MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/11

Siblings Template
I've noticed that the Siblings template, though useful, is in need of a change, notably, the fact that, on looking, one cannot actually tell which characters are, in fact, siblings. For example, Mario has two characters between him and Luigi, or on a much more dramatic scale, Dixie Kong and Tiny Kong are on complete opposite ends of the template. Some characters, like Kat and Ana, have this remedied with the word "and" in some form. My proposal, in order to clean this template up, is to do that with all characters with an unlinked 'and' between them, for example, Mario and Luigi. Naturally, this wouldn't apply to, say, the Jellyfish Sisters, as they don't have an and in their name, or to, say, Kat and Ana, who already have an and which is a part of the page name. They would be arranged alphabetically by first character's name, so it would be, say, Mario and Luigi after Baby Mario and Baby Luigi, but before Punio and Petuni.

Proposer: Deadline: October 18, 2008, 20:00 EDT

Combine

 * 1) Per above.
 * 2) I had actually thought about doing this, but I was too lazy. :P Per Shrikeswind.
 * 3) Whoa, great idea. That'd definitely organize it a little more.
 * 4) - Per all. I don't think a proposal was necessary, however...
 * 5) - I thought about colour-coding this template a few months back, and even came up with the organizing principle; but I never proposed it because it looked bad. This idea blows mine out of the water!
 * 6) ~Per all.
 * 7) - Per All. This is gonna help s stay organized, too :P.
 * 8) - This is actually a very well done proposal, especially for a first.  Anyway, this would increase the usefulness of the template, and as Walkazo showed us, is plausible and aesthetically pleasing.
 * 9) - Per all.
 * 10) - Always those little bitty things... anywho, per all.
 * 11) - Moo. That's Cow for 'per all'.
 * 12) - per all.
 * 13) - Per all, its easier to look that way

Comments
Jeez, I hope I did this right. My first proposal and I feel like an idiot doing it. Any help would be much appreciated. -
 * You did a good job. ;) Kudos.

Er... Could you link to the template, please? :') I'll go find it myself, but it would be nice for people who newly see the proposal.


 * Here ya go.

As I said in my vote, I already did the research and came up with divisions for the siblings a while ago. I saved my work, and just went through and converted it to this idea, and this is the result. If you like it, Shrikeswind, perhaps we can use it as the new Sibling's Template if (or rather, when) this proposal passes? If there's anything amiss, please tell me. -
 * Nice template! :) It's very well organized. I might have an idea for an even more well organized version of it though.
 * I was thinking the template could look like a cross between this, and what you have as a prototype, but the outcome wasn't real good. So, your way is definitely the better way.
 * Thanks! I was thinking of dividing it up a bit like that too; but yeah, there were too many single siblings, one-link pairs, and small families to make it worthwhile... -
 * That's almost exactly what I was thinking, and no less that's a better way to do it, especially considering, for example, the Koopalings. Thank you Walkazo.
 * My pleasure :) I love template work. -
 * Should this be archived?

L Block
I was stopping by to check on blocks recently, and I saw that L Block had almost no info. I have a feeling L Block should be merged with M Block.

Proposer: Deadline: October 23, 2008, 17:00 EDT

Merge

 * 1) - I'm Paperphailurethemariomonster99, and I think M Blocks and L Blocks are the same!!!!

Don't Merge

 * 1) - I have 3 reasons why it shouldn't be merged. 1) It is officially named, 2) It affects gameplay differently, no matter how slight a difference it has from the M Block, 3) It is almost the same length as the M Block. With an expansion, the articles will be fine separate.
 * 2) - I agree with Stooben's third point.  Plenty of articles on this Wiki are short and would, in their current states, be better merged, but there's so much potential for those articles that it would be a waste.  I'm thinking of minor characters from Mario Tennis: Power Tour for example.  Yeah, I know that after I voted for the merging levels into world articles it probably seems weird that I'm opposing this, but that was a presentation thing, whereas this is not.
 * 3) - Per all.
 * 4) - No way there two differnt boxes.
 * 5) - Ay. Per all. L Block can be expanded into a good-sized article. And iggykoopa, I do believe you are voting in the wrong section.
 * 6) *sigh* There are different blocks that are officaly named. They can't be merge those blocks aren't the same.
 * 7) - Yep, Stooben Rooben 'nuff said. Read my comment below.
 * 8) - Per stooben, they are 2 different things

Comments
I don't like blocks.
 * now thats ugly :( (lol jk)

Well, Dom, blocks happen to be a major part of the Mario series. Deleting these articles would get you immediately stripped of your powers if you had them. Blocks are awesome. No questions asked. We're done here. *closes briefcase and walks out the door*

Hey, ROB128 - I've noticed that everyone on the Wiki hates my opinions no matter what I say. I feel even more worthless now. But seriously, BLOCKS. What could be less interesting? I wouldn't truly consider deleting the block articles - but maybe merging them all into a Blocks article - but since everyone hates my ideas - there was no point in saying that. Oh, and Super-Yoshi - are you calling me ugly? Oh yeah, and ROB - I don't exactly have any powers to be stripped of - I'm a useless contributor with no special rank like Sysop or anything. I probably never will be due to life circumstances.

Mame Block and Bagubagutchi
I recently passed by Mametchi's page and found a user had merged Bagubagutchi and Mame Block in to the one article. We need the pages as someone might need the info.

Proposer: Deadline: October 24, 2008, 20:00 EDT

Split

 * 1) Per my proposal
 * 2) -per all
 * 3) Per BeeBop!
 * 4) - Look at my comment below.
 * 5) - The reason we're merging things from Super Smash Bros. is because it isn't a spin-off from the Super Mario series, but features Mario.  However, that doesn't mean that a crossover subject in a Mario game should be merged and such.  If that was the case, we're looking at merging together the moves, etc. from the Final Fantasy characters in Mario Hoops 3-on-3 as well.  Is this really something we want?  To simply say that this one character in Mario Kart GP is a "special case" is bogus.  If this proposal fails, we'll have to merge Mario Hoops topics accordingly, etc.  As I stated below, this proposal is invalid to begin with: BeeBop! is asking for us to vote on whether we should be able to enforce the fact that the previous proposal was inconclusive.  I could take action on this proposal right now.  In fact, I should - it's my duty as a sysop to see that users don't act on failed or null proposals.

Keep it Merged

 * 1) - Fine. I didn't want to do this, but I oppose because there was already a proposal about this last month, and it merged the two.
 * 2) - Per IS. Besides, the more stubs we have on this site, the less professional it looks.
 * 3) Per all. Ugh we have a past proposal to merge then because they're stubish. And stub aren't good for this wiki.
 * 4) - Per All.
 * 5) - Information from series other than Mario aren't this Wiki's focus, so lumping the corresponding Stubs together into presentable articles is perfectly reasonable.

Comments
Umm I think they have a proposal to merge all those items together since they're stubish.
 * Yes. And it passed. Besides, you can find all the info... In the one article. This proposal is not necessary.

I was looking over the archived proposals and there is no one up there about these two items but i know there was a proposal but to your point InfectedShroom it did not pass i know that for a fact because i lead the charge ageinst it i belive win it dissaberd the tally was 11-8.
 * Ever heard of using periods? And it seems that the fact that a proposal passed or not is irrelevant, because the proposal was deleted without being archived. I'm looking for a history now, though...
 * Here. The proposal was removed, but it was not decided. I guess this proposal is valid.
 * If this is the case, doesn't that mean that a lone user acted on a failed proposal?

So that means somebody merged the items together after the propasal falied.
 * Yeah, so if the proposer just cancels this proposal, no action is taken, just like the previous proposal. In short, the proposer could have just undone the user's edits instead of making another proposal and gotten what (s)he wanted.
 * So, perhaps the proposer should just do that? 16:20, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Exactly, if (s)he pulls the proposal right now, (s)he wins the proposal. So, continuing this proposal just gives him/her the chance of losing.
 * But it tied. 3 and 3?
 * Essentially what is going on is this. (1) 1st proposal to merge the subjects was pulled by the proposer, who changed his mind and wanted the subjects to remain separate. (2) A user merged the subjects anyway, breaking policy. (3) Therefore, had someone brought this to our attention, the sysops would be obligated to undo those edits.  Instead, the new proposer created a proposal, asking the Wiki to do what the sysops would have had to do in the first place. (4) Thus, the issue is back out into the open, and could swing either in this proposer's favor or not.

Walkazo: But, this article is about the mario series. The character and the item appeared in Mario Kart GP 2. It makes no sense to merge the item with the character while leaving all the other Mario Kart GP Item intact.
 * They may be in a Mario game, but the blocks are essentially items from Tamagotchi. Personally, I'd be perfectly happy seeing all the Mario Kart GP items merged (it'd beat the slew of the red links and stubs by a long-shot); and for that matter, I'd be fine with the non-Mario content of Mario Hoops 3-on-3 merged as well (though I'll admit my Mario elitism is probably unreasonable by most standards). This is the second proposal in a row where an issue brought up over one game is really a matter of Mario Wiki Policy; this time, the proposal's foundings are already questionable, so perhaps it would be best to just remove it (as Stumpers has been advocating) and prevent any confusion, hastles, and/or double-standards. -
 * Walkazo, I agree that the MKGP items would be better merged. The ones that appear in other MK or Mario games could have links to their greater articles, but as it stands there are, what, 200 of them?  All very minor, kind of like the badges or recipes in Paper Mario.  What I don't want to have happen is to see all other series that cross-over with Mario get lackadaisical coverage.  We set out to cover all aspects of the Mario series and many aspects of the Smash series, so I feel that what we do for cross-over content in Smash should not necessarily be applied to the Mario series.  So, I'd be up for merging ALL MKGP items together because they are minor, but I wouldn't be up for merging some of them because they are minor in relation to the Mario series.  In any case, we shouldn't be dealing with this on a point-by-point basis.  Just like we didn't merge, say, Sonic and Snake's special moves a while back, I don't think we should merge just Tamogotchi (especially when the Pac articles are still unmerged).  22:41, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Sounds good; as long as the horrendous amount of stubs and non-articles goes down, I'm happy. But wouldn't we need another proposal to merge all the MKGP items? Come to think of it, it'd probably be easier if these sort of proposals dealing with individual articles could automatically be replaced with proposals concerning the underlying problems which the case-by-case instances bring to light... -

Oh my god you guys are such hypocrites manily you super yoshi you dont souporte the merge of minor paper mario items but you do support the merge of these items why is that? is because they are not in america and the stubish thing all minor items are stubish
 * ...You do realize that proposals are about what other users think about the idea. I've been here longer than you, don't call me a hypocrite. If you don't like us, then we aren't forcing you to stay. All I said was Per All, because I thought everyone was correct on the merge side.
 * Oh I just realizzed that was my old proposal, lol.

Sightings: Change to References?
The pages are currently listings of outside references to the Super Mario franchise. For example, Movie Sightings includes information about Super Mario Bros. 3 in The Wizard and Game Sightings includes information about the Mario statue in Animal Crossing. Now, the term "sighting" has many meanings, including, from Dictionary.com, "1. The ability to see. 2. The act or fact of seeing: hoping for a sight of land; caught sight of a rare bird." among other, less prominent meanings. As you can see, sightings refers to one person viewing something in reality, not something in fiction. Someone could make a "sighting" of Charles Martinet, but could not make a "sighting" of Mario. For our purposes, the term "references" is much more appropriate. Therefore, I propose that we rename the Sightings pages in this matter. At the same time, I'd like to make the titles more professional (Game --> Video game, Movie --> Film). Note that because of the new naming, we will be merging comics, books, and magazines into one article, because they all are print/literature sightings.

Proposer: Deadline: October 27, 2008, 17:00 EDT

Support

 * 1) - My reasons are detailed above.
 * 2) - Per Stumpers.
 * 3) - Per Stumpers.
 * 4) Per Stumpers.
 * 5) - Per Stumpers.
 * 6) - Per all.
 * 7) - Per All.
 * 8) - Per Stumpers.
 * 9) - Per Stumpers.  Really, this seems like an obvious one.
 * 10) - Per All, and or Stumpy.
 * 11) - Per Stumpers. Srsly.
 * 12) - Per All. I have a dictionary at home and you are right!

Comments
The full title change would be as follows:
 * 1) Advertisement Sightings --> Promotional references
 * 2) Animation Sightings --> Animation references
 * 3) Book Sightings --> Print references
 * 4) Comic Sightings --> Print references
 * 5) Game Sightings --> Video game references
 * 6) Magazine Sightings --> Print references
 * 7) Movie Sightings --> Film references
 * 8) Musical Sightings --> Music references
 * 9) Television Sightings --> Television references
 * 10) Theater Sightings --> Theatrical references
 * 11) Website Sightings --> Internet references

Please debate these. Any debated changes will only be altered to reflect the sightings --> references change (ie Game Sightings would become Game references if people debate changing it to Video game references).
 * Good changes. :) Though, I'd like to suggest merging Comic sightings into Literary references, since they both are a form of literature. "Theater references" could be changed to "Theatrical references"; And "Online references" could be changed to "Internet references" perhaps?
 * I like. I don't know if there is even material that would apply to this, but I had a sudden thought that a subsection to 'Internet References' could be 'Memes'.
 * Noted and changed... GhostJam, make sure you're also cool with the changes I'm going to make (it's still early enough to do that... so now we have a three-way merge (Stooben, you're absolutely right, and magazines are technically literature as well, so I've merged the three into "print references." Sound good?
 * Agreed; print references sounds great.

Also, if this goes through, we will be capitalizing the 'r' in References for these titles, yes? I don't guess it matters, just my personally obsession with symmetry. -- 13:47, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Hmm... maybe, maybe not. Capitalization should really only be used when you have a proper noun... so it's kind of like, whose obsession do we go with?  Yours with symmetry or mine with proper capitalization?  It could really go to either side.  Since we're trying to make it more professional, I think lower case is the way to go.
 * Aye, capitalizing the "r" doesn't make much sense. Just look at Wikipedia. Symmetry is one of my biggest pet peeves (as seen in many templates and pages I edit :P), but the lowercase "r" seems the best way.
 * Since they're the page titles, wouldn't the "R"s be capitalized? With the exception of newspapers, I've found that titles are generally capitalized with only minor words (i.e. "and", "the", etc.) left lower-case. Sub-titles can be left with only the first word capitalized, but not major headers, as far as I know. Plus, it looks better. -

(seems interested in this situation) So... basically we are going to move the hundreds of sightings to actual articles? Is it like moving this entry, that Wario cameo appearance in the game The Legend of Stafy 3. That guy helps Stafy in this area, :P Here's the pic. Another question, how will the references section of the article look like? Obviously we have several images of sightings in the wiki database. What are we supposed to do to manage the images there? With the gallery perhaps? I may be a crat, say sound smart, but I also ask questions like other normal users. :3
 * When merged into "__ Sightings", I'm assuming they will look like the Implied lists – neatly organized.
 * RAP: We're just moving the sightings articles and merging a few of them. I don't plan on touching the character articles in this regard... I hope you're not saying that there's some crazy syntax thing going on with the sightings articles that I don't know about! :O
 * Crazy syntax is awesome. :o
 * Awesome crazy syntax is a crazy syntax.
 * Eh, never mind. I think I got confused all of sudden while reading this Maybe I will read more slowly... I might... Yes, I will support the article move for a more professional name feel. XP Then again, those sigh--I mean references actually need cleanup. I did game references and promotional references. ;3 ...And talked myself into making a crazy syntax table for mainly to restructure those pages. XP

PhailureMonster: thanks for confirming that a print dictionary agrees. Those are usually considered to be more reliable!

PM: Minor Items
I've been looking at the Paper Mario series articles lately and found that due to the massive amount of recovery and side-quest items there are a LOT of tiny stublets related to these items. I think that all these pages should be merged and all the links go to their spot in that page. To merge or not to merge?

Proposer: Deadline: October 29, 2008, 17:00 EDT

Merge

 * 1) To merge, its horrible to have to look on thousands of stubs

No Merge

 * 1) - While it is true that there are many stubs, the more major subjects still deserve articles.  For example, Yakkey is a character, Peach Doll has since appeared in multiple sources, Sneaky Parasol plays a very major role in the story... etc. etc. etc.  This proposal isn't even fleshed out enough to define which Paper Mario special items we'd be merging.
 * 2) - Stumpers, stop stealing my words! You always make excellent points, as you do here.
 * 3) - Per Stumpers.
 * 4) Per Stumpers
 * 5) - Per Stumpers.
 * 6) - Per all.
 * 7) - whether subjects get articles or not is not decided by how much there is to say about them, but how important they are in the games. Any item that actually appeared and wasn't implied, and is fundamentally different from other items, may get its own article. If not, we could merge half of the wiki's pages.
 * 8) - Per cobold. It's like next were going to merge minor enimes into 1 article, then merge charcters charcters that are only in 1 game, minor games,and so on.

Comments
You're going to be a little more specific on which items you want to merge. I believe you're referring to those in categories such as Category:Paper Mario Special Items correct? I think you may need to make your proposal more specific... what would be the name of the new article, would we have one for each game, etc.
 * And if you'd like, I can make an example of what it would look like, if you were to be more specific.

Would you be merging Yakkey?
 * Thanks, Dom. :D


 * This proposal needs to be more specific. While it is annoying to load up about a hundred three lined pages, there are some that are important and need to stay. Some articles should should definite by merged, while some need to stay separate. 20:14, 25 October 2008 (EDT)


 * I was actually talking about all the recipes and recovery items and whatnot, not key items. I think Yakkey counts as a key item. :P
 * Tell you what - why don't you rewrite this proposal and be very specific about which pages you want to merge. Then, you can retry this proposal, since many users were against this proposal because it had too much gray area, perhaps you'll have better luck.  If you want, you can take down this proposal before it passes and start fresh right now.

Rating Companies
The rating companies doesn't really have have a effect on any video games left alone Mario games.The only time we need to keep it in as it's own article if it's a item,place,game,Characters,Enemy,kart,block.The rating companies doesn't fit any of them.The only effect it has is which people play the game and the front of the box =P.So I think we should merge it.

Proposer: Deadline: October 29, 2008, 17:00 EDT

Merge

 * 1) Per myself above
 * 2) -- They're pretty pointless here.
 * 3) -- Per Booster.

Don't Merge

 * 1) - Merges should occur when (1) We are trying to decrease our emphasis on a subject, ie Super Smash Bros. and/or (2) When an article has been expanded completely and it is still short.  Neither of these conditions are true.  This Wiki is just as much about the real history of the Mario series as it is the in-universe content, and as I noted below, two of the articles are definitely not stubs and the others have yet to be expanded completely.
 * 2) - Per Stumpers. Also, the rating companies are what deem Mario and all related games 'kid-friendly', so they do have an actual effect on the Mario series, despite the fact that they make no in-game appearances.
 * 3) Per Stumpers. (BTW would the page look messy?)
 * 4) Per all. expicely Stooben Rooben.
 * 5) - Per Stumpers.
 * 6) - Per Stumpers.

Comments
Why don't people bother using links and proper grammar in their proposals anymore? Anyway, to save everyone else the hassle of tracking down the articles themselves, I'm assuming "Rating Companies" refers to Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB), Pan-European Game Information (PEGI), Computer Entertainment Rating Organization (CERO), and Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC). -


 * I don't get it... some of those are pretty good, and only PEGI and CERO are currently stubs. What's being lost because the articles are separate?
 * I don't see a point in targeting only one group of companies either. (Not that I'm dismissing the validity of your proposal.)
 * Did you know that I created the OFLC article!? Pretty impressive, huh? I hope Stumpers was referring to my article when he said 'pretty good'! BTW, I've noticed everything minor seems to be getting merged these days - isn't there a point of having individual articles?
 * I was referring to that, actually. :) Yes, there is a point to individual articles: it increases the emphasis on the subject and allows us to completely expand on the topic more easily.  It's like when Wikipedia splits... say banana into "banana" and "history of banana".  They do that because they feel the subject is so important that it deserves more than one article.  Merging means that the subject is so unimportant that it doesn't even deserve one whole article.  It's all about the amount of info we can say on the subject without overstepping the boundaries of what we cover.
 * Thanks for the informative comment there! LOL at the banana example - quite random.

Article Organization Standard
For quite some time now, we have given guidelines as to article formatting, but we have not set a single standard. This has caused many problems for the Wiki, including the conflicts over the formatting of the Mario and Daisy articles. Our previous formatting ideas came from the idea that certain sources were of a higher canon than others and thus should be separated from lower canon sources in the articles. This was detailed in Canonicity prior to its recent rewrite which removed that speculation. Unfortunately, that means that our primary article organization is based off of fanon. For example, our section on video game appearances is called “Biography,” implying that none of the sports spin-offs and alternate media sources “happened” in a character's life. Whether we believe this to be true or not, it is not the Wiki's place to make such speculation.

This presents us with a unique opportunity to kill two birds with one stone: if we establish a standard for article organization that is not based on speculation, the speculation will be removed from our articles AND the argument as to how articles should be organized will be settled.

I propose that we give each individual source a section of its own. Then, each section would be placed within its respective medium. We would have a separate section for video games, television shows, comics, the movie, etc. Furthermore, each of these sections would have subsections for each series. The central Super Mario platforming series would have a section, as would Mario Kart, Paper Mario, etc. For titles that do not fall into a series, they would be placed in a section called "Individual Titles" or some equivalent. Each of these sections and sub-sections will be organized by release date. So, for Mario, you would first have the video game section, which starts with the Donkey Kong series, then moves to the Mario series, and so on and so forth. However, when the events of a title has explicitly occurred prior to those released earlier in its section, such as Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island in the Mario section, it can be listed earlier. Another example would be Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins, which can be listed just after Super Mario Land.

For those who are confused, I am willing to make a mock-up of this concept. For those who still want to see the video game sources lined up in the way they currently are, please remember that Chronology was designed just for you.

Why does this idea benefit the Wiki?
 * 1) Removes speculation: Organizing by media and series is an objective concept that Nintendo often uses itself. Compare this to our current method: trying to organize events in the order that WE believe them to have happened, something that Nintendo has never done.
 * 2) Creates a standard: now that MarioWiki:Canonicity has been rewritten, we need a new standard. I also want us to have a standard that we all agree on, not one that a sysop back from the early days of the Wiki created before we had the proposals page.
 * 3) Frees us from having to connect storylines. If each appearance has a different section, we do not need to speculate and claim that "After doing this, the character did that," or worry about balancing the inconsistencies such as those between Yoshi's Island, The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! and the Nintendo Comics System.
 * 4) Allows for expansion of alternate media appearances, such as those from The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! It is very difficult to write about the entire series in a paragraph of a subsection in the alternate media sections as our current organization has us doing.

Proposer: (with input from Cobold, Blitzwing, Ghost Jam, and Rooben Stooben among others.) Deadline: November 3, 2008, 17:00 EST

Support

 * 1) - My reasons are detailed above.
 * 2) - I think that the current way the articles are structured is rather random and not really official. The change is necessary.
 * 3) - Per Stumpers, all the way. This should finally help get articles in order – the way they should always be.
 * 4) - Per Stumpers.
 * 5) - Per Stumpers, he got inspired
 * 6) - Per all. This seems like a really good idea.
 * 7) - Per Stumpers. Less arguements and stuff are going to happen this way, and our wiki will be much neater and organized.
 * 8) - Per all.
 * 9) - Per all, per all, per all. Period. The wiki will be greatly cleaned up with easy to access information when this proposal will be effect.
 * 10) Per Stumpers.
 * 11) Per Stumpers.
 * 12) This is a great idea and will really help with organization. Massive kudos.

Comments
Thanks, Tucayo, but I gotta give credit to the other sysops as well - it was really a group effort. I just nailed down the specifics.

I still think dividing the video games by individual series is too much. Yes, those of us who do want to see the strictly chronological order can look on Chronology, but you could just as easily say the people who want to see the series' history can look on the Series' Pages (i.e. Mario & Luigi (series)). Plus, casual Users and Guests may not know enough to go searching the MarioWiki pages; whereas the Series Pages are mainspace and (should be) linked to on the articles themselves. Even then, all the Chronology page gives us is a list, and if we want to find out about what Mario does from game to game, we'd have to go from game to game; whereas the Series Pages offer a bit more up front. Plus, it's not rocket science to figure out Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door is the sequel to Paper Mario; so if someone did want to find out what Mario did in respects to the Paper Mario series only, they'd just have to scroll down the chronologically-organized biography looking for the "Paper Mario" titles. But it doesn't go both ways: as they are now, most biography sections don't include dates; and even if they do in the future, it's harder to look around for the first thing to come after "September 1993" than the next 3-D "Super Mario...". True, that's when you'd whip out MW:Chronology; but it seems like too much hassle for half of us just to spare the other half a fraction of the time and frustration. What I'm trying to say is that we already have the option to read history by series, and we always will, so what need is there for this extra step? I agree with the proposal otherwise, so I'm not voting against it - the Wiki needs change, just not that much. -
 * Something that I was considering while writing this proposal was that, even if this isn't the ultimate fix we find, it's a good one for right now. If you can think of a better way, please, PLEASE make a proposal.  We've been banging our heads trying to figure out how to not follow any fanon while still acknowledging the fact that the overall Mario series does appear to have a continuity within it, just not a very well defined one.
 * That's one thing that poses a big problem: Nintendo has confirmed absolutely no chronological order to their different types of media. This is one of the few tasks the MarioWiki that we have do to completely from scratch. I for one, think it's well worth it, despite any obstacles we may run across.
 * By organizing by series, we can free ourselves of any conjecture we previously had to make when we clumped all the video games together. Another method would be to list appearances by release date.  However, the downside of that is that you can't place past events from later released appearances earlier in the article.  For example, we know that Yoshi's Island came before Super Mario Bros., but we don't know how Yoshi's Island relates to Yoshi Touch & Go. Is it before, after, during, or an alternate timeline?  By dividing into Mario and Yoshi series, we free ourselves up from that.
 * MW:Chronology has already established that games explicitly set at certain points in time are exempt from the release-date-order (such as Super Mario Land 2: Six Golden Coins coming immediately after Super Mario Land; and Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island being set before all other games), so couldn't that be carried over to the articles? As for the muddled Yoshi series, I don't think organizing by series would make it any easier than by date (for example, SMW2: Yoshi's Island is as closely elated to Super Mario World as it is to the later Yoshi titles, which confuses things further: where does one series end and the next begin?). Yoshi Touch & Go has no plot, but what can be gleaned from the gameplay suggests it is a "retelling" of Yoshi's Island, and can therefore be listed alongside said game, like how Super Mario 64 DS is incorporated with Super Mario 64 in MW:Chronology. Lumping the games together by series is invoking as much conjecture as going by release dates; and considering all the cross-series references and carry-overs, it would seem more likely Nintendo did not mean to divide the games like this. For instance, Bowser's crush for Peach was introduced in Paper Mario and then incorporated into subsequent games such as Super Mario Sunshine, which is part of the 3-D series begun before Paper Mario was released. For this reason, listing SMS before PM would be confusing, but necessary according to ordering by series and their seniority. Super Paper Mario also references series that come after Paper Mario started (i.e. the Sammer Guy Mustard of Doom named after Fawful of Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga); though you could argue these are merely jokes for the player's amusement, and not as consequential as actual plot elements. -
 * Actually, Bowser's love for Peach was introduced in The Great Mission to Save Princess Peach and then in Super Mario Adventures (it could also be argued that The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! also used this concept when Bowser wanted to marry Peach, but it was largely for political reasons).  Examples of video games taking ideas from earlier alternate media are numerous, even when it comes to references and jokes for the player: the Pal Pills were a reference back to an item from Super Mario World television show episode "Rock TV" for example, and Nintendo of America openly embraced the idea of Mario coming from Brooklyn even after Yoshi's Island contradicted the Super Show's backstory.  However, since many users (including yourself) argued against the merging of video games and alternate media sources into one big appearances section, myself and the other sysops had to think of another solution.  You're arguing that video games should be blended together because each series is not presented as its own separate continuity with different characters, locations, and themes.  Yet, I can and have argued that video games and alternate media sources should be merged for the same reasons.  Remember when I implemented that idea into Mario and his parents' articles?  As you pointed out and I agreed, it was a mess of speculation.  You also forgot something about Chronology: it's designed for users to speculate on how the sources fit together.  So, here's my and the other sysops' logic: if placing sources together in a chronological order requires speculation (for example, can you cite me specific proof that says Paper Mario came after Super Mario 64?), then why should we do it?  We're here to write about official Nintendo material rather than to speculate about it, right?  So, how can we not speculate?  We must sort by an objective standard rather than a subjective one.  We must be able to clearly say, "This source fits this real world, non-fanon condition(s)."  Rather than, as you said, base our organization on what we "gleaned from gameplay suggests,"  One early idea of mine was to sort sources by date exclusively, and making the articles clearly historical from the point of the real world?  That was one of my first ideas, but it was denied.  What the sysops and I cooked up and I am now proposing is objective criteria, and it will organize those ridiculously long appearance pages.
 * I just wanted to apologize in case my above message seemed harsh or irksome. I reread it now, and it does seem a little arm-twisty.  So, anyone who read it, know that yes, I do believe what I said, but no, it wasn't fair to say it the way I did.  I'd like to give Walkazo credit for standing up for the removal of fanon with the Mario's parents article, and I'm very grateful for it.  Otherwise, I'd probably still be pounding away at articles, speculating like crazy trying to put all the pieces together.  So, thanks, Walkazo and I hope you weren't offended in any way!

This Proposal is like quantum physics - it's too confusing for me. If I understood it properly, I'd have my say in this. I am extremely dumb, but it's mainly because Stumpers is too smart...
 * You, good sir, are much too kind! But, if you can't understand it that means I wrote it badly.  Is there anything in particular you'd like me to clarify?  Is it just the reasoning for the change or would you like me to make a mock-up to show what the change will be?
 * Going back to the above conversation; to be honest, I did feel like I was being scolded for stubbornly arguing against your idea, Stumpers, but your apology was really nice - thank you! Anyway, I did find specific proof that there is some sort of inter-series continuum: FLUDD's video analysis of Mario at the beginning of Super Mario Sunshine. It first shows him jumping over Bowser in Super Mario Bros., then battling Iggy Koopa in Super Mario World, and finally him swinging Bowser around by his tail in Super Mario 64. I can't guarantee FLUDD showed the videos in the order that they occurred in the Marioverse, but it would make the most sense if it did, as computers use pretty standard organization principals (the other option would be alphabetical order, but in that case, SM64 would come before SM World); speculation aside, it still proves the three series coexist. And unlike most cross-series references, this is an actual plot device: it shows how FLUDD identifies Mario as a Koopa-fighting crusader worthy of its assistance. -
 * Aw... thanks for not being mad at me (I deserve it if you are). I've been pretty stressed out this week, so just know that I didn't mean to scold you, and that NO one, especially NOT you deserves that.  Again, I'm really sorry about that!  I'm nearly certain we can confirm that the main Mario series is definitely in a straight-shot continuity, with the two exceptions Yoshi's Island and Super Mario Land 2.  Reasons like the ones you mentioned and the continuity between the titles is pretty blatant.  Super Mario Bros. 2 (Japan) directly connected itself to be after Super Mario Bros. 1.  Super Mario Land would have taken place next by release date (and thus SML2 would come right after), which then explains Super Mario Bros. 3's storyline, stating that Bowser had been unactive for a very long time.  I'm not sure how official it is, but many users have told me that Super Mario World is apparently the bros. going on a vacation to celebrate the returned peace in the Mushroom World.  You can see, there's no down time in the story, really.  Then, after that they brought in the spin-off Super Mario Kart and the explanation of Mario's birth in Yoshi's Island.  A lot more spin-offs and real world time passed before we got our mitts on Super Mario 64.  It's between World and 64 we first start getting this messy video game continuity: the games with a storyline come out with much greater time between them and more spin-offs happen, none of which connect themselves directly with the plot of the others (but you should know, I totally think they are part of the continuity personally).  So, what I'm saying is this: the part of the continuity we KNOW is set in stone is the main series video games.  Their storylines always spell out the context, even if it's just connecting back in various ways (Sunshine showed that Mario remembered Luigi's Mansion and that F.L.U.D.D. knew of his past exploits.)  And, I would further argue that the RPG series is married at the hip as well, which itself is a straight shot continuity between SMRPG, Paper Mario, M&L, PM2, etc. as well.  Elements have spilled over greatly, and have established that they are part of the main series continuity (Kamek remembers Baby Mario and Luigi, Beanish characters in PM2, etc.).
 * So, what my message here is this: I myself am of the theory that MarioWiki:Chronology is the closest thing we can get to a continuity, and I stand by it. I would like to stress that article organization and continuity don't necessarily have to go together.  We may find it more advantageous to sort by series, we might not.  In any case, if this doesn't work out as well, rest assured the sysops and myself will keep trying to find a better way, and I'll be looking to you, Walkazo.  Thanks for all your help on the Wiki!

Response to Stumpers, from Dom: Well, one thing that makes it confusing is that this is the biggest, wordiest proposal I've ever seen - there's so much to try and take in. And the huge amount of comments here proves it must be pretty complicated. I think I would get this if you made a mock-up of what the changes would be - I am a visual learner so yeah. Although I'll admit that I still look at the Proposal and it goes over my head. It would be great if you could demonstrate the changes... Man, I feel really dumb.
 * Sure, I'll work on it. I'm not sure if I'll be able to get it to you before the weekend is over, though, because I'm super busy from the Saturday morning on. :O
 * In that case, I'm going to wait until I see the mock-up before I say anything else; a picture's worth a thousand words, after all. One thing is bugging me, though: italicization. So far, the game, show and movie titles are being italicized, but not the comics, which, according to this, is wrong. If we're already going to be reworking most articles for the new policy, I think it would be a good opportunity to address these sorts of trivialities as well. Anyway, pertaining to your earlier response, Stumpers, you're being far to kind; we all make mistakes and holding you to one slip-up you immediately apologized for would be wrong. -
 * Okay, here's the mock-up. You'll notice two changes if you're very familiar with the article that weren't outlined in my proposal.  I moved some text that didn't call on a particular game, such as relatives, implied birth, etc. to the top of the page.  If you guys wanted to use the introduction to give an overview of the character which could connect games, etc. together in MarioWiki:Chronology order, I don't think anyone would mind.  We need more information up there anyway, and that would allow you to talk about anything that is lost through this layout rather than the chronological one (such as Peach's birth).  The second change is that I removed an image that was making the article look messy with the new headers... not much of a change, but I still felt obligated to note it.  And Walkazo: you're absolutely right.  We should adopt that (proposal time?).

Featured Lists
The discussion was going on over here about making a Featured List. The List over there is generally 100% complete, however since the lack of the text count and rules of our normal FA doesn't meet that standard, it cannot become featured. So, we were thinking of making a Featured List, which could make some lists such as Allies and what not to also become Featured. Some lists are well off completed, but haven't been recognised by users, such as Trophy Descriptions (SSBM) I still don't know what the standards of a Featured List would be, I want to hear other users opinions as well. So, with all that said, what do you guys think? Yes or no?

Proposer: Deadline: November 4, 2008, 17:00 EST

Create Featured Lists

 * 1) - Per myself.
 * 2) - As long as an organized standards system that works in accordance on some level with current featured article rules, I believe this could be a wonderful addition to the MarioWiki. So, per S-Y and my comment below.
 * 3) Per S-Y.
 * 4) - Per S-Y. However, there aren't that many Feature-worthy lists out there, so perhaps the FLs should be an occasional substitute for FAs (i.e. 4 FAs and then an FL).
 * 5) - Per S-Y.

Comments
Well, here's some standards you may like:
 * The lists must be 100% complete, containing all required descriptions and images in order to reach such a status.
 * The lists must be organized it a tidy manner, be it through a table, template, or any other means.
 * The lists must contain at least 1,000 bytes of information original to the MarioWiki, thus making the Super Mario Wiki seem more official. -- (In other words, so it doesn't look like we're just copying and pasting lists.)
 * The lists must be composed in a well-written manner. Grammar must be as correct as possible.
 * The lists must be of adequate size (10Kb?). In other words, a list pertaining to all the items in Paper Mario would be likely insufficient, but a list pertaining to all items in the Paper Mario series would be sufficient, as long as said list were to meet all of the aforementioned requirements.

Just a thought.
 * Sounds good. Just a little bit more, and this should be good to go.
 * Agreed.
 * Walkazo: That's actually a really good idea.
 * Yea, awesome idea.
 * Thanks! -

Kirby's forms
Compared to other SSB contestant pages, Kirby's article is too long because of his Forms list. I feel we should give his forms a separate page to equal it out. But i can't do it without your permission. So what do you guys think? New page or same page?

Proposer: Deadline: November 8, 2008, 20:00 EST

Create New page

 * 1) - Per myself.
 * 2) - There are too many different Kirbys. If more important information is to be added, the article would be way to big.
 * 3) - I have one simple silution.Create a page called Kirby/Forms.Or put a link to the Kirby wikia.I should be put in the middle of all this.

Leave it as it is

 * 1) Its part of Kirby's page. His forms are apart of him so it belong in his page. Plus we have a proposal to merge their SSB move to their page. (It like undoing the last proposal!!) Moving it is a big no no.
 * 2) - While Mario forms like Fire Mario are seperate from the main character articles, SSB info is secondary on this Wiki, so Kirby forms do not merit the same treatment.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) WTF! per all
 * 5) - 1. They would all be stubs. 2. That's unnecessary, especially when factoring in this Wiki's priority on Mario-stuff. 3. Kirby's page isn't too long. If you want to see long, go to Mario or SSBB - they're long.
 * 6) - We've really been trying to cut down our emphasis on Super Smash Bros. content (by merging, etc. rather than removing content), so this would be a step backwards.  I'm sure you didn't know that, so I'm sorry that so many people are against the proposal right now!!  However, this kind of proposal would do well on the two Kirby Wikis I know of!
 * 7) Per all,BTW It will be like making 4 different articles for a different color for each SSB character.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) - Per all.

Comments
Dom, I'm not saying I'm giving every form a separate page, but rather 1 page. And I'm not saying It's long, it's just longer than SSB contestant pages like Falco and Ganondorf.
 * Well, Point 2 of mine is what really matters, and Stumpers also mentioned that. So, I doubt this proposal will be successful.

Youtube Poop
This is a very urgent proposal I've been waiting to make for a long time. It regards the "Youtube Poop" video remixes on Youtube, and the prominence of Hotel Mario and Mama Luigi in them. I have tried multiple times to insert information about YTP into these two articles, but it has been continually removed and I have been told to make a proposal on it. Those who have been removing the YTP information inserted by me and others claim that it is not suitable for this wiki because it is Unofficial and Fan-made. However, we have a page for Sightings, which certainly are not official, except for "Sightings" in other Nintendo games. "Mama Luigi" and "Hotel Mario" are two of the most Well-known and commonly used sources for Youtube Poop videos. They have Thousands of YTPs in their name, and are Synonymous with the phenomenon. In addition, the tone of the Hotel Mario and Mama Luigi articles, as well as the articles on all similar works, are written in a tone that Puts them on the same level as "Official" Mario titles, in an entirely serious manor, discussing the subjects of Well Known YTP memes without even alluding to the phenomenon. I would like to have this seen into so that we can fix these two articles and add Youtube Poop Content. Thank you.

Proposer: Deadline: November 9, 2008, 15:00 EST

Oppose

 * 1) This is a site of offical site of the Mario series. We don't not state fad on article because it consided fanon. And fanon is false information made by the fans. Those videos are offical like you have stated if Nintendo have made those video they'll might be officla since the own all of the Mario Chatartes in the series. So what if the have a little Mario elements in those videos their still conside fanon since they are user made with make it 100% fanon.
 * 2) - Firstly, YTP is nothing but pure fanon. Nothing more, and nothing less. We do not allow fanon on this site, only official subjects. Your comment about the Sightings being fanon because they are not directly linked to Nintendo is false; the references are within official games, literature, music, television, and films, because they were created by official companies. All companies linked to Nintendo are official, all companies not linked to Nintendo are official. YouTube is not an official company; YouTube is a community that accepts all sorts of material: official and fan-made. YouTube is not a great source to get official information because of this. YouTube Poop is directly linked with YouTube. Why? Because the members of that unofficial community created it out of their imagination. Implementing unofficial work into articles that are official is barbaric in all senses. I believe the only chance YTP has at getting on this wiki, is to be implemented into the Online references page – and even that may not be possible.
 * 3) I agree with both of the above voters.  However, I would like to specify and clarify something: the references pages are for professional content, either licensed or simply parodies.  Fan creations such as those on Newgrounds, YouTube, or those posted on fan-sites, are not professional.  Also, you said, "the tone of the Hotel Mario and Mama Luigi articles, as well as the articles on all similar works, are written in a tone that Puts them on the same level as "Official" Mario titles, in an entirely serious manor."  Big question I have with that is, why shouldn't we?  Would you want us to be humorous and unprofessional instead?  It seems that your logic is, since YouTube Poop uses the content and YTP is humorous, why aren't our articles humorous and unprofessional?  I recall when this issue came up on Hotel Mario, you thought we should both have YTP information on the article, and that we also should tone down the seriousness of it.  I see now why you think that: you think Hotel Mario and other such sources are "unofficial" (yes, that's in your proposal).  You need to realize that all the content we cover is official Nintendo content with the exception of the reference pages.  The comics, TV shows, endutainment, and CDi titles were ALL licensed by Nintendo.  Official Nintendo permission was given to the publishers.  Since Nintendo gave its approval, just like it did with the games you consider official, we are going to continue to cover them with the same amount of respect and completeness, even if that means there is no place in them for YouTube Poop and other fan creations.
 * 4) ...Per All.
 * 5) - Per all.
 * 6) Per All,If we make a list of all Youtube poop that has Mama Luigi or Hotel Mario ect.It's like having to make a list of everything on the internet that has unofficial Mario stuff.(Mario Flash cartoons,Hacks,ect.).
 * 7) Per all, hmmm... *is going to delete that Rainbow Road song article*
 * 8) Booster - Per all. There's waaay too many unnofficial references to Mario out there. Anyone with a computer and an imagination can make one. Only references made by proper companies are worth noting, since professional people went out of their way to reference Mario in their work, be it a TV series like The Simpsons or a professional web-toon like Seth MacFarlane's Cavalcade of Cartoon Comedy.
 * 9) Per all. I think this is just to plain stupid. Come on, man. I mean YouTube Poop?!?!? How come people get so desprite to make stupid articles about stuff that is just is for entertamint. It's not realy soposed to be taken as real!!! Can we add this to BJAODN?
 * 10) If we added every fan made thing about Mario here, this wiki would be crowded.

Comments
As I stated earlier: even this might be a stretch, but the only possible way I could see getting YTP on this wiki is to put it here.

EXACTLY. ALL of those things mentioned on that page are UNOFFICIAL and FAN-MADE. What makes YTP any different from them? Also note: a search for "Hotel Mario Youtube Poop" on youtube returns OVER 7000 RESULTS, and a search for "Mama Luigi Youtube Poop" returns OVER 10,000 RESULTS, and those are just the videos that explicitly label themselves as such. There are many more Hotel Mario and SMW poops than that. I think that's pretty notable.

No matter what it is still fanon srsly. No there offical!!! (

OKAY, then, by that logic, you're saying we should delete all of the references pages?
 * Moleman: Duh. That's why I gave you a link to the page. And, it doesn't matter how popular, nor does it matter how notable you believe they are – they aren't official. That's why I gave you the link to that page. The rest of the reference pages are official, because they come from official media.

No there offical not fanon. If there were then the SysOp would of eased it.
 * Companies made them user mank them offical. If a user for youtube made a video (Like the Super Mario Z junk) it conside fanon on this wiki.

The number of results from a given search does not make it any more official. Notability is one thing. Officialness is quite another.
 * Yup. (Not if it even past 1,000,000,000,000 it still fanon.)
 * If we used notability, we wouldn't be including information on characters like Bowser's Sister.
 * I think I should just change my vote to say "Per Stumpers". (Kudos.) I also agree with what Phoenix Rider said. If someone were to type "Mario Party 9" or "Mario Golf Wii" into Google, and received 10,000+ hits, would that make it "official"? No. It would make it notable that people want it, not official because people say it could happen or because they made a fan-based version of it.
 * They rumors. Which is also fanon like Paper Mario DS and Super Princess Daisy.

A: You say that the references pages are only for "professional content", that is predjudice. On the internet referances page, you cover the Mario parody made by Seth McFarlene, and since that and YTP are both made under the same circumstances on the same site, what makes them any different? B: Hotel Mario is no more "official" or "canon" to the Mario series than the cd-i Zelda titles are to the Zelda series. It was only Liscensed by Nintendo, they nod no involvement in making it, and it is NOT considered canon to the franchise. Neither is the SMW show or any of the other liscensed material covered here. C: What I mean when I talk about the articles on such things being written too seriously, look at the Mama Luigi article. THE IMAGE IS NOT THE PICTURE OF LUIGI SAYING "That's Mama Luigi to you, Mario!" and you go over the plot summary as if it was as canon as Super Mario World the game. The Mario cartoons were nothing more than a shameless and poorly made attempt to cash in on the success of Mario, and the ONLY reason Nintendo liscensed the characters to them is for MONEY. But, now in modern times, they have found a new audience and found a new place in culture, thanks to Youtube Poop, otherwise they would be forgotten. And yet you still refuse to even mention it, yet you have articles on CHARACTERS WHO ONLY APPEARED IN ONE EPISODE OF THE SERIES.

How is that fair?
 * Characters who only appeared in one episode deserve to be mentioned, cause theyre official. St00by also said the closest YTP will get is on the online references page aswell.

No matter what you say about youtube poop is still fanon, fanon and more fanon. Also per S-Y
 * Moleman: 2 of your 3 points are entirely invalid. Point A) That's why I gave you the link to online references and said that it might go there. Point B) Nintendo gave those companies the licensing and all the necessary permission to use Mario in Hotel Mario. If Nintendo gave the permission, it is official. Whether there is no canon or not is entirely debatable as there is not proof of canon in almost all Mario games. Point C) Articles are to be written professionally no matter what. The image of Mama Luigi is there because it is the most notable scene in that episode; not because it's funny.

He changing the subject every time no matter what (Unless Nintendo was invole in it) youtube poop is fanon.

Moleman, put it at this if we put a list of all the Youtube poop that has to do with Mario and put it in the References page it will load too long and basically make people mad and it will be hard to edit the References page.

Plus that it could the page freeze on old computures.

Thanks, Stooben. I thought your point above was good to, and I'll just say, per Stooben in that case. I'd like to clarify something however: Moleman is NOT suggesting we list every YouTube Poop as I understand it. Rather, he wants us to acknowledge their existence. Now, Moleman, you said that you feel that way because the shows, etc. were just cash-ins with no cultural impact, and that their popularity and worth are now increasing because of YTP. I'd like to suggest that you are likely somewhere between 10 and 16 if you feel that way, and/or you didn't have (cable) TV when you were growing up. Had neither of these conditions been true, you would know that to the enormous number of people who at the time were children saving Princess Peach for the first time in Super Mario Bros., the television shows were big. As time went on, they declined in popularity and impact, yet Super Mario World played a major role in the Mario series as a whole. Just because you didn't experience the television shows and the CDi titles when you were first becoming interested in the series doesn't decrease their worth. The shows are still selling very well on DVD considering their age, remember. This is actually a big problem in all Nintendo series today: many gamers who weren't gaming during the NES or SNES days (myself included for the NES) believe for some reason that a substantial amount of official material cannot be canon for some reason or another. However, since immersing myself in the old shows, comics, etc., I've discovered that there are only a few contradictions, usually on par with the contradictions made between video games.

"Look at the Mama Luigi article. THE IMAGE IS NOT THE PICTURE OF LUIGI SAYING 'That's Mama Luigi to you, Mario!' and you go over the plot summary as if it was as canon as Super Mario World the game. The Mario cartoons were nothing more than a shameless and poorly made attempt to cash in on the success of Mario, and the ONLY reason Nintendo liscensed the characters to them is for MONEY."

'''LOOK AT THE Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time ARTICLE. THE TRIVIA IS NOT SAYING''':"Due to the fact that the Shroob invasion is not remembered by any characters, even Toadsworth, the invasion may not have actually been intended to happen in the past. Since E. Gadd's memory was actually rearranged by the events taking place in the past, the Shroobs may have actually been attacking the present, but been sent to the past by the time holes made by E. Gadd's time machine." '''AND YOU GO OVER THE END OF THE ARTICLE AS IT WAS AS CANON AS THE OTHER RPGS. PiT WAS NOTHING MORE THAN A SHAMELESS AND POORLY MADE ATTEMPT TO CASH IN ON THE SUCCESS OF MARIO AND THE only REASONS Nintendo LISCENCED THE CHARACTERS TO ALPHA DREAM IS FOR MONEY brrrrrraggHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

I HATE THAT GODAMN GAME, article is too serious. '''LET'S INCLUDE ALL THE INTERNET PARODIES, OUT OF PLACE SNARKY REMARK AND EVERY CRAP WE CAN FIND. '''

I really recommend reading this before you makes anymore assumption about that "canon" thing. --Blitzwing 06:58, 3 November 2008 (EST)
 * Moleman, please remain civil and try to refrain from cursing. It's a proposal: it's nothing to get so upset about.

Yeah, Blitwing is right. Please read Canonicity. If we only treated games you consider worthwhile, that would be very complicated: soon every user would have a different list of games we should be covering with seriousness. Can you imagine how unfair such a system would be?

I am not asking to actually change the existing content of the articles in such a manner. What I'm trying to say is, like, in the case of Hotel Mario, that game IS widely considered poor, non canon, and a discrace to the mario series like the CD-i Zelda Titles. THE WAY THAT THE GAME IS TREATED WHEN TALKED ABOUT IN THAT ARTICLE ONLY Seems out of place when it is the only content of the article. If I had my way with the article, I would keep everything that is already there intact and add a "reception" section that adresses the poor reception to the game and its cutscenes and diologue, and of course Youtube Poop. Same with the Mama Luigi article. And as for the page of internet references, I KNOW THAT I CAN'T SIMPLY ADD A SECTION FOR YOUTUBE POOP TO IT AND LEAVE IT LIKE THAT, because it lists so few things as it is, and leaves out many, many OTHER, non YTP Fanworks.

The way I would see fit to adress this is to CREATE A STANDARD FOR FAN FICTION based on prolificness and popularity for inclusion on the references page, and would need the help of many users to do so. Seeing as how hard this would be, I would prefer that we ADRESS FANON IN ARTICLES IN TRIVIA AND/OR RECEPTION SECTIONS, SEPERATE FROM THE MAIN CONTENT, which I would do with Mama Luigi and Hotel Mario. I would not want to list EVERY internet parody, only the most popular ones that have a fanbase.

ONLY GAMES THAT ARE PUBLISHED BY NINTENDO ARE CANON. Games liscensed to other companies and other-media spinoffs are OFFICIAL, but not CANON. The reason I am aggravated about this is because you cover ALL of these things on the same level of maticulous detail and disregard for notability and importance that you do with the canon games, yet YOU REFUSE TO EVEN MENTION YOUTUBE POOP OR ANY OTHER FAN-MADE WORK, even if it's seperate from the "official information".

Okay, I may not have been clear enough in what I said before. I DO NOT WANT TO CHANGE THE EXISTING CONTENT OF ARTICLES. I want to ADD real-world content to the articles, to BALANCE the ridiculous level of detail in which official content is covered, About the REAL-WORLD reaction and legacy to the them.

Rather than try and change our stance, it would be much better for you to start your own Wiki that covers the fan-made (fanon) additions to the Mario series. It seems like you believe we hold the entire Mario series sacred. However, you'll notice that we have a section called "Critical Reception" on a bunch of the game articles, and that is for you to post professional critic reviews about the titles, the movies, etc. It's not good enough to just say that generally the fanbase believes something to be poor and non-canon. That's just another way of saying "I believe something is poor and non-canon." Generalities are the bane of unbiased writing. We're striving to make the most professional encyclopedia possible, and to do that our writing must be unbiased. And please, try to understand: there is no official canon in the Mario series, so no title can be non-canon.

@Moleman: Closing your ears and shouting "NAH NAH NAH NAH NOT CANON!!! NAH NAH NAH" doesn't put you in a good light. Neither do RANTING IN ALL-CAPS AND BOLDING IT SO IT'S EVEN MORE OF AN EYESORE.

Finally, I'd like to point we're merely an encyclopedia about the universe of a fat Italian plumber, and that you should just relax. --Blitzwing 15:43, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Moleman is right in a sense. Homstar Runner isn't nessecarily offical, but it's on the Sightings page anyhow. But, come on Youtube Poop? Sheesh, gimme a break. Plus, even if the proposal passes(which it probaly won't), it would take forever to make such an article. I agree Mama Luigi and Hotel Mario are common sources for Utoob Poop, but that doesn't mean it deserves an article.


 * Slightly changing the subject here: could it be possible to add the YTP (only the major ones: Mama Luigi, Hotel Mario, etc.) to the Online references page? I was thinking it might be able to, but I hardly ever edit those pages, so I wouldn't know.
 * I could see making a section on Internet memes... provided we'd have to dig deep down into the YouTube Poop community for the person who started it, his/her motivation, etc. It would be a very hard section to write, as Internet memes as minor as these aren't documented very often (compare to Numa Numa, which made it into Newspapers, for goodness sake).  WHOA!  Here's a solution for Moleman: if you can find us an article (from a respectable fansite, professional website, or in print) that acknowledges YouTube Poop, bring it to us.  That would change the issue considerably.
 * Thanks! Yeah, that would take a lot of work. I'll try to research as much on YTP as I can. Also, pertaining to Stumpers' last comment, if you were to find a page on a professional website, it could change the odds of your proposal considerably. ("Could" being the operative word there.)

The first ever youtube poop video was "I'D SAY HE'S HOT ON OUR TAIL" made by SuperYoshi(not our SuperYoshi) in 2004. It used clips from Recycled Koopa.

As for finding an article, there is Youchew Poop.com, the official forum site of YTP, WHICH HAS its own YTP-based wiki, called Chewiki.

I've also once read an online interview with the guy who voiced Mario in Hotel Mario, which makes reference to Youtube Poop, though not by name.

Lastly, in The Simpsons Game, Mario says during a cutscene, "I HOPE ITSA SPAGHETTI" in a manner VERY similar to Lugi's "I hope she made Lotsa spaghetti!"

And what does that have to do with YTP?
 * Per Grapes, also lol at all of Blitz's comments XD

Can you link us to the interview? That seemed like the best place to start.
 * Here's the Chewiki.

The Mark Graue interview seems to not be on the internet anymore. But he said that he was "flattered that something published in 1993 has found new life on an entirely different platform."

ROFL! And this must be the most comments for any Proposal ever...

Wow! We might have to put this porposel on it's own page when we archive it. I'm just editing the section, and the scroll bar slider do-hickey is very small. Anyway, this is stupid!!! We are obisliy are going to oppose this, can't we wrap it up early take this of the page, it's taking to much space

We can't this proposal won't be archive untill after Nov 9. (Lolz I think this broke a record.)
 * Dom and Nerdy Guy: This proposal had way more comments, and it didn't get it's own page for archiving. Also, Grapes is right; we close the proposal when the deadline hits.

Also note: The official slogan of Youtube Poop is "Where there's smoke, they pinch back." Which is an almaglamation of two lines from Hotel Mario. It appears at the start of many poops, along with the YTP logo.

Will you stop putting randrap in the comments, Moleman9000. It's not going to change our minds. YouTube Poop is... well poop, and we're not going to put crao like that in this wiki.

Mario Calendar
Wikipedia's Main Page has a "On this day" feature which shows all past events that happened on that day. I had the idea of something similar. A Mario calendar to go on the Main Page which shows past release dates of games released on that month. For example, it's November, so it shows most/all Mario games released on November (for example, Super Mario Galaxy was released November 2007, so it will be listed in the Calendar). Other important Mario events will be listed such as Shigeru Miyamoto's birthday. I think it'd be a cool thing to have on the Main Page. What do you think?

This is the template that would go somewhere on the Main Page. Notice how it says "See more dates". Because we don't want to make the Main Page too big, people can click on "See more dates" to see the full calendar if they are interested in seeing it.

This is the full calendar.

Proposer: Deadline: November 10, 2008, 17:00 EST

Add it to Main Page

 * 1) It's a cool idea and if a new Mario game was coming later that month, people know the exact date of when it's coming out right away. Plus, knowing the release dates of past Mario games released many years ago is cool right? (And you won't forget Shigeru Miyamoto's birthday either!)
 * 2) - I always thought this place needed a calendar, I was just too lazy to actually make one. Kudos.
 * 3) - Per all.
 * 4) Per all. And omg I was born on the same day as Shigeru :O
 * 5) Per Paper Jorge.
 * 6) Great idea, Paper Jorge!
 * 7) - Awesome!  The only issue will be finding a good release date for Donkey Kong, right?
 * 8) - Per all.
 * 9) -Great idea and sorta a fun fact for each month.
 * 10) hell yea per all.
 * 11) - Per all. I've always liked that calendar.
 * 12) This must be the greatest thing ever! Per all!
 * 13) Per all.
 * 14) I agree with everyone.I have no idea when Nintendo Peoples' Birthdays are so I want to know! I think it'll also be fun.
 * 15) - This proposal is "Hi-technicaaaaaaaaaal!" (Francis). Awesome idea, Paper Jorge!
 * 16) - Per all, a great addition.
 * 17) - Wee! Good idea! But try to make some sort system that change this things montly.
 * 18) - Sounds awesome. Would there be pictures?
 * 19) - I honestly like this idea, finding out what happened on this day will be alot of fun.
 * 20)  Yes. Yes. God yes. Per all. Yes....
 * 21) - I think it's a great idea!
 * 22) - Good idea but you should add a picture for the most recent.
 * 23) - sounds like a good idea
 * 24) - That's a good idea.
 * 25) - Yeah. Cool idea. Let's do that.
 * 26) - Per all, I love this idea.
 * 27) - Per all. Although there might be some squabble over what's notable enough for the calander.
 * 28) - It's a great idea :D
 * 29) well, of course! theres nothing bad that will come out of it, and it will be a fun addition.
 * 30) - Paper Jorge, you're only like 12 and you came up with that idea... brilliant! Seems like a clever addition.
 * 31) User: Cberiault Exellent! You can then see what's happend in the past in the same month or future reales dates!
 * 32)  Per all, I always thought there should be one. See comment below.

Comments
Just as a note Stumpers, if we can't find the release date for a certain game, in this case, Donkey Kong, then I guess, we don't have to randomly add it in the calendar. It can be left out, I guess. Even if it is the first Mario game in history.
 * I just noticed that we have exact Japanese and European dates, so I'm sure we could work around it! Push comes to shove we could put it at the top without a date.

It's a great idea, but it bugs me that the calendar only uses US dates at the moment. If other regions get included as well, I'll support. And if you think that would be too much, I'd suggest to use the original release dates regardless of region (very often not the US).--Grandy02 16:37, 4 November 2008 (EST)
 * Perhaps there could be an option such as 'Click here for ___'s Mario events of the month', or something along those lines?


 * Of course we'll have more than American releases. Notice how at the bottom of the calendar there's "All release dates are the American releases unless tsated otherwise". We can have Super Mario 64 releasedon July 23 (Japan) and stuff. No worries. Or like Stumpers said, we can have a Japan, European, Australian ect. calendars. :P
 * I'm glad you mentioned Australia there, PJ. Oh, I have a question: Who will be in charge of updating the calendar - I would guess it's restricted to Sysops only to prevent trolls and spammers taking advantage of the Main Page? Am I correct?


 * Yes, sysops (mostly me, lol), or we could protect the page so users who've been on the wiki for more than ## days can edit.
 * Days? Not months?


 * Yeah, probably yes. Also, as a respone to Jaffrey, yes there will be pictures included as you can see User:Paper Jorge/Test3 < here.
 * I may have missed this, but where do you plan on placing this on the Main Page?
 * I think the picture looks like it was just tacked-on for no real reason; it should be incorporated into/formatted for the calendar a bit more to improve the overall aesthetic appeal. -


 * Indeed, we gotta work on the image, if not, just leave the image out complete. Stooby, the Main Page has lots of room, Steve will figure it out.
 * Good point about the image, Walkazo. And, thanks for the answer, Jorge.

Think we should have a different pic each month like for the first month mario next luigi after that peach get it it would be a different characterr or enemy each month.


 * Luigi, we will have a different picture each month but like Walkazo said, if we don't find a way to actually make it look good we won't have a picture at all. Plus, we will have pictures of the most important thing that month. For example, I say the most important thing happening this month is Miyamoto's birthday so that's why there's a picture of him.

I'm remaining neutral (though it doesn't matter at this point), but I have one suggestion and one question: 1) Limit the main-page highlight calendar to 2-4 important dates, with upcoming releases bolded and/or put right on top; 2) Once we get through a whole year, will we simply cycle through everything again and again?


 * The main page highlights calendar will have 2-4 important dates, yes, and I assume that we will have to cycle through.

I always thought the Mario Wiki should have something like what the Muppet Wiki has, with the "Upcoming Events". I think that would do well.


 * K, it's been a week. I guess it's time to add it to the Main Page? Steve said he'd do it himself, so I'll just wait.
 * No Lee D:

Captain Rainbow
As you know, we have an article on the game Captain Rainbow. I think we should merge it with Video Game Refrances. I think we should do this, because of the following:
 * 1) Birdo is playable charcter, but she's orginaly from Doki Doki Panic. Since the game is from Japan that means that is the game she intended on being from.
 * 2) The Pirranna Plant is just making a cameo apperance.
 * 3) Mario is not playable, he just makes a cameo as a picture a him appears in the game.

With those reasons above I think we should merge Captin Rainbow with Video Game Reffrances

Proposer: Deadline: November 13, 2008, 17:00 EST

Merge

 * 1) - Per my resons above.

No Merge

 * 1) - A character from the Mario series playing a major role in a game is very different from a reference to a Mario character.  References are for cameos, official or otherwise.  If you want us to merge Captain Rainbow, we would also have to merge many other games as well, starting with the entire Super Smash Bros. series by the same logic.
 * 2) - Per Stumpers.
 * 3) - Per Stumpers; he stole the words right out of my mouth...or out of my keyboard as the case may be.
 * 4) - Per All
 * 5) - Per Stumpers.
 * 6) - Per Stumpers.
 * 7) - Birdo's role is big enough in this game for an article on it. But it's not enough for covering all the other characters. In this way it's similar to Captain N: The Game Master, that has Donkey Kong, but not enough relevant content for making articles on single episodes and other characters. It also goes for SSX on Tour, with Mario, Luigi and Peach as playable characters. I think we should also have an article on NBA Street V3 (but not about the unrelated characters and courts, again).
 * 8) This is what I have to say. No just no because there characters that have a major role in the game. Like Birdo!!! The Video Game reference page list of cameo that Mario or some other Nintendo charater has appeared. For goodness sake (I spelled it right this time instead of slake. Anyways back to were I was.) Birdo has a major role and she is a Nintendo character if she was then that different.
 * 9) - As usual, Stumpers takes the words out of many mouths, of which the people cannot explain it as clearly as he does. Per Stumpers of course.
 * 10) - Birdo just as large of a role in that game as Mario plays in the SSB series, and you don't see us merging that with Video Game References.
 * 11) Stumpers,you ROCK! Per Stumpers.
 * 12) What mario wasent first mamed mario he was jumpman does that make donkey kong a seperate sereis no.
 * 13) Per all. Especially about iggykoopa's vote, DK series doesn't need to be serperated. DK series is a part of Mario series, else Funky Kong wasn't in Mario Kart Wii and Tiny Kong wasn't in Mario Super Sluggers. About this proposal, There are Mario characters who didn't made cameos in Captain rainbow, but as main characters. What IS a cameo and MUST go to references is that Roman in Asterix XXL2, dressed as Mario self.

Comments
Though Birdo is originally from Doki Doki Panic, the official website of Captain Rainbow tells that she is from Super Mario USA (Super Mario Bros. 2). But I don't think that matters in any way, Birdo, the Shy Guys and more beings from the named game are an inherent part of the Mario universe today, even if they first appeared in an originally unrelated game.

About the comment regarding NBA Street V3 and SSX on Tour (I believe those are the two games, right?), I would support that as well, for the same reason I support Captain Rainbow. Let's put a proposal together for that?
 * Hm, if Captain Rainbow and the other articles I named are allowed, then I think there is even no proposal needed. 17:41, 7 November 2008 (EST)
 * Agreed. It seems like it would be pretty redundant.

Add a Pipe Plaza link
How many users dont even know about the Pipe Plaza, because ther're almost no links to it, so i say we should add a link to it in the left-side bar. So, who's with me?

Proposer: Deadline: November 13, 2008, 17:00 EST

Support

 * 1) - Per me

Oppose

 * 1) - Until we can actually update the page, it will seem unprofessional to link it to the main page, but I agree it should be there soon... and if it were to be updated by the deadline I will take back this vote.
 * 2) Per Stumpers and St00by comment show below.
 * 3) - Per Stumpers and my comment below. If the time comes when the Sysops will regularly update the page, I'll be more than happy to volunteer. Until then, it should stay off of the Sidebar and Main Page.
 * 4) - Per all.

Comments
If we could get some Sysops to actually update the page regularly, I would see no problem with it. That page hasn't been updated in 18 months, which is rather disappointing. I'd gladly volunteer to keep the page updated. Also, maybe just a link on the Main Page would suffice?


 * I remember when Pipe Plaza was created. It was a good way to keep track of things going on in the Wiki. However, it became hard to constantly update. There actually used to be a link on the sidebar, but it has long since been removed. 14:52, 7 November 2008 (EST)

I've never even heard of the thing. I typed it into the Search bar and found an article about the battle course in Mario Kart... is that saying something?


 * It was a MarioWiki page intended to be a place to find more about happenings around the wiki(This article is too short, etc.)... but it hasn't been updated since 2007. :p

The Main Page talk and Maintenance pages have replaced the function of this, and no one seems to want to change the community portal to a MarioWiki page...

I think it's time for a proposal to "restart" the Pipe Plaza, just as what we did with the Trouble Center.

Crystal Stars
Though this isn't the case of my last proposal, the Waffle Kingdom Locations merging proposal, it is a similar situation: I think the Crystal Star individual pages should be merged into the Crystal Stars page. The pages themselves are short and are an estimate of about 10 sentences long or so. If all of the Crystal Star pages were merged, the article would be fairly long, but it would be more regular sized, which is better than having lots of individual little pages.

Proposer: Deadline: November 16, 2008, 15:00 EST

Merge

 * 1) - For the reasons above.
 * 2) - Hey, I think so too.
 * 3) - There's already articles about the special moves the Stars enable, so explaining them in the Stars' articles is a bit repetitive (for example, Art Attack and the corresponding section of Ruby Star are nearly identical). The attacks are officially named as well, and the information pertaining to them are best placed in their articles (currently, Earth Tremor puts Diamond Star to shame). Without that information, the Star articles are pretty barren, and the plot elements could easily be incorporated into the Crystal Stars article: each Star would get a section, and the article would look much better and be much more useful than it is now. Yes, the Crystal Stars are officially named, do different things and are important to the plot, but merging them will not make them any less important, and their combined article will be much stronger than any single one of them is now.
 * 4) - Per Walkazo.

No Merge

 * 1) - They were officially named, so the best thing is to just leave it IMO.
 * 2) - The stars are each officially named, require different tasks to be completed in order to be received, give the player access to another location, have their own special move, etc. They may just be the same sprite colored differently for each star, but they affect gameplay much differently than each other.
 * 3) Per all! St00by right. All 7 of the Crytals Star different just like the Pure Heats and the Star Sprits.
 * 4) Booster - Per Stooben Rooben.
 * 5) - I feel like a broken record, so I'm really sorry!  But, it needs to be said: we merged Smash Bros. content because we want our focus to be the Mario series proper and its spin-offs, but we also appreciate the fact that Mario and friends have played quite a large role in the series.  But, content from Paper Mario is completely different: we do want to focus on that, and therefore merging is the opposite of what we're trying to do.
 * 6) - per all. they are different items, with different powers, and different names...How are they the same?
 * 7) - Per All!
 * 8) - Per Stooben.

Comments
@Stumpers: ... Wrong proposal? --Blitzwing 06:45, 11 November 2008 (EST)

Um. . . Stumpers this is about PM:TTYOD Crytal Star not SSB.
 * Exactly my point. When we merged the special moves from Smash Bros., we did so because we wanted to reduce our focus on it, not because the articles were too short (remember the Final Smashes?  Longer than some Mario series moves).  These articles are definitely not to short and are part of what we want to focus on. Let me see if I can't clarify my vote.
 * Oh okay.

Add a Superstar Link
I saw that, well, the Yoshi's Island series' item Superstar does not have a link, and its "page" is one paragraph on the Super Star page, which is mostly about the one in Mario Party 2. So, who is with me for splitting it into Superstar (MP) and Superstar (YI)?

Proposer: Deadline: November 18, 2008, 17:00 EST

Add

 * 1) - Per me
 * 2) - Per Pink Boozooka
 * 3) - I agree that the move needs to be made, however, looking more into the articles you wanted to merge, you are in error.  We don't want to split Super Star into Superstar (MP) and Superstar (YI), we want to split Superstar into Superstar (M&L) and Superstar (YI).  Someone just put the information from Yoshi's Island on the Super Star page in error - it should have gone on the Superstar page to begin with.  And yes, Walkazo is right, we need to fix up our "Superstar/Super Star" pages... maybe "Superstar" and "Super Star" should redirect to two disambiguation pages that would each point to "Superstar (M&L)", "Superstar (YI)", and "Super Star".
 * 4) - Per Stumpers, though I think having ONE disambiguation page would be the least confusing course of action. Since there are multiple "Superstar"s, that should be the disambig. page, with "Super Star" being a redirect to it, and the article about the term itself being "Super Star (PM)" (this would also avoid errors like the YI information currently  on "Super Star").
 * 5) - Walkazo hit it right on the nose; one disambiguation page is the best way to do it.
 * 6) Yeah..... No reason not to. Two seperate objects.
 * 7) I just realized that when I was editing Ride the Ski Lifts, the Super Star article leads you to the term. This should have it's own article, why is it made like that?
 * 8) Hey guys, it's been what, two or three months since I last a made an edit here? Nice to talk to you guys again! Anyway, the Superstar for Yoshi's Island is a completely different thing from Superstar from M&L and Super Star from MP. And since the item is called a Superstar, it's article should be called Superstar (YI) and the current article titled "Superstar" can move to "Superstar (MP). And yeah, a Superstar (disambiguation) like Walkazo said would be great.

Comments
I'm sorry, but what do you mean by link? Do you want to divide the Superstar page into two different pages, say, "Superstar (MP)" and "Superstar (YI)," or is there another article that currently exists that you want us to link to?
 * Yeah, you might wanna make your proposal more specific.
 * I believe the article in question is Super Star, though all the "Superstar"/"Super Star" articles could use some sorting-out, actually. -

Using Cheat Sites as References
and I recently found out that the Mario Super Sluggers page uses a cheat site as a reference. This doesn't seem very professional. Cheat sites often contain unofficial information, have no proof to verify their "facts", and commonly have fake cheats. In my opinion, we should avoid linking to cheat sites because of this. After all, this wiki is not a game guide, it is an encyclopedia. We usually write articles on games and levels in a walkthrough manner, yet it does not refer directly towards the reader. We do not place cheat codes on our articles; we do not place game hacks on are articles. Why link to a cheat page when we don't allow cheats directly on an article in the first place? So, here's my proposition: we keep writing articles in the same fashion we have been – a neutral, third person walkthrough style. We always have allowed hints in our articles as long as they are written in a walkthrough manner. So, in turn, we should stop adding links to cheat sites to our articles as references.

Proposers: and Deadline: November 20, 2008, 17:00 EST

Support

 * 1) - Per my and Luigi001's reasons provided above.
 * 2) Kinda obvious why...
 * 3) I agree. We are and Mario Wiki a site for informantion about the Mario series and it only. We don't need codes since they have noting to do with Mario series. We are not gamespot, gamefaq or Open Code Wiki!!!
 * 4) - Per All.
 * 5) Wow, never noticed that. Off with the site! that has NOTHING to do with mario.
 * 6) - Per all. (2 people working together - "TEAM POWER"... or something)
 * 7) - Per all.
 * 8) - Per all, especially SR, 001, and PGB. We aren't a cheat website; we're a natural created Mario-info website.
 * 9) - I definitely agree, it's not professional enough to cite a cheats website. Now, it's better than some FreeWebs website, but still.

Oppose

 * 1) - I don't think we should write about cheats, but I think banning the cheat sites is going about that the wrong way. A cheat site may tell a player how to get unlimited money, but it could also offer information which we should be including (i.e. unused sprites, glitches, etc.), and not doing so because of where it came from would be a mistake. Yes, there is lots of misinformation out there, but really, any fansite could perpetrate it, not just the hackers.
 * 2) - Yeah, after the big issue I made, here I am opposing again.  I can't believe I completely forgot this issue: your definition of cheat sites isn't spelled out at all.  As we've seen below, there was much confusion over whether IGN would count as a reference.  The sensible thing to do would be to judge on a point-by-point basis whether a source was valid or not.  In the case you referred to, the obvious answer would be no, but in the cases that Walkazo presented, it'd be completely different.
 * 3) - Per all.

Comments
Now for those who I know are going to say, "We already have a rule on this," think twice. Why would that bit of info be put on the page in the first place? And did anyone try to delete it? No, no they did not. I even tried to delete it, but a day later, there it was again! So before anyone says what I know is coming, please do think again!

Since when did we write walkthrough-style articles? I thought the focus of level/world pages was general information: enemies, special items, plot line, etc.; not "Mario jumped into the third pipe to the right of the door and found a Blue Coin."-type exposition... -
 * He's means little bits of info on how to get through a level. Just look at the World articles; they say the basic way to get through a level. But still, that's not the point here. The point is whether to keep these "cheat site" resourses or not.
 * Er... You're not talking about IGN, are you? They're not only a cheat site, you know... If you're not talking about them, please tell me. :O
 * IGN, Gamespot, 1-Up, and others can still be used as citations, as long as it's pertaining to things such as reviews or official interviews. That actual cheat part is the only thing that we want to get rid of. Also, Walkazo: Luigi001 said it just as I would have. The level/world articles explained the layout of a level, what enemies are found there, etc.; but they also explain how to get through a level. That's what I meant by "walkthrough-style".
 * As the person who added the "cheat codes" in the first place and who put them back when Luigi001 removed them on the basis of looking "unprofessional," I think it's telling that I see your logic. Now, had you just posted a message on my talk page about this issue, explaining why it looked unprofessional as you did above rather than running right to the proposal page, I would have backed right down like I am now.  Not to critique your actions, but this really was something that could have been settled "out of court" so to speak, and is the sort of thing I've handled many times before with other uses.  Anyway, I'll remove my oppose vote straight away if you address it - it's simply about an oversight I felt you made in the proposal.
 * Actually, I was going to. But I got kind of nervous and went to ask Stooben on his opinion. He said he agreed with my case, and we should make a proposal so everyone is clear we don't want these sources. Who's to say that another user wouldn't add it again after you and only you backed out from it? So this proposal is completely necessary.
 * Gotcha. For future reference, you should never feel nervous to criticize my work.  There's always the possibility I'll argue back until a solution is reached (I wouldn't have in this case), but it's surprising how many people on this Wiki place the good of it above what they've already written.  In any case, I hope I'm not giving off an intimidating vibe!  I'm always for what you're striving for: writing down an unwritten rule of the Wiki, but this proposal is placing so much emphasis on the inclusion of that one blog post that I put up.  You guys are against, "cheat sites," like the one I posted, according to the proposal.  However, the "cheat site" in question was actually a blog.  Obviously, you aren't talking about "blogs" but that's what you're saying by targeting this one instance of a "cheat site," which happens to be the first we've had in ages.  By all means make a proposal about this issue, but please, for future reference, targeting one instance makes the user who's edit is being brought into question feel threatened and more importantly takes away from your aims.  Please clarify this for me: this is what I assume you want, but what isn't necessarily written. (1) Rather than "cheat sites" (which would include IGN), you want to stop people from writing about hacks, cheats, mods, etc. (2) You are not against in-game, official cheat codes that expand gameplay, but you would be against posting a code intended to let players continue their games.  (3) The issue is not with my one edit, but rather the philosophy that people could possibly derive from that edit: that cheats are acceptable to post on this site.
 * Yup. No, no, it's not you at all. I just was never the "personal debate" type! :P Well, you basically hit our achievements from this proposal right on the dot; We are against using cheat sites (or Blogs with cheats!) for resources on the Wiki. It looks very unprofessional, and well, that's not good for a Wiki attempting to be serious on a video game series. Offical cheats for the games are fine, but all others should be excluded. The game SimCity DS, not saying we have in article of it, is a prime example. The game has official "codes," if you will, to unlock landmarks. Because these were intentionally in the game, they'd be fine to mention. However, a cheat to get unlimited money or something should be excluded, as it isn't offically given in the game. And yes, as odd as it may seem, we can never know that with this one edit posted, many others will feel the right to link to IGN's cheats, or another site along those lines. As I've said, it's unprofessional looking and such. This proposal is just to see that all agree to "lay down the law" of no use of cheat site resources. Wait...did that make sense?
 * I'd like to apologize for Stumpers if he thought that we were directing this proposal directly to him; that was not the case. I've noticed this problem since I've been here, but I always tried to revert the citations. Actually, I recall using IGN cheats as a citation at one point, but I realized that it wasn't official. The proposal is only directed to banning using unofficial cheat sites for references. If say, Nintendo were to release official cheats on one of their official sites, then it would be fine to use it as a citation/reference. Sites such as Gamespot, IGN, 1-Up, and others contain cheats from unofficial sources – random members who add cheats. Half of them are hoaxes. This is the only point of the proposal.
 * Stooben and Luigi: thanks for such calm, sensible answers. Since the point has now been clarified, I'm fine with removing my oppose.
 * Well, now that you're opposing again, let me ask this: How do you know the glitches, sprites, and such are real? I mean, as Stooben has said, half of those are random people posting hoax information. If the glitches or what not were real, don't you think a more reliable source would show them? I take this example from my own life, because when I loved Super Mario Sunshine, I really wanted to find more about it. So I came across cheat/glitch sites like IGN or GameSpot, and several glitches were just bad hoaxes. I remember one saying "Use the Rocket Nozzle to blast up and off of the Blue Coin Building, and you'll find a glitched version of it in mid-air." Now, is that really believable? So maybe if you fhnd an interesting "fact" on one of these sites, check other, more official ones to see if it's true. I'm not saying cheat sites are always stuffed with fake info, just that there are more reliable sites out there.
 * Well it best to test them to see if they're real.
 * To Stumpers: Well, what we're targeting here is the banning of user-submitted cheats. By this, I mean that on sites such as IGN and Gamestop, there are many members that randomly submit cheats. Using IGN or Gamestop or whatever as a reference is fine for matters such as reviews, images, or other information. Nintendo has been known to reveal cheats, but they are rarely seen. Whenever a cheat handed out by Nintendo is seen, it will almost always say something along the lines of "submitted by Nintendo". User-submitted cheats always say "submitted by ". Grapes: That's a very good point, but sometimes cheats are very hard to pull off, people may not have the game, etc.
 * Um don't you mean glitches?
 * No, this proposal isn't targeting glitches. Glitches aren't seen very often on gaming guides, and even when they are, I don't recall ever seeing them used as a citation. 15:31, 16 November 2008 (EST)
 * Si! I know but you said cheat were hard to pull off?
 * Yes, sometimes they can be. Like in Mario Golf: Toadstool Tour, there's a cheat in Peach's Castle Grounds where you can get a hole in one on a PAR 5 course, but it's very hard to do.

User Page of the Month
There are many excellent user pages, like Stooben Rooben's, so i say they should be prized, so why not making an user page of the month award?

Proposer: Deadline: November 27, 2008, 17:00 EST

Support

 * 1) Per me
 * 2) I say it would be the user that does alot of good edits and it would have a talk page that could vote for someone and if enough people agree BANG.They win.

Oppose

 * 1) - User Pages are not the point of the Super Mario Wiki, Super Mario is. Users may care about Community and whatnot, but random Guests looking for Mario information won't, it would just be in their way. Plus, it'd be making some Users seem "better" than others, which is something we've always striven against, and rightly so.
 * 2) - I agree with everything Walkazo said. People may also be biased towards one another.
 * 3) Per all. User page are just for fun their not for FA.
 * 4) Per all. FA user pages will be kinda odd. Not all User Pages are alike, for example look at Stooben Rooben's, than look at Mine. You see, everybody has differnt tastes. Not everybody was created equal.
 * 5) - If we voted against image of the week because "it would be too opinion based," this would be even more so... sorry. :(
 * 6) - Per all. We aren't the 'Super Userpage Wiki' are we?
 * 7) – like cool user lists, this would create competition.
 * 8) - That might cause that users centre on editing their user pages rather than articles. No.
 * 9) - Per Grandy02.
 * 10) -  Per all. I could think of countless reasons against this one.
 * 11) - Per all. Plus, we don't have enough active users for such a thing to even workout anything like good.
 * 12) If we were to even try this, it would probably be more appropriate for Userpedia. Even there, just no.
 * 13) per all. This takes away from more important aspects of the wiki.
 * 14) Per all,If we start this and someone won they could show off.
 * 15) Per all; can't think of a reason that hasn't been mentioned already.
 * Yup, per all.
 * 1) Per all, like many others said, this will become biased against users and a huge arguement will start.
 * 2) All Users are created equal.
 * 3) Per all. Guests just wanna read about Mario, not us.
 * 4) I say take this idea to Userpedia if you want it to happen.

Comments
I greatly appreciate the compliment, Tucayo! But, I believe that things like this are outlawed.
 * I still voted against, just in case it's not. -
 * Yeah NG right everone I mean everuser has there own persona.


 * Um don't you means support?


 * Well, this would not work, because the user page is more to tell about the user, but if there was a USER of the month, that might work. The user must have been a user for a certain amount of time (2-4 months?) and must have done a certain number of edits, not on his userpage. Once someone has been elected user of the month, they may not be user of the month untill next year (for example, if mr. marioman 9909 got elected in march 2010, he may not be elected again until April 2011.) The winner would be announced in the shroom, as part of the monthly report? To make sure this will not be a distraction from editing articles, only a few people from the shroom would be a part of this. Even then, I'm not sure it will pass.


 * Your idea is nice.
 * No it's not (no offense); popularity contests are nothing but trouble. Electing Users of the Month is even worse than User Pages of the Month, for the same reasons Stooben Rooben, Wayoshi and I posted against the latter: bias, competition and egomania (or lack thereof if you don't get voted for). -
 * I thought Userpedia already had that. The main page in Userpedia has a box fo FA Users.
 * Okay then, ignore my above comment. I just thought of it as a way to show off hardworking users. But as I said, that probrably wont work.
 * Last time I checked Userpedia, the FAs were about the articles about the Users, not about the Users themselves. -
 * That's exactly what it is. That's why it says "Featured Article", and not "Featured User" or "User of the Month". We're trying our best to avoid being biased, while trying to improve features on our site.
 * Yeah thats what I meant.

Mario and Luigi's Parents
For those of you who are unaware, there have been previous discussions regarding whether or not the article Mario and Luigi's Parents should be split into two articles, one for each parent. However, the discussions were based off of the information currently in the article, and as any fan of The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! or Nintendo Comics System could tell you, it was very incomplete at the time, and still is, albeit more complete.

Previously, we have left characters such as Ashley and Red together because neither of them does much without the other, and to have two articles would be to restate a vast majority of the same information. However, this is not the case with Mario and Luigi's parents. In fact, the only time they are seen together is the Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island ending. Otherwise, the two appear separately.

To anyone who knows the character well, Mama Mario obviously deserves an individual article: she has an official name (formally given in "Plumbers of the Year" after being called "Mama" by her boys on countless other occasions), has made on-screen appearances in which her face appears, she has speaking roles, and plays integral parts of the plot. This alone puts her ahead of many subjects from The Super Show, such as Cheepy's mother, who did not have an official name and only appeared in one episode. However, the fact is that Mama Mario was referenced almost continuously on the show, the references continued into the later DiC television series, and she also appeared in "Family Album "The Early Years"" and Yoshi's Island. Multiple independent appearances and references place her notability well beyond many characters with their own articles.

There is no argument that Mario and Luigi's father is a much more minor character. He currently has had only two appearances, one in "Family Album" and the other in Yoshi's Island. In both of these, he did not speak and his face was not seen. However, it is very awkward to write an article about such a minor character and such a major character as Mama. Almost the entire article currently is about her, with a small blurb about Mario's father.

I propose we split "Mario and Luigi's Parents" into two articles: "Mama Mario" and "Mario and Luigi's father." The current "Mario and Luigi's Parents" will be made into a disambiguation page to avoid redlinks throughout the Wiki.

Proposer: Deadline: December 1, 2008, 17:00 EST

Support

 * 1) - My reasons are detailed above.
 * 2) - Per Stumpers, these are two diffrent people, why are they merged into one? They deserve to be mentioned.
 * 3) -Per Stumpers and Super-Yoshi.
 * 4) - Good reasons.  They appear independently of each other, so the articles should be seperate.  (I did not know Mario's dad smoked...)
 * 5) - Per all.
 * 6) - Per Stumpers.
 * 7) - Per Stumpers.
 * 8) - Per Stumpers.
 * 9) per all
 * 10) Booster - Silly to keep them merged.
 * 11) - I don't exactly know why these two characters are merged into one article. So ... per Stumpers.

Oppose

 * 1) -i think we leave them be. I don't think there is enough info on both of them to split them. The articles would just be too tiny
 * 2) -There isn't enough info about both, so I think it should be like that. Problaby, both artcles would be stubs.
 * 3) Per Tanoomba.

Comments
The only quibble someone might have with this split is the speculation about the various aunts, grandparents, nieces and nephews (basically the second and third paragraphs of the introduction of Mario and Luigi's Parents): as we have no way of knowing which side anyone's from, we'll have to discuss them on both articles and list both parents as Siblings to be safe, even though one may not be. But given the circumstances, I think anyone who seriously complains about that is being a tad unreasonable. Anyway, I just thought I'd mention all that for the record, in case anything does come up. -
 * It doesn't seal up all the cracks, but if your parents are married, our uncle on your father's side is your mother's brother-in-law, and therefore her sibling by marriage. We can't confirm that Mario's parents were ever married, but if they ever were, that would make each others' relatives related to them.  Thanks for the support and consideration, Walkazo!  20:14, 25 November 2008 (EST)


 * Disambiguation, not redirect.
 * To Stumpers: Thanks! To Master Hand: good point - it can't redirect to both articles, and redirecting to one would be wrong. The best course of action would be making it a disambig. page right off the bat and then going through and changing all the links to the appropriate parent for our readers' convenience (which I'd be more than happy to help out with). -
 * That's what I meant to right; thanks for noticing that! And Walkazo: I'll be right there with you.

3-in-1 Super Mario Bros./Duck Hunt/World Class Track Meet
We should get rid of this page and put the picture, along with a short summary, on the Super Mario Bros. article. Resons are as follows:


 * 1) The game was a complatsion cartrige, which means it was just a 3 games stuffed into a cartridge to save money. It's not realy a Mario series game, it's a cartridge with a Mario game inside.
 * 2) The article is short and just takes up sever space.
 * 3) The people on the talk page are disscusing to get rid of it.

Despite there being only 3 resons, I think I make a strong point.

Proposer: Deadline: December 5, 2008, 20:00 EST

Support

 * 1) per above. I hope this doesn't go the way my Captian Rainbow perpososal went.
 * 2) - I agree that something should be done with the page.  However, as is the case with all merges, rather than just delete the page ("get rid of") we should replace it with a redirect to the page it was merged with: Super Mario Bros.  I also don't support a merge just because the page is short, etc., but rather because if we don't, we're obligated to make a new page for every port of SMB that's out there, including Classic NES Series and so on.
 * 3) - Gah, edit conflict. Well, my reasonings were gonna be pretty much the same as Stumpers', so per him.
 * 4) Per all You have my support.
 * 5) - Per all, but a redirect instead of deletion. The same should go for Super Mario Bros./Tetris/Nintendo World Cup.
 * 6) - Yes, redirect. But I think the brief description should stay on the Super Mario Bros. article.
 * 7) - Per everyone who voted redirect.
 * 8) - Per all.
 * 9) - just as we don't have articles for the virtual console releases of all of the games. When there's absolutely nothing changed, we don't really need an article.
 * 10) - Per Cobold. Those articles were just packed into one cartridge, it doesn't make them Mario related at all.
 * 11) - I agree, and we shoul add a trivia about it in Super Mario Bros' page.
 * 12) KoopaGalaxian - Yes. No junk. We want this page to be the best wiki ever!

Comments
To everboby who said redirect: that's what I ment by "Get rid of". --
 * Cool - just be sure to specify next time!

}}

Change Count Bleck to Blumiere and Tippi to Lady Timpani
I say they should be changed, because blumiere and timpani are they real names, while the other one are fake, so they shuold be moved so they are each one with their correct name

Proposer: Deadline: December 9, 2008, 17:00 EST

Support

 * 1) - Per me

Oppose

 * 1) - Both names should appear in the intro, but we should use the most common name as the article's title.  This is what they are known by throughout the game.  They are not "false" names and indeed may be more "real" than the other name, as this is the name they are called by most if not all other characters.  Also, Geno's real name is ♥♪!? but we shouldn't change the article title to that, as everyone just calls him Geno.
 * 2) - Per Son of Suns.
 * 3) - Per Son of Suns.  Arg... I have this intense need to say something more.
 * 4) Per Son of Suns. There like nicknames.
 * 5) Per all, particularly Son of Sons.
 * 6) - Per all.
 * 7) - Per Son of Suns.
 * 8) - Per SoS. We also have redirects, so it works out aswell.
 * 9) - If that happened, I would leave this Wiki in disgust! Just say a random person typed into the search bar "Tippi" shortly after purchasing the game, as they wanted some non-spoiler general information about her. And then it redirects to Timpani and shows her true identity, and a major part of the plot is ruined for that person. Same with Count Bleck. People are easily upset by spoilers.
 * 10) – per Dom especially.
 * 11) - Per all.

Comments
I'd like to note that Count Bleck's real full name is Lord Blumiere, not just Blumiere.