MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/40

Rumors Section
I believe that we should have a rumors section on articles that include rumors. This section could have a notice in it, stating that all it contains are rumors and have no proof. Some of the more popular rumors (like the DLC characters in Mario Kart 8, or the E3 "leak" in SSB4) could be added. A similar section is used on Zelda Wiki, for theories. The rumors section would allow people to see what may be in the game. While it may not be very encyclopedia-ish, it would be more helpful, which is indeed what MarioWiki is designed to be, right? I doubt I'll win this but you never know unless you try. So yeah.

Proposer: Deadline: June 20, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal. I think it would be useful to know what may or may not be in the game.

Oppose

 * 1) We document on what's confirmed, not on widely circulated unconfirmed, unofficial information. According to the Citation Policy, "Rumours and misleading info is commonplace online, so showing readers that we are not fabricating our info and in turn, letting them evaluate the trustworthiness of our sources is especially important." This policy is there to leave out rumors and keep us as a reputable source. We don't want people taking rumors as true just because they're documented here. Finally, there are countless rumors regarding upcoming games, so having to document all of them is going to be impossible. The only type of rumors that may be covered here are those debunked years ago, and even then, it's a maybe.  I see that you're trying to make sections that already inform the reader that the information is dubious, but why add such information in the first place? I don't really agree with fan "theories" on Link Wiki either, but that's another wiki anyway. Anyhow, the best place to discuss rumors would be the appropriate talk page, so really, nothing is lost if this proposal fails; there's just an equally-valid outlet to put rumors and other information.
 * 2) The internet is a chock full place of rumors. Look at Reddit and 4chan, they're basically "Rumors: The Site". We're not gonna site all rumors, and these are as valid as fan content such as fan games, no matter how popular or how well-documented they are. Well-known rumors like the Sonic and Tails April Fools joke in Super Smash Bros. Melee are more suited for Trivia sections. Also, per Mario.
 * 3) Per both. Though I worry that discussing rumours on the talkpage may qualify as forum talk.
 * 4) Per All.
 * 5) If we had a rumours section, Ridley would be all over the SSB4 page and this would the Fanrio Wiki.
 * 6) Simply allowing rumors to be added may allow people to see what may be in the game as you've said. However, it doubts their mind on if we are really covering things from the game or from randomness. Encyclopedias only contains facts, so that they can be trusted. And as what LGM said, our Citation Policy already shows why rumors are not allowed. The Good Writing disallow speculation, which is the rumors are part of. And I agree with Yoshi876.
 * 7) Sorry, but the wiki covers real and comfirmed things, like an encyclopedia. But I guess everyone else is saying that too, huh?
 * 8) Per policy. However, if you feel that a particular rumor might be useful for a particular article and can make a good case for it, feel free to hit up that articles talk page.
 * 9) Nope... in this way we can add any fan-made information and this wiki will be a fanon (or at least in part).
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Just when I thought we couldent think of a more pointless idea....(Facepalm)
 * 12) Not on the page. Keep that kind of stuff to the talkpage if allowed.
 * 13) Mario Wiki is for confirmed things by Nintendo.

Comments
@Yoshi876, it's not really forum talk, imo. We're talking about improving the article, so bringing up rumors and stuff can help us verify and filter information before it's added. We did allow some Mario Kart 8-related rumors on its talk page, usually the well-circulated ones, so we shouldn't remove those. Forum talk isn't really finely defined, so use your own judgement to see if it pertains to the article or not. 16:52, 13 June 2014 (EDT)

Although I expected this to go rather poorly (as mentioned in my proposal), it appears (at least to me) that you think I'm suggesting putting rumors all over the page (like, in the characters section for SSB4 put Ridley as a rumored character). I was thinking rumors would be limited to just a single section (or possibly a page in a similar vein to SmashWiki). These rumors would make no other appearances on the site (except talk pages). Peanutjon (talk) 19:38, 14 June 2014 (EDT)
 * Even if it's confined to a single page, it's still opening the floodgates for kiddies to trip themselves over to add low-quality content and obvious nonsense like ~leaked conference listing sheets~ photographed at an odd angle or w/e. --Glowsquid (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2014 (EDT).

Make a new reference page.
Recently I was on the web, and found an article on a Mario reference in Wreck-It-Ralph. However, it was in the Wreck-It-Ralph ride in Disney Land. The Reference was a sign saying SUPER MARIO BROS. PIPES CLOGGED!!! I thought a reference page covering this sort of thing would be a good idea, or the discussions between Disney and Nintendo.

Proposer: Deadline: June 23, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Make a new reference page

 * 1) If there actually is such a reference, then we make a page entitled something along the lines of . Sure, we have pages of Mario references in many different forms: advertisements, cartoons, films, TV, music, technology, plays, games, and the Internet. Still, good catch,.
 * 2) Now that I think about it, this isn't such a bad idea. Per the hill of stones.
 * 3) – I would have it as something else, but I can't think of one.

Do Nothing

 * 1) Per myself in the comments, as far as this proposal makes it this is the only reference within theme parks, and therefore a page with one thing like that is kind of pointless in my opinion.
 * 2) Put this movie reference in movie references page and on Mario's page. When it's released, of course. No need for a whole new page, like Yoshi876 said.
 * 3) Per my comments below.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) ...No. Per all.
 * 6) Per Yoshi, even if we did make a "references in theme parks" page there would only be one small reference.
 * 7) What do think this page is for? Collecting Cyber dust?
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Per Ninelevendo (actually there is something from Wrech-it-Ralph)
 * 10) Per all. Why would I say yes?
 * 11) Not exactly "do nothing", but just add it as a asterisk in the appropriate section in "List of Mario references in film".

Comments
Where's the none option, because this proposal needs it? It is covered on List of Mario references in film and according to coverage that's all that needed, if we created a page like you propose then we may as well create a page on every single movie, TV show, song, or internet video that has something related to Mario in it.
 * I agree, basically your proposal forces us to pick something you like. Add a "Do nothing" option please. -- 14:27, 16 June 2014 (EDT)
 * I do agree with SuperYoshiBros to add a stalemate option, but I'm convinced as to whether the two have understood the proposal. 14:50, 16 June 2014 (EDT)
 * My apologies I did misread the proposal, but unless there are numerous references, I don't think one amusement park attraction should get a references page. Unless there are numerous references from numerous places, this should just be mentioned as a sidenote on the Wreck-It Ralph section in the film references.

First off, as noted, there needs to be an oppose option. Secondly, this is covered by the various List of Mario references articles we have. Check to make sure what you want added isn't already there and add it to the appropriate list. I doubt you're going to get any support for a formal Wreck-It-Ralph article, as the movie has nothing to do with Mario outside of a few mentions (this stretches to other Ralph related promotional material). -- Chris 14:50, 16 June 2014 (EDT)

"List of Mario references in amusement parks" sounds way too specific to have its own page. 15:53, 16 June 2014 (EDT)
 * Under the note on the references in film page about Mario in Ralph, subnote in about the reference in further promotional adaptions. Serves the purpose without making a throwaway article. -- [[File:Shyghost.PNG]]Chris[[File:Shyghost.PNG]] 21:59, 16 June 2014 (EDT)

I just contacted the proposer on the talk page issue about a "Do Nothing" option. I'm still awaiting a response. 17:28, 16 June 2014 (EDT)
 * As this is not a creative change that alters the goal of the proposal, I've went ahead and added an oppose section. -- [[File:Shyghost.PNG]]Chris[[File:Shyghost.PNG]] 12:10, 17 June 2014 (EDT)
 * Against the rules, my foot; somebody needs to add an "oppose" section. For the love of god, who cares if it breaks a rule if the proposer doesn't even format it properly? Sheesh. 15:26, 17 June 2014 (EDT)
 * Rules like that are meant to be followed, if the proposer does not add in an oppose within the allowable timeframe, then it'll probably be vetoed for the lack of an oppose section.
 * Rules are just guidelines for bettering the wiki and community. If the user doesn't format a proposal properly, then we should help everyone (including this wiki), rather than hiding behind rulebook and waiting for the proposal to be vetoed. It's better to oppose the proposal so we can resolve it rather than waiting for it to be deleted just because the proposer didn't add a "do nothing" section. If we add an oppose section now, we're breaking the rules properly, and that's what counts. 15:36, 17 June 2014 (EDT)
 * I'm not "hiding behind the rulebook", I want an oppose section in there so I can throw my two cents into the main body of the proposal rather than dilly-dally around saying why I think it's a bad idea in the comments section as it has no outcome on the overall proposal. I think it's better to inform the user that an oppose section is necessary and if they don't and if they do not follow this they face the consequence of their proposal getting vetoed. Hopefully this will get them to learn from their mistakes rather than just thinking that other people will come along and fix what they should do in the first place which would make a better user, and with a better user, the wiki and the community becomes a better place.
 * I don't like assuming this guy has ignored the requests and all; he wasn't active ever since the proposal was made. I don't want to assume it's out of carelessness and he expects us to fix it for him; it sounds unhealthy to make such assumptions. We can oppose the proposal now just so there is a valid reason for it to fail. Sorry, I was just a tad annoyed that people revert (in my opinion) appropriate changes and then cite the rules. don't permaban me and force me to eat chocolate-covered bacon strips . 16:04, 17 June 2014 (EDT)
 * I don't want to assume bad faith in the user, I just cited that reason as it is a common thing, people just being fine with letting others finish what they should have. I'll make you eat normal bacon instead.
 * This is ridiculous. If someone makes a proposal and doesn't make an oppose section, will that proposal get vetoed? no. Adding a "Do Nothing" section is exactly like making an Oppose section someone forgot.  17:12, 17 June 2014 (EDT)
 * No the proposal would get vetoed, as having something with no oppose section is detrimental to the upkeep of the wiki.
 * Consulted with administrative team over IRC, they agreed that the presence or absence of an 'oppose' selection alters the course of the discussion enough that not having it is detrimental. Additionally, the editing rule relates to proposal itself, not standard procedures of the wiki at large (will request this is made more clear in further rule revisions). -- [[File:Shyghost.PNG]]Chris[[File:Shyghost.PNG]] 17:37, 17 June 2014 (EDT)

Make a Mario Answers page
Wikipedia has one, many wikis have them. There is no reason for Mario Wiki not to have an Answers page.

Proposer: Deadline: June 23, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) This page? Our forum? Or the talk pages? Whatever use the proposed page may have, don't these already fulfill it?
 * 2) Do you have any idea how many opinions would clash? Certain users wouldn't actually have real or correct answers, and arguments could happen, such as the 3D World Toad issue.
 * 3) Per LGM, If you need anything Mario-related or not, ask them on our help desk on the forums.
 * 4) I feel that our community is robust enough that answers can be more readily found by posting on the forums or asking in chat.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) We can`t just add an entire section because "Wikipedia has one so we should have one." We should add something because it help the wiki not make it look like the others.
 * 7) Per Mario and the second sentence of my comment.
 * 8) If we're asking general things about Mario, use the forum. Pages on the wiki should be used to improve it, and if you think your question will improve a page, then voice it on the respective article's talkpage.
 * 9) We have the forum for that.

Comments
Answers on what? This is a really vague proposal.
 * I agree with Yoshi876. Please tell us what an Answers page is exactly, then we'll know which side we're for. (Oh, and by the way, could you make suggestions and comments? That would help out a ton.)  At last, the rock fell.

14:44, 16 June 2014 (EDT) What is an answer page anyway?! Besides, we can't copy Wikipedia all the time. 15:49, 16 June 2014 (EDT)
 * I think it's a thing in which you ask questions about Mario stuff 21:31, 16 June 2014 (EDT)

@: You are right. @Mario: Check the Wikisimpsons link I left and see how they make answers.
 * If that's the case then, we have it. It's called the forum.

Delete the age-rating companies articles
This has been on my mind for quite a good time. The age-rating companies (I'm referring to ESRB, CERO, ACB, USK, DEJUS, PEGI) are pages that includes information about seriously nothing related to the Marioverse itself, the first also includes some worthless trivia, and overly big tables including rating that the Mario series games fall only in one or two of them by the maximum. Of course, I only propose deleting the page, the rating will be kept in the infobox of the games. Just the links will be changed to wikipedia's. The pages should be eliminated, they do not serve the wiki's purpose other than filling some links, which can be filled by Wikiedia's links. It includes much more information than us on that specific subject anyway.

The page do not provide lists of games with those rating, I guess It doesn't matter since we can look into Rating Image's usage to check this up.. Anyway, I'm thinking about creating a category for each rating, hadn't sorted my mind yet, but that's not what the proposal is about.

Bottom line: It's a media/related page that do not include much needed information, burn it.

Proposer: Deadline: June 23, 2014, 23:59 GMT.

Support

 * 1) they're about as relevant to Mario as retail outlets and trade shows.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) They won't be missed. Nobody is sane enough to go to a MarioWiki to research ESRB ratings
 * 4) Per all. Agree with the idea of a category. Maybe link the ratings off to relevant sites for more information.
 * 5) Why does it exist in the first place?
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Like E3, and other terms like this, this should only be a note in the glossary.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) What's the point of them here when they're supposed to be Wikipedia articles?? Per all.
 * 10) Per all
 * 11) Per all
 * 12) – I don't really want them to be deleted, but they probably should due to the things mentioned above.
 * 13) If we don't get E3, why do we need ESRB...? Plus, it's really just pointless and doesn't have much to do with Mario.
 * 14) Good idea.
 * 15) Great thinking. I mean seriously, why the fuck do we need a ESRB page. It's fucking pointless on the wiki other than for some shits and giggles. Besides I think the links to the ESRB can be filled with Wikipedia links instead just as the proposal says.
 * 1) Great thinking. I mean seriously, why the fuck do we need a ESRB page. It's fucking pointless on the wiki other than for some shits and giggles. Besides I think the links to the ESRB can be filled with Wikipedia links instead just as the proposal says.

Comments
@Pwwnd123 Watch. Your. Language. Please. 19:14, 19 June 2014 (EDT)
 * He's allowed to swear as long as it's not directed at anyone nor if it's excessive. But, Pwwnd, don't overdo it. 19:16, 19 June 2014 (EDT)
 * Alright but I won't be like the AVGN.

I think to merge all the ratings pages. It's neither support or unsupport
 * I'm not allowed to change the proposal currently, maybe make a proposal about that after this ends. While personally, I don't agree; The pages don't hold useful information to exist here anyway.-- 10:36, 21 June 2014 (EDT)

Separate Featured Crossover Articles from Featured Mario Articles
Now some crossover character articles have been featured on the main page in the past. Ganondorf was featured before. And we're currently Featuring Kirby. But what message does it send to new people? It's probably very confusing as to why we have a character that isn't from Mario. So I think we should have a separate award for featured crossover character articles to not confuse people. Maybe there can be two Featured Articles. One is an article from the Mario series and the other can be a crossover article. The crossover article section can have an image smaller than the Mario article's image and at the bottom of the section, small info telling what series it came from, what games he/she met Mario in and a link to the more appropriate NIWA Wiki if there is one, plus a brief disclaimer of our Coverage policy. The Mario featured article section should be bigger than the crossover section on the main page.

Proposer:

Deadline: June 25, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per Proposal.
 * 2) Per SeanWheeler.
 * 3) Per proposal. This is Super Mario Wiki, so our featured article should be a Mario one, not about a crossover.

Oppose

 * 1) This would complicate the process of featuring even further than necessary. The entire point of featured articles is to showcase the best articles in the wiki. There's no need to discriminate the content of the featured article.
 * 2) Per Baby Luigi.
 * 3) This just seems pointless. So, yeah, they aren't Mario characters. It's not about the characters, featured articles show the best us users can really do. Whether it's a character, or an item, a place or maybe even a concept, Featured Articles are featured because of their amazing quality, not for content. Therefore, non-Mario characters don't need to be separated from the rest just because of their universe.
 * 4) This wiki covers the complete Mario series. We act accordingly on this. This is the way that this wiki has always operated, and it's the way that it's operate for the years to come. Besides, you're just making the system more complicated when there's really no need to make it more complicated.
 * 5) I get the principle behind this, but we have it set up the way we do for a reason. As others have noted, the featured articles aren't meant to showcase neat Mario concepts, but examples of excellent writing.
 * 6) – Per Ghost Jam & Per my reasons below.
 * 7) Per all
 * 8) We shoot down proposals on a regular basis for being based on content instead of quality. Why would we start regulating articles using that reasoning now?
 * 9) Articles like Kirby and Ganondorf (especially Kirby) are created because they are relevant to the Mario series. Kirby appears not only in a cross-over video game, but also as a major character in certain Club Nintendo comics. My friend did ask me why Kirby was featured in a MarioWiki, but I told him that it's simply a "good article".
 * 10) – I agree with Baby Luigi, Koopakoolklub, Ghost Jam, etc.

Comments
The reason I want them separated is because they can confuse new users. On Talk:Ganondorf, someone asked why a Zelda villain is on Super Mario Wiki. Yes, Featured Status is based on quality, not the subject, but I don't want anyone feeling confused about a non-Mario character being featured on the Front Page. Yeah, they've earned the Featured Article star, but I don't want any confused people to mark the featured article for deletion or anything. SeanWheeler (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2014 (EDT)
 * As everyone else said: Featured Articles are meant to showcase our best articles, whether they be strictly Mario chars or crossovers. While it may be confusing, the rest of the Wiki blatantly shows Mario, from the name, to just about 90% of the main page, the image up there in the corner, etc. The confusion's probably not gonna be that harmful, it's not like anyone is gonna look and see "Oh it's got Ganondorf, my Wiki must be in another castle". Even if it is marked for deletion, it's not like a SysOp will delete based upon that fact alone, also our users and/or admins can always revert the edit, as well as explain why to the new users why it's here. Afterall being on any wiki is a learning process, and this would be a situation that is quickly fixed. – We could possibly add something like "Why is this a featured article?" in small text at the bottom to further explain everything, if it becomes a huge problem. But I don't think it will. We could also add Coverage into our Welcome Template, but I don't know how many people actually read the template anyways.
 * Okay, so maybe not separate them but in months with crossover characters as the Featured Article, we can have a link to the Coverage page? And I know we can revert edits. I just don't want people marking Featured Articles for deletion in the first place. If someone still disagrees with the article being here, it can cause a revert war, which is not good. We don't need to separate them, we just need a brief disclaimer of why they are here. SeanWheeler (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2014 (EDT)
 * No, there's no need for the link to the coverage page in in the Featured Articles page. We don't need to discriminate Featured Articles based on the content. That's not the point. The point of Featured Articles is to showcase off the best writing in the wiki. If it was content based, badly written articles such as Mario or Mario (franchise) would get featured while a well-written article such as Ganondorf or Kirby would be ignored. No one has done a revert war in the past, and any oppose comments regarding the content of a featured article in a nomination are immediately shot down and removed by voting to remove oppose vote. It hasn't been a huge problem, and it most likely won't. 15:56, 19 June 2014 (EDT)
 * This hasn't been a problem in any of the years we've been running the FA – if it does become a problem, we can take measures to remedy the situation. But everything seems to be just fine, the measures we could take could cover from autoconfirm protection to as I brought up before, adding something about our coverage page. But this really seems like a non-issue, what's the difference between a FA and just a regular non-featured article, granted one is on the main page and others aren't. But people could still go through and mark any number of articles for deletion before fully understanding our coverage policy, we'd just have to revert anyways. Afterall we can't expect every new user to know all of our policies right off the battle, it's a learning process. We just have to have faith that our new users can learn our policies or take content to talk pages rather than automatically marking stuff for deletion. Besides if someone knows how to use the delete template, it's not far fetched to believe they can understand our coverage policy. I do believe we should add a link the Coverage page into our Welcome Template, but that's just me.

The peoples BJAODN
I like BJAODN as much as the next guy but I think we should remove the rule that prevents people form making original stuff to put into the BJAODN. I think making original stuff for the BAJODN is a safe fun way to get a few laughs and blow of some steam, so who`s with me?

Proposer: Deadline: June 25, 2014, 23:59 GMT.

Support

 * 1) Per me, It`s my proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) That defeats the entire purpose of BJAODN. It is meant to be nonsensical edits made by people that are unintentionally bad, if we create our own things it effectively promotes making these bad edits. And if you mean just coming up with stuff and adding it in normally, then it's not an archive which is its purpose.
 * 2) There are plenty of spaces to post inane shit, and as past attempts to add "original content" to BJAODN demonstrate,  the result would be less chuckleworthy that a documentary on Darfur refugee camps.
 * 3) Per everyone, use the forums, chat or possibly your userspace for original content. The only original content that has made BJAODN, aside from the years April Fools articles, are my pie proposals and, as stated elsewhere, those are due to administrative tomfoolery more than anything else.
 * 4) Copied STRAIGHT from the rules: Don't write badly on purpose. Don't create all-new material just to add to the archives, don't alter existing material to "make it funnier", and definitely don't vandalize actual articles in order to get them into BJAODN, because you will be punished. Another reason? All the others already have stated: professional encyclopedias ACTIVELY discourage writing horribly.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all. This isn't a wiki to vandalize articles, but if you want to copy and vandalize an article on your userspace and not the mainspace, that would be fine.
 * 8) It's not going to be as funny.

Comments
Sorry for the bad quality early on I learned that I should not type my proposal on notepad then copy paste it on the page, sorry for inconvenience early on.

A minor note, but why is this under Removals? Seems to me like it would belong in the Changes section. Vommack (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2014 (EDT)
 * My best guess is that the user wants those rules removed, so he felt that the removals section was best. Any work to be honest, removing the rule does equate to changing the rules.

Cleaning up padding in articles
I have absolutely no idea what to title this.

Good writing is generally what we refer to when we're unsure of whether or not a certain aspect of an article constitutes as "bad" writing, or at the very least improper for a wiki. One of the outlined examples is titled "everything but the kitchen sink", which refers to padding articles with information that carries tenuous or superficial connections to the subject at hand. As an example, the section cites Boomerang, since the article refers exclusively to the power-up that appears in Super Mario Advance 4, and not about any other generic instances of boomerangs at all. If we were to include instances of boomerangs appearing generically, it would not only violate the Good Writing guideline, but also likely overstep on the Generic Subjects guideline, which wouldn't be acceptable at all.

You get three guesses as to what the Boomerang article is currently doing, and the first two don't count.

There are far too many articles that seem to be stuffed with every single appearance of its subject, regardless of what connection it carries to its other appearances and regardless of what's outlined for Generic Subjects (since it tends to go hand-in-hand with the kitchen sink guideline). Mine, Cheese, Elephant, Moon, Cow, Apple, Icicle, Egg... The list goes on and on with no end in sight. Nobody benefits from these articles: editors have to hunt for every minor appearance of a subject, readers have to sift through section upon section of irrelevant information to look for what they want, and neither group is satisfied with the clunky and disorganized setup that almost always arises from these articles.

We have standards for these kinds of situations, but they seem to be so infrequently applied that I have to wonder if they aren't considered outdated or obsolete. Obviously, I am all for maintaining them, but since going against the standard seems to have become the "new" standard, I feel as though there needs to be a consensus among the editors before a swath of changes is made. It'd be rather hypocritical to have articles that go against our guidelines: therefore, two options are available; either override the guidelines and make it acceptable to throw everything but the kitchen sink into articles, or enforce these guidelines and clean up articles that violate them.

Proposer: Deadline: June 25, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Enforce the guidelines

 * 1) I'm all for more concise articles.
 * 2) That could actually help in the future! Per Time Turner.
 * 3) It's a rule for a reason. It has to be followed. Enforce it.
 * 4) As noted in the comments, I'm all for following the guidelines, with deviations as the need arises. I want to make it clear, though, that I'm not in favor of a hard and fast application of the rule. Final decisions on effected articles should be made by editorial consensus, not someone slamming a rule book down.
 * 5) This proposal is not needed. Although it does bring up awareness, there will always be a scarce amount of users that will actually enforce it. It's better to do a collaboration thread in the MarioBoards.

Comments
This strikes me as something that we enforced based on the circumstance and that some articles currently require some editing down. -- Chris 00:02, 19 June 2014 (EDT)
 * I would like to agree with you, but there are seriously a gigantic amount of articles that go against it. Most of the food articles, most of the generic animal articles, a lot of the weapon articles... Because so many articles contradict the guideline, I have to wonder whether or not the guideline is being intentionally ignored.
 * I think people are just forgetting about it...maybe you should set up a collaboration thread in the forums instead. 16:00, 19 June 2014 (EDT)
 * In any case, the point of this proposal isn't to question why it's happened: it's to decide that, now that it's prevalent, should it continue to be prevalent? I mean, if it's managed to have been forgotten so easily, maybe it wasn't something worth remembering.
 * I'm for following the guidelines with situational deviations. At a guess, I'd say that's what was happening up till this point, just...no one kept on top of it. -- [[File:Shyghost.PNG]]Chris[[File:Shyghost.PNG]] 16:27, 19 June 2014 (EDT)

@Mario: the point of this proposal isn't to rally people into enforcing the guideline; it's simply asking whether or not we should enforce the guideline, in accordance with what a large majority of the articles are currently doing.
 * ...we don't need a proposal calling for enforcing a guideline. I'm pretty sure once a guideline is written down, it's enforced unless no one else takes action like what's happening here. Again, I think its much better to make a collab thread in the forums which can grab people's attention for the push 23:25, 19 June 2014 (EDT)
 * ...As I've already said, that's not the point. I am not trying to enforce a guideline, I am questioning the validity of the guideline, since there are an insane amount of articles that go against it. Seriously, if I'm not clarifying something here, please enlighten me.
 * i think the point's is that this proposal is a waste of time, as everyone (including you) is voting for the "enforce it" option. The guideline is supposed to being enforced, but all of the pages you mentioned are older than that section and (like pretty much all of gw) there's been little interest and awareness of the page, which could've easily been remediate via a push. I have no idea why though this proposal was a productive (or good) idea. --Glowsquid (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2014 (EDT)
 * Probably to bring to light the contradiction taking place. There are probably other ways to have done this that would have been just as effective, but I don't see this as a disruptive way to go about it. -- [[File:Shyghost.PNG]]Chris[[File:Shyghost.PNG]] 18:19, 22 June 2014 (EDT)
 * This isn't disruptive, but the proposal process is lengthy and not the best way to question the validity of a guideline. The voting system doesn't usually encourage elaborate discussion, especially when the outcome is clear and one-sided like this. 19:26, 22 June 2014 (EDT)
 * Then I would say that this has given us some insight into what to expect when a formal discussion topic is started. Won't have to deal with people yelling no from the rafters, as everyone seems to be on board with it, that's helpful to know, going in. -- [[File:Shyghost.PNG]]Chris[[File:Shyghost.PNG]] 21:24, 22 June 2014 (EDT)

Either merge Mario Golf: World Tour Mii Gear with MG:WT or split the Mario Tennis Open gear to its own article
Lots of proposals going on, but that's not the point. This has been bugging me for a while now and my overly long title pretty much sums it up. One of the two of these things needs to happen. I know based on consistency this probably doesn't need a proposal, but I'm setting one up to really figure out which one should happen.

Proposer: Deadline: June 26, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Split MTO's Gear to a new article

 * 1) The Mario Tennis Open gear section isn't as complete as Mario Golf World Tour's. For example, it doesn't list stats or complete combos or which combos gives boost and yada yada. Someone with the time and dedication can take screenshots for both articles from Miiverse.
 * 2) Yeah after thinking about it, splitting into a more descriptive article would be a better idea. Per Baby Luigi.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) Why were they together in the first place? Gear should be split from the article!
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Split! And put images!
 * 7) Aside from me not wanting my first article to be deleted, the MTO one can have its own article, as it has enough items in it. It's bugged me since I read it, and was contemplating to make Mario Racket so I can make it better. Of course, Mario Clubs was moved to the article we are talking about now, so I agree with this idea. Even if the stats will need to be rough in accuracy.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) If 'Mario Golf: World Tour can get a page devoted to gear, then Mario Tennis Open can, too. This needs to happen.

Comments
@Triple K: It's because it looked fine in the Mario Tennis Open article until the Mario Golf World Tour gear paged changed my standards. 19:50, 19 June 2014 (EDT)

This seems like something that should be in a TPP first. -- Chris 20:09, 19 June 2014 (EDT)


 * It was one of those things that covered two different games so I put it here instead.
 * Wow. I'm interested. My first page causes Baby Luigi's standards to change? Wow. Anyway, it would be pretty hard to get the exact stats for Tennis Open, as the one pixel difference is really hard to spot. Merging isn't an option, as the page is far to big to put on the article, and it's line the reason List of recipes in Super Paper Mario exists.- 03:56, 20 June 2014 (EDT)
 * @KoopaKoolKlub the section was there for ages and we were planning on doing the same for world tour, until I made Mario Golf: World Tour Mii Gear, which of course changed the standard of this matter. Makes me wonder if MTO still deserves it's FA status now. Nah, it still deserves it. - 04:04, 20 June 2014 (EDT)
 * Yeah, I've noticed how much more work was put into the Golf gear section instead of the Tennis gear section so I've realized that it needs its own article after all. 14:38, 20 June 2014 (EDT)

Question is, how on Earth are we going the get the stats for the gear? The stoopid 3.1415 charts dont tell very accurate info. We would need someone who can see a pixel in difference. - 10:49, 21 June 2014 (EDT)
 * Here? 14:34, 21 June 2014 (EDT)
 * I was thinking of that exact FAQ when I said that, as it says "I don't have complete accuracy". I was planning on using it when I said "rough stats". So basically, maybe. Use it as a guide and fix any mistakes that we see. - 01:57, 24 June 2014 (EDT)

Videos in Articles
Hey guys, I just had a suggestion. I think one way we can improve this wiki is by adding videos to articles about a specific game. We can have anyone take a gameplay video, so that when someone is looking up an article about a specific game, they can see how the gameplay is like. I don't know if you guys will think this is a good idea or not, but I figured, if we have a section where you can listen to a sample of the music, then there should be a section where you can watch a short gameplay. Hope you like the idea.

Proposer: Deadline: June 26, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Oppose

 * 1) There's nothing wrong with externally linking the videos in a subsection called "External links". Nobody will revert it if you add a gameplay video of Wario losing in Hop or Pop (I won't, at least). But, if this calls for embedding videos in articles, I am opposing. Pages with embedded videos always take a chore to load.
 * 2) Per Mario. This is going to being more hassle than benefit.
 * 3) There are too many gaming videos on Youtube to do this. Two words: External Link.
 * 4) I'm not waiting ten minutes to actually load a page.
 * 5) Like other say, external link.
 * 6) Per Tsunami.
 * 7) Head down this road, we'll have the title theme of each game in every article.

Comments
We tried this once before and it didn't work out for one reason or another. Several of the .OGG vidcaps uploaded at the time are still on the server and can be found in our unused files directory. I'm not against the idea, I just don't know if it's doable yet. Might be better to just link off to Youtube or something (do we have a dedicated wiki YouTube channel?). -- Chris 18:01, 19 June 2014 (EDT)

I'm not too bright of the idea of embedding videos on pages. These eat up a whole bunch of bandwidth and drastically increase loading times of pages. 18:28, 19 June 2014 (EDT)
 * Hold the phone! There are some game play videos on media pages...List of Super Mario All-Stars media, List of Super Mario Kart media... Why not put some there? -- 22:53, 19 June 2014 (EDT)

Thanks guys for the feedback. I thought a lot of people would think it would take up too much bandwidth. I too, agree with that, though, I'm still in favor of it. I believe it would really enhance the experience of the Mario Wiki. But I know not everyone has the best of Bandwidth. So I suppose for now, we'll forget it, but maybe down the road, things will change so that people can enjoy, rather then having external links. I for one am not in favor of bringing up two webpages, or leaving my page to go to youtube, it is much more slow then having it actually on the page its self. I'm personally surprised people opposed this idea, I have slow internet connection, so I should know if that'll take to long to load or not. I know many websites that have videos on their pages, and are actually really fast to load. Maybe down the road, we can enhance it. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, and a shout out thanks to Yoshi876 for fixing my Proposal. I accidently placed in the wrong area. --http://www.mariowiki.com/images/5/5d/Bob-omb_PiT.pngLuigidaisy1 (talk) 13:38, 20 June 2014 (EDT)

Add game manual scans to the game galleries
I think we should try our best to add some of the manual scans for most of the Mario games out there in existence as possible.I think we're missing out on it a little bit. It just makes it so that the galleries are fully complete without anything missing. The only exceptions are the 3DS and Wii U games. The console Mario games are the NES,SNES,CD-i,N64,GameCube and Wii games. Handhelds include the Game Boy and GBC,GBA and DS. They are there for reference purposes only. We'll cut out some of the unnecessary crap that is useless.It'll be specially wise to upload the Hotel Mario manual scans and scan the manuals if anyone owns Hotel Mario.

Proposer: Deadline: June 26, 2014, 23:59 GMT.

Add

 * 1) Per my proposal.
 * 2) As long as the scans are relevant, useful, and not fully extracted from the original, there shouldn't be any harm in adding them.

Don't Add

 * 1) This is similar to the game script adding proposal from a few months ago, it crosses the line from encyclopedia to repository and possibly sets up for some legal issues.
 * 2) Per Mario's comment.
 * 3) Per Ghost Jam. This kind of coverage on a game is just excessive.
 * 4) Per the supernatural jelly.
 * 5) Per Ghost Jam.
 * 6) – I found this in the Metroid Fusion manual: "This booklet and other printed materials accompanying this game are protected by domestic and international intellectual property laws."

Comments
I like to support, but I'd like only notable scans. We don't need to reproduce the entire instruction booklet. 18:35, 19 June 2014 (EDT)
 * Oh, damn I don't have a scanner but I will get an all in one printer to scan my Paper Mario TTYD Manual. Besides that's the only Mario game I own that has a manual.
 * The internet has quite a few pdf files about game manuals 18:50, 19 June 2014 (EDT)
 * Do you folks mind waiting till I buy my all in one printer to scan my TTYD manual. Anyways it is the Canadian manual and it is mostly the same as the US manual.
 * My question hasn't been answered... 18:57, 19 June 2014 (EDT)
 * You didn't even ask a question 19:13, 19 June 2014 (EDT)
 * Personally, I'd just have the cover of the instruction booklet (official name) or action guide. 19:13, 19 June 2014 (EDT)
 * The manual scans is the thing that makes any Mario game article gallery page complete and I believe they are there for all other people to follow and besides we'll still be an encyclopedia and we'll have every Mario material but not bootleg crap. The bootleg crap games deserve an alternate Wiki called the "Bootleg Mario Wiki''.
 * Our wiki won't be incomplete without manual scans. However, I will accept only a few pages of the manual, especially if they provide interesting artwork, quotations, bios, or any of that stuff. Again, we don't need, nor should we have 100% reproductions of game manuals. 19:31, 19 June 2014 (EDT)

@Koopakoolklub: We have GameFAQs and, god forbid, this wiki, as a good, more detailed stand-in for game manuals. Besides, game manuals in general today are terrible and as exciting as pizza without sauce, pasta without seasoning, tomato caprese without mozzarella... you get my drift. 19:31, 19 June 2014 (EDT)
 * I mean c'mon, in the NES and SNES days they were interesting but then they had became useless.
 * @Mario I do get your drift. The manuals in 3ds games are literally a folded page (ugh). 19:36, 19 June 2014 (EDT)
 * Okay,then we'll use part of the manual and not the entire whole damn thing.
 * Anyways I changed the proposal so that we don't have to include all the other unneeded crap.
 * HEY GUYS LOOK WHAT I FOUND IN THE METROID FUSION MANUAL (and I'm assuming other manuals as well)! "This booklet and other printed materials accompanying this game are protected by domestic and international intellectual property laws." 16:58, 23 June 2014 (EDT)
 * Why do people dislike this idea so much, c'mon we're the Mario Wiki and we need to put it up and we are putting it up for some purposes. Besides who the hell cares about copyright laws. What's wrong with this anyways, does it look like Nintendo may issue a cease and desist order to Steve for the Wiki. Don't mind the disclaimers anyways.
 * Breaking laws is illegal. Heck, the United Nations gave a cease and desist order to Max Barry, the founder of NationStates, for having the United Nations name and emblem without authorization, so yes, it is possible. 17:35, 23 June 2014 (EDT)
 * So even if we were to add the manuals, we would be making a risky decision which would make us in danger of Nintendo finding out and sending that cease and order to Steve. Beside, it is hard to get permission to use the manuals on the Wiki right.
 * Does Fair Use even apply, or are you just parroting the words in the manual? 21:15, 25 June 2014 (EDT)

Create video tutorials for first time users on the Wiki
They are used to explain everything about the Wiki and are used for demonstration purposes to show what to do on the Wiki and what not to do on the Wiki and in clear detail. It may be considered useful to newbies and better explained with visual representations of the do's and don't s and help more new people understand better and make things more serious. The production quality is near professional and must be edited using Sony Vegas or something similar. It should all be available on YouTube. There will have to be Example accounts created for the video's purpose and that is to educate newbies to know the ropes around here in better visual detail. The example accounts can all be deleted after the all the tutorial videos have been created. They will explain the warning/reminder system and the blocking system better and it'll explain the point of views of different user kinds.

Proposer: Deadline: June 26, 2014, 23:59 GMT.

Make

 * 1) Per my proposal.
 * 2) Actually, Its a great idea! Sounds much more helpful than these annoying help pages.
 * 3) I think anything is better than using those help pages, there broken for instance the signature page doesn't tell you how to change font or what fonts you can use, theirs no way to tell witch color 00 or 07 is, and by the time  your finished with this  painful guessing game you've already acquired 2 user space warnings and may or may not be banned. I don't know if this will improve the help pages or not but its better then it`s current state.

Don't Make and Keep Help Pages

 * 1) – We have the help pages for a reason.
 * 2) It seems a bit pointless, in my opinion. Everything that's necessary for an editor to know is outlined in one of the many guideline pages that we have. If there's a certain aspect that someone doesn't understand, they can just ask another user. Even if they don't understand anything that's there, I'm sure that several users would be willing to help them along. Just having another user explain stuff is a lot simpler than going through the trouble of creating guide videos.
 * 3) It's too much work, we could instead rewrite help pages to make them less complicated. In other words, I oppose.
 * 4) Reading is better. And if there was something that you could just "copy+paste", you can't do that with a video.
 * 5) This isn't something complex such as ripping ISOs from discs or soft-modding Wiis. The best way to learn how to edit the wiki is by example and reading guidelines and rules is not hard to do. It's not that hard to understand how a wiki works, and a video demonstrating this is pointless. You don't need a video tutorial for something straightforward like this.
 * 6) Per all. Text is more accessible and videos offer no real benefits.
 * 7) @Green King of Slowpoke Guy: The people issuing the userspace warning half-assedly are the issuers' problem. New users should not be penalized with userspace warnings if they make a couple of edits to their wiki space, trying to figure out what the %#(@! about wikitml. Anyway, that's a flaw within the system, not the help pages themselves. I'm the type of person who prefers written tutorials, so the bias shows; nevertheless, videos are pointless. Just contact an experienced user and they can talk to you one-on-one like a mentor/student thing, which is much better than a tutorial (and if you get a *#%@ing userspace warning from user talk page edits, then the issuer can go jump off a cliff).
 * 8) Per all and my comments below.
 * 9) Do you know how most chemical reactions are worked out? Trying, not watching videos. Per all.
 * 10) Per all.

Comments
I don't think accounts can be deleted without installation of an extension. 22:02, 18 June 2014 (EDT)
 * I think it gives it a better visual representation for first timers on what the expectations are.
 * I know that the help pages are there for a purpose but some don't take it seriously and the video tutorials show and depict what exactly happens and showcase a particular bad act and to demonstrate to new users so that they know our expectations and consequences of how serious some offences are so that it makes sense. Besides the tutorials will contain many example accounts doing some offences in real time for the video and some warnings and reminders will be issued to the example accounts just for the video. It just makes everything more clearer to newbie.
 * We have the ability to delete accounts, we just typically don't. As for the proposal, if you're suggesting that users band together to create this, I doubt it's going to go anywhere. By and large our already existing help and guideline pages serve that function well enough and you can't teach experience, which is what really makes a good editor. If you're asking for permission to make these yourself or you have otherwise already found people willing to work with you, go right ahead and contact an ops if you need something specific for examples. -- [[File:Shyghost.PNG]]Chris[[File:Shyghost.PNG]] 23:01, 18 June 2014 (EDT)
 * Another problem is, this wiki used to have such a proposal by, but it failed 3-12 because the help pages were present during the time.  At last, the rock fell.
 * Though in my point of view it works out better with the video guides. I think it shows the newbie about how bad a particular offence is and shows what happens when that is committed. It will have demonstrations on how to do something and have demonstrations about the warning and reminder system and block system. So do you kinda get what I'm trying to say from my point of view

What's hard to understand about the warning and blocking policy? If a user is doing something they shouldn't caution them, if they continue give them warnings and whatever else may be necessary, if they continue than an admin will block them. And how can you give a video tutorial on "other people's points of views"?
 * What I mean is explaining how the wiki looks like in a patroller,admin and bureaucrat point of view and what features do they have access to. It also shows what it feels like to be blocked and it'll talk about all the consequences of being blocked.
 * To be honest I don't think that's something a new user needs to know, it'll probably be a while before they have to worry about stuff like that. The features are explained adequately in help pages. And the consequences of being banned is simple, you cannot edit and will not be allowed to edit again, which is also adequately explained on the help pages.
 * The wiki doesn't change THAT much when you're in a group with more tools. You just have more tabs on the top of the page and a "rollback" thing next to people's revisions, and marking them as patrolled. It's not as sexy as it sounds. It's not like you get a FANCY NEW CSS when you're promoted. 16:30, 19 June 2014 (EDT)
 * I know that,but the video can shed some more light on all the other policies like how to get the info to add to the articles and all that kind of stuff that we do here. It can be there for simplicity and for convenience in a 40 minute video with a table of continents with annotations to get to a particular section easily without searching individually. It just makes more sense in my opinion and hey it saves some people time that way.
 * It's obvious where to get the information from though, videos, actually playing the game. And these things can be simply explained by someone, a video explaining that is unnecessary.
 * Not to mention the many problems that can occur from videos, such as freezing... it's probably better to read things. It's easier to remember and you can just go right back to it. If you feel the Help pages don't help enough ask an experienced user. 16:47, 19 June 2014 (EDT)
 * @Pwwnd: A "table of continents" must be some big table. Individual help pages are easier to navigate than a forty minute long video. 21:17, 19 June 2014 (EDT)
 * Why do people hate this kind of idea. It's the one stop source and makes life easy.

Just because people are opposing doesn't mean they hate it. They simply have reasons on why Help pages are a better idea. Also, Green 6017 King of the Slowpoke: We have the Preview button for that kind of problem. Plus, here there's a list of colors you can use, plus a link on that page to look further into it.

Change quotes on more popular pages
Several popular pages, such as Reggie Fils-Aime and Bob Hoskins have quotes including swear words. Technically, swearing is allowed on this wiki with moderation. However, these pages are extremely popular and with a large amount of younger viewers and users it is inappropriate to have such language on such important pages (perhaps not Bob, but definitely Reggie). The guidelines state:

"While most of the Mario series is light and innocent, articles occasionally discuss content that some users find disagreeable, such as transgenderism, homosexuality, religion and the use of profanity in quotes. Under no circumstances will users be allowed to remove or otherwise suppress material of this nature: the Super Mario Wiki is an encyclopedia and will not censor its information. In most cases, there have already been repeated attempts to remove the content, and reopening these debates is frowned upon as being futile, disruptive and even offensive. If you can't handle certain subject matter being professionally addressed on the wiki, that's your problem, not ours."

And this is the only defense in not changing the quotes. A majority of this rule is completely fair. If there is at any point a section in the article that requires discussing transgenderism, homosexuality, religion, etc. (i.e. Birdo and Vivian, or information on an voice actor/staff member who is openly homosexual or Christian, etc.) it is completely fine to include this. It is an important part of being an encyclopedia to include these things. However, unless we're listing every single thing Reggie or Bob have ever said, there is absolutely no reason to place quotes of them swearing on a website designed for kids (admit it, it is). When there are quotes that match up with the person just as well (which have been proposed for both Reggie and Bob), there is absolutely no reason to not use these more appropriate quotes rather than an inappropriate quote containing things which younger children who play Mario should not be reading.

Now, I'm not saying that censorship is the way to go. Replacing swear words with random symbols is completely unprofessional. Using a different quote that does not require censorship is not. Especially if there's really no difference.

I'm also fine with not banning swear words in quotes. For certain pages this may be for the best. However, this rule states that changing the quote is not allowed. This is ridiculous. As I have said multiple times before, if there is a more appropriate quote that describes the person just as well, not being allowed to change it is ridiculous.

IF YOU DID NOT TAKE THE TIME TO READ ALL OF THIS, DO NOT VOTE. I spent a lot of time writing out all of the reasons that this rule should be changed or modified, and if I lose because everyone just assumes it's a stupid attempt to replace a well-known rule without reading my reasoning... that's just not fair.

Proposer: Proposed Deadline: July 14, 2014, 23:59 GMT Date Withdrawn: June 30, 2014, 05:40 GMT

Remove the rule on changing quotes

 * 1) Per proposal.

Leave the rule as it is

 * 1) I oppose this proposal because I feel that both quotes represent the people in this article very well. For starters with the bob hoskins quote his quote represents his view of the movie and how he felt the movie was and if you can find a better quote to represent his feelings on the movie i'd like to hear it. With Reggie while i'll admit i'm not particularly familiar with him the quote on the article seems to represent the image he tries to portray fairly well and I see no reason to change it because someone might get offended.
 * 2) – Per my reasons below.
 * 3) I did read everything you wrote, but I can't agree with you because I believe info shouldn't be changed because a few may be offended by it. Per All.
 * 4) I got to the words "including swear words" and stopped reading. Get it in to your heads people, we are an encyclopedia, we do no censor. Per all.
 * 5) Just as genitalia aren't censored in human anatomy books, swear words from direct quotes shouldn't be censored. This is an encyclopedia, after all.
 * 6) I've read your proposal and disagree with it. Per all.
 * 7) You've got to be fucking shitting me??!!! Are you shitting me right?? Sorry to be rude but that IS just senseless. We abide by the rule that everything must come from the material "as is".

Comments
@Marshal While I respect your opinion, I'm not proposing specifically in the case of Reggie and Bob. This proposal is for the rule in general and, in my opinion, your vote is based off of one scenario when there are several that could be affected by this change. Reggie and Bob were the examples used because they are the ones who have been questioned. Peanutjon (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2014 (EDT)
 * I don't particularly understand what you are proposing because the rule that you mentioned isn't supposed to be a rigorous rule that says that any quote that contains anything offensive has to be used. Instead it's supposed to mean that if it's the best quote we will use it even if it could be offensive.
 * Here's my opinion: If there is a better quote that more accurately describes the person/article/situation, then I'm all for a change, however I don't want to see a quote changed in the name of censorship, while I don't believe Reggie's quote is that bad, Hoskins has stirred the pot for years. I don't really believe the "oh think of the kids" is a strong argument, I mean if you spend time on Xbox Live or Playstation all you'll hear is bratty little kids swearing at you and talking about stuff that shouldn't be said about your mom. I however disagree with your assumption that this Wiki is for little kids, do we get little kids? Sure. Is Mario's target demographic children? Probably. Do I edit this Wiki in the name of little kids around the world? No, and I doubt a majority of the Wiki does either.
 * As far as the quotes on the said pages and how thy relate to the people in question, I believe Reggie's quote shows his confidence and bravado, looking at the other quotes on his page, nothing really captures his personality like that does. Hoskins, however shows his frustration and regret during film production, which is alright with me. I also don't believe the rule strictly forbids anyone removing the quote in favor of a better one, as took place on this proposal, none of the other quotes stacked up for captured his frustrations as well. This however has to go through a talk page proposal because of the "controversy" it causes. If you have a better quote for both pages, I'm all ears, but I believe changing them in the name of censorship is lame. However, as I believe both quotes are good, they may/should end up finding their way into a sub-header of quotes. (Under no circumstances will users be allowed to remove or otherwise suppress material of this nature) "otherwise" implying the removal was done in the name of suppressing material. We are a wiki who's sole purpose is and should be information, as with Birdo/Vivian, we won't compromise information or article integrity in the name of censorship or not hurting anyone's feelings, the same attitude should be applied here.
 * I see what you're saying and, unlike most arguments in this situation, it actually makes sense. And in the case of Bob Hoskins, it makes sense that we might not want to change it, because it truly describes his beliefs on the Mario movie best. However, in the case of Reggie, there are multiple quotes that might describe him not only just as well, but better. On Bob Hoskins' page we use that quote because it describes his opinions on the Mario movie. However, Reggie's quote does not. It describes him well, perhaps, however it does not describe his interactions with Nintendo or other Mario stuff very well. There are several quotes that describe him well and also describe his interactions with Nintendo well and, importantly in the case that this is the actual problem surfacing, don't swear. Peanutjon (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2014 (EDT)
 * P.S. on the note that kids are swearing and saying things that they shouldn't on Xbox live chat and stuff (although this is very unimportant and has nothing to do with anything), have you considered that they might not do that if they didn't hear/see those words first? Peanutjon (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2014 (EDT)
 * Well, like I said, I'm all for changing his quote if it's for the betterment of the Wiki and not in the name of censorship, and I'd like to see some of those quotes if possible. But maybe it's just me, but I like this quote as it captures his personality well. The quote you featured here, doesn't really reflect his personality all that well, it does I suppose showcase Nintendo's willingness to produce games, but that might be better suited on the Nintendo article itself.
 * The Reggie quote is pretty famous - right up there with "my body is ready", but more relevant for our wiki given the game-making part of it. If you google search "Reggie Fils-Aimé quotes", you get a YouTube vid and a Know Your Memes entry about "Reggie's famous quote", and wouldn't ya know, it's the quote in question. I also saw it referenced in "Brawl in the Family" once, and numerous other "memorable quotes"-type lists include it. Plus, in the aforementioned Googling, there's also a video from this year's E3 that's also about him vowing to kick ass, so it seems like a recurring theme for the guy rather than an atypical one-off. -

Delete the accounts of vandals
I'd figure since we do have an extension to delete accounts, then why don't we just use it on vandals instead and delete most of the few blocked vandal accounts so that they are out of the wiki's records. It is a proper way of disposing vandals on the wiki when they join first and vandalize a few pages and get permablocked forever. Besides if a vandal did put a few not vandal edits and did vandalize a few more pages then it's probably safe to delete that vandal's account when he gets permabanned. That is sweet victory there and besides the vandal user accounts are unnecessary and should be deleted to remove any traces of their records on the Wiki. Let's say if a vandal like Marshall Dan Poop has created a million more accounts to vandalize the wiki then we can delete all of his other accounts. However, the admins can keep some accounts for records if needed in the future. So who's with me? Proposer: Proposed Deadline: July 7, 2014, 23:59 GMT Date Withdrawn: June 30, 2014, 18:31 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per my proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) Once a permanently blocked vandal, always a permanently blocked vandal. Besides, we can't keep track of wiki records and logs all the time.
 * 2) There are reasons we don't do this already.

Comments
Sounds like an idea, but I want to see the reasoning behind not deleting them in the first place. Anyone got an explanation? - 03:50, 30 June 2014 (EDT)
 * Off the top of my head, we keep banned accounts so as to retain a record of activity should we ever need it. It also has the side benefit of locking the name down so it can't be used again, any new accounts gimping the name are obviously the same guy returning. Single purpose accounts or accounts that have made few edits that are all destructive in nature are deleted on a case by case basis. We used to make it a practice to delete the forum accounts of banned users along with purging all their posts, but I'm not sure if we still do that or not. In any case, I feel that this proposal stretches a bit far into administrative oversight, so I'm against it in principle.-- [[File:Shyghost.PNG]]Chris[[File:Shyghost.PNG]] 04:00, 30 June 2014 (EDT)
 * He's got a point though. This is more of an admin thing. Maybe you should contact one of 'em first and ask. So my question is, is there a way of blocking the name while also deleting the pages related to that user AND keep a record of their edits? - 04:18, 30 June 2014 (EDT)
 * If they have a userpage, we can delete that. Sockpuppet talk pages are also supposed to be deleted, but we usually leave the original/singular vandal talk pages if they have Warnings on them for the record, especially if the account also made good edits before going off the rails. If the name's bad, we can suppress it at the same time we block it, plus there's the rename extension for going back and changing things well after the fact if we so choose. It's a pretty solid system already, and I agree with Ghost Jam that this vote is inappropriate in principle: like Ninelevendo said, if someone has an idea, by all means, let us hear it, but how we run admin business is ultimately our choice, and not something that can be decided for us with a proposal. -
 * I'm not really understanding the benefit of this. As for the "sweet victory", I was usually just satisfied with blocking them. The only benefit I personally see is (at least I believe) that that username becomes available for re-use, but given the fact that majority of the username of vandals consist off "Ggggjughj" or "Agnaigohnvaigjsnvsojfeingev", it's not that big of a deal. And if one of our user does find a username they like (somehow) out of the list of vandals blocked, we could always delete accounts and use our rename feature. But seeing as we gain no benefit for deleting all vandals...I just don't see the point.
 * I'm saying not to delete all vandals accounts. I'm saying that most vandal accounts can be deleted and not all of them should be deleted.
 * I'm just not seeing the gain/benefit of deleting vandal accounts, they're blocked and not doing any harm. Seems like extra work for minimal gain. The only benefit I see is what I outlined earlier along with a resolution that doesn't involve deleting all accounts, or as you changed it to "most" accounts. What's the criteria you'd be proposing on which get deleted and which ones don't?

Improving Mario Party boards articles
I was looking on DK's Jungle Board from Mario Party and I find that the article isn't completely right. There are some improvements that can be made not only in this article, but in every article.
 * A map and a space counter would be useful to let the reader know all the infos on the board. By doing so, the reader can know the difficulty of the course in games that are not Mario Party. And having a map would be useful in boards where there isn't an image (like Eternal Star).
 * Adding headers for results screen and events would be useful. Writing everything in a single paragraph don't help the reader to read. So the opinion is making a level 2 header for the plot before and after playing, another level 2 headers for the event that are splitted in level 3 headers (something like this is in DK's Jungle Ruins from Mario Party 9).

(Please don't write your name in "Oppose" if you're wrong with an idea; instead, if you can't tollerate the articles with one of my ideas, write it in the comments! Thanks for reading and understanding!)

Proposer: Deadline: July 5, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) It's my proposal.
 * 2) This is a good idea, because more useful info will be added to these articles.
 * 3) As long as the info is relevant with the boards, I'm fine with that.
 * 4) Awesome. Stuff like star locations should be good too, since they appeared in like six spaces in the GCN versions with no randomization at all.
 * 5) As noted in the comments below, this doesn't need to be a proposal, either bring it up on the forums or individual article talk pages. That said, I agree with the principle behind this.

Comments
This doesn't need a proposal at all. If the information is official and it will help organize things better, go for it! The list of orbs/items/spaces and boards weren't the result of a proposal, it was the result of ways to organize the article better and a general improvement 15:50, 28 June 2014 (EDT)
 * Although if you're going to make a major revamp on a lot of pages, I'd suggest making an example on a sandbox page and running it past a few users for their opinions.--Vommack (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2014 (EDT)
 * I did similar things when I was new(er). Like making a proposal about making a tennis court template. You don't actually need this proposal, I mean look at what happened to Toad Highlands thanks to me and . It's become the set standard to making or improving golf course articles. Therefore you may do a similar thing here. I'd be willing to help. - 17:10, 28 June 2014 (EDT)
 * Here you go! For both samples go here: User:Tsunami/Sandbox
 * I don't know about you, but I think the extensively detailed spaces are kinda ugly, they could fit into a nicely organized table. There are so many sections with very small amount of information. I guess it would be better if the whole events section was merged with the starting paragraph. Here is a link of how the article would look like as in your sandbox.-- 06:33, 29 June 2014 (EDT)
 * After looking better, you're right... Maybe the spaces can go on the main page or in the Space page. The main reason I propose this was the events that need expansion (the Coin Stone thing isn't in the article). But I think that the Jungle Adventure page is disorganized... Another way is making the "Layout" section, with a general description, then the subsection "Events"... but "Plot" I think that would remain (and I was thinking about merging quotes with it).
 * Too many headers: better to merge the Ending with Plot and get rid of the subheaders for the events, and as mentioned earlier, the space counter could be a small table in the the Layout section. A few other things also need fixing up with that draft. I made my own revision to the sandbox to show my ideas of how it could be done (minus the chart). -
 * OK, now it is good. But since there are some supports, I think that I can keep this until the deadline to see if we can make even better the basis. I'll edit my sanbox

That spaces should be organized by a table or something. The current format looks bleh. --Vommack (talk) 09:33, 1 July 2014 (EDT)

On another note, should we also put on the map where star spaces can be? Metal Boo (talk) 15:10, 1 July 2014 (EDT)
 * Yes, I think that, but without a formatted map it will be though. And for games that are not Mario Party (I found a useful FAQ time ago) it will be very though...

Moving DIY quotes to top page
I think that the description quotes from the minigames shall be on the top of the page (since there are 90 pages to modify it's better to ask).

Proposer: Deadline: July 5, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) I think it looks better than having the description all by itself in a section with just one old sentence.

Oppose

 * 1) I don't see why it should be moved from the infobox.
 * 2) Per Vommack.
 * 3) Meh, it looks messier that way. If you're dying to know what actually happens in Hide and Go BOOM!, then read the article.
 * 4) Per Vommack.
 * 5) - The info's fine where it is, helping to make the pages seem more substantial.

Comments
I don't get what page you're talking about. Can you link it for me? 15:51, 28 June 2014 (EDT)
 * I think he means put a quote at the top of the Minigame article that states the info that the game puts info on. It's rather trivial to be honest, and doesn't really merit a proposal anyway, but he could mean that he's going to simply move it up the page more. So is this supposed to move it up the page or create a quote at the top? - 17:17, 28 June 2014 (EDT)
 * Look at my sandbox
 * The has to go above the quote. -

Create Easter Egg Pages
We have glitch and beta element pages, not to mention the Easter Egg page, so I suggest we make pages like "Super Mario 3D Land/Easter Eggs". This would include the UFO, the weird alien at the end of that one ghost house, and any other easter eggs ingame.

Thoughts?

Proposer: Deadline: July 5, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) I kinda like this idea and I do agree with you. It's convenient to have a list article.

Oppose

 * No, the easter egg page should be in the rispective articles.
 * 1) - Per Ghost Jam and Mario in the comments: subpages are unnecessary, just focus on fixing up Easter egg and maybe adding sections in applicable game pages.
 * 2) There just aren't enough easter eggs in any given game to split off their own page. They're just fine being incorporated into the article.
 * 3) Per Vommack.
 * 4) Per Vommack.
 * 5) Per Vommack and Walkazo.
 * 6) Per Walkazo.
 * 7) Per my comments below.
 * 8) Per all.

Comments
Are there enough Easter Egg in each game to merit it's own articles?
 * I don't think there should be it is own article on Easter Eggs. It should be within it is appropriate article. 02:41, 28 June 2014 (EDT)

I'd be much more in favor of either expanding Easter Egg to include everything we have documentation of or working Easter egg sections into relevant articles. -- Chris 02:53, 28 June 2014 (EDT)
 * To be honest, I think that this would easily go into the Glitches section, but the idea of "Easter Eggs" is so vague, it would be better not to include them at all. -  03:17, 28 June 2014 (EDT)
 * Easter Egg's article formatting is terrible, though, so it probably needs some overhauling. 03:25, 28 June 2014 (EDT)
 * I mean an Eater Egg is such abroad subject, such as a minor glitch, background image or course development. It isn't really worth bothering to make or include. Like the Book that appears in Sunshine would likely fall into an Easter Egg section, but it's in the glitches. Other things, such 3D World's Zelda based stage, is easily mentioned in the article or trivia. I would rather get rid of it altogether and find a better place for the info. - 03:30, 28 June 2014 (EDT)

Okay, I see that no one wants a new page. But notice that there are no sections for this either? Easter eggs aren't given enough attention. Peanutjon (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2014 (EDT)

Rewrite some of the help pages to make them less complicated
I have noticed that some of the help pages aren't too clear about what you're supposed to do and that may misguide a lot of newbies on the Wiki. Help pages on Userbox templates and signatures for example, aren't pretty clear on how to make the color changes and don't contain the color codes and that isn't straightforward for a newbie to do. The rewrite of the pages would make them explained in clear detail and it will tell the newbie on what code should be entered with a table on the commands that they can use including their functionality. They look hard for some newbies to understand correctly and they will be confused so I'd figured the Wiki can have the pages rewritten so that everyone can understand it. That just makes things less complicated

Proposer: Deadline: July 11, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Rewrite

 * 1) Per my proposal.

Keep pages as is

 * 1) Listing all the color codes would be completely impractical, and it's not that hard to just swap out some code.
 * 2) I cann't see the point of it... I know that Help:Template have a expand template (LOL) but the others are OK. And if a new user cann't unterstand something, just ask to someone!
 * 3) - If a Help page (or any other official policy page) is lacking, you can always make a new draft yourself and show it to the admins for approval: you don't even need proposals for that. You could also use the Wiki Collabs board to highlight specific pages that need work and ask admins or other users to help. Either way, a Proposal vaguely calling for Help pages in general to be rewritten is the wrong way to go about this.
 * 4) Per Walkazo.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per myself in the comments.
 * 7) While what Walkazo has proposed is a bit far from ideal, there's no need to rewrite help pages.

Comments
Just so you know, if you need help, you can contact another user.  At last, the rock fell.
 * Whoops I didn't know that there is no need for a proposal like this but I find it hard to re word the help pages and I want to see if the Wiki community agrees with the idea or not.

Do something about multiple proposals
Of course, some (but, of course, not all) users remember when created a proposal composed of multiple proposals inside of it. Said proposal was ridden of by the Admins because "the formatting is nigh-incomprehensible". To prevent against this misunderstanding in future proposals, I propose we make a guideline about multiple proposals; should we allow them, or should we deny them?

Should the proposal pass either way, then an administator can amend a new rule to Proposals/Header to determine the outcome of the proposal.

Proposer: Deadline: July 16, 2014, 23:59 GMT.

Allow them

 * 1) Unless I misinterpret this, what you're saying is ban proposals with more than one option. This is ridiculous, as certain proposals may need separate options. You seem to be basing this off one example, and yet proposals with multiples options have worked successfully in the past, there is no reason they should no longer be allowed because of one bad one.
 * 2) Per Yoshi876
 * 3) I don't see anything wrong in them, but the one of example is definitely confusing. I agree, but there should be a limit of proposals regarding the same argoument in it.

Deny them

 * 1) I honestly see no point in doing them (whoa, that was bad English); first, they clutter the proposal system at deadline, and second, the mini-proposals inside of them can be separate proposals.
 * 2) It's really confusing and long.
 * 3) - Like I said in the comments, we shouldn't have to spell it out that this sorta wholly-unnecessary, very specific abuse of the proposals system isn't allowed, but I'd rather explicitly vote "no" than risk sitting by while the "allow" option passes.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Per Walkazo
 * 6) Per everyone who wants to deny it.
 * 7) Per Walkazo.

Comments
@Yoshi876: Just so you know, this regards multiple proposals, not proposals with multiple options.  At last, the rock fell.
 * If by that you mean two proposals in one, there has never been a case of that and if a case arises and it's formatted in a comprehensible way there is no reason for why it shouldn't be allowed. Mario7's was formatted badly, but was just one proposal.


 * Yarg, edit conflict twiiiice... Anyway, one proposal is an example, and I really don't see how it could be done in a way that's not pointlessly convoluted: if there's multiple ideas, just make multiple proposals, or make one multi-option proposal, and if it can't be chopped up or boiled down to that, it's probably not a good idea in the first place. -
 * I think the only reason one would need to be done is if there are multiple similar ideas, although I don't see how it couldn't be covered by a multi-option proposal.

I'm generally in favor of this. If you have multiple ideas, present multiple proposals, as Walkazo said. If it can't be reduced to several proposals, then either bring it to the forums for further discussion or drop it as a bad idea. On the other hand, we've only had one instance of someone trying to pull something like that. One instance is generally not enough to suddenly jump on the S.S. Banwagon about something. -- Ghost Jam 19:58, 9 July 2014 (EDT)


 * Technically, we already have grounds to remove random stuff anyway thanks to the "This is an example of what your proposal must look like, if you want it to be acknowledged." line in the "Basic proposal and Support/Oppose format". It's not worded more strongly ("do it this way or we'll remove it, bucko") because we're a nice community and if someone doesn't format a proposal correctly but has at least the basic gist down, someone usually comes along and fixes it for them instead of killing it, but stretching that leniency to the point of nested multi-proposals is unreasonable, and we shouldn't have to single-out this one very specific abuse of the system as something that one should not do. -

Arrgg, this proposal is very misleading and confusing. If this is dealing with multi-option proposal, I oppose because it doesn't hurt and in fact adds to the proposal itself and the way they are handled. If this is dealing with mini-proposals in one, then I kinda support, especially because discussing the matter first can reduce the situation, just start the discussion on the talk page, or the forums, and when things are arranged, propose it. However, I said kinda, because like what Walkazo said, it is just one example. The new rule is not necessary, but it doesn't hurt.-- 14:57, 10 July 2014 (EDT)
 * Don't worry, it's not about multi-option proposals: check the example provided - it's when you have multiple proposals nested under one overall proposer header, instead of being presented as a single multi-option proposal or simply set up as completely separate proposals (like they're supposed to be be). Really, all we're doing here is voting on something that's already not allowed; it's redundant and saddening that's it's coming to this, but yeah, the only real harm that could come of it is if the "allow" side passes. -
 * Usually though, when people do Multi-proposals, it just mean they haven't formatted correctly. Instead, you give multiple options that people can vote for, such as "Option one". It doesn't mean they should be instantly removed, it just means you need to get them to format it better. I'm not saying we should make this a thing, but we need to cut them enough slack for them to learn how to format it properly. - 17:42, 11 July 2014 (EDT)
 * Proposals aren't rocket science: there's an outline right on the page for folks to copy and paste, there's usually at least one proposal running at any given time that can also be emulated, and if even that's not enough, there's literally hundreds of archived examples to look at. It's bad enough when people can't be bothered with basic things like using headers, or adding Comment sections, or signing their names, or counting to seven to get the deadline right, but there's really no excuse to ignore all the instructions and resources to such an extent that your proposal isn't even a single vote anymore. If it's too much trouble for someone to structure their proposal as "support/oppose/comment" or "option 1/option 2/option 3/.../comment", like every other proposal ever, that's their own stinking fault, and they shouldn't be surprised when it gets taken down. -

Have a EULA system for users to sign before joining this wiki
I have seen that a lot of users day by day when they join they immediately start vandalizing articles and blanking pages and are ignorant. I've been thinking we should implement a End User License Agreement system in our user creation system that the user should read and agree with while they are creating their account. At least that will let the user know what our expectations are while they are creating their account so that they don't shoot their foot off and vandalize this wiki. You know we should have it set up that the user can only hit I agree after he/she reads the entire thing just like how Windows NT 4.0 and 3.XX 's eulas work.



Proposer: Deadline: July 23, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Have

 * 1) Per my proposal and my comments below.

Don't Have

 * 1) Per Glowsquid in the comments.
 * 2) - Per Glowsquid and Baby Luigi in the comments. This is completely pointless.
 * 3) Per Glowsquid and myself.
 * 4) Per comments. If people join up to vandalize, an EULA isn't going to stop them. Writing and enforcing one of these would just be a huge waste of time.
 * 5) Per all. It's a formality that holds no actual weight and it going to be more trouble than it's worth to set up.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all. This will not make the registration process any harder than it currently is.
 * 8) Just because we have many screenfulls of words people will "have to" read, doesn't mean people will read it and listen to it. They're probably going to vandalize anyway. Per all.
 * 9) Per Glowsquid in the comments.
 * 10) if you like to cut down vandal traffic, legal stuff won't stop them. this is a free-edit wiki site, and its purpose should remain stuff. if you really want to stop vandals, spend your time making a ClueBot-like bot or something.
 * 11) These are like License Agreements, except License Agreements are intentionally written in a way that hardly anyone will ever read them.
 * 12) Per all, aside from the help pages and the matter of that vandals will not think even for a split-second to read the EULA. Users are expected to contribute with normal sense. Personally, I never read EULAs, just because I can expect what am I not supposed to do. And even so, vandals do not worth the trouble to set this, they can be reverted within seconds.
 * 13) Per all.
 * 14) Per all, vandals wouldn't care to read this. Also if they are "forced" to actually read it, they can do the obvious thing and scroll to the bottom without reading to get to the next page.

Comments
But if a user immediatelty starts vandalizing articles, that's probably just what they are: vandalists who join just to cause trouble. I don't think they'd care much about what we expect. -- 10:38, 16 July 2014 (EDT)

This is a ludicrous idea for many reasons:

1; The Mariowiki isn't a purchaseable/licensed software. It's not even a software. There's no legal basis for tying the right to edit the wiki to a contract.

2: An additional screen of legaleses isn't going to keep out dedicated trolls.

3: We already have multiple pages detailling what we expect of user behaviours and editing competence.

4: Even if we had a legal basis for requiring a contract and that it was somehow a viable deterent, there's no viable way we could enforce it in case of violation. None of us are paid, for pete's sake.

5: Even if we could somehow enforce it, taking people to the court would be a ludicrous waste of time, $$$ and effort.

teel-deer: lol. --Glowsquid (talk) 10:48, 16 July 2014 (EDT)
 * I know that but a lot of users just are way too goddamn lazy to even read the damn rules for crying out loud so the EULA actually acts there for convenience and it is not pointless. Hell,even Facebook and Twitter have EULAs so that users know the rules right upon sign up. The Windows NT 4.0 EULA is therefore to show how it doesn't let you hit F8 to install Windows until you read the entire whole damn thing.You get the idea right. I mean it could be a quick reference just before a user creates an account and it is just to check if a user is sincere or not. Do you get what I am trying say. I mean we could just modify the wording so that it would fit our style of writing and since we're not a company hey it will list all the rules and everything that the guideline pages talk about and sorry if you are misinterpreting things. I find the EULA system to be potential for new users when they join immediately so that they don't shoot their foot off.
 * You can't force people to read stuff, and they're far less likely to read a big wall of legal crap than our rule pages: they'll just hit the button automatically, or they'll give up and just edit anonymously. Either way, you're not stopping the vandals, just dissuading potentially productive users, which actually makes it worse than useless. -
 * It won't be a big wall of legal shit just like the Windows NT 4.0 EULA. It will be a big wall containing all rules of the Wiki. It won't contain legal crap except for mentions of Nintendo's name and all that shit. It will make the user more productive in my point of view than a spammer or a vandal.Considering that this is my proposal,I have a right to change it and did this change your mind.

You're missing something here. There's nothing forcing people to follow it. Whether it's pages of legal crap or just explaining the rules, people are far more likely to just mash the "next page" button than read a word of it. And, let's be serious now-HOW IS EXPLAINING THE RULES GOING TO DETER SPAMMERS AND VANDALS? A two-year-old could figure out that replacing a page with the word "poo" isn't allowed. How is "forcing" them to read it going to deter someone from doing something they'd do in the first place? Writing this would just be a huge waste of everyone's time.--Vommack (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2014 (EDT)
 * Yeah, people will still just skip it or give up, regardless of what it is that's being thrown in their face. Rules are better divided up into manageable chunks with specific focuses so that people can look things up when they're unsure about something or are referred there or whatever: the longer the page, the faster the eyes glass over, in my experience. My mind is unchanged. -

Why are all my proposals end up failing on me even if think of a decent idea that could be implemented on this wiki?? Why do people even hate this idea,I mean Facebook and Twitter has it too? I think it would be a good idea. The way the EULA would deter vandals and spammers is that it would give them second thoughts about if they really want to join this wiki to really be part of it or just be a one year old who would steer up trouble on the wiki and waste their time here by shooting their foot. For goodness sake,does anyone get what I am trying to say?
 * I must ask you, yet again: What would force them to read it? Sure, other sites do it. I'm sure you faithfully read every last word in every EULA from every site you've registered on? Besides that, "other sites do it" doesn't support any argument, as it applies to nearly anything. The bottom line is, if someone signs up for the explicit purpose of vandalizing, throwing a wall of words at them won't change it.--Vommack (talk) 18:32, 16 July 2014 (EDT)
 * A trigger similar to Windows NT 4.0 and Windows NT 3.XX would make that the incentives to force them to read it. But what I am trying to say is that what if a normal person and not some dumbass who has nothing better to do than to spoil all our hard work joins then at least the EULA will help out in guiding the user when they create their account. I do feel a strong sense of justice within me.
 * You're still missing something...There's nothing stopping any user from just mashing the trigger.--Vommack (talk) 18:52, 16 July 2014 (EDT)

I get what you're saying Pwwnd, but there's very little chance someone who comes to destroy our hard work would change their mind because of a bunch of rules they see when getting an account. -- 19:06, 16 July 2014 (EDT)
 * If anything, it's going to make users not join. I know I probably wouldn't if all I saw was that, because it's like saying something bad will ban you because you were on a list. Some younger users might be scared of signing something like that because there parents wouldn't want them to. - 01:29, 17 July 2014 (EDT)
 * But what if in the future someone decided to change their mind then it will have to be there. I do think thrice about it. Besides I see more potential in a EULA system and it feels beneficial for the Wiki itself.
 * We do all get what you're saying. We all just have better reasons why not to do it. Like I said in a different proposal, voting against one doesn't mean the voter hates it. Anyway, like everyone else said, there's no real way we can confirm that the new user has read everything. Like I said in my vote, they may not even read it. There's no real way past that.
 * The problem with what your proposing is that the very purpose of wiki sites like this is that anyone can edit it. It's supposed to be a free site, and vandals aren't that big of a problem anyway. Seriously, we can just undo their edits with a click and that's that. And they get blocked nearly immediately. It's not like this site is in jeopardy because of some SNEAKY SCHEMING vandals found a secret, convoluted way to vandalize an open-door, universally editable wiki with some jibberish that gets reverted within a click away and a few seconds. Again as I said, the best way to counter vandals is to undo their edits and quietly report their activities to an administrator. If we're THAT sophisticated or desparate, we could even implement an anti-vandal bot (but that ain't happenin as far as I'm concerned) 21:17, 17 July 2014 (EDT)
 * Honestly, though, we need someone or something to handle blocking or reverting during my 5-8pm hours, because literally no-one but me, Mario Jc and a couple other regulars are there and we have to wait hours until someone else comes online. I'm not trying to say "Promote me!", if anything I think that that's a bad idea, but a bot would help at these times. - 01:36, 18 July 2014 (EDT)
 * Admins are online whenever we are online, we can't be online at every single hour of every single day. It may be annoying, but it's something that you'll have to deal with until one comes online.

So,technically 90% of the time people don't give a damn about EULAs because they are obsolete and lengthy. I mean Paypal had the biggest EULA ever.So you guys mean only 10% of the people would give 10 shits about EULAs. Hell, Windows NT 4.0,3.5X and 3.1 makes you read the entire damn EULA but Windows 2000 and XP allow you to hit F8 right away so you don't have to go through all that bullshit again and make it unimportant because we want to install the goddamn OS.So an EULA is a waste of time for us, I mean Microsoft and Apple and other free commercial software manufacturers are wasting their goddamn time with a EULA that no one cares about. I mean GNU software do have EULAs as well.
 * I'm pretty sure Apple and Microsoft have more reasoning than keeping away vandals. - 01:53, 18 July 2014 (EDT)
 * The EULA is there because it's for legal purposes entirely. So just in case someone sues them or something, the EULA is basically a "terms of service" thing like a contract that you agree to use and can be used against cases in court. 22:25, 18 July 2014 (EDT)
 * Re: Bots: We're not giving blocking powers to a bot, and making one to revert things also seems dubious security-wise, and either way, it'd be too much trouble to make considering that anyone can undo things manually. As others have said, vandals are not worth the worry. -

@Pwwnd123: I see your point about GNU and those other softwares having EULAs, but I agree with Baby Luigi and Ninelevendo, and as stated earlier, this wiki isn't software, we're a wiki that anyone can sign up and start editing on. We have ways to deal with vandalism already, we don't need something others have to read through upon login. The Welcome template has links to those pages that make the rules clear, like the MarioWiki Policy category. Do we really need to add a EULA on top of that?
 * But the only problem is that the Welcome template only is given when a user makes his or her first edit. What if they immediately made their first vandalized edit. Then a EULA becomes important. That is the only disadvantage of the Welcome template. A EULA works out much better in my opinion. We'll still be a free to edit wiki even with a EULA. I mean sites like Facebook and Twitter have EULAs and shit like that.

A EULA still wouldn't help. If they're first edit it a purpose vandalized one, they are probably a vandal, and won't change their mind. And I never got a welcome template. -- 19:06, 19 July 2014 (EDT) So someone needs to make an edit to get a Welcome template. Like Triple-K said, reading a EULA won't change their mind. On this site, pretty much anyone can sign up, that's why we have younger users on this wiki; On Facebook and Twitter they have age limits. The younger people that sign up would probably care as much as someone looking to cause trouble. If the user is not a vandal, then I think they have good enough explanation once they get the Welcome template, and it won't really matter that they have to make just one little edit.

Create a NEC and PC-88 Page
You know how we have a page about Philips and the Philips CD-i. I think we can do the same with NEC and their PC-88 home computer. The NEC PC-88 did had 3 Mario games released for it so we can create an article for it. For the NEC article we can go into a brief history of the company and then go into the Nintendo and Hudson Soft's perspective only just like with the Philips article. For the PC-88 page we can do a similar thing like the CD-i page and go over the system's history in brief and and talk about the three Mario games on this home computer. We can try to abide by the wiki's manual of style and be trying to keep it relevant as possible. Also,NEC did also did help by producing some of the chips Nintendo uses in their consoles such as the GameCube and Wii.

Proposer: Deadline: July 24, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Create an article for both the parent company NEC and the PC-88

 * 1) Per my proposal.

Create an article for the PC 88 only

 * 1) Per proposal. Just this is enough, there isn't much Mario related things for NEC.
 * 2) Per Triple-K.
 * 3) Per Triple-K.
 * 4) Per Triple-K: I cann't see the point of copying Wikipedia...
 * 5) Per all.

Do Nothing

 * 1) Per standard procedure. You don't need community consensus to create an article for a standard topic. Generally, you'd bring articles here when either a consensus can't be reached or a more drastic measure is being suggested. These are standard topic articles that I agree we've been missing. Go make them both, with my blessings, and we'll go from there.

Comments
You know that NEC do have an involvement with Nintendo, besides they make some of the Wii and GameCube and Wii U hardware chips. It does not all necessarily have to do with Mario.It's the involvement with Nintendo that matters the most just like with the Philips article. Even though we are the Super Mario Wiki for the case of the NEC article we only talk about Nintendo's involvement.For crying out loud, it's Nintendo who is the creator and the creator Nintendo deserves more than Mario on the NEC article.
 * NEC has not been directly invovled in the production or distribution of a Mario game (afaic), making a page for them would be coverage creep. Many companies contribute hardware for Nintendo's systems, but nobody's asking for AMD or IBM to get pages. --Glowsquid (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2014 (EDT)
 * So Philips only deserves an article because they distrubuted and produced a Mario game. NEC doesn't deserve and article due to not being involved with the production of a Mario game. I mean Hudson Soft made 3 Mario games and NEC would have an involvement with Hudson Soft with the NEC TurboGrafx-16/PC Engine so isn't that full circle.

"So Philips only deserves an article because they distrubuted and produced a Mario game" Leaving aside that there were two other Mario and one Donkey Kong game stuck in development hell, yes. If you can't *prove* NEC was actually involved in those PC098 games, it doesn't warrant a page. Conjecture doesn't replace facts. --Glowsquid (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2014 (EDT)
 * Actually,so the company should have a Mario game published in order to qualify for an article? NEC were probably the licensee of these games and so were Nintendo.So the NEC article should be deleted,right?

Guys, only a thing... how many NEC Mario games are there? 4?
 * Nelsonic Game Watch has like 6, so I don't think quantity of games really matters. What matters more is its relevance to Nintendo and the Mario series. 16:49, 22 July 2014 (EDT)