MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/6



Abbreviation Pages
NO SUCH PAGES 5-4

I feel this should be added for begginers. I am proposing that abreviations commonly used in this Wiki should have their own page. It took me 2 months to find out what NPC means. If this does not happen, then I propose instead that we change all abreviations not used in games to be changed to what they really mean.

{{scroll box|content = Proposer: {{User:Jaffffey/sig}} Deadline: January 24, 2008, 17:00

Support

 * 1) Orangeyoshi I agree, because I'm new! I want to be able to learn things like that.
 * 2) But only as redirects to their entries on the glossary, 'k?
 * 3) Walkazo - Per Stumpers.
 * 4) Per the one who Stumps.

Oppose

 * 1) This is Super Mario Wiki, not Abbreviation Wiki. There may be people who do not know what "NPC" means, but we cannot explain everything (which we would have to do if we made articles on abbreviations). And where's the problem in searching Wikipedia for NPC? It does not take 2 months, it takes 2 seconds. Er, per Cobold. (I didn't know about that Glossary page, which is indeed a good place for explaining these abbreviations.)
 * 2) - That's exactly what the Glossary is for.
 * 3) - Per Cobold.
 * 4) Per Cobold
 * 5) Per Cobold

Comments
Don't forget to vote on your owm proposal! Anyway, abreviations are annoying but I disagree with your secondary suggestion to cut them out if this translation-page proposal doesn't fly. One major problem people might have will be "canon vs. fanon" slang, but the page could always be divided into those respective sections... I dunno, I have to think about this one. - Walkazo

What's about a List of Abreviations used on the Mariowiki? Ah, didn't see the Glossary. --Blitzwing 17:14, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Orangeyoshi That would work too! I just want someplace to learn the abbreveations. By the way, what does NPC mean?
 * Non Player Character, Characters that appear in a game, but that you can't play as. Those are mainly enemies or generic towns-people in the RPG games. --Blitzwing 18:19, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Can't we do what Stumpers suggested and redirect abrieviations to their glossary entries? 16:16, 18 January 2008 (EST)
 * Would be possible if they had entries in the glossary in the first place, which is currently not the case. - 16:17, 18 January 2008 (EST)
 * Cobold: I can help there. So, what abbreviations are we talking about?  Just list 'em out and then I can take care of 'em all at once.  18:19, 18 January 2008 (EST)
 * Well, NPC for starters. I guess RPG is we wanna be thorough. What other abbreviations do we use a lot (besides things like SMB for Super Mario Bros. 'cuz those can simply be redirected to the actual game pages)? - Walkazo
 * They should be in the glossary as well, but I would redirect 'em to the actual game page, because the glossary will just say, "An achronym for Super Mario Bros., usually the game rather than the movie." 21:31, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Orangeyoshi 16:56, 20 January 2008 (EST) Cobold is right. "NPC" isn't in the glossary. I wouldn't know what it means unless Blitzwing told me.

STUMPERS' LIST OF ABREVIATIONS TO ADD: NPC, RPG, Bros.(everyone: feel free to add more!)

Orangeyoshi 20:53, 23 January 2008 (EST) Wait, I thought Time Q, Walkazo and I figured out that "per" wasn't wiki slang. Should it be in the glossary? It still could be... but I don't think we need it.
 * Ok. I removed it... per Orangeyoshi.  16:18, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Ya just said it again! Or did you do that on purpose? Orangeyoshi 19:56, 24 January 2008 (EST)
 * Yup, I was messing with you ;D 20:07, 24 January 2008 (EST)

}}

Merge of the same stages/courses into one article and split the the different ones
NO MERGE 9-4

I propose to merge the various courses from the spin-off series that have their own articles. This also goes for those who have appeared in main games before, and only have changed layouts, with (almost) identical names. One great example of this is Bowser's Castle from the main-games which has individual pages for the stages named Bowser('s) Castle in Mario Kart and even the Bowser Castle stadium in Mario Superstar Baseball while the Bowser Castle-stage for Itadaki Street DS is STILL in the main-game's article of Bowser's Castle.

I also propose to split the pages that have two or more entirely different stages in the same article, mostly the Super Smash Bros. stages, such as the article with the original's and Melee's Mushroom Kingdom, two ENTIRELY different stages. Well, you may think "But they have the same name and design!" No, they don't. All stages based on Super Mario Bros. would have that design and the Melee versions is called Mushroom: Kingdom, with "Mushroom" being the stage location and "Kingdom" the name.

(BTW, I is not neutral to English and this is the first time I propose so if anything is spelled wrong or wrong in any other way, feel free to edit this.)

{{scroll box|content = Proposer: KingMario

Deadline: January 26, 2008, 20:00

EDIT 20/01: Looks like i forgot the idea to add a category in which users can support one idea only.

Support

 * 1) Blitzwing Per KingMario.
 * 2) King Boo Per King Mario.
 * 3) RedFire Mario Per KingMario
 * 1) RedFire Mario Per KingMario

Oppose

 * 1) I like your second idea, not so much the first.  I wouldn't think you'd want to combine an article about a race track in a city and the city itself, would you?  Bowser's Castle is larger than most cities in the Mario series, so...  I wouldn't think that you'd want to combine these based on the fact that they have the same name.  Oh, and remember that we have articles on individual rooms in Luigi's Mansion?  We've already combined the clearly different racetracks, so at this point it'd be like making the article about the individual Toad a sub-portion of the article about his species.  Remember, we even split the Mr. E article (two minor subjects w/ same name = two articles). Merging is only applicable when you have minor subjects with different names, not major subjects with the same name.
 * 2) huntercrunch Per Stumpers.
 * 3) - Per Stumpers. Bowser's Castle isn't the same castle in most games, anyway. It is a place in Super Mario World, a flying building in Paper Mario and a Bowser-Statue-formed Battleship in Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga.
 * 4) Walkazo - Per Stumpers.
 * 5) Nay to the First, Yea to the second. Per Stupers, in other words.
 * 6) Per Stumpers.
 * 7) Paper Jorge ( Talk&middot;Contributions)&middot; They're totally different courses, so why merge? Also, per Stumpers.
 * 8) Per Stumpers
 * 1) Per Stumpers

Comments
Are you gonna vote, KM?
 * I'm split. No to the first, yes to the second. Where do I put my vote? O_o
 * If we're merging areas in the spin-off games with the main games, than shouldn't the same be done for Super Smash Bros. stages? Your argument about how they're different places is valid, however the same could be said for al the other spin-off places (i.e. MSB's Bowser Castle stadium is certainly not the same as the Castle he actually lives in). Also, the individual stages of most games (except more obscure games like the Japanese-only Itadaki Street DS) already have articles and not all of them have corresponding main-game areas, so it's going to be difficult acting on this Proposal. Then there's the other option of cramming all these odd-ball stages together into lists of stages for each game, which would also have links to the main-game artciles for the stages that were merged in that fashion. It's a very big and daunting undertaking, but I still don't want to vote against it, since if it's done right it could be beneficial... Walkazo

InfectedShroom, you may want to put your vote in oppose so that the proposal doesn't go through? If you don't you might lose both of your arguments. 13:02, 21 January 2008 (EST)
 * I think we should split this proposal into two different ones, people's votes shouldn't be influenced by only offering one rating on two different issues. - 13:05, 21 January 2008 (EST)
 * Stumpers: You have a point. Thank you.

}}

Snifit or Snufit?
DON'T MERGE 9-3

Note: Message is edited from Talk:Snufit

So, um, according to TMK, these guys' Japanese names are exactly the same as a normal Snifit's. On top of that, i and u are right next to each other on most English keyboards. They look nearly identical (especially in the remake, which makes almost all enemies look more like their traditional forms), and, floating aside, act identical as well--and the originals could jump and hover for a short time anyway. And this very wiki says that they were "accidentally" referred to as Snifits in one of the MPs anyway.... Considering all that, can we really say that they're intended to be different enemies? I'd suggest a merge.

{{scroll box|content =Proposer: Dazuro and Knife Deadline: 26 January, 2008, 20:00

Keep as Snufit

 * 1) Walkazo - See comment below.
 * 2) - Per below.
 * 3) Tykyle - Per all
 * 4) Any name change deserves notation as a separate subject.
 * 5) Isn't there the Boo Guy article?
 * 6) Paper Jorge ( Talk&middot;Contributions)&middot; It's a sub species of Snifit, or at least it seems like it. While it might be a mistake that they were referred to as "Snufit", we still have no proof that it WAS a mistake.
 * 7) There completely different.
 * 1) Paper Jorge ( Talk&middot;Contributions)&middot; It's a sub species of Snifit, or at least it seems like it. While it might be a mistake that they were referred to as "Snufit", we still have no proof that it WAS a mistake.
 * 2) There completely different.

Merge to Snifit

 * 1) Dazuro - Per above. Per below.  Per common sense.  Per logic.  And, most importantly, per the designers' own designation!
 * 2) Blitzwing - The fact that they were refered to as Snifit in Mario Party kind ofp oint out to the fact that those things are infact Snifit. I think the proposer could be more polite and reasonable, thought.
 * 3) Per the above guys. HyperToad

Comments
They're different species, but I do see what you're getting at with your arguments on the talk page. I agree that it's strange how Koopa Troopas started out quardrupedial and are now totally different but retain the same name. If it were up to me, the 4-legged ones would be called Shellcreepers and only the anthropormorphic turtles would be Troopas, but it's not up to me, it's up to Nintendo, and they say they're all Koopa Troopas. It's the same case with the Paratroopas: they're just Koopa Troopas with wings, but they've been given different names so we have to say they're different species, and the same goes for Snifits and Snufits. Of course, I'd still want to list Paratroopas as their own species (or at least sub-species) anyway, since they look and act different from Koopa Troopas, which are the main criteria for determining species in biology (aside from genetics, which doesn't really apply here as this is the fictional Marioverse where DNA means squat and anything can happen, including a species getting its wings knocked off and magically turning into another species). Maybe Snifits and Snufits were meant to be the same thing, but they're not. They act and look different, just like the two kinds of Koopa Troopas, and just like Paratroopas and Troopas; but like the latter, they got seperate names. It doesn't matter if it was a typo, Nintendo has spoken and we're obligated to follow it. - Walkazo

I just want to point out that if this proposal pass, we should also perhap split the Super Mario World Goomba from the Goomba article since they act differently and haves a different name in the Japanese localisation, which is kinda the opposite of this "Snifit = Snufit?" deal. --Blitzwing 12:22, 20 January 2008 (EST)

Exactly. Whether NoA screwed up the localization or not, they were designed as the same characters (Snifit example) and different characters (Goomba example), and we should respect that. I mean, come on--Bloopers were known as Bloobers in a few games, but we aren't rushing to make new pages for those! You say it's up to Nintendo, Walkazo--well, Nintendo says they're the same. Just because NoA typoed doesn't change that fact. Dazuro 13:14, 20 January 2008 (EST)
 * Your Blooper example doesn't work: Blooper and Blooper look and act exactly the same way. Snufit and Snifit are obliviously different (If similar) creature, beside, we are an english-speaking wiki, I think it make sense to follow the American localisation. --Blitzwing 13:17, 20 January 2008 (EST)


 * Come on. The Japanese creators of a Japanese game say they're the same species. The American translators change one easily-typoed letter, be it by accident or otherwise, and redesign them even less drastically than others that remain the same species. They then proceed to call them by the "other species"'s name even in American publications. Where's the logic in saying they're different? There is not a single argument for keeping it Snufit that doesn't apply to dozens of other changes you never questioned. The American localization has screwed up in the past.  We don't follow those mistakes.  What makes this one different?  Dazuro 13:19, 20 January 2008 (EST)
 * The difference between this case and Pakkun Flower (which is a half-translated Piranha Plant), is that Snufits actually look different and have different abilities (flying). So as there is already an official name for this sub-species, we should use it. Because these are a sub-species, not regular Snifits. - 13:26, 20 January 2008 (EST)
 * NoJ says otherwise. Dazuro 15:19, 20 January 2008 (EST)
 * I was not referring to the name, but the appearance. Check again. - 08:10, 21 January 2008 (EST)
 * And your point is? NoJ says they're the same species.  NoJ designed them.  NoA may have said they're the same species with a minor typo, or they may have been foolish enough to try to make a new species out of something that's clearly not supposed to be so.  Either way, what's the point?  Every single creature in 64 that I can think of except the goombas changed in some major way from their previous selves.  "It isn't like the old snifits" is NOT a valid argument unless you're completely blind to all forms of common sense and pattern recognition.  There is not a single reason to say it's different--except for a ONE-KEY-OVER LETTER, which was later corrected anyway!  You people are being completely irrational! Dazuro 14:26, 21 January 2008 (EST)


 * Keep a cool head. Anyway, do they fix this typo in SM64DS? If not, then they were meant to be a separate species. If they did, then they are Snifits. Either way, I think their official name in SM64DS should be the deciding factor here. 15:49, 21 January 2008 (EST)


 * It should be noted that, even when they are called Snifits, the "Snufits" are a sub-species nethertheless. They just have features regular Snifits don't, or better the other way round, they are lacking Snifit bodies. They are a subspecies, it is just the question whether they have an official name. The Bloober <-> Blooper example doesn't really fit here because of that. - 16:09, 21 January 2008 (EST)


 * Cobold, you're entirely missing my point. Every enemy in SM64 has features they didn't before, so that is NOT a valid argument. Knife, are they ever even named ingame?  And I'd keep a cool head if these people would stop acting so ridiculously dense. -_- But hey, what do I know?  I'm only following the original creators' obvious-as-(censored)intentions, after all. Sheesh... Dazuro 19:39, 21 January 2008 (EST)

Okay, so having looked at SM64DS's revamped model (it has a TAIL!), it's clearly intended as a subspecies. This, however, does not prove anything. After all, was not Bubba turned into a different species (Big Bertha, IIRC?) for the DS one? Yet we still have the Bubba article for the original game's sake. So, while it seems that 64's Snifits were apparently retconned into Snufits, they were Snifits in the original game. Dazuro 19:49, 21 January 2008 (EST)
 * Well.. if you look at this image [[Image:Snufit.jpg]] they do look pretty different from normal Snifit, they don't even have feets! --Blitzwing 17:58, 22 January 2008 (EST)
 * Right, and any self-respecting biologist knows that an animal without feet is not the same as an animal with feet. I like your Goomba point too, SMW Goombas don't look like any other Goombas, but like bipedial/quadrupedial Koopa Troopas I thought that since they have the same name we're stuck saying they're the same species, however if they have different Japanese names I say we should split the article. Besides, we don't just have to go by names, we can still use common sence where we can. Like with the Koopalings: Ludwig Von Koopa and Kooky Von Koopa have different names, but we know they're about the same person and therefore we only have one article for them/him. And Dazuro, no swearing. - Walkazo

}}

Character Stats and Descriptions
NO QUORUM 2-0

I find it rather odd that semi-minor characters such as Daisy and Waluigi have extremely detailed stats and character descriptions from recent spinoff games such as Mario Party DS and Mario Superstar Baseball while main characters such as Mario and Wario have very vague stats and no descriptions for games such as Mario Party DS. It seems like a minor complaint, but for the Super Mario Wiki, it seems kind of unfair and silly not to include thorough stats for everyone, especially main characters such as those mentioned. For those who can not find out for themselves (such as myself), the Mario Wiki should definitely include the information to live up to its reputation as a thorough database. All who support should be for attempting to locate these stats or finding one who is able to.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: Have A Rotten Day! Deadline: January 28, 2008, 17:00

Support

 * 1) Have A Rotten Day - Per myself
 * 2) Per Have a Rotten Day!

Comments
The main reason for that, is 'cos Daisy and Waluigi's articles are hit by incredibly over-zealous fanboys, who put all their time to that one article. That's awesome for us, cos' we need all the info we can get, but other articles are ignored in this way. I'm only commenting to give the reason why this has happened, sorry. So, anyway, what exactly are we Supporting and Opposing here?

I don't think this is even proposal-worthy, yes it's odd, but like Pokemon Dp said, some off our users here are *ahem*, more dedicated to certain characters. --Blitzwing 18:02, 22 January 2008 (EST)
 * Couldn't Have a Rotten Day just do it himself? Even if this passes the only thing that will change is that he will HAVE to do it himself.  Not just could.  18:12, 22 January 2008 (EST)
 * Good point, Stumpers. He says in his proposal that he does not own all of the Mario sports title and cannot find all of the info by himself, but if the proposal passes he's going to have to do it anyway.  18:54, 22 January 2008 (PT)
 * No, I totally agree with you guys. I'm not horrendously concerned over this, I just think that when it comes to stats that people have obviously gotten hold of, that they should include all of the characters over time. I really have been trying to locate the info myself and trying to locate people I know who may have the information but I haven't really met anyone who has the info. I am more than willing to include the info myself, I just don't own the games or know anyone who does. If I get the info, I'd be happy to personally apply it to the proper pages. I just really feel that when it comes to information like that, that all characters need to be included, regardless of popularity, in order to fufill the Mario Wiki's reputation as a thorough database. Have A Rotten Day!
 * The proposal page is for things that can alter the working of the MarioWiki (New rules, deleting/merging an article), if you think some articles lack informations, there's the Trouble Center --Blitzwing 06:42, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Ugh, are you serious? Just because CERTAIN PEOPLE [ugh-huh, ME!] were willing to do it for characters they liked doesn't mean other characters are by your opinion MORE deserving of the same information. I don't have to add info to certain pages if I don't feel like it. I can indeed do this with ease, it's just that no one seems to care as much about MArio and Luigi's spin-off information as they do for characters like (i.e Waluigi et Daisy). I have no problem with doing this, it's just frustrating the way you put it. Fixitup

Okay.. then do it please. Have A Rotten Day!

I'm in the middle of it. :P Nyeh! Fixitup }}

Split Luma into Hungry Luma
SPLIT 8-5

Currently, we do not have an article on Hungry Lumas. Although Hungry Lumas are simply Lumas that are hungry, I believe they should get a separate article because they appear so consistently in the game and their name is official, with a capitalized Hungry in front of Luma. They also affect the gameplay a lot by forming new planets, new galaxies, or even Mushrooms. Of course, they are still the same species as Lumas (not subspecies), but should that be reason that they have to stay on the same article?

{{scroll box|content = Proposer: {{User:Knife/sig}} Deadline: January 29, 2008, 17:00

Support

 * 1) Per InfectedShroom.
 * 2) Well, we do have that Koopa article.
 * 3) Tykyle - The Hungry Lumas are much more important to the gameplay than normal lumas. Now, would this article include the shop and comet lumas?
 * 4) It has an official name, and affects quite a few Stars in the game.
 * 20:50, 26 January 2008 (EST) Per InfectedShroom
 * 1) I'm gonna have to go with you guys on this, but I would also support providing links to the other luma articles from the main one.
 * 2) Per all above. Due to the fact that Hungry Lumas are useful. Like new galaxies. (Would it include that Luma who knows about Prankster Comets?)
 * 1) Per all above. Due to the fact that Hungry Lumas are useful. Like new galaxies. (Would it include that Luma who knows about Prankster Comets?)

Oppose

 * 1) True, but they're basically regular Lumas and do not have any separate abilities, so it would be best to just create a large section on the Luma page dedicated to Hungry Lumas, to show what they do and where they appear in the game.
 * 2) HyperToad They are just lumas, not any different except they eat. Do we make articles for Koopa without a shell? HyperToad

Comments
Hypertoad:Yes. --Blitzwing 11:43, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Hey, Knife, you gonna support your own proposal?

Bliz:OMG, this wiki has PROMBLEMS! HyperToad
 * The page is perfectly okay, those are enemies from Super Mario World which start out with having no shell. - 12:18, 26 January 2008 (EST)

Tykyle: Yes. 20:52, 26 January 2008 (EST)

Would the Luma Shop need a separate article... Nah...But i just wanted to check... Oh yeah... I say split!!! Get your fist and break the article into 2! :P }}

Spriting Refrences
KEEP REFERENCES 8-1

On the wiki, many people add in articles refrencing about spriting and models. I know what these mean, but not all guests or users who don't care about the community side may not know what exactly sprites are, and the differences with models. So should we allow this kind of talk? Or shall we make this only for people who know about this stuff?

Examples of these articles would be Beta Elements and sorry to say but parts of Super Smash Bros. Brawl.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: Crypt Raider Deadline: 20:00, 1 Febuary 2008 (EDT)

Let's not add spriting refrences

 * 1) My reasons above.

Keep spriting refrences

 * 1)  Tykyle - spriting references are essential to explaining the beta elements some games
 * 2) Anybody who used it should have made sure it was in the glossary, but that page needs work!
 * 3) - I don't see the point. There are sprites shown on the Beta Elements page and they should be labelled as such. If people don't understand that, they can go to the Glossary.
 * 4) Paper Jorge ( Talk&middot;Contributions)&middot;</tt> Per Cobold. The Glossary page is supposed to explain those "terms" that people might not understand.
 * 5) Sprites are very important to show what the character looked like in the actual game. Also per Cobold.
 * 6) Walkazo - Per all.
 * 7) The Legend of Zelda Freak - Also per Cobold
 * 1) The Legend of Zelda Freak - Also per Cobold

Comments
I still haven't quite understood what you are talking about? Could you say where in the Brawl article exactly there is a reference? The Beta Elements would be a different story, it's vital to the article and could perhaps be explained for that. - 18:03, 25 January 2008 (EST)

I don't really understand this proposal... Spriting is a legetimate videogame term, refering to 2D models of characters and items, it's not just a community thing. Same things for Model. What's the point of removing mentions of something perfectly legetimate? }}

Minor Things
KEEP ARTICLES 9-1

Recently I've seen articles such as Pauline's Items, Beach Koopa, Pirate Goomba, Mario mini and MANY others, that are kept because they "affect gameplay" but then others like Snufit Ball deleted. When are we going to actually set a standerd? These must be deleted.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer HyperToad Deadline: February 1, 2008, 20:00

Delete - This wiki doesn't need an article on everything, even if it effects gameplay

 * 1) HyperToad Reasons above

Keep

 * 1) Blitzwing - See my comment below.
 * 2) - This is very article specific, thus NOT what Proposals are about. You can't decide this overall.
 * 3) Per Cobold.
 * 4) We need another justification: "affects gameplay" means that we should include an article about video games that have inspired the Mario games, so... I think it's a weak argument for anything.
 * 5) Per everyone. This reach of this proposal is much too wide.
 * 6) Per Blitzwing.
 * 7) Walkazo - Per All.
 * 8) MarioGalaxy2433g5 - Per All plus my comments below.

Comments
What is "too minor" and what is not is mostly opinion. Maybe Mario mini isn't as important as Mario himself, however, the character play a proeminent part (A minigame in Super Mario 64 is centered around it) and have an official name, showing Nintendo kinda cares about that... thing. However, I agree we should merge Beach koopa (C'mon, it's just a Koopa without it's shell, it doesn't make it a new species).

For this kind of problem, we should work with a case-by-case basis, not everything need to be run throught the proposals, if you think the article is about a too minor subject, say it on the Talkpage and see if other agree/disagree, making an individual proposal to merge Pirate Goomba is OK, however, making a proposal to get rid of everything that doesn't seem too major just doesn't work.

Saying it on talkpages DOESN'T WORK! I've tried with Pauline's Items, but Xluidi came in and acted like he's so smart by saying "It affects gameplay, like CHEESE". Everthing that effects gameplay doesn't get an article! So maybe this proposal can't work, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have a standerd for what gets an article and what doesn't. What about Blue Bird Green Bird, and so forth! And YOU were the one trying to destroy cheese! HyperToad
 * HT, I can relate to your problem (not with Xluidi... I mean the talk page discussions being shot down by one comment), but what you'll want to do is go after each separate page individually on the proposal page. Asking people to vote for a generality makes them worry about other pages.  You split voters into saying "no" if you talk about more than one subject.  Hope that helps you with your future proposals!  17:49, 26 January 2008 (EST)
 * The Marioverse is filled with minor things, and if we cut them all out our Wiki will be full of holes. Some things, like the Isle Delfino Birds should be merged (a proposal just passed to merge the birds but hasn't been enacted), but others like Beach Koopas should stay. Yes, they're just Koopas without shells, but they've been given offical names, have appeared over and over in the Marioverse, and have affected gameplay and plot; if that's not significant than what is? So they're not seperate species, neither are KP Koopas or Pirate Goombas. The point is, we can't be this picky about these little details, nomatter what we say makes one thing or another article-worthy, someone else will say it doesn't. As many others have said, do this case-by-case; and don't blow your cool if you don't like what stays. Who knows, someone out there might want to know about Pauline's Items... - Walkazo


 * BTW: This proposal is under the wrong section. (Way to go HyperToad). MarioGalaxy2433g5 16:02, 27 January 2008 (EST)

See Walazo, there this secret thing called REDIRECTS! Redirect can help give info on Pauline's Items without using pointless articles. HyperToad
 * Redirect to... what? --Blitzwing 11:38, 28 January 2008 (EST)
 * My guess is he'll say Donkey Kong (arcade game) for Pauline's Items. But, see HyperToad, the secret thing here is that some things like Mario mini can't be put into one major game's article: in this case, Mario mini is in Super Mario 64 and SM64DS, with homages to it appearing in Paper Mario, Mario Teaches Typing 2 and New Super Mario Bros., to name a few. Plus, there's nothing more infuriating than a re-direct if you want to read about one thing and get shuttled off to another where the first thing's only a little footnote at the bottom of the page or not in it at all. And also, who the heck is Walazo? If you're gonna patronize someone, at least get their name right. - Walkazo


 * This is way too broad of a proposal. MarioGalaxy2433g5 17:55, 28 January 2008 (EST)

Thank MarioGalaxy, we know that. Also, not everything has to redirect, just some. Also, please go to the main page's talk. HyperToad
 * Yup. HyperToad and I are trying to figure out new criteria other than, "effects game play." Come help!  19:46, 29 January 2008 (EST)


 * How about.... I have no idea. Can we just scrap this proposal and start over. The chances of this thing winning are slim to none. MarioGalaxy2433g5 18:25, 30 January 2008 (EST)


 * Why don't we close this early. Before saying no, read this. MarioGalaxy2433g5 14:28, 1 February 2008 (EST)
 * This proposal doesn't hurt you either, so it there's no reason for it not to stay until the deadline is over. - 14:35, 1 February 2008 (EST)
 * Yeah, by the looks of it the proposals not gonna pass so chill out and let it die in its own good time. - Walkazo

}}

Yoshi and Wario entries
PUT THESE ENTRIES IN PRIMARY LISTS 8-0

Fellow Kids Next Door operatives I mean MarioWiki users, :P; I just found out an issue that lasts just about when the wiki has started to this very day... Do you notice something missing in the lists such as Characters, Places, Items, Species, Allies and Enemies? If not, it would be the Yoshi and Wario entries. Just look, those entries are long forgotten and unlisted, (excluding DK entries). You can barely see some of the entries in those lists, and besides, they are linked through articles instead of lists sadly, :(. Come on, this is the Super Mario Wiki! In the last note, if neither of those two choices are effected, then Wayoshi would make a DPL code to list Yoshi and Wario entries in the Wiki Maintenance in such case.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User:RAP/sig}} My very first proposal! Deadline: February 3, 2008, 15:00

Include the Yoshi and Wario entries in those primary lists

 * 1) I think it would be better if those entries belong in the same list instead of seperately, IMO.
 * 2) GreenKoopa-Don&#39;t jump on mee! How on earth could anyone miss that?!
 * 3) Walkazo - Seeing as these main lists are simply called Places etc. instead of Mario Places than it would make sence that all the places were listed there. If the crossover things are already in these lists, we should just stick everything else in there too and make it a done deal. An obscenely large list will be a tad onerous to navigate, but it will be no worse than the lack of lists we have now (Donkey Kong Places but no Yoshi Places or Wario Places?).
 * 4) It would be easier and yoshi and wario games first were mario games so they are related game wise.And if they are included in the wiki overall then they should be in the overall lists.
 * 5) Red.TideI've always said that the Wario and Yoshi series, particularly the Yoshi series, aren't really distinct series from the Mario series.
 * 6) I wanted that for a while, too, because no one except a select few in my experience know that places means "Mario places, ect., so, thanks for taking the initiative, RAP.
 * 7) Per all
 * 8) per RAP

Comments
Talking about Donkey Kong Characters etc.? Considering that Crossover (a.k.a. Smash Bros.) characters are already included in the "mainstream" lists, it's a bit inconvenient. But it is here. - 05:35, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Maybe it's because I'm reading this at 3am, but I'm not seeing the problem. If they are missing from lists, add them. Don't need a proposal for that. -- Chris 06:07, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Sadly some people don't tend to add the other types of entries into those lists just because they belong to the Yoshi series or even the Wario series. And besides, I think SoS perviously suggested spliting up into other lists, and sofourth with my conversion... Source - Talk: Places }}

Correct Operator System
KEEP SEPARATED POWER GROUPS 10-4

I know everyone is tired of talking about the chat on this wiki, but please, hear me out. Steve currently has "200" powers – founder of #mariowiki, complete control over all settings. When I had my bureaucrat term, I was privileged with "190" – everything the same as 200 except to unregister #mariowiki (i.e. remove ChanServ and all ops). All sysops on the wiki got "100", which allowed them to be auto-oped upon entry in the room to ban & kick when appropriate. The chat was very ho-hum and orderly at that time.

But now? Ever since I stepped down, no one has returned to 190 (Xze should have), and though 100s are valid, "back-up" non-sysops are now receiving 100s also, because, as the Big P declares "the chat is separate from the wiki."

To that I give a polite "no." I'm sorry, Steve, but the chat has been on this wiki for almost a year now. <10% are forum-only users. And now, there are three non-sysops with auto-op powers, one of which I am extremely questionable about, with no consensus from us. As the only person >100 now, Steve, not RAP (who's in chat quite often) or Cobold, is making all the decisions, and as such the chat has been quite a mess for at least a month now, if not more. I understand with more people the chat is harder to control – now 15 people on a weekday is not uncommon. But we had 10 people on spring nights, probably 15 on summer nights too, and everything couldn't have been better. Now, it really couldn't be much worse.

Thus I propose the following:
 * All sysops get 100s, all bureaucrats get 190s. It is not a requirement to chat, but it is strongly encouraged to help keep it in line and child-safe (i.e. no sexual content, etc.) Enough sysops/crats are active in chat for now, so that is not a concern.
 * All non-sysops stay at 0, including patrollers. A patroller and sysop are two completely different things. Patrollers don't have enough privileged rights to earn a 100, though this is debatable.
 * Demotion of op powers also means loss of sysop powers. The chat is CONNECTED TO the wiki.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: Wayoshi Deadline: 17:00, 4 Febuary 2008 (EDT)

Sysops are Ops, No One Else

 * 1) – per my long-winded text above.
 * 2) Per Wayo. Also i do think thiere are ways for people to lose power but being a syop or crat means you are trusted so you should be in trusted in chat, but that doesnt mean being DE-OPed means being DE-Sysops but like i said before, being a sysop means you are trusted.One more thing THis doesnt mean being a sysop means you ahve to go on chat. I do thing that good OP who arent Sysops should stay OPed since they help.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) Per Wayoshi

Keep Separated Power Groups

 * 1) - As I've stated many many many other times, the chat and forum always seem to be falling apart because their ops/mods are only sysops, so the mods/ops need to both be sysops, and active on that sub-site. However, recently the chat has got these "back-up ops", which are the only thing keeping the chat from being a spam pit around, like... Through almost all of the late morning, through sometime in the after noon, the ops tend to be lacking. While more trusted users who become back-up ops tend to still come on during this time. The Back-up ops are really the only thing keeping this together, you just dislike them because you don't get any time to break rules on chat anymore.
 * 2) - Look, I may be biased because I'm a back-up, but I'm on half the time regular ops aren't. During the course of the day that I am on, operators of the chat usually come around 6:00 PM EST. That's pretty late, considering many Users get on around 2:00 PM EST - 3:00 PM EST. Many times, it is just the other back-up operators and I keeping control. If there are trustworthy Users, why not let them be Operators? It makes no sense, considering the chat is pretty seperate to the Wiki. Look, I don't care if I'm demoted. I just feel that Back-up Ops should be around. I also agree with DP's idea of limiting the amount of them.
 * 3) - There are 24 hours of the day. No sysop or 'crat can stay all 24 hours. And I've seen plenty of times when no sysop is around.
 * 4) - I only disagree about the patroller part. See comment.
 * 5) - Per all. There's no way two people can stay on the chat all day.
 * 6) Per all. I'm not voting because I'm now a back-up op, I'm voting because many back-up ops are on on time that spam mostly occurs because there is no other ops that happens because of all those different and confusing times zone. Me for example, Most part of when I'm usually on there isnt other ops there.
 * 7) - I won't participate in the chat, so giving the power to me is rather pointless - community and wiki are fully apart.
 * 8) This isn't a cheap way for you to return to op status? Yeah I wish I could believe that. We needs Ops around 24/7. We need back ups to ensure that the chat is safe 24 hours a day 7 days a week. I oppose this proposal, not only because we need back ups, but because this IS just a cheap way for you to get your power back. What will you do if you get it back? You'll abuse it, that's what.
 * 9) Out of no disrespect Wayoshi, we've gone through this already, back-ops are very useful in a situation where there are no ops.

Comments
Before I get any complaints / flames, this is NOT a cheap way for me to return to an operator rank. Note that by the proposal if I go awry in chat again, I will also lose something I covet very much: maintaining & improving this wiki with my powers here. This could very well fall flat, but I feel it necessary to finally get a consensus; it's high time we put all disputes of chat to rest. 20:25, 28 January 2008 (EST)
 * I must disagree with the back-up Op removal. However, I am not opposed to limiting them. I believe we should ONLY have two trustworthy back-up Ops. After all, Steve has recently given Uniju and Shroobario 100 level Op powers on chat, but Uni recently cursed like crazy, as well as flame others. Not that I'm flaming Uni or anything, I just don't trust Uni as a back-up Op, neither do I trust Shrooby. We just need more trustworthy Users, like Purple Yoshi or ChaosNinji.

Let it be noted that you already made this, Wayoshi. It failed, remember?

I feel that there should be another answerAlphaclaw11read my comment where i voted

What if the active Sysops were to take a vote before the creation of any back-up operator? That seems fair, considering you said that the back-ups were created without consensus.

I disagree about not giving Patroller OP rights. Patrollers are chosen for their trust-worthyness and their activity, much like sysops are. The power given to the Patrollers is already rather dubious. Limiting their powers even further is rather ludicrous. I agree with the rest, thought.

Ghost Jam, although I know your way too stubborn to change you're mind on this, I must point out that several Sysops have been proven to not be reliable chat ops AT ALL(Wayoshi, You, and Paper Jorge), and that there are many normal chat users that would be much more fit for the op job than such people. I'm not saying that all the sysops shouldn't be chat ops, or that I am superior to the sysops in any way because I'm an op on chat. Also, Porplemontage himself promoted me to back-up op status, and when Pokemon DP asked why he responded that he trusts me. If you don't believe me, go ask DP or Porple.

I disagree, with what you said about demoting ops along with sysop powers, because a good buddy of mine (Paper Jorge) doesn't really set a good example of being an OP (he doesn't curse or flame, but he does spam), however Paper Jorge is a great sysop on the wiki. And another great example is you Wayoshi, who could not be trusted on chat but could be trusted on the wiki. So if an OP demotion (hypothetically) happened to Pokemon DP in chat, we would also lose a great sysop. I think of the relation of our chat/forum to the wiki like this: the Wiki influences the chat/forum, but the forum/chat does not influence the wiki. 20:03, 29 January 2008 (EST) }}