MarioWiki:Proposals

 http://img33.picoodle.com/img/img33/9/9/17/f_propcopym_9045f2d.png A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed with the signature code (~).

How To
 * 1) Actions that users feel are appropriate to have community approval first can be added by anyone, but they must have a strong argument.
 * 2) Users then vote and discuss on the issue during that week. The "deadline" for the proposal is one week from posting at:
 * 3) Monday to Thursday: 17:00 (5pm)
 * 4) Friday and Saturday: 20:00 (8pm)
 * 5) Sunday: 15:00 (3pm)
 * 6) Every vote should have a reason accompanying it.
 * 7) At any time a vote may be rejected if at least three active users believe the vote truly has no merit or was cast in bad faith. However, there must be strong reasons supporting the invalidation.
 * 8) " # " should be added under the last vote of each support/oppose section to show another blank line.
 * 9) At the deadline, the validity of each vote and the discussion is reviewed by the community.
 * 10) Any proposal that has three votes or less at deadline will automatically be listed as "NO QUORUM"
 * 11) All proposals are archived. The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of a sysop, the proposer can ask for that help.

The times are in EDT, and are set so that the user is more likely to be online at those times (after school, weekend nights).

So for example, if a proposal is added on Saturday night at 11:59 PM EDT, the deadline is the next Saturday night at 8:00 PM. If it is indeed a minute later, the deadline is a day plus 15 hours (Sunday), as opposed to a day minus 4 hours.

CURRENTLY: , 27 2024 (EDT)

Conker and Banjo
At first clance, this would seem stupid, but hear me out. Considering we feature things Not actually part of the Mario series (in the sense that no Mario characters aside from DK characters appear) I was thinking we should have Banjo and Conker games as well, as they are spinoffs of the DK series, just like DK is a spinoff of Mario. Thoughts?

Proposer: HyperToad Deadline: January 17, 2008, 17:00

Support

 * 1) HyperToad See comments above.
 * 2) Per HyperToad FG2

Oppose

 * 1) Glitchman I don't really think Conker and Banjo have anything to do with the Marioverse, and these games were just cheap copies of the DK series. I don't think these should be added to the Wiki.
 * 2) Walkazo - They're too far removed.
 * 3) See my comment below.
 * 4) - We've been over this many times before. Banjo and Conker have nothing to do with the Marioverse besides a far removed role.
 * 5) - For the nth time, they are not related enough.
 * 6) Per previous proposal. And as an aside, why the heck would it matter that there is an "inappropriate" game? I don't remember the guidelines saying that everything has to be appropriate for children. In fact, that would go against one of the major principles of an encyclopedia.
 * 7) http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/9276/papertoycf7.gif Paper Jorge! I give paper cuts so stand back! http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/9276/papertoycf7.gif A long time ago, before lots of users joined, Banjo and Conker articles were allowed. Seriously. There was a Tooty article, a Gruntilda one and others. However we soon stopped making them, and after talking about it cancelled everything and destroyed everything Banjo and Conker. So in the end I say: Not related to the Mario series enough. They were just guest appearances. Let's not make articles on the Itadaki Street series, or Final Fantasy or Sonic.
 * 8) Per Time Q
 * 9) Macewindu 13:11, 15 January 2008 (EST),sorry dude, Mariowiki is for mario alone...
 * 10) we've already had a proposal like this.
 * 11) Go to the Rare Wiki: Per all

Comments
Actually, we had two proposal on this matter and infact, we used to have article on Banjo and Conker subject. The overal concensus was that Banjo and Conker only had very marginal link to the Marioverse (Not my opinion, thought) and that Conker was too scary for little kids. Just so you know. --Blitzwing 12:36, 10 January 2008 (EST)
 * In all fairness, same for Donkey Kong. HyperToad Also, uh, what's the big deal about Conker, if we are worried about that, let's get rid of Bob Hoskins. :)
 * Well, Mario made a cameo in DKC2 and the Donkey Kong Land instruction manual imply that Big Ape City may be where the original Donkey Kong took place. That, and a lot of DKC characters have been appearing in the sport games. About the Bob Hoskins stuff, I brought that up on the proposal, but no one listened.

--Blitzwing 12:49, 10 January 2008 (EST)
 * I listened, we should censor that page. Anyway, since Donkey Kong is a spin-off of Mario that'd make Banjo and Conker spin-spin-offs, which is a degree too removed from Mario. You could argue that Mario comes from Donkey Kong (the game) and is therefore the spin-off, but in the older proposals it was agreed that the game was more of a Mario game than a Donkey Kong game (except for its title). The opinion that Donkey Kong is the spin off is further supported by the fact that Donkey Kong Country (as the first of the bonefied Donkey Kong franchise) didn't show up until way after Mario was established as a franchise. - Walkazo
 * I already did. -

Wait... shouldn't we be making our decisions based on continuity and connection of game universes rather than personal throughts on how far removed a character can be before his series isn't covered by our Wiki? That line of reasoning is a little close to conjecturally determining canon for me. 21:00, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Hey, Glitchman, Banjo-Kazooie was in fact an incredible game, and a completely new series made by Rare. However, we already tried adding both those series to this wiki. Everyone remember this summer? They were removed again in about a month. Plus, most of Conker's games are pretty... Innappropriate. I don't want to see that stuff around this wiki.

True, I don't think we should bother posting them again when they're just going to be deleted...AGAIN. Per everyone else.

The Cheese article
I think we should get rid of this article, but before I explain my reasons for deleting this article, (In my flaming wreck of an opinion, of course) I will explain a few things to those that are new to the Mariowiki lore, because, let's face it, this article only exist because of a fad.

During February 2007, two users (Don't remmember who exactly) discussed how tasty cheese is, eventually, other users started putting like "CHESSE IS SO AWESOME! LOL." on their userpages. This eventually culminated in the creation of a mainspace article called "The Cheese Craze of '07", which was nothing more than a thinly veiled place for spam. The Cheese Craze of '07 was deleted and the Cheese fad started to die down, a few months after, this article was created. That's about it for the backstory.

Now, why this article should be deleted?:

First, the Importance of the item to the Marioverse is dubious: Let's see... it appear in Donkey Kong 64 as something you can climb on. Some places in Super Mario World and the Mario Kart have "Cheese" in their name. It's mentioned in the Paper Mario series and appear as one of the generic food item in the Super Smash Bros. Series. It's only claim to fame is that it might boost (The article write it like you can only see one if you expect a piece of cheese, but that's untrue) the chance of seeing a Gold Mouse in Luigi's Mansion, and I am not even sure it's true, it's said in the Prima Guide, but those aren't official and full of bogus info. An actually notable item called the Sacred Cylinder of Cheese play a major role in one of the Valiant comic story, but I don't think it help Cheese in any case. Look at the Toy Time Galaxy, it's the galaxy as a whole that is notable, we don't have an article on the individual toy-like surface that are in it, the same thing should apply to the Cylinder.

Second, If we allow Cheese to have an article, we should also allow a crapload of generic real world items to have their own articles: Let's take the Baozi-like meal found in Young Cricket story in WarioWare: Smooth Moves as an example. It play a major role in Young Cricket story since he's racing to grab some while they're still fresh. They also affect the gameplay, since they also act as a life counter. Lost all of them and it's game over. The Baozi's do everything the Cheese do and more, so why we don't have an article on it?

Seriously: If we allow Cheese to have it's own article, we should also allow other generic items to have their articles such as Television, Bridge or the afro-mentioned baozi, why Cheese should have a priority over those other items?

I hate when community stuff creep in the encyclopedia, this article is the perfect example of it.

Proposer: Blitzwing 08:02, 10 January 2008 (EST) Deadline: January 17th, 2008, 17:00

Delete it

 * 1) Blitzwing 08:02, 10 January 2008 (EST) To make a long story short, this article only exist because of a short lived fad and it's importance in the Marioverse is rather dubious.
 * 2) Per Blitzwing
 * 3) Walkazo - Per Blitzwing.
 * 4) - I'm so sick of that fad, as well! Its ridiculous! Per Blitzwing!
 * 5)  - Per Blitzwing.
 * 6) – Per Blitzwing.
 * 19:25, 11 January 2008 (EST) It does affect gameplay, but not enough. It affects gameplay as much as maybe a platform.
 * 1) Per all.
 * 2) - This is like making a "Head Asplosion" article. It just doesn't fit. It's just based on some fad.
 * 3) Per Blitzwing
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) User:freakatone I agree
 * 6) I've been wanting to see it gone since Day One it was created. Per all.
 * 1) I've been wanting to see it gone since Day One it was created. Per all.

Keep it

 * 1) HyperToad As a Mariowiki, we should have articles on everything, maybe List of Real World Foods Appearing in the Mario Series?
 * 2) That proposal wasn't long enough...:P  Per HyperToad.
 * 3) Hmmm... This decision was hard... But the Cheese does in fact have a role in gameplay. I think that the cheese in Luigi's Mansion is enough to keep the article. And yes, it's a stupid fad.
 * 4) - The Luigi's Mansion cheese should be there. Per InfectedShroom. Also, the wording of this proposal doesn't give me the option of actually voting for what I want. Because "If we allow Cheese to have an article, we should also allow a crapload of generic real world items to have their own articles:" - it is still not like that. The Cheese should be only kept for the Luigi's Mansion part, in which it can be interacted with. We don't need an article on "floor" and "Mario's house's door".
 * 5) Master Crash Per All.
 * 20:30, 11 January 2008 (EST) Luigi's Mansion thing saves it.
 * 1) Per everyone
 * 2) It has appearences and a role, so it must stay
 * 3) huntercrunch Per Mr. Guy.
 * 4) It's important. Keep or I destroy the deletor. FG2
 * 5) Ugh... I'm being bipolar.  I'm sorry.  It's been mentioned too many times for me.  I don't care if it has a real world counterpart: so does Peach (item).  To me, it's not a matter of having to create articles like the Snifit Ball, it's about deleting items like Peaches and other things to that extent.  I'm sorry Walkazo and Blitzwing.
 * 6) Girrrtacos If its in the Mario series, why delete it? Its one more thing, shouldn't we have more than less?
 * 7) Per all y'alls.
 * 8) Guys, it is an important aspect of Luigi's Mainsion.  I mean, it was the entrance to a secret room.  I think that's notable.
 * 9) --Luigifan14 21:40, 14 January 2008 (EST) The page is pretty detailed.
 * 10) Keep it, but get rid of the parts that have no point. The parts that have a point are longer than some articles, so you can't say we should just put it in part of it's game's article.
 * 11) macewindu, yeah its stupid, lets keep it anyway...
 * 12) PaperStriker, if we delete it, we have to delete all those Paper Mario items, too, because they're also minor items.

Comments
HyperToad: No, we don't have an article on everything. There is nothing special about Cheese, it's only a real world object that sometimes get referenced in the Marioverse, what make it more worthy of it's own article than other generic objects? Some guy here just thought it was tasty and started a fad around it. About your idea of making a list.... it could work, althought I think it would get pretty crowded. Blitzwing

Although I agree about it's actual purpose, reworking the article is still an option. It appears in 2 games (at least) and the comics. Are we going to get rid off things that only appear in only one game or take out things that only appear in the comics. Honestly, notabilty arguements could go on forever. HyperToad
 * Unlike Cheese, Wart and King Toadstool actually have some importance (Plus, you are wrong on both only appearing in a certain medium, Wart have appeared in a few comics and King Toadstool was mentioned in the instuction manual of the first Mario Bros.).The plot of SMB2 was about Wart invasion of the Subcon and he was the final boss of the game. A lot of the Valiant comic stories were centered on King Toadstool and his goofy atics. Wart and King Toadstool have revalance to the Marioverse, Cheese does not. The problem with Cheese isn't the article, it's that the subject is way too freaking minor, if it wasn't for that "Cheese Lover" fad, that page wouldn't exist. I remmember we used to have an article on "Snufit Ball", (The grey ball shot by the Snufit enemy in Super Mario 64... seriously, we had a page on that.) but it got deleted because the subject was too minor. Snufit Ball is exactly the same as Cheese, really, it's generic, very minor, and only have a marginal effect on the Gameplay (It hurt Mario), it just hadn't the luck of having a fad centered around it.

Blitzwing

Glitchman: What do you mean by "That proposal wasn't long enough."? If you mean that the opening thing is huge... well, I acknowledge I have difficulties abreviaitng my writting. But to make it short, Cheese as of now is too minor of a subject and we don't have "articles on everything" (See my comment.) Blitzwing

Blitzy: Cheese does effect gameplay, as confirmed by guidebooks (Prima among others). Yeah, they're not official, but they still are sources that are superior to observations from an individual user, not to put you down or anything. Could you have simply turned on the lights in the room before the mouse appears? I've gone through runs of that game where I haven't seen any mice and others where they appear every time I enter particular rooms. All of this says to me that you'd want to put cheese as a subsection on the Gold Mouse page though, don't you think? To flat out delete the information would be crazy, plus, every edit that every user makes on a Wiki is influenced by his past, sometimes including gags and fads. So... to say that an article shouldn't exist because the user who created it was involved in a running gag that you happened to severely dislike seems very strange to me. Should an article I made about Minor Characters from the Movie be deleted because I happen to love the fact that everyone seems to hate the Mario movie? In other words, because I was interested in the movie because of the "running gag" of mocking the movie, and because I get into the mocking as well, should any edits I do on minor subjects from the movie be removed?

But you'll notice that the article example I gave would be a list, right? I'm not advocating the cheese article to be its own necesarily, but that information should remain on the Wiki in some way, shape, or form. No, the types of platforms in Toy Time Galaxy should not have individual articles, but they should be mentioned in the Toy Time Galaxy article, yes? So, what I would do would be to make a list of Real World Subjects that have showed up in the Mario continuity (such as television, for example) and include Cheese in there... and include all of its cross-overs into the Mushroom World.

The Real World is as important to the Mario series as someplace like the Land of Ice... actually, it's more important. You'll notice, however, that the Real World is still different from our own (in other worlds, there is no Blitzwing in the Mario interpretation, no?) and so I would say it's important that we note what does exist there, just as we talk about what exists in the Mushroom World. So, cheese should be mentioned, just like everything else from the Real World, right?

I usually tend to diviate during my arguments, so please feel free to ask for clarification. But I am on your side that we're probably giving too much relavence to a topic that can be looked up somewhere else... like Wikipedia. 21:20, 10 January 2008 (EST)
 * While the Prima guide is a superior source of information, it still is not official and can contain a lot of bogus info (see Kasplat and King Kut Out articles, among other), infact just search "Prima" in the search engine and you will find a lot of articles pointing out mistakes in the Prima Guide. I will pull out that example again: We had an article on Snufit Ball, the projectile thrown by the Snufit enemy in SM64, if we keep Cheese, we should also recreate Snufit Ball since they both affect the gameplay in very minor ways.

The problem with the "It affect Gameplay!" reasoning is, that when you think about it, pretty much everything 'cept for the Mario Kart Sponsor affect gameplay. The bush and other objects you can shake in the Paper Mario series contain valuable items and you kinda interact with them. In the WarioWare series, you have to use a variety of object to get the task done... ect. While affecting the gameplay is a good argument, an article shouldn't be kept merely because it affect a very minor part of the game.

About the list idea, while it could work, I think it would just end up as a gigantic list of "(Insert Generic item here) is a real-word object that sometimes appear in the Marioverse, it appear in (Insert Game Name here)" style entries without much info.

About the "You only want to delete this because you hate that fad" thing, yes, I hate that fad and want to see it dissapear. However, even if a part of me hate the fad, I still think Cheese isn't worthy of it's own article, maybe as a mention in a list or something. The problem isn't that Cheese have a cult centered around it, it's that Cheese was only created because of it. Do I have to start a fad centered about Snufit Ball to recreate it? Geez. Blitzwing
 * Thank you for clarifying. I was thinking about this some more, so how about this: we cut the article up and put it's little sections as mentions in each game.  We also mention cheese in Mouser and Gold Mouse's articles.  Then, we start the list on the "Real World" article, even if it is just a list without any "entry".  Sound good?  21:30, 11 January 2008 (EST)
 * I wouldn't be against that. That way, we still keep revalant info but we don't allow a very minor object to have a mainspace article.

Blitzwing
 * I'll also support these actions, but as it would still require in the deletion of the Cheese Article shouldn't you move your vote Stumpers? - Walkazo
 * I wanted to make sure that the information would still be on the Wiki first. I'd rather have bad formatting than missing information. :)  Here was my vote, btw, for anyone interested, "Not to be tounge in cheek here, but I hate it when users let their prejudices for an article's past control whether or not it should be deleted.  Sounds sort of like the arguement that we should delete video game stub articles to me.  I really like HyperToads ideas, but I'd like to expand on that an propose a "List of Real World Subjects" instead.  See my comments below..."  15:05, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Fly_Guy_2: Was that a joke or are you threatening? - 13:35, 13 January 2008 (EST)
 * Npot the first time he threaten another user.

Blitzwing

If the Cheese article stays then why not make an article about a chair or a coach!

Stumpers: You don't need to appologise for changing your mind (at least, you don't need to appologise to me). However, I disagree about your Peach (item) example. The part about its role in Donkey Kong Jungle Beat could easily be merged into the Peach Kingdom article (like we've been saying about the bits of the Cheese article), but the fact that it's a Super Smash Bros. Brawl item makes it "neccesary" for it to have an article, since all the other items do. I personaly don't whole-heartedly agree with that policy, since it does make people wonder why other random items don't get articles if SSB items do. I dunno, I don't really care about this anymore. I'd rather see the Cheese Article gone and thereby set a standard for all random item articles (or lack thereof), but it's never bothered me before, and it won't in the future... I hope. - Walkazo
 * For me it's mainly the fact that cheese could have played a role in Luigi's Mansion. If it weren't for that I probably wouldn't have voted that way.  I'd be happy to see cheese merged in a page titled, "Random Items" or something like that, by the way.  Thank you for being so gracious abou this.   19:51, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Merge the different colored Yoshi articles
I propose that we merge Green Yoshi, Cyan Yoshi, Orange Yoshi, etc. into one article. I find it unnessacarry to have seperate articles on each color. We can easily merge each color and it's abilities into one article.

Proposer: King Boo

Deadline: January 23, 2008, 17:00

Support

 * 1) King Boo - Per myself.

Oppose, each color should have it's own article

 * 1) I don't see what the problem is. The articles aren't stubs, why should we merge them?
 * 2) As it stands, I'm gonna say no b/c of differences in Super Mario World.  I could change easily, though.

Comments
Can you expand on your reasoning a little more? I'm not sure which way I want to go yet. 21:31, 16 January 2008 (EST)

We had this proposal before, it did not pass. 01:41, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Split up the Quote Sections
As I'm looking around the wiki, I see HUGE quote sections on certain pages (mostly pages on big characters like Mario and Princess Peach). I think that we should remove the quotes altogether from these pages and make an entire page devoted simply to quotes from the Marioverse. Yes, it will be a long page, but I think it will be better. What are your thoughts on the matter?


 * We could also make seperate "Quote Pages" for each game or character, which would serve the same purpose, and make quotes easier to find.

Proposer: 22:29, 10 January 2008 (EST) Deadline: January 17, 2008, 17:00

Split The Quotes!

 * 1)   My thoughts are above.
 * 2) Having them on the page detracts from the analysis, and the pages are getting way beyond that 32MB guideline or whatever it is.  I'd rather have the multiple pages.
 * 3) Ghost Jam does have a point, but as long as the patrollers kept an eye on the page it would be a more complete and less destracting way of posting gaming quotes on the Wiki.
 * 4) Walkazo - I'm only supporting the creation of seperate quotes pages for the various games divided up into sections for individual characters.
 * 5) --Blitzwing 14:01, 12 January 2008 (EST) Per everyone. Some of these quotes section are gigatarnacious.
 * 6) -Orangeyoshi 20:40, 13 January 2008 (EST) Yes, but we should have one article for each character's quotes. And, we might not need a seperate quote page for minor characters. But I like the idea.
 * 02:40, 15 January 2008 (EST) - Per Walkazo.
 * 1) Per InfectedShroom and Stumpers.

Keep Them Where They Are.

 * 1)  - Seems like a license for spam.
 * 2) Quotes are fun! Keep them. Or else. FG2

Comments
GhostJam, how so? 00:54, 11 January 2008 (EST)

I think we used to have a page about a list of Quotes found in Super Mario 64 and it's remake, althought I can't find it now.... was it deleted? Blitzwing

What's the point of this proposal? I mean, we just had a proposal regarding quotes, and we decided to remove those quote sections. Someone just would have to take action. 10:00, 11 January 2008 (EST)

We JUST had this SAME proposal. Urgh! HyperToad
 * Not true. The other one was different: completely removing certain quotes from the pages. I say we keep them all, but on a different page. I WANT SOMETHING DONE ABOUT QUOTES.
 * On the last proposal I said we should make quotes pages for individual characters (or for groups like all the Koopalings). However, now I prefer Blitzwing's suggestion of quotes divided up into individual games (and for the TV series' and movies). I've seen it done on other sites and it makes finding individual quotes a bit easier, especially if each page is divided up into sections for the different people speaking (but with the minor characters grouped together to minimize cluttered headlining). - Walkazo
 * Hmmm... I thought of doing that... I thought the other way would be easier. Oh well. I will add your comment to the main part.
 * Splended! - Walkazo

Hmmm... I'm gonna need help making the pages if this proposal makes it...

I just thought of something. And it's not good. Splitting the quotes by game would be good for newer games, like Super Mario 64 or Galaxy. But what about games with almost no quotes, like Super Mario Bros.? That would make some pages very small. I think that we should make quote pages for individual characters and then make sections in that character-quote page for individual games/TV series/Movies. This would also make it easier for me in making these quote pages, as all the quotes I need are on one page, so I can easily transfer them to a new one. It could also make it moderatly easier to look for certain quotes. Sooo... your thoughts? Meh, forgot the last ~
 * Hmmm, the question is, are most people going to be looking for quotes from specific games or quotes from specific characters? People do both, but I think dividing it up by games first and pputting links to the individual characters' sections in those pages on their main pages will make it easier for everyone to navigate. Also, we could group the games without many quotes together to eliminate short pages. Anyway, homework takes up a lot of my time but I'll still try to help with this project. - Walkazo
 * Hmmm... sounds good.

Citing Sources
Around the wiki, we have always been quite lazy citing our sources. We do not have any system of giving references like at Wikipedia, and everyone just adds information he has taken from a random site. The best example for this is Super Smash Bros. Brawl, which got flooded with information from questionable sites, or the name of the site was not given at all. In order to save our credibility, I suggest that we start to quote our sources, as long as they are not the game (/comic/TV episode/Brawl Dojo) itself, either, if we can get it, by Wikipedia's reference system or by simply by adding an external link like this:. This should prevent further unsourced speculation in the articles, and also prevent random questionable Trivia items like on Princess Rosalina, as currently, to quote the user, there is "no need to source".

Proposer: Deadline: January 22nd, 17:00 (EDT)

Use Reference System

 * 1) - Per above.
 * 2) - Per Cobold and it is illegal to get info from someone/where else and not say who/where you got it from.
 * 3) Blitzwing I thought of doing a proposal about this matter, but Cobold beat me to it. Per Cobold.
 * 4) I'm loving this.  Can we also start using the image infobox template to show which site we got it from in the "source" section rather than the game it is from?
 * 5) Haha, I always thought we had a reference system...we just didn't use it. But, yeah, it's needed.
 * 17:35, 15 January 2008 (EST) A lot of effort but a lot of reward. Our wiki's credibility is important.
 * 1) I certainly don't see why not, and it's not like it's very hard to cite sources.
 * 2) Per Cobold. I'm so sick of this unsourced crap! We need to know WHERE you found the information.
 * 3) Per all. Does it include the images in this database that needed cite sources too?
 * 4) Per DP, wait that's per-ing Cobold
 * 5) That Guy We should definitely cite the sources.
 * 6) Of course we should have this, it has helped on many occasions when doing so on Wikipedia. Per all.

Use not

 * 1) Not only is it annoying for everyone to always have to cite they're sources, but why should your edits be reversed because of it. Yes, some of it might be spam, but most of it isn't, and if it looks suspicious you could ask them where they found it. Or even wait for the game to come out.
 * 2) That's not a very good example, most if not all of the information on Brawl's page is from Dojo!, and there's already a link for that.  Peachycakes also has a point.

Comments
Alphaclaw11: It's only illegal when the author holds the right on it. For information about Nintendo video games, you may always use it as a part of press freedom (when new game), and because Nintendo does not mind (obviously). The sites like IGN don't own the right on Brawl information, for example. Only when you copy a text 1:1 (e.g. GameFAQs walkthrough), it's possibly a copyright violation without naming the author. - 12:05, 15 January 2008 (EST)

I know but arent you talking about non-oficail sites. Alphaclaw11 12:09, 15 January 2008 (EST)
 * IGN is an unofficial site. As long as the content we take from unofficial sites is about a Nintendo game, it's Nintendo's intellectual property, not the site's. And Nintendo game information/images are used on the whole wiki already under Nintendo's terms:


 * So as long as these criteria are met and we quote or rephrase other sites, it's perfectly legal to take their information. - 12:15, 15 January 2008 (EST)

OkayAlphaclaw11 12:20, 15 January 2008 (EST) but still, if it is from a non-offical site then you need to say where you got it in cause it was wrong
 * Of course. That's what this is about. - 12:35, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Citation extensions literally cover MediaWiki.com on sub-pages galore, which I assume is Wikipedia's shortcut. If we really want to go that far, it can be done. 15:49, 15 January 2008 (EST)
 * That would be great, clears the article from the links but also explains the page without the user having to click it. - 16:56, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Stumpers: The current rules of the template say that the source website should indeed be listed as "source". The problem is more that currently, older files didn't get the update, and we don't have a section for the game any more. - 16:56, 15 January 2008 (EST)

What if we're drawing from our personal experiences, do we cite the games themselves? Cuz that might seem a bit redundant, ex: "In Super Paper Mario, Mario, Luigi, Peach and Bowser are on a quest to stop Count Bleck from destroying all the dimensions [Super Paper Mario, 2007]." (I know it's not a proper citation, but you get the point). Also, what if you see screenshots of a game on a website, which to you cite? - Walkazo
 * IMO, what we should do is this: don't bother with siting a game on its own page and only site it once in its section in a bibliography. If you mention an event from the game in relationships, you should site it as well.  But, let's see what the people who actually know what they're talking about think.  18:47, 15 January 2008 (EST)
 * Read above, I've mentioned it, of course you don't have to cite the games! This is mostly about unreleased games or other statements drawn from the internet. And even then, you don't have to mention the Smash Bros. Dojo 100,000 times in the Brawl article, it's okay when it is linked to only at the top. But Bob Hoskins could get a link to the Guardian interview which is avaiable on their website. - 12:20, 16 January 2008 (EST)

* AHEM* I have one problem with this proposal... Everyone looks at citing sources as just like on Wikipedia, but it's not really, we're about a series of video games, so the source could be the actual game itself. Everyone says things like "We need to know WHERE you FOUND the information" as if the internet is the only thing we have to find information about a series of video games. I don't really see it being easy to just say "I played the game itself" on this place, seeing as how people seem to LOVE arguing about that kind of stuff, and it could be used to back up conjectural information for more minor video games. Of course, I don't really see how this would majorly effect citing sources much, since conjectural information is rarely placed on articles anyway... But, it may still cause conflicts, especially when it comes to obscure games.
 * I thought you could site non-internet sources, though? Maybe we could ask for people to say which chapter or something (for Paper Mario) or level (for SMG) they got the information from when they site their sources?  I dunno.  22:31, 15 January 2008 (EST)

I think the sourcing system here (If this proposal pass) should perhap be less strict than Wikipedia. There, every bit of cretinous informations like "X organisation is the bad guy of the game" or "X character return from the previous game" require to be sourced, even if the information can be found in the game itself. I think only really obscure info (Like Nastasia having a crush on Count Bleck) or things like the crap about Rosalina being related to Peach in SMG beta should be sourced. --Blitzwing 06:55, 16 January 2008 (EST)
 * You're right, we shouldn't get on Wikipedia level. It's mostly about speculation here. - 12:20, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Peachycakes 3. 14:You know, we can alway use the (in)famous "citation needed" tag of Wikipedia if the information isn unsourced. For what we know, the information added could be one of those "I heard somewhere that..." deal whose original meaning get warped over time. Sourcing mean we can verify the credibility of the infos. --Blitzwing 18:16, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Alright, I too think we should cite. HOWEVER: I have done many things here that I just pulled out my DS and started looking for info. How the heck are we supposed to cite that? I never even go to other websites for info. I just look it up in the game or the guide. Another thing: how are we supposed to quote Official Guides? it's a bit hard...
 * A "reference" isn't necessarily a link. It may as well be simply a text string which reads "Nintendo Power Official Super Mario *enter game name here* Guide, page XX". At least, that is what Wikipedia's reference system allows perfectly well. - 13:04, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Well, probably we could do like what Geographers do when the map maps. They write "Field Work" so just replace it with "Own Source" or something... Could work...

Outside Info
Recently, I've seen a very large amount of Super Smash Bros. content all over the wiki, which includes stages, items, and all sorts of other junk taken from all kinds of other series'. I'll put it plain and simple, I believe that we should removed this immense amount of uneeded Super Smash Bros. series stuff(Including cutting down on the insane page for the game, Super Smash Bros. Brawl), since we are the Super 'Mario' Wiki, not the Super Smash Bros. Wiki, and with the amount of Super Smash Bros. Brawl content we could even be the Super Smash Bros. 'Brawl' Wiki. I know that this is the exact opposite of a proposal I previously made, but things like this just seem totally wrong how we're doing it... Everyone said no to my last proposal, but after it was archived, the immense amount of Super Smash Bros. Brawl info continued to flow in, mostly about the stages, items, and character that where shown on Smash Bros DOJO!!, and it almost seemed like everyone would have liked my proposal if it had instead been "Add more Super Smash Bros content to the wiki". If you havn't noticed from this whole thing, I am proposing that we shorten, merge, and delete pages relating only to the Super Smash Bros. series, or other series' that where introduced to the Mario Wiki through Super Smash Bros.

Proposer: Uniju :D Deadline: January 22nd (EDT)

Support, we are the Super Mario wiki

 * 1) I get sick of this SBB being Marfio 100%  crap.
 * 2) Forgot this... Per myself.

Oppose

 * 1) It features several Mario, Yoshi, Donkey Kong and Wario characters as major playable characters, and has several Mario-based items and stages, moreso than any other series, at least. I think it is worthy to be part of the extended Mario series.
 * 2) Per DP.
 * 3) King Boo - What if people want to know other stuff BESIDES the Mario content? We should cover EVERYTHING. It wouldn't be fair to only cover Mario content, in such an important series. I oppose this proposal. I am 100% against it.
 * 4) Per PDP
 * 5) Let's have everything SSB related, but let's keep it below information from other series (The trophy info is fine)
 * 6) Uniju, didn't you previously want a page for everything?  Merging is unpredictable: you do it once and more stuff follows.  Will the Yoshi and DK series be next if we do this?
 * 7) HyperToadPer DP! Although this is a MarioWiki, let's not pull a Wikipedia and cut down articles that give usefull infomation.
 * 8) - Per all. Considering that your argument is that the Brawl article is too long, I wonder whether this is even a reason to qualify as a vote. Also, I've removed the tag of the "Oppose" header because while Smash Bros. can stay, it still doesn't mean that we need an article on NBA Street V3 which had Mario, Luigi and Peach as guest characters. That's a place for Game Sightings still.
 * 9) - Per all. And Uniju you're so inmature that you're leaving.
 * 10) huntercrunch Per all. Also, might I add, SSB IS closely related to the Mario series.
 * 11) Booster Keep, but see my comment.
 * 12) Walkazo - See below comment.

Comments
DP & Crash(and the rest of the hoard coming to per him): I see where your coming from, but just because there's Mario stuff in it, that doesn't mean we should cover the whole thing. Do we cover all about the TV shows Mario cameos in? And, KingBoo, that's not what everyone said last time, everyone said that we should just link to other sites. Which I now see is the better way to do it.
 * That's a cameo, its just minor, and has no significance. Smash Bros. features a major role for Mario and his friends. In fact, there's more Mario content in the game than any other series. I'm just saying, Mario and his allies play a major role in Smash Bros.
 * Putting it that way, scroll up. Look at Banjo and Conker, who both have a large connection to the Mario Series are both being kicked off the wiki. It seems to me that your all simply biased towards Super Smash Bros. I expect the only response to be "Your biased against it", so please give a VALID argument.
 * I'm not gonna say that, Uni, so stop being so immature. Banjo and Conker only made minor appearances in one game, with them being kicked out in the remake. After that, their respective series never got linked to the Mario series again, or Donkey Kong, for that matter. They became their own unique series with no relation to DK or Mario, whereas Smash Bros. brings in attributes from the Mario, Yoshi, DK and Wario series.

King Boo - You just said it yourself, Uniju. We are the MARIO wiki. Therefore we should completely cover every game that has MARIO content.
 * If Super Smash Bros. has content from Mario, then we should cover the content from Mario. I don't see why we need to cover EVERYTHING ELSE. And I don't see why all the stages and such can't just be tossed into a table like a lot of things can.
 * Ya see, here's the problem. If we ONLY cover the Mario-based information from Smash Bros., then the Smash Bros. articles are worthless. What's the point of covering one side of the game, but not covering the other side? If it has Mario in it, we should at least mention it, right? But, the Smash Bros. articles would have no use if it did not tell you EVERYTHING that's in the game. If you get rid of Smash Bros., you must get rid of the Final Fantasy articles as well.
 * On a related note, I DO think that the items don't deserve articles, or the moves. HyperToad
 * Could you explain why? Especially about the Final Smashes we have a lot to say, more than about Flutter Jump. Of course we shouldn't have articles on A attacks, but Special Moves and Items pages are created for the mainstream Mario articles as well, so I don't see a reason why not Smash Bros. - 12:24, 16 January 2008 (EST)

The proposal is right about one thing. A LOT of emphasis (too much?) goes into the Smash Bros. articles. If something appeared, or is going to appear in a Smash game, it's guaranteed to have proper coverage, and will never be in danger of being a poorly-written stub. Looking at the front page right now, all three news articles are about Brawl. The featured article? Melee. We do look like the Smash Wiki just from glancing at the front page. Too much attention is being given to the Smash Bros. games. I know they're uber popular and everything, but they shouldn't be the center of attention on the Mario Wiki. I'm not saying that we can't have all these articles, but that the people who write them should dip into other subjects when they get the chance. Look at Super Mario Bros. or Super Mario Bros. 3. Landmark games with lousy articles for what they are. -- Booster
 * It wouldn't be got not to feature Super Smash Bros. Melee but instead Super Mario Bros. 3, simply because Super Mario Bros. 3 is quite a bad article. That's also something, and if you want to change it, you'd have to sit down yourself and work on the article. It's possible, most of the work on the Melee article was done by myself. - 17:00, 16 January 2008 (EST)

As long as we only give a brief background on non-Mario things like in the Link article these articles are fine (because it's still relevant to Mario). As others have said already, these games are Mario games, just like Mario Hoops 3-on-3, only instead of one crossover series there's several. The very name Super Mario Bros. is homage to Mario and Mario being a playable character could make it more of a Mario game in some peoples' eyes than things like Donkey Kong Country or Wario Land 4 that have no sign of Mario at all. Yes, Smash Bros. is a bit over-hyped, but its a good series and with a new instalation about to come out it's bound to get lots of attention. Step back and wait for the game to be released and all the information digested into the Wiki before deciding what should stay and what should be merged... But the proposal probably won't fly then either. - Walkazo
 * Kind of in line with what you were saying, we cover what we do on the Wiki because of the relation to the main Mario video games. The movie wasn't in the same world or with the same characters (just the same names and general roles), but we still have it there because it's part of the history of the Mario series.  Smash Bros. is the same, so the question shouldn't be "Should we limit SSB articles" but "Should we limit articles on subjects that follow alternate storylines?" And then you get into a whole crudload of speculation.  21:41, 16 January 2008 (EST)