MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/17

Change FA rules part 3
And finally, I'll finish off my proposals with this Rule:Change the rule that says needs all appearances of the character to needs all mario appearances of the character. Reason: This rule is redundant with another rule that states that articles cannot have any unmario appearances, if this rule stays; it will cancel about the featurability of the non-mario articles even if they are the best articles on the wiki!

Proposer: (With ideas from ) Deadline: October 14th, 2009 (17:00.00)

Needs All "Mario" Appearances

 * 1) - Proposal
 * 2) Just making the MarioWiki only have Mario stuff (plus Yoshi and DK parts) and ONLY the Mario stuff makes MarioWiki look like a "one trick pony".
 * I'm copying this from the FA talk page: "What is wrong with the current rule in my opinion is that since we're the Mario Wiki, nobody expects to read non-Mario content here. If people come here to read an article about, say, Kirby, they don't expect any information that has nothing to do with Mario. There are other sources of information then. See: Kirby's or Ganondorf's role in the Marioverse is bigger than some original Mario character's. It would be unfair to reject FA status for characters like Ganondorf when the only reason is that they originated from a different series. Articles should cover Mario content, that's our task. And any article that meets this requirement should get the chance to become featured."
 * 1) Per all
 * 2) &mdash; Per all.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) Per all
 * 5) Okay, now I see your point. As long as there is a short background section included, I agree with this!
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all.

Comments
BMB: What do we care about wikia wikis? We're the mariowiki and if our content is good, who cares what zeldapedia thinks? We care about the community, our community, not zeldapedia's, not Kirby Wiki's and not Wikipedia's
 * MG1: Think about the first sentence I said, "What if you were in their shoes?" I'm surprised you even say that about other Wiki's! The way you stated that was very cruel, because I help out with other Wiki's along with other users on this Wiki, and they would probaly agree with me on this. Our community has many things to do with Kirby, Zelda, Samus, and all the other characters. That's why we need them to stay in this wiki, they are very important to our Wikia!!!
 * Just to add, there is a DK, Wario, and Yoshi Wikia, so, in your words, your saying we should get rid of them because they are techically non-mario. Is that what you want?
 * I'm sorry if I add more confusion-spice to this stew of discussion, but isn't MG1s point just to lighten the requirements for an article to become an FA? To me it sounds like he's just saying "An article can become a FA, even if the article cannot contain all the infos related to the chara (such as Ganondorf)". Am I misinterpreting things? -
 * Thank you edo, you hit the nail on the head! BMB: Sorry, I shouldn't have been so strict, what I meant was I think that we should not discriminate, this is just racism in another form. No matter how you put it this is like gamism, very very bad :( Stop the gamism, feel the power!!!
 * Yeah, I thought for a sec a read it wrong. Sorry! Yes, lets stop the Wikism here (just made it up). Probaly should change my vote a little bit (talk to Dim. Kn. (he probaly just agreed with what I said)). I'm sorry, but I am still opposing this.
 * Time Q, there is mostly Mario content on the non-mario articles! We need to balance it out a little by adding some information about them being non-mario. Seriously, you got to admit that we do need to balance stuff out by adding a little bit of themself, read the above, and you'll see my reasons...
 * Hm, no, the characters' roles outside the Marioverse simply don't matter for our wiki. It can shortly be mentioned in the introductory sentence, but not more. Actually, I don't really understand why you're opposing this proposal. Your reason sounds like you would support it...
 * Well, what do you mean by that! I don't really understand what you telling me! I love other series! They have a right to be here, because that is what a wikia is! It shows all the stuff included in it. Yes, they should not have too much stuff about there origin, but at least a background section, about a paragraph (maybe two at most), be added to their article!!!

Um, some characters like Ganondorf only appeared alongside with Mario exclusively in the Super Smash Bros. series, which I don't really consider it to be part of the Mario series. The Donkey Kong series and the Yoshi series are branches off the Mario series, but Super Smash Bros. isn't from what I assume.
 * "Mario appearances" means everything that our wiki covers. This includes Super Smash Bros. as well (no matter if you consider it part of the Mario series or not).
 * Whoa, looks like one of my proposals is going to pass, one is going to fail and one is going to end up in no quorum. Those are the only three possible results for a proposal except for deletion and trust me, I could make a random proposal and then delete it :P

Did You Know...
...that there are quite a lot of proposals here at the moment? This one's the seventh one, so lets hope that lucky 7 will guide this proposal on its way to a good decision.

Anyway, you all know the "Did You Know" section of the main page. This page is currently updated by me and it shows three more or less interesting facts from recently created articles. However, some voices have arisen, claiming that it might be better to change the sources of info for this section. That would mean that the trivia in there could be from every article that was ever created here, regardless of age. Using this policy would make room for witty, interesting trivia in that section, but it would also rob recently created articles of their base to be showcased.

This proposal's purpose is to give those arisen voices a chance to be heard, as well as potential opposing voices to arise as well.

Proposer: (Inspired by  and ) Deadline: October 17. 2009, 8:00 pm.

Put trivia from every article ever created in that section

 * 1) I think this is a good idea. Making the trivia section longer will help the main page to be less lopsided (Every time we switch featured articles, or get a new piece of recent news, it looks weird.) I'm all for beefing up the main page.
 * 2) - Per Funky.
 * 3) &mdash; As I said on this page, all articles (whether they're old or new) have interesting content that users may not even be aware of.
 * 4) - I'm trying to make a point against discrimination here. On the FI page with that SMB nom, in my above proposal with the allow non-mario characters thing and now here. I can not take some articles being singled out from other articles and I won't.
 * 5) - Ok, here goes my vote. I want the trivia in that template to be wittier, therefore a bigger source might be helpful.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) - As I said in the original discussion, old subjects still have lots of interesting trivia to offer. New subjects get enough press without Did You Know?, so using the template to unearth obscure facts would be more worthwhile an endeavour.
 * 8) - Per all.
 * 9) -Per all

Comments
I will leave this proposal here first and vote later on. -

FunkyK38: You know that this proposal just deals with where the trivia parts will be taken from, do you? The change will not affect how long the main page will be. Maybe I should rewrite that part. It's misleading... -

Well, that does help, but the main page does look a bit lopsided. Maybe you could make the trivia a bit longer, too? Just for when we are lacking in information on one side. To make it look better. I'm still behind you on this, though.
 * I could try to adjust it within my possibilities, but the mainpage's appearance also depends on the five other templates. If one of these template gets changed, the adjustment will be in vain again...
 * Well, if we need to fix it, we can. I'm only saying we put more trivia in to even things out.

I like the idea of using only the most recent articles as a source for the Did You Know section. However, I think that if there's really not enough notable facts in the most recent articles, we should take them from other articles as well. But the main focus should still lie on our new articles, in my opinion.

Edofenrir: If this proposal passes, could you (or whoever is going to update the section) still prefer more recent articles over older ones? That would be cool. But that's just my opinion and it's your job, so it's your decision of course.
 * I could of course check the newest articles for witty trivia, before checking older ones, if that is wished. -

Definition of "Administrators"
I feel this is an important matter, due to a recent debate that a few of our users are having, I feel it is time to redefine the term "administrators". Some are saying that Administrators are confined to Sysops, Bureaucrats, and Stewards. Others are saying that Patrollers should be included as well. I am in support of the latter, since our Patrollers help with the clean-up and organization of the wiki as well as helping the Sysops in decisions that we can only make. The Patrollers are given extra powers to help keep the wiki in order, they also have access to a "secret" board in the forum so that we can discuss issues among ourselves. I feel that we should redefine our official meaning of Administrators (Sysops, Bureaucrats, and Stewards) to a more moderate meaning to include the Patrollers (those who have the necessary powers to bring trolls to justice and enforce the rules).

Proposer: Deadline: Tuesday, 20 October 2009, 17:00

Support

 * 1) Per me.
 * 2) That page is pretty outdated. Anyone committed to helping the wiki is an admin in my eyes. Patrollers are trusted users with the responsibility to protect the wiki from  vandalism. How can I not think of them as admins?
 * 3) - In my opinion, patrollers are semi-admins, which makes them basically admins too, even if just lower-ranked ones.
 * 4) - Lemme show you my views: Admin = Patroller, Sysop, Bureaucrat, Steward . Patroller = Patroller . Sysop = Sysop . Bureaucrat = Bureaucrat + Sysop . Steward = Interwiki, Steward, Widget Editor, Mayor. See how that works out?
 * 5) – Per all.
 * 6) &mdash; Per SMB. Patrollers are users that are trusted enough to block vandals on the wiki. I see no harm in allowing them free reign to remove unnecessary support votes. (Though, I still think removing support votes is rather silly.) If anything gets too out of hand, it can be taken care of.
 * 7) - Per all. "Sysop" can already be used to describe Sysops and up (since all the higher ranks keep their Sysop rank, they still count as Sysops), so "Administrator" is just a superfluous synonym as it is now.
 * 8) - Per all.
 * 9) - Per all.
 * 10) - Per all

Comments
I would support that, but what I don't like about this proposal is that it has quite a huge impact on a previous one. It said that any admin is allowed to remove support votes from FA nominations they think are "invalid". In the comments section of said proposal, Marioguy1, Edofenrir and I agreed that admins are sysops and bureaucrats only, excluding patrollers. Who knows how many people who supported that proposal did so because they believed only sysops and bureaucrats would get the privilege? If the definition of "admin" is immediately changed now, that's hardly fair. I know it sounds like I'm just annoyed by the proposal's outcome, but I hope you see my point.
 * I see your point, indeed, but I doubt it would make any difference if only sysops could enforce that removals, or if patrollers could do that as well. If I recall correctly, Stooben Rooben said something about that even regular users should be allowed to do that, something I would encourage as long as someone looks over. As ordered by the page Knive posted, sysops are urged to not place themselves too high above regular users, so they shan't place themselves over patrollers as well. Therefore I see no problem in this proposal, even if it minorly affects a previous one. -
 * My philosophy has always been that users should have equal rights to that of the Administrators. (As long as it doesn't pertain to Administrative matters, of course.) --

The FA policy should actually be updated to reflect the new terminology if this passes: just say "Sysops" instead of "Administrators" and it'll mean the same thing. Personally, I'm neutral as to whether patrollers should or shouldn't be allowed to remove FA votes (though I am leaning towards Stooben's equal rights mantra), but I do feel that granting them that ability based on a terminology quibble is a tad slimy; the honest thing to do would be to decide "yes" or "no" in a discussion that is separate from any naming pretenses. -
 * This is actually based on a trivial argument that was between Time Q and Tucayo, whether Patrollers are considered Administrators and are allowed the same editing rights as Sysops. I meant no sliminess when I posted this proposal (I'm sure you don't think that I meant to), and I actually wanted a direct way to deal with the situation as I understood it.

This is an interesting topic, especially considering the fact that the term "Administrator" is used to describe Sysops on most other wikis that don't have the rank of Patroller. The latest MediaWiki version doesn't say "Sysop", it says "Administrator", and that can be an issue when we upgrade. I believe that patrollers should be allowed the same editing rights as sysops, but to avoid confusion, I think we should refer to them as "Junior Administrators" or something along those lines. Thoughts? --
 * Sounds good to me. It would clear up confusion, and Junior Administrator sounds more official than Patrollers in my opinion (Patroller is also a misnomer of sorts, we also have Blocking and Rollback). Also, an issue that I will bring up on the Talk:Main Page will need to be addressed as well (about a possible glitch with Patrolling).
 * Personally, I'd hate to be labeled a "Junior" anything: to me, it sounds like it's devaluing the rank (being a Patroller is more than almost being a Sysop). I also think "Patroller" sounds more official (and I think "Sysop" sounds better than "Administrator" too...). And to make this paragraph worth-while, in response to your your earlier post, SMB, yes, I didn't mean that you were being slimy, I meant that people with a grudge about the other proposal's passing might take this proposal the wrong way and try to make something of it. I just don't want to see any fights breaking out over misunderstandings. -

Platformer levels articles
Some platforming levels (like Super Mario World articles) has whole article. Some has section in world (like SMB3). These in articles aren't short, but they sound like walkthroughs (Donut Ghost House). Also they contain basic errors (for example in Iggy's Castle we hear "Hitting the Yellow P-Switch will cover up some of the holes in the ground."). Where is yellow P-Switch? SMW has only Blue and Gray P-Switches.

Propeser: Deadline: October 14th, 2009 17:00PM Extended: October 21st, 2009 17:00PM

Each world article contains all levels in world

 * 1) - Merging the levels into the worlds would streamline navigation and cut back on stubs and red links. Yes, there are many good level articles, and yes, with enough effort they can all be good, but that's a long way away, and in the meantime, the case-by-case policy isn't cutting it: it just looks sloppy. Merging would not remove any information from the Wiki or undo what hard work has been done - it would simply move the level pages in their entirety (templates and all) to sections of the world articles. There shouldn't be a stigma about whether or not something gets a page: the important thing is the information, not the presentation. Also, I personally disagree with the name-vs-number rationale: just because a level (or anything else, for that matter) has a name shouldn't mean it is any more pageworthy than one which happens to be identified with numbers instead of words: that merely reflects the arbitrary style the designers decided to go with for that particular title. In a perfect world everything (both named and numbered) would have an article, but we're not there yet, and merging would make that less apparent.
 * 2) Walkazo's sounds more reasonable. If we expand these sections, they can end up being split later.
 * 3) As Walkazo said it is about the information. If the levels have little information on them it's much easier to read a comprehensive list than to have to click on each one individually.
 * 4) - I'm going to have to agree that we are getting biased about articles with names vs. numbers.

Continue like is actually

 * Probably this isn't the best solution actually, but IMO it's the best we can do now. Even if I'd love to see in-depth articles on Mario levels, I guess it's okay to merge some of them in world articles (as we do with the Super Mario Bros. games and probably more). But levels in more recent games are often complex enough to give them separate articles (especially if they are named, not just "World 1-2", but actual names. Those in Super Mario World are actual names for me as well). To sum it up: I think "case by case" is the solution here, rather than a general decision.
 * 1) - Sorry but as another user said before me: If something 'aint broken, don't fix it! These articles just need some help.
 * 2) - Aside from the fact that I created about 60 articles for Wario Land 2 levels and worlds, and I would be really annoyed if they were all merged: I concur with Marioguy1. I am currently at it to revamp the articles for SMB3, and once I'm finished with that, I will take a look at SMW. These articles just need some maintenance/rewrites. Perhaps making a PipeProject would be meaningful, but don't make the situation more complicated with rashly decided merges/splits/etc.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) &mdash; I think the original reason we kept things this way is because those levels didn't have a 'name' per se, like Super Mario World's levels did. Either way, per all.
 * 5) – Per all.
 * 6) – It would be way too much work.  Plus, the system we currently have appears to be working.
 * 7) - Per Time Q. Also, I'd like the Yoshi's Island levels kept separate.
 * 8) - Per all.

Comments
I abstain from voting on this proposal. I feel that we need a uniform way to have these articles, but we would end up with many more stubs, which would take up space on our server as well as make us look unorganized. I feel before any action is taken, we need to expand these little stub sections. After that, we can reconsider making it with each article.
 * I change my mind. I think Walkazo has a point.

Walkazo: "Merging would not remove any information from the Wiki" - Yes, it would. For example, we could not categorize the levels separately.
 * I concur here. I can tell that I constructed my Wario Land 2 level articles as independant articles. If they are simply tacked together, they will get stupid and repetative. And if they are rewritten to be less stupid and repetative, then it can no longer be said that my work wasn't reverted in any way. I can also see that parts of my articles get ripped apart and re-combined with other parts, and... I just don't think that's necessary :/ -
 * Time Q: Good point. The only solution I can think of is to include raw lists of applicable levels in the category summaries themselves; it might not be conventional categorization, but in the end, the readers will be presented with all the pages/sections that they're looking for, so it'll still get the job done - and it could even do it better than the straight categories, as we'll have more control on the organization of the data. Instead of having the levels all mixed up, as they are now, we could subdivide the list of levels into their parent games. See here for an example of what I mean and some more justification.
 * Edofenrir: it's more like it would be forcing you (or someone else) to rewrite all your hard work - but infoboxes and much of the text will stay, as will the information itself - which is the biggest part of anyone's contributions. Rewrites are a way of life on any database, as is trimming back on repetition; it's painful, but it's necessary if it'll present the info in an clearer, more concise way.
 * I also thought of two more arguments for merging. The first is minor: in plot-driven games, the story would flow much better if it were all on one page, whereas there has to be short recaps on the individual level pages (at times). The second is also about continuity between articles: none of the missions or episodes ("levels" by any other name) of the 3D titles (Super Mario 64 etc.) have individual pages - a point always seems to be ignored when these debates comes up. The only difference is that the 3D episodes take place in exactly the same area of a world (give or take enemies and interchangeably reachable/unreachable obstacle courses, platforms, planets - and other things like that), whereas the 2D games are spread out in different areas of a world. Is that enough of a difference to continue splitting one genre while merging the other? -
 * I actually think that 2D platformers and 3D platformaers are hard to compare. I disagree with the comparison "Course = World" and "Mission = Level" for different reasons.


 * The first one is the one you mentioned already: The setting in a course is always the same, while only the objectives differ. A level is an independant instance. You can f.e. not play two levels at once. In Super Mario 64 however, you enter a course and have access to the objectives of every mission from the start. If you compare missions with levels, that would mean you play six levels at once in that game.


 * The second reason is: Take a look at Super Mario World. The game is notable for it's branching level system, and many levels have more than one exit, hence you can complete them in more than one way, which gains you different results. If we regard your objection here (different missions throughout an instance equals different levels), that would mean we have to split many of the SMW level articles, just because you can complete them in two ways. I think that would not be meaningful. -

Bloc Partier: If you vote for the third option, all Wario Land world articles would be kept as well. May I ask why you prefer the first option?
 * Hmmm true. I just now thought about the Yoshi's Island levels. I would definitely like those separate. Thanks for the clearing up there. --

Ah, something that popped into my mind just now. Merging levels into the world article isn't always a warrant for good, non-gameguidish articles. Look at this one for example. It shows us the same flaws the proposal tries to attach with single articles. One of the main reasons for merging this articles, the improvement of quality, seems to be forfeit with this. Please take this into account before giving a final vote. -
 * That is a pretty heinous world article... While it's true that bad writing can crop up at every level, at least on world articles, the re-writers won't be as pressured to keep the sections as long as if an entire article depended on it (no matter how you justify it, halving an page is still halving a page, and a lot of people balk at that prospect). Like Bloc Partier, I'm basing my opinions mostly on what I've seen with Yoshi's Island: half five-page walkthroughs, half five-line stubs, both of which require hours of work to fix-up. Rewriting each and every YI page is even more daunting a task than fixing Pipe Land; the difference is, Pipe Land can be trimmed at first to make it less of an eyesore and re-expanded/expanded at a later date whereas the individual pages will not stand up on their own if they're stripped down to stubs and left for a few days. The obvious solution is to do your research before even trying to tackle the pages, but unfortunately, only the really dedicated writers will do that sort of thing (plus, doing things in steps is simply easier, no matter how good an editor you are). As for your earlier point about the SMW levels, you do have a point - I was just saying how, superficially, someone might think "mission = level" and wonder why only one gets pages; from that perspective, merging would seem more consistent. The question is, which way of thinking will be more prevalent. Our goal should be to make navigation as easy as possible for the largest number of people, and I feel that means merging certain groups of pages. -

FA Vote Margin and Requirements
Some of the FA rules seem like they need work. I think an article needs at least 25 total votes, and at least 60% of those votes need to be to feature the article. This way, not only does an article need a large number of votes to feature it, it also needs a large number of voters altogether.

Proposer: Deadline: Wednesday, 21 October 2009, 17:00

Add vote rules

 * 1) – Per above.

Keep as is

 * 1) - The system we have may have some flaws, but it is fine the way it is now. I think that new rule would invoke more chaos than it would get rid of. Also: Please change the oppose sections header; It is heavily biased!
 * Per Edo. The FA system works perfectly. If it ain't broke...
 * 1) - ...don't fix it. Per Edo
 * 2) Per Edo.
 * 3) - Per Edo.
 * 4) - Well, it seems we're keeping a trend here so...per Edo
 * 5) – Per all.

Comments
Uhm, there's no rule that says how many votes are required for an article to become FA? Sorry but... AFAIK yes, there is. An article becomes featured when five people give their support and noone opposes. -

I changed the oppose header to a non-biased one.
 * Good, thank you. -

Remove BJAODN
BJADON is pointless and does not serve the wiki in any way. We are not the UnMarioWiki, we are the MarioWiki, and therefore "Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense" should not be allowed here. The only purpose it serves is the purpose it says on the page, "To have bad word documented, the most silly and dum word in the wold!". That is clearly not our goal at the MarioWiki. We are wasting server space with completely irrelevant and nonsensical.

Proposer: Deadline: Wednesday, 27 October 2009, 17:00

Support

 * 1) – Per above.
 * 2) – Per above.It's not even funny
 * 3) Well... once I thought it over a bit I think I'll support(please don't kill me for that). Most of the stuff on the BJAODN is "bad jokes" which people put on just to be funny. Other users can read this and can be encouraged to make up MORE stupid jokes. Mariowiki shouldn't have stupid jokes all over its pages and as I was told, Mariowiki shouldn't be funny, but informative. Besides, I've only read the BJAODN once and I really don't feel like reading it again. It gets a little boring after a while. And I do not think this is a stupid proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) - Well, this ill be clearly polemical. I say no. After all the effort I put into it? And it is just like a way of diversion. I find it really funny.
 * 2) I think you are being a bit harsh there, Yoshario. Many users contribute there, and many users would be upset to see it go. BJAODN is kind of like the 'Shroom, it provides some comic relief to the members of the wiki (I'm not saying that the 'Shroom is a joke, which it IS NOT.), and getting rid of it would get rid of a lot of good stuff on the wiki.
 * 3) It keeps users entertained. And when it doesn't, it teaches new users how not to be humiliated.
 * 4) Per FunkyK38. And BJAODN also shows new users what not to do.
 * 5) - removing it would be a bad idea, since a lot of users like to add the dumb stuff that noobs make, it would be kind of like deleting the Mario article. even if it has some content that is irrelevant to the mario series, it still has some stuff related to it, so no
 * 6) Well I see that Yoshario has a great and persistent argument I think we could meet a compromise using SMB's comment below...
 * 7) While the BJAODN may include alot of funny and weird BS, I don't support removing it. Did you know Wikipedia has a BJAODN? So you think theyre uninformative and unorganized? Seems like it. Your going way too overboard. We have unlimited server space, don't we? Well not unlimited, but alot. MarioWiki is a community, not a place where everyone just edits and thats it. Removing BJAODN is like removing User Talk, because oh, most of the time people just say "hay sup" and archive like 20 headers in 10 archives. I'm not saying User Talk is just a place to talk with your friends and what not, because people can give warnings and reminders and what not and help the user out.
 * 8) Per all. I also think we can come to a compromise using SMB's comment below.
 * 9) - I should only have to say "I'm the creator duh", but I'll also add there's some legetimate, obvious bad writing archived in there. If it's "useless", then so is the 'Shroom because it's also irreverent and nonsensical lol.
 * 10) - Per all.
 * 11) - Yoshario is just mad cause he hates us all now, and is trying to remove part of the community. Besides, BJAODN doesnt harm us, waste space, or put us backward from our goal of haivng the most mario stuff, even if it doesnt get us any closer.
 * 12) - BJAODN is a fun way for people to express themselves and show creativity. Many users may not stick around after there is nothing left for them to do. Users have put so much effort into it, it would be a shame to delete it now.
 * 13) - Per my comment below.
 * 14) "Wasting server space" can hardly be an argument. I don't see how BJAODN is different from The Shroom.
 * 15) - Bah, using your logic, all userspaces and pages including the words "fun,happy,good," or any other kind of positive content should be removed. >:P
 * 16) - Per Glowsquid and Stooben Rooben. While not everyone will find everything funny (as Super Mario Bros. pointed out), real life satire is always better than manufactured "bad writing" exemplars: honest laughs will be remembered much longer. Compared to The 'Shroom, chat and the forums, the amount of space BJAODN eats up is a mere pittance, and a small price to pay for the simple joy it offers our editors - who might just learn a thing or two about what not to do while they're at it.
 * 17) - Per all.
 * 18) - Per FawfulFury. I love reading BJAODN, and deleting it would make Mariowiki a dull place. :(
 * Aw, don't be mean! The BJAODN is what makes our Wiki look like more of a community in guests find it. It's also funny :D We don't want this place to like like 'Super Mario Dictionary & Thesaurus', do we? Who'd want to click on athat link?!
 * 1) Listen Yoshario... If you get rid of BJAODN a lot of users will leave and this place would fall apart! Conprendo!
 * 2) Per all. As Alphaclaw showed in chat, even Wikipedia has pages like BJAODN.
 * 3)  Off with his head!  (Translation from Xzelionese: Per all; I counterpropose that we remove the proposals pages since stupid proposals like these waste both server space and people's time.)
 * 4) - It is worth to take away stress from serious contributing here.
 * 5) Some people wouldn't even know it exists (and that's me; I learned it by walking into this page). Even so, removing BJAODN will make our Mariowiki a sad, monotonous place. I only find a few BJAODN funny, but eh, whatever. To shorten up my request, no.
 * 6) - A lot of things in BJAODN are considered funny by the Super Mario Wiki community, and removing it is ridiculous. In other words, per all.
 * 7) - Per Plumber, who per'd all.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) NO WAY! BJAODN contains funny content from Mario series and some Wiki's mistakes. I like it and a lot of people does.

Comments
I do neither support the removal of BJAODN, nor do I think that we have to keep it by all means. I think I will abstain from voting here. -
 * @Tucayo: Despite some people finding it "really funny", that's not our goal here. An how is it a way of "distressing us"?
 * @FunkyK38: How am I being harsh? Many users contributed to their userspace, yet we removed it because it was a distraction from the mainspace. This is worse, as it's completely nonsensical and doesn't help the wiki reach it's goal. If members want comic relief, they can visit the many joke wikis out there.

We have new rules that prevent adding comments, which was the m ain distraction
 * We still waste server space with BJAODN. By keeping this, you're saying that a page which purpose is "To have bad word documented, the most silly and dum word in the wold!" fits our scope.
 * Well, we have things that waste more space. And I dont consider it to be a waste of space. Have you read it?
 * What other things waste more space? And yes, I have read it. Most of it seems to be inane and ridiculous. (e.g. "Madden is a game not in the mario sieries that is football made by EA sports.")
 * @TehDman: The wiki isn't meant to be fun, it is supposed to be informative. If you don't find this wiki's goal "fun", then it's your own issue. We should not amend our scope so users can have "fun".
 * Then let's remove the Forums, Chatroom, 'Shroom, and even our skin. Because we're informative, right? 18:19, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
 * The Forums and Chatroom were made so people could discuss non-wiki things.

I don't get it. What is BJAODN? Bad Junk And Other Deleted Nonsense... how are we to get rid of something that's already gone? And where is the BJAODN?
 * The BJAODN is an archive of deleted content that was removed because it was ridiculous in some way, but was too amusing to delete it completely. -
 * I feel we should remove TehDman's and Master Lucario's comments, as they do not help the situation in any way . Also, perhaps we could just go through the completely pointless crap (like the "Madden is a game not in the mario sieries that is football made by EA sports.") and remove it? we could keep the jokes and other things, but not those stupid one line and poorly written articles that have triggered this proposal. And, a joke wiki... That gives me an idea. Let's see how my first idea goes though.
 * I agree to an extent with SMB. I think the page should be filtered removing things like the Madden articles and such that are one liners and completely not that funny. I've also noticed that the latest additions to the pages were very minor. I think the way it has been updated is a much better system.

Super-Yoshi: Actually, that "unlimited" serverspace is moaning and cracking under the weight of unnecessary material, to such extents that we have server slowdowns and such. A certain dager of overload is present. I am not saying that removing BJAODN is an appropriate measurement to solve that problem (that's why I don't vote), but it is not like we have unlimited server space. UPDATE: It seems like I have been misinformed, so this comment isn't of validation anymore. -

Yoshario, what's your stance on the 'Shroom. Most of it isn't exactly NEEDED and PURPOSEFUL either (lol faek news).

Also, no removing of ANYTHING. Humour is in the eye of the beholder.

The argument about sever space is ridiculous. A few text files and some images take, like, 2 MB at most? Purging BJAODN would do to the server what drinking a glass of water do to the ocean. --Glowsquid 20:05, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

People, this is just an OPINION! Stop overdramatizising it and come down to a constructive level again! And ditch the personal attacks. They poison our community! -

...are you serious

This whole "server space" thing is becoming a rather invalid reason for a lot of issues. One page is not going to cause enough of a dent in the server space to justify getting rid of it. Hundreds of non-beneficial user sub-pages does cause a fairly minimal negative effect on the server, but one page? Come on. If you want to delete that page, you might as well delete all of these pages too. (The first three are community projects, just like BJAODN; the next three explain stuff that users can ask an experienced member -- and is common sense, on some level; the rest of them are pages that act as a category.) I could find many more, but I think I've made my point there. All of those pages cause about as much damage to the server as BJAODN, which isn't much. And for that matter, the comments added to BJAODN don't cause enough of a difference in server space to justify disabling users' rights to add their two cents to that page. You might as well outlaw casual conversations on user talk pages if you're going to go that far. (Unlike BJAODN, that actually creates a dent in server space that's "not beneficial to the wiki". If users want to talk to each other, they should just use the forum or chat, right? And for that matter, we may as well ask Steve to get rid of 95% of the forum and the chatroom because they're not beneficial to the wiki either.) I never liked the idea of disabling comments on BJAODN to begin with; this is taking that insane motion a step further. Besides, BJAODN isn't just for laughs; it's also a 'what not to do' guide. The bottom line here is that server space is not the issue here. --


 * Edo: yea we always have slowdowns and stuff lol. I was just saying what st00by basically just said.

Concerning the "IT DOESN'T ADVANCE US" argument, how does this page advance the goal of the mother of all wiki, or this and this? If the sticklers at Wikpedia have dozen of pages on the most ridiculous things, I don't see why we can't have one page.

I also like how you imply opposer to your proposal "don't give a damn about the community," and that it's "common sense" to vote for your side. Mature, real mature. --Glowsquid 06:49, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

Bah, stop bein' a flipping baby Yoshario. I can't recall the person at the moment, but I agree with their argument that MarioWiki is a community, not a ramrod straight ONLY FORMAL WIKI. Because the impression I'm getting right now is that you're trying to tell us that you're the only perfect person here.

@Glowsquid Meh, more mature than "yoshario iz evil lol" or "anything yoshario likes I hate". And I am part-right. Katana, ML, and TehDman aren't even active here. And it is common sense to vote for my side because BJAODN does not benefit the wiki and does not fit into the wiki's goal. Oh, and when you compared it to Wikipedia's BJAODN, I'd like to say that that's gone, and they moved it to an external wiki. : | @Electrobomber: I'm not perfect, when did I imply that? It seems that you aren't taking the goal of the wiki that seriously. The wiki is a community, and non-wiki things can be discussed in #mariowiki.

"Common sense" is stuff no one with a certifiably working brain can disagree with. Claiming no one with common sense can disagree with you makes you look petulant (Especially since at least two other administrators are disagreing with you(. Also, you didn't respond to what I said about The 'Shroom. Surely, reading about (fake) news about characters that don't exist shurely fits the site goal.

The Wikipedia BJAODN may have been moved, but the "Best Of" and many individual articles are still kept, which is quite a lot. Not to mention a lot of alternative language (French, and I assume German) Wikipedia still have it as an active project. --Glowsquid 19:17, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

To everybody that has mentioned the 'Shroom, look at the proopsal name, it has nothing to do with the 'Shroom, so dont even get it into this deleting stuff. Thank you

This is getting ridiculous, so everyone SHUT UP AND STOP ARGUING! A strong community is a happy community, and a happy community is not one that argues. Back on topic, we should get rid of any non-Mario (not even partially) stuff that is in the BJAODN, because even if it is funny, it didn't even belong here in the first place. Note: It may sound like it, but I'm not taking credit for the idea. Someone put it somewhere above...

Yoshario:

''"Katana, ML, and TehDman aren't even active here." -- Yoshario''

Well, for starters, being inactive =/= not caring about the wiki. If Steve just randomly decided to nuke the MarioWiki, do you not think they would care? I've been inactive a lot lately, but that doesn't mean I don't care about the wiki.

''"And it is common sense to vote for my side because BJAODN does not benefit the wiki and does not fit into the wiki's goal." -- Yoshario''

If that were the case, the chatroom would never have been created, and all the boards (except for the Admin boards) on the forum would never have existed. They may not benefit the encyclopedic aspect of the wiki, but they do benefit the communicative part of it. Besides, it's not like it's doing any harm. If it were actually posing a threat to the site, then it would be smart to get rid of it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Now, I will agree that the Yoshario-hate in this proposal is outlandish. (Although, most of it seems to be gone now.) He made a proposal you don't like; get over it. Not everyone has to have the same point of view to get along.

Tucayo: We weren't saying that The 'Shroom is a waste of space; we were using it as an example of why BJAODN should stay. (Or at least, I was.) --

@Stooben Rooben: The chatroom and forum were created as an alternative to the wiki where you can talk about whatever you want. For example, we don't talk about Mario on Talk:Mario, we talk about the article, and direct Mario-related discussion to the forum.

"Well, for starters, being inactive =/= not caring about the wiki. If Steve just randomly decided to nuke the MarioWiki, do you not think they would care? I've been inactive a lot lately, but that doesn't mean I don't care about the wiki."

Even so, it the ones who aren't active on the wiki vote something like "BJAODN is all I read on the wiki". He didn't say it were the articles were all he reads, and contributes to, he said BJAODN.

Yoshario: I read BJAODN because I can't contribute to Mariowiki. I don't have many Mario games, and there's already good articles on them. >_> I don't really care about the wiki a ton, but I'm allowed to have an opinion, right? My opinion is that we should keep BJAODN. Katana
 * I never said you weren't allowed to have an opinion. But the vote you are "per-ing" says :"No way! The BJAODN is too funny to delete! It's amazing what people will write!". The wiki is not meant to be funny, it is meant to be a free encyclopedia about Mario. Perhaps we could have a "What not to do" page, instead of BJAODN. It would serve the purpose of explaining "what not to do" better, and be more understandable.

Actually Yoshario, people are more likely to learn "what not to do" by examples, so BJAODN isn't all that bad. I also agree with Hyper Guy, on the statement that we are not the "Super Mario Dictionary" (or something like that.) And even though MarioWiki has social and humorous touches, you don't see the actual articles being crap, now do you?

Actually, the Manual of Style has better examples than BJAODN. "It's Halloween. Mario and friends are thinking it's going to it's a scary night.Until the mummy of Toadsworth's brother returns to haunt the Living. " is less helpful than an in-depth guide on how to start an article. For example, if a user wanted to know what should be bolded, BJAODN wouldn't be a good guide since words are randomly bolded there.
 * Primo, BJAODN is an archive of 'what not to do, comparing it with a page specifically meant to help out new users is sily. --Glowsquid 21:23, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

WILL YOU JUST SHUT UP AND LEAVE BJAODN ALONE!

I just removed some votes that lacked valid reasons. Also, stop being so immature, guys. Some of you are acting as if Yoshario was proposing to destroy the wiki. It's only about a single page that hasn't even been here for that long and the wiki worked perfectly before we had the page as well. You don't have to agree with him, but there's no need to shout at him or accusing him of "hating" us or BS like that.

I agree with Time Q. Yoshario hasn't proposed something so hideous and terrible that it's going to kills everyone if it gets proposed, so give him a break. Although I don't agree with it, Yoshario is entitled to his own opinion, and he doesn't deserve to get shot down by the opposers. So GIVE HIM A BREAK!

This discussion is a disgrace to our community... deplorable... -

I completely agree with the above three people. It's not like Yoshario is doing anything wrong. There's nothing I hate seeing more than the community getting completely irrational over different viewpoints. --

"I never said you weren't allowed to have an opinion. But the vote you are "per-ing" says :"No way! The BJAODN is too funny to delete! It's amazing what people will write!" Or, you're just making up crap to make it look like she's wrong. She never said those things; and I know she didn't imply them. I'm going to continie this because as a said before, "A strong community is a happy community, and a happy community is not one that argues."
 * Uh, dude. Look at the sixteenth vote. "Fawfulfury65 (Talk) No way! The BJAODN is too funny to delete! It's amazing what people will write!"
 * What? Is there something wrong with my vote?
 * "Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so, not, e.g., "I like this idea!" From what I see, that vote isn't really strong. Our goal isn't to be funny, it's provide a complete Mario encyclopedia.

Who's to say we have to be humorless in achieving that goal? The page is not hurting anyone. It's a source of amusement. Even Wikipedia has it and no one will argue they're nothing if not stringent about their content. That said, do we really, absolutely have to have it? I don't think so, and I don't think not having it would be such a great a loss as some of you are making it out to be. It's a page, guys, you can get humor elsewhere, it is the internet. I still enjoy reading the page, however. Honestly though, I personally feel this discussion has gotten way out of hand and am appalled at how irrational some of you are being.

Sorry, but Yoshario is definitely out-numbered. :( Yes, he may have a point, but there are a few users who find things on the BJAODN articles funny.

OK Yoshario I'm supporting now. I've thought this over and I really don't know why everyone thinks this is a dumb proposal!

User Game Reviews
Ahem, this is my first proposal so please go easy on me if I do something wrongI had an idea that users could review Mario games which they had played and recommend to other people. The link for them might be eg. "Super Mario 64/Review". I know we have a review corner in The Shroom but it's a nightmare looking through the archives to find the game you're looking for. The users could also use ratings such as "out-of-five-stars" or percentages. Of course the sysops could remove pointless negative reviews such as "this game sucked and I disliked it for no apparent reason".

Proposer: Deadline: October 27th, 2009 17:00 pm

No User Reviews

 * We're an encyclopedia based on objective Mario information, thus we can't put game reviews in the mainspace. However, there certainly is a way to improve The 'Shroom section if it has any flaws (I don't really read The 'Shroom, so I don't know).
 * 1) - As Time Q said, we're an encyclopedia, and as such we shall not have to endure subjective or biased material.
 * 2) - Per TimeQ, you can suggest something so they can be found easier.
 * 3) – Per Time Q
 * 4) - Per Time Q.
 * 5) - This wiki does not allow the use of "you" in an article (there's a template for it, ), why would we be aloud to make reviews for users? It just seems a bit unfair, baby steps. Per TQ.
 * 6) I am Zero! I don't really care of the pain of waitting for the next 'Shroom to see the next review, since most of them are complete opposites of actual reviews. And we are a Marioverse based encyclopedia not IGN. Zero signing out.
 * 7) This is a wiki for information, not a site for reviewing games!!
 * 8) Per Time Q and all, this should be an informational wiki, and should generally stay that way.
 * 9) - Per Mr. Q.
 * 10) - Per Time Q.
 * 11) - There are sites for that.This isn't one of them

Quote Box
Alright, as my first proposal, I want a quote box to be in articles. I feel that people should get a users feel on a person or item when a viewer is reading through the page. An example would be (Imagine me putting this on Chief Chilly's page)

"He was a worthy foe, powerful indeed, but he succumbed to his own strength, and was easily defeated"
 * -Runeon12

Proposer: Deadline: October 29, 2009, 17:00

For Quote Boxes

 * 1) User:Runeon12

Against Quote Boxes

 * Same as for the above proposal. We're an encyclopedia, thus we don't need POV in our articles.
 * 1) - Per Time Q... again.
 * 2) - Per
 * 3) Per Time Q.
 * 4) - Per Time Q.
 * 5) - This will be just another excuse to bring in fan point of views. When I read an article, I don't want to read. "ZOMG! Luigi PWNS!" or "LOL! Wario is a fat man! XD" or "Dry Bones SUCKS!" It just seems kinda ridiculous.
 * Per Time Q.
 * 1) - We are not a fansite, those comments should go on a site with a comment box as that is what a comment box is for. Per the top guy.
 * 2) Per Gamefreak75- although Dry Bones does not suck!
 * 3) - Per Time Q and Gamefreak75.
 * 4) - It's not really necessary to have opinions on the actual articles, but its perfectly fine if you want to do that on your own page.
 * 5) Definitely per Gamefreak75. When I'm reading an article, I don't want to see "OMRG!!! BABY LUIGI TEH SUX0RZ!!! Oioiosdofjsadjsadj blah" or "Walligis gonna beat Marop up!" and so on and so on.
 * 6) Per Gamefreak75
 * 7) No POV in encyclopedic articles
 * 8) Per all, especially Marwikedor.
 * 9) I don't even know how to make a Quote Box.

Comments
Although I must say that I enjoy it to have in-game-quotes on articles (say f.e. a character in a Mario game says something about Warp Pipes and that quote could be put on the Warp Pipe article.). But of course, no fan-made content. -

Actually guys, new idea. First of all, I would like to thank Edofenrir for the idea, let us go with having a quote of what another character said to the character being searched. For example, if Mario called Luigi an "insolent fool!" then that would show up as the quote in Luigi, instead of our fan quotes.

Change Goomba's Shoe to Kuribo's Shoe
From SMB3, Kuribo's Shoe is my childhood remembrance of this super-special item so exclusive this world 5-3 and never seen again. I believe that it's name was part of what made it so unique. So make the title of the article "Kuribo's Shoe" for the sake of tradition. I'm not saying don't mention in the article Kuribo's shoe means Goomba's shoe in Japanese. But the main title should be it's original and more well-known name. So what if the GBA remake called it "Goomba's Shoe." It's the little things like the name Kuribo's Shoe and the fond memories it invokes that are like a big, juicy steak in our nostalgic minds. I implore, urge the Mario wiki users to vote YES. And lest you folks forget, it was refered to as the Shoe of Kuribo in Super Paper Mario.

Proposer: Deadline: October 29th, 2009 17:00 pm

Change the title to "Kuribo's Shoe"

 * 1) – Per above.
 * 2) - Per first person
 * 3) - Per Marwikedor-It was first called Kuribo's Shoe, therefore it should stay that way.
 * 4) -yes it's original name
 * 5) Original name, first!
 * 6)  Kuribo's Shoe is the true name!

Leave it as is

 * 1) As per the policy. You can't make exceptions due to nostalgia or people will keep asking.
 * 2) - This is the more recent name.
 * 3) - It goes against policy, which will cause an inconsistency. Per all.
 * 4) - Next time, change Princess Peach to Princess Toadstool due to nostalgia? We have the policy to use the more recent name. We don't go by personal preferences. No inconsistencies, please.
 * 5) - Per our policy
 * 6) - The article always mentions the name of the object as of their most recent appearance unless that name is too long in which case it is abbreviated. Create a redirect.
 * 7) - Unfortunately, the policy states the name to be the same.
 * 8) - Although I love the term "Kuribo's Shoe", I also hate inconsistency. Exceptions are confusing and annoying, so: Nah!
 * 9) - Per all.
 * 10) - Most people don't know what 'Kuribo' is anyway.

Comments
Was it called Kuribo's Shoe in Super Mario Bros. 3? If so, then I support. -
 * It was, but they changed it to "Goomba's Shoe" in the remake. As per policy, we do use the most recent name of characters/items/whatever... -
 * Well, if the Policy dictates that, then I can't do anything about it. -

Fawfulfury65: To keep consistency, we'd have to move "Mario" to "Jumpman" then... -
 * Maybe this proposal should be turned into a proposal to change the policy.
 * Are you aware of the consequences of this? The Jumpman thing is only one example of renames we would have to make if the policy is changed (because if it gets changed, then it gets changed completely, with no exceptions!). You want to change the names of masses of articles to confusing aliasses just for nostalgia? I like Kuribo's Shoe more as well, but I won't sacrifice the structure of the whole Wiki for it. -


 * You people are wrong. Super Paper Mario is more recent than that GBA remake!  Remember the Sammer Guy referenced the true title!  In Bowser's Inside Story, a Sockop was name Kuribo, clearly referencing he looked like Kuribo's Shoe!  Both of those games are more recent than that GBA remake!  I don't even think in the GBA remake it was even mentioned in the game!  Was it just a guide or something?  The most recent name is Kuribo's Shoe.  Change your votes those who voted against it!  Per your own policy!-
 * Dude it was a Sammer Guy that was called "Shoe of Kuribo". The actual item didn't appear in the game. It was just a reference to the item. --
 * @Marwikedor: It wasn't a guide, the game itself called it Goomba's Shoe: Image. SPM and BIS only have references to the item. If the item itself would be renamed Kuribo's Shoe again in a new release, the article would be moved, of course. --Grandy02 06:36, 25 October 2009 (EDT)

Also, the Name was just an untranslated version Kuribo is the Jaanese name for Goomba. If you want to be really consistnt you'd have to revertt all names to their first Japanese name. (Unless it's a word outside Mario. Changeing that would just be silly). It would confuse everyone and serve no purpose. Lego3400 02:53, 27 October 2009 (EDT)


 * As Edo stated, we'd have to change characters back to their original names like Peach to Toadstoal or Bowser to King Koopa.--
 * Just so you know, Bowser is the original English name. "King Koopa" was popularized with the cartoon series. --Grandy02 07:22, 28 October 2009 (EDT)


 * It is totally daft to compare it to those things. Her name still is Toadstool!  Princess Peach Toadstool!  Just because the item did not appear in these two more recent games does not mean it it not binding!  For example, if Professor Elvin Gadd's (E. Gadd)name was changed to Edward Gadd, you would have to say Edward Gadd formerly known as Elvin Gadd, even if E. Gadd did not appear in the game he was referenced in!  In accordance with the Wiki's policy, it must be Kuribo's Shoe!  This is indeed a special case and should not be compared to "Jumpman-Mario" ridiculous!  Per the wiki's policy, it is originally, and most lately, Kuribo!  That is my position if this fails to pass it is my right in four weeks to make sure the wrong is righted! --
 * If it is made clear that the character in question, Elvin (or Edward) Gadd, is meant, and that it is not just a parody or a slip of the tongue, then yes. But the term "Kuribo's Shoe" was not explicitly used in SPM and BIS. The names of a Sammer Guy (Shoe of Kuribo) and of a Sockop (simply Kuribo) are both clever references to the item, but there is no mention of the actual item, there are only the names of two characters. The translators could just have referenced a well-known mistranslation ("A winner is you!" appears in BIS, too). As long as it isn't explicitly stated that the item itself is renamed again, no matter whether it is actually seen or not (for example, if a character said "I used Kuribo's Shoe to hop across the spikes!", then it would count), the article should stay as Goomba's Shoe in my humble opinion. --
 * I don't consider it a "mistranslation", English speaking gamers could consider Kuribo to be the name of the Goomba who wore the boot... --Marwikedor
 * And Jugem is the name of the Lakitu who used Jugem's Cloud? --
 * As long as it redirects, it will be OK as is. -
 * Grandy02, the simple answer to your question is yes. Not all Lakitus are named Lakitu, there never has been and never will be one.  "Lakitu" refers to their species.  Jugem was the name of the Lakitu who owned the cloud.  When SMB3 came out approx. twenty years ago, Goombas were still called Goombas.  Therefore, Kuribo refered to the specific name of the Goomba who owned the boot.  And it was never changed in SMB3.  That's right, you heard me!  It was NOT changed.  Princess Peach was just saying, "Hey, Mario!  Use that goomba's shoe to help you save me!"  If you said IRL, "I'm gonna borrow that man's cell phone", does that mean the man's name is Man?  Certainly not!  In SMS, when that Pianta in Bianco Hills complained about that flying piranha plant making a muddy mess of things, does that mean you'd have to change Petey Piranha's name to Flying Piranha Plant (if, for argument's sake, the pianta had mentioned it after his name was mentioned, which he did, as his name was only mentioned in the Shine screen title.  Petey has appeared in several sports spin-offs since then).  The official title is still Kuribo's Shoe.  -
 * I believe you all missed my point. If we went with Kuribo's Shoe we would have to call Bowser "Koopa", the entire species of Koppa Nokonoko and so on. Kuribo is the Japanese name of all Goombas. The translators simply overlooked this when translating SMB3 and accidentally left it as Koribo's shoe instead of Goomba's Shoe and corrected their mistake when it was rereleased. Jugem's cloud also got overlooked and Jugem is the Japanese name for all Lakitu, not of the ones who ride on the cloud. Therefore, if you put the English name of the species that use these items in like they forgot to do and later fixed, the items would read Goonba's Shoe and Lakitu's Cloud. The point I'm trying to make here is, this is an English language wiki, therefore, the English name takes precedent over something that was left untranslated. Lego3400 01:15, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

It may be an official title, but it's outdated, according to our policy. The most recent official title – that has actually been used as the item's name, not just a reference to it – is "Goomba's Shoe". --

You know what I think? Move Goomba's Shoe to Goomba Shoe. It's absolutely ridiculous in spelling. If for example, it is not right to say Mario's Goomba's Shoe. Or is it, huh?

Shorten Quotes
OK, I'm going to get the point across quickly, but I think we shouldn't have long quotes on articles. Instead, we should have them on the 'List Of Quotes' area. This is only because a while ago on the Fawful article, the main quote at the top of the page was AN ENTIRE SCENE of Fawful, not just a quote. I've removed it now, but even still on other articles there's like, 3 paragraphs for one quote. I think we should make it so a quote is something like the characters catchphrase (e.g., for Fawful "I HAVE FURY!"), or just a sentance. If we want long quotes, they should go on a 'List Of Quotes In (INSERT GAME NAME HERE)' page. Thank you, and goodnight.

Proposer: Deadline: November 2, 2009, 17:00

Shorten Quotes

 * 1) Per the fact I invented the proposal.
 * 2) That quote on the Fawful article was so long, I didn't even feel like reading it, and the same for every long quote.
 * 3) - Per HG
 * 4) I am Zero! Yea, we should have it like that, not the freakishly huge quotes, just a quote like "Your my knight in shinning armor." something like that short, but not exactly literally that short. Zero signing out.
 * 5) - A long quote does not belong in the top of a page. The quotes should not cause the writing at the top of the page to look weird and that is what they are doing in some articles. If a long quote describes the character however, I say we keep it.
 * 6) wario quote is ridiculesly long. Lu-igi board
 * 7) - Ya boy! Count me in! I couldn't stand the parts of Eyerok's quotes that sounded a little bit awkward when they could have just left it at "Now let's fight...Hand to Hand!" so pretty much per Fawfulfury65.
 * 8) - As long as the quote expresses the personality of the character and is not something completely stupid.

Comments
I think a quote should mirror the personality of a character, while trying to be as short as possible. If a character has a catch phrase, this is easy, but sometimes slightly larger quotes are inevitable. However, a whole dialogue shouldn't be posted as a quote in any case. -

I'm on the fence with this one. Quotes should be A: Well known in fandom (IE fawfuls I HAVE FURY!) or B: Noteable. Quotes that show their personality are a bonus. If a line is long but meets A or B it should be left as long as it's left in the quote's section. Short famous quotes should go at the top. Only put a long quote up there if we can't find anything better. Dialoge should only be listed if it is noteable. What is noteable I'll leave others to decide <.<... Lego3400 03:00, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

Well I won't support before I know what maximum length for a quote you intent to establish. What about this one here for example? Too long? (I mean, this character has other much shorter catchphrases). -
 * Yeah, I think I need like a maximum length before I vote.

I don't understand why this is actually an issue. Isn't it obvious that if a quote is more of a paragraph than a sentence than it should be split into different quotes? Also, in a game such as the Mario rpgs, every little thing a character says is clearly not relevant. Yeah? FD09

Surrogate Pages
A lot of users will create a page to include it in another page, like their sig or status. Some of The 'Shroom writers have begun doing this for lots of other things so that they don't have to constantly edit The 'Shroom pages. However, with the new userspace regulations, this is not allowed. I think it will make things a lot easier for 'Shroom writers.

Proposer: Deadline: November 2, 2009, 17:00

Allow Surrogate Pages

 * 1)  - My thoughts are stated above.
 * 2)  - Makes quite a bit of sense, I'm sick of seeing someone making a sub-page for their userboxes, and then putting it on their page as well.

Don't Allow Surrogate Pages

 * 1) - I hope i understood this, I think users shouldnt have more pages than the main Userpage and the sig. I also discourage that for the Shroom, as it releases them before the issue date to the public.
 * 2) - Per Tucayo
 * 3) - Per all. And these userspace rules aren't new, they were just never enforced.
 * 4) - There's a difference between user sub-pages and MarioWiki sub-pages. The 'Shroom sub-pages are benefiting a large community project. What do user sub-pages benefit? The user whom that page belongs to.
 * 5) - From what I understand, this section is to not alow users to create more than one userpage just for the heck of using that page somewhere else. I do notice that maybe it could be really important for one of those pages to exist but I also realize that many of the users here will just make them for the fun of it so, I'll have to prioritise.
 * 6) - Per all.
 * 7) - per all. seems unneccassary

Comments
I dont get it...
 * Is this a proposal or a comment?
 * Hubba-what? oO -
 * I'm confused, what are you proposing?
 * He's saying that some people might make a page for their userboxes, possibly so they could edit them easier, and then just stick them back on their page. Like a sig, but not really necessary. -

Maybe they could put the userboxes on their page but put it under a new section so that there are edit links.

Merge the Pipe Plaza with The 'Shroom
Okay, first off, I'd like for you to go see this. Doesn't look too well, right? Kind of... Outdated. Which is why I'm suggesting that we merge it with this. You see, my theory is that ever nobody has the time, or just can't/won't update the Pipe Plaza for whatever reason. It shouldn't ever get this outdated, and since it seems to be too much of a hassle, merging it with the 'Shroom could brighten the future of our community portal. You see, my other theory is that because one person doesn't want to update the Pipe Plaza, they feel somebody else will. It seems that mindframe has not worked.

Specifically, we should divide it into a team like Fake News, Fun Stuff, and Music & Artwork. There would be a director who coordinates what information is included, and tells the others when to send their sections in by. The section would be broken down into positions so that everybody knows what to update and the such, without getting confused. Now, to be more specific:


 * Notices
 * News – This position would include any community-based, wiki-related events (such as promotions/demotions, a list of proposals that are going on and a list of what passed and failed and a brief description of how it will/would have affected the community, etc.)
 * Maintenance/Pages Seeking Contributors – This section would provide some maintenance tips (such as links to the maintenance pages and suggestions such as removing unnecessary spacing from articles, fixing links that lead to redirects, etc.); links to pages that need contributors or expansion.
 * Featured – Lists the Featured Articles/Images that were featured on the Main Page from one issue to another, as well as any nominations that passed (as well as any Featured Articles were unfeatured).
 * Collaborations
 * Main Collaboration – Lists major collaborations that are going on, as well as list the articles that are nominated for Featured status and those that are nominated for unfeaturing.
 * Projects Seeking Contributors – Gives a link to the PipeProjects page and lists any new PipeProjects that need attention.
 * Guidelines, help, and resources
 * Links – This position would provide a few links every month that lead to pages such as Help pages, policy pages, and other helpful goodies.
 * Tip of the Month – This person would give a good, helpful, and informative tip that can aid someone in their adventures in editing.

What I have done in that list is organize it based on the categories that it is organized in the Pipe Plaza, save for a bit of merging and removing some things. I completely removed the To Do List section in my suggestion because the maintenance sections and whatnot, as it would be more specific if moved to The 'Shroom, basically covers what there is to do. This is how it will be organized if it were put on The 'Shroom, with appropriate headings and such. I feel this would make the way it works much more organized and that it would benefit the wiki.

Proposer: The Core Staff Members of the 'Shroom Deadline: Wednesday, 4 November 2009, 17:00

Support

 * 1) Per the Core 'Shroom Staff.
 * 2) I think this is a good idea. It will help get things done and it will pull the PipePlaza into the future and keep it looking good.
 * 3) - Per, but as i said uncountable times, this should be updated regularly, and not monthly.
 * 4) - Per all. As the writer formerly known as P. Trainer, and a member of the Core 'Shroom Staff, I agree. It will not only organize the Pipe Plaza in a better form, but force it to be updated more regularly.
 * 5) Per all above...but is Tucayo referring to the shroom being updated monthly or the pipe plaza?
 * 6) Per all
 * 7) - Per above.
 * 8) - If the Shroom Staff agrees on this, then why should someone else interfere?
 * 9) - Per Edofenrir. Also, this will surely help us users greatly!
 * 10) - I'll get more information on this later but right now - if so many of the smartest users (and Tucayo, jk) think it is a good idea then I approve. BTW, Tucayo is you want to remove that part about you I give you permission.
 * 11) Per the 'Shroom staff.
 * 12) Lu-igi board I never knew there was a pipe plaza, so why not?
 * 13) - Same with Lu-igi board. I never knew of a Pipe Plaza until now. Per Core 'Shroom Staff.
 * 14) – Per all.
 * 15)  Per the Core 'Shroom Staff. No-one would dare oppose them. Probably. >_>

Oppose

 * 1) Pipe Plaza is supposed to be a community hub and navigational map to the site. It should provide current news (maybe in the form of articles), a short list of PipeProjects, maybe some Troubles if the Trouble Center is ever revived, more maintenance, and some recent Proposals. The 'Shroom on the other hand is both a monthly newspaper and an online quasi-magazine. It's true that Pipe Plaza needs to be updated, but it needs to be given attention on its own, not folded into The 'Shroom, which will just busy the staff who will eventually abandon it since they need to maintain it all the time instead of it being directed by commmon users. Basically the Pipe Plaza is a (currently inactive) portal and to fold the whole community portal of this wiki into a monthly newspaper is absurd.
 * If anything, the Main Page should be folded into Pipe Plaza. The Main Page and the Pipe Plaza overlap in many areas, such as news, being a hub, etc. If someone decided to go to the Main Page and they were redirected to MarioWiki:Pipe Plaza and saw something incorrect, they would be quick to replace it, ensuring that Pipe Plaza, as the new Main Page, will be regularly updated. Because of this, there would be now need for The 'Shroom staff to busy themselves with maintaining Pipe Plaza since it would maintain itself on its own.

Comments
By the way, I'm just mentioning, all 7 of the 'Shroom's main directive staff supported the idea behind this proposal.
 * @MC Hammer Bro.: Im saying the Pipe Plaza shouldnt be updated monthly, as the Shroom, it should be updated like twice a week or so. We cant update news monthly........
 * Ok then. thanks for clearing that up.
 * You may want to note that SMB quit being the co-director of M&A so there are only 6 core members now

Plumber has a point

Update Character Main Biographies
I did make a proposal recently on the subject similar to this, but clearly it wasn't going over well.

This proposal is for the change to make it so that the main biographies, which contain video-game, cartoon, and comics information will be organised so that sub-sections are added so that each of these medias are not smashed together in disorder. This way, each type of media will be in its respective order, but not clashing with every other kind there is in the main biography. Basically it's keeping everything in the main biography but sorting it so that readers, while still reading all historical information of a character, will be able to read each type of media respectively so as to avoid confusion.

This way, everything about the character will still be in the main biography, but will simply be reorganized within the main section so that it is not clashing with different types of media to avoid any confusion.

This proposal does not concern canon rule(no canon idea is being followed here just as the mariowiki standards follow), priority of one media over the other, or any bias. It simply organizes each appearance so that everything is more ordered under the specified media type.

Clearly this proposal is different from the original by a lot so feel free to discuss beforehand.

Proposer: FD09 Deadline: 9 November 2009, 17:00 Date Vetoed: November 11, 2009, 06:12 GMT

Support

 * 1) FD09 Isn't it better to have a library's inventory organised within the type of book (fiction, non-fiction, romance, mystery) as well as abc order, rather than just put every DIFFERENT type of book in one abc order?
 * 2) - Per ForeverDaisy
 * 3) - Per ForeverDaisy
 * 4) - Per ForeverDaisy.
 * 5) - This proposal will allow a user to just look at the article and narrow down their search to a certain category (i.e. TV show, video game, comic). Per FD09
 * 6) Lu-igi board per Marioguy1.
 * 7) I see. This makes more sense than the last proposal.
 * 8) YDF1 Per FD09
 * 9) User:Lindsayoris15 Per FD09
 * 10) Toadine Per FD09. What the opposers are saying doesn't even make sense. Why wouldn't you want more organisation and structure?
 * 11) user:Super Luigi!this is a great idea.I mean,i want things organized.my reason is because i love the mario comics, yet dont have any.with this, i can go to the comic's part and read about them, ya know?
 * 12) user:Raml - It makes sense. Per FD09
 * 13) Panchito - i really have to agree here. per all
 * 14) Furioku17 - Per FD09 there is really no reason to oppose this.
 * 15) Raikiri78 - Per All Others. Organization is better.

Oppose

 * No, just no. There's absolutely no need to separate the different kinds of media from each other. There is no "video game canon", "comic canon", "TV show canon" etc. It wouldn't make sense to group the Nintendo Power and Club Nintendo comics together since they have nothing in common (apart from being comics, which is obviously just their form of media, nothing more). Currently, we are grouping appearances by series, which in my opinion is the perfect way to go. We can group all the appearances in the Mario Party series together (since they have something in common) and separate them from The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! series, but there's no point in grouping all the distinct comics or TV shows together.
 * 1) -- The way we have now isn't my favorite, but this proposed way is worse. Per Time Q.
 * 2) I think the way Time Q said it is better. Per Time Q.
 * 3) – Per Time Q.
 * 4) – Per Time Q also.
 * 5) – Doing this will just lead us down the road to we do separate the "canon" from the "non-canon".So I must vote no on this matter.Per Time Q
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) I must admit I had a hard time on making a decision here. We're basically talking about two different types of structure here, which, in case of correctness, are more or less equal. Arranging the appearances in a media-based order has advantages, just like the previous way has. Which one is more suitable depends on the case: the media order is better if you're searching for one specific appearance, whereas a chronological order is more suited for all appearances as a whole. Given that, deciding for one way is complicated, so you need to think about it precisely. The common way to sort information in a wiki, the encyclopedic way, is usually to sort the appearances in chronological order.
 * 8) Per Time Q and Edofenrir.
 * 9) Per all. No need to separate them, it can stay in chronological order regardless of media. Why would it confuse users? Mario is Missing!, Mario's Time Machine, Hotel Mario and other Western Mario games that never made it to Japan have as little significance for the series' development as the non-Japanese comics, while a certain Japanese comic book series, Super Mario-Kun, is probably more important for the franchise than all three aforementioned games combined (example). --Grandy02 14:11, 9 November 2009 (EST)
 * 10) - Per all. Ordering things chronologically makes more sense to me, anyway.

Comments
TimeQ you seem to not understand that this has nothing to do with canon, as clearly stated in the proposal explanation. Also, you seem to be worried about grouping in related comics together. Okay, so obviously you understand that video games that are not of the same series are not grouped together why would comics be? Also, your vote should be much shorter and your issues should be down here. Anyway, you obviously are confused as to what this is and what's going to happen. The comics are already together in the main biography. They are still going to be in their own relations once in sub sections. You seem to not be able to get over the fact this isn't about canon and you're just making assumptions that are not correct. @ o @ FD09
 * Yes, I know this is not about canon, but if we group appearances from the same source of media together (excluding any other media), then we suggest there's a different "canon" for each of those types of media. Why else would we want to split the comics from the video games? "The comics are already together in the main biography" - Yes, however they're there together with all the other stuff. You propose to put them together to the exclusion of games, TV shows, etc. which is what I oppose. I understand your proposal very well. I just don't understand why you're proposing this change at all.


 * By that reasoning you should consider each video-game in the main biography that is of a different series to have a different canon. Th point isn't to suggest a canon for the different types of medai, by everything being in the main biography that should be indication enough that it's a part of the same non-canon idea of the MarioWiki. The point of splitting it up is because regardless of some comics being different it makes sense to group comics together rather than group them with different kinds of media like the cartoons or video games. If you think separating them intotheir specific media categories suggest something than by the same reaosning you would have to be currently suggesting they are all part of the same canon which still doesn't exist. So why if you wouldn't think the way it is now suggests any canon that making it more orderly would? Either way a viewer might mistakenly see a canon grouping but this way readers don't have to differentiate on weather or not they're reading about a videogame comic cartoon or something else and they wouldn't be grouping so much a large amount of information together. By your idea that making them into different sub groups suggests a canon you should like the idea better than putting everything in one ridiculous suggestive group.

The fact you don't understand why the change is wanted is why you don't seem to understand, self explanatory it may be redundant even. But your reasoning is parallel with any grouping of media. Like I said, just because someone might assume something means nothing and to go with that it's better to simplify any confusion somebody might have by actually spacing details out more orderly. FD09

As I said in my vote,doing this will lead us to when we do separate the "Canon" from the "non-canon" and that's not a path the Mario wiki wants to go down.
 * That's completely wrong. The only way we could do that is if someone made a proposal to change the canon. Aside from the per TimeQ part, your vote is baseless and unfounded. FD09

You're suggesting a rather hierarchal system here; like it or not, the wiki is vertically organized. If we put any one of the sections at the top, we're recommending to our audience that we believe that particular section is more important than the others. Also, your suggestion on my talk page about the library sections is unsubstantiated; libraries are 3D: they can organize their layout, or "articles," if you will, in a much more equivocal fashion. Also, while we're talking about "baseless and unfounded" votes, Lu-igi board's vote is just as bad as you described.


 * Suggesting a vertical system that can not be changed is nothing but hierarchy is obviously wrong. Also, even libraries have an entrance. Just because a certain genre comes before another doesn't mean it's more important, if anything the main reason video games would be first is because they came first, therefore it's just going by date. You replied to me that you shouldn't have to defend your opinion, clearly without backing up your opinions they can become baseless. Oh, and on that users talk page you can see that I contacted them about their vote hours ago. I knew that it was flawed so I made sure to say something about it, just like I did for The new wouldn't u like 2 no. FD09


 * Obviously wrong? I fail to see how this is obvious. I didn't say that the system could not be changed, nor did I say that it was "nothing but" hierarchy. Notice that the wiki is not a library; it is an encyclopedia. If anything, we should only organize each media alphabetically. (I'm not recommending this, just so you know.) And while your statement about opinions is quite true in the real world, this proposal system is not quite the same. One can say, "per all," and his/her vote can be counted correct even without any evidence to back it up. And good, I am glad you contacted them.


 * No, it's not a library, but that was the example. You're coming back and explaining to me how this wiki isn't a library when clearly I was still on the subject of the example with you. You actually just strayed away from the whole thing by making it seem like I was making it something it's agreeably not. Yeah, but we have to at least say per all don't we? Also, the only way they can say that is if at least somebody provided reason in the first place. "Every vote should have a reason accompanying it".

Once again, someone all on their own points out how they don't get the point. You already made it clear that you are set on your vote. It's fair to say discussing it further with you won't do much when you don't actually see the point of making everything organised. Which by the way is still not about canon rule, or favoritism of 1 media type over the other. FD09
 * I may have strayed, yes. But you made the example sound more like a reason. And, really, personal attacks are quite uncalled for. Don't bother to defend yourself; I won't reply to this again. Have fun with the rest of the proposal and whatnot. --
 * I strongly disagree that I made a personal attack to you. I simply said what you did. I literally tried to be unoffensive which is why I let the argument lay rest. Sorry if you somehow felt personally attacked. FD09

Link to Userpedia in "community"
In the community section of the sidebar on the left side of the screen, there are links to the Chat and Forum. However, there is no link to Userpedia. Although it is on a separate site (Adriels), it is an integral part of the Wiki community. Adding it to the sidebar would attract lots of visitors to Userpedia.

Proposer: Deadline: 12 November 2009, 17:00

Link to Userpedia in "Community"

 * 1) - Per above.
 * 2) - I totally agree. Userpedia is an integral part of the Wiki, amd despite 2 moves and 1 server failure, it's still going strong.
 * 3) Saying Userpedia is not affiliated with the Mariowiki is one of the most profoundly ignorant statements I have ever heard. I don't see how you can say that with a straight face.
 * 4) Almost all users here are on Userpedia also, so why not have a link.
 * 5) Userpedia is definaterly affiliated with the wiki so I think a link would be very useful

Don't Link to Userpedia in "Community"

 * 1) - Userpedia is not and should not be officially affiliated with the MarioWiki.
 * 2) Although I would love to see more active UP contributors, I have to concur with Uniju. It is not an official affiliate of the MarioWiki, but the IRC and Forums are. Unless Porplemontage officially affiliates with Userpedia, my vote will stay the same.
 * 3) I don't think Userpedia should be affiliated with MarioWiki unless it's approved or something like that. (P.S. Keep titles non-biased)
 * 4) As much I like this proposal, I have to say no. This site isn't and wouldn't be officially affiliated with Userpedia any time soon.
 * 5) - Make UP work for it like all the other affiliates did! No special treatment just because they mention us.
 * 6) userpedia is seperate to us! Lu-igi board 13:13, 6 November 2009 (EST)
 * 7) – Per Uni.
 * 8) – They are not and should not be affiliated.
 * Per all.
 * 1) PEOPLE! Don't you understand, that it has no affiliation with Mariowiki at all. It's like saying: "How about we link KirbyWiki and the GunsWiki. They're both wikis so why not." Unfortunatey, it would be more convenient to link Userpedia to MarioWiki, but per all.
 * 2) Panchito: Per all.
 * 3) FD09: Per everyone.
 * 4) - This is definitely not a very good idea. Userpedia is not an official MarioWiki affiliate; it is closely related to it, but unless Steve says it can be an official affiliate, no. And even then, Userpedia would just need a button in the affiliates template on the Main Page.
 * 5) Userpedia wasn't and isn't a Mario Wiki affiliate and Steve didn't say anything about affiliating with Userpedia,so to summarize it all up, per all.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) - Hey! A user told me that we are a Mario-Based wiki, and that all non-mario wikia places should not be on Super Mario Wiki. Userpedia, even if many users here are a part of it, should not be linked with Mario Wiki. Also, many problems would probably corrupt, so I rather not be there to see that...

Comments
Before opposing voting, I would like to state that when we had all the Userspace thing we were taking them to UP, we even announced it in the Main Page and we have a link to it in.

I know I'm supposed to be retired and relaxing in the forums right now, but I'm a little annoyed by some of the oppose votes. Now I'm not on any side for this proposals, but I want to point out that most of these votes sound like they don't even know what Userpedia is. I just wanted to "bring this to light" so to speak:

Userpedia is a sub-wiki of ours. It was created by one of our users and though Steve didn't make it, it serves as the one of the 3 major Mario Wiki user "community areas" (the two others being chat and the forums). It's basicly a big TV station as it is a place where users show thier sprite comics and fanfic. It also hosts all the sprites users make along with pages on the users themselves. It is basicly the wiki with out the Mario articles and has a bunch of stuff made by users. It's the exact "line-up" of users we have here as everyone on UP was at one time an active Mario Wiki user (save for one or two UP-only users).

That's why I'm little peeved at the fact some people are saying things along the lines of "OMG! UP has nothing to do with us, why is this dumb proposal on here?!". I don't really care how this proposal turns out, I just wanted to try to clear up what Userpedia really is. (any argueing with me should be done on the forums since I mostly don't go on the wiki anymore)

Split Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games DS and Wii version.
This is my first proposal so I hope I did this right...

OK so I think that the Wii and DS versions for the Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games and Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Winter Games should be separated into two different articles. It seems cluttered with both versions put together and it would be easier to find the correct information if they were split. The articles can be named something like "Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games (DS)" or "Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games (Wii)" and the same for the winter olympics M&S. Proposer: Deadline: 16 November 2009, 17:00

Separate the DS and Wii versions

 * 1) Per above.
 * 2) - Your all looking at it wrong. They are techincally two different games, and they have many differences. Events, character stats, stoy modes, etc., I could go on for a while. I would be a lot simpler just to split them (at least the Winter one, with the greatest differences).
 * 3) Per Bloops.

Don't separate DS and Wii versions

 * 1) I don't think that this is a problem, personally, the cluttering up. They're both the same game, just on different systems, and if we separate these, we'll have to separate the other games like this. Personally, I really don't think this is neccesary. Sorry, FF65.
 * 2) I am Zero! I don't see any promblem with keeping them as one article, just have a section which talks about the Wii version and another which talks about the DS version about there differences even though there is only a few(I think that already happened). Zero signing out.
 * 3) - Per Funky.
 * 4) - Per all. I see no problem.
 * 5) – Per all.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) – I don't think there are enough differences between the two.
 * 9) - Per FunkyK38.
 * 10) Per FunkyK38.
 * 11) - Per my comments below and FK

Comments
Is there any difference to the versions? If so - what?
 * I want to draw some attention to the question that was just asked! -
 * Yes, there both almost different games! DS has a story mode and different events while wii has festival mode. The only thing I believe stayed exactly the same was the character cast. Of course the characters stats differ in both games too.
 * In that case why not a "Story" section?
 * What do you mean?

I think he means make a category in the page for the story mode and/or festival mode.
 * Yes - what Funky said ( ==Story== )

Create a Definition of Stub Articles
This Proposal is actually a mere bureaucratic issue, but in order to keep up the democratic structure, we will go through this procedure first.

This proposal concerns Stubs, those annoying articles that make our wiki look unproffessional. Regarding the fact that we have about 1'000 of these articles, it sort of becomes necessary to have a definition for them. At the moment, articles are at the users' mercy to get tagged as stubs or not. An article might get flagged by one user, while another one disagrees. Of course, both sides have their own equally right definitions, and the situation would turn into an edit war if the tag would be removed again. Using Stub tags seems to be based upon decisions made by subjectivity and vastly differs from case to case.

This Proposal's purpose is to take these decisions out of subjectivity's hands and to hand them over to a Guideline that will help us to identify Stubs, without having those horrendous differences between cases. I think this is necessary. How are you supposed to fight something if you cannot even identify it?

As for the contents of this definition, I think the guidelines from Knife's PipeProject would give us a general idea what it could be like. With this, every article that doesn't provide the viewer with answers to the most basic questions becomes stub material; basic questions like:
 * 1) What is the origin of the subject?
 * 2) Where is it located? How is it accessed? How can it be unlocked?
 * 3) What does it do? What is its purpose?
 * 4) Which characters can it be used by? What things are a part of it?
 * 5) What templates or categories can be applied within possibility? If possible, what images can be added?

Of course the resulting definition will not be a mere rip-off of this questions. Something like this needs to be planned thoroughly. This Proposal's point is just to check what users think about a Stub definition in general, !

And now, to end this load of text: Since I based this Proposal largely on a definition from, I bestow the same rights as the proposer holds upon him, meaning that he can edit or remove this Proposal like he pleases.

Proposer: (with  holding the same rights) Proposed Deadline: 26. November 2009, 17:00 Date Withdrawn: November 19, 2009, 19:54 GMT

A Definition of Stubs will be helpful

 * 1) - Having a four-didgit amount of them makes it kind of necessary. I think we will profit from this.

We don't need a Definition

 * Firstly, I really don't think we need an objective definition of what a stub is. Seems like a lot of trouble we could avoid by just going on the way we always did it. I can't think of any "edit wars" that arose due to the "stub" notion. Secondly, I don't think we can find a proper definition. Stubs can appear in vastly different forms (mostly depending on the article's subject's prominence), and I can't imagine a way to subsume all the different possibilities under a common definition. Thirdly, I think this is a strange proposal. What if we decide to establish a definition, but then fail to find a good one?
 * 1) Per Time Q.

Comments
I don't get it. What exactly are we voting for? Panchito
 * A more simplified version of the Proposal is: "Do you want a clear definition for what a stub is, or do you want that everyone decides on his/her own about that (which would result in very different opinions)." I hoped I didn't make it too complicated. -
 * No offense, but your simplified version is pretty biased. Just as well I could put a simplified version like: "Do you want the trouble that would result from thinking of a definition of what a stub is, or do you want to keep everything the way it's always been, which worked fine."

Update Character-infobox Templates
I'm proposing we update the character info boxes a bit; in different areas.

They are currently set up so it has:


 * character's name
 * a current image with a small description
 * their full name
 * their first appearance
 * their species, all media
 * their affiliations, any amount
 * their latest appearance
 * who they are portrayed by, ever

Will be changed to:


 * character's name
 * a current image with a small description
 * their full name
 * their first appearance
 * their species, current depiction only unless first appearance is different
 * their affiliations, set amount
 * their latest appearance
 * who they are portrayed by, most recently

I'm proposing we change it so that unless their first appearance was in a media type other than a video game, it not be mentioned what they may have been in that media type. Sure it makes sense to mention what a character's species was in the film, but that's what the film section is for. To mention that difference. On the other hand if for some reason a character has showed up in the film first, it would make sense to mention that in their species category in the template box. Otherwise you're focusing on information that is widely far apart from their actual design. Toad and Daisy are two good examples of characters that should not have this information in their infoboxes. Neither of them are actually reptilian(dinosaur) in any manner of speaking, so why mention it here rather than where it is relevant?

Next, I'm proposing to change it so that affiliations can have no more than three things listed. Some articles seem to mention far too much such as Wario's. Naming one friend, one enemy, and one location is not hard. And it's not like it doesn't explain interactions in the section for this information. That doesn't mean it has to be a friend an enemy then a place, but it means the list can not exceed three things(friend, friend, place/enemy, enemy, friend/etc.)

Change portrayed by section to latest portrayal. There's a reason there are sections explaining who portrayed characters in what game on each page. It's so viewers can read who played who in what. However, stating in the infobox EVERY person that has played the character in EVERYTHING they've ever been in is unnecessary and messy. Stating who their latest voice actor is should be no problem. If somebody wanted to know who played Toad in the film, they could go to either the film or portrayals section and find out. But if somebody just wants to know who most recently voiced Toad, they should be able to look at his infobox, and then know instantly. Oh, that's the actress who currently(most recently) voices Toad. Also, this will go along with their latest appearance because that way they know who voiced them in what game most recently.

Each section change or addition will be broken up into numerous different proposals below.

Proposer: FD09 Deadline: 20 November 2009, 20:00

Change It
Species section will only give the characters actual species; unless first appearance is media outside of current appearance.


 * 1) FD09 Per above.
 * 2) If this will keep Bowser from being classified as human, I'll support. Besides, exceptions made in one single installment shouldn't be in the infobox. If fits better in the respective section.
 * 3) - I agree with Zero, but then I agree with Edo. Bowser a HUMAN!?!? O_o
 * 4) - The information would still be in the page but just closer to the bottom.
 * 5) Toadine - Per all. This wiki desperately needs some new organisation methods..
 * 6) - Per all. The infobox is for general facts-at-a-glance, but if a character was a different species in 1 out of 100 depictions, that's more of a minor detail that may confuse people without the context it needs up in that list.
 * 7) - Per all.
 * 8) Panchito - Per All.
 * 9) - Per all.
 * 10) - Per Edofenrir.

No Change
Species section will give list of species from all appearances; even if they are not current.


 * 1) I am Zero! Even though I like the idea of changing species into there current appearence because I hate of what I heard about the Super Mario Movie's generic version of each character I oppose, the reason why is, even though we should treat the SMW as a community don't forget we are still a free online encyclopedia, so I oppose because we need to show to the guests every bit of information about that article they are looking at, and plus the info-box is like a short summary of only that person or thing on the article, so why should the guest have to look in a enormouse page or a regular size one to find out in one appearence that character has made in, he was another species? Zero signing out.

Comments
(Since these are actually four proposals, I will make my comment here because it specifically applies to only this section). Gamefreak75: Bowser was a human, or rather a human evolved from a dinosaur in the live-action movie, just like Toad and Princess Daisy. Marioguy1: The point of this proposal is not to ban these informations from the article, it's about moving them. The meaning of a characterbox is to provide the viewer with basic information about a character, so the reader can get a picture of the chara quickly. Listing exceptions within the infobox would be distracting, so the info should rather be moved to the section where this exception applies. No information is lost that way, and more structure is gained. -

Change It
Affiliations section will only list three things. (Not so much a change, as it is simply setting order)


 * 1) FD09 Per above.
 * 2) Sounds good to me. Per FD09.
 * 3) Toadine - Per FD09.

No Change
Self explanatory.


 * 1) I am Zero! The reason why goes the same as the one about the character's species above, although we need to organize some character's affiliations somehow. Zero signing out.
 * 2) - If they are affiliated with more than three things then why limit them to three?
 * 3) - Per Zero and Marioguy.
 * 4) - I would actually support this if it was slightly different. Instead of limiting them to a specific number, they should be limited down to the most basic affiliations (which in some rare cases can be more than three).
 * 5) - Per Edofenrir. Using common sense and discretion is the best way to deal with subjective cases like these.
 * 6) - Per Edo.
 * 7) - Per Edo.

Change It
Portrayed By section will be change to Latest Portrayal and will list only the most recent portrayal of the character.


 * 1) FD09 Per above.
 * 2) As long as the other earlier portrayals are mentioned in the article itself, that sounds organized.
 * 3) YES! Mario's had like, what, 10 voice actors? That's a huge clutter for that tiny infobox. Keep portrayals in their designated section.
 * 4) - Per SMB. Only if the other portrayals are listed somewhere else.
 * 5) - As I said above; the information would be in the article just not in the infobox.
 * 6) Toadine - Per SMB. I like the change as long as we still have earlier portrayals mentioned.
 * 7) - Per SMB.
 * 8) Panchito - Per All.

No Change
Portrayed By section will not change and will list every single actor that has portrayed the character, ever.


 * 1) I am Zero! The maximum portrayals I seen is about ten, even though it will make the info-box a little long, I see no promblem of just putting the portrayer's name, what game or appearence did they made that portrayal (in parenthases of course), and then put   at the end of each portrayer's appearence to make a nice clean list of all the portrayists if you can do that. Zero signing out.
 * 2) - Per Zero: ten names isn't so bad a list, and simply getting them over with in the infobox is the simplest and most concise way to include the actors in the article (as opposed to writing a clunky list in the introduction, making an entire "portrayals" section later on, burying them in the History or stuffing them into the unwanted Trivia catch-all). Also, naming only one actor seems like we're side-lining the rest of them, many of whom were the voices of our iconic characters for years... it just feels wrong.

Comments
One vote per user - srry
 * lol I know that, clearly. While I have this set up as One Proposal it is basically divided into different proposals. They just all happen to concern the same thing. Is it really that confusing? FD09
 * I once made the same thing but it got deleted
 * Nah, I don't find it confusing at all. It is actually kind of clever to divide this proposal into more than one, or else people might have conflicting opinions about the different points which would prevent them from voting. Don't know what the other admins will say though. -

Ah, I see, that doesn't sound good. Should I actually make a diff. proposal for each one though?FD09
 * Hm, yeah it makes sense...I'll vote tomorrow though, I'm pretty beat. I PWND my classmates in Brawl today. XD Different proposals won't be good because then this place would be cluttered and it's organized all right already. :/
 * OK - I guess the all-in-one version works. Anyhow, how will this be archived?

I am Zero! Even though I oppose most of the sections, I just like to say this proposal is welled polished, confusing at first but it's polished really good. Zero signing out.
 * OK, back to my question - will it be called a pass if even one of the sections passes or will it be a fail if one fails? Or will you put pass/fail for every single one of the sub-proposals? Maybe a big long thing like CHANGE SPECIES | DO NOT CHANGE HAIR COLOR...
 * It'd probably be archived as pass/fail for each section, as if they were separate proposals. Leaving them together like the way it is now should be fine, though, seeing as they really are dealing with the same thing. Maybe the paragraphs pertaining to the specific changes could be moved down to the appropriate section (i.e. the reasoning behind changing the species listing would go under the "Species" header, before the voting sections). That would help with reading the proposal (the huge amount of text at the beginning is daunting), voting (one could easily forget the details by the time they make their way down to the later voting sections), and archiving (then what changes have passed or failed will be right besides the pass/fail announcement for that section). Other than that, I think it's a pretty good set-up. -

Format looks great, IMO. FD09: May I have an example of what it would look like on one specific article? It's much easier to visualize when I can see exactly how it'll be.

Add Shortcuts for Mario Kart Wii tracks
My first proposal. Add shortcuts to Mario Kart Wii tracks. This will help struggling racers get the fast staff ghosts, or beat an annoying sibling's best time. Add more spots if necessary.

Proposer: Deadline: 20 November 2009, 20:00

Add Shortcuts

 * 1) as per above, and for the people who can't find them on their own.
 * 2) If nothing else, it's more encyclopedic.
 * 3) Lu-igi board shortcuts are part of the track, so deserve a mention.

Don't add Shortcuts

 * 1) Per Coincollector and FunkyK38's comments below.
 * Ok, since the proposer didn't explain his/her intentions further, I have to conclude what it means. And judging from how the proposal is written, I think he/she wants to add mere tricks to get to the goal quickly, instead of built-in shortcuts. And as stated below, I oppose this.
 * 1) I am Zero! Like Funky said, were not a strategy wiki, and I think there are alrady shortcuts on some courses on MKWii, but only if there notable enough. Even though there is such thing as a spoiler section we don't want to spoil the player too much they end up as an ass on online play and are now roten and had to be thrown away (metaphor right there). Zero signing out.
 * 2) Much easier to look up on YouTube. ;D And per Funky's and Coin's comments below.
 * 3) The 'W' in 'SMW' stands for "Wiki," not "Walkthrough."
 * 4) Per Dodoman.
 * 5) Per all. Shortcuts should be found elsewhere, not here.
 * 6) Per my comment below.
 * Hm, yeah. This is just an info site, not a strategy guide.

Comments
What do you mean with shortcuts specificly? Are you talking about shortcuts implemented in the tracks (like secret tunnels) or just driving tricks that help you getting to the finish faster? I'd support the first and oppose the latter one. -
 * Per Edo. Also, your reasoning makes it sound like you're trying to turn those articles into game guides. :/ --
 * Aren't shortcuts already in some of the racecourse articles?

The tone of this proposal makes me to think like a joke (or a walkthrough issue, like explaining bug shortcuts or glitches, eg: the worst shortcut glitch of Grumble Volcano) and that's not a valid question to propose.
 * There's already mentioned shortcuts in articles. I think he's trying to say that he wants EVERY article with a shortcut-explanation guide.
 * We don't really have to put those on there, this isn't a strategy Wiki, we're the Mario wiki.
 * This proposal is not described well enough for me to vote. Describe it better or I will not vote.
 * Same here

Put Waffle Kingdom and all the related places into "List of Implied Locations"
Some of you may know Waffle Kingdom. I propose this article and all the locations related to it to be merged with List of Implied Locations.

The reason is quite simple: The Waffle Kingdom is never actually visited in any game, and is therefore an implied location (duh). If that isn't enough reason, then there are plenty of other ones. It is f.e. impossible to add images to these articles and there's not much info available for them. Too few to fill a whole article. So, for the sake of fighting stubs and such, let us merge this articles.

Another thing: Since I can change this proposal within the first three days, I will use this to add another thing. Like SMB said, Princess Eclaire should also be merged with the List of Implied Characters if this proposal passes. Not sure about the Chestnut King, because this could also be a mistranslation of the Goomba King.

Proposer: Deadline: 21. November 2009, 20:00

Merge them

 * 1) - Per consistency and myself.
 * 2) Per Edofenrir, and we also would have to merge the Princess Eclair page and the Chestnut King into List of Implied Characters.
 * 3) I am Zero! Merge them, no picture and little info, belongs to implied locations. Zero signing out.
 * 4) - Per Edo. If this proposal somehow fails then I am adding an image tag!
 * 5) - PEr Edo.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per Edo.
 * 8) Per Edo.
 * 9) - Per Edo; I've always meant to make a proposal just like this for the exact same reason.
 * 10) Per all of the above.
 * 11) - Per Edofenrir, Super Mario Bros, Zero777, and Marioguy1.
 * 12) Per the 11 people above me.

Comments
Regarding the "Chestnut King", this is a mistranslation for Goomba King/Goomboss for sure, his Japanese name is always the same, while his English name changes from Goomba King to Chestnut King to Goomboss. There could still be a reference for that in the List of Implied Characters, but information about "Chestnut King" should go to the Goomboss article. --

Peach/Daisy in Film
Currently, ForeverDaisy09 has been reverting all edits I make relating to the portrayal of Princess Daisy/Peach in the Super Mario Bros. movie. It seems obvious to me and many other fans of the movie that the character is Princess peach with merely a composite name of Daisy. Her personality and appearance all support this: blonde hair, more feminine personality, and the daughter of the Mushroom King as well as Princess of the Mushroom Kingdom (Dinohattan). The only traits that could identify her with Princess Daisy are the name, which suggests nothing (note that the Mushroom King is named "King Bowser") and her relationship to Luigi, which also suggests nothing because this relationship occurred far before the two were even featured together.

I am currently not aware of any specific identification of which video game character Princess Daisy is meant to be a counterpart of, if either, so I feel that the necessary pages should not link specifically to either but make a note that she is a composite of both. Anything other than that is speculation.

I would also like to remove the entry on the infant Daisy appearing in the beginning of the film on the Baby Daisy page, because Baby Daisy is a character, not simply an age-differentiation. The infant in the film is not a character, just an age-differentiation. Another point is that the character of Baby Daisy wasn't introduced until much after the film came out, so the film can't be said to be a representation.

Proposer: Redstar Proposed Deadline: 29 November 2009, 17:00 Date Withdrawn: November 24, 2009, 15:58 GMT

Support

 * 1) Redstar

Oppose

 * 1) - As I said in the Comments, I think how the movie character Iggy was dealt with would be a better way to approach this issue.
 * 2) – Per Walkazo.
 * 3) - Per Walkazo (though I'd like to sepparate the King Koopa info from the Bowser article as well, but I suppose you can't have everything).
 * 4) - PEr Walkazo.

Comments
So wouldn't we also have to remove the information of the cartoon versions of the baby characters for mario luigi peach toad and bowser? FD09


 * No, I don't believe so. But those depictions aren't the same character as the later introduced video game characters, so they should be moved to the main corresponding character pages. Infant Mario should be moved to the main Mario page, for example, because that wasn't a character... It was Mario at a younger age. Redstar 01:53, 22 November 2009 (EST)
 * Well I just meant remove them from the baby pages. FD09

Also I don't see why this proposal addresses me personally when I'm the one who suggested redstar make it and even lindsayoris reverted his edits. I don't remember seeing other users agree with him about the mentioned reverts. I was planning on supporting this proposal, but the user seems to be attacking me or something? lol weird FD09

This sounds like an objection than a proposal... what is the change? bring the info of Daisy in the film to Peach's article and create a new article for the "baby Daisy" of the movie?
 * No, I want to identify both video game Peach and Daisy with the film Daisy because she is meant to be a composite character of both. And I don't want a new article for the baby Daisy of the movie, but no information on it at all because it's not relevant. People don't make articles on "toddler" Anakin for the Star Wars wiki.
 * Regardless of this chaos I definitely agree with that. FD09

Concerning the Daisy/Peach Mushroom King/Bowser comparison: There actually is a difference between both cases. Bowser has a direct counterpart in the movie: President Koopa. This is why the Mushroom King cannot be matched with Bowser at all. Daisy doesn't really have another counterpart in the film, and there is also the fact that the film-Daisy affiliates with Luigi (much like the Game-Daisy) which of course occurs far before their actual depiction as a couple, but that fact would make it highly odd to put this character on the Peach article. -
 * I believe he meant not put it on either page? Just mention the specifics of it on the film pages? Right??FD09
 * Couldn't you bring this up on FD09's talk page instead of putting it in the community space? It is a very minor issue.
 * He told me to make a proposal, like, four times. It's more his proposal than anything since he was so vehement about me doing it rather than actually discussing it.
 * Yeah too bad when I tried to discuss it with him it just turned into a pointless argument. I shouldn't be considered the ruling hand of anything Daisy, the wiki should, that's why we're here. lol logic FD09
 * It turned into an argument because you refused to accept my points or offer any of your own. I don't want to argue it here, so unless you're going to offer reasons for or against, please don't bring up our talk page discussions.

Anyone can check and see exactly what went on if they like. Redstar 02:04, 22 November 2009 (EST)
 * You are the one that first mentioned our discussions. And when I gave you my reasoning you denied it yourself. K? FD09
 * Marioguy I think you're referring to the reverts? If not I have to disagree, this seems to be a problem that needs proposal attention. FD09
 * You gave bad reasoning. You said Daisy is dirty-blonde in the film, not simply "blonde", which is splitting hairs and doesn't remove from the fact that the video game Daisy is a redhead-brunette. You also suggested that her relationship with Luigi made her the video game Daisy's counterpart when this film was written years before that made it's way into the video games. I asked you to offer any legitimate points, and you didn't. You couldn't make any suggestion besides her name. Redstar 02:10, 22 November 2009 (EST)
 * And her name is all I really need at this point. Look, you don't seem to get that I plan on supporting your proposal, that basically at the end of the finish line I am agreeing with your basic point. So stop arguing with me about it and just do what you're here to do, convince others to vote for you. :) JEEZE haha FD09

Another possibility is to make a totally separate article for the Princess Daisy in the film, like we've done with Iggy (Super Mario Bros.) vs. the Koopaling Iggy Koopa: while the name of the movie character is probably based on the game character, their relation to Koopa is different, as are a bunch of other minor things (which, like Daisy, add up). Another character we could consider for this kind of game-vs.-movie character debate is Toad: if Daisy, Iggy and Big Bertha (in her case it's comic-vs.-movie) get their own pages, we should consider giving the movie Toad a separate page too. This isn't the case with all the movie characters, though: King Koopa and the Mario Bros. are faithful enough to the games that separate pages would not be necessary. -
 * That sounds really smart walkazo. I think we should make a proposal that suggest creating pages for all(most) characters from the film like you mentioned. Good thinking. FD09
 * Thanks! If Redstar wouldn't mind deleting this proposal so that we can make a new one right away, that'd be great. Otherwise, we'll have to wait until next week. -

Walkazo, Edo, Yoshario: Why don't we just remove the proposal so we don't have to wait a month to create the right one? ......FD09
 * We need Redstar's permission to delete the proposal. We wouldn't have to wait a month, however, since the new proposal won't be revoking this one (this is deciding whether or not to associate movie Daisy with both game Princesses in the articles she is mentioned in, whereas the new proposal will be about separating significantly different movie characters from their game counterparts' pages - same core issue, different everything else). -
 * Go for it. Redstar 10:51, 24 November 2009 (EST)

Staff pages
I've noticed how we have a bunch of separate articles on the staff of video games. I believe this is fine, but why do we need stand alone articles on the staff pages? Why not just move them to subpages of the games' articles, kinda like the Beta elements sub-pages? The only page they are linked from is the game anyways (the template doesn't count).

Proposer: Deadline: 24 November 2009, 17:00

Support

 * 1) – Per proposal suggestion
 * There's no need for a stand-alone page. Making it a sub-page of the game article makes more sense. Per Knife.
 * 1) - This should actually go without saying, but of course we can't skip the proper channels...
 * 2) Per Knife.
 * 3) Per Knife's proposal.
 * 4) - Per all.
 * 5) - Sounds good :D
 * 6) - Per Knife.
 * 7) - If galleries and betas have that, why not staff?
 * 8) – Per Knife
 * 9) - Per Knife.
 * 10) - Makes sense to me.
 * 11) - Per all.
 * 12) - Good idea. It would be more organized to keep them all like that.
 * 13) - Honestly, I'm indifferent to the staff pages, but that sounds like it would make the Wiki a little more organized.

Comments
Vini64: You seem to misunderstand the proposal. It's not about putting the staff information into the game articles themselves. Rather, they would go on a sub-page of the game articles (e.g. ), just like it's already done with the beta elements: Super Mario World/Beta elements.
 * Ohh, now I understood. Sorry about the misunderstanding.
 * No problem!

Vini64: It's not about merging those pages with the article, it's about making the standalone pages to subpages for organisatory meanings. That doesn't consume any room on the original article at all. I was too slow, so, what Time Q just said. -

Split "List of Glitches" into Sub-Articles
This article is almost like what the Beta Elements Article used to be. I think what is best for us is to separate it into sub articles just like what happened to Beta Elements. I consider Glitches to be just as informative as Beta Elements and should have their own sub article on the game. Besides, the list is huge, just like the Beta Elements, and I didn't even know about the glitches before typing "glitch" in the search box.

This is my first proposal, so if I did something wrong, feel free to correct me.

Proposer: Deadline: 28. November 2009, 20:00

Split Them

 * 1) per me
 * 2) - Didn't I suggest that at the old Proposal already? Hm... Unfortunately it doesn't seem to have made it into said Proposal... Well then, from scratch. I support this idea because... well, duh, consistency.
 * 3) - I was about to make this myself, but then I realized that you had already done it. Plus, if we split the second longest page on the wiki, why can't we split the longest?
 * 4) - The Beta elements and list of glitches are practically the same - they can both be made into sub-articles. Just promise me that this one will be capitalized (not Beta elements).
 * 5) - Per BabyLuigiOnFire and Edofenrir.
 * 6) Per Baby Luigi
 * 7) I was going to make a proposal exactly like this one xD
 * 8) Agree with BLOF
 * 9) We did this with Beta Elements, and it can out to be a big sucess! This and beta elements have many things in common, and spliting glitches with definitely work out (in my opinion). 100% on this side!!!
 * 10) Per the proposal.
 * 11) I am Zero! Glitches appear more often then beta elements, so yes the list of glitches should be split into sub-articles. Zero signing out.
 * 12) Per All,they are they are the same imporatant as Beta Elements and Staffs.
 * 13) Per All.
 * 14) Per all.

Keep as it is

 * 1) Lu-igi board I enjoy reading through it finding random glitches from random games. it would ruin the experience to have to browse many pages for interesting glitches
 * 2)  Per Lu-igi board
 * 3) - I agree with Lu-igi board.
 * 4) Making them into sub-articles will just add more stubs and per Lu-igi board.

Comments
Lu-igi board, I also enjoy reading through the beta elements page without clicking on those many links (and I also HATE the gallery), but sometimes, loading speed is important so I think this proposal is necessary.


 * Shouldn't you support then?

BLF, remember rule 11 "The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it."
 * Yeah, I won't forget. Wait. Does it mean that I might need to split them right now?
 * If you do, I'll help you. I jst need to know when you start so I'm not missing out/starting too early :p.
 * Since the deadline is today, the proposal will pass tonight at 8:00 PM EST. You cannot do anything earlier than that.