MarioWiki:Proposals

A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed using the code.

This page observes the No-Signature Policy.

How To
 * 1) If users have an idea about improving the wiki or managing its community, but feel that they need community approval before acting upon that idea, they may make a proposal about it. They must have a strong argument supporting their idea and be willing to discuss it in detail with the other users, who will then vote about whether or not they think the idea should be used.
 * 2) The voting period begins 24 hours after the proposal is posted (rounding up or down to the next or previous full hour, respectively, is allowed). Proposers are allowed to support their proposal immediately, but all other users may only edit the Comments section during that initial 24 hours. Each proposal ends at the end of the day one week after voting start. (All times GMT.)
 * 3) *For example, if a proposal is added on Monday, August 1, 2011, at 22:22 GMT, the voting starts at 22:22, 22:00 or 23:00 on Tuesday, August 2, and the deadline is one week later on Tuesday, August 9, at 23:59 GMT.
 * 4) Every vote should have a reason accompanying it. Agreeing with or seconding a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted.
 * 5) Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the Comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may not remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. Voters can remove or rewrite their own vote at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the Administrators.
 * 6) All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week.
 * 7) If a proposal has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail by a margin of three votes. If a proposal reaches the deadline and the total number of votes for each option differ by two or less votes, the deadline will be extended for another week.
 * 8) Any proposal that has three votes or less at deadline will automatically be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
 * 9) No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
 * 10) Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation. However, proposers can request that their proposal be deleted by an admin at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it.
 * 11) All proposals are archived. The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of an administrator, the proposer can ask for that help.
 * 12) There should not be proposals about creating articles on an underrepresented or completely absent subject, unless there is major disagreement about whether the content should be included. To organize efforts about completing articles on missing subjects, try creating a PipeProject.
 * 13) Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the Administration.
 * 14) If the admins deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to remove it at any time.
 * 15) No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters, and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.

Basic Proposal and Support/Oppose Format This is an example of what your proposal should look like, if you want it to be acknowledged. If you are inexperienced or unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. Then replace the [subject] - variables with information to customize your proposal, so it says what you wish. If you insert the information, be sure to replace the whole variable including the squared brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information", not "[This is the inserted information]". - ===[insert a title for your Proposal here]=== [describe what issue this Proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the Wiki handles that issue]

Proposer: Voting start: [insert a voting start time here, f.e. "January 1, 2010, 14:00". Voting start times are 24 hours after the time at which the proposal was posted, as described in Rule 2 above.] Deadline: [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the voting start, at 23:59 GMT.]

====Support====
 * 1) [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]

====Oppose====

====Comments==== - Users will now be able to vote on your Proposal, until the set deadline is reached. Remember, you are a user as well, so you can vote on your own Proposal just like the others.

To support, or oppose, just insert " # at the bottom of the section of your choice. Just don't forget to add a valid reason for your vote behind that tag if you are voting on another user's Proposal. If you are voting on your own Proposal, you can just say "Per my Proposal".

Talk Page Proposals All proposals dealing with a single article or a specific group of articles are held on the talk page of one of the articles in question. Proposals dealing with massive amounts of splits, merges or deletions across the Wiki should still be held on this page.


 * For a list of all settled Talk Page Proposals, see here.

How To
 * 1) All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom). All pages affected must be mentioned in the brief description, with the talk page housing the discussion linked to directly via "". If the proposal involved a page that is not yet made, use to communicate its title. The Deadline must also be included in the entry. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links. Place  under the heading.
 * 2) All rules for talk page proposals are the same as mainspace proposals (see the "How To" section above), with the exceptions made by Rules 3 and 4 as follows:
 * 3) Voting in talk page proposals will be open for two weeks, not one. There is no 24 hour delay between the posting of a talk page proposal and the commencement of voting, so no "Voting Start" line is needed. (All times GMT.)
 * 4) *For example, if a proposal is added any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, voting starts immediately and ends two weeks later on Monday, August 15, 2011, at 23:59 GMT.
 * 5) Talk page proposals may be closed by the proposer at any time if both the support and the oppose sides each have fewer than five votes.
 * 6) The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.

List of Talk Page Proposals

 * Merge Parabuzzy with Para-Beetle (Discuss) Deadline: April 21, 2011, 23:59 GMT
 * Split Ashley and Red (Discuss) Passed Contested:
 * Leave Ashley and Red merged. (Discuss) Deadline: April 22, 2011, 23:59 GMT
 * Merge Koopa Troopa Beach (court) to Koopa Beach (court) (Discuss) Deadline: April 23, 2011 23:59 GMT
 * Merge Dry Eye (WarioWare: D.I.Y.) with Dry Eye (Discuss) Deadline: April 24, 2011, 23:59 GMT
 * Split all enemies from Gnat Attack (Discuss) Deadline: April 24, 2011, 23:59 GMT
 * Merge Nintendo DSi with Nintendo DS (Discuss) Deadline: April 25, 2011, 23:59 GMT
 * Merge Adventure Tours with Mario %26 Sonic at the Olympic Winter Games (Discuss) Deadline: April 28, 2011, 23:59 GMT
 * Merge Co-Star Mode to Super Mario Galaxy and Super Mario Galaxy 2 (Discuss) Deadline: April 28, 2011, 23:59 GMT
 * Merge Multi-Man Brawl to Super Smash Bros. Melee and Super Smash Bros. Brawl (Discuss) Deadline: April 28, 2011, 23:59 GMT
 * Merge Adventure Mode: The Subspace Emissary with Super Smash Bros. Brawl (Discuss) Deadline: April 28, 2011, 23:59 GMT
 * Merge Lemon Drop with Salvo the Slime (Discuss) Deadline: April 29, 2011, 23:59 GMT
 * Merge Red Spike Buzzy with Spike Top. (Discuss) Deadline: April 29, 2011, 23:59 GMT
 * Merge Double Dash!! to Rocket Start (Discuss) Deadline: April 29, 2011, 23:59 GMT
 * Merge Spike Top with Spiny (Discuss) Deadline: April 30, 2011, 23:59 GMT
 * Merge Spike Blop with Spiny (Discuss) Deadline: April 30, 2011, 23:59 GMT
 * Split then Merge Voice Cast and Music Staff, from Super Smash Bros. Brawl, into the staff sub-article (Discuss) Deadline: May 1, 2011, 23:59 GMT

Remove Banjo and Conker from our coverage policy and delete Banjo (series) and Conker (series)
Before I start, I'll point out that a few others have already made comments on this situation, all of them wanting to get rid of the articles with some good reasons attached, so go look at their reasons. With that said, let me continue.

The articles we have on Banjo's and Conker's series, respectively, are horrible. They are cluttered up with every single enemy, item, location, character, and other stuff from the two series, making it pratically unreadable. But that's not why I'm proposing this. I assume that we have those articles due to Banjo's and Conker's appearance in Diddy Kong Racing. But from what I can understand, both Conker's and Banjo's series were planned before-hand, but due to Banjo-Kazooie's release being delayed, both him and Conker were put in as a sort of early bird cameo. In other words, they are not sub-series of the Mario series and should be treated like other crossover games; whoever appeared in the crossover game gets an article, and nothing more.

Proposer: Voting start: April 20, 2011, 00:40 GMT Deadline: April 27, 2011, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per my proposal and the comments made by Edo, Fawful, and others.
 * 2) Per my comment and Reversinator!!
 * 3) Look at my post in the MarioWiki forum here. My username is Scrub Jay.
 * 4) - Per what I said here. Listen to our reasoning before you oppose casually.
 * 5) - For those that are opposing, I want to tell you guys, it is completely off topic with Mario! They have only appeared in one game, and barely any detail on their pages has to do with that game! They are not a side-series you guys, they are just two random characters that were put in the game because their games were delayed! Most of their article is about their other games, which has absolutely nothing to do with Mario, DK, Yoshi, or Wario! All it is really is a very minor character that has 1% of actually related info and 99% of their mario-less games and then a series to act as a storage home for the extra stuff of random junk that is cluttering the wiki!
 * 6) Per Edofenrir
 * 7) I was just thinking the same thing today. This is MARIO Wiki. In other words per Baby Mario Bloops.
 * 8) Per all
 * 9) per edofenrir
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) We don't have Sonic games on our wiki so why do we have Banjo with Conker? Per proposal.
 * 12) - Per Edofenrir and Reversinator.
 * 13) I remember when I first came across these articles, I said to myself "Why are these here?" Per all.
 * 14) My reaction to those articles: WTH they're huge and unecessary and unprofessional. Per all.
 * 15) Per all. Or move them to The Rare Witch Project Wiki.
 * 16) Per the forum comments by Edo and LGM.
 * 17) Ok.-.-. I guess I'm changing my vote. However, how will we clear all those articles with Banjo and Conker information?
 * 18) Per all.
 * 19) Per all.

Oppose

 * 1) - It seems to me that this proposal is no different from any various stub article being requested for deletion; i.e. - stub articles should usually be expanded to include more information rather than be deleted altogether. Well, if these articles are so "cluttered" and "unreadable," then we should be devoting our time and effort to fixing them, as opposed to taking the easy way out by completely deleting them. Also, even if Banjo and Conker were not technically meant to be included in Diddy Kong Racing, one cannot change the fact that they were indeed in the game nevertheless, and therefore deserve to be mentioned, as do Snake, Ness, Zelda, etc.
 * 2) here's how i see it Donkey kong is the parent series to Mario and Conker and Banjo are spin offs of it which would make them nephews or as some might put it very...very distant cousins to the Mario Series

Comments
Finally! That is a removal proposal! Since I'm not going to vote until Wednesday, I'll just make a comment. This is the MarioWiki not the BanjoWiki so, lose it!

Phoenix: This isn't proposed simply to remove bad articles. It's the relevance to the Mario series that mostly matters (in my perspective anyway). We do not need to cover Banjo and Conker as a series, but we can cover them as a character since they DID appear in Diddy Kong Racing. But that's about it.

Phoenix, I think you're gravely underestimating and over-simplifying the situation. The reason these articles are so unnavigable is because they are a pile of information pasted together. It is impossible to improve them in any way because, due to the bizarre stalemate situation, the rules of this wiki requires them to stay like that. There is no legal way for us to make these articles not horrible, and therefore, your argument becomes invalid. -


 * @Edofenrir - Okay...would you mind if I politely asked you what you mean by "bizarre stalemate situation"...? 21:58, 19 April 2011 (EDT)


 * I'll try. This conflict is actually really old and horribly complicated. Basically, for years, there have been two general sides: One that wants full coverage of those series, and one that wants to get rid of them. There have been countless proposals to settle the conflict between both sides, but we could never reach a definite decision. Both sides are locked in a stalemate, so to say. Because there could be no decision, a compromise was developed. This compromise allowed Banjo-Kazooie/Conker content to be on this wiki, but they all had to be on one giant, cluttered article per series. There is basically nothing we can do with these articles, except maybe shift its individual sections around, but none of that will improve the general situation. The way we have to treat these series is really awful. Please look at those articles.
 * I would much rather prefer having none of those monstrosities, or having a full coverage of both series with separate and readable articles. But if this proposal fails, none of these things will happen, and we will be stuck with those cluster articles, probably forever. Please read what we have to say. -

also whats the legal situation got to do with this
 * I meant legal in relation to the rules on this wiki. -

not to add fuel to the fire but conker is related to mario since they were both characters in the club nintendo comic Freeze Frame. oh that makes sense also i remeber this issue back when i first started in 07


 * Conker may be related to Mario somehow, and if he appeared in a Club Nintendo comic, he will certainly keep an article on this wiki even if this proposal passes. What you need to think about, however, is this: Is Greg the Grim Reaper related to Mario? Are The Tediz? Random enemy number five? Is The cow that gives you a Jiggy in the first world of Banjo Tooie related to the Mario series? Those are the questions you should ask yourself. -


 * You guys, I read the title wrong, as many also probably did as well. It is not deleting their pages also, but just removing all the mess that has no relation to Mario or DK. It is not getting rid of the small tidbit of information on their pages that is actually reasonable! Everyone that is opposing, read this message: It is to remove all the stuff that has nothing to do with Mario or DK, and keep the stuff that does! Even if I am still wrong, well...all or nearly all of their information is already in DKR, so it will suffice to remove their articles.

What I'm saying is to keep the Banjo and Conker articles, but delete the series articles. Banjo and Conker appear in Diddy Kong Racing so they should have thier own articles. It's just like the Super Smash Bros series characters.
 * Yes, that is exactly what this proposal is about. -


 * @Baby Mario Bloops and Tails777 - Well, in that case, perhaps the title of the proposal should be altered slightly, as it is a tad misleading... 15:01, 20 April 2011 (EDT)


 * @Edofinrir - Okay, after carefully reviewing your arguments both here and on the forums, I can see what you’re talking about now. However, the main question that came to mind when reading your argument was (and please don’t think I’m insulting anyone when I say this), why did no one foresee this problem when the compromise was created in the first place? I'm honestly not trying to patronize you, but I just find it interesting that you're supporting this proposal if you think it would be more worthwhile to expand our coverage of the games with multiple articles instead of having only two articles. I mean, why not simply make a proposal to do one of those two things instead (i.e. – "having none of those monstrosities" or "having a full coverage of both series with separate and readable articles"), even if you just partly prefer that the articles be expanded or split into multiple better articles? This proposal is in-between, and as you said, "if this proposal fails, none of these things will happen, and we will be stuck with those cluster articles...forever," so why not make a completely different proposal that does do one of those two things?


 * Also, you mentioned that these two articles are "a giant slap in the face" to fans of the games, which I can understand, given that I fall into that category with one of the games myself, but won't said fans be ten times more exasperated to have no coverage on the games at all than to have some coverage, even if it is flawed (because in the case of the latter, it can always be made better, with the former, it's gone for good)? Personally, I had previously wondered about the excessive length of the articles somewhat, but I guess I had rationalized it by viewing the pages as synonymous with the format of the page for any Mario series game on this wiki; really long (but because it needs to be to encompass all the necessary information, not because it was forced to be so) and displaying every facet of the game on the page, including general information on the game, the plot, the gameplay, the characters (to a certain extent), power-ups, extra lives, etc. Overall, I just feel that these articles do not necessarily pose any immediate problems for those who would not even think to search for either of these games on this wiki in the first place. It's not as if we've gotten piles of hate mail from guests because we refuse to delete these articles. 15:56. 20 April 2011 (EDT)
 * @Phoenix: I think the entire point is to get rid of the junk of the articles. Yes, fans will be upset that we are doing it, but give me one real reason why we should keep this junk and expand it? Deleting it is the best option, and I'll give you a comparison to help you out. Sonic as someone mentioned before has appeared along with Mario in a few things. Now, take that and view the the fact that we have no coverage of his series. Banjo and Conker have only appeared in one game with anyone with Mario, and even if it was their first appearance, they have NEVER made another appearance in the DK series, and vise versa with DK and Banjo/Conker. If we keep this proposal, it would be sort of unfair for the Zelda Series, Sonic Series, Metal Gear Series, just because they appeared in a spin-off. Deleting Banjo/Conker, who I disagree with the people that it is a sub-series with DK even though they haven't appeared in any of their games, is better than expanding and adding series for all the people that have appeared in a Mario game that isn't from Mario.
 * Just as a sidenote, this proposal will not delete Banjo, Conker, and Tiptup. This is only to delete them from our coverage and delete the cluttred series articles.
 * @Phoenix: First of all I have to admit that "Why did nobody foresee these complications" is certainly a justified question. A question I cannot answer at that. I was not here back then when this decision was made, so I hardly could have taken any action. If I had been here already when this was still in the debate, I would have utilized every possible means to stop this "solution" from being made.
 * Also, you seem to confuse something there. As I said on the forums, amending our policies to allow full coverage of this material on separate articles is only my second choice. My primary concern is to remove the material from our coverage.
 * Over the years I have been a part of this encyclopedia, I believe I have grown somewhat accustomed to our policies. One virtue we hold high here is creator intent. A significant deal of decisions here are made by carefully analyzing what the creators of a piece of work had in mind, and acting in accordance to that. And I furthermore believe that this problem can also be solved by acting in accordance with creator intent. Let's take the Banjo-Kazooie series for example. Rare created the base concept of the series back then during the SNES era as an independent project: Project Dream. Project Dream has a rich history. At no point of this history was Project Dream ever developed as a spin-off of anything. It was Rare's own project. The project went through a lot of changes, but its independence always remained above. Now look at the finished product. Nothing in this game suggests that it is to be directly tied to the Mario series. Sure, there are a few references here and there, but they are all the kind of reference you find in every other game this wiki doesn't cover. Now look at the other series we cover. Series like Wario Land, or the Yoshi series. All of these series are much closer to the Mario series, and they show it. Characters from these series appear in spin-offs like Mario Kart or Mario Party together, repeatedly, all the time. Banjo and Conker on the other hand... they do neither of those things. The series keep to themselves. Whenever they engage in crossovers, it is exclusively among themselves and other Rare projects, like Jet Force Geminy, or It's Mr. Pants. For me, the only reasonable conclusion to draw from this is that Rare never intended their series to be part of the Mario franchise. They make it very clear that these series belong to themselves and themselves alone. I want to pay respect to Rare's intention. Therefore I believe it is wrong to chalk these up as mere spin-offs of the overall Mario franchise. I believe it is wrong to keep these series on our coverage against all reasoning. And because I believe this, I am supporting this proposal, thoroughly and entirely.
 * "Won't said fans be ten times more exasperated to have no coverage on the games at all than to have some coverage, even if it is flawed?" This question addresses the feelings of the fans. I can say: I am a fan, and I support the proposal. Those games are a part of my childhood, and I hold them very dear. And I can give you my word: The treatment these series receive on this wiki are genuinely appalling to me. It is not just about the content of the articles themselves, but also the policies regulating them. This situation cannot be improved by merely giving the article contents a cosmetic makeover. So, to finally answer your question: I, as a fan of Rare's work, consider the circumstances surrounding this situation hideous, and it is my sincere belief that "no coverage" is a better option than the current solution. I have talked to several of my acquaintances, all of whom I know to be Rare fans as well, and they do share my concerns and agree with me. That is all I need to know to realize there is a problem, and that action has to be taken.
 * I apologize, Phoenix, but this is all I can tell you. I would be very happy if you could take a look at all of this and find it in you to reconsider your standing. You are, however, entitled to your own opinion, and if you choose to discard my points as irrelevant, I will respect your decision, as I hope you respect mine. Thank you for taking the time to read this. I appreciate it. -

Dude the difference is that Banjo and Conker are spin offs of DK not cross overs like Sonic or Link thats the difference
 * They're not DK spin-offs; they had cameos in Diddy Kong Racing.

A cameo really a cameo is when a character makes a brief appearence in a game Banjo and Conker were stars/ playable characters in there debut appearence which makes them spin offs
 * No, a cameo is when a character makes an appearance in a game that is from a different series from that in which the character is generally located. Neither Banjo nor Conker are part of the DK series, while Diddy Kong Racing is. A spin-off is a game related to a series but is not a continuation of that series. An example of a spin-off would be Mario vs. Donkey Kong, which is part of but not a continuation of the Mario series.


 * Read the second paragraph of my proposal. Basically, Banjo-Kazooie was delayed, so Banjo and Conker were put in Diddy Kong Racing as a bonus. In other words, they are not sub-series, they are crossover series. Thus, they deserve the same treatment as other cross-over series; articles of the characters who appeared in DKR, and nothing more.

So there the first ever cross over game to feature characters from franchises that didnt exist yet cause developent and release are 2 different things

a cameo as defined is a brief appearance of a known person in a work of the performing arts, such as plays, films, video games[1] and television. These roles are generally small, many of them non-speaking ones, and are commonly either appearances in a work in which they hold some special significance (such as actors from an original movie appearing in its remake), or renowned people making uncredited appearances. Oh and the Conker Series was no delayed considering that in order for it to be delayed it would have had to be in development for at least 3 years for a game boy game that was as simple as that no.


 * Their appearance in DKR can be considered brief, as they have not been in any other non-Banjo/Conker games on any Nintendo console since. Anyway, for a game to be delayed simply means that it is not released on the original date announced. It doesn't have to be in development for a certain period of time. If memory serves, Brawl was delayed two or three times, and development time was relatively short (Sakurai at first did not want to make it), but this is off-topic.

no it can not be considered brief if you star in your first game also no conker game was in development untill after Diddy Kong Racing and your thinking of a cross over
 * Goomba's Shoe15: The fact is that it doens't include any DK characters! If it was a sub-series of the DK series, they would need to have characters from DK appearance maybe once in their games! The fact of matter is that they don't, and that is why I made the comparison to Sonic! It doesn't matter if this is their debut, or if they were already planning the games before, to be a sub-series should be if it actually has elements from their parent series!!!!

im going to do something i hate to do but the show Maude is a spin off of all and the family but no characters from all in the family appear. Good times was a spin off from maude but no characters from maude other than Florida ever appeared. the facts of life was a spin off of different strokes no characters from that appear. Buddies was a spin off from Home Improvement no characters from Home improvement appeared on buddies


 * @Reversinator (above) - Okay, but it would really help my brain if you would please use different terminology, because when you say "delete them from our coverage," I perceive that as being exactly the same as "delete every single article on this entire wiki that even relates to either of these games"... 20:21, 20 April 2011 (EDT)


 * @Baby Mario Bloops (above) - I was never really a big fan of expanding the articles or creating more articles with additional expanded information either; in the huge chunk of text above, I was merely asking Edofenrir why he was supporting this particular proposal instead of making different proposal to expand the articles, because he had said that he was partially in favor of doing something like that before... 20:31, 20 April 2011 (EDT)

Remove Voting Start Rule
This rule was meant to encourage discussion. It wants to prevent people from voting so much that the proposal is already decided. However, I do not see how this can majorly impact proposals. I think all it does is create a major annoyance for most users, since most people overlook this rule and we have to remove the vote and say, "VOTING STARTS AT BLAH BLAH". Even I overlook this rule, and I don't bother to pay attention if a voting user broke this rule or what.

All this rule, I think it does, is to make voting more complicated, and it pretty much accomplished that, since so many people break it.

While it leaves out one day for (possible) discussion only, I believe it is impractical. People aren't online every day, so once they log in after 24-hour break, the voting already started and we are back at the same problem: a proposal already "decided".

Besides, no other proposal gets this rule; not the featured articles and not the Talk Page Proposals, so I see no reason we need this.

I propose to remove this rule because it makes everything unnecessarily complicated, it is useless for those who aren't online every day, it is impractical for those who are online every day, and it is not present in all types of proposals.

Proposer: Voting start: April 21, 18:22 GMT Deadline: April 28 23:59 GMT.

Support

 * 1) Let's delete this useless, unnecessary, and somewhat complicated rule that doesn't even apply to all proposals! I hope you guys agree on me on this.

Comments
It's somewhat amusing how I want to support this proposal right now. -

LGM, I had this exact idea to start this proposal too. Now I'm going to support it. The idea of it at first sounds great, but in reality, it does not help anything at all but create a nuisance.

I'm really pulled on both sides of this proposal. I want to oppose because it gives time for some users to accept the fact this is for good and let it sink in to their minds. It will also give time to the proposer to make any error corrections and alterations to the proposal. Also, yes it is true people aren't online every day, but they'll be online eventually, if they don't, then they miss to vote on a proposal..... oh well. But I am questioned on why isn't this applied to FA or TPP; well I guess because the proposal for that was meant only for the proposals and nobody bothered to extend the rule to FA and TPP's. BUT here's my thought on supporting this: the proposal lasts for a week, there will be enough time for anybody to counter anybody's vote and for users to change their minds. It was made to give time to the proposer to check for errors, but the rules say that the proposer has three days to make alterations and error checks on the proposal, so I guess it is unnecessary, I'm going to support.
 * @Zero777 - But if you think it's unnecessary, why would you oppose...? 17:45, 20 April 2011 (EDT)
 * Fix'd

''While it leaves out one day for (possible) discussion only, I believe it is impractical. People aren't online every day, so once they log in after 24-hour break, the voting already started and we are back at the same problem: a proposal already "decided"''. How does allowing voting to take place immediately after the proposal is posted rectify this problem? What difference does it make whether or not there is a 24-hour delay between the proposal's posting and voting start time if there are people who aren't online constantly and are unable to vote immediately anyway? While I'm thinking of it, what difference does it make when someone votes if the proposal is on the page for a week? Surely, no one is busy to the extent that spending five minutes reading a proposal and typing in the appropriate section strains his or her schedule.

Yes, and also I think the rule of Voting Start should be backfired. Nice job, LeftyGreenMario buddy!

Hmmm, as for why we don't do this on TPPs and FA nominations, I happened to see an explanation for that. The TPPs and FA nominations are more out of the way and don't usually get jumped on as soon as they are proposed (although this may vary due to how many people are online when the action is proposed). Also, just because removing the vote is an annoyance doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, unless it gets really out of hand sometime in the future. I prefer the voting delay because, even if no one is there to read the comments, I'd rather comment on a proposal when the voting period hasn't started yet, and have that be more likely to influence the debate. Take, for instance, the DK series boss level split, I wasn't there when the proposal was proposed, and yet I was able to comment on the situation before the voting period started. I don't find it inconvenient either, but that may just be me. 
 * I've been here before this rule got initiated and the voting start rule makes no difference whatsoever in opinions first made about the proposal. It's still better to vote immediately because you can also express your opinion in your vote. And people can then discuss it in the comments and then they can either turn the tide or leave it as it is. Besides, I'm not the only one who dislikes this rule and having a voting start only for this, no matter how major it is, seems inconsistent along with other proposal-like stuff.


 * Mario4Ever: Look, we're better off without it. It doesn't fix the problem, but the rule is useless for people that are not online every day and it punishes those that are online everyday. It started out with good intentions, but nowadays, I find it more of a hassle than a help. One week is enough for discussion, so I don't see why we need to reserve one day for discussion. Besides, the comments people make during the one-day delay is sometimes just, "Good idea! I will support this proposal!" or something like that. Really, we're better off without it. Besides, it complicates the process. By allowing users to vote after a proposal is created means that we do not have to check if they are within voting start. Voting start period is annoying for me, and no matter how much we remind them, users STILL break the rule.
 * I do have to admit that the voting start period is irritating on occasion, but to me, that's not reason enough to dispose of it. I think the one-day discussion is useful for allowing users to wrap their heads around the proposal, so to speak, enabling their votes to be based upon their reasoning and not on what the majority thinks. Users who come to these proposals and see a large number of support votes or oppose votes may be discouraged from voting because their opinions may do nothing to affect the results (though this is not always the case, as I was the sole opposer of 's TPP to merge Ashley and Red), or they may pick whichever side has more votes, giving no thought to the proposal's potential benefit/harm to the wiki. The rule would be easier to follow if it were implemented on TPPs and FAs, but I realize that it is more difficult to get that approved than to get this removed.
 * BabyLuigiOnFire: It's still better to vote immediately because you can also express your opinion in your vote. And people can then discuss it in the comments and then they can either turn the tide or leave it as it is.  Does having a delay cause users to develop retrograde amnesia or something? Why can't users do this once the voting start period begins?
 * The delay is unnecessary, though. I don't see why we need this. It already proved to be more of a hassle than a help.

Besides, when I am ready to vote, 20 people already voted after voting start. This rule doesn't help me or the wiki greatly in my opinion.
 * I understand that, but removing the rule doesn't really do anything to fix that. Most people aren't ready to vote immediately after a proposal is posted, and regardless of whether the rule is in place or not, people are going to swarm the support and oppose sections once allowed, though I feel as if removing the rule would only decrease the amount of time in which this happens.
 * Again, I'm not intending to fix this problem. The voting start, I believe, creates more problems than remedies them. I'm not in the wiki every day, and when I log in, I see a proposal that is already voted. This rule assumes that every user is logged in every day, but for a big deal of us, this is not the case. The rule wants to encourage discussion (I saw the proposal for this), but it doesn't really help the problem. I have not seen a major change after this rule was initiated, and ever since, I am getting more and more irritated by the problems it creates instead of fixes. I am now cracking from frustration this rule gives me (and possibly other users), and this is how I proposed this.

"Does having a delay cause users to develop retrograde amnesia or something? Why can't users do this once the voting start period begins?" No, but I am not in the wiki everyday. There might be days where I revolve around the wiki the entire day, and some days where I am not there at all. There is no way of knowing when someone is going to propose something new. And I'm the impatient type and I like to vote to get things over with.
 * I'm not here on a daily basis, either, but (and not to be rude) I usually just check the recent changes (depending on how long I've been gone, I'll check the last 50 or the last 500) to see if there is a new proposal. The only time the voting start thing is an issue for me is when a proposal is posted in which I have a great deal of interest, though this is rare. I understand where you're coming from, though.

I made the mistake of voting too early twice now, once on a proposal I made and once now on this proposal. I think its really annoying so I'm supporting this proposal.

Apply new procedures for naming Starting Planets
I apologize in advance to those of you who disapprove of this proposal, but it's my humble opinion that the Starting Planets in all the galaxy articles need actual names besides, well, "Starting Planet." From my standpoint, giving them all the name of "Starting Planet" is needlessly pigeonholing 91 different planets for the galaxy articles, when they could all be named something much better. In fact, I have already been to several galaxy articles where I found that this trend wasn't being followed anyway, as some are completely lacking planets that are referred to as the "Starting Planet," and others simply refer to the first planet encountered as "________ Planet (Starting Planet)." In addition, on the Melty Molten Galaxy article, we've got the main planet marked as the Starting Planet, and then five lines down where the other areas embedded in the main planet are discussed, it is now referred to as the "Lava Planet!" Therefore (as somewhat of a remedy to such inconsistencies and confusion), I propose that we keep the planets labeled as Starting Planets, but do so in such a way that we also give them names as well; i.e., label them all as "_______ Planet (Starting Planet)" on every article. I mean, really, there's no reason why we can't do both, right? Thus, nothing important will actually be taken out of the article, and the only thing that should happen will be that the names of all the starting planets in each galaxy become clearer and easier to understand. If this proposal does pass, I will personally take it upon myself to go around to each of the Starting Planets and implement the necessary changes.

Proposer: Voting start: April 7, 2011, 06:00 GMT. Deadline: April 14, 2011 April 21, 2011, 23:59 GMT.

Support

 * 1) Per myself.
 * 2) Per Phoenix.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) Per all
 * 5) Per Phoenix.
 * 6) I like this Per all.
 * 7) - Per Phoenix!
 * 8) Per Fenix Phoenix.
 * 9) Per Phoenix. I am willing to help modify the articles.
 * 10) Per all.

Oppose

 * 1) - Per me in the comments section. This proposal will help a grand total of two galaxy articles; while it will hinder all the rest of them. I think that the bad outweighs the good in this situation.
 * 2) I don't see the need for this change
 * 3) After watching the back and forth in the comments section, I decided on which side was right. Per Marioguy. Whenever I read a galaxy article, as soon as I see the name "Starting Planet" I know exactly which planet it is, and where in the galaxy it appeared. Starting Planet is a perfectly good name, except in the Dreadnought and Space Junk Galaxies. Imagine, if this proposal passes, the starting planet for the Tall Trunk Galaxy could be named "Giant Tree Planet {Starting Planet}," and this name does a much worse job than just "Starting Planet." To summarize, the name change is unnecessary, and would only help two articles, whereas we have a perfectly good name for the starting planet on 95% of the galaxy articles.
 * 4) Per Bop. His speech deserves this.
 * 5) Per Marioguy1.
 * 6) I have to say, even though I do not lurk in the Galaxy level articles too much, if this proposal only helps a meager 2 articles while giving us more work overall, then the proposal should apply to the two articles, not all of them.
 * 7) Even though I see this proposal has good intentions, I just don't see it working out. Per all.
 * 8) Per all the ranting of MG1 in the comments. ;)
 * 9) - Per all. However, truth be told, I'd rather just see all the planet sections removed, and their info folded into the missions. I think the articles would look better without 'em: no conjectural headers at all, less repetition, less clutter in the TOC, etc. Besides, we don't bother making sections for every little bit of the SMS Isle Delfino levels or SM65 painting worlds: unnamed chunks of space rock vs. unnamed geographical features - what's the difference?
 * 10) - Per all, it is just too much of an hassle to do it for like two articles.
 * 11) - Per all.
 * 12) - Per Marioguy1.
 * 13) - Per all.

Comments
This will create conjectural titles for the planets, no?


 * Well yes, but we've already got conjectural names for all the other planets in every galaxy (which collectively greatly outnumber the total of Starting Planets for each galaxy), why should this be any different? That's what we've got for. Also, calling them "Starting Planet" is still technically giving them a conjectural name anyway. So, since all the planet names are already conjectural, we can do whatever we want with them, u know? It's not like the names of the planets in question have all been confirmed as "Starting Planet" and we're changing them just to change them...  18:59, 6 April 2011 (EDT)


 * Does it matter? Almost every planet mentioned in the articles on the various galaxies has a conjectural name.


 * The comment wasn't directed toward you or to the proposal. It's a reply to LGM's question, essentially stating that whether or not renaming the Starting Planets makes their names conjectural doesn't matter, since almost every other planet has a conjectural name. I've got no problems with this proposal.


 * No no no, you misunderstood me: I wasn't talking to you, I was replying to his comment as well, I actually started typing it in before ur comment was there, but that's just how it appeared when I saved the page... :) 19:24, 6 April 2011 (EDT)
 * Conjectural titles are...well, just that! Conjectural. Conjecture means that the title is not officially confirmed and is what we are using to help people identify the object/place/character/whatever. Which means that, naturally, we need to be as accurate as possible. What seems like a "cool name" or what is "consistent" doesn't really apply in this scenario as we are trying to be as descriptive as possible in as few words as possible. Naturally this applies to the term "Starting Planet" - it contains two words and if anyone could please show me one instance where it could possibly apply to more than one planet (AKA not be specific), then I would love to see it (aside from comets; which bend reality to make it more convenient for the challenge at hand). But since there is only one planet that you start on, I'd say that the term "starting planet" pretty much narrows it down perfectly...

@Phoenix I see. Sorry about the confusion.


 * @Marioguy1 - Well, actually, that happens in the second mission of the Honeyhop Galaxy ("The Chimp's Score Challenge"), in which the player begins the mission on the "Queen Bee Planet" as opposed to the so-called "Starting Planet." Although this level does involve The Chimp challenging the player, it is not a Prankster Comet mission. This is also true in the Space Junk Galaxy: the player starts the first mission on the "Starting Planet," and starts the next two missions on a yellow Starshroom. None of these missions involve Prankster Comets either. Lastly, there's the Dreadnought Galaxy, where the player actually starts on three different planets, one for each of the galaxy's three main missions. Only one planet in the article is marked as the starting planet, and it's none of these three...


 * Anyway, I'm not making this proposal just so that every planet will have a cool name just for the sake of having a cool name; I just think that we've become too wrapped up in our own policies and classifications. I mean, what about galaxies like the Flipswitch Galaxy, the Drip Drop Galaxy, the Bigmouth Galaxy, and the Stone Cyclone Galaxy, all of which only consist of one accessible planet? The accessible planets in these galaxies are all called the "Starting Planet," which is all well and good, until one considers the fact that it's the only planet in the entire galaxy, so though one starts there in the mission(s), there are no other planets to go to after it, so where does it lead? For all intents and purposes, one may now call it the "Ending Planet" instead.


 * Then there are galaxies like the Throwback Galaxy, that use "Starting Planet" to describe the first planet, when a perfectly acceptable name has already been given to it previously (Whomp's Fortress). In this case, we've actually got a conjectural name where a confirmed name could easily be implemented instead. If this proposal did pass, we could now get rid of at least one conjectural name in favor of one that we know for a fact is correct.


 * Then we've got galaxies like the Beat Block Galaxy and the Rolling Coaster Galaxy. The former deals with more of a starting path than a starting planet, and the latter is just one big long track leading to a very small separate planet at the end. Are we really going to classify something that comprises 99% of the entire galaxy as the "Starting Planet" just because the whole thing is connected? Normally, when Mario leaves the "Starting Planet" of a galaxy, he is at least relatively close to the beginning of a mission. When the player leaves the "Starting Planet" in this galaxy, they are essentially already at the end of the mission! Anyone else see a problem here?


 * This is why the amount of space in a galaxy that is implied by the term "Starting Planet" is far too narrow, and can be extremely misleading; the first planet or area encountered in a galaxy could be anything from the smallest possible planet you could think of to something that takes up almost the entire galaxy. It would therefore be inappropriate to describe the first planet or area encountered in every galaxy as the "Starting Planet" or "Starting Area." Normal planet names do not imply anything about the amount of space taken up in the area in which they are positioned, they simply state what is there. The passing of this proposal will prevent problems such as long paths or other areas with long expanses in certain galaxies being incorrectly labeled as the "Starting Planet." 02:34, 7 April 2011 (EDT)

Replying to his comment? Are you talking about me?

...uh...yes...you're not a boy, are you? 20:09, 7 April 2011 (EDT)


 * First off, I see what you mean in the cases of the Dreadnought and Space Junk Galaxies (however in the Honeyhop one, the Chimp's mission would fall under what I was implying by "prankster comet") and I think possible exceptions could be made for those galaxies. However what this proposal will do is (a) legitimize and (b) encourage users to change the names of the beginning planets on all other 40 or so galaxies which do no follow that standard. That will cause confusion as to which planet is which. Having a consistent, accurate, precedent will allow all people surfing the galaxy articles to identify the planets labeled "starting planet" with much less difficulty than if we were to use a randomized system of people selecting the most accurate name they can think of; an action that this proposal will inevitably cause.


 * Second, in the case of the Galaxies with only one planet, we could choose one of either two things. The common, aforementioned, precedent of "starting planet" would be most convenient due to the aforementioned points of consistency, accuracy, etc.. However if you really wish to press forward with the point that the only planet in the galaxy does not require any form of identification as it is one of a kind (which really only eliminates the point of accuracy, consistency and ease of location still remain), then I would consider supporting a proposal which is worded so that it achieves that purpose. However this proposal is generalizing all galaxies, not just the ones with one planet or multiple starting planets (of which, only the cases where there are multiple starting planets require a different name for planets where Mario begins).


 * Third, the meaning of "starting planet" is irrelevant to the percentage of the galaxy/mission that it comprises. If people wish to have a stereotypical mindset that the starting planet must be near the beginning of the level, then so be it. However that does not make it true; the starting planet could refer to any amount of space in a level - up to the end of the level in fact!


 * In conclusion, there are very few cases in which the term "starting planet" would actually fail to achieve the goals that a conjectural title should wish to achieve (accuracy in identification of the character, location or object). So far you have only presented two galaxies where this proposal would improve the quality of the articles, Space Junk Galaxy/Dreadnought Galaxy, and on the contrary, this proposal will decrease the quality of all other galaxy articles. If you can prove that there is any trouble identifying a "starting planet" in a majority of galaxies then I would support this proposal. As is, I will only support if this proposal is reworded to only refer to those galaxies where there are multiple starting planets OR, possibly, the galaxies where there is only one planet total.


 * tl;dr: You have only shown two examples of where this proposal will help us more accurately define a planet (the Dreadnought and Space Junk galaxies) and if you read the long post above, you will see the reasons why I say that it does the opposite to all other planets. So if you reword the proposal to only affect those two planets, I will support. I am also willing to negotiate the galaxies with only one planet in them.


 * Assuming that's not directed at me...
 * It isn't. Phoenix thought LGM was a boy.


 * @Marioguy1 (again) - Okay, I'll admit that you make a lot of valid points, but you also say that "this proposal will inevitably cause" people to "...use a randomized system of people selecting the most accurate name they can think of..." While this may partly be true, I'm also proposing that we leave (Starting Planet) next to the new names of the planets in addition to the name change. Also, I don't really think that anyone will have to go through too much trouble to "identify the planets labeled 'starting planet' with much less difficulty," as these planets are always the first planet that is seen in the list of planets for a galaxy, so it should be pretty easy to spot. This fact, together with the (Starting Planet) that I'm proposing we leave there, should make these planets relatively obvious.


 * In addition, you also say that the proposal will "encourage users to change the names of the beginning planets on all other 40 or so galaxies which do no follow that standard. That will cause confusion as to which planet is which." It seems to me that no greater confusion will arise as a result of the passing of this proposal than has already been caused by the continual name-changing of almost every planet on the majority of the galaxy articles by users. That is to say, users often take it upon themselves to randomly change the names of many of the other planets in galaxy articles without warning regardless. These sporadic decisions are often based, at least from my perspective, solely on the decision that a new name would better describe the planet than the previous one. Though this is seemingly helpful to the article in the long run, when the names of many planets on galaxy articles are constantly changing, it can be extremely confusing to readers. My point is that users are going to be constantly changing the names of planets or areas in galaxies regardless of whether this proposal passes or not, simply because one may invent a better or more-fitting title as time goes on. I'm sure that the passing (or lack thereof) of this proposal will not in any way encourage users to change the names of planets more frequently than they already have in the past, and are currently. 21:20, 7 April 2011 (EDT)
 * @Phoenix (encore): Adding the (Starting Planet) in brackets just seems like we are putting the other name of the planet there to make the planet's name sound cool - the "Starting Planet" is the only part that is necessary, and when writing conjectural titles, useless fluff that "sounds cool" is not included. And the list order helps, but sometimes editors to the article may become confused while editing when the planet is not clearly labeled.


 * As to your second point, maybe this proposal should be changed to reflect a solution to that problem. As what you are proposing will definitely not fix that problem - it might even do the opposite (in giving users another planet to enact their constant renaming of planets on). Maybe this proposal should be "lock all conjectural titles until an agreement is reached on the talk page" - I would support that. But as is, all your proposal does, which I repeat from above, is help identify the planets in the Space Junk and Dreadnought galaxies.


 * How come the other planets have "fluff" names then? Couldn't they just be called "second planet" and "third planet" and so on? Volatile Dweevil


 * That's exactly my point! If the other planets all have "actual" names, then why not the "Starting Planets" as well? But to maintain their given position as the first planets in a galaxy, we leave (Starting Planet) next to their new name...simple. 15:47, 8 April 2011 (EDT)

I'm wondering, but are there any levels that go in a slightly different sequence of planets? Then, the names for the planets (planet 1, planet 2, etc.) would get messed up.
 * @Volatile Dweevil: Because almost no galaxies actually have that linear format. Most galaxies begin on only one planet, there only being ~2/40 exceptions. However if we make it Planet 1, Planet 2, Planet 3, we will have the naming conflict problem with ~30/40 galaxies; which is a significantly greater percentage (5% < 75%). If it were possible to have Planet 1, Planet 2, Planet 3, etc. in a non-confusing way then I'd be all for it! Unfortunately here the con outweighs the pro (the opposite of the scenario with "starting planet").


 * @Phoenix: So you want us to go through all the galaxies in the entire two games and rename all of them, taking time and arguing choices for names, causing a loop of people changing the names to what they feel would be best (which you have already complained about) just because you want the names to sound cool? Is that really why you are causing such major changes? Because I see no other points to the positive.


 * @Marioguy (redux) - Well, no. If you review my prior arguments, I have never once actually used the word "cool." I am not proposing 91 name changes so that every planet will have a cool name as opposed to "Starting Planet." I'm doing this because I feel that we could maintain some semblance of order while simultaneously giving the planets names that will not completely ostracize them from the rest of the planets in the article. I mean, if all we're going to do here is name planets for where they are in the galaxy and what they do for the particular mission they are encountered in, we may as well count the number of planets in each mission, and then give the name "Middle Planet" to whatever planet happens to be in the middle, or give the name "Ending Planet" to the last planet encountered in the galaxies in which missions always end on the same planet.


 * Regarding the part about "causing a loop of people changing the names to what they feel would be best," what I was trying to say yesterday was that if this was to pass, we would not be creating a whole new set of problems; people are already erratically changing planet names as they see fit and would still be doing so daily even if this proposal had never existed. It would be a very different scenario if I had proposed, for instance, that the conjectural names of all the glitches for several games be immediately changed, which may cause users to flock to those articles and repeatedly change every name to what each one personally desired them to be, thereby creating a whole new cycle of name changes where there had been none before. I highly doubt that changing the name of one planet per each individual galaxy article will draw an overabundance of attention, let alone create a major disturbance across every article. The end justifies the means. 21:58, 8 April 2011 (EDT)
 * @Phoenix: OK, so if the "cool name" thing is false, then I see absolutely no points for enacting this change. And I would not have any problem with "Ending Planet" - however the "Middle Planet" would have to be the middle of the level which could be complicated to find.


 * And regarding the "loop" again, what I am trying to say is that this will cause a commotion while users are trying to find new names for the previously-named "Starting Planets". I think this will just be a useless change, will give no benefit and will just cause confusion in the one part of the galaxy articles that is actually static.


 * @Marioguy - Wait a minute though, why are you using the fact that I don't want every Starting Planet to have a "cool" name as the basis for your reasoning that the proposal is now invalid? I thought one of the biggest problems that you had with this proposal in the first place was that I was only renaming the planets to give them "cool" names. If that's the case (the second paragraph about name-changing commotion aside), why are you still saying that you "see absolutely no points for enacting this change" even after I've said otherwise? 23:01, 8 April 2011 (EDT)

@Phoenix: I'm not using that as my basis, my main point here is that this proposal will do absolutely nothing except remove the shred of consistency that remains in these galaxy articles. I have never had a problem with you renaming planets to give them "cool" names; I sure did say that that's horrible reasoning, but I've never said that's why I'm opposing. I'm opposing because this proposal will kill what consistency there is in the articles. And could you please tell me your points? I don't see a place where this proposal would be useful...


 * Okay, when you say "...tell me your points...", are you asking that I reiterate the ultimate goal of my proposal or that I tell you which areas of the galaxy articles I think this proposal would be useful in improving? 00:29, 9 April 2011 (EDT)
 * As long as you mention more than just the dreadnought and Space Junk galaxies, that may be the only way you can convince me.


 * @Bop1996 - Okay, but even if this proposal did pass, you'd still see the name "Starting Planet" when you went to a galaxy article, just in parentheses (not brackets) next to its new name. In response to "know[ing] exactly which planet it is, and where in the galaxy it appeared," I, personally, usually use the picture of the planet next to the name to identify it more than the conjectural name of the planet anyway, and in addition, the name "Starting Planet" really does not describe any particular unique features of the planets to which they apply, like every other planet name does (this is part of the reason why I made this proposal in the first place, because I felt that the "Starting Planets" are as such not easily identified by comparison), which actually makes it harder for readers to know exactly which planet it is, and giving them another name like the other planets helps to describe where it is and what it does, as such names are 1,000x more specific and descriptive than just "Starting Planet." For this reason, I would actually have no problem with the "Starting Planet" in the Tall Trunk Galaxy being named "Giant Tree Planet ( Starting Planet ) ," which actually suits it pretty well (unless someone could possibly think of a better name at some point in the future), and ultimately does a much better job of clarification than just "Starting Planet."


 * Like I was saying in a previous argument of mine (though I'm not really sure I made it that clear), just giving planets names like "Starting Planet," "Middle Planet," or "Ending Planet" does absolutely nothing but describe where it is encountered in a particular mission or galaxy, and at the end of the day just makes is that much harder for people to identify which planet in a galaxy it actually is. Finally, you say that "just because you have conjectural names for eighty percent of the planets in each galaxy doesn't mean that removing the non-conjectural names is a good idea." Well actually, "Starting Planet" is a conjectural name just like all the other planet names that we currently have; if you check, you'll see that the name of every "Starting Planet" is marked with just like every other planet name. So, by the passing of this proposal, we won't be removing any "non-conjectural names," because every planet name is conjectural. We also won't be adding any more conjectural names, and for that matter, we will not be subtracting any conjectural names either; ergo, the number of conjectural names will stay right where it is.  17:40, 10 April 2011 (EDT)


 * @Phoenix: Let me discriminate for a minute here. The term "Starting Planet" is a conjectural name. However, it, unlike at least one title of a planet out there, describes its respective planet perfectly, without any confusion, except in the aforementioned cases of the Dreadnought and Space Junk Galaxies. Relegating it to parentheses and placing a "more descriptive" name in front of it does not help the article in any way that I can see. As for my example, why change the title to "Giant Tree Planet (Starting Planet)," when the planet's section could mention that there is a giant tree on the planet, and the current title describes the planet without any ambiguity whatsoever. Please do not go to the "Well, if mentioning a planet's appearance in the planet's section, not title is fine for Starting Planets, why not do that for all the planets?" argument, as that is easily refuted: Starting Planet is the best conjectural title there is for the starting planet, but since you proved that adding such a title to the rest of the planets does not work, the adjective conjectural names do the best job describing the rest of the planets.

@Bop1996 The right name of this planet is "Tall Trunk Planet," thus the name of the galaxy.


 * I don't really want to discuss which name we would use, that's just an example of how I see that sort of title to do a worse job describing the starting planet only. Not the other planets, just the starting one...

Not sure if this was answered already, but for galaxies that only consist of one planet, we merely split it up into sections, as shown on the Flip-Swap Galaxy and Beat Block Galaxy.


 * @Gamefreak75 - Right, I understand that...what I was talking about when I said "galaxies with one planet" was like the Bigmouth Galaxy, the Drip Drop Galaxy, the Flipswitch Galaxy...you know? I had previously brought up galaxies featuring planets or areas that are extremely long and expansive as a completely separate issue... 01:34, 13 April 2011 (EDT)


 * @LeftyGreenMario - Sigh...I rue the day I ever made the argument proving that there are galaxies in which "Starting Planet" would be ineffective. Truthfully, this will help a great deal more than just two articles, but I think, at this point, what's been said has been said, and that ship has sailed in the eyes if the opposers...anyway, the proposal wouldn't be "giving us more work overall," because really, when put in perspective, the amount of the articles that I'm proposing be changed is a relatively small percentage of the entire information of the article, and also, like I said in my original argument, I would be going around to all of the affected articles and making the necessary changes personally (unless of course someone wanted to help me, which I would never discourage), so I would be taking full responsibility for enacting my proposal, and no one else would even be forced to take part in making changes, unless of course they want to... 01:51, 13 April 2011 (EDT)


 * @Walkazo - I see where you're coming from, but in regards to your argument, therein lies the problem, so to speak; if we had no planet names, each mission section would be, "To start, Mario begins on the first chunk of space rock. Next, he must make his way to the slightly larger chunk of space rock that looks like a castle..." and no one would know what we're talking about... 16:38, 13 April 2011 (EDT)

Disclaimer: I am not trying to be rude by butting in to this discussion, but I had an idea that might solve this problem. @Phoenix: That argument isn't necessarily true, you gave a worst-case scenario for how we could do it if we had no planet sections. @Walkazo: That sparked my curiosity, so I made an edit to my work page seeing how the levels section of the Tall Trunk Galaxy would look without the planets section. I wasn't as descriptive as possible, but that would seem to be the only way to pull it off. I was actually a little confused when I saw your vote, because I remember everyone voting down a proposal to change the planet names to sequential order, but I never heard of removing the planets section altogether. Maybe a proposal after this one is over would be in order.
 * @Bop1996: If it was put in the comments section, anybody can comment on it.
 * @Phoenix: In relation to your comment on LGM's "work" comment; making the edits is only half the work. There are then the people who are going to have to put up with the arguing on what name is "right", there's the admins who are going to have to patrol every single one of these edits, and if it ever expands into an edit war over names, we're going to have ten times as much work cut out for us. Making the edits is definitely not the hardest part.
 * That's good, just thought it was better to ask permission than forgiveness...


 * @Bop1996 - Well, respectfully, it's not exactly a worst-case scenario. Granted, I may have exaggarated slightly to make my point, but the basis of the argument is solid. Giving the planets names does more than just describe them and tell where they are and what they look like, it gives us a solid foundation from which to base the rest of the information in the entire article. Otherwise, in what way are readers supposed to continuously reference at what point the player is in a galaxy? Extrapolation? Just imagine, for a second, if every time a user wished to add an article to any various category, they had to insert the category name on the bottom of the page, and it wouldn't automatically appear in the list of pages for that category, so they would have to manually go to the category page and add it to the list themselves instead. Just imagine how much extra work this would cause as a result. Well, abolishing the planet names leaves us in much the same predicament with every galaxy article.


 * If we have no planet names, there are no planet sections, and so every time a planet is mentioned in the description of a mission / level, the planet must be described all over again (i.e. - continually saying things like "the base of an enormous tree" or "a large log" time and time again instead of just simply saying the "Starting Planet" or the "Log Planet," which are perfectly acceptable planet names that have already been established and need not be eliminated). Not only does this make the descriptions of the missions extremely repetitive, it also makes them needlessly lengthy, especially for missions which involve returning planets or areas from previous missions. Naturally, this entails the galaxies in which every mission starts on the same planet, and since, (as had been repeated many times in the preceding comments) only two galaxies out of the total 91 do not start on the same planet, the other 89 galaxy articles would suffer.


 * If we give each planet a name and a short section describing it, it saves us from having to re-describe each planet every time we mention them in mission descriptions. In this way (I'm just using the red coloring here to keep the words together and make it less confusing), giving planets names is to articles automatically appearing in the list on a category page as referencing planets (and by extention their descriptions at the top of the page as well) in mission descriptions is to putting the category name at the bottom of any page (because if we have planet names and planet descriptions, all we have to do is say the planet name in mission descriptions and everything in the planet's description is automatically implied (and does not need to be explained again), so in effect we are using the planet names in mission descriptions to reference the planet's description, much like one would use the action of putting a category name at the bottom of a page to reference its specific characteristics as being a part of that particular category), which I think we all could agree is considerably easier than having to type out the same information over and over again to achieve exactly the same ends.


 * But I digress; all that now being said, I feel that we're getting way too off topic here...after all, the proposal is about naming the Starting Planets, not about whether or not the planet names should stay... 22:44, 13 April 2011 (EDT)


 * @Marioguy1 - I wasn't trying to say that making the changes are the hardest part, in fact, I believe quite the opposite. I was merely trying to convey to LGM that this proposal is not as negative as people are saying it is, and like I said before, I really don't think, given that the proposal ever passes, that people will be so prone to "jump all over" the galaxy articles the second that the planets have new names, I mean, how many people are that unhappy with the way planets are named to begin with? Plus, lately I haven't seen planet names being changed around nearly as much as they used to be...believe me when I say that I have the utmost respect for the hard work that admins, sysops, bureaucrats, and patrollers successfully do on a daily basis, but respectfully, we can't write off a proposal simply because it has the potential to cause problems, because it also may not cause any problems at all, and how will we know unless we try...? 23:22, 13 April 2011 (EDT)

I agree that is off topic... I was mostly trying to figure out what she was suggesting we do, and how it possibly could be done without being ambiguous or non-descriptive... As such, unless someone makes a proposal to get rid of the planets section, I'm not really into debating this now, unless there really are a lot of people out there who want the planets section removed...
 * I was just pointing out there is a way to get rid of the entire "starting planet" vs. "unique names for all" debate. Anyway, I don't see the category analogy at all, and just because we don't have sections for each planet doesn't mean we can't "unofficially" call them descriptive names: I just think having sections for each one is a bit too much. I.e. for the Tall Trunk Galaxy example, it could be said that Mario goes to "a planet shaped like a log" in the first mission, but from then on, it could just be called "the log planet" and people would understand what you're talking about. SMS and SM64 don't have any problems with missions written in that sorta style. It's just a thought: I'm not up to debating it right now either. -


 * @Walkazo - Well, regarding the comparison to categories, I was just trying to say that naming and describing planets and then referencing the names and descriptions of the planets later on in the mission descriptions is essentially the equivalent of creating a various category, and then later referencing the name of the category at the bottom of an article which the category applies to. In both situations, a larger body of information is referred to via a much smaller word or phrase (i.e. - a category name or a planet name), thereby reducing the need for repetitive and inconsistent information while simultaneously retaining the same amount of source information efficiently (I probably should have worded it like that in the first place, and it might not have been half as confusing, but hopefully that's a little clearer). 10:30, 14 April 2011 (EDT)

I think that since all planets (apart from the starting planet) in most galaies have conjectural names anyway that the starting planet should have a name as well.
 * @Phoenix: I don't believe that you think the edits are the hardest part, I'm pretty sure that you're one of the few people who can actually see how hard an admin's job is; that's exactly why I had to mention it, for all the people who didn't realize that.


 * But aside from that, on the topic of your comment, I think that this propose will cause people to start up in a rage. The rage was quieting down because nobody was paying any attention to the galaxy articles; this proposal will cause 80+ changes to be made to those articles (never mind to the names of planets), drawing in mountains of attention and starting up the process again.


 * Finally I would like to point out that in normal cases, the potential for good would outweigh the bad. But in this case it seems like a whole lot of work to fix up two articles.

I really don't think the amount of work should matter. Our job is to improve the wiki as much as possible. If this proposal will help the wiki (which I personally think it will), then we should pass it, regardless of how much extra work you happen to think it will cause. If this passes, I plan to help with the articles.
 * @Ultrahammer5365: The thing is, it won't. It will just cause extra work, possibly create a lot of articles, ruin the consistency sequence of articles and possibly come up with names that make me laugh (that's not a good thing). The only good things that will come out of it will be in the Space Junk and Dreadnought galaxy articles; two articles which I am planning to fix up as soon as this proposal is over.


 * @Marioguy1 - Well, actually, I was thinking about fixing those (seeing that I discovered that in the first place), but if you want to, I won't object... 00:58, 17 April 2011 (EDT)
 * @Phoenix: I said that to express a point, I really don't care what happens with them; as long as they're fixed.


 * @Marioguy1 - Gotcha. 01:44, 17 April 2011 (EDT)

Split the Category:Implied pages into sections based on the game in which it is implied.
I think that the implied pages should be split into sections in-page that allow the viewer to quickly jump to the list in a certain game.

Proposer: Voting start: April 15, 2011, 17:00 GMT Deadline: April 22, 2011, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) I made this propsal so I am supporting it.

Oppose

 * 1) Per my comment
 * 2) - Per Zero.
 * 3) Per both!
 * 4) Per the seven-hundred and seventy seven number zeros.
 * 5) There's so many people to per…per 0777's comments.
 * 6) Per the Catholic "Code Geass" fan (Zero).
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Most game sections would just have one implied anyway.
 * 9) I am implying to leave it be.
 * 10) Per all.

Comments
Here's my thought, I don't think it's a good idea for several reasons. 1: Categories were meant to be titled vaguely to have dozens of articles linked up to it. 2: it is made vaguely for easy navigation. 3: And the only specification of that category should be implied location, characters, etc., but we already have an article on those so Category:Implied should be left alone.

Split the level articles from the world articles and delete the world articles
I think it is a good idea to make articles for levels for example an article named World 1-1.

Proposer: Voting Start: April 16, 2011, 20:40 GMT Deadline: April 23, 2011, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Duh, it's my proposal!

Oppose

 * 1) - Per myself! Bowser's Castle is in World 8 in the Super Mario Bros. series, and the Grandmaster Galaxy is in World S in Super Mario Galaxy 2. Keep it!
 * 2) That'd make a lot of disambugation pages, like for 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, and 1-4.
 * 3) Per my comments. If people want information on levels from a specific world in a specific game, they can get all they need from the games' articles. There is no need to make articles on individual levels.
 * 4) Per Nicke8
 * 5) Per Hooktail (aka red dragon).
 * 6) Leave it as is, and I don't think anybody will dedicate that much time.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) - Per all. If we were going to change anything, I'd actually rather go the other way and merge level articles into the worlds, like how the 3D games are done, since that makes navigation way faster and saves on space. In most cases, the levels can be summarized fairly succinctly anyway (remember, we're not a walkthrough, so big detailed descriptions often aren't necessary).
 * 10) Like what you said here, this is useless! :(
 * 11) - Per all.

Comments
The dates were all done wrong: this was proposed on the 15th (at 20:43 GMT), so voting starts on the 16th, and ends at 23:59 GMT on the 23rd. I had to remove the opposing votes because voting hasn't actually started yet. Please read the rules before making proposals: Rule 2 explains exactly how to do the dates. -

What are you trying to say? This proposal is WAY TOO VAGUE.
 * Vague? The thing's not even coherent. I assume we're supposed to make an article titled World 1-1 and mention every game that has one. I can't see why that would be useful.
 * Let me rephrase it the way I see it. "Currently all articles on levels are included in a general world; for example, all levels from World 1 are in the same article. I propose that these articles be split off to instead create "World 1-1 (Super Mario Bros.)", "World 2-1 (Super Mario Bros.)", etc."
 * When put that way, the phrasing makes more sense, though the action proposed isn't any more useful.

Merge the special shots of Mario Power Tennis (Gamecube) into one article
This situation is just like the Super Strikes from Mario Smash Football. All the power shots don't need their own articles, they just creat stubs.

Proposer: Voting Start: April 16, 2011, 22:30 GMT Deadline: April 23, 2011, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per me.
 * 2) First! Per proposal.
 * 3) They are not stubs, but per my reason in the Super Strike Merge proposal.
 * 4) Per all and myself! If the Super Strikes are merged, so does this!
 * 5) Per all.

Oppose

 * 1) Comparing differences between two Power Shots gives a bigger difference than comparing two Super Strikes/Mega Strikes to each other. So for example, Koopa Troopa's Water Bomb is always a drop shot and it slows the opponent down, while Koopa Paratroopa's Energy Ball is always a lob shot and it spins the opponent around. Besides, there are 14 characters in Mario Power Tennis, and each character has both an offensive power shot and a defensive power shot. That would merge 28 shots into one article. The difference between Super Strikes and Mega Strikes are just aesthetic, they're no different to each other besides the way they look. This is why they were merged.
 * 2) Per all
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per the user with the ridiculously long username.

Comments
The dates were all wrong. Voting start is a day after the proposal was made, which means it starts on the 16th, not the 15th; you also forgot to convert the time from EST to GMT (or incorrectly converted from some other time zone). And finally, mainspace proposals only go for one week, so this ends on the 23rd, not the 29th. How to format these dates and times is clearly explained in Rule 2: I encourage everyone to read it before making proposals. -

I hate when I have to say this, but a stub is not a short article. A stub is an article that, regardless of length, lacks information. If a short article does have all its information, it is not a stub. Get it right, people.
 * I seriously have to get a hammer and pound that sentence into people's heads >_>


 * A long time ago, we thought that all stubs were bad. We decided to merge all stubs into bigger articles; thinking that it would be great and we'd have no stubs. You know what resulted? Stuff like this. Seriously, a boss of a game is merged into the game that it appears in! If the Shadow Queen article was a stub, would we merge that into PM:TTYD? I mean, honestly, sometimes stubs can be tolerated, but if you go overboard and constantly think "stubs = death" then you are bound to make mistakes.


 * Well sorry, I just don't understand these things, I didn't know what stub means and I only say it on small articles/short sections of articles so I assumed they were small articles.

I don't find this to be useful. If this proposal passes, what will happen to Fire Breath? It appears in Smash Bros. as well.

Split Each Boss Level From Each Boss
I notice that most of the bosses in the Donkey Kong series are merged with the levels. The article says how to defeat them in the level, but one of the contents is a boss and the other is a level. To me, those are very different! For example, Congazuma's Castle and Ruined Roost. They are redirected to different contents. Even the K. Rool Duel which is a final boss battle! I was going to do a talk page proposal, but then I realized how many bosses were merged with their levels. It also seems bad because levels in the Yoshi series, such as Gilbert the Gooey's Castle are split from their boss, which is Gilbert the Gooey. I will make a split and a keep section for voting.

Proposer: Voting start: April 16, 2011, 4:00 GMT Deadline: April 23, 2011, 23:59 GMT

Split Boss From Level

 * 1) Per proposal
 * 2) We have Galaxy bosses separate so why not split others?
 * 3) Per Yoshidude99.
 * 4) Per Yoshidude99.
 * 5) Per proposal.

Keep Boss and Level Together

 * 1) Per FF65 and myself in the comments. This proposal would not help in any way that I can see. Instead, we'd either be repeating information, or creating an article on, at least for the DKCR bosses, a small stretch of land with a single Buddy Barrel. Not necessary, or helpful.
 * 2) Per myself and Bop1996. This will create dozens of two-liners.
 * 3) Per both and myself. Too many articles to create.
 * 4) - It's like splitting Reznor and . Per all
 * 5) Per Bop1996 and FF65.
 * 6) - Per all.
 * 7) - Per FF65 and Bop1996.
 * 8) Per all
 * 9) Your proposal is vague on what bosses and levels as FF65 said.
 * 10) Per all. This is useless.
 * 11) - Not necessary if the level is merely a boss fight.
 * 12) Per all.
 * 13) Per all.
 * 14) Per all.
 * 15) Per all.

Comments
What is the procedure that is taken with all non-boss levels in that game?
 * We will make the pages separate. For example, Congazuma and Congazuma's Castle will be separate.
 * I know what you are proposing, I asked what the current procedure for all non-boss levels was. So what is it? Or does every level in that game have a boss.

The reason why those Yoshi's Island boss levels are separate from the bosses is because those are actual levels that you have to complete before reaching the boss. In the Donkey Kong games, the boss levels are simply you fighting the boss in a small area. If we were to split Congazuma's Castle from Congazuma, the article would be two sentences long.
 * @Fawfulfury65, yes but Stu is the boss. Ruined Roost is the name of the level.


 * I was about to say that... Stinky slow laptop... The reason Stu has the Ruined Roost info in his article is because the info is only important during the boss fight. It's like making an article for a boss arena from a Yoshi's Island game...

We could make a level page for Tiki Tong Terror and have info about him on his page. That is one of the pages that could do with this proposal

@DKPetey: I would like you to point out which part of the Ruined Roost level has information that isn't only important in the boss fight with Stu.

@DKPetey: Yes, Ruined Roost is the level, but it is simply a stretch of land with a few pillars in it. The important part of the level is that you get to fight Stu in it. If we split the bosses and the levels, they would both end up describing how the boss is fought, since fighting Stu, as I said, is the main part of that level. Like Bop1996 said, this proposal would cause short articles with little and unimportant information, or it will cause repeating information. I'm not sure if you've played the Donkey Kong games, but if you have, you know how empty and bland the boss levels are.

@Yoshidude99: Like the Yoshi levels, the Galaxy bosses are split because you have to travel through the level they are in to reach them. In the Donkey Kong games, the levels are simply a small, unimportant area that you fight the boss in.

Everyone, please read these comments carefully before voting.