOR AND NON-PLAYABLE OR NOT!
 * 12) Per the purple dragon with green hair.
 * 13) Per all.
 * 14) Per Zero.
 * 15) Per Zero's comments.
 * 16) Per Zero.

Comments
I hate the trigger-happy people on this wiki that shout "MERGE!" to all stubs. First of all, at least three hundred articles on this wiki, if not more, are minor characters. That's a lot of articles. Second, while they are minor, they are still characters, and they are officially named, and thus, they deserve an article. Third, how would this be better? I mean, a lot of the minor character articles are actually decently sized, and merging them would require some trimming, thus reducing quality. Fourth, why their location? Considering the amount of minor NPCs in a town, the articles would look cluttered.
 * Also, small articles are not automatically bad: they might not even be stubs if all the information we could possibly find has been added (stubs are pages lacking info). It makes sense to merge characters who are attached at the hip (it cuts down on repetition and may boost comprehensiveness if all the info is together), and sometimes it is done for the sake of organization and consistency (like King Koopa's alter egos), but none of that is applicable to minor NPCs. -
 * I agree with you 100%, though I do find it funny that you made a proposal to merge all the minor Mario Golf characters into one article and now you're against merging minor characters. --Reversinator 22:32, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
 * Really? That must've been a while ago, because I can't remember doing that at all... -
 * Archive 18. I made a mistake though, you only supported it. You were the only one though, aside from Zero. --Reversinator 22:42, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
 * Ah, that makes more sense; I was a big supporter of making big lists of stuff back them, but I was pretty sure I hadn't made any proposals about it (the closest I came to one had something to do with Keys, iirc). Anyway, 2009's ancient history now: I'm not nearly as zealous about merging these days (well, depending on the situation, at least). -

@Reversinator: It's not just because they're stubs, but also that they are EXTREMELY minor. Most of them just say a couple of lines and do nothing else.
 * Walkazo: Didn't you co-write that with SMB? Anyways, to all users, if you see an article marked as a stub and it's off a (as this guy puts it) "minor NPC" then, unless the article has like two sentences or something like that, remove the template. It is the easiest way to get rid of stubs. When I'm bored and looking for something to do, I go to this page and just click random things on the list and get rid of any unnecessary stub templates.
 * Yeah, we were working together on it together, but I didn't think we ever came forward with a proposal, in the end: I got swamped by RL stuff, or something. Anyway, like you said, Stub templates are definitely put on things that aren't stubs all the time and fixing that is a very good thing to do, but I'd like to emphasize that people should look at them on a case-by-case basis (like most things on the wiki, really). One paragraph is probably fine for a lot of NPCs (or whatever), but some "minor" characters could have a lot of random info attached to them, and in those cases, a paragraph might indeed be short-changing the readers, in which case it would be a legitimate stub. Or at least, that's how I look at it. (Also, "minor NPC" has been a term around the wiki for years: this guy didn't come up with it.) -
 * "working together on it together"? Aaanyways, do you think we could make a list of Minor NPCs? It wouldn't (necessarily) have to be in a mainspace article, but I think I'd like a list telling me what is and what isn't a minor NPC.
 * You mean make a category for Minor NPCs?

@MG1: I considor "Minor NPC"s to be characters who do not help you in any way and have no relevance to the plot.
 * @Yoshiwaker: That definition is incredibly vague. What about a character who contributes to a minor side quest only taken upon by completionists, but if you complete that side quest, you can get a hint as to the main plot? That type of character is not uncommon in RPGs, so if I were to support this, I would want to have a clear, concise definition.

At least my proposal to merge all generic humans into one article had more good reasons then just they're all small/stubs and it will look good. Merging them all into a location article is as random as that TPP that wanted to merge Bozzo with Watchitt and NO it will not make the articles nicer, it will make it look cluttered-up, unorganized, and unprofessional. And plus, WE ARE USERS, NOT AMERICANS, what do we do when we notice a list of related articles are stubs, we either add information to expand it or do something to them (like merging) with very good logic and support, we don't lazily decide let's merge them all because I don't know a thing about about the article or I'm too lazy so I'll do the easiest thing that comes to mind without thinking over it. (P.s. No offense, and this wasn't directed only towards the proposer.)


 * "working together on it together"... yeaaah, I was really tired when I wrote that last comment: I'm just glad that was the only mistake ^_^; Anyway, in its strictest sense, I'd say a minor NPC is a character who you don't ever need to interact with in order to complete a game, including side-quests. For example, almost everyone in Category:Flip-Flop_Folk is a "minor NPC", with exceptions like Red and Green (Super Paper Mario), Saffron, Old Man Watchitt, Pook, etc. However, this is just a very basic definition: there's probably lots of exceptions, and any single blanket statement probably isn't the way to go about this; a list in MarioWiki namespace might be a more solid approach, but I don't really see any benefits of it: so we'd know they're "minor NPCs", so what? A basic knowledge of the games should tell people whether or not the pages are lacking info or not and should or shouldn't be labeled as Stubs, so a list isn't needed for that (for example); if we were going to delete all the pages and wanted to show people what not to write about, an inventory would make sense, but if the proposal fails, that's obviously not a factor. A category would not be a good idea, since labeling things as "minor NPCs" is a value judgement; that's okay for deciding what we do behind-the-scenes, but that sorta thing shouldn't go into mainspace: it's akin to speculation. -
 * That was the point I was trying to make. The term "Minor NPCs" is so subjective, there would have to be one concise definition used if we pass this proposal.
 * I think my definition was quite concise. I also clarified/changed the proposal to make it easier to show that the main purpose isn't because of them being stubs.
 * You might want to put your definition right in the proposal itself (so readers don't have to comb through the comments to figure out what exactly will be merged). You should also explain why you think they're too minor for articles: simply saying "There are a lot of articles for minor NPCs in RPGs that are too minor to be their own article[s]." is rather tautological, leaving the "they're stubs" argument as the only thing to go on (the bit about finding things more easily doesn't relate to the "they're too minor for pages" aspect). -

If I'm right on the definition, you want Culex, Jinx and Monstermana merged with Monstro Town, Toadofsky merged with Tadpole Pond and The Sunglasses Salesman and Doot-Doot Sisters merged with Isle Delfino? They have nothing to do with the main plot. }}

Input new rules for name changing
DON'T INPUT 1-19

I used up my 2 chances to change my name, but I find my current name to be too long. I say to increase the number of times we can change our names to three, and place a limit on how many letters, numbers, spaces, etc. to 20. It saves users from making their second (and last) name change, then realizing that the username is too long.

{{scrollbox|Proposer: {{User|DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr.}} Voting start: March 29, 2011 at 21:30 GMT Deadline: April 6, 2011 at 21:30 GMT

Support

 * 1) Isn't it annoying to have to type my long name EVERY SINGLE TIME? Also, the limit prevents people from making really long usernames like "I enjoy Nintendo games so much I like (insert Nintendo series here)! My favorite character is (insert character here)."

Oppose

 * 1) Per my comments.
 * 2) Per FF65 comments.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) i don't think you should change the rules just cause you messed up
 * 5) Per FF65.
 * 6) Per all. Bending the rules so you can change your name? Maybe next time you make an username on something, make it shorter!
 * 7) Per my comment.
 * 8) How does this benefits the wiki? This only helps you. Look, if you really think your name is too long then I suggest to truly show a mod that your name is WAY TOO LONG and must change for one last time to a shorter name. Also, I prefer that it should be illegal to change usernames the wiki, forum is one thing but in the wiki it gets too confusing on who is who.
 * 9) - Per all, including Xzelion in the comments.
 * 10) - Per my comments
 * 11) Your name IS too long, but like Phoenix said, you can't change the rules just because they inconvenience you.
 * 12) Per Zero777.
 * 13) Per Fawfulfury65's comments and Zero777.
 * 14) - Per all.
 * 15) You picked it, your problem. Per all.
 * 16) This looks like a job for Hindsight Man! You should have picked a smaller name. Per those above and below me (if any are below me).
 * 17) Per Iggykoopa, Luigi is OSAM, Zero777 and Ultrahammer5365.
 * 18) Per all.
 * 19) - per all

Comments
So you're basically making this proposal to help yourself change your username? Users shouldn't have to change their username at all, and changing it just causes confusion. Users should know that they should avoid changing their username to something long and that they only have two times to change it.
 * I shortened the title because the old title really expanded the TOC at the top of the page, feel free to change it to another message; just as long as the new message is not a full sentence.


 * Also, my suggestion to you would be to go to your preferences, replace the signature with  (Talk) - then just click the signature button when trying to sign a comment.

I find two changes to be too short. Three should be enough.


 * I don't think so. I'm sorry, but you can't just change the rules simply because they inconvenience you. No offense, but you wouldn't be stuck in this situation if you had read the rules in the first place. 23:02, 29 March 2011 (EDT)

Ya know if you just got rid of your first account and made a new account that would settle that matter easily instead of changing the rules
 * Um, no, that's called sockpuppeting and is completely against the rules: the only time we let people replace their account is if they forget their original password. -

fair enough
 * Name changes are quite the big deal and users should think it through before going ahead with it, also the limit is foolish, you should know when there's too many characters in your name yourself. Should there be a law that you can't chop off your own hand? No, cause it should be common sense. Two is just fine, heck one would be perfectly fine.

My username is long and has the symbol é. That means I can't go here on my laptop and it takes me a little longer to type my name at certain times.

Just a thought, but maybe you could type your username in a blank word document, save it, and just copy and paste it into the login page each time you go to log in. That would be easier.
 * You know, if you get that é symbol once, most browsers (at least ones that I use, such as Firefox and Chrome) will give you the option to remember the username and password.

When you make your name, shoundn't you choose a shorter one? And at Pokémon Trainer Mario, You can click "Remember me on this computer" BTW I'm laptopin, and I Wrote your name!

I'd also like to mention that if we use the 20 character limit mentioned in the proposal, a lot of users will need their usernames to be changed. This just gives bureaucrats a lot of worthless work to do, and it would cause a lot of problems.

You should of been wiser for your username.

It would be worth considering to have a character limit for new users. Old users may keep theirs, and this could prevent problems like this or even some name changes in the first place. But that's only if it is possible.
 * If the number of characters is ever a problem, we will fix it.

Pokémon Trainer Mario, a really easy way to get that "é" in Pokémon is to google "pokemon". The first entry has the word Pokémon with an "é". Just copy and paste it. Volatile Dweevil}}

Make an Article for AR games
Make an Article for AR games 15-0

I think AR games needs a page on here.It has a lot of Mario characters in it No other wiki has a page for AR games,and it's Mario related,so it should have an article. {{scrollbox|1= Proposer: {{User|yoshiyoshiyoshi}} Voting start: April 2, 5:30 GMT Deadline: April 9, 23:59 GMT
 * Mario
 * Cheep-Cheep
 * Blooper
 * Lakitu
 * Fishbone
 * Green Shell(item)

Support

 * 1) - Per my proposal.
 * 2) - WHy don't we have an article for this??? It's Strongly Mario related.
 * 3) Per Luigi is OSAM
 * 4) Per proposal.
 * 5) Per  yoshiyoshiyoshi's proposal.
 * 6) This proposal isn't even necessary. You can just create an article and see how that goes.
 * 7) Per proposal.
 * 8) Per LeftyGreenMario.
 * 9) Per all, but only the Mario related ones.
 * 10) Per Zero.
 * 11) Per Zero.
 * 12) Per Zero.
 * 13) Per all and myself!
 * 14) Per all.
 * 15) Per yoshiyoshiyoshi, Luigi is OSAM, LeftyGreenMario, Zero777 and others who have good idea for supporting.

Comments
What the heck is an AR game?
 * It's one of the new things bundled with the 3DS. this site has some articles that mention it, including their most recent article on the 3DS. Oh, and yoshix3, I agree, the AR cards have a variety of uses, and we could make an article on the Mario related ones.

Fishing is highly Mario related(you can catch Mario stuff) and Star Pics has Mario in it so i think we should make an article on AR games itself and those 2

I still don't know what's an AR game because the website is too vague on what it specifically is.
 * AR stands for augmented reality. The second image in the Wikipedia article is (in my opinion) the best way to describe it.

On the 3ds,there are these special cards,and you look at them in the camera and it makes it look like things are appearing wherever you have the camera.its kind of like virtual reality,but the opposite http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FZP2jvNljs

Oh now I know what you are talking about. I think it's best to make one article for this, because the cards are too simple for them to have their own separate articles.

If there aren't more AR cards coming, maybe it would be best to have them in the 3DS article?
 * I'd be happy with having them in the 3DS article or their own article, but there are a bunch of Mario-related minigames in there, and they need to be mentioned.
 * I'd go with both and use the template.

}}

Remove certain entries in "References in Other Games" sections
Remove Entries 13-0

On most of the articles about games, there is a "References in Other Games" section that lists games that reference that game. What's the problem? If an enemy is introduced in one game, and then that enemy is used in a future game, it is considered a reference to the former game. May I ask why? If an enemy appears in another game, that means it is a recurring enemy. The first game just introduced it. {{scrollbox|1=

Proposer: {{User|Reversinator}} Voting start: 5 April, 2011, 10:15 Deadline: 12 April, 2011, 23:59 GMT.

Delete those entries

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) It should only have real references.
 * 3) Per proposal. If we were going to allow an enemy that debuts in a game to be considered referenced every time it appears in a game, then, for example, Super Mario Bros. could have a reference section listing every game Goombas appear in, and their role in those games, the same for Koopas, Piranha Plants, etc. It doesn't make any sense, and is not really a reference. If a spin-off series mentions something from a game (eg: a sticker in SSBB), then it could be considered a reference because that is (at least partially) intended to be a reference.
 * 4) Per all however i do feel that it is a reference when something like a Spike reappears or if say Phanto or the Goomba's Shoe ever came back
 * 5) Lose it! Per all if you please.
 * 6) Per Bop1996.
 * 7) Enemies returning aren't really a reference to any other game if they're in the same series. Keep the ACTUAL references.
 * 8) Per Bop1996 and Zero777.
 * 9) Per Zero.
 * 10) Per Bop1996.
 * 11) Per Bop and those who "per" him.
 * 12) I did remove this information before. Besides, this is inconsistent if we do have it. Why can't we put Goomba and Koopa Troopas as references to Super Mario Bros. in every darn game they appeared in? What makes other enemies, such as Freezies and Sidesteppers? If this warrants to enemies, I think this should be extended to items as well, such as the POW block.
 * 13) per Zero
 * 14) Per proposal.

Comments
But it technically could be a reference to the game since it debuted in an earlier game

Um, I don't think this warrants a proposal. I've seen people deleting those entries lately such as Marioguy1 in something about Freezies and stuff. I've deleted several of these myself.
 * Might as well make one in case someone disagrees.

@Reversinator: Which types of entries are you proposing to delete? You mentioned one example, and while it makes sense, you have not specified which sections specifically you want deleted.
 * This proposal is to remove certain entries in "References in other games" sections, not entire sections. I'm talking about removing any entires that say "This enemy reappeared in this game".
 * Only those or other entries?
 * Maybe if the enemy is minor enough, it can stay referenced. If the Stus from SMS return in another game, that references SMS and Gooper Blooper in Mario Power Tennis is a reference to SMS because he was new and therefore minor back then. Keep that in mind before this passes.
 * If it was clear that it was meant to be a reference, then I'll keep it.

References are not that simple; if they were, a concise rule set would be developed already. But as we do not know what Nintendo was thinking, we can't do this. I definitely don't think that every game with a Goomba in it is a reference to SMB, or that every game with Mario is a reference to the original DK. But sometimes when enemies appear, it is a reference (i.e. Dino Piranha in SMG is referenced by Peewee Piranha in SMG2 (sorry, couldn't think of anything better)). So it's complicated. And then, to make matters more complicated - music. Sometimes music is remixed music from another game, sometimes it's the same, sometimes it's different, but we can't be sure whether music that sounds like it's from SMB3 is actually a reference to SMB3 or they just ran out of sound files so they remixed something. Like I said, the references to other games sections are very complicated.
 * I agree with Marioguy. Nintendo seems to love including nostalgic references to other games, and then not specifying whether it is a reference or not. Where does that leave us? It seems that this is going to be a case-by-case situation. However, I feel that this discussion is clouding the issue a bit.

}}

Split Category:Donkey Kong Levels into Separate Categories
DON'T SPLIT 21-24

This is my first proposal. There are many games in the Donkey Kong series. The category, Donkey Kong Levels, there is too much content. It has about 5 different games in one category. I think we should make categories for each game. For example,  Category:Donkey Kong Country Levels , etc. It would be easier to find levels and it wouldn't take up 2 pages! We should make one for every game such as Donkey Kong Country 2, Donkey Kong Country 3, DK: King of Swing, etc. It just seems easier to navigate levels. We should also delete the original one if we make other categories. I will add a section for making new categories and I will add one for keep the original one as is.

{{scrollbox|Proposer: {{User|DKPetey99}} Voting start: March 23, 2011 20:51 Deadline: March 31, 2011, 23:59 GMT Extended: April 7, 2011, 23:59 GMT, April 14, 2011, 23:59 GMT

Make a New Category

 * 1) - It is my proposal and I think it would help the wiki and other users by making it simple to navigate levels by games.
 * 2) - That sounds like a good idea.
 * 3) - Per M&SG.
 * 4) Per proposer.
 * 5) Love it! Per SW and Kaptain K. Rool!
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) That'd make it more simple. Per all.
 * 8) We don't have all the Mario games levels in one category.
 * 9) Per Magikrazy51.
 * 10) Per Magikrazy51 also.
 * 11) Per All
 * 12) Per All
 * 13) Per All.
 * 14) Per all.
 * 15) Why not? Per all
 * 16) Per all.
 * 17) Per all.
 * 18) Per all.
 * 19) Per all.
 * 20) Per DKPetey99.
 * 21) Per all

Keep Original Category

 * 1) - Just use the games' navigation templates: they're supposed to have all the levels listed, and generally they'll be arranged by world, which is a much better way to organize the levels than the alphabetical categories. It's better if all games, DK or otherwise, simply have general categories for all their subjects.
 * 2) Per Walkazo. I don't see why this is necessary.
 * 3) - Per Walkazo and Fawfulfury65's comment below (although FF65 hasn't voted yet).
 * 4) - Is this really necessary? It's sort of like going to the characters catagory and complaining about how they don't have a catagory for just characters from cirtian games. I mean, if you know your alphabet, it should be pretty easy.
 * 5) - per Walkazo and isnt Donkey Kong technically it's own franchise
 * 6) - per all.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) - Per Walkazo above and Fawfulfury65 below.
 * 9) - Per all.
 * 10) - Per Walkazo.
 * 11) Per my comments and everyone else.
 * 12) Per all.
 * 13) Per all.
 * 14) - Per Walkazo and FF65.
 * 15) - Per all.
 * 16) – Per all.
 * 17) - per all
 * 18) - I believe that we tried to get rid of categories that list things that should be in a navbox. That's my way of saying "per Walkazo".
 * 19) - Per Walkazo
 * 20) - per all
 * 21) - per Walkazo.
 * 22) - Per all
 * 23) - Per all
 * 24) If a giant list sounds cumbersome, good old CTRL + F will help. Otherwise, I do not find this proposal necessary. The category is general, but it is not so vague that we need to make subcategories out of it. That's what it sounds like to me anyway. This is a per all war, isn't it?

Comments
We shouldn't delete the Donkey Kong levels category because it can be useful in finding many DK levels. Also, if we really want to find information about a Donkey Kong Country 2 level or something, why can't we just look in Category:Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest, or the category for any other game? There's also templates that you can use to easily find levels in one of those games.

MS&G: You know your vote is invalid. You can't simply say, "Good idea" if you want to support.

BabyLuigionfire why can't you just because you have nothing new to add doesnt mean it isnt valid other wise like 20 votes from other propsals that say per all


 * If anyone has an idea about improving the wiki or managing its community, but feels that they need community approval before acting upon that idea, they may make a proposal about it. They must have a strong argument supporting their idea and be willing to discuss it in detail with the other users, who will then vote about whether or not they think the idea should be used. Simply saying "Good idea!" is NOT a strong argument. And please don't backsass me like that, it's very rude.


 * @Iggykoopa it doesn't matter that it has its own Franchise, the categories should be made into games

Baby luigi on fire the rules state that Every vote should have a reason accompanying it. Agreeing with or seconding a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted.
 * That is still not a strong reason. I suggest the very least was to "per" the user. And leaving a vote blank in the support section is still an agreement, but we still delete it anyway since the reason is not strong enough.

Like I, said in the opposing section, "WE DONT HAVE ALL THE MARIO GAMES LEVELS IN ONE CATEGORY!".
 * @Magikrazy this proposal is to split the enemies catagory of DKC, not the game catagories.
 * Actually, it's for the levels in the game. Read the proposal, we were both wrong.

@Babyluigionfire how is saying per all not the same as saying good idea #
 * Because saying "per all" is like repeating what the users said. Saying "good idea" is just as good as saying nothing when you support/oppose. However, I sometimes see "per all" votes with severe skepticism.

Babyluigionfire how is saying per all any different than saying good idea when your agreeing with a proposal
 * Per all means, "I would say the same thing as everyone else, but it would take up extra space and time." It takes up less time if you read through the votes and say, "Hmm, I agree with what (insert one to three users here) says, so I'll say per all and reference all those votes at once." However, sometimes per all votes are used lightly, which is what I think BLOF said, mostly in cases where there was no vote that had complete reasoning.

im confused are there votes invalid are not?
 * The ones that say "I like this idea" or "This sounds like a good idea" have no substance, so a sysop may decide to remove them. The votes that say "Per all" are perfectly valid, so long as someone out there said something valid.

Speaking of that... @Lucas777123: You vote is invalid. Please add a reason on why you think this is a good idea, or I'll remove your vote.
 * @YoshiGo99: Your vote is equivalent to Lucas777123's vote. Lucas has been warned already, so you should change your vote too.

I think to split the category, because to those who oppose, and this is soley my thought, but: It's like saying let's merge all of the Mario series levels into one category, and list all of them in one category. Then, we list all hte levels, under one category.
 * It took me a while to understand what you were saying. If you are saying what I think you are saying, which is that if we keep the levels from one series merged, we will eventually list all the levels on the wiki in one category, that is the wrong way to argue. It's known as "slippery slope", and it's when you extrapolate a disastrous outcome eventually based off one or two plausible extrapolations. If not, it's probably circular reasoning, which is self-explanatory.

And you gotta support me, too! It seems like some people are supporting this just because they were asked to. That's just what it looks like to me.
 * Asking people to vote is fine, and telling people that their objection to a proposal or FA suggestion has been fixed is fine, but I think I saw a sysop ask someone not to ask people to vote a specific side, and promising to do something in return is a little suspicious...
 * Which sysyop?
 * Not sure, I was looking through a bunch of talk pages this morning, but I think I saw it discouraged. Anyway, it's probably not a good idea to ask people to vote a certain side unless you direct them to a reason seen on the proposal. If you just say "vote support" or "please oppose" it could discourage people to read the proposal and see the arguments against... Not suggesting anything, but it doesn't seem like the greatest idea...

I greatly discourage anyone to tell another user to vote on a certain side. Supporting a proposal because someone told you to is a horrible idea, but I do feel that some users have been doing this, since a lot of the supporters have been asked to support it. I hope that all of the voters have read through the proposal, thought about it, and have read through the opinions of others, because if not, we may not have what's best for the Wiki. Asking them to vote for the proposal is OK, though, as they might not feel forced to vote on the side they were told.
 * Per FF65. It would really suck if a proposal passed simply because the people supporting it had more friends, and I'd also prefer it if people don't go soliciting support from their buddies, but there's no rule or anything saying that you absolutely cannot do that. If "friend votes" start becoming disruptive, the admins might have to become more aggressive about dissuading this behaviour, but hopefully it won't come to that. We can also hope that the friends at least vote based on how they personally feel about a proposal, even if the only reason they're checking it out is because they were called over by their pal. -

I agree with this, and Im all for FF65. I think it isn't a good thing, that you vote on a certain side, because someone told you; DKPetey99 has done a good job not telling other people to vote support: Me and my bro. both got messages saying to vote on his proposal, but didn't say which side. We both simply voted support, because we had a discussion on what we think is best. I greatly discourage any favors, or things a sysop, or anyone, to do so they get the most support/no support. This is a fair Proposal, if the issue with the one sysop wasn't happening with this proposal that is...

D'oh. Got the date mixed up, thought it was over. (Mortified expression) }}

Apply new procedures for naming Starting Planets
DON'T APPLY 11-14

I apologize in advance to those of you who disapprove of this proposal, but it's my humble opinion that the Starting Planets in all the galaxy articles need actual names besides, well, "Starting Planet." From my standpoint, giving them all the name of "Starting Planet" is needlessly pigeonholing 91 different planets for the galaxy articles, when they could all be named something much better. In fact, I have already been to several galaxy articles where I found that this trend wasn't being followed anyway, as some are completely lacking planets that are referred to as the "Starting Planet," and others simply refer to the first planet encountered as "________ Planet (Starting Planet)." In addition, on the Melty Molten Galaxy article, we've got the main planet marked as the Starting Planet, and then five lines down where the other areas embedded in the main planet are discussed, it is now referred to as the "Lava Planet!" Therefore (as somewhat of a remedy to such inconsistencies and confusion), I propose that we keep the planets labeled as Starting Planets, but do so in such a way that we also give them names as well; i.e., label them all as "_______ Planet (Starting Planet)" on every article. I mean, really, there's no reason why we can't do both, right? Thus, nothing important will actually be taken out of the article, and the only thing that should happen will be that the names of all the starting planets in each galaxy become clearer and easier to understand. If this proposal does pass, I will personally take it upon myself to go around to each of the Starting Planets and implement the necessary changes.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Phoenix}} Voting start: April 7, 2011, 06:00 GMT. Deadline: April 14, 2011 April 21, 2011, 23:59 GMT.

Support

 * 1) Per myself.
 * 2) Per Phoenix.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) Per all
 * 5) Per Phoenix.
 * 6) I like this Per all.
 * 7) - Per Phoenix!
 * 8) Per Fenix Phoenix.
 * 9) Per Phoenix. I am willing to help modify the articles.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Per all

Oppose

 * 1) - Per me in the comments section. This proposal will help a grand total of two galaxy articles; while it will hinder all the rest of them. I think that the bad outweighs the good in this situation.
 * 2) I don't see the need for this change
 * 3) After watching the back and forth in the comments section, I decided on which side was right. Per Marioguy. Whenever I read a galaxy article, as soon as I see the name "Starting Planet" I know exactly which planet it is, and where in the galaxy it appeared. Starting Planet is a perfectly good name, except in the Dreadnought and Space Junk Galaxies. Imagine, if this proposal passes, the starting planet for the Tall Trunk Galaxy could be named "Giant Tree Planet {Starting Planet}," and this name does a much worse job than just "Starting Planet." To summarize, the name change is unnecessary, and would only help two articles, whereas we have a perfectly good name for the starting planet on 95% of the galaxy articles.
 * 4) Per Bop. His speech deserves this.
 * 5) Per Marioguy1.
 * 6) I have to say, even though I do not lurk in the Galaxy level articles too much, if this proposal only helps a meager 2 articles while giving us more work overall, then the proposal should apply to the two articles, not all of them.
 * 7) Even though I see this proposal has good intentions, I just don't see it working out. Per all.
 * 8) Per all the ranting of MG1 in the comments. ;)
 * 9) - Per all. However, truth be told, I'd rather just see all the planet sections removed, and their info folded into the missions. I think the articles would look better without 'em: no conjectural headers at all, less repetition, less clutter in the TOC, etc. Besides, we don't bother making sections for every little bit of the SMS Isle Delfino levels or SM65 painting worlds: unnamed chunks of space rock vs. unnamed geographical features - what's the difference?
 * 10) - Per all, it is just too much of an hassle to do it for like two articles.
 * 11) - Per all.
 * 12) - Per Marioguy1.
 * 13) - Per all.
 * 14) Per all.

Comments
This will create conjectural titles for the planets, no?


 * Well yes, but we've already got conjectural names for all the other planets in every galaxy (which collectively greatly outnumber the total of Starting Planets for each galaxy), why should this be any different? That's what we've got for. Also, calling them "Starting Planet" is still technically giving them a conjectural name anyway. So, since all the planet names are already conjectural, we can do whatever we want with them, u know? It's not like the names of the planets in question have all been confirmed as "Starting Planet" and we're changing them just to change them...  18:59, 6 April 2011 (EDT)


 * Does it matter? Almost every planet mentioned in the articles on the various galaxies has a conjectural name.


 * The comment wasn't directed toward you or to the proposal. It's a reply to LGM's question, essentially stating that whether or not renaming the Starting Planets makes their names conjectural doesn't matter, since almost every other planet has a conjectural name. I've got no problems with this proposal.


 * No no no, you misunderstood me: I wasn't talking to you, I was replying to his comment as well, I actually started typing it in before ur comment was there, but that's just how it appeared when I saved the page... :) 19:24, 6 April 2011 (EDT)
 * Conjectural titles are...well, just that! Conjectural. Conjecture means that the title is not officially confirmed and is what we are using to help people identify the object/place/character/whatever. Which means that, naturally, we need to be as accurate as possible. What seems like a "cool name" or what is "consistent" doesn't really apply in this scenario as we are trying to be as descriptive as possible in as few words as possible. Naturally this applies to the term "Starting Planet" - it contains two words and if anyone could please show me one instance where it could possibly apply to more than one planet (AKA not be specific), then I would love to see it (aside from comets; which bend reality to make it more convenient for the challenge at hand). But since there is only one planet that you start on, I'd say that the term "starting planet" pretty much narrows it down perfectly...

@Phoenix I see. Sorry about the confusion.


 * @Marioguy1 - Well, actually, that happens in the second mission of the Honeyhop Galaxy ("The Chimp's Score Challenge"), in which the player begins the mission on the "Queen Bee Planet" as opposed to the so-called "Starting Planet." Although this level does involve The Chimp challenging the player, it is not a Prankster Comet mission. This is also true in the Space Junk Galaxy: the player starts the first mission on the "Starting Planet," and starts the next two missions on a yellow Starshroom. None of these missions involve Prankster Comets either. Lastly, there's the Dreadnought Galaxy, where the player actually starts on three different planets, one for each of the galaxy's three main missions. Only one planet in the article is marked as the starting planet, and it's none of these three...


 * Anyway, I'm not making this proposal just so that every planet will have a cool name just for the sake of having a cool name; I just think that we've become too wrapped up in our own policies and classifications. I mean, what about galaxies like the Flipswitch Galaxy, the Drip Drop Galaxy, the Bigmouth Galaxy, and the Stone Cyclone Galaxy, all of which only consist of one accessible planet? The accessible planets in these galaxies are all called the "Starting Planet," which is all well and good, until one considers the fact that it's the only planet in the entire galaxy, so though one starts there in the mission(s), there are no other planets to go to after it, so where does it lead? For all intents and purposes, one may now call it the "Ending Planet" instead.


 * Then there are galaxies like the Throwback Galaxy, that use "Starting Planet" to describe the first planet, when a perfectly acceptable name has already been given to it previously (Whomp's Fortress). In this case, we've actually got a conjectural name where a confirmed name could easily be implemented instead. If this proposal did pass, we could now get rid of at least one conjectural name in favor of one that we know for a fact is correct.


 * Then we've got galaxies like the Beat Block Galaxy and the Rolling Coaster Galaxy. The former deals with more of a starting path than a starting planet, and the latter is just one big long track leading to a very small separate planet at the end. Are we really going to classify something that comprises 99% of the entire galaxy as the "Starting Planet" just because the whole thing is connected? Normally, when Mario leaves the "Starting Planet" of a galaxy, he is at least relatively close to the beginning of a mission. When the player leaves the "Starting Planet" in this galaxy, they are essentially already at the end of the mission! Anyone else see a problem here?


 * This is why the amount of space in a galaxy that is implied by the term "Starting Planet" is far too narrow, and can be extremely misleading; the first planet or area encountered in a galaxy could be anything from the smallest possible planet you could think of to something that takes up almost the entire galaxy. It would therefore be inappropriate to describe the first planet or area encountered in every galaxy as the "Starting Planet" or "Starting Area." Normal planet names do not imply anything about the amount of space taken up in the area in which they are positioned, they simply state what is there. The passing of this proposal will prevent problems such as long paths or other areas with long expanses in certain galaxies being incorrectly labeled as the "Starting Planet." 02:34, 7 April 2011 (EDT)

Replying to his comment? Are you talking about me?

...uh...yes...you're not a boy, are you? 20:09, 7 April 2011 (EDT)


 * First off, I see what you mean in the cases of the Dreadnought and Space Junk Galaxies (however in the Honeyhop one, the Chimp's mission would fall under what I was implying by "prankster comet") and I think possible exceptions could be made for those galaxies. However what this proposal will do is (a) legitimize and (b) encourage users to change the names of the beginning planets on all other 40 or so galaxies which do no follow that standard. That will cause confusion as to which planet is which. Having a consistent, accurate, precedent will allow all people surfing the galaxy articles to identify the planets labeled "starting planet" with much less difficulty than if we were to use a randomized system of people selecting the most accurate name they can think of; an action that this proposal will inevitably cause.


 * Second, in the case of the Galaxies with only one planet, we could choose one of either two things. The common, aforementioned, precedent of "starting planet" would be most convenient due to the aforementioned points of consistency, accuracy, etc.. However if you really wish to press forward with the point that the only planet in the galaxy does not require any form of identification as it is one of a kind (which really only eliminates the point of accuracy, consistency and ease of location still remain), then I would consider supporting a proposal which is worded so that it achieves that purpose. However this proposal is generalizing all galaxies, not just the ones with one planet or multiple starting planets (of which, only the cases where there are multiple starting planets require a different name for planets where Mario begins).


 * Third, the meaning of "starting planet" is irrelevant to the percentage of the galaxy/mission that it comprises. If people wish to have a stereotypical mindset that the starting planet must be near the beginning of the level, then so be it. However that does not make it true; the starting planet could refer to any amount of space in a level - up to the end of the level in fact!


 * In conclusion, there are very few cases in which the term "starting planet" would actually fail to achieve the goals that a conjectural title should wish to achieve (accuracy in identification of the character, location or object). So far you have only presented two galaxies where this proposal would improve the quality of the articles, Space Junk Galaxy/Dreadnought Galaxy, and on the contrary, this proposal will decrease the quality of all other galaxy articles. If you can prove that there is any trouble identifying a "starting planet" in a majority of galaxies then I would support this proposal. As is, I will only support if this proposal is reworded to only refer to those galaxies where there are multiple starting planets OR, possibly, the galaxies where there is only one planet total.


 * tl;dr: You have only shown two examples of where this proposal will help us more accurately define a planet (the Dreadnought and Space Junk galaxies) and if you read the long post above, you will see the reasons why I say that it does the opposite to all other planets. So if you reword the proposal to only affect those two planets, I will support. I am also willing to negotiate the galaxies with only one planet in them.


 * Assuming that's not directed at me...
 * It isn't. Phoenix thought LGM was a boy.


 * @Marioguy1 (again) - Okay, I'll admit that you make a lot of valid points, but you also say that "this proposal will inevitably cause" people to "...use a randomized system of people selecting the most accurate name they can think of..." While this may partly be true, I'm also proposing that we leave (Starting Planet) next to the new names of the planets in addition to the name change. Also, I don't really think that anyone will have to go through too much trouble to "identify the planets labeled 'starting planet' with much less difficulty," as these planets are always the first planet that is seen in the list of planets for a galaxy, so it should be pretty easy to spot. This fact, together with the (Starting Planet) that I'm proposing we leave there, should make these planets relatively obvious.


 * In addition, you also say that the proposal will "encourage users to change the names of the beginning planets on all other 40 or so galaxies which do no follow that standard. That will cause confusion as to which planet is which." It seems to me that no greater confusion will arise as a result of the passing of this proposal than has already been caused by the continual name-changing of almost every planet on the majority of the galaxy articles by users. That is to say, users often take it upon themselves to randomly change the names of many of the other planets in galaxy articles without warning regardless. These sporadic decisions are often based, at least from my perspective, solely on the decision that a new name would better describe the planet than the previous one. Though this is seemingly helpful to the article in the long run, when the names of many planets on galaxy articles are constantly changing, it can be extremely confusing to readers. My point is that users are going to be constantly changing the names of planets or areas in galaxies regardless of whether this proposal passes or not, simply because one may invent a better or more-fitting title as time goes on. I'm sure that the passing (or lack thereof) of this proposal will not in any way encourage users to change the names of planets more frequently than they already have in the past, and are currently. 21:20, 7 April 2011 (EDT)
 * @Phoenix (encore): Adding the (Starting Planet) in brackets just seems like we are putting the other name of the planet there to make the planet's name sound cool - the "Starting Planet" is the only part that is necessary, and when writing conjectural titles, useless fluff that "sounds cool" is not included. And the list order helps, but sometimes editors to the article may become confused while editing when the planet is not clearly labeled.


 * As to your second point, maybe this proposal should be changed to reflect a solution to that problem. As what you are proposing will definitely not fix that problem - it might even do the opposite (in giving users another planet to enact their constant renaming of planets on). Maybe this proposal should be "lock all conjectural titles until an agreement is reached on the talk page" - I would support that. But as is, all your proposal does, which I repeat from above, is help identify the planets in the Space Junk and Dreadnought galaxies.


 * How come the other planets have "fluff" names then? Couldn't they just be called "second planet" and "third planet" and so on? Volatile Dweevil


 * That's exactly my point! If the other planets all have "actual" names, then why not the "Starting Planets" as well? But to maintain their given position as the first planets in a galaxy, we leave (Starting Planet) next to their new name...simple. 15:47, 8 April 2011 (EDT)

I'm wondering, but are there any levels that go in a slightly different sequence of planets? Then, the names for the planets (planet 1, planet 2, etc.) would get messed up.
 * @Volatile Dweevil: Because almost no galaxies actually have that linear format. Most galaxies begin on only one planet, there only being ~2/40 exceptions. However if we make it Planet 1, Planet 2, Planet 3, we will have the naming conflict problem with ~30/40 galaxies; which is a significantly greater percentage (5% < 75%). If it were possible to have Planet 1, Planet 2, Planet 3, etc. in a non-confusing way then I'd be all for it! Unfortunately here the con outweighs the pro (the opposite of the scenario with "starting planet").


 * @Phoenix: So you want us to go through all the galaxies in the entire two games and rename all of them, taking time and arguing choices for names, causing a loop of people changing the names to what they feel would be best (which you have already complained about) just because you want the names to sound cool? Is that really why you are causing such major changes? Because I see no other points to the positive.


 * @Marioguy (redux) - Well, no. If you review my prior arguments, I have never once actually used the word "cool." I am not proposing 91 name changes so that every planet will have a cool name as opposed to "Starting Planet." I'm doing this because I feel that we could maintain some semblance of order while simultaneously giving the planets names that will not completely ostracize them from the rest of the planets in the article. I mean, if all we're going to do here is name planets for where they are in the galaxy and what they do for the particular mission they are encountered in, we may as well count the number of planets in each mission, and then give the name "Middle Planet" to whatever planet happens to be in the middle, or give the name "Ending Planet" to the last planet encountered in the galaxies in which missions always end on the same planet.


 * Regarding the part about "causing a loop of people changing the names to what they feel would be best," what I was trying to say yesterday was that if this was to pass, we would not be creating a whole new set of problems; people are already erratically changing planet names as they see fit and would still be doing so daily even if this proposal had never existed. It would be a very different scenario if I had proposed, for instance, that the conjectural names of all the glitches for several games be immediately changed, which may cause users to flock to those articles and repeatedly change every name to what each one personally desired them to be, thereby creating a whole new cycle of name changes where there had been none before. I highly doubt that changing the name of one planet per each individual galaxy article will draw an overabundance of attention, let alone create a major disturbance across every article. The end justifies the means. 21:58, 8 April 2011 (EDT)
 * @Phoenix: OK, so if the "cool name" thing is false, then I see absolutely no points for enacting this change. And I would not have any problem with "Ending Planet" - however the "Middle Planet" would have to be the middle of the level which could be complicated to find.


 * And regarding the "loop" again, what I am trying to say is that this will cause a commotion while users are trying to find new names for the previously-named "Starting Planets". I think this will just be a useless change, will give no benefit and will just cause confusion in the one part of the galaxy articles that is actually static.


 * @Marioguy - Wait a minute though, why are you using the fact that I don't want every Starting Planet to have a "cool" name as the basis for your reasoning that the proposal is now invalid? I thought one of the biggest problems that you had with this proposal in the first place was that I was only renaming the planets to give them "cool" names. If that's the case (the second paragraph about name-changing commotion aside), why are you still saying that you "see absolutely no points for enacting this change" even after I've said otherwise? 23:01, 8 April 2011 (EDT)

@Phoenix: I'm not using that as my basis, my main point here is that this proposal will do absolutely nothing except remove the shred of consistency that remains in these galaxy articles. I have never had a problem with you renaming planets to give them "cool" names; I sure did say that that's horrible reasoning, but I've never said that's why I'm opposing. I'm opposing because this proposal will kill what consistency there is in the articles. And could you please tell me your points? I don't see a place where this proposal would be useful...


 * Okay, when you say "...tell me your points...", are you asking that I reiterate the ultimate goal of my proposal or that I tell you which areas of the galaxy articles I think this proposal would be useful in improving? 00:29, 9 April 2011 (EDT)
 * As long as you mention more than just the dreadnought and Space Junk galaxies, that may be the only way you can convince me.


 * @Bop1996 - Okay, but even if this proposal did pass, you'd still see the name "Starting Planet" when you went to a galaxy article, just in parentheses (not brackets) next to its new name. In response to "know[ing] exactly which planet it is, and where in the galaxy it appeared," I, personally, usually use the picture of the planet next to the name to identify it more than the conjectural name of the planet anyway, and in addition, the name "Starting Planet" really does not describe any particular unique features of the planets to which they apply, like every other planet name does (this is part of the reason why I made this proposal in the first place, because I felt that the "Starting Planets" are as such not easily identified by comparison), which actually makes it harder for readers to know exactly which planet it is, and giving them another name like the other planets helps to describe where it is and what it does, as such names are 1,000x more specific and descriptive than just "Starting Planet." For this reason, I would actually have no problem with the "Starting Planet" in the Tall Trunk Galaxy being named "Giant Tree Planet ( Starting Planet ) ," which actually suits it pretty well (unless someone could possibly think of a better name at some point in the future), and ultimately does a much better job of clarification than just "Starting Planet."


 * Like I was saying in a previous argument of mine (though I'm not really sure I made it that clear), just giving planets names like "Starting Planet," "Middle Planet," or "Ending Planet" does absolutely nothing but describe where it is encountered in a particular mission or galaxy, and at the end of the day just makes is that much harder for people to identify which planet in a galaxy it actually is. Finally, you say that "just because you have conjectural names for eighty percent of the planets in each galaxy doesn't mean that removing the non-conjectural names is a good idea." Well actually, "Starting Planet" is a conjectural name just like all the other planet names that we currently have; if you check, you'll see that the name of every "Starting Planet" is marked with just like every other planet name. So, by the passing of this proposal, we won't be removing any "non-conjectural names," because every planet name is conjectural. We also won't be adding any more conjectural names, and for that matter, we will not be subtracting any conjectural names either; ergo, the number of conjectural names will stay right where it is.  17:40, 10 April 2011 (EDT)


 * @Phoenix: Let me discriminate for a minute here. The term "Starting Planet" is a conjectural name. However, it, unlike at least one title of a planet out there, describes its respective planet perfectly, without any confusion, except in the aforementioned cases of the Dreadnought and Space Junk Galaxies. Relegating it to parentheses and placing a "more descriptive" name in front of it does not help the article in any way that I can see. As for my example, why change the title to "Giant Tree Planet (Starting Planet)," when the planet's section could mention that there is a giant tree on the planet, and the current title describes the planet without any ambiguity whatsoever. Please do not go to the "Well, if mentioning a planet's appearance in the planet's section, not title is fine for Starting Planets, why not do that for all the planets?" argument, as that is easily refuted: Starting Planet is the best conjectural title there is for the starting planet, but since you proved that adding such a title to the rest of the planets does not work, the adjective conjectural names do the best job describing the rest of the planets.

@Bop1996 The right name of this planet is "Tall Trunk Planet," thus the name of the galaxy.


 * I don't really want to discuss which name we would use, that's just an example of how I see that sort of title to do a worse job describing the starting planet only. Not the other planets, just the starting one...

Not sure if this was answered already, but for galaxies that only consist of one planet, we merely split it up into sections, as shown on the Flip-Swap Galaxy and Beat Block Galaxy.


 * @Gamefreak75 - Right, I understand that...what I was talking about when I said "galaxies with one planet" was like the Bigmouth Galaxy, the Drip Drop Galaxy, the Flipswitch Galaxy...you know? I had previously brought up galaxies featuring planets or areas that are extremely long and expansive as a completely separate issue... 01:34, 13 April 2011 (EDT)


 * @LeftyGreenMario - Sigh...I rue the day I ever made the argument proving that there are galaxies in which "Starting Planet" would be ineffective. Truthfully, this will help a great deal more than just two articles, but I think, at this point, what's been said has been said, and that ship has sailed in the eyes if the opposers...anyway, the proposal wouldn't be "giving us more work overall," because really, when put in perspective, the amount of the articles that I'm proposing be changed is a relatively small percentage of the entire information of the article, and also, like I said in my original argument, I would be going around to all of the affected articles and making the necessary changes personally (unless of course someone wanted to help me, which I would never discourage), so I would be taking full responsibility for enacting my proposal, and no one else would even be forced to take part in making changes, unless of course they want to... 01:51, 13 April 2011 (EDT)


 * @Walkazo - I see where you're coming from, but in regards to your argument, therein lies the problem, so to speak; if we had no planet names, each mission section would be, "To start, Mario begins on the first chunk of space rock. Next, he must make his way to the slightly larger chunk of space rock that looks like a castle..." and no one would know what we're talking about... 16:38, 13 April 2011 (EDT)

Disclaimer: I am not trying to be rude by butting in to this discussion, but I had an idea that might solve this problem. @Phoenix: That argument isn't necessarily true, you gave a worst-case scenario for how we could do it if we had no planet sections. @Walkazo: That sparked my curiosity, so I made an edit to my work page seeing how the levels section of the Tall Trunk Galaxy would look without the planets section. I wasn't as descriptive as possible, but that would seem to be the only way to pull it off. I was actually a little confused when I saw your vote, because I remember everyone voting down a proposal to change the planet names to sequential order, but I never heard of removing the planets section altogether. Maybe a proposal after this one is over would be in order.
 * @Bop1996: If it was put in the comments section, anybody can comment on it.
 * @Phoenix: In relation to your comment on LGM's "work" comment; making the edits is only half the work. There are then the people who are going to have to put up with the arguing on what name is "right", there's the admins who are going to have to patrol every single one of these edits, and if it ever expands into an edit war over names, we're going to have ten times as much work cut out for us. Making the edits is definitely not the hardest part.
 * That's good, just thought it was better to ask permission than forgiveness...


 * @Bop1996 - Well, respectfully, it's not exactly a worst-case scenario. Granted, I may have exaggarated slightly to make my point, but the basis of the argument is solid. Giving the planets names does more than just describe them and tell where they are and what they look like, it gives us a solid foundation from which to base the rest of the information in the entire article. Otherwise, in what way are readers supposed to continuously reference at what point the player is in a galaxy? Extrapolation? Just imagine, for a second, if every time a user wished to add an article to any various category, they had to insert the category name on the bottom of the page, and it wouldn't automatically appear in the list of pages for that category, so they would have to manually go to the category page and add it to the list themselves instead. Just imagine how much extra work this would cause as a result. Well, abolishing the planet names leaves us in much the same predicament with every galaxy article.


 * If we have no planet names, there are no planet sections, and so every time a planet is mentioned in the description of a mission / level, the planet must be described all over again (i.e. - continually saying things like "the base of an enormous tree" or "a large log" time and time again instead of just simply saying the "Starting Planet" or the "Log Planet," which are perfectly acceptable planet names that have already been established and need not be eliminated). Not only does this make the descriptions of the missions extremely repetitive, it also makes them needlessly lengthy, especially for missions which involve returning planets or areas from previous missions. Naturally, this entails the galaxies in which every mission starts on the same planet, and since, (as had been repeated many times in the preceding comments) only two galaxies out of the total 91 do not start on the same planet, the other 89 galaxy articles would suffer.


 * If we give each planet a name and a short section describing it, it saves us from having to re-describe each planet every time we mention them in mission descriptions. In this way (I'm just using the red coloring here to keep the words together and make it less confusing), giving planets names is to articles automatically appearing in the list on a category page as referencing planets (and by extention their descriptions at the top of the page as well) in mission descriptions is to putting the category name at the bottom of any page (because if we have planet names and planet descriptions, all we have to do is say the planet name in mission descriptions and everything in the planet's description is automatically implied (and does not need to be explained again), so in effect we are using the planet names in mission descriptions to reference the planet's description, much like one would use the action of putting a category name at the bottom of a page to reference its specific characteristics as being a part of that particular category), which I think we all could agree is considerably easier than having to type out the same information over and over again to achieve exactly the same ends.


 * But I digress; all that now being said, I feel that we're getting way too off topic here...after all, the proposal is about naming the Starting Planets, not about whether or not the planet names should stay... 22:44, 13 April 2011 (EDT)


 * @Marioguy1 - I wasn't trying to say that making the changes are the hardest part, in fact, I believe quite the opposite. I was merely trying to convey to LGM that this proposal is not as negative as people are saying it is, and like I said before, I really don't think, given that the proposal ever passes, that people will be so prone to "jump all over" the galaxy articles the second that the planets have new names, I mean, how many people are that unhappy with the way planets are named to begin with? Plus, lately I haven't seen planet names being changed around nearly as much as they used to be...believe me when I say that I have the utmost respect for the hard work that admins, sysops, bureaucrats, and patrollers successfully do on a daily basis, but respectfully, we can't write off a proposal simply because it has the potential to cause problems, because it also may not cause any problems at all, and how will we know unless we try...? 23:22, 13 April 2011 (EDT)

I agree that is off topic... I was mostly trying to figure out what she was suggesting we do, and how it possibly could be done without being ambiguous or non-descriptive... As such, unless someone makes a proposal to get rid of the planets section, I'm not really into debating this now, unless there really are a lot of people out there who want the planets section removed...
 * I was just pointing out there is a way to get rid of the entire "starting planet" vs. "unique names for all" debate. Anyway, I don't see the category analogy at all, and just because we don't have sections for each planet doesn't mean we can't "unofficially" call them descriptive names: I just think having sections for each one is a bit too much. I.e. for the Tall Trunk Galaxy example, it could be said that Mario goes to "a planet shaped like a log" in the first mission, but from then on, it could just be called "the log planet" and people would understand what you're talking about. SMS and SM64 don't have any problems with missions written in that sorta style. It's just a thought: I'm not up to debating it right now either. -


 * @Walkazo - Well, regarding the comparison to categories, I was just trying to say that naming and describing planets and then referencing the names and descriptions of the planets later on in the mission descriptions is essentially the equivalent of creating a various category, and then later referencing the name of the category at the bottom of an article which the category applies to. In both situations, a larger body of information is referred to via a much smaller word or phrase (i.e. - a category name or a planet name), thereby reducing the need for repetitive and inconsistent information while simultaneously retaining the same amount of source information efficiently (I probably should have worded it like that in the first place, and it might not have been half as confusing, but hopefully that's a little clearer). 10:30, 14 April 2011 (EDT)

I think that since all planets (apart from the starting planet) in most galaies have conjectural names anyway that the starting planet should have a name as well.
 * @Phoenix: I don't believe that you think the edits are the hardest part, I'm pretty sure that you're one of the few people who can actually see how hard an admin's job is; that's exactly why I had to mention it, for all the people who didn't realize that.


 * But aside from that, on the topic of your comment, I think that this propose will cause people to start up in a rage. The rage was quieting down because nobody was paying any attention to the galaxy articles; this proposal will cause 80+ changes to be made to those articles (never mind to the names of planets), drawing in mountains of attention and starting up the process again.


 * Finally I would like to point out that in normal cases, the potential for good would outweigh the bad. But in this case it seems like a whole lot of work to fix up two articles.

I really don't think the amount of work should matter. Our job is to improve the wiki as much as possible. If this proposal will help the wiki (which I personally think it will), then we should pass it, regardless of how much extra work you happen to think it will cause. If this passes, I plan to help with the articles.
 * @Ultrahammer5365: The thing is, it won't. It will just cause extra work, possibly create a lot of articles, ruin the consistency sequence of articles and possibly come up with names that make me laugh (that's not a good thing). The only good things that will come out of it will be in the Space Junk and Dreadnought galaxy articles; two articles which I am planning to fix up as soon as this proposal is over.


 * @Marioguy1 - Well, actually, I was thinking about fixing those (seeing that I discovered that in the first place), but if you want to, I won't object... 00:58, 17 April 2011 (EDT)
 * @Phoenix: I said that to express a point, I really don't care what happens with them; as long as they're fixed.


 * @Marioguy1 - Gotcha. 01:44, 17 April 2011 (EDT)

}}

Split the Category:Implied pages into sections based on the game in which it is implied.
DON'T SPLIT 2-9

I think that the implied pages should be split into sections in-page that allow the viewer to quickly jump to the list in a certain game.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|JayRed2486}} Voting start: April 15, 2011, 17:00 GMT Deadline: April 22, 2011, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) I made this propsal so I am supporting it.
 * 2) Per Preposal!

Oppose

 * 1) Per my comment
 * 2) - Per Zero.
 * 3) Per both!
 * 4) Per the seven-hundred and seventy seven number zeros.
 * 5) There's so many people to per…per 0777's comments.
 * 6) Per the Catholic "Code Geass" fan (Zero).
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Most game sections would just have one implied anyway.
 * 9) I am implying to leave it be.

Comments
Here's my thought, I don't think it's a good idea for several reasons. 1: Categories were meant to be titled vaguely to have dozens of articles linked up to it. 2: it is made vaguely for easy navigation. 3: And the only specification of that category should be implied location, characters, etc., but we already have an article on those so Category:Implied should be left alone. }}

Split the level articles from the world articles and delete the world articles
DON'T SPLIT 1-14

I think it is a good idea to make articles for levels for example an article named World 1-1. {{scrollbox|content= Proposer: {{User|Superfiremario}} Voting Start: April 16, 2011, 20:40 GMT Deadline: April 23, 2011, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Duh, it's my proposal!

Oppose

 * 1) - Per myself! Bowser's Castle is in World 8 in the Super Mario Bros. series, and the Grandmaster Galaxy is in World S in Super Mario Galaxy 2. Keep it!
 * 2) That'd make a lot of disambugation pages, like for 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, and 1-4.
 * 3) Per my comments. If people want information on levels from a specific world in a specific game, they can get all they need from the games' articles. There is no need to make articles on individual levels.
 * 4) Per Nicke8
 * 5) Per Hooktail (aka red dragon).
 * 6) Leave it as is, and I don't think anybody will dedicate that much time.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) - Per all. If we were going to change anything, I'd actually rather go the other way and merge level articles into the worlds, like how the 3D games are done, since that makes navigation way faster and saves on space. In most cases, the levels can be summarized fairly succinctly anyway (remember, we're not a walkthrough, so big detailed descriptions often aren't necessary).
 * 10) Like what you said here, this is useless! :(
 * 11) - Per all.
 * 12) Per Nicke8
 * 13) Per all.
 * 14) - What? Delete the world articles? Are you serious? World articles count and how are we supposed to know which levels belong in which world. Besides, if we delete the world articles, it will take up a lot of red links on the wanted pages. I 100% oppose this and I don't want articles such as Kongo Jungle deleted.

Comments
The dates were all done wrong: this was proposed on the 15th (at 20:43 GMT), so voting starts on the 16th, and ends at 23:59 GMT on the 23rd. I had to remove the opposing votes because voting hasn't actually started yet. Please read the rules before making proposals: Rule 2 explains exactly how to do the dates. -

What are you trying to say? This proposal is WAY TOO VAGUE.
 * Vague? The thing's not even coherent. I assume we're supposed to make an article titled World 1-1 and mention every game that has one. I can't see why that would be useful.
 * Let me rephrase it the way I see it. "Currently all articles on levels are included in a general world; for example, all levels from World 1 are in the same article. I propose that these articles be split off to instead create "World 1-1 (Super Mario Bros.)", "World 2-1 (Super Mario Bros.)", etc."
 * When put that way, the phrasing makes more sense, though the action proposed isn't any more useful.

}}

Split Each Boss Level From Each Boss
DON'T SPLIT 6-17

I notice that most of the bosses in the Donkey Kong series are merged with the levels. The article says how to defeat them in the level, but one of the contents is a boss and the other is a level. To me, those are very different! For example, Congazuma's Castle and Ruined Roost. They are redirected to different contents. Even the K. Rool Duel which is a final boss battle! I was going to do a talk page proposal, but then I realized how many bosses were merged with their levels. It also seems bad because levels in the Yoshi series, such as Gilbert the Gooey's Castle are split from their boss, which is Gilbert the Gooey. I will make a split and a keep section for voting. {{scrollbox|content= Proposer: {{User|DKPetey99}} Voting start: April 16, 2011, 4:00 GMT Deadline: April 23, 2011, 23:59 GMT

Split Boss From Level

 * 1) Per proposal
 * 2) We have Galaxy bosses separate so why not split others?
 * 3) Per Yoshidude99.
 * 4) Per Yoshidude99.
 * 5) Per proposal.
 * 6) Seems like a good idea. I mean, it's not like the boss article and the boss level article will be the exact same, and there wouldn't be any problem with this proposal.

Keep Boss and Level Together

 * 1) Per FF65 and myself in the comments. This proposal would not help in any way that I can see. Instead, we'd either be repeating information, or creating an article on, at least for the DKCR bosses, a small stretch of land with a single Buddy Barrel. Not necessary, or helpful.
 * 2) Per myself and Bop1996. This will create dozens of two-liners.
 * 3) Per both and myself. Too many articles to create.
 * 4) - It's like splitting Reznor and . Per all
 * 5) Per Bop1996 and FF65.
 * 6) - Per all.
 * 7) - Per FF65 and Bop1996.
 * 8) Per all
 * 9) Your proposal is vague on what bosses and levels as FF65 said.
 * 10) Per all. This is useless.
 * 11) - Not necessary if the level is merely a boss fight.
 * 12) Per all.
 * 13) Per all.
 * 14) Per all.
 * 15) Per all.
 * 16) PER THE PEOPLE
 * 17) - Per Bop1996.

Comments
What is the procedure that is taken with all non-boss levels in that game?
 * We will make the pages separate. For example, Congazuma and Congazuma's Castle will be separate.
 * I know what you are proposing, I asked what the current procedure for all non-boss levels was. So what is it? Or does every level in that game have a boss.

The reason why those Yoshi's Island boss levels are separate from the bosses is because those are actual levels that you have to complete before reaching the boss. In the Donkey Kong games, the boss levels are simply you fighting the boss in a small area. If we were to split Congazuma's Castle from Congazuma, the article would be two sentences long.
 * @Fawfulfury65, yes but Stu is the boss. Ruined Roost is the name of the level.


 * I was about to say that... Stinky slow laptop... The reason Stu has the Ruined Roost info in his article is because the info is only important during the boss fight. It's like making an article for a boss arena from a Yoshi's Island game...

We could make a level page for Tiki Tong Terror and have info about him on his page. That is one of the pages that could do with this proposal

@DKPetey: I would like you to point out which part of the Ruined Roost level has information that isn't only important in the boss fight with Stu.

@DKPetey: Yes, Ruined Roost is the level, but it is simply a stretch of land with a few pillars in it. The important part of the level is that you get to fight Stu in it. If we split the bosses and the levels, they would both end up describing how the boss is fought, since fighting Stu, as I said, is the main part of that level. Like Bop1996 said, this proposal would cause short articles with little and unimportant information, or it will cause repeating information. I'm not sure if you've played the Donkey Kong games, but if you have, you know how empty and bland the boss levels are.

@Yoshidude99: Like the Yoshi levels, the Galaxy bosses are split because you have to travel through the level they are in to reach them. In the Donkey Kong games, the levels are simply a small, unimportant area that you fight the boss in.

Everyone, please read these comments carefully before voting.

}}

Remove Banjo and Conker from our coverage policy and delete Banjo (series) and Conker (series)
DELETE 31-2

Before I start, I'll point out that a few others have already made comments on this situation, all of them wanting to get rid of the articles with some good reasons attached, so go look at their reasons. With that said, let me continue.

The articles we have on Banjo's and Conker's series, respectively, are horrible. They are cluttered up with every single enemy, item, location, character, and other stuff from the two series, making it pratically unreadable. But that's not why I'm proposing this. I assume that we have those articles due to Banjo's and Conker's appearance in Diddy Kong Racing. But from what I can understand, both Conker's and Banjo's series were planned before-hand, but due to Banjo-Kazooie's release being delayed, both him and Conker were put in as a sort of early bird cameo. In other words, they are not sub-series of the Mario series and should be treated like other crossover games; whoever appeared in the crossover game gets an article, and nothing more. {{scrollbox|1=

Proposer: {{User|Reversinator}} Voting start: April 20, 2011, 00:40 GMT Deadline: April 27, 2011, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per my proposal and the comments made by Edo, Fawful, and others.
 * 2) Per my comment and Reversinator!!
 * 3) Look at my post in the MarioWiki forum here. My username is Scrub Jay.
 * 4) - Per what I said here. Listen to our reasoning before you oppose casually.
 * 5) - For those that are opposing, I want to tell you guys, it is completely off topic with Mario! They have only appeared in one game, and barely any detail on their pages has to do with that game! They are not a side-series you guys, they are just two random characters that were put in the game because their games were delayed! Most of their article is about their other games, which has absolutely nothing to do with Mario, DK, Yoshi, or Wario! All it is really is a very minor character that has 1% of actually related info and 99% of their mario-less games and then a series to act as a storage home for the extra stuff of random junk that is cluttering the wiki!
 * 6) Per Edofenrir
 * 7) I was just thinking the same thing today. This is MARIO Wiki. In other words per Baby Mario Bloops.
 * 8) Per all
 * 9) per edofenrir
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) We don't have Sonic games on our wiki so why do we have Banjo with Conker? Per proposal.
 * 12) - Per Edofenrir and Reversinator.
 * 13) I remember when I first came across these articles, I said to myself "Why are these here?" Per all.
 * 14) My reaction to those articles: WTH they're huge and unecessary and unprofessional. Per all.
 * 15) Per all. The Rare Witch Project Wiki should have the coverage responsibility, not us!
 * 16) Per the forum comments by Edo and LGM.
 * 17) Ok.-.-. I guess I'm changing my vote. However, how will we clear all those articles with Banjo and Conker information?
 * 18) Per all.
 * 19) Per all.
 * 20) Per all.
 * 21) Per all. We could add their apearances to some sort of DK article
 * 22) Per all, this is the MARIO wiki anyway.
 * 23) - Yep. Too cluttered together. Per Reversinator's opinion.
 * 24) Per Baby Mario Bloops. This is Mario Wiki!
 * 25) per all. these series are Spin offs from Donkey Kong if anything and so not directly affiliated with Mario in my opinion.
 * 26) - Games not related to the Mario Universe really shouldn't be here.
 * 27) Per Proposal
 * 28) Per all.
 * 29) Banjo and Kazooie are only relevant in that Banjo appears in Diddy Kong Racing. At best, Banjo should receive a page, but not all the games.
 * 30) Per all.
 * 31) - Per Reversinator.

Oppose

 * 1) here's how i see it Donkey kong is the parent series to Mario and Conker and Banjo are spin offs of it which would make them nephews or as some might put it very...very distant cousins to the Mario Series
 * 2) Per all.

Comments
Finally! That is a removal proposal! Since I'm not going to vote until Wednesday, I'll just make a comment. This is the MarioWiki not the BanjoWiki so, lose it!

Phoenix: This isn't proposed simply to remove bad articles. It's the relevance to the Mario series that mostly matters (in my perspective anyway). We do not need to cover Banjo and Conker as a series, but we can cover them as a character since they DID appear in Diddy Kong Racing. But that's about it.

Phoenix, I think you're gravely underestimating and over-simplifying the situation. The reason these articles are so unnavigable is because they are a pile of information pasted together. It is impossible to improve them in any way because, due to the bizarre stalemate situation, the rules of this wiki requires them to stay like that. There is no legal way for us to make these articles not horrible, and therefore, your argument becomes invalid. -


 * @Edofenrir - Okay...would you mind if I politely asked you what you mean by "bizarre stalemate situation"...? 21:58, 19 April 2011 (EDT)


 * I'll try. This conflict is actually really old and horribly complicated. Basically, for years, there have been two general sides: One that wants full coverage of those series, and one that wants to get rid of them. There have been countless proposals to settle the conflict between both sides, but we could never reach a definite decision. Both sides are locked in a stalemate, so to say. Because there could be no decision, a compromise was developed. This compromise allowed Banjo-Kazooie/Conker content to be on this wiki, but they all had to be on one giant, cluttered article per series. There is basically nothing we can do with these articles, except maybe shift its individual sections around, but none of that will improve the general situation. The way we have to treat these series is really awful. Please look at those articles.
 * I would much rather prefer having none of those monstrosities, or having a full coverage of both series with separate and readable articles. But if this proposal fails, none of these things will happen, and we will be stuck with those cluster articles, probably forever. Please read what we have to say. -

also whats the legal situation got to do with this
 * I meant legal in relation to the rules on this wiki. -

not to add fuel to the fire but conker is related to mario since they were both characters in the club nintendo comic Freeze Frame. oh that makes sense also i remeber this issue back when i first started in 07


 * Conker may be related to Mario somehow, and if he appeared in a Club Nintendo comic, he will certainly keep an article on this wiki even if this proposal passes. What you need to think about, however, is this: Is Greg the Grim Reaper related to Mario? Are The Tediz? Random enemy number five? Is The cow that gives you a Jiggy in the first world of Banjo Tooie related to the Mario series? Those are the questions you should ask yourself. -


 * You guys, I read the title wrong, as many also probably did as well. It is not deleting their pages also, but just removing all the mess that has no relation to Mario or DK. It is not getting rid of the small tidbit of information on their pages that is actually reasonable! Everyone that is opposing, read this message: It is to remove all the stuff that has nothing to do with Mario or DK, and keep the stuff that does! Even if I am still wrong, well...all or nearly all of their information is already in DKR, so it will suffice to remove their articles.

What I'm saying is to keep the Banjo and Conker articles, but delete the series articles. Banjo and Conker appear in Diddy Kong Racing so they should have thier own articles. It's just like the Super Smash Bros series characters.
 * Yes, that is exactly what this proposal is about. -


 * @Baby Mario Bloops and Tails777 - Well, in that case, perhaps the title of the proposal should be altered slightly, as it is a tad misleading... 15:01, 20 April 2011 (EDT)


 * @Edofinrir - Okay, after carefully reviewing your arguments both here and on the forums, I can see what you’re talking about now. However, the main question that came to mind when reading your argument was (and please don’t think I’m insulting anyone when I say this), why did no one foresee this problem when the compromise was created in the first place? I'm honestly not trying to patronize you, but I just find it interesting that you're supporting this proposal if you think it would be more worthwhile to expand our coverage of the games with multiple articles instead of having only two articles. I mean, why not simply make a proposal to do one of those two things instead (i.e. – "having none of those monstrosities" or "having a full coverage of both series with separate and readable articles"), even if you just partly prefer that the articles be expanded or split into multiple better articles? This proposal is in-between, and as you said, "if this proposal fails, none of these things will happen, and we will be stuck with those cluster articles...forever," so why not make a completely different proposal that does do one of those two things?


 * Also, you mentioned that these two articles are "a giant slap in the face" to fans of the games, which I can understand, given that I fall into that category with one of the games myself, but won't said fans be ten times more exasperated to have no coverage on the games at all than to have some coverage, even if it is flawed (because in the case of the latter, it can always be made better, with the former, it's gone for good)? Personally, I had previously wondered about the excessive length of the articles somewhat, but I guess I had rationalized it by viewing the pages as synonymous with the format of the page for any Mario series game on this wiki; really long (but because it needs to be to encompass all the necessary information, not because it was forced to be so) and displaying every facet of the game on the page, including general information on the game, the plot, the gameplay, the characters (to a certain extent), power-ups, extra lives, etc. Overall, I just feel that these articles do not necessarily pose any immediate problems for those who would not even think to search for either of these games on this wiki in the first place. It's not as if we've gotten piles of hate mail from guests because we refuse to delete these articles. 15:56. 20 April 2011 (EDT)
 * @Phoenix: I think the entire point is to get rid of the junk of the articles. Yes, fans will be upset that we are doing it, but give me one real reason why we should keep this junk and expand it? Deleting it is the best option, and I'll give you a comparison to help you out. Sonic as someone mentioned before has appeared along with Mario in a few things. Now, take that and view the the fact that we have no coverage of his series. Banjo and Conker have only appeared in one game with anyone with Mario, and even if it was their first appearance, they have NEVER made another appearance in the DK series, and vise versa with DK and Banjo/Conker. If we keep this proposal, it would be sort of unfair for the Zelda Series, Sonic Series, Metal Gear Series, just because they appeared in a spin-off. Deleting Banjo/Conker, who I disagree with the people that it is a sub-series with DK even though they haven't appeared in any of their games, is better than expanding and adding series for all the people that have appeared in a Mario game that isn't from Mario.
 * Just as a sidenote, this proposal will not delete Banjo, Bottles, Conker, and Tiptup. This is only to delete them from our coverage and delete the cluttred series articles.
 * @Phoenix: First of all I have to admit that "Why did nobody foresee these complications" is certainly a justified question. A question I cannot answer at that. I was not here back then when this decision was made, so I hardly could have taken any action. If I had been here already when this was still in the debate, I would have utilized every possible means to stop this "solution" from being made.
 * Also, you seem to confuse something there. As I said on the forums, amending our policies to allow full coverage of this material on separate articles is only my second choice. My primary concern is to remove the material from our coverage.
 * Over the years I have been a part of this encyclopedia, I believe I have grown somewhat accustomed to our policies. One virtue we hold high here is creator intent. A significant deal of decisions here are made by carefully analyzing what the creators of a piece of work had in mind, and acting in accordance to that. And I furthermore believe that this problem can also be solved by acting in accordance with creator intent. Let's take the Banjo-Kazooie series for example. Rare created the base concept of the series back then during the SNES era as an independent project: Project Dream. Project Dream has a rich history. At no point of this history was Project Dream ever developed as a spin-off of anything. It was Rare's own project. The project went through a lot of changes, but its independence always remained above. Now look at the finished product. Nothing in this game suggests that it is to be directly tied to the Mario series. Sure, there are a few references here and there, but they are all the kind of reference you find in every other game this wiki doesn't cover. Now look at the other series we cover. Series like Wario Land, or the Yoshi series. All of these series are much closer to the Mario series, and they show it. Characters from these series appear in spin-offs like Mario Kart or Mario Party together, repeatedly, all the time. Banjo and Conker on the other hand... they do neither of those things. The series keep to themselves. Whenever they engage in crossovers, it is exclusively among themselves and other Rare projects, like Jet Force Geminy, or It's Mr. Pants. For me, the only reasonable conclusion to draw from this is that Rare never intended their series to be part of the Mario franchise. They make it very clear that these series belong to themselves and themselves alone. I want to pay respect to Rare's intention. Therefore I believe it is wrong to chalk these up as mere spin-offs of the overall Mario franchise. I believe it is wrong to keep these series on our coverage against all reasoning. And because I believe this, I am supporting this proposal, thoroughly and entirely.
 * "Won't said fans be ten times more exasperated to have no coverage on the games at all than to have some coverage, even if it is flawed?" This question addresses the feelings of the fans. I can say: I am a fan, and I support the proposal. Those games are a part of my childhood, and I hold them very dear. And I can give you my word: The treatment these series receive on this wiki are genuinely appalling to me. It is not just about the content of the articles themselves, but also the policies regulating them. This situation cannot be improved by merely giving the article contents a cosmetic makeover. So, to finally answer your question: I, as a fan of Rare's work, consider the circumstances surrounding this situation hideous, and it is my sincere belief that "no coverage" is a better option than the current solution. I have talked to several of my acquaintances, all of whom I know to be Rare fans as well, and they do share my concerns and agree with me. That is all I need to know to realize there is a problem, and that action has to be taken.
 * I apologize, Phoenix, but this is all I can tell you. I would be very happy if you could take a look at all of this and find it in you to reconsider your standing. You are, however, entitled to your own opinion, and if you choose to discard my points as irrelevant, I will respect your decision, as I hope you respect mine. Thank you for taking the time to read this. I appreciate it. -


 * @Edofenrir - Well, first of all, allow me to assure you that I would never ever discard anyone's points or arguments as irrelevant, as I, personally, believe that everyone, no matter what side of any particular issue they may be on, has substantial viewpoints to contribute to the matter at hand. I would never attempt to detract from someone else's personal feelings or beliefs about an issue by turning the other cheek (as long as the argument is relatively within reason and isn't completely "out there"), even if I do happen to be on the opposing side, because this is just disrespectful and counterproductive to both the user and the wiki. That being said, I most definitely respect your decision, even though I may not necessarily agree with it. After all, this is a free world, and it's not my responsibility to dictate what everyone else decides (not that I would want to anyway).


 * Secondly, please just let me ask this last question: So if Banjo and Conker (and possibly their respective co-characters) had at some point been in a Super Smash Bros. game, or any other legitimate crossover game, they would be eligible to remain here? Well, no, actually, I guess I just answered my own question, because even if that were the case, we would still only have information about the characters from the other series that appeared in the game (and perhaps items, as necessary), and not about the characters' entire series, right? In that case, I now understand what this proposal is truly trying to do, and have therefore had a change of heart of sorts; from this point on I will be voting in favor of this proposal's intentions.


 * Thirdly, if this proposal was going to pass (and it doesn't take a team of mathematicians to tell me that, at this point, it probably will), I just want to ensure that the Bottles article will still remain unscathed, because taking this into account, I'm pretty sure it should be apparent that he is at least somewhat related directly to the Mario series, apart from the whole Diddy Kong Racing cameo (or appearance, or spin-off, or whatever) thing.


 * Finally, I have seen fit to reconsider my position in this matter (as I've previously established above). I think, in the back of my mind, I immediately disliked this proposal right from the get-go. I believe I subconsciously opposed it simply because of my extreme affinity for the Banjo-Kazooie series, using that as the basis of my original argument, and then used my arguments about expanding articles to mask the true reasons for my opposition (I'm not trying to say that I lied, I do believe that deleting should always be used as a last resort over expanding, I think I just finally realized that I was opposing for all the wrong reasons, if you know what I mean). However, having thought about this for a great deal of time, I have subsequently come to this conclusion, and I now realize that that was wrong of me to do. Though it will pain me to see a great deal of this information go, feel that I must disregard my personal opinions for the time being, and do what is best for the wiki. :) 23:05, 20 April 2011 (EDT)


 * Ok, thank you for keeping an open mind about this. :) To answer the question from your third paragraph, yes, Bottles will retain his article since he made a legitimate appearance outside of the material that is contested here. -

Dude the difference is that Banjo and Conker are spin offs of DK not cross overs like Sonic or Link thats the difference
 * They're not DK spin-offs; they had cameos in Diddy Kong Racing.

A cameo really a cameo is when a character makes a brief appearence in a game Banjo and Conker were stars/ playable characters in there debut appearence which makes them spin offs
 * No, a cameo is when a character makes an appearance in a game that is from a different series from that in which the character is generally located. Neither Banjo nor Conker are part of the DK series, while Diddy Kong Racing is. A spin-off is a game related to a series but is not a continuation of that series. An example of a spin-off would be Mario vs. Donkey Kong, which is part of but not a continuation of the Mario series.


 * Read the second paragraph of my proposal. Basically, Banjo-Kazooie was delayed, so Banjo and Conker were put in Diddy Kong Racing as a bonus. In other words, they are not sub-series, they are crossover series. Thus, they deserve the same treatment as other cross-over series; articles of the characters who appeared in DKR, and nothing more.

So there the first ever cross over game to feature characters from franchises that didnt exist yet cause developent and release are 2 different things

a cameo as defined is a brief appearance of a known person in a work of the performing arts, such as plays, films, video games[1] and television. These roles are generally small, many of them non-speaking ones, and are commonly either appearances in a work in which they hold some special significance (such as actors from an original movie appearing in its remake), or renowned people making uncredited appearances. Oh and the Conker Series was no delayed considering that in order for it to be delayed it would have had to be in development for at least 3 years for a game boy game that was as simple as that no.


 * Their appearance in DKR can be considered brief, as they have not been in any other non-Banjo/Conker games on any Nintendo console since. Anyway, for a game to be delayed simply means that it is not released on the original date announced. It doesn't have to be in development for a certain period of time. If memory serves, Brawl was delayed two or three times, and development time was relatively short (Sakurai at first did not want to make it), but this is off-topic.

no it can not be considered brief if you star in your first game also no conker game was in development untill after Diddy Kong Racing and your thinking of a cross over
 * Goomba's Shoe15: The fact is that it doens't include any DK characters! If it was a sub-series of the DK series, they would need to have characters from DK appearance maybe once in their games! The fact of matter is that they don't, and that is why I made the comparison to Sonic! It doesn't matter if this is their debut, or if they were already planning the games before, to be a sub-series should be if it actually has elements from their parent series!!!!

im going to do something i hate to do but the show Maude is a spin off of all and the family but no characters from all in the family appear. Good times was a spin off from maude but no characters from maude other than Florida ever appeared. the facts of life was a spin off of different strokes no characters from that appear. Buddies was a spin off from Home Improvement no characters from Home improvement appeared on buddies


 * @Reversinator (above) - Okay, but it would really help my brain if you would please use different terminology, because when you say "delete them from our coverage," I perceive that as being exactly the same as "delete every single article on this entire wiki that even relates to either of these games"... 20:21, 20 April 2011 (EDT)


 * @Baby Mario Bloops (above) - I was never really a big fan of expanding the articles or creating more articles with additional expanded information either; in the huge chunk of text above, I was merely asking Edofenrir why he was supporting this particular proposal instead of making different proposal to expand the articles, because he had said that he was partially in favor of doing something like that before... 20:31, 20 April 2011 (EDT)
 * @Phoenix: When I say "delete them from our coverage", I mean "delete them from Coverage".


 * @Reversinator - Okay, wait, so then what is this: (from MarioWiki:Coverage) "...we cover all franchises, series, games, etc. that have emerged from or spun-off from the original Donkey Kong arcade game, Mario's first appearance in any media. This includes all Nintendo-authorized video games about Mario, Donkey Kong, Wario, Yoshi, Banjo, Conker, Pyoro, etc. All content from games in these series is allowed on the wiki." I mean, apparently, they're both an "Authorized Spin-Off of Donkey Kong." Or is that what you were referring to when you say "remove them from our coverage," because without that caveat it seems to invalidate the entire proposal...don't get me wrong, I'm still on the side of the supporters, I'm just asking... 19:44, 23 April 2011 (EDT)
 * Diddy Kong Racing is crossover game like SSB, MASATOG, ISDS, NBA Street V3, MH3O3, and others. But do we make the series artcles for every character from thses crossovers? No!

Banjo and Conker are both the property of Rare, which left Nintendo. Now, since their games are not part of the Mario Universe, it's quite senseless to cover their series'. Also, while the Banjo and Conker articles can stay, any details not involving crossovers get the boot; basically, only the Diddy Kong Racing details stay. 08:30, 25 April 2011 (EDT)


 * Understood. 14:35, 25 April 2011 (EDT)

Wait...Isn't there a Donkey Kong Wiki? Why is everything related to DK in a Mario Wiki?
 * Because it's part of our Coverage.


 * Because the Mario series is a spin-off of the original game Donkey Kong, so mentioning aspects of the Donkey Kong series is legitimate. Also, characters from the Donkey Kong series have many times made crossover appearances in some Mario games, so we need to discuss them here. 18:43, 27 April 2011 (EDT)


 * So...why is there a DK Wiki if everything DK is in Mario Wiki? Sorry, but it seems weird to have the same exact info in two different Wikis.


 * But everything DK isn't on the Super Mario Wiki; we only cover the information required to reference their series and characters in relation to their appearance in the Mario series. I have never been on the DK Wiki, but I'm sure they have articles on Mario, and some other Mario characters, because they crossover in many games, like Mario Kart Wii or Super Smash Bros. Brawl to name a few. Do you see what I'm saying? That's why this proposal was made in the first place; to get rid of the extraneous information about the Banjo and Conker series that is currently cluttering up the Wiki and retain only what is necessary, like the character pages for Banjo and Bottles. 19:16, 27 April 2011 (EDT)

}}

Remove Voting Start Rule
REMOVE RULE 18-4

This rule was meant to encourage discussion. It wants to prevent people from voting so much that the proposal is already decided. However, I do not see how this can majorly impact proposals. I think all it does is create a major annoyance for most users, since most people overlook this rule and we have to remove the vote and say, "VOTING STARTS AT BLAH BLAH". Even I overlook this rule, and I don't bother to pay attention if a voting user broke this rule or what. Besides, we get a WEEK of discussion, so I don't see why we need to reserve one day for discussion only.

All this rule, I think it does, is to make voting more complicated, and it pretty much accomplished that, since so many people break it.

While it leaves out one day for (possible) discussion only, I believe it is impractical. People aren't online every day, so once they log in after 24-hour break, the voting already started and we are back at the same problem: a proposal already "decided".

Besides, no other proposal gets this rule; not the featured articles and not the Talk Page Proposals, so I see no reason we need this.

I propose to remove this rule because it makes everything unnecessarily complicated, it is useless for those who aren't online every day, it is impractical for those who are online every day, and it is not present in all types of proposals.

{{scrollbox|1= Proposer: {{User|LeftyGreenMario}} Voting start: April 21, 18:22 GMT Deadline: April 28 23:59 GMT.

Support

 * 1) Let's delete this useless, unnecessary, and somewhat complicated rule that doesn't even apply to all proposals! I hope you guys agree on me on this.
 * 2) YES YES YES! Esptaily since I don't go by GMT, I never know when to start. IT STUPID
 * 3) Per all and my comment.
 * 4) Per proposal
 * 5) Per all!
 * 6) Per comments, especially mine.
 * 7) Per proposal.
 * 8) I don't go by GMT. I go by Easern Standard Time. (EST). I think this is the best proposal eva!
 * 9) Yes! Yes! Yes! 1000x yes! I was actually going to make a proposal about this myself, but since you beat me to it, I'm all for it! :D
 * 10) Gah! I hate having to wait to vote! Per LunaticGreenMalleo!:D
 * 11) – I myself have seen several proposals actually ignore this rule, and I agree with the fact that this policy complicates the voting process.
 * 12) Per Super Mario Bros.
 * 13) The idea behind the rule was supposedly to prevent a proposal from being swayed by a "flood" of votes in one direction, but from what I've seen, the rule simply moves the problem from the voting sections to the comments. It doesn't fix anything and add a new irritant, so yeah, get rid of it.
 * 14) I never really liked this rule, anyways. Per all.
 * 15) - The delay needlessly complicates things with no real benefit to show for it.
 * 16) - I completely forgot about this proposal. >_> Ironically, I would have supported it much earlier if I had been allowed to do it at the time I made that comment below. You see where I'm getting with this.
 * 17) Per all.
 * 18) Per all.

Oppose

 * 1) Je regrette, mais c'est necessaire. Per my comments below.
 * 2) Per what ever he said up there and down there
 * 3) Per Mario4Ever in the comments and myself. The only answer I saw to my objections was one from BLOF that I chalk down to a matter of disagreement. I would rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
 * 4) Per Mario4ever

Comments
It's somewhat amusing how I want to support this proposal right now. -

LGM, I had this exact idea to start this proposal too. Now I'm going to support it. The idea of it at first sounds great, but in reality, it does not help anything at all but create a nuisance.

I'm really pulled on both sides of this proposal. I want to oppose because it gives time for some users to accept the fact this is for good and let it sink in to their minds. It will also give time to the proposer to make any error corrections and alterations to the proposal. Also, yes it is true people aren't online every day, but they'll be online eventually, if they don't, then they miss to vote on a proposal..... oh well. But I am questioned on why isn't this applied to FA or TPP; well I guess because the proposal for that was meant only for the proposals and nobody bothered to extend the rule to FA and TPP's. BUT here's my thought on supporting this: the proposal lasts for a week, there will be enough time for anybody to counter anybody's vote and for users to change their minds. It was made to give time to the proposer to check for errors, but the rules say that the proposer has three days to make alterations and error checks on the proposal, so I guess it is unnecessary, I'm going to support.
 * @Zero777 - But if you think it's unnecessary, why would you oppose...? 17:45, 20 April 2011 (EDT)
 * Fix'd

''While it leaves out one day for (possible) discussion only, I believe it is impractical. People aren't online every day, so once they log in after 24-hour break, the voting already started and we are back at the same problem: a proposal already "decided"''. How does allowing voting to take place immediately after the proposal is posted rectify this problem? What difference does it make whether or not there is a 24-hour delay between the proposal's posting and voting start time if there are people who aren't online constantly and are unable to vote immediately anyway? While I'm thinking of it, what difference does it make when someone votes if the proposal is on the page for a week? Surely, no one is busy to the extent that spending five minutes reading a proposal and typing in the appropriate section strains his or her schedule.

Yes, and also I think the rule of Voting Start should be backfired. Nice job, LeftyGreenMario buddy!

Hmmm, as for why we don't do this on TPPs and FA nominations, I happened to see an explanation for that. The TPPs and FA nominations are more out of the way and don't usually get jumped on as soon as they are proposed (although this may vary due to how many people are online when the action is proposed). Also, just because removing the vote is an annoyance doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, unless it gets really out of hand sometime in the future. I prefer the voting delay because, even if no one is there to read the comments, I'd rather comment on a proposal when the voting period hasn't started yet, and have that be more likely to influence the debate. Take, for instance, the DK series boss level split, I wasn't there when the proposal was proposed, and yet I was able to comment on the situation before the voting period started. I don't find it inconvenient either, but that may just be me. 
 * I've been here before this rule got initiated and the voting start rule makes no difference whatsoever in opinions first made about the proposal. It's still better to vote immediately because you can also express your opinion in your vote. And people can then discuss it in the comments and then they can either turn the tide or leave it as it is. Besides, I'm not the only one who dislikes this rule and having a voting start only for this, no matter how major it is, seems inconsistent along with other proposal-like stuff.


 * Mario4Ever: Look, we're better off without it. It doesn't fix the problem, but the rule is useless for people that are not online every day and it punishes those that are online everyday. It started out with good intentions, but nowadays, I find it more of a hassle than a help. One week is enough for discussion, so I don't see why we need to reserve one day for discussion. Besides, the comments people make during the one-day delay is sometimes just, "Good idea! I will support this proposal!" or something like that. Really, we're better off without it. Besides, it complicates the process. By allowing users to vote after a proposal is created means that we do not have to check if they are within voting start. Voting start period is annoying for me, and no matter how much we remind them, users STILL break the rule.
 * I do have to admit that the voting start period is irritating on occasion, but to me, that's not reason enough to dispose of it. I think the one-day discussion is useful for allowing users to wrap their heads around the proposal, so to speak, enabling their votes to be based upon their reasoning and not on what the majority thinks. Users who come to these proposals and see a large number of support votes or oppose votes may be discouraged from voting because their opinions may do nothing to affect the results (though this is not always the case, as I was the sole opposer of 's TPP to merge Ashley and Red), or they may pick whichever side has more votes, giving no thought to the proposal's potential benefit/harm to the wiki. The rule would be easier to follow if it were implemented on TPPs and FAs, but I realize that it is more difficult to get that approved than to get this removed.
 * BabyLuigiOnFire: It's still better to vote immediately because you can also express your opinion in your vote. And people can then discuss it in the comments and then they can either turn the tide or leave it as it is.  Does having a delay cause users to develop retrograde amnesia or something? Why can't users do this once the voting start period begins?
 * The delay is unnecessary, though. I don't see why we need this. It already proved to be more of a hassle than a help.

Besides, when I am ready to vote, 20 people already voted after voting start. This rule doesn't help me or the wiki greatly in my opinion.
 * I understand that, but removing the rule doesn't really do anything to fix that. Most people aren't ready to vote immediately after a proposal is posted, and regardless of whether the rule is in place or not, people are going to swarm the support and oppose sections once allowed, though I feel as if removing the rule would only decrease the amount of time in which this happens.
 * Again, I'm not intending to fix this problem. The voting start, I believe, creates more problems than remedies them. I'm not in the wiki every day, and when I log in, I see a proposal that is already voted. This rule assumes that every user is logged in every day, but for a big deal of us, this is not the case. The rule wants to encourage discussion (I saw the proposal for this), but it doesn't really help the problem. I have not seen a major change after this rule was initiated, and ever since, I am getting more and more irritated by the problems it creates instead of fixes. I am now cracking from frustration this rule gives me (and possibly other users), and this is how I proposed this.

"Does having a delay cause users to develop retrograde amnesia or something? Why can't users do this once the voting start period begins?" No, but I am not in the wiki everyday. There might be days where I revolve around the wiki the entire day, and some days where I am not there at all. There is no way of knowing when someone is going to propose something new. And I'm the impatient type and I like to vote to get things over with.
 * I'm not here on a daily basis, either, but (and not to be rude) I usually just check the recent changes (depending on how long I've been gone, I'll check the last 50 or the last 500) to see if there is a new proposal. The only time the voting start thing is an issue for me is when a proposal is posted in which I have a great deal of interest, though this is rare. I understand where you're coming from, though.

I made the mistake of voting too early twice now, once on a proposal I made and once now on this proposal. I think its really annoying so I'm supporting this proposal.
 * Oh, but you can vote in your own proposal whenever you want. The rule stated that. Anyway, feel my frustration :(


 * I do have to admit that the voting start period is irritating on occasion, but to me, that's not reason enough to dispose of it. Of course that's not reason enough, Mario4Ever! I have other reasons to delete this rule too! Sort of late reply, but please read my proposal more carefully!
 * I am going to barge in here; I still have no opinion on this, but that would be because I am evaluating the situation in my head using my logic. If I were using your proposal's logic to decide my opinion, I would be opposing as every point in your proposal is flawed.


 * Your first point, that the rule is too complicated, is the only coherent point there. There's not much to say in opposition to it, taking into consideration that the complexity of a rule is an opinionated factor of a decision, is that the workload placed on a user with inadequate knowledge of the rules and guidelines for proposals is very minimal - if you don't know how the rule works, the people who do know how will fix your mistakes for you. This means that, while for some this rule may be complicated (me, I understand it perfectly), the others who do understand it can fix mistakes made.


 * Your second point is referring to a minority of the general population of users who actually vote on proposals. As this point is pointing out disadvantages only for those users who are not online every day, which a large amount are, the point is moot. ADDITIONALLY I'd like to point out that it doesn't take more than one user to find a flaw with a proposal and point it out in the comments because after all, everyone (or I should hope everyone) is reading the comments section before voting.


 * Finally your last point, which I find rather amusing. Your point, reworded, is "this rule is not present in other forms of proposals, and therefore it should not be present in this one" - you know, the FA process involves creating a subpage for every article - maybe we should get rid of that, because that's not part of the proposals process. Or maybe we should invoke a one-week duedate on all FAs; that'll match them up with proposals! Now, what I'm trying to point out here is not that I can make a mockery of a situation, but that the rules for all of our different proposals are different. In Featured Articles, it can only pass if the score is 5-0, with proposals the score can pass by any margin greater than three. There are tons of different circumstances that take place which invalidate this statement even further.


 * So now, going back to my point of you really having only one point, your only point here is that the rule is too complicated; a point which I put up a strong argument against - this proposal's basis is not very sturdy and could crumble at any time. I'm not gonna vote now but if I don't see a more intelligent reason, I may vote later on.


 * tl;dr: Your proposal really only does have one point, that it is too complicated - being too complicated is a very weak point as multiple users do get it and those users can fix the mistakes of the users who don't. So really this proposal has one, weak, point supporting it. I don't find that to be adequate and I hope those reading this comment don't either.


 * Look, why are you assuming I do not know this rule? I KNOW how it works, many people KNOW how this works, and I don't make proposals too often However, I am becoming increasingly disenchanted with this rule. Rules were created to prevent chaos and stuff like that, but I do not know how this rule helps proposals in any way possible. This rule was meant to encourage discussion, but for some reason it's only discussion here. You are making a bad analogy here. Maybe I didn't get my point straight, but at least I don't understand why Talk Page Proposals don't get this rule. They are different, but they still do not get some form of delay. Maybe people access it less often? I didn't see any reason for this when Talk Page Proposals were created. Maybe they should get this rule too? I fix people's mistakes frequently, due to their breaking the rule, and I wish that I don't have to do this. Same thing with supporters in FA nominations, but at least the rule sort of "removes" fan votes.


 * You overlooked my point how I say, "It is useless and it proved to be more of a hassle than a help." I found this rule to be useless too, plus all my points. If it is really useful, it should be be at least present in Talk Page Proposals in some shape and form. Again, I KNOW the rule, and just because I know how it works doesn't mean I have to like it. Just because it is complicated doesn't mean I don't know how to do it. I said that it makes the voting process more complicated, but you just dismiss this as, "Oh, but most of us know how to do it!". And complexity can be an objective thing. The more rules, the more complex, the more sophisticated. Now, most of our rules ARE necessary, so we don't have flame wars and undesirable stuff like that. However, when we can be a bit simpler, I suggest that we go simpler, so more people understand, more people don't break it, and it is less work for us.


 * I don't even understand your argument of my second point. I said that people who are online every day get a delay and those who aren't will be in the same situation of 20 users already voting.


 * And you are making a mockery using bad analogy. How nice of you.

This is a GREAT idea, because when I made a proposal, I had to look up when to start (I don't use GMT) then I broke the rule and voted. It's POINTLESS!!!!!!! On the forst day, over 9000 people aren't gonna vote on it!
 * Rephrased: "This is a great idea, because when I made a proposal, I had to look up when to start (I don't use GMT) then I broke a rule and voted. It's pointless! On the first day, over 9000 people aren't gonna vote on it!"


 * Rephrased with all insubstantial/unreasoned parts removed: "When I made a proposal, I had to look up when to start (I don't use GMT) then I broke the rule and voted."


 * Rephrased with a different context: "When I made a proposal, I actually had to read the rules to know how to do it. Then I accidentally voted on a proposal before voting start!"


 * I would like to point out the last rephrase; when making a proposal you should be totally informed on everything, read the rules even if you do know how to do everything. And you accidentally voting before is not a crime; someone removed it and we went on with our days. Hardly worth all of the pain and suffering we will have if we pass an invalid proposal.
 * OMG I didn't see this! I'll respond now.


 * I never assumed you don't know the rule, I never said you don't, I said people don't know how the rule works. This rule helps proposals by calling out the hidden flaws in proposals; multiple times people have been gung-ho about a proposal before realizing that it won't really help the wiki, just because you haven't seen these occasions does not mean they don't happen. And I don't recall making an analogy in the first paragraph, the only analogy I can find is a vague one; my references to the FA processes in the third paragraph.


 * Secondly, I don't know why Talk Page Proposals don't get this rule, maybe we should go add that rule to talk page proposals. Maybe it's because TPPs get two weeks discussion, maybe it's because they're considered "less notable", I don't know, but that shouldn't be a reason to take out the rules in this thing; as I mentioned, the two things are different, we can't compare one with the other.


 * I never overlooked any of your points; usefulness is not a set amount, you saying useless (and you saying it's more of a hassle than a help) is your opinion, and should not reflect any facts. And that was exactly how I dismissed your point; most of us know how to do it (though I don't recall using the word most) - the ones who do know can fix it; and if you're too tired to fix it yourself, leave it for someone else who's not too tired.


 * Finally when you say that when we have a rule that's not helping, we can make everything easier, yet you also admit that most rules are there for a reason - those aren't technically contradicting points, but they sure are close. Insert my point about uselessness being an opinion and not a fact and then that really doesn't make sense. Can we establish, for the length of this proposal, that, while the use may not be apparent to you, this rule does have a use? Or do you think that the rule has no use at all and could never help anything?


 * To clarify my argument to your second point. I am saying that while there may be a few users who don't come on daily, there are some users who are. And those users will find the flaws and the flaws will be there, in the comments section, the next day when the users who don't come on daily come on.


 * Finally, I see no mockery and no analogy in my comments and I think you're just feeling sentiments that are not there.


 * @ Marioguy1 I knew the rules of proposals, I just didn't know the rules of GMT. Good day to you all


 * Ugh, I hate arguing with people. I am sorry, but I am a very sensitive person. Analogies are comparisons, and I believe you are using a bad analogy. You think that because voting start is not in other proposals, so it shouldn't be in other proposals; BUT if that is the case, should we make proposals similar to FA's? Sorry if I'm not getting my point straight (I have a lot of trouble with this). Anyway, I'm not merely stating that just because Talk Page Proposals don't have this rule, so this rule should be taking out. It's either both have this rule in some shape or neither or else something seems strange and inconsistent. I think neither is the better choice.


 * I'm not contradicting myself. I'm saying that the more rules we have, the more complex the process is, but most of them are necessary. If we have unnecessary rules, that just adds to the complexity, and if we can go simple, then let's go for it. I don't see any nearly-contradicting points there. And I believe voting start is useless, and it proved itself to be useless and annoying for most people (or so it seems). I groan in frustration every time someone breaks the rule or if I want to vote. Subjective it may be, but I never saw how this rule impacted proposals majorly.


 * Besides, proposals are not irreversible. If we get a proposal that passes, but we despise it later on, we can make another one. Well, I'm not intending to refer to this rule, but again, this rule doesn't want a glut of users voting on a proposal so it might show undesirable results, but hey, let's just make another one and see how the results go! So why we have this rule? I don't know.

@Kaptian K. Rool: What the heck are you trying to say??

@Kaptain K. Rool: Are you sure you understand what's being proposed?
 * It's no problem, just think of this as a discussion; we are discussing the best course of action. And what I am trying to point out is that talk page proposals and proposals have different rules, for example, Talk Page Proposals take two weeks to complete. Maybe the one week extension to the deadline makes the voting start rule meaningless? Either way, the rules of proposals and talk page proposals are not the same, so we cannot accurately compare them to eachother. The same goes for proposals and Featured Articles.


 * What I am trying to point out with the "contradictory" point, is that saying this rule is useless is an opinion; some people see use for it, some people don't. I'm sure people have reason to see both ways, but the fact the remains that it is one person's word against another's as to whether the rule is useless or not.


 * And I realize that you could always make a proposal to fix the mistake that was made, I just finished doing that with Gnat Attack and yoshiyoshiyoshi is doing it now with Pale Piranha, but the process will always take over a month to complete; which is a long amount of time for something that could have been corrected with only one day extra in voting time.


 * breathes in relief* I got a little stressed before. The processes between Talk Page Proposals and Proposals are similar, but not the same (well, they feel similar). I never saw the reason for Talk Page Proposals not receiving a delay, but the similar-Proposals did. The two are similar enough to compare at least.


 * Users are allowed to have their own opinions. However, within my experience, I have never seen an instance where the delay made a huge impact on proposals. Again, this is what I think of voting delay. I want to see if more people agreed with me or not.


 * I think a week or two is enough for people to correct their mistakes, but yes, I'm pretty sure there are people out there who just cast their vote and never change it again.

}}

Merge the special shots of Mario Power Tennis (Gamecube) into one article
NO MERGE 8-12

This situation is just like the Super Strikes from Mario Smash Football. All the power shots don't need their own articles, they just creat stubs.

{{scrollbox|1= Proposer: {{User|Tails777}} Deadline: April 23, 2011 Extended: April 30, 2011, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per me.
 * 2) First! Per proposal.
 * 3) They are not stubs, but per my reason in the Super Strike Merge proposal.
 * 4) Per all and myself! If the Super Strikes are merged, so does this!
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per all
 * 7) Per comments.
 * 8) There should be one page that discusses all of the character's power shots.

Oppose

 * 1) Comparing differences between two Power Shots gives a bigger difference than comparing two Super Strikes/Mega Strikes to each other. So for example, Koopa Troopa's Water Bomb is always a drop shot and it slows the opponent down, while Koopa Paratroopa's Energy Ball is always a lob shot and it spins the opponent around. Besides, there are 14 characters in Mario Power Tennis, and each character has both an offensive power shot and a defensive power shot. That would merge 28 shots into one article. The difference between Super Strikes and Mega Strikes are just aesthetic, they're no different to each other besides the way they look. This is why they were merged.
 * 2) Per all
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per the user with the ridiculously long username.
 * 7) Per DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr.
 * 8) Per DK and DK vs B and BJ
 * 9) - Because.... theat clutters the articles together and makes it look bad.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Per first opposer.
 * 12) Per all.

Comments
The dates were all wrong. Voting start is a day after the proposal was made, which means it starts on the 16th, not the 15th; you also forgot to convert the time from EST to GMT (or incorrectly converted from some other time zone). And finally, mainspace proposals only go for one week, so this ends on the 23rd, not the 29th. How to format these dates and times is clearly explained in Rule 2: I encourage everyone to read it before making proposals. -

I hate when I have to say this, but a stub is not a short article. A stub is an article that, regardless of length, lacks information. If a short article does have all its information, it is not a stub. Get it right, people.
 * I seriously have to get a hammer and pound that sentence into people's heads >_>


 * A long time ago, we thought that all stubs were bad. We decided to merge all stubs into bigger articles; thinking that it would be great and we'd have no stubs. You know what resulted? Stuff like this. Seriously, a boss of a game is merged into the game that it appears in! If the Shadow Queen article was a stub, would we merge that into PM:TTYD? I mean, honestly, sometimes stubs can be tolerated, but if you go overboard and constantly think "stubs = death" then you are bound to make mistakes.


 * Well sorry, I just don't understand these things, I didn't know what stub means and I only say it on small articles/short sections of articles so I assumed they were small articles.

I don't find this to be useful. If this proposal passes, what will happen to Fire Breath? It appears in Smash Bros. as well.

@DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr.: If Fire Breath appears in Smash Bros Brawl, it would be in Bowser's article. All characters special attacks are on their own articles.

@Tails777 Fire Breath has it's own article. Besides, every Power Shot is different enough. }}

Less Merging and Unmerge some merged Articles
DON'T STOP MERGING 2-18

I think most of the time, Merging Hurts the Wiki. For Example, Merging Lava Bubble and Podoboo deleted most of the information on Lava Bubble. I propose that there should be less suggestions of merging stuff, especially with good articles. Just because something looks similar or the "japanese names are the same" doesnt mean that one of the articles should be ruined. (If merging prevents stubs,then it is OK)
 * Do not merge or Propose to merge non-stub articles.Especially Enemies
 * Un-merge Previously merged non-stub articles such as Lava Bubble and Pale Piranha
 * The 1st rule do not apply to Administrators

{{scrollbox|1= Proposer: {{User|yoshiyoshiyoshi}} Deadline: May 4, 2011, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per My Proposal
 * 2) Per Proposal. Side note: if this will help the wiki by not having important info removed then sure.

Oppose

 * 1) Per my comment. I don't see what this proposal is based off of, except one example where, if my memory serves, there was a good reason for merging.
 * 2) We already have a system for this it's called the talk page proposal
 * 3) Per my comment.
 * 4) You're taking away the common user's free speech and replacing it with a communism-esque replacement with this proposal. Also, it states in your proposal " I think most of the time, Merging Hurts the Wiki. For Example, Merging Lava Bubble and Podoboo deleted most of the information on Lava Bubble." So what do you think you should do, A) Report this to a staff in their talk page or chat OR B) Start editing the freaking article!! Don't just sit around and complain that some info was taken out of the article. Also I'm getting the feeling that you assumed what "stub" means.
 * 5) - Merging is not harmful if it's done right; perhaps mistakes are made sometimes, but they can be fixed with subsequent edits or new TPPs if re-splitting them is necessary. Merging is a case by case process: general statements like "merging hurts the wiki" or assumptions like non-stubs all deserve to stay is going completely against how the wiki is run; sometimes, larger articles just need to be merged - it's not based on size, but on content. Also, there is no good reason for limiting merge proposals to admins only: everyone should always be able to make suggestions and TPPs.
 * 6) Per Walkazo. *sniffle* Oh my, that was a beautiful speech. I loved it.;~;
 * 7) Per Walkazo!
 * 8) Per Walkazo.
 * 9) Per Walkazo.
 * 10) - You cannot subdue suggestions, intended for the wiki's improvement, through a proposal. I won't stand for this.
 * 11) - Leave it! Per Walkazo! I love this speech, it's so beautiful! I'm going to cry. (Crying in tears)
 * 12) Per my comments below.
 * 13) Per everyone.
 * 14)  Per Walkazo. (Nice speech! It rocked) Since when does merdging HURT the WIki? It helps it!  Walkazo
 * 15) Per Walkazo
 * 16) Per all.
 * 17) Per all.
 * 18) Per Zero. He said what I wanted to say (although longer). And also Walkazo (excellent speech).

Comments
first things first which articles are to be un-merged is that up to you or who is that going to be decided by also your starting time is wrong and so is your end time

We can't put a limit on how many things can be merged. If something needs to be merged, we have to merge it.

Plus isnt that why we have talk pages to determine whether or not we need an article

From what I understand, you want to make sure merging is a last resort because the articles we're merging are good? We merge articles for various reasons. Some of those reasons could be considered invalid today, but you can't put a limit on merging. Suppose someone makes lavish articles for all the trophies in the Super Smash Bros. series. If this proposal succeded, we wouldn't be able to merge them because it would merge too much and the articles are too good to merge, which, if you didn't realize yet, are not good reasons.

First of all, this proposal is vague. You do not specify which types of articles you want merged; instead, you make some vague reference to an article that is "good enough."

Second, you don't mention what type of limit is being enforced, only that one needs to be.

Third, sometimes merging is necessary. It's important to look at all the evidence and make a rational decision based off all the evidence.

Fourth, what articles are you planning on un-merging?

All in all, I see no reason whatsoever to support this, or to even have it proposed...

@bop1996 I plan on having articles such as Lava Bubble and Pale Piranha unmerged.Also,the Badge page needs to be broken up by game,or by badge. I think Stubs still need to be merged though.

@Reversinator I think good articles should remain independent.but stubs should be merged together.

@Yoshiyoshiyoshi What constitutes a good article? As for Badges, a single comprehensive article is, in my opinion, more beneficial than a series of short ones.

And you still haven't explained who get's to decide what articles get to be un-merged or why we need to change the system when we have talk pages for this

@Yoshiyoshiyoshi Question what doesnt apply to Admins and another Question why not just make talk page proposals about this

@goombasshoe Only Administrators get to make merging TTPs,but anyone can vote on them.And most of the Non-Stub articles that were previously merged get un-merged

Then make a TPP if you want that. The badge page works very well with the current situation, no need to mess it up. If you think stubs need to be merged, then look at the power shot proposal below, in the comments. I.e. Marioguy's comment. Also, you still are using the ambiguous term "good article."

and who gets to decide what get unmerged also why should admins be the only people to be able to make merging proposals

This whole proposal is based on your opinion that merging is always bad. Basically, you are just trying to impose your will on the whole wiki. Also, I wholeheartedly agree with GS15. Just because some people are admins does not mean that they are the only people who can make good decisions regarding splitting and merging.

All of the Non-Stub Articles that were merged get un-merged.And I think Admins should only get to make Merging TTPs because it would make less unnecesary merging

@yoshiwalker Merging isnt always bad.I think that Meging things that dont need to be merged is though

If a proposal was made for an unnecessary merge, it would be opposed. As a reply to your second comment, you said yourself that "Merging hurts the wiki".

well i meant stuff like the Lava Bubbe thing.Read the talk on Lava bubble to know what i mean

all i see is that 13 people said yes and 5 said no which makes me believe they should be merged

In japan,all magikoopas are called kamek.Does this mean kamek should be merged with magikoopa?i think not

@Holyromanemperortatan: That will actually hurt the wiki.

@Zero777 yeah prolly since it will cause confusion as to what articles should be merged and which ones shouldnt

What are you trying to say?! This proposal is way to vauge.


 * @Yoshiyoshiyoshi - On the contrary, merging is often used to help the Wiki, not to hurt it; we wouldn't be merging as many things as we do as often as we merge them if it wasn't completely necessary. Any merges that are unnecessary are usually obvious and will most likely not be enacted anyway, so this proposal is kind of pointless... 19:07, 28 April 2011 (EDT)

}}