MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/23



Remove Fake Bans/Warnings
Remove Fake Bans/Warnings 30-0

OK, now that I royally screwed up my last proposal, let's try this again: On more than a few userpages, I have seen ban notices saying a user has been blocked by ruling of Wario's Butt or something of that sort. These are immature, a waste of space, and can cause you to do a double-take before reading on and finding out that the user wasn't banned, they are just being extremely immature. So now that I've done this properly, let's get rid of this crap. {{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Ralphfan}} Voting start: 2 September 2010, 00:00 GMT Voting closes: 9 September 2010, 00:00 GMT

Support

 * 1) – Per proposal.
 * 2) - *sigh*, here we go again. Anyways, those templates are annoying. They are warnings and are not to be toyed with.
 * 3) - These make sysops job much more difficult.
 * 4) - Per all
 * 5) get in my way. Per Proposal
 * 6) I agree. They are official templates and even if the wording and terms are changed, it could still easily confuse new users if they get one of those templates.
 * 7) – Per Tucayo, and Marioguy1.
 * 8) Well, if it's about warnings and bans, then per all!
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) Well; reminders, warnings, and bans are not playthings, if you play with them, it could result in several users thinking they are Banned. Some people simply look, they do not always read the content of the template. Also, they are very immature due to the problems I said previously, and that their content contains utter gibberish in templates that are supposed to be very serious.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) I say per all.
 * 13) Per all and I recommend MCD to stop assuming.
 * 14) I disagree on your definition of "immature", but I'm still supporting. SYSOPs do not need to spend unnecessary amounts of time searching for warnings.
 * 15) No more Wario's butt nonsense. Per all.
 * 16) Per everybody. Yes, everybody.
 * 17) - Per all.
 * 18) - Ditto here.
 * 19) Per all.
 * 20) Per Lefty Green Mario.
 * 21) Per all.
 * 22) - Per all.
 * 23) - Per all, let's try not to make life miserable for the Sysops.
 * 24) - Per all.
 * 25) I agree.
 * 26) Per all. Stupid people spamming with templates. I really agree with the immature part, obviously, too.
 * 27) - Per all.
 * 28) - Those are annoying and when you actually do have a block template up it confuses you.
 * 29) - I agree, I feel all bad for that user that they were blocked, and then I read and think, ohhhh... jerks.
 * 30) People that do that are jerks.Per all.

Comments
Now that I've realized the full effects of my other one, let's just get on with this.


 * I'm not sure navboxes are covered under this either, since they aren't an imitation of any real template. Actually, what exactly is the definition of a fake template? That doesn't seem to be clarified anywhere in this proposal.

This only covers ban notices and warning notices. Navboxes are OK.


 * Yeah, I tried to write that in the original version of this and it didn't work right >_>

So, will the other one get deleted?

Once enough admins agree, I guess.

@2257: To answer your question, a fake template is when a user uses the HTML code for the template rather than the template itself. That way, you don't see the list of pages that links to it on the bottom.

Can this include fake maintenance templates too?
 * Except the Under Construction, because users usually don't finish everything at once.

@MrConcreteDonkey: isn't allowed in userpace.
 * BLOF: No, nothing uses HTML code on a wiki, it all uses wikicode. HTML code is kind of the same yet very different. Anyways, yes, that is a fake template. No, that does not include userboxes due to which is a real template with parameters. However it does include all fake construction templates, fake infobox templates and fake warnings.
 * Oh, and I thought this wiki uses HTML the ENTIRE time x_X

@MG1: Construction templates aren't fake, they just aren't allowed in userspace.
 * "However it does include all fake construction templates". *sigh*

@Ralphfan: I'll support if you add fake maintenance templates on since they have as much significanse as the fake warnings and tal pages. Also, can fake talk page proposals on user talks be banned too?

@MrConcreteDonkey: Yes, yes they are. :)
 * Sorry for being a little harsh, but I get irritated REALLY easily. I can't help it. Please, STOP IT. It makes us look bad.
 * Agreed, putting people down isn't nice. Anyways, I don't really think the fake maintenance templates are that much of a bad thing. They're immature but they don't hurt anyone.
 * I hope MrConcreteDonkey changes his vote. He's the one that look bad right now :P

I don't know what's the big issue on fake construction templates. They are on user pages. What makes you think a USERpage needs rewrite or more images uploaded? I think the people who put fake templates on their page just have some sense of humor, not a sense of immaturity. Of course, opinions differ for each person. Bottom-line: fake rewrites do no harm at all.
 * Mainly because new users tend to place real templates into their pages when they see we had done it and we have to go through the issue of notifying them or removing them. Other than that, there is no harm done.

Alright, sorry LGM and BLOF. I guessed since you opposed the last one immediately, but I guessed wrong and forgot that the 1st one was for all fake templates.
 * It's ok. I first started shouting at you, but then, I removed my comment because I got over it. I accept your apology.

Do you think anyone will fall for this???:

(Removed, due to its contents altering the scrollbox template)


 * No, but it does take up space and ultimately is pointless.

OH, PLEASE! Who in the right mind would agree with that hacked template? Also, Per MrConcreteDonkey. Takes up space and is worthless.
 * Me, in my left, evil mind, cuz I created them :(. It is pointless, but it does show a little of your personality.
 * Next time, make your own template or ask the person before putting it on comments. Thank you.

I feel stupid but, what does "per all" mean?
 * It basically means "I agree with everyone supporting/opposing" (whichever applies), but it's much less effort/time to type. 18:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

}}

Making Paper Mario Badge Attack Articles
Do not create Paper Mario Badge Attack Articles 9-14

I think we should make articles on attacks in the first two Paper Marios that you can only use by the use of a badge (i.e. Quake Hammer, Multibounce). It would be necessary to the wiki, since these ARE attacks of Mario's, and even if he needs a badge to use them they still are attacks of his. {{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Mileycyrussoulja}} Voting start: 2 September, 2010, 12:00. Deadline: 9 September, 2010, 23:59 GMT.

Support

 * 1) I support this proposal and I agree that these attacks should get their own articles.
 * 2) They're ATTACKS. The partner's attacks like Multibonk has seperate articles. So we're saying Mario is LESS important than his allies that appear in one game? Also the other badges aren't needed because they only have effects which will be stubs. This is an ATTACK, and will definitly have more info.
 * 3) Per Booderdash.
 * 4) I taught you meant badges. If it's about attacks, then per booderdash.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Per Booderdash.

Oppose

 * 1) I am Zero! Oppose to the reasoning of that will be an unprofessional idea to only make all the attack-type badges into articles and not the other badges into articles. Zero signing out.
 * 2) Too minor to have an article, belong in the badge's article.
 * 3) - Per all
 * 4) Well, most of the attack badges would not warrant a description longer than a few sentences, they are not more notable than the other badges, just because they are attacks does not mean they have long descriptions. Not to mention, most of the badge attacks are alterations of Mario's pre-badge attacks, thus the do not deserve articles.
 * 5) Badges =/= Attacks. Many short and crappy articles will be created with this. No, just no.
 * 6) Badge attacks are not permanent attacks, unlike the partner attacks. When you get them (if you get them, that is), you can unequip them. Anyway, almost all of them are just souped up versions of Mario's regular attacks, with maybe a different side-effect here and there. Per all.
 * 7) - I mean with a few of them you could, but this proposal is all of them, and not all of them will be necessary articles. Rather have the badge page longer than have like 30+ stubs.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) - Per GF75.
 * 10) - You can't make a long-worthy article for just a badge, It'll be a lot of space and people could get a harder/complex navigation over the site
 * 11) - Per all.
 * 12) Per all.
 * 13) Imagine all the stubs there would be. Also not enough info to give each badge specific attack an article.
 * 14) Per all.

Comments
Wouldn't this be better as a Pipe Project?

Agreed.

Couldn't this be done by making an article that contains all the Badge Effects (if such an article doesn't exist already)?

Its already done in the Badge article. But the MOVES need seperate articles because they're MOVES.
 * What, so an article describing what happens when you use Move Badges?

@Booderdash: Do you realize how many stubs we're gonna have here?

@Frosty, no like how Multibonk has an article, we make articles for Tornado Jump, Power Jump, Power Smash, Ice Smash etc. @FF65, I don't see how we're going to have that many stubs. I mean they're as important as the special moves for Mario Power Tennis. And the moves can be explained in detail. They're also better than Plane Mario.

Well, if all attack badges are given their own articles, shouldn't ALL badges have separate articles?

Why? All other badges only give effects that can be explained with one line. In attacks, many sentences can be written, and it won't be a stub All the other badges will be stubs.

Well, you can not always "write many sentences" for every attack badge, most of them do things that warrant only a sentence or two.

Not the attack BADGE, but the ATTACK. Like Power Bounce. I don't see how thats less of an importance than Multibonk.

Well, I fail to see how that would work with any positive affects.

Then explain why Multibonk, Kiss Thief, Power Lift etc. has articles, because they're just attacks too.

Um..., Gamefreak, I think you're misunderstanding us. We DON'T want to create articles for BADGES, we want to create articles for ATTACKS like Tornado Jump, Ice Smash, and Power Bounce.

Well, two of those three you said should not have articles, If a certain type of badge has an article, they all must, it is one of are policies. Making an article on a badge attack but not the badge itself, that would simply not work.

Look, you probablt don't even have the game. The badge only ALLOWS you to use the attack, but we want to make an article ON the attack. Like Kiss Thief, and Power Lift. So that is ok.

Well, me having the game has nothing to do with this wiki, the badge is functionally what you need to use the attack, thus if the attack deserves a page, the Badge does too. What I mean is, the badge page is created, with the attack in it, if it is created at all, wich it should not.

No, the BADGE name is the EXACT same as the attack so Tornado Jump the badge would be the same thing as the attack. You would need the game to understand, thats why I mentioned it.

Well, I can not under stand you reasoning, what I meant to say was to make a page of the BADGE not the ATTACK, if make the pages at all.

The proposal is about making the attack! Not the badge! Badges only invoke the attacks.

Well, I know that, the pages badge or Attack should not be created, they would cause many stubs, just because they are attacks does not mean they are notable enough for a page.

Any badge attack is notable like any other one. That's why Booderdash said that you should have the game!

Well, any badge is as important as it's own attack are each other. Also, The fact about me not having has no say in the matter.

Yes it does. It means you don't understand the concept of the attack. You NEED the game to understand or maybe just the original Paper Mario. And the badge isn't important, which you'll clearly know if you have the game, its the ATTACK that is.

Well, the badge and the attack it causes have functionally the same notability, the attacks are are slightly altered versions of Mario's normal attacks.

Is it? Multibonk is the exact same as Headbonk, but repeated alot of times, and Power Bounce is a jump repeated alot of times.

Booderdash, It sounds like you are agreeing with me, the pages you want to be made should not be made because they are not notable enough. The attack badges attacks simply alter Mario's (or his partner's) by adding an effect.

Aha! But you see thing thing is they DO have articles, and for THIS consistency to work, we need to make articles for this, since I doubt many people will agree on deleting those articles anways.

Booderdash, the badges nor their effects do not have articles, they are not notable enough for their own articles.

All, the badges are merged together, so why on earth can't we just merge all the attacks?

Agreed, but the badge attacks are already merged.

I guess we could just merge them all. But I just have a feeling not man people would agree on it. I don't know, I guess we can try. (We need to mae a proposal about it first though.) But another thing to note, none of the moves like Multibonk are stubs, so I don't see how Power Bounce will be a stub either.

Baby Mario Bloops, there are only 10ish attacks in Ttyd, and I doubt all of them are going to be stubs.

Well, there is not sufficient proof that the pages would be long enough not to be stubs, not to mention, the badges(and/or their effects) are not notable enough anyway for pages.

They wouldn't be stubs because Multibonk isn't a stub, and Power Bounce is practically the same thing. Plus things like Ice Smash has even MORE detail (like Freezeing) to be put into the article.

Well, Multibonk is not a badge attack, and powerbounce equals Multibonk, Ice smash has little information that could be produced about it. The badge attacks are only the effects the badge has on Mario's (or his partner's) attacks.

Thats my POINT. How comes MULTIBONK gets an article, while Power Bounce doesn't? Its basically just Partner's attacks VS Mario's attacks.

Why does everyone keep on thinking we're making the article about the badge? We're making it about the ATTACK.

Well, how many time do I have to tell you; the badge causes the "attack," and the "attacks" are simply effects on Mario's (or his partner's) attacks, nothing more nothing less. This is why the do well as a list, they do not have that much information about them that is different from the normal attacks.

I don't care about that, I mean practically everyone else thinks that we're making it ON the badge.

Well, You do not care, not they do not, they think (hopefully) that the badge is equal to the attack, neither of them deserves an article.

Well, if they have the game, they would know that it wasn't. Btw, I think MCS made the description rather misleading and I bet is confusing people...

You are getting of topic, enough about having the game, it does not always matter, in terms of what you are trying to do. I do not have the game and I understand completely what you are trying to do.

No, you don't understand. Its because you don't have the game. I mean so according to your logic, if FPS fanboys say Mario is for kiddy wimps and that they understand that, that means they're right. Its because they never played the game! You always need to either watch the movie, read the book, or play the game before you understand things about it.

I can understand giving a few of the badge specific attack their own articles but there probably won't be enough there to make a good article. A couple probably might if they appeared in more than just one of the Paper Mario games.

Well Booderdash, lets get back on topic, what do you mean "It's because they never played the game," you can understand the game if you read it's own article on this wiki. Also Stapler, we can not give just give a few of them pages, we have to give all of them pages or none of them, it is one of our policies.

All your doing is nitpicking an issue if your going to create seperat articles for attacks then you need to make seperate articles for everything

Well, Read what I said again, you obviously do not know what I mean, and it is one of our policies, not a guideline. Read our policies again and come back after you do so. Also, please speak more clearly. }}

Make a "No Spam" Usertalk Page Policy
Make a No Spam Usertalk Page Policy 22-0

Recently, a bunch of friends of mine (you know who you are) placed a lot of images in my talk page. Though it was funny at first, it considerably stretched my userpage and extended it, so it gave me really bad loading times. Same goes for copying text from certain articles and placing them into my talk page, which also extends it until the loading server lags extensively just to load up my talk page in case it has new messages.

What I'm proposing is a new policy to prevent "spamming" user talk pages with images or text (this also includes friendly encounters). "Spamming" the talk pages with a load of images and text not only gives it a big deal to load up a page and stretches it horizontally, it also gives users like me a hard time to navigate through them to find any new messages a user might put. Plus, we are forced to make another archive as soon as this occurs. I know I can just remove them myself, but it is much easier if the "spamming" is prevented in the first place. Any "spamming" of the past will be kept, but any future "spamming" will get immediately deleted in user talk pages. I do not think that spamming" improves talk pages in any way. Talk pages are supposed to be used for chatting with other users, rather than fill it up with useless content. It also makes it harder for the administration and others to work through the pages if they want to drop a comment or something.

I'm also proposing this to be enforced, just in case it happens to any unwary user, ignorant user, or a user who just wants to play around with his/her friends. {{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} Voting start: 6 September 2010, 20:33 GMT Deadline: 12 September 2010, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) - It was really annoying how you had to scroll to the side in order to read the messages and it did take more time to load with all that crap on it.
 * 2) No more giant user talkpages.
 * 3) When I look at my comment, it streched longer than my screen.
 * 4) - I mean it looks nice at first, but then you scroll down forever! Per all.
 * 5) I am Zero! I don't even need to read the proposal, spam on the talk page, no, support, per all. Zero signing out.
 * 6) - When I first saw all that Wario Spam, I decided that the spamming users were "Wario Weirdos". I then tried to avoid their talkpages as much as possible; not because they love Wario, but because those giant talkpages are annoying nuisances.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Yeah, everyone's completely right, and specifically Wario spam covers up talk pages. One or two images? Whatever. Enough to make the server lag and stretch a talk page? No.
 * 9) - SPAM is defined as Stupid Pointless Annoying Messages; what is going on the talk pages is stupid, pointless and annoying so I think it falls under that category.
 * 10) - Per proposal.
 * 11) Goodbye spammed FF65 and BLOF's pages, good bye good old wario, good...ahem, per alll.
 * 12) I have to say per all. Takes forever to load a talk page on my netbook and a while to load on my PC. Wonder what would happen if something like Walkazo's computer or a DSi had to load up a 60,000 bytes+ page. It probably would explode. It's not annoying (in the "spammers" perspective) because the people "spamming" the pages were doing this to each other for fun. Why would ANY computer would want to load a page full of disgusting Warios anyway?
 * 13) BLOF's talk page literally broke my cell phone.
 * 14) I agree. Not everyone uses high speed internet ya know!
 * 15) Because spam is usually not good.
 * 16) Imagine this scenario: You're going to reply to a friend's comment. You click the link to their talkpage that has a dubious fluorescent green background. For some reason it takes over 10 minutes to load. When it finally loads, you are confronted with literally thousands of giant Wario images repeated over and over and over... Eventually you scroll away from that hideous monstrosity into the comfort of your section. Oh dear, Wario spam has stretched the page all the way across the Atlantic. And then the damn advertisement to the right blocks the Edit tab. Then your computer promptly gives up and explodes before you can lose the will to live due to Wario spam. End Scenario. Per all.
 * 17) Yup. Good idea - Per y'all (did I actually just say that?)
 * 18) I don't get a whole lotta messages, but I don't want it to happen to me later. Ever.
 * Yup, it gets annoying to try to read those pages. Per all, except Marioguy1. It originally came from a Monty Python sketch about spam, Spiced ham.
 * 1) Per all.
 * 2) Per all.
 * 3) (Ah, I finally received permission to create a new account, due to my lost password. I can vote again! This is just in time, too...) Oops! err...ahem: Per CosmicRedToad, Mr bones, Booderdash, Marioguy1, DaisyRox02, Zero777, Frostyfireyoshi, Beecanoe, Mechayoshi, Sgt. Boo, and especially CosmicRedToad.

Comments
Wouldn't it be much easier if you just added a rule about this in your talk page?
 * Yes, that's better
 * I concur.

The problem is, people tend to ignore rules. I want to enforce that specific rule about spamming. Besides, when people do that anyway, it just takes up server stress and it's harder for other users to leave a message, or the owner of the talk page to find his/her message


 * If people ignore your rules, then notify it in their talk page.
 * No, I'm going to ENFORCE the rule, so it can be prevented.
 * Aww you don't like my beautiful gifts of Wario? I can't oppose then.
 * Yeah, I do like them, but after a while, I was forced to archive, and forced to view my talk page using "last change" instead of viewing it. It also caused a lot of hassle to load everything up. I do like it when you do that, but sometimes, fun does screw things up :( That's why I'm proposing this. Yes, I do regret it, but I'm doing it for what's good.

IMO this classifies as common sense, do not spam. If people don't follow it, they should get warned.
 * That's what I thought too, but some people also want to play around with their friends by adding a horrendous amount of pictures. This also causes server stress and huge loading times.


 * I do think that all those Wario pics were annoying(even though I pasted some on), but why would they be considered spam?
 * They're not spam as long someone who receives them likes them. I said "spamming", it's not actual spamming :D

}}

Expand Main Page to contain all content
Oppose 1-24

What I liked about the main page was I could discuss featured images and vote on polls and all that stuff. The polls left, I was disapointed. However, they brought the polls back, but my other spot the featured images, was gone. It seems that, for stuff to come in, others must go. The way to solve that problem, expand the main page! We want to fit all the stuff everyone loves onto the first page they see when they enter the wiki.

Alright, so that idea sucked hard, but would anyone be against adding content that wasn't put on their before? We could have character of the week, user of the week, and new pages on the main page. Plus, we could improve the polls a little bit, I think it changes less often than it used to, as well as not including past polls from the last time they did the polls thing.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer:{{User|Beecanoe}} Voting start:9 September 2010, 00:00 GMT Voting closes:16 September 2010, 00:00 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) The reason the FI was gone was gone was because IT WAS USELESS. We replaced it with the polls for more of a participation feel! FI's was a waste of space!
 * 2) - The main page is meant to be a quick introduction to the wiki. There's some general information, links, important announcements, a place showing our best content, a place showing the important changes to the wiki, a place for recent news, a place for interesting additions, a poll to make it more interactive, a box for the 'shroom because the 'shroom is awesome like that and a NIWA box. We don't need the quote of the day, it's just a random quote, 5% of the time it's actually funny and the other 95% it's stupid. The FI process was also shut down so I don't see how anyone could add a box for that considering it doesn't exist but, assuming you're planning to restart the system, there are enough images on the main page as is. Granted once in a blue moon the FIs actually produce an image that looks good but there's a very small chance of that happening (as was demonstrated before we shut it down) so the pictures in the FA and Nintendo news sections pretty much represent the image quality of the wiki. The main page is supposed to be brief and have only the most important things, let's keep it that way.
 * 3) Woah...Per MG1's gargantaun lecture...
 * 4) - Per MG1.
 * 5) Per The One & Only MG1.
 * 6) Per MG1.
 * 7) FIs are worthless, the main page is fine as it is.
 * 8) I am Zero! Per MG1, MCD, and my comments below. Zero signing out.
 * 9) Well, the FIs were rather bad, and their voting system was absolutely terrible. No to mention, the Quote of the day was a pointless process, as the quotes that made it there were not always good, because The Mario series does not have many excellent quotes that could go there.
 * 10) Per all!
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) Per MG1. Also, LuigiMania: LUMA <3 the FI.
 * 13) Although the main page looks a little plain to me, I do not want the Featured Images to return. Plenty of crap got featured due to fan voting. The quote of the day was just a filler. If you want more stuff on the main page, what do you want to add?
 * 14) I disagree with everything that is on the propsal exept the FI part. I was extremely upset when they were taken off. Poll of the day should'nt be there. Neither should "Did You Know?" That's my opinion.
 * 15) Per Marioguy1, FF65, and Emperor Yoshi
 * 16) – Per all.
 * 17) Main page overload and computer crashes galore. Per all.
 * 18) While FIs could be occasionaly good, there are only so many quality pics that Nintendo have produced- sure, they make new games, but not as often as we uploaded new images. I like the polls, per all.
 * 19) - There aren't a lot of images that deserve the feature image status, which is likely the reason why featured images were discontinued.
 * 20) I don't miss what ever's gone- per oh so all!
 * 21) I miss FIs HEAPS, but this proposal doesn't sound like a good idea. Per all
 * 22) - Per MG1.
 * 23) Per all.
 * 24) - All information = overload = more failures to get to sight = problems for all of us.

Comments
The problem is not space, the problem is the system behind the FI's, it was a total fail.
 * Yeah, although we could bring back the community template, we'd have to also bring back FIs to balance the main page. The FIs should stay gone, since the whole voting system was terrible.
 * I am Zero! ....For some reason I would sort of consider this a joke proposal since it's just what he wants. He's not really thinking of the space and memory it will take up and download time. Zero signing out.

Well, maybe this should just be for the 'Projects Seeking Contributors' and maybe a 'Quote of the Day'.
 * Quote of the Day was stupid, it was just a random quote chosen. And Projects Seeking Contributors is a section of the Pipe Plaza. Read that instead.

yeah and the polls are useless to since they really dont do anything by take up space
 * The polls are a good extra to the main page. They are as pointful as the DYK, and a bit of fun..
 * The polls take up space, yes, but what do you want to replace it with? Sometimes, taking up space is a good thing. video games are pointless and take up space; let's prohibit them.
 * I am Zero! You're just thinking for yourself, what about the people who can't access the main page as quick as you. Zero signing out.
 * I'm not selfish, it's just that empty space sometimes needs to be filled in with something. I'm not saying that taking space is always a good thing. Unnecessary space leads to server slowdown, but we won't allow a main page with blank gaps. Besides, I use a Netbook, which is a very lightweight laptop, which means it's not as fast as most PCs. The page might load quite quickly, but that's because my Firefox blocked the ads.
 * Character of the week? Seriously? That's practically what FA is just narrowed down onto the characters! Who needs that? They can just go on the Charcter's page and look at it there, and what if the "Chatacter of the Week" is a stub?
 * Why don't we just leave it as is? Nobody will ever agree on one thing, if we did, what would this page be for? The sysops and such have decided on the way the page currently is. We should respect their decisions.

Gargantuan lecture...sorry, I'm not accusing you of anything but should I make my future arguments shorter? I don't know if you prefer a more detailed version which will be very long or a short simple overview of my points...I personally like the longer paragraphs because they cover every (or almost every) objection that anyone could make but more people are likely to read something short and sweet...anyways, which do you (in general) like better?
 * I, personally, prefer the long ones. Long votes are the best; they make me want to consider all the possibilities and vote (whether I vote for or against, it makes me want to vote.)

Personally, would like a page or two just visible to users. I may not be edited as frequently, but that would matter. It would just be people who can change it. I'm not saying bring back featured images, but we could have things like progress on things like pipe projects or something. Maybe even come up with a better way to show good pictures. Some stuff that we as users need/want to see and doesn't concern others. And if that stuff belongs on the forum, I certainly can't find anything. (You can discuss this bunny trail more on my talk page.) Back to the point. I am fine with the main page as it is. Just suggesting a different approach to add more content.
 * Pages not visible to the general public is a bad idea. All of our pages should be viewable by everyone. If it's even possible to do that, it's still a bad idea. Other than that, we don't need to show people "good" pictures - aesthetics is a matter of opinion. We have no standards of what makes a "good" image as seen by the old FI process where you did not require a reason to vote. Some people like pictures, some don't, we can't classify pictures as good and bad. And "progress on PipeProjects" can be noted in an article for the Pipe Project. If the creator of the project does not wish to do that, it's no big deal.

}}

Main Page Dilemma
DELETED BY PROPOSER

Lately, we have gotten many proposals dealing with none other than the main page. "Remove FI's.", "Bring back the Polls.", "Fit all content on Main Page." and so on and so forth. Why can't we just settle that and try to please all of them? FI's and the calendar that told of interesting facts of that month was personally one of my favorite MP templates, but now they are deleted. We have Polls and now the 'Shroom template, which is also good, yet I really missed some of them that have faded into obscurity. What I propose is that we feature all those templates we all love and enjoy their presence on the main page! Before you go thinking that I am the fit all content on MP proposal, well read on. We don't need to have all of them on all at once, or else an overload of data would constantly cause a big list of problems. My proposal here is to make a schedule and trade places with the Main Page! To help you understand what I am aiming at, let me describe it for you. Week 1 - Week 2 - This is just an example of what we could change. Not saying this would be the exact change. Week 3 - Back to Week 1. It would be a MAJOR change for us all, and I wouldn't doubt that it would be hard, but at least picture of such quality and awesomeness we would have for the main page! If we just timed each template correctly, from my calculations, then it should work out perfectly! I know that you all have your opinions about this, so I think I will wrap up this proposal. Just remember that even though it would be some difficult work getting everything started, we could be able to make an outstanding Main Page to satify all!!! {{scroll box|content= Proposer:{{User|Baby Mario Bloops}} Voting start:18 September 2010, 00:00 GMT Voting closes:25 September 2010, 00:00 GMT
 * FA template
 * Did You Know
 * 'Shroom
 * Latest Proposals
 * M/Nin News
 * Polls
 * FA - to - FI template
 * Did You Know - to - Quotes (Hand-written into seperate template like the DYK.)
 * 'Shroom
 * Latest Proposals
 * M/Nin News
 * Polls - to - Monthly Calendar

Support

 * 1) - Per MY proposal.

Comments
No. Having a differentiating main page is a bad idea. When someone comes to look for FAs, they'll find FIs. When someone looks for the calendar, they will find the polls. The calendar has to be a month-long thing if it is there at all, stuff doesn't just stop because we remove it from the main page. Furthermore, the FI template was removed from the main page because the process was shut down for a reason. Not to clear up the main page; the FI process is not good enough. And quotes will have the same problems. This proposal is just too inconsistent, we need to have some of those things for a month-long period or not at all. Other things will have bad nomination processes because they are matters of opinions. Sorry but this proposal is not a good idea in my opinion.
 * It is just an idea, and let me see if I can reason with your logic. The Quotes would be made in the same format as the Did You Know? so that we don't have that problem. The calendar we could make it for weekly so that we could show what happens for two weeks (the week it being on and the week it won't be on). FI's did have so trouble with the process and all, so I decide that we should re-cycle the ones we have for the FI if this passes of pure luck . Also, what I have shown above was just a random example of what could be, just to help better image the idea I am creating. I need to make a test page and show everyone what I plan could work out, so give me time to do that and then I will post the links for you to further see my plans. Also, it was just an idea for solving the dilemma of "I want this" and "I want that", so it will either be a win or lose, majority wise.
 * Well, if the idea is destined to become a reality and I object the idea, I must show why. Now let me explain further. Quotes would be updated once weekly but what would be considered a good quote? We just find a random quote and post it? How is that any different than the quote of the day from a while ago? Nobody cares enough to want to see a quote and if they want to, the old template is much more useful. The did you know is actually entertaining to read. The calendar can not be there half the time and not there the other half, a calendar has to be there 24/7. Recycling FIs will also get boring, it is much better to just have a constantly shifting article on the main page. I don't think a test page could really show the theory behind the disorganization of a temporary calendar or the redundancy of reusing Featured Images. A test page can't show all of those things, it'll look good, I'm sure, but it won't be a good concept for the above reasons.

This will just end in a chaotic mess. The inconsistency will reflect badly on our website. Sorry, but no. -
 * Maybe creating this proposal was not such a good idea, but I still want to see what people think of this. I don't think I will delete it, as I really do want to see the outcome (even if 1-30). It is an idea that is possible, and if done correctly and organized just right would be amazing. But of course, all that there is in need is the inconsistency to fix. I understand that, and I need to figure out how to overcome that, but with some time and previews, I will try to find a way to make my proposal worth it. All we really need is users willing to keep track of all that and be able to consistently swap templates.
 * Okay, Test 1 and Test 2 are given right here in those links. Test 2 will be edited a lot to tinker with what should and shouldn't be where. The Quote shall now be updated every day (and I can easily help keep track of that) if this passes. Of course we still have to deal with the dilemma about the Calendar, as that is the main problem I need to figure out, but I think with time I can come up with something.
 * It's just plain crazy how you did it. I don't understand how you just copied the entire Main Page. But...wasn't the Mario Calender mainly useless, and was that why it was deleted?
 * I never really found out the reason, but whatever it is we would have to change it so that it wouldn't be like that.
 * I agree with Edo, the site will have to have the same front page, with the same content, instead of changing it "randomly" (of course, it's not randomly, but it will seem so). Don't remove the stuff that's already there, I find the DYK interesting, the FAs are (of course) interesting, the poll is awesome, the news are mandatory, the 'Shroom news are great and the latest proposal is important for the members of the site. It's good as it currently is.
 * Yes, but I was simply throwing out the idea of trying to resolve a lot of problems with the Main Page. I'm not saying removing things like the DYK and the FA, but interchanging them would be possible. I mean, polls are for 2 weeks, so that could work out. All I will say now is that it has a lot of pros and a lot of cons.
 * No, DYK is better than quote of the day, month, week, whatever, it's better than a quote period. Featured Articles are better than featured images; featured articles show our content, featured image just show a picture that 50% of the people that actually voted on them deem "pretty". Polls and the Calendar both have to be there for ever or not at all. Sorry, this just won't work.
 * Here, why don't I just figure out some other stuff and see if I can make a way for people to like it. I have a feeling that a lot of tests are going to be made...

Well it's obvious this one isn't working so would you consider it deleting?
 * ....I guess you're right, maybe I should not embarrass myself any further. }}

Making Articles for Keys
Don't make articles for Keys 0-15

I think we should make articles on different keys in the Mario series. The reason this came to me is because I found an article, Station Key, on a key in Paper Mario: TTYD. Then I thought that if this key article can be made, then we can make a whole bunch of key articles, for example, Pit Key (found in the Pit of 100 Trials) and Dimension Key (found in the Whoa Zone) from Super Paper Mario. I made those redirects to Key for now.

There are 27 key articles. {{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Mileycyrussoulja}} Voting start: 19 September, 2010, 9:00 GMT Deadline: 26 September, 2010, 23:59 GMT.

Oppose

 * 1) This will result in many un-needed stubs which will take up space. I don't even know why the Station Key article is there. The information is definitely covered somewhere else. Why else do you think your previous Paper Mario proposal failed?
 * 2) I am Zero! Yet again, unneeded articles which will end up as stubs. Zero signing out.
 * 3) Well, the keys do not have sufficient information about them to make good articles, also they are not notable enough for it.
 * 4) They're just the same thing with a different name.
 * 5) "List of Keys" would be a good article. The "Station Key" should be merged into "Key".
 * 6) Keys are keys, why give them all their own articles? They are too minor and simply belong in the Key article.
 * 7) List of keys should be made, or better yet, just put it all in the keys article. Make sure to merge in all the pics as well, though, as otherwise it's somewhat pointless.
 * 8) List of Keys is a good idea.Seperate Key articles?Absolutely not.We don't need a lot of useless stubs.
 * 9) They would just be stubs. Okay idea but not for that.
 * 10) Changed my mind. Will make list of keys.
 * 11) - Per all. I'd even like to merge some of the existing key articles into a list (that's been proposed at least once before, though it didn't pass).
 * 12) Per all.
 * 13) Per all.
 * 14) There should just be an article containing a list of keys.
 * 15) Per all.

Comments
Shouldn't this be a TPP on Talk:Key?

Another Paper Mario pointless item page creation proposal? Why don't we just make a List of Keys or something?

I concur, this proposal should be a Talk Page Proposal, as this obviously does not involve the the Wiki itself.
 * A TPP on Station Key would be concerning the Key article itself, this one is about creating articles that are keys. The badge one is very similar, it would have been a TPP on Badges if we went by what you were saying.

@Mileycyrussoulja: You oppose your own proposal? Surely this is eligible for deletion.
 * No. Just because he doesn't support doesn't mean the idea no longer has merit; someone, somewhere might think it's a good idea. Lack of support isn't a good enough reason to delete a proposal, and it's actually better if proposals reach the deadline whenever possible - it gives us solid decisions to refer back to if policies or articles are called into question later on. Plus, the archives look better if they're mostly pass/fails, and not a bunch of cancellations. - }}

The Science of Video Games
Don't make such user subpages 2-15

I believe that user sub-pages relating to theories and the like should be exempt from the Userspace 'guidelines', as they ought to be put somewhere. If not on sub-pages, then maybe in the talk page or the article itself. See my example on Talk:Ztar. PLEASE LIST WHERE THEY SHOULD GO! {{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|YourBuddyBill}} Voting start: 17:11, 22 September 2010 Deadline: 23:59, 29 September 2010

Support

 * 1) Please say which space this stuff ought to go in. I think that the science of video games is very underappreciated, and could start much thought-provoking discussion over matters.
 * 2) Okay now that I can vote. per all.

Oppose

 * 1) It's opinion and speculation so doesn't belong on the Wiki. Plus, do you think people will read all of that on Talk:Ztar, especially when it's just speculation?
 * 2) Speculation. If you can't share it on the forums, just keep it to yourself. We don't need theories cluttering up talkpages.
 * 3) Per Fawfulfury and MCD.
 * 4) Well, speculation does not belong on this wiki, this wiki tells factual information about the Mario series, thus we can not have wild theories about Mario, I advise you to go to the Mario fanon wiki to make pages about your theories
 * 5) I like science and all, but it is speculation and it doesn't fit this wiki.
 * 6) I am Zero! Per all. Zero signing out.
 * 7) - Per all.
 * 8) - Per 22's comment
 * 9) Mario lives in a different universe from us, so it would be nearly impossible to explain what is happening. All physics, all elements, all matter, everything is different. Per all.
 * 10) - Anyone can pull a theory out of their butt and place it on the page, making us look really unprofessional. Per all.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) I could say that Luigi isn't a human at all! The nose could be a mysterious appendage used to generate electricity and sense where Mario is! No. Most of this would be speculation.
 * 13) Mario has NO science in it. WHat are you talking about? Its a game series about MUSHROOMS making people grow larger. You want science, look in a chemistry book. You want fun, play Mario. Also, if you really want sciencecal video games, Resident Evil has it the most, and so does those "virus" games.
 * 14) Per all.
 * 15) BLOF, Mario isn't real...anyways, the point is, you can't explain how a maple leaf turns mario into a raccoon. In other words, if we does that, everyone will say his theory is the best and it will be a wikitastrophy. Per all.

Comments
Well, you need to give a time for the voting to start and end.

See Mariology, one of our affiliates. It is expressly dedicated to this sort of content.
 * Or go to the forums and make a topic called "The Theory of Mario"; that would actually be a pretty funny topic :P

Forums tend to glitch up for me, not showing dates of topics or posts, so I usually get in lots of trouble for necroposting.

Votes that were made before the voting period started remain invalid even after it starts. If we allowed anything else, it would defeat the entire purpose of having a "voting period". }}

Making a Power Glove article
Don't make Power Glove article 2-17

I think we should make a article for the failed accessorie, the power glove. We have a article for the Atari 2600 and the Virtual boy, so why not make a power glove article. I will put in codes the players need to use to play the games. {{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Fuzzipede27}} Voting start: 25 September, 2010, 10:00 GMT Deadline: 2 October, 2010, 10:00 GMT.

Support

 * 1) Per proposal
 * 2) What would a Super Mario Wiki without those kinds of stuff?

Support

 * 1) Per proposal
 * 2) What would a Super Mario Wiki without those kinds of stuff?

Oppose

 * 1) Atari 2600 and Virtual Boy are consoles that had Mario titles. The Power Glove is an accessory that didn't have any Mario games specifically made for it.
 * 2) Unless the power glove have any sort of Mario stuff on it, we are supposed to cover Mario-related content, not Nintendo content in general.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) I am Zero! Per all. Zero signing out.
 * 5) At Tomz123, it would be the Super Mario Wiki. Not making an appearance in any Mario game (besides cameo) or Super Smash Bros. game makes it not notable.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all
 * 8) Mario has, like, nothing to do with the Power Glove.
 * 9) "I LOVE THE POWER GLOVE!! IT'S SO ...totally non-Mario." The only connections are Nintendo & that awesome film, The Wizard.
 * 10) per all. It's not mario at all.
 * 11) About as Mario-related as Snooki. Per all.
 * 12) Per all.

Comments
Did the Power Glove have any Mario games made for it period? I don't care about new ones, were any games made for the power glove that featured Mario or one of the Mario characters?
 * The Wikipedia article doesn't say anything about Mario at all, so no.
 * Were there any Mario games that had used the power glove as an item/feature/cameo/etc?
 * No.
 * I am Zero! @LGM Fail. Zero signing out.
 * @LGM I think there's a cameo of it in a WarioWare game, but that alone doesn't merit an article.

I don't even know hat a Power Glove is. Can someone explain it to me?
 * @CC-8: I'm sure that nobody here can explain better than wikipedia does. }}

And You are.....?
Use Full Names 16-7

I just notice in some sections of articles, they refer to the game by an abbreviation (SSBB is an example) or by another name usually just a shorten version of the game title (Brawl another example). So we should have this settled once and for all, should we refer to Video game titles only by there full name in mainspace or still refer them by their abbreviations? {{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Zero777}} Voting start: 28 September, 2010, 21:30 Deadline: 4 October, 2010, 21:30

Use Full Names

 * 1) I am Zero! It won't be that much work, it will just be every time you see one just change it to its full name, no problem. And it will avoid confusion to visitors who are very new to the Mario series. Zero signing out.
 * 2) Not everyone knows what those abbreviations mean. It's always better to write it out the long way.
 * 3) Per LGM.
 * 4) Per Zero
 * 5) Abbreviations aren't their real names. It's like calling Luigi 'Weegee'. Mabye.
 * 6) Per Marioguy1 (In comments)
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Per Zero777. Using abbreviations is just plain laziness.
 * 10) Per Zero777 and LGM. Plus if it isn't the thing's real name, what's the point of informing people about the false thing?
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) per all
 * 13) IMO using abbreviations will make the writing unprofessional and less encyclopedic. Sometimes I don't even know what the abbreviations stand for. Also, look at "M&SOWG" (Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Winter Games). If you're not sure what game the article is talking about, you might not be sure what that stands for right away (I find it a little confusing myself at times).
 * 14) per Fawfulfury65
 * 15) Per all.
 * 16) - Per all.

Keep Using Abbreviations

 * 1) It would be a lot of work to track down and remove all abbreviations, and it would be alright if they were kept, but only if the article states the abbreviation first. Such as "Super Smash Bros. Brawl, often abbreviated SSBB..." at the beginning of the article.
 * 2) Oh man. It would just be too much work to keep listing the entire name for every time it is referenced. A few titles like SSBM, SSBB, and some of the Mario vs Donkey Kong games come to mind.
 * 3) Lu-igi board per bowser luma
 * 4) Per Bowser Luma.
 * 5) Per Bowser's Luma. Who wants to make a link that says "Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Winter Games" all the time?
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Well, it would take a long time to remove all of the abbreviations, and some games have rather long names to type out, it would be hard to write the name over and over. It would also be very repetitive to write, which, as an encyclopedia, would make us look bad to people coming here from other wikis.

Comments
Full names in articles, abbreviations on talk pages.
 * We already have a rule on this. Full names go in articles.
 * Well then, this proposal is proposing something that has been proposed and passed previous to this proposal.

I won't be voting in this because my view is that something should only be shorted/abbrieviated if it's already been mentioned.


 * - Abbreviations should only be used when the game's full name is shown BEFORE the abbreviation is used. That way, people won't get too confused.
 * I believe that things should never be abbreviated, it will not kill you to write the entire title and improve clarification and understanding within the article. And @ all those opposing because it's "too much work", this is an easy task, it will probably be done in under a month after this proposal passes (maybe even a week if people work dilligently).

Manual of Style - look at the last paragraph. So now shouldn't we all be using full names to begin with?
 * That applies only to article titles...this proposal will close all loopholes.

I am Zero! @ChillGuy Writing down the game's name is your own personal thing to do but nothing will change on the search, you can still type down "SSBB" and still be redirected to the Super Smash Bros. Brawl article if this proposal pass, so your vote is invalid. Zero signing out.

Who cares if it's been a propsosal before. Maybe the outcome will be different. Like I said above, who the heck wants to make an incredibly long link every time they create the link?


 * If someone doesn't know what the abreviation means, they can just roll-over the link and the roll-over text'll show what the link is.(direct comment to LGM)
 * DaisyRox: Wave over this link (SSBB) - what does it say? "Super Smash Bros. Brawl"? No, it says "SSBB". And now, wave over this word (SSBB), what did that say? Nothing? See there, two examples of when an abbreviation would not be understanded unless you know what "SSBB" means.

It's a redirect. Okay, fine then. I lose. End of story.}}

The prefix "List of"
Add "List of" to all lists 3-11-0

There are 166 lists on the wiki. 105 have the prefix "List of". The rest don't. We need concistency. Either we remove List of, or we add list of. I prefer removing it, because list of is unnecessary. While some of you might argue that people wouldn't know what is a list and what isn't, most of the articles that have list of are articles that people would expect to be lists. {{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Reversinator}} Voting start: October 1, 1:04 PM Deadline: October 7, 23:59 GMT

Remove "List of" from all lists

 * 1) Per me.
 * 2) Per Reversinator.
 * 3) - Well, it's a no-brainer that they're lists. If it's got a bunch of links on one page, it's a list. In other words, per proposal.

Add "List of" to all lists

 * 1) Per Vellidragon's comment below. Also, if 105 list pages have "List of" in their name, then surely it would be easier to add that to the remaining few list pages instead of taking it off the page title?
 * 2) - Per vellidragon
 * 3) The easiest way to be productive is what we want, so per Vellidragon.
 * 4) Per comments
 * 5) - Per my comment.
 * 6) This wouldn't work that well. Example: The List of Implied characters would just be called Implied Characters. Per all
 * 7) Well, the list of implied locations' name, if this were to happen, would be not self explanatory, and people that have came here after this proposal will not know what the page is at first look which is a bad thing, we need people to be able to look at the page name and know what the page is about.
 * 8) Per all,especially Vellidragon.
 * 9) Per Vellidragon's comment below and all.
 * 10) Per everyone in this header.
 * 11) Per Commander Code-8.

Comments
Imo, the "list of" parts make sense as a means of justifying the use of the plural in the article title, which is not normally allowed. It also makes it clear that the article doesn't just explain the concept of something; e.g. a "List of Games" lists games instead of just describing what games are; if it didn't have the "list of" part, a logical assumption would be that it does the latter.--
 * I agree with Vellidragon, if the article is an article entitled (following his example) "Games", it is expected that the article will contain information on what games are, different gaming systems, etc.


 * However if the article is entitled "List of Games", it is expected that there will be a large list of all games which is what will actually be shown in the article.
 * Then what about pages like the Bestaries we have for the PM series and SMRPG? I mean, I do like the idea of being all the same, but still, it will be hard with some names to move.
 * DaisyRox: Of course! It's definitely a no-brainer to know what's a list and what isn't without looking at the article! How could I possible have overlooked the powers of psychometry :) }}

Character Pages Extras
Don't split other media from character pages 3-18

Alright, you can even look at the articles of Mario, Luigi, Peach, and so on, to see that the pages are HUGE! In all, that is a very good thing that should be with all the info they have, but then you see the small sections known as the cartoons and comics area. Do we really need them to be on the main characters pages? I mean, we can't just toss it aside, but really...

My proposal is not entirely deleting that info about the comics, cartoons, stories, and that stuff, but to move it to a different page. To show an example, for the comics that Mario has been in, we could make a page and be able to view all the comics Mario has been in and what his comic-counterpart is like. That will help with all the information from the animated stuff that differs greatly from the character's video game background.

It might sound troubling at first, but think of it as just making another page for the character. We have Baby Mario, Baby Luigi, Baby Peach, and so on, and they are just a younger form of the adult counterparts we have known for awhile. And on that topic, we even had a proposal before that wanted to separate some of the baby info from the video game since the cartoon made it seem like they appeared a lot earlier.

Alright, I think I talked quite enough for the proposal statement, so just vote on what you think would be best for this wiki. I'm just saying though, that the pros are more pleasant and outnumbering than the cons for the benefits to the wiki. {{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Baby Mario Bloops}} Voting start: 3 October, 2010, 0:43 GMT Deadline: 9 October, 2010, 23:59 GMT.

Support

 * 1) - Per all the statements I have written above and below. :D
 * 2) Per proposal, I think that the comics, etc. are too off of the actual games (especially the movie) to be included in the same article.
 * 3) There are very big differences between the comics, cartoons and video games. They should be seperate.

Oppose

 * 1) It's easier for them to all be together. If someone doesn't want to see them, they can easily skip those parts. We'd, as a result, have many useless stubs and also less FAs.
 * 2) per MrConcreteDonkey
 * 3) I am Zero! There will come a limit where it needs to split into separate sub-articles, but I don't think we reached that point yet. Zero signing out.
 * 4) Hey Baby Mario Bloops, there's this thing called the content box. I suggest that you use it. Per MrCD.
 * 5) - This is like saying the dictionary is to wordy and then proposing they put all the nouns, verbs, adverbs and adjectives into separate books. Sure, the individual volumes may be smaller, but you still need all four to get around, and between them, there'd be even more pages when you take into account the quadrupled set of introductory and explanatory sections, publishing info, cover pages, and whatnot (one per "dictionary"). Granted, a lot of the larger pages do need work, but rather than hacking away at them with quick-fix solutions like this, we should shorten them by streamlining the text and cutting out little snippets of superfluous writing here and there (like how they shorten the definitions and remove the most obscure words to make pocket dictionaries), while at the same time developing the sections that need more info. Rewrites may take a lot of time and effort, but they make the wiki look much better and are well worth the work. Plus, as Glowsquid alluded to in the comments, the whole "canon" debate has become nothing more than a recurring little migraine for our wiki and the less we go poking at it, the better. Long story short, until Nintendo says the games, cartoons, comics, movies and books (and anything else they have or will throw at us) are all separate timelines or whatever, we have no choice but to treat them as one big mess of equal and truthful continuity, lest we delve into the realm of slippery-sloped speculation, which has no place on our (ideally) hard-facts-only database. It's not an ideal way to organize all our content, but it's the best we can do with what we've been given to work with.
 * 6) Per Walkazo's really long comment right above. Of course they have to be on the same page as the characters! Why would you need to make a completely different link? It'll just create more stubs, and that's boring. Other than that, it's still information about the character.
 * 7) Per Walkazo.
 * 8) per Walkazo
 * 9) Per Walkazo.
 * 10) Per Walkazo.
 * 11) Per Walkazo.
 * 12) I've put a buttload of cartoon information in the Mario article since there is none. I thought it would be nice to have information for all episodes since we are supposed to cover everything. Anyway, this proposal might be a good idea since the Mario page takes forever to load. However, we do not know if the cartoons are canon. Why can't we place the games in a separate article? What if the cartoons are what the Mario story is really about? No. The Mario movie thing is a different story, but I'm not willing to separate the Mario comics and cartoons just because they are not Nintendo games. Per all.
 * 13) While I do think games and other medias shouldn't be considered the same, they shouldn't be on different pages. However, I think informations from games and informations from animations and comics shouldn't be mixed - at least the elements regarding the games should be put prior to anything else.

Comments
Has anyone else here seen the DC wiki? They have a similar thing that this proposal's talking about. There's one article for the mainstream comics character, and another for that character in a TV Show, Parallel universe etc. and it works pretty well. It wouldn't hurt to have the same thng happen here, Especially since we don't have much on the comics/cartoons.

One other thing is that we might have to create some disambiguation pages so that these new articles can actually be found. Eg: The Mario disambiguation might have about 5, which could include the Cartoon, the comics and a seperate one for each film. My point is that we need to be able to make disambiguation pages. But it shouldn't be to much of a problem.

The DC Wiki may do this, but at the same time, DC comics are much heavier on continuity than Mario, and some "alternate universe" versions are considered characters in their own right. It's not rare for Superman to meet one of his alternate-univere self, for one. And the reason we have separate pages for the babies is that they're often seen at the same time as their adult counterparts (ex: The sport games, M&L: Pit) and thus are different characters.

The proposer says the character pages are huge, and while our amount of content certainly plays a part in that, the main reason is that they're honestly terribly written, filled to the brim with wordcruft, tangents about the IRL impact of the games and summarising entire plot including the parts that aren't relevant to the character. Even the cartoon sections have that problem, describing damn near every episodes Mario appeared in, even though most of it is not relevant.

And though that's a silly reason, I'd like to avoid the inevitable headache if either Stumpers or Son of Suns come back, both of which were senior sysops really, really opposed to separating the cartoons and comics from the games. --Glowsquid 12:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, my point sort of came from looking at all the pages that Bulbapedia has. View it from that, as they have many characters their comics and cartoon counterparts. You could reason with them also about they could be the same person and so on and so forth. But see how sucessful that is with theirs, and we could do the same thing. We have a lot of agruements with the comics/cartoon and it deals greatly on this wiki, and this proposal is meant to be an alternative that will solve that problem.
 * I think the Mario article is too long but I don't think this is the way to go...we want our viewers to be able to find information on Mario by typing "Mario" into the search box. We don't want them to go looking through a whole bunch of Marios to find the Mario they want. It is our job to give them what they want with the least amount of work on their part, no matter how much work it is on ours.
 * Hey superboo! That's called the table of contents, I suggest you get your facts straight next time you try to make someone feel bad or it'll jump back at you :)

Geez, Superboo. You don't have to be so harsh about Baby Mario Bloops' proposal. At least he tried.

MarioGuy1:You're acting as though we would have about 25 Mario articles if this proposal passes. All you need is a disambiguation page and it shouldn't be too hard finding them all.
 * Alright, just to clear up some confusion if any, it will not be like Mario (Character), Mario (SMBSS), Mario (ASMB3), Mario (comic #1)... but like Mario, Mario (cartoon), Mario (comics). And probably add the Mario Movie into the cartoon page (which would then be changed to Mario (anime)). Here and here will show you an example, and some changes that would be made. I got a little lazy with Test 2, so I didn't feel like adding a made-up intro, description, or personality as of this moment. I hope that will help show you a better idea of my proposal.
 * I still disagree with this proposal but I think you may be on to something BMB, maybe if we made a sub-page of the Mario article (i.e. Mario/Episodes) we could have a description of Mario's role in the (i.e.) Super Mario Bros. Super Show! and then we'd have a link leading to "a complete list of the episodes Mario has appeared in". It would definitely allow us to have more information and it wouldn't treat it as different timelines or different Marios which seems to be a main reason for opposing. I support my idea and when I feel like it, I'll get around to proposing it if nobody (*wink wink*) else (*wink*) does (*wink wink wink*) ;)
 * That sounds like a good idea. I was even considering putting all the episodes Mario appeared in somewhere else and put a main summary on another page. There are plentiful episodes, so I don't know why we have to give details on the games, but not on the cartoon episodes. (*blinks*) agghhh too much winking (*explodes*)
 * @MG1: I think I understand what you are saying. So it is to have sub-articles of Mario - which was the main goal of the proposal - to put the comics/movie/cartoons on. Then, on the Mario Page, we could just summarize the series into a well-written paragraph, deleting both the stubby sections, yet not making an entire new Mario Page. I like you're thinking btw. It is beyond 3 days, so I can't change it now, but I think I might (*wink*) follow your advice and see if another proposal later will deal with that.
 * OK, I have filled User:Marioguy1/Test with all the examples you need. I suggest you just get on with the second proposal and ask an admin to delete this one but if you want to see how this one ends off and then propose the second one, I'm fine with that too. In your proposal, you can use my test page as an example (unless that's not what you want). Make sure to stress that this will apply to all characters at the user's judgement (i.e. if the character makes a cameo in one episode, we don't need to split it off but if they appear in several, well, the user editing the article sets the limit. As long as people use common sense, they won't get it wrong). }}

Showing only passed proposals on the Main Page
Don't show only passed proposals on the main page 1 - 17

I've sometimes gone to the wiki and looked at the proposal and seen that the idea looks really weird. I then go onto the Proposals page and find that the proposal only has about 3 supporters and maybe 10 opposers. Seeing something that won't be taken action about on the Main Page seems to make the wiki look bad.

I am proposing that only proposals that have successfully passed be Featured on the Main Page, so that people can log in on the wiki. See what the proposal is and possibly start helping out with it {{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Commander Code-8}} Voting start: 5:17, Tuesday 5 October 2010 Deadline: October 12, 23:59 GMT

Only Feature passed Proposals on the main page

 * 1) Per my proposal

Keep on showing Proposals that are still in voting time

 * 1) I am Zero! Per Reversinator's comment. Zero signing out.
 * 2) Per Reversinator's comment.
 * 3) Per Revesinator's comment.
 * 4) Per all comments.
 * 5) Showing active proposals on the main page draws attention to the current changes that are suggested to be made. It convinces people to see what changes are going to be made and what side they should take. Featuring passed proposals seems like a waste of space. There are no functions to a passed proposal and it doesn't look too glamorous, after all. Passed proposals belong in the archive, not in the front page.
 * 6) I think that the proposal on the front page is supposed to stir up attention, not say, "Hey look, it passed! Make these changes!"
 * 7) Per LeftyGreenMario.
 * 8) Per LGM and Reversinator. Also showing only passed proposals doesn't motivate anyone to try getting involved and they will likely assume that the proposal is already being taken care of.
 * 9) - Per all, including Reversinator.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) - Active proposals draw more attention to current changes.  If only the winning proposals are displayed, that won't give the active proposals a good look.
 * 13) Well, if passed proposals are shown on the main page, it would draw attention away from current proposals, and also make us look unprofessional, also the people that come after something like this proposal were to pass would think that the proposal shown was still active, and they would vote on that proposal, and would mostly stay clear of the other ones.
 * 14) Per all.
 * 15) – Per all.
 * 16) I approve these words! Hahahaha per all.
 * 17) Per all.

Comments
The main page shows the most recent proposal. It doesn't matter if the proposal in question is failing. And besides, someone could make a vote-shattering comment that causes everyone to support.

I don't really know what's the point in this. I thought the proposal on the main page is there to attract attention to the proposal.
 * I think Commander Code-8's point is that passed proposal frequently require a lot of work to actually realise after they have passed, and that this may get people to help with that. Personally though, I sort of doubt anyone is going to help with these things just because they saw that a proposal passed on the main page. The way it's currently handled, the main page directs attention to proposals still in the voting phase, and people are a lot more likely to participate in a proposal by voting than by adjusting articles after it has passed simply because takes much less time and effort.--

Wow, a proposal about proposals. Per all commenting. }}

Image Gallery or Gallery
SIMPLY "GALLERY" 0-13

On some articles, the header that leads to the article subject's gallery either says Image Gallery or Gallery. This doesn't look professional to have one header on one page that says Image Gallery and another header on another page that says Gallery. We need to fix this.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Mileycyrussoulja}} Voting start: Wednesday 8:08, 6 October 2010(UTC) Deadline: Wednesday 23:59 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Put Gallery on articles

 * 1) I think it should just be Gallery. Image Gallery just sounds too... i don't know. Doesn't sound right.
 * 2) Gallery, Image Gallery? Let's just leave it at gallery, short and to the point of where it links to.
 * 3) I don't really think it matters too much, but it should stick to one thing. Gallery is short and simple and hits the nail on the head in terms of what to put.
 * 4) The "Image" part is pointless and a waste of space. Gallery is best.
 * 5) - It would be like saying large big, they literally mean the same thing here. Don't go be like Mario Mario, as we only need 1. Also, it is already Gallery, so lets keep it from being POINTLESS.
 * 6) Same thing as the term "the reason why...is because...". Too much unnecessary words.
 * 7) I am Zero! What else will you be thinking on a website that says "gallery". Zero signing out.
 * 8) "Image" is kind of obvious. Just "gallery" is good, in this case "Image Gallery" is rather redundant. Per all.
 * 9) - Per all.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Per all those with the word "pointless" on their minds...
 * 12) Per all.
 * 13) – Per all.

Comments
Guys just a reminder, i'm talking about the headers on articles that link to the subject's gallery, not the actual gallery itself.

Will this have to be done manually, or can it be done with DPL text replace?
 * The text replace function has no DPL in it, and this wiki does not have it so, yes, manually would be a good choice.

I am Zero! Can somone please archive this. Zero signing out. }}

Take out Community Polls and Bring back Featured Images
REMOVED.

Ok I kind of liked these at the start but now that it has been a while, they get kind of boring. One thing is that there are polls on the forum. If people want to do the polls so bad they can just go on the forum and create polls themseleves or answer polls other people have created. A second reason is that the polls are there too long. I get on and the poll that I vote on is still there. My last reason is that with Featured Images every user can do it and not just people on the poll commitee. With the polls all you do is vote and it is done, nothing else happens. With the FI you can go on time to time more frequently and put images on/vote on them.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|New Super Mario}} Voting Start: Monday 6:20, October 18 2010 (UTC) Deadline: Monday 6:20, October 25 2010 (UTC)

Bring back FI

 * 1) Per Proposal

Comments
The Featured Image process does not work, no matter how many rules we add, the physical impossibility of that system prevents it from working. }}

Merge Mario Tennis Characters
Don't merge Mario Tennis characters 2-11

I've been checking the Project Unstubify page and quite a few of the character pages and notice that almost all of them have only one or two setences and a stub template put onto them. I think that they should all be merged as one page since there is literally no one to expand those stubs at all.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Garlic Stapler}} Voting start: October 13, 9:15 EST Deadline: October 20, 23:59

Support

 * 1) - Per proposal.
 * 2) - You know, this could be the start of something new.  Not only could we merge the Mario Tennis character articles, but merge articles about other really minor elements, too (such as the Mario & Sonic Olympic events, sure they're not as short as the Mario Tennis characters, but they're stubs, nonetheless).  I pity the foos who think that idea is a bad one.

Oppose

 * 1) I oppose because this is the MARIOWIKI and each character is supposed to have their own article.
 * 2) I have both Mario Tennis games for the Game Boy systems and each of those character have a slightly different role and personality (from what I remember). Per all.
 * 3) – Per all.
 * 4) - We are the mariowiki, we do not limit our content based on our writing capabilities, we wait for someone with better experience with the game and character to come along and do it. We do our best, even if that's not the best. We cannot give up because of a minor impass, take te easy road and limit our content. We must challenge ourselves to make it better and only then can we call ourselves an encyclopedia. For the wiki!
 * 5) This is a foo who thinks this idea is a bad idea. Pity her. Per all.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all. Even if an article is a stub, it still has the potential to grow. Mario and Luigi each have their own articles, so same thing here.
 * 8) I am Zero! Specify on who do you mean by "Mario Tennis characters" and I might change my mind. Zero signing out.
 * 9) - Per all.
 * 10) Well, we should not limit our content on our experience with the game, it would make us look like a amateur encyclopedia, thus, we should wait until someone with more experience with the games to add to the pages.
 * 11) Per all. I pity the foos who think that idea is a good one.

Comments
If you don't like the fact that they are stub articles, why not write more?
 * To be honest I've played the games a couple of times, really isn't much more you can write about them to be honest. =[

How about we just don't have those articles at all? No one cares about those characters anyway.
 * We are the MarioWiki, we have articles on all characters, major or minor from the Mario series. ESPECIALLY if they are playable.

Beecanoe: Please don't call other people "foos" just because they have a different opinion than you.
 * Yea, even though I can't expand and I support my own idea, don't call people "foos", kind of demeaning.
 * Foos. Is that like foosball?
 * To be honest, I didn't really call anyone a foo. I just thought my idea was good and that it might work.  But if anyone was offended, I apologize.  Working with Dry Bowser, his rudeness kind of rubs on to you.

Oh yeah, and "foo" is how Mr. T. says "fool". Hope that clears things up for you Bowser's Luma. }}

Move Episodes from Article to Subpage
PUT EPISODES ON SUBPAGES 8-4

This proposal is kind of like BMB's last proposal, except it is proposing to move the episodes of appearance of a character, as long as the character has many of these appearances, into a subpage of the article. I'm not going to go in depth in the description but this will save loading time on longer articles for those people who don't want to see every appearance of Character X in Series Y. For the people who do, there will be a link :)

If you don't get it, User:Marioguy1/Test is my awesome example page :P

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Marioguy1}} Voting Start: October 12, 2010, 22:00 EST Deadline: October 18, 2010, 23:59

Seperate

 * 1) - This can reduce loading time on many articles without making too many subpages like BMB's former proposal would have.
 * 2) - per BMB's old proposal and this one. i dont care about... episodes or whatever?
 * 3) - Well, same as before, yet his is more logical I guess. Also, do realize that the Gallery Proposal is much like this, as it is a sub-page of the character, and we do have to best guess whether it should be a sub-page for some characters.
 * 4) Per proposal.
 * 5) -Per all.
 * 6) I was thinking about this when I typed up the Mario episodes. I thought we have to cover every single appearance of Mario, so there, a billion episode descriptions. The making of the subpages will help the loading time greatly.
 * 7) Per proposal
 * 8) I am Zero! There are high chances that they're not going to make a new Mario cartoon so putting it in a sub-page will'nt be a bad idea. It can give more room to upcoming game info. Zero signing out.

Remain in Articles

 * 1)  If we were to do that, why not make a subpage for game appearances as well? The point of an article is to have a lot of info in one place, not to be a map of subpages. I can understand a subpage for the likes of images, but written information belongs in the article.
 * 2) Do we need of every page a subpage? Galleries were enough for me. Besides, some featured articles have much info because of the length and inclusion of important sections - Game appearances, personality etc, relations, other info, misc. I bet that those might be unfeatured after this proposal passes. Also, per Bowser's luma.
 * 3) You've got to think of things from a reader's viewpoint. This ruins a reader's ease in reading pages. Let's say they want to read the whole Mario article. Now, they'd have to go to a separate page to see his episode appearances? Not to mention the test page basically shows episode summaries.
 * 4) Per all

Comments
Well, if we did something like this to Mario, wouldn't it be consistent to do it with every other character from the cartoons?
 * Yes, pretty much. As long as they appear in multiple episodes, or something like that. It's basically up to the user's best judgement to determine whether or not a sub-page is required.
 * @Bowser's luma: Did I ever say anything about a subpage for games? This proposal is an alternative to the recently failed proposal about making subpages to games. Please don't extend the content of my proposal beyong what I put there, I am opposed and always will be opposed to subpages for games. Yes, articles are meant to cover the content of a character, but we do not need a complete listing of the episodes that the character appeared in, rather a general statement of their overall role in the episodes will suffice and if anyone cares to delve deeper, we have a link for them. It shortens the page for all those who don't want to see every single time Mario has appeared in a series entitled the Super Mario Bros. Super Show. Chances are that he appeared in more than a lot of episodes. For those who want to read the article as a whole, we have a paragraph describing how he was the hero in the shows and he fought against Bowser and yadayadayada, we list the abnormal episodes and say how they were abnormal and then the reader moves on, knowing what Mario did in that series. If they want to read about his appearances there and they specifically target that section, we have a link for the odd reader who does want that kind of thing. But for the other two types or readers, who are much more common, we have a general overview.
 * @Arend: Fed up with subpages? Why? Do you just find them annoying? Personally, I find that subpages help move some of the content that people may not want to see which will take up a very extensive portion of the article, away so that only those who want to see it will see it. And if any FAs were featured because of any good qualities, I would like a list of them so I can create unfeature noms for them all. Perfection is not a representation of how many good things an article has, perfection is a representation of how many bad things it does not. If any articles were featured because they have a "long, descriptive section in the middle" then they should be unfeatured. They are not perfect (or as close to perfect as possible) if they have a big section in the middle and many errors everywhere else. If they have no errors anywhere and a big section in the middle, taking away the section won't do anything bad to them.

I don't like the idea of only doing this to the main characters' articles. It's much more consistent to do this with all character articles from the cartoons, no matter how minor. Deciding what characters are main and what characters are minor is mostly based on opinions if you ask me. I always thought of Oogtar as an important and major character, but I'm sure not everyone can agree on that because he doesn't appear in many episodes as far as I know.
 * What I mean by that is for characters like Mario, Luigi, etc. there would be a subpage. Maybe for characters with multiple appearances like Mouser but for a character like Pine, there is no need to split it into a subpage so it won't be split. Whether there is need or not is up to the user editing the article but I would personally never do it for someone who appeared in only one episode and never anything else.
 * @The guy with the long name: I am thinking from the typical reader's viewpoint. What you just described was an atypical and less common type of reader. Someone who wants to read the entire Mario article will have to click one link, and all the others who don't won't have to scroll through 11 paragraphs of text just to skip one section. And if someone wants to know what Mario's appearance in that series is, there is a paragraph describing what he does. }}

The Lists on the Left Side Below Mario Knowledge
LEAVE LISTS AS THEY ARE 7-11

Pretty simple proposal. You know those lists about Characters, Places, Items, etc.? These lists are split into two: game stuff and non-game stuff. Why are they separate? Due to those canon proposals, shouldn't they be one list? I'm proposing that we merge the non-game stuff with the game stuff in those lists.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|LeftyGreenMario}} Voting start: Wednesday 21:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Deadline: Wednesday 23:59 13 October 2010 (UTC) Extended: Wednesday 23:59 20 October 2010 (UTC)

DO MERGE

 * 1)  This isn't a matter of organization. We're supposed to update the list according to the previous proposal of merging game with non-game stuff. Besides, A-Z is enough organization we need. If you want to separate things as much as possible, fine, split the character articles into more articles.
 * 2)  - Per LeftyGreenMario: it's policy to list games and alternate media side-by-side, and anything that doesn't do this is merely outdated, with the exception of certain Navigation Templates (i.e. ), which need the differentiate between series and whatnot. The lists don't need to be separated to show what media they are from, however, because the sources are listed right there on the pages.
 * 3)  - I usually refrain from voting but here I must vote as it seems my cause will lose (plus Walkazo made me rebuke my idea of "not being able to make a difference"). Per me in the comments I guess but to sum it up, there is no reason for characters, all confirmed as Mario characters, to be seperate on a list of Mario characters.
 * 4)  Per all.
 * 5)  Per all.
 * 6)  Per all.
 * 7)  It would shorten the pages, and if we really need an indicator, we can add a footnote shape like we did for the Yoshi series in the enemies section.

DON'T MERGE

 * 1)  - I am a firm supporter of separating games and non-games as much as possible, so, naturally, I oppose this proposal. Why? Well, they are different media, and that is enough reason for me. But if it isn't for you, well, then, most of the other media is not even fully made by Nintendo, and most of the characters have completely different roles, appearances, etc.
 * 2)  I am Zero! It will be easier and more organized if we didn't merge them. Zero signing out.
 * 3)  I'm not sure that merging them would help. Per all.
 * 4)  - Parsing out stuff into divisions is the best organization.
 * 5)  - Per all.
 * 6)  In my mind I try to keep things as seperate as possible, and for some things I do, that would impose a major hassle for myself, and others as well. Per all.
 * 7)  Per all.
 * 8)  – Per all.
 * 9)  Per all. It's just more work for people to find something in the list
 * 10)  Per Tucayo.
 * 11) Per Tucayo

Important Neutral Stuff
I'll say something that is on everybody's mind right now. Huh?!?!?

Well, if you see here, the characters are divided to two groups: game and nongame. I want to merge the two since, well, because of one question: canon or not? Sorry for presenting an opinion unclearly; I'm notorious for doing that '-_-

Otherwise, tell me, why are they separate? Shouldn't the list be one big list?


 * Ah, now I see :) In my personal opinion, the current format is horrible. They should either be split into two lists or merged into one, not semi-merged, semi-split as they currently are.


 * Yes, these lists should be one, according to this proposal. Remember those canon debates? I think these lists haven't been modified yet.


 * Yeah, a lot of things regrettably fall through the cracks each time we change the organization standards... -

Tucayo: Well, they are different media, but I don't see why the two lists are split, yet the Manual of Style wants articles to include both game information and other media information in the same section.

Zero777: The list is organized well enough. What, alphabetically isn't enough? It's slightly harder to navigate because the list is split. Again, this proposal deals mostly with the grouping of game and non-game stuff. The lists are outdated, and we need to change it to the standards.

Luigi-board: Your vote is invalid.

I'm neutral for this. This proposal is balanced in advantages (organization) and disadvantages (tons of moved internal links).


 * It shouldn't be that hard to move the links. It might be tedious, but it isn't hard.


 * I really hope nobody opposes anything because it is too "hard", obviously the creator is volunteering to do the work themselves so it won't be hard at all for the person opposing.

Again, it's not like alphabetized isn't organized enough. I can live with only 1 list.

I don't understand why we should merge the game and non-game things TBH.


 * Previous proposals. We are supposed to place game and non-game things in the same spot so we don't go in this canon debate. I thought we agreed to place non-game things and game things in the same spot, so I don't know why people oppose. This seems logical to me.


 * Can you at least provide a link for evidence of such?

Check the coverage policy and canon policy. The split of the lists seems like the games are "more" canon than the nongames. }}

Categories on Boss Articles
USE NEW CATEGORY SYSTEM 8-3

OK, this proposal, obviously, has to do with the categories on the boss articles, something like this was recently stated on the talk of the main page however I think that to be an official policy, it must be proposed and passed by the community. So, currently, ~all (or so I am told) boss articles have three categories in them, Enemies, Bosses and Characters. I propose that we use those categories much more strictly, AKA for the following reasons:
 * Enemies - This category will only be used on characters that are unnamed individually and are simply known as members of a certain species. Like Goombas, not Goomboss, not Red and Blue Goomba, just the members of the species that are generic and anonymous. Examples include Goomba, Koopa Troopa, Spiny and Nitpicker.
 * Bosses - This category would only contain enemies with different variants, like different music, different size, solo text where they state they are "superior" or "notable", different coloration, etc. Examples include Goomboss, Baron Brrr, Lakilester and Bowser.
 * Characters - This category will only contain named characters. If the being in question is named and not just a generic member of a species then it would be considered a character. Examples include Mario, Yoshi, Bowser and Goompapa.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Marioguy1}} Voting Starts: October 12, 21:00 EST Deadline: October 18, 23:59

Use this Category System

 * 1) - When looking for enemies, people want to see enemies, i.e. the different species that bosses fall into, not bosses in general.
 * 2) - I completly agree. What's the point of having a bosses category if they are all found in other categories. However, you suggest that Bowser would be in the Bosses category, when he is a character as well. I mean, if someone was asked to name some major Mario characters, I'm sure they would mention Bowser. So, if they then came here, and wanted to see some Mario characters, they would think that there would be a mistake in the category if they didn't find Bowser there. For most of the other bosses, like those who have been seen once, would be fine in their own Bosses Category. On the other hand, some people might lke to see a page with all the named characters (the lazy blobs could jus click links to other pages though), so this might be why there is so much disagreement about this topic. Oh and what Marioguy1 says. I only really disagree about Bowser, and other important characters like the Koopalings and Kamek (and so on and so forth) only being in the bosses category, when they are charcters too. Take Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story, for example. You fight Bowser (three times, if you count Bowser X as the third), which makes him a boss, yet you also play as him, mking him a character. I could go on for ages, (I aready have XD) but I can't be bothered to type any more. I broke my finger a few days ago, and I think I'm making it worse. Finally, per proposal.
 * 3) – Per all.
 * 4) – Per proposal and myself in the comments.
 * 5) - Bosses are not enemies, and to be honest I expected that common sense would make that obvious. Both of these terms are distinct roles in video game jargon, and in the usual case they are exclusive to one another. These two categories should never appear on the same article, except in the very specific case that something is encountered as a boss AND a regular enemy. Do not mix this up.
 * 6) I agree with Edo's comment.
 * 7) Finally, a comment that helped me decide my vote. Thanks, Edo! Per Edo.
 * 8) Took me a while to decide, but per all.

Continue Using Current One

 * 1) Bosses are characters as well as enemies. All current categories apply, some of which are just more specific than others. It is like so: Characters>Enemies>Bosses. Bowser is a boss, but that doesn't remove him from the categories of "Enemies" or "Characters."
 * 2) Per Bowsers Luma
 * 3) Per Bowser's Luma.

Comments
So you are saying Bosses =/= Characters? I would think that characters may be like a "mother category", with many other ones branching out, like Bosses, Enemies, Allies, etc.
 * Actually, I think most (if not all) boss articles would also be character articles. What I'm saying is that not all character articles would also be boss articles. I'm just trying to set category standards in this small area of the category tree.
 * The boss category is a specific sub-category of "enemies". It applies to those enemies that are fought in a "boss battle", bosses are defined as enemies but you don't meet up with a Bowser on the road and (forgive the Pokemon reference) have "A wild Bowser appeared!" flash onto the screen. He's slightly more sinister than a casual, oh look, it's another one of those things. And if Bowser is a character AND a boss, he will be categorized as a character AND a boss, I don't see the dilemma with having two categories.

Look, the branch of "being" categories are kinda like this in my eyes: A little complicated, and maybe a little hard to understand.
 * Species - Races of different beings. Some are usually nice (Allies), some are usually evil (Enemies).
 * Characters - (Important) members of different species, which usually have a name.
 * Heroes - The good guys, who usually save worlds, characters and important items. Mario (a Character) is a Hero, Yoshis (a species) are too.
 * Allies - Nice characters or species which help heroes on their way, and are against enemies. The character Toad is an ally, and so are his species. Mario is sometimes an ally too.
 * Villains - Usually the bad guys. They usually kidnap certain characters, steal important items and take over worlds. Villains are usually characters, not species. Bowser is a villain
 * Bosses - The term "Boss" is used on characters who are need to be fought, or are leaded by a villain, or eventually ARE the leaders of a branch of enemies. Villains can be bosses as well. Bowser is not only a villain, but also a boss. Hammer Bros. (a species) are (mini)bosses too.
 * Enemies - This could be anything that is bad. Evil species, villains AND bosses. So Hammer Bros. are also enemies, and Bowser thus too. And so are Goombas.


 * Well, I think of them like this:


 * Species - All different races, good or evil (such as Goombas, Bub-ulbs, Lakitus,and Yoshis)
 * Enemies - Evil or mean species that can usually be fought (such as Koopas, Bombshell Bills, Magikoopas, and Mawful Moles)
 * Allies - Good, supporting, or helpful species or minor characters that usually assist you or you need to rescue (such as Toad, Toads, Lumas, and Luma)
 * Characters - Anyone, good or bad, who has been specifically named (such as Fawful, Toadette, Bowser, and Waluigi)
 * Bosses - Evil characters who you fight in a boss battle (such as Red Ninjakoopa, Bowser Jr., Dark Fawful, and Tatanga)
 * Heroes - Good, major characters, not allies, who usually do their best to help save the day (such as Mario, Yoshi, Lakilester, and Rosalina)
 * Villains - Major bosses, usually the final bosses, which the entire game leads to their defeat (such as Dark Fawful Bug/Dark Bowser, The Shadow Queen, Smithy, and Bowser

Recap: Species:All races, good or evil (Dryites) Enemies:Evil species that can be fought (Octoombas) Allies:Good species or characters that assist you or you rescue (Tayce T.) Characters:Anyone specifically named, good or bad (Starlow) Bosses:Evil characters you fight in a boss battle (Kammy Koopa) Heroes:Good characters who help save the day (Luigi) Villains:Major bosses, usually the final boss (Super Dimentio)

Well, that's what I think.

A boss is an opponent, usually one of a kind, who is fought under special conditions. In action games a boss is usually introduced somehow, commonly with a cutscene, and you fight it in an arena of some sorts. In an RPG those often have their own separate battle theme or something else that sets them appart from the enemies. An enemy on the other hand is one of the many common nuisances you encounter in a level. They are usually not unique or specially introduced, and you often encounter more than one of them in one level. These are set roles in video game jargon, keep that in mind.

So apparently there are people saying the Bowser article should have the Enemy category on it. Now let me ask you a question: Where, even in one single game, has Bowser ever been encountered as a common enemy? In which game did he roam a level like a Goomba, or Koopa, or any other enemy? That's right, never! This is why the Enemy category has no place on the Bowser article, and neither does it have one on any other boss article.

This whole Enemies-Bosses constellation has been formed because of the assumption that most bosses hold a grudge against Mario (read: They are his enemies). However, this is not what the Enemy category is for. It is for common enemies only! We can't just stretch the scope of a category because of semantics like "You can use the word 'enemy' in a sentence with them, so they have to be enemies". We don't put Category:Bosses on Princess Peach because she is the ruler (read: the boss) of the Toads. The example sounds ridiculous? Well, the whole argument is the same if you think about it long enough.

The scope of a category needs to be clear and precise. Don't dilute it with semantics that contradict logic and the fundaments of video game principles. - }}