MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/20

Bring back Weekly Polls
We used 0to have weekly polls, and they are very good. We still have this page. But instead of doing only one poll, we will be doing 3 polls. The reason why is because let's say the poll is "What is the easiest stage in Platformer games", and you only own Spinoffs and RPGs, then you can't answer the poll, while if you have 3, then you can at least answer one.

Proposer: Voting start: 25 February 2010, 23:00 Deadline: 4 March 2010, 23:00

Bring them back

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) - Per Proposal, I mean, They were funny :D.
 * 3) I am Zero! Although I don't know the reason why it was removed in the first place I will LOVE it if comes back, that what made the SMW fun that time and it will most likely still be fun if this pass (you notice I said love with all capitals, as most people know Zero NEVER used all capitals except for that one). Zero signing out.
 * 4) Per proposal.

Don't bring them back

 * 1) - Sorry, but no. Your proposal doesnt propose anything to make them better, they will fall into chaos again. They were rmeoved for a reason.
 * Per Tucayo.
 * 1) Per Tucayo.
 * 2) - Per Tucayo, you can't force someone to vote on a certain poll, people will vote on any poll they want. The more rules there are, the more they will get broken is my frame of mind - I'm afraid this rule falls right under that category.
 * 3) - Per Tucayo.
 * 4) - I see that you are still partly new. I think you want to see the main page as it was before all that got voted out, yet for good reasoning. The Main Page is better without this since it can be troublesome for updating. Per all.
 * 5) - Per Tuck. It was chaotic and the poll system on the main page looked the portal so informal.
 * 6) - Per Tucko.

Comments
It got removed because it was too bustling with activity ONLY with that Poll page. I may be fond of the Poll of the Day, but we don't get it our way all the time.

Maybe if the whole poll process was completely revamped, it would be easier to maintain. But I still think it should stay off the wiki for the time being. --
 * Per Stooby. WHats with all the "bring back" proposals... I think people are getting nostalgic

I am Zero! If this proposal does pass I think all the previous polls should be deleted and the page should start new and fresh. Zero signing out.

I like the poll, but 3 of them at once is way too much. –

Deciding Birdo's Sex
We had 2 Proposals about deciding Birdo's Sex (here's one). This is an international wiki, not an American Wiki. In Japan, people call Birdo male, and in the US, people call Birdo female. I propose that we call Birdo he. Don't forget that multiple birdos appeared in crowds and in The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! In the Birdo (species) article, it says that it is common for male birdos to wear ties on top of their head. In Mario and Luigi: Superstar Saga, Birdo attempts to be a girl, therefore Birdo is a man. And also per the old reasons.

Proposer: Voting start: 26 February 2010, 23:00 Deadline: 5 March 2010, 23:00

Call Birdo it because of the old proposal

 * 1) If we are having such an argument decideng the sex, just call it it! it makes sense!

Just Call Birdo Female

 * 1) - She is a female, if "he" wants to be so, then we call Birdo a female. And no need to remove or move this proposal to the BJAODN, it is valid, I think.
 * 2) Per Tucayo.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) - Per Tucayo and comment below.
 * 5) - No, Birdo always has been female in mmy opinion, for example if she is "male", why she acts like the girlfriend of Yoshi? Why she uses a ribbon? Why in Super Mario Advance she has feminine voice?, simply the fact that the SMB2 manual, among others called she male; we cannot say that is male, What present game call she male?, also per BabyLuigiOnFire in the comments.
 * 6) Ow come on!There's a lot of proofs which makes her female the ribbon,her acting in M&L:SSS,and like MATEOELBACAN said:her acting as Yoshi's girlfriend.
 * 7) Oh please. Per all. Oh yeah, aren't the option titles a little biased?
 * 8) Per all; this case REALLY needs to get closed here, right now.
 * 9) ...-_-' Per all.
 * 10) - Let me think about it... A regular man with a ribbon, a ring, a bow and a pink body?
 * 11) – Per all.
 * 12) - Per my opinion in the old Proposal.
 * 13) - Again? Per everyone.
 * 14) Birdo looks like a girl, acts a lot like a girl, dresses like a girl... wait, she IS a girl. And I'd hate to be called an "it" if people didn't know what my gender is. Nintendo would never make controversial stuff on purpose. The only quality of a man Birdo has is sounding like one.
 * 15) Read my comment below.

Comments
Another issue dealing with Birdo's gender? Look, Birdo wants to be treated as a female, as she states in her description, so we better call her a "she". Besides, we're dealing with a single Birdo, Birdo, the character who appears as playable in spin-offs. Besides, does she look ANYTHING like a man? She wears a large, red ribbon, has some lipstick, has feminine team names, wears rings, etc? Besides, Nintendo wouldn't make transsexual characters anyway, despite their craziness. They always make genders obvious. Why should Birdo be any different?
 * This is Birdo's Sex, not gender.
 * Sex and Gender are the same thing.
 * No, not necessarily.
 * It's not my our fault Nintendo didn't clear things up. The Japanese should start calling Birdo she if this should come up again.

On the other proposal we agreed that calling Birdo an it was discriminatory.

This looks like BJAODN material to me.

"This is an international wiki, not an American Wiki."

No, it's an English wiki (English as in the language, not the country). In all the English games, Birdo is a female. Infact, I think Japan is the only country that calls her a he.

What, this proposal again? :\ As I stated the last time this came up, calling a male-to-female transgender person "he" just because they were born male is offensive and nobody profits from it if we start doing that anyway. The gender issue is already being addressed in the article, I don't think there's any need to emphasise it like that. This has nothing to do with the internationality of the Wiki, but simply with what makes sense and what doesn't and what can be taken as offensive and what won't.--vellidragon 10:17, 26 February 2010 (EST)

I don't see the point in this proposal. Proposals made on this issue have turned out in favor of calling Birdo a female consistently in recent times.
 * Can we move this to BJAODN now? I mean, do we really need a whole proposal just for the gender of a character?
 * Um...this is the third one of that type...
 * @Super Mario Bros.: Doesn't this page overlook the no-sig policy??? Your comment says

Ugh, I wonder how did I make this proposal, but I regret it. Can someone help me move it to the BJAODN???
 * This is not BJAODN material. You can remove it if you want to.

If they call her "He" in japan,then we just add that in her gender in the infobox:(In japan:Male,other region female

I am Zero! I think there should be a fourth section for refering Birdo as it or she. Birdo is a species and not all of them are female, but to the point: I think if it refers to Birdo as Yoshi's girlfriend or the game makes it a 100% clear it's female then refer to it as "she", but if it refers to a random Birdo then refer to it as "it", if users aren't sure then they could have a discussion on the talk page to see if Birdo is she or it in that section of the article. I don't think they ever refer to Birdo as male but if it does in the future then refer to it as "he". Zero signing out.

Let me just say this. Birdo, specifically Catherine, is a male. But, she is a male in the role of a female. Drag queen, transgender, either way. In Japan Birdo is widely accepted as being male. And Yoshi is widely accepted as being male as well. However, Birdo is referred to as female in America for multiple reasons. Avoiding conservative beliefs, and going with what is simply proper. Regardless of whether Birdo were actually male or not doesn't matter, because she is appearing and acting as a female, therefore that is what you call her. Transgender people, or even a person in drag, is CORRECTLY referred to by what they appear to be, and in this case it is correct to refer to her casually as she and even a female. ForeverDaisy09 21:44, 4 March 2010 (EST)

Y'know, someone on an old proposal made the point that the only English-language game that refers to Birdo as male took place in a dream. :\
 * What, Super Mario Bros. 2 (The American one)???

Remove Construction template after a certain amount of time
Well, the long title says it all. Currently, there are 145 articles with the template on them. As you all know, construction templates are used to signify an article in poor shape, but is being worked on. But for how long do we need these templates, especially if nobody's working on them? Let me use Donkey Kong 64 as an example. The last edit that was made at expanding the article was on December 8, 2009. Since nearly three months have passed since that date, and nobody's working on it, don't you think this template should be removed? So, with my proposal, I want to have the construction template removed after a week.*

* Number up for debate.

Proposer: Voting start: March 5, 2010, 4:12 Proposed Deadline: March 12, 2010, 23:59 Date Withdrawn: March 6, 2010, 04:47 GMT

Remove template

 * 1) Per proposal.

Keep template

 * 1) – Sorry, but this seems like a pretty pointless proposal.
 * 2) A construction template is a construction template. We need construction templates to improve this wiki. All that you just need to do is notify the person who is working on adding info and ask them if they are still working. and Per Ralphfan.
 * 3) If there's an article that's incomplete and crappy, then a template is needed. How would someone react if they see the Luigi's Mansion (which I tend to finish soon) article and notice its waful shape. Per all.

Comments
We can't vote here if you don't propose a specific amount of time after which the templates will get removed. Of course we can discuss it, but you should at least propose one.
 * All right. I'd say a week, since that seems more than enough time to fix up an article.

If we remove it, it will look like it is finished, and it isn't.
 * Yes, we should at least replace it with a rewrite tag.

I have another suggestion considering the time. The template offers the possibility to enter a date, or a duration. How about we make it mandatory to set a deadline, a date when the construction status expires. After a construction template reaches that date, it can be removed. It would work, but it's also a little strict.

Another, less strict approach: We just use common sense and decide on a case to case basis. If there is a construction template on a page, and the person who placed it there hasn't edited the article for months, it is safe to assume the person stopped working, so the template can be removed. If there are some relatively fresh edits, the template stays. To help people with checking this, the person who places said template on a page should write something like "Construction template" into the edit summary, so you can instantly see who placed it on the article in the history.-
 * I like Edo's idea. And agree with Time Q, we should replace it with.

The proposal seems to irrelevant to me. You can actually remove the template if you see there has no progress in the article long enough. Also, the template has an option to set a date - or a deadline, but not many users tend to use...

TPP Archiving
OK, I was looking at the list of TPPs and I found that the list was taking up about as much space as about two whole proposals and that is way too much space just based on TPPs IMO so I decided that I would make a proposal to shorten it in one of three other options. Now, I heard from that the rules say that TPPs aren't deleted off that list until the appropriate action has been taken (E.g. The articles have been merged) and I think that this idea is keeping it way too long, even if this quiets down another one is bound to arise because nobody is actually merging their proposal articles...

Anyhow, here are my three resolutions (and one non-resolution)
 * 1) Move all TPP results to "Mariowiki:Proposals/Talk Page Proposals" and leave them there for all of eternity so that people can easily see where the archives of their TPPs are and not clog up the proposals page (though eventually we'd have to archive that page too after 100 proposals * ). The proposals that have not passed/failed yet would stay in the TPP section of the proposals page but there would be a link off of there to the archives.
 * 2) The section resolution is to just remove the proposals when they pass and kick them off the proposals page so that they can't clog up space and this is the easiest of the resolutions. It will keep the list short and to the point and people will not be confused about what to do when they archive a TPP.
 * 3) The third (and final) resolution is to remove TPPs one week * after the proposals have passed whether or not the action has been taken so as to not leave them sitting for ever and ever. This will not clog up the page (though it will clog it up more than the second option would) and it would give proposers one week to merge their articles and then it is deleted off the page (though after it is deleted they can still merge, the reminder just won't be there). It gives users time to archive but keeps the TPP section short and simple.
 * 4) The fourth option (not resolution) is to do nothing, this is most definitely the easiest option but not the most productive...

* These numbers are up to debate in the comments section

Proposer: Voting Opens: March 2, 2010, 06:07 Deadline: March 9, 2010, 23:00

Kick off Immediately

 * 1) - Per my comments. If proposers cared they would do what needed. If they cant, they should ask an admin.

Do Nothing

 * 1) There are only 2 TPP whose articles aren't split/merged/deleted. and Per all.
 * 2) Per my comments below. And to the people that say that admins are "good" at merging/splitting, well some aren't. And sometimes the admins aren't usually on, so that's another problem.
 * 3) Per my comments below, and per Gamefreak75.
 * Per Gamefreak75. I don't see a problem with keeping those proposals in the list until they are put into effect, and it's a good reminder.
 * 1) - Per all.
 * 2) - If someone feels compelled to complain about the length of that list, he or she could merge some of the articles and reduce the list by themselves. If we remove them, they will just be forgotten. And so will they if we move them to some extra archive.

Comments
I'm gonna vote later because I'm currently tied between two of my options.
 * Hello, it's 30 minutes past voting time and you still haven't voted.

If we just remove them, then nobody will merge/split the said articles of the proposal and it will stay like that forever. If we put them all into an archive, then nobody will care about it and the same thing will happen. I could go with removing them after a week, but that doesn't seem long enough. Perhaps two weeks?
 * These numbers are up to debate in the comments section...

1 week seems enough for me. Why are they delayed anyways??? Its the proposer's responsibility to take action, if they don't we should just remove them, if you need an Admin help, just drop a line in any of their talks (mine if you want to).
 * The thing is, they don't take action. And if nobody takes action, and we just delete it, then the whole proposal would of been useless.
 * Well, then its their problem. Perhaps an user who took part can also take action.
 * In addition, that's exactly what happens on this proposals page.
 * Well, it shouldn't happen. We don't create proposals to waste people's time, we create them because we want to change something. And if the proposal doesn't take effect, then the whole thing was useless.

Well, if the proposer can't take the time out of their day to follow up with the proposal or can't be bothered to remember the due date, the proposal was a waste from the start.
 * You know, I'd like to make the proposals take effect, but I suck at merging/splitting.
 * Well then you should contact the proposers about it, that could help as a reminder for the...uhhh...less active.
 * Well, I guess I could.
 * There are only 4 proposals that are archived and the articles aren't merged/split/deleted/etc.
 * I agree with Reversinator. Maybe people know that something has to be merged and make a proposal. The proposal passes, but their is only one problem...they have no idea how they do it. If they were to merge, they have no idea on what the hell they're doing and can actually screw up an article and get blamed for "vandalization". And ridding of talk page proposals is a HUGE waste of time! You see, all these little things add up.

As I said before, in that case they should contact an admin, we are very happy to help.

Revesinator, your saying all this and you still haven't split the SSX on Tour article from the other article. Mine, well Baby Mario Bloops already made this proposal on merging all the SMRPG Mushrooms, and the SMRPG Mushrooms contain how many HP they heal.


 * One, you didn't see the fact that I suck at merging/splitting, and two, why are you talking about SMRPG mushrooms?


 * Has anyone bothered to read my comments? I, like Reversinator, suck at merging/splitting, so I am not even going to merge my proposal.

I think KS3 vote is not valid. It gives no reason as why to do nothing to them. What if in a future we have 10?
 * 2 weeks ago there were like 12 of them and why then didn't we make that proposal. Back then, I would be glad to vote support. But now there are only 3, and Redstar is busy merging info from Yellow Toad right now.
 * So? That doesnt mean we wont get another 12 in a future, and we wont be able to kick them, because of this proposal.
 * @GameFreak: I can guarantee you 900% that all admins can merge and split. And most of the time there is someone online. In the worst of cases, you can wait an hour or so to find one.

Anyone else thinks KS3 vote is not valid? @TimeQ: So, you agree that admins lack the basic skills of merging and splitting?
 * Yes, I agree that KS3's vote is invalid. It just refers to the current situation, which defeats the point of this proposal. As of your second question: I don't think there are "merging and splitting skills". It all depends on the topic. For example, I (and I'm a bureaucrat) could not have split or merged many of the recently passed proposals, simply because I'm not familiar with the topics in question (there's a lot of games I've never played).
 * So then it should be removed, I think. Well, in most of the cases it can be easily done by looking at the headers, still I think all admins may be capable of splitting an article.
 * Read my vote again. It says Per Gamefreak75.

Oh, so easy to per a vote...... Anyways.... again, Gamefreak, please answer, do not avoid the question, I bet in less than an hour, if you ask it, an admin will have done what needed. What can go wrong?


 * Well, you gotta take Time Q's comment to mind to, about the games played. Also, I'm pretty sure that not EVERY admin on the wiki can merge/split, but I could be wrong and we wouldn't want an admin's page to be cluttered up with headers saying ''Please merge'; or anything along those lines.
 * Thats what us admins are for, to serve the wiki. It is fine if we get our talks "cluttered" with lines saying "please merge!". And about the games, well, if I got asked, and weren't sure how to do it, I would ask someone else to help me.
 * Well Revesinator deleted the SSX on Tour section of Video Game References

Final Vote
Recently, there have been a lot of changes to the voting system, and I feel that one more needs to be made. It seems that every couple months, a proposal is made about censoring the Bob Hoskins article or deciding Birdo's gender. There may be a 30-day minimum before a poll can be changed, but I feel more needs to be done. I would like to introduce a new system called final vote. They are just like other proposals, except for the following:
 * 1) Once a Final Vote proposal has been voted on, the decision can't be overturned (except by an Admin decision).
 * 2) A Final Vote proposal can only be made for a proposal that has already been made three times.
 * 3) Final Vote proposals are open for two weeks.
 * 4) Final Vote proposals are announced in the announcement bar on the Main Page.

Proposer: Voting Opens: March 5, 2010, 2:30 GMT Deadline: March 12, 2010, 23:59

Support

 * 1) – Per above.

Oppose

 * 1) - I feel like this isn't a very good idea. Not exclusively to the Bob Hoskins or Birdo articles, but some decisions have indeed been overturned by a revisited proposal. One example was when I proposed to use present tense in all articles, which passed. Later, when looking through the archives, I found that Dom had also proposed the same thing months ago, but had been overruled. Some people can explain the essence and benefits of a proposal better, and convince others to agree with their opinions. The "Final Vote" system would deny users of a chance to propose subjects that could be potentially helpful to the wiki.
 * 2) Per Marcelagus.
 * 3) Right now, what may be considered right may be considered wrong in the future. This proposal won't allow people to change what can be potential mistakes.
 * 4) - Per all.
 * 5) - The intention is good, but a rule like that would probably cause more chaos than being actually helpful. What if something is decided with a final vote, but it proves to be horribly wrong after some years (you can't predict such consequences)? Would make the reversion too complicated.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) - Per all.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) - Per all.
 * 11) Well, this may have good intentions, but think ahead, what is "right" now might be wrong in the future, and say I have been planing a beneficial proposal, and I can't propose it, that would be simply chaotic.

Comments
Having some sort of blanket policy like this is a recipe for disaster. If we were going to do something about the annoying, recurring issues, we'd have to be specific, like back when we had a rule against Banjo and Conker proposals (but we could try to be a bit less obtuse about it this time). The Birdo and Bob Hoskins issues both boil down to censorship and squeamishness, which are fundamentally against what a factual wiki stands for, and so we could probably disallow them for that reason (with a little preliminary paperwork to make it legit). Canonicity and organization issues like Banjo and Conker are a bit harder to deal with: if you make too many policies Admin-only, people will cry foul, no matter how good the intentions may be. -

I think the best choice would be to decide on a case-by-case basis. For instance, if there isn't already, we could add a rule on MOS saying something along the lines that quotes shouldn't be censored because this is an encyclopedia, and such. --
 * Maybe admins can declare a proposal disallowed? Not a three-proposal basis but an admins only type of thing so the admins discuss it on the boards and then say so here (on the talk page).
 * That's pretty much Rule 14: "If the Sysops deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to remove it at any time." We don't use it very often because we don't want to be power-abusers, and yanking a proposal because it's constant re-emergence is annoying might look dubious to naysayers (even if it was doomed and everyone unanimously hated it anyway). -

Recreate Snufit Ball
Seeing as this proposal tried to merge it, but failed. Later, it was deleted, and countless proposals trying to bring it back failed. I propose that we bring it back, because it affects gameplay, like Pauline's Items and Cheese. This other proposal states so. So I propose that we create the Snufit Ball article.

Proposer: Voting start: March 15 2010, 3:00 Proposed Deadline: March 22 2010, 24:00 Date Withdrawn: March 14, 2010, 15:24 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.

The "Mario Series Games" Template Revision
That redish colored template that can be seen under various Mario game articles REALLY needs to be cleaned up. First of all, there's too many games in the 2D games section. Does EVERY 2-Dementional game have to be there? Some games, such as the Mario Party series and Dance Dance Revolution: Mario Mix are NOT 2D. There is also an RPG section, but the same games are also shown in the 2D section. Now I think we should rename the template "Super Mario Series Games," and have only the major platforming Mario games (and its ports and remakes) in the template. We previously had templates for Mario Party games and RPGs (and etc.), and I think we should bring them back. I KNOW it makes the articles bigger, but you could also comment on how we can organize that template better. Basically what I'm saying is, I think we need to organize this portion of Wiki just like we did months ago.

Proposer: Voting start: March 7, 2010, 1:56 GMT Deadline: March 14, 2010, 23:59

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) - Per Proposal...and Per BabyLuigiOnFire's Comment.
 * 3) Per proposal.

Comments
Good Idea.

Stuff like that should go in the Template Talk, not being made into a proposal.

What do you mean by the "Mario Series Games" template???
 * It (probably) refers to . -

Create Separate Articles for Super Mario Advance Remakes
Ok, we seriously need to unmerge the "Super Mario Advance 2: Super Mario World" and "Super Mario World" articles, as well as the "Super Mario Advance 4: Super Mario Bros. 3" articles. First of all, there is plenty of room on this wiki to create a couple new articles to accommodate these SEPARATE games. Second of all, it creates the illusion (or disillusion) to Mario Wiki readers that these are the same games, just different ports. They are NOT the same game! Let's take the former, for instance. The GBA ramake has more levels, updated graphics, play as Luigi, et cetera the list goes on and any honest person knows what it is. The latter, among the updated graphics, how about all those new E-Reader levels? They are not the same game and should not be merged together like that. Why not merge "Super Mario 64" and "Super Mario 64 DS" together then? The status quo with the GBA and NES/SNES games is just as stupid, if not more stupid. A remake isn't the same game. "Super Mario Bros. Deluxe" is NOT "Super Mario Bros.", people! It's NOT the real game! Third of all, tons of younger gamers who were were either pooping themselves or not ever born yet when the original games came out were introduced to the games through these remakes and they deserve articles to read about the games that they were introduced to. I'm not saying the GBA games were bad. I think they were brilliant. Putting nostalgia aside, in all honesty I think they are BETTER than the originals. But they are not the same games! They're different! They need their own articles!

Proposer: Voting start: March 20, 2010, 4:26 Deadline: March 27, 2010, 23:59

Create separate articles for these separate games

 * 1) - Per above
 * 2) per proposal. If this stays merged, then Super Mario 64 DS should be merged into Super Mario 64.
 * 3) - We should, you see, we have the article for Super Mario All-Stars and even Super Mario All-Stars + Super Mario World and those are compilations of remakes.
 * 4) - I agree with the proposer.  The way it is now seems very inconsistent.
 * 5) - Per all.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Super Mario Advance 3: Yoshi's Island would be better off merged with Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island if anything. I say split 'em.
 * 8) I totally agree.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) - Yeah, If Super Mario 64 and Super Mario 64 DS are split, why don't split these?
 * 11) Sonictoast 08:12, 26 March 2010 (EDT) - Indeed, the Mario Advance games are very different from the originals. The sound bites, new items, additional levels bosses and e-reader functions alone should be enough to fill up an article.
 * 12) - Per all.
 * 13) per all.
 * 14) – Per all.

Leave as is

 * 1) I have played three of the SMA games, and they are almost exactly the same as the originals, besides the fact that some things were added. Since they are very similar to the originals, they do not deserve their own article, and would be better off merged with the SMB2, SMW, SMW2, or SMB3 articles (depending on which Super Mario Advance it is).
 * 2) - Per FF65 with the facts of that their is not enough differences for them to be their own articles. You will be pretty much copying the original articles themselves, just with the differences added in. It would be more consistant to have them together, since they are big enough to be separate articles.
 * 3) - There is little more to say about the Super Mario Advance games than what Super Mario Advance (series) already covers - that being everything in which the remakes differ from the originals, which is all the unique information we could possibly put into their individual articles. I see no point in splitting that article into four stubs, it works well the way it is.
 * 4) What would we put in the articles of the remakes? The Super Mario Advance (series) article already has a bunch of info on them, like Vellidragon said. Also, per Fawfulfury65 and Baby Mario Bloops.
 * 5) The four Donkey Kong Country remakes have a similar amount of changes, so these would need separate articles as well then. I don't think this is necessary, the changes and the few additions can also be described in the articles of the original games, otherwise it gets redundant and confusing. Especially in the SMW and YI remakes, there are so less changes that they are not worth their own articles.
 * 6) – I agree with Grandy02. Not much else for me to add, since the rest of the opposition has covered what I could have or would have said.
 * 7) - Per Fawfulfury65 and Grandy02. The way we deal with remakes needs a little work, but merging the SMA games with the originals, like how the DKC games are covered, would be more efficient than making separate articles.
 * 8) -- Per all.
 * 9) - Per all.

Comments
The Super Mario Advance games already have a seperate article (for the whole series, since there's not that much to say about the games that isn't already said in the original game's article): Here. I looked at the Super Mario World article though and it indeed has a "changes in the GBA version" section; how is that necessary with the GBA remake being covered in the other article? Also, some variations of the SMA games' titles still aren't redirecting to the correct article (though I already fixed some of them); I'm guessing that's where the proposer got the idea that they didn't have their own article. I guess it's redirect fixing time again.--


 * Well, each and every SERIES has its own article encompassing the whole series (Such as "Mario Party"). But I still think each GBA game is good enough, unique enough, and different enough to enjoy the benefits of its own article.  Think of all the younger gamers introuduced to these games through the GBA.  They may want to look up an article for any said individual game.  A unique article for, say, "Super Mario Advance 4: Super Mario Bros. 3".  The status quo is all just really, really confusing for such people.  There is plenty different in the different games, plenty plenty plenty.  Enough to say that they are not the same games at all.  Each of said GBA games should have their own unique article as if the original (S)NES game never existed.  I'm not saying don't mention they are remakes in the articles, but you get what I mean.  --


 * I would like to point out that the articles were once separate. A proposal decided to make the one page and mention each remake in the NES articles. I would find the proposal, but I'm too lazy at the moment. If you mentioned the other proposal in yours, please excuse my comment. Also, please use ":" when indenting; It makes the page look much cleaner. Thanks. ;)


 * Where does it say there is a rule against overturning a previously passed proposal? I just want to say that I find it so daft to include blurbs about the GBA remakes in the articles (I do think they should be mentioned and linked to in the NES articles, but they should both have their own articles) for wonderful classics like Super Mario Bros. 3 that essentially made the world love Mario in the first place way back when, and simultaneously neglect to give the awesome GBA remakes their own articles under the pretension that they are the same games when they are different in so many ways.  As I mentioned, the graphics are improved in the GBA remakes, among many other things.  If, say, Super Mario Advance 2: Super Mario World had its own article, it would be filled with screen shots unique to that game.  That's just one of endless examples and reasons that Mario wiki users should not stand for the status quo.  If I mentioned all the reasons it would fill the entire page.  --
 * Since the previous proposal was long enough ago, you may now post this proposal to overturn the previous decision. Yes that is correct.
 * We would still like to hear all those reasons. I see no problem in having two kinds of screenshots that are of different kind of graphical quality coexisting within the same article - the game Donkey Kong (Game Boy) has two kinds of screenshots, one when played on the Game Boy, the other in color when played on the Super Game Boy. There is no problem with the screenshots there. You shouldn't worry about the length, it's your proposal and you may support it with as many words as you want to.
 * What do you think makes the GBA remakes more worthy of an article than New Play Control: Mario Power Tennis? - 08:55, 20 March 2010 (EDT)
 * Cobold, I know you did not just compare my proposal to that piece of crap "New Play Control: Mario Power Tennis". The quick answer is that MPT and NPC: MPT and the exact same games, except the latter has crappy controls.  MPT was a solid title for the Nintendo GC, and I think Nintendo was just being greedy releasing the so called title which you speak of.  The release of the inferior version a short time ago did not just occur by happenstance; it is a clear cut case of avarice.  It was a case where the Wii controls just did not work.  Other than a new epic phail control scheme, it was the same game etirely.  Not a darn thing different about it.  Super Mario 64 DS is its own article.  Why is that?  Because it would be absurd to combine the DS remake with Super Mario 64.  And combining the NES and GBA versions of the aforementioned games is every bit as absurd in my humble opinion.  Almost every single argument for allowing the DS version of SM64 to have its own article can be made for the NES/SNES games (the GBA/NES games might be even more disparate!  The original SNES/NES games didn't have any voice overs!  Charles Martinet's voice was added to the characters in the GBA versions) like more playable characters(Luigi in the GBA games), more levels, updated graphics (more so in the GBA games to its NESSNES counterparts, although the DS graphics were slightly better than the 64's in SM64DS), more Dragon coins (and more Stars in 64DS, 150 to the original's 120.  and SMA:SMB3 had even more added levels than SMA:SMW with the E-Reader!  and they were remarkable levels!  Unique levels!).  So as you see, the argument for allowing said games to have their own articles is even GREATER than SM64DS having its own article (which it does).  CASE CLOSED.  --
 * Ah, my apologies. I didn't mean to imply that you couldn't continue this proposal. Go right ahead!

KS3, the second part of your support vote doesn't seem to make much sense. Why would Super Mario 64 DS need to be merged into Super Mario 64 if these stay merged? The Super Mario Advance games are only merged with one another, not with the games they are remakes of. Super Mario 64 DS can keep its own article as long as the Super Mario Advance games aren't part of the articles on the original games, which they currently are not. Stating the Super Mario Advance (series) article should be split because of Super Mario 64 DS not being part of Super Mario 64 makes no sense to me.--
 * Vellidragon, no one is saying that if this doesn't pass that means SM64 should be merged with SM64DS. Were saying it would be completely stupid to merge 64 with 64DS because they are two totally different games.  And if you nay sayers would have read my earlier comments, you'd had seen that there are even MORE reasons to give each GBA remake its own article because they are even more different. If a movie is remade, is the remake of that movie the same movie?  NO! Could you play as Wario, Yoshi, or Luigi in the original 64?  Nope!  God knows, gamers spent until 2004 looking for luigi in the original 64 all in vain!  It was all fake!  There were no giant turnips in the original American SMB2!  I know a lot of people who hated the original and loved the GBA remake (of American SMB2 only, of course.  All the other original NES/SNES were remarkable classics).  And I never even mentioned Super Mario Adance: SMB2 before, which would be covered by the passage of the proposal.  For comments on other games, see above.  To say that these new articles would be stubs is absolutely ridiculous!  Those wonder GBA games, the finest games to be found anywhere on the Game Boy Advance!  Nintendo at its FINEST!  You dare insinuate those wonderful classic articles would be stubs?  That is an insult to Mario, an insult to Nintendo, and an insult to all Mariowiki users.  Is the "Super Mario 64 DS" article a stub?  NO!  That's a remake!  A remake comparable to the original.  But its not the original.  Its not the same game, and neither is any of the GBA remakes!!  --
 * I was replying to KS3's support vote, which clearly states that "If this stays merged, then Super Mario 64 DS should be merged into Super Mario 64", so yes, somebody is saying that :3 I wasn't replying to the proposal itself, sorry.--

If this proposal passed, would there also be separate articles on DKC GBC, DKC GBA, DKC2 GBA and DKC3 GBA? They have as many or even more differences to the orignal games. Is that really needed? --Grandy02 16:17, 22 March 2010 (EDT)


 * Grandy, to answer your question, this proposal's passage will not affect any DKC games. There are not as many differences in those, I think they are more just handheld ports.  However, if someone sometime in the future decided it would be best for the wiki that those DKC games get their own articles, I would read the proposal and all the arguments for and against in the comments section, and then ponder my decision, and then, based on which decision I feel is best for the wiki, vote based on that decision.  But DKC games are irrelevant.  Focus on the issue at hand.  Just as SM64DS is different enough to merit its own article, so do these games, as you are aware from what are have said, differ even more rigorously.  --Marwikedor
 * Well, these are the major changes I remember from the games (excluding visual and acoustical changes):
 * SMA: Several new objects, enemies (including one new boss) and areas, score added, Ace Coins and Yoshi Challenge. Game can be saved.
 * SMA2: Collecting all Dragon Coins replaces them by Peach Coins, checklist for the levels, Luigi has different abilites.
 * SMA3: Six new levels.
 * SMA4: e-Reader support for new levels, items and enemies.
 * And now in the DKC remakes:
 * DKC GBC: One new level, three new mini-games, Game Boy Printer support, collecting hidden stickers for printing.
 * DKC GBA: Two new mini-games, behaviour of all bosses changed more or less, collecting photos in an album, time attack mode, "Videogame Hero" mode.
 * DKC2 GBA: One new boss, three new mini-games, a feather in every level, collecting photos in an album, time attack mode.
 * DKC3 GBA: One entirely new world, one new boss, three new mini-games.
 * From what I remember, there are actually more differences in the DKC remakes than in the remakes of SMW and YI. Correct me if I'm wrong. But if it is true, the DKC remakes would need separate articles as well for the sake of consistency. --
 * There's more changes in SMA2; there's a feature for saving anywhere on the overworld, dragon coins can be found in castles, there are new block types (like question blocks which several coins pop out of that fall to the ground) and Yoshi's abilities are changed (he can spit out a lot of enemies which he previously swallowed immediately). There are also some other minor changes in level design (mainly making the levels a tiny bit easier) in SMA2 and in SMA4 as well. Not that it matters much which remake has more changes in comparison to another. Any remake with an amount of changes comparable to the Super Mario Advance games would each need its own article as well if this passes, and the changes in the DKC remakes are quite numerous, so I do agree this would apply to them.--

Shouldn't this be placed in the Super Mario Advance article??? This only describes stuff on Super Mario Advance games, so why be placed on here???

SonicToast and Starman's votes (number 8 and 9 support) do not have valid reasons.
 * YES THEY DO! How the heck is "I support the proposal" and "I agree totally with the proposal" invalid reasons?!!!  And per all is a valid reason?!!  They agree with what I am proposing that is their reason!  They agree with the platform!!!  God!  Someone always has to cause trouble!  "I support the proposal" and "I totally agree with the proposal" means "Per proposal".  It means the exact same thing!!!


 * Number 8 just says "Support," not "I support the proposal". Though I agree on how number 9 says "I totally agree" and that's a reason. Number 8 is as valid as not giving any reason at all, because we basically "support" while being on the "support" section. Just don't make a big fuss over this, ok?

I hope all supporters keep in mind that this proposal means 9 new articles? Four SMA games, four DKC remakes, and the Wii version of Donkey Kong Jungle Beat (it's not just the control scheme that changed). You can't take account of the SMA series and ignore the DK remakes at the same time. --
 * The proposal is going to pass within only a few hours, and I have a bad feeling about it. Really guys, I think we should leave it as it is.
 * The way we currently cover the remakes isn't very consistent, so leaving it alone isn't actually the best solution. If the proposal does pass (which it probably will), it gives us opposers a month to formulate an even better policy: namely, figuring out what makes a remake deserving of its own game. As we've seen here, some people think SMA have been changed enough to warrant separate articles, while others feel only changes as radical as the new characters, gameplay, levels and plot elements of Super Mario 64 DS require a separate page for their coverage. We've also seen people make value judgements based on nostalgia and other personal opinions ("SMA games are awesome, NPC is crap"), which it 100% NOT how we should be coming at these problems. We just need a good, objective way to decide what gets separate pages and what doesn't, and I imagine we'll be able to (re-)merge the DKC and SMA, no problem. In the meantime, patience is a virtue. -


 * Walkazo, I didn't see you opposing my article until a few seconds ago, sweetheart. These 9 new articles this proposal will create will be some of the wikis finest!  Like alot of people didn't have a bad feeling about the Universal healthcare in america?  Well, 75% of us Americans opposed that, and it passed.  Here, the people of Mario wiki have voted for the policy change that all remakes with a reasonable amount of differences deserve their own articles.  If there can be so obscure an article as Mario's Sock, why don't these remarkable games that introuduced so many to the Mario fold merit their own?  I never  said this was going to be easy.  But the status quo must die!  I can't make them all myself.  But I hope allies will arise, ally editors, to help make these as good and unique to their unique games as well, the articles for the original games themselves.  I mean I respect your opinions but I disagree and so does the wiki!  This is for the good of the wiki, so we disagree here.  March 28, it is now over.  The proposal has passed!-

Split all Super Smash Bros. moves into separate articles
Before I start, let me say that I am aware of the proposal that merged them. With that said let me continue.

For about two years now, all the moves that belong to a character in the Super Smash Bros. franchise (such as Rollout, Flare Blade and Final Cutter) have been merged to their respective characters. But now I ask this one simple question: Why do we have an article for every single other move and the SSB moves are all merged? All moves are just an major and important as the other, so I don't see why SSB moves have to be merged. The SSB franchise should be treated exactly like the Mario franchise, so I'm proposing to split all the SSB moves into their own articles.

Proposer: Voting start: 21 March 2010, 14:00 Deadline: 28 March 2010, 24:00

Split Moves

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) FD09 Per above. I'm sure they wouldn't be stubs.

Do not Split Moves

 * 1) -- Please view my first comment below.
 * 2) - Now, I think that's uncalled for. They don't need separate articles, and it was good that they were merged. If this is a consistency issue, then we should take this on the other way around, since many move articles are stubs.
 * 3) - Per all.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Four words: A crapload of STUBS! and per all.
 * 6) Well, there would be many stubs, and they would have to be remerged together.
 * 7) - Per all.
 * 8) - Per all.
 * 9) - Per all.
 * 10) – Per Gamefreak75.
 * 11) The problem with this is like Gamefreak said, their would be too much stubs. I mean, if we create an article about Wario's Down+B move (Wario Waft), what would we write other than "Wario Waft is an attack in which Wario Farts. The longer you wait between using the move, the more powerful it would be." That's a stub right there.
 * 12) Yes, that would be a crapload of stubs. Per all.
 * 13) Per all.

Comments
And there was a failed attempt here
 * That wasn't a failed attempt, he just deleted it.
 * Well, for at least three of your examples (Twist Dunk, Water Bomb, Splash Bros), I would recommend making a single page for all moves from the same game. Ultra Hammer would be kept separate because it's an item, but having a single page for the other three examples would certainly be better. However, keeping Smash moves on each person's page would be far more efficient since the moves are unique to each character and having one page for all the moves would be just giant.
 * Wait wait wait! I thought that it says into separte articles! It wouldn't be one page, it would simply be into separate pages. And if you still mean what I just said, they would merely be bigger than most small pages that aren't stubs. That is all I have to say.
 * Calm down. I know what the proposal is for. I'm saying that I do not support because it's more efficient to have them on the character articles, and that my suggestion about his three examples would not work for the Smash moves. It's highly inefficient to have to keep clicking back and forth just to see individual moves. So... I shall continue to oppose.
 * I'm never angry, I was just making sure that you didn't think of it as one page. Yes, I agree with the facts of merging the pages that should be merged (the offensive moves together, defensive moves together, etc). But, I do like the idea of having them split from the main characters page, since they are so anxious. So, with my thoughts, I'm going to stay neutral.

Maybe we could just split them into "X's moves in the Super Smash Bros. Series" or something.

I wouldn't be against separate articles for the moves of the Mario characters (as their articles are already very long). --

Okay, the oppose votes are going on my nerve for their reasons. When they mean split the moves into articles, doesn't mean each move, but moves for a character (i.e. - Mario's moves would be a article, including Fireball, Cape, Super Jump Punch, Mario Torando, F.L.U.D.D., and Mario Finale. Those I just listed would not each be a article, but together they would). They would not be stubs, and I just want to clear that for my sanity.

Change Featured Images Archive Formatting
Yesterday, I checked the archive for the Featured Images, (as a guest), and the page was like huge, probably bigger than the Princess Daisy page. We already did it to the MarioWiki:Proposals/archive, why can't we do it with the FI archive page??? It would be similar to the test4 that RAP is creating.

Proposer: Voting start: 21 March 2010, 13:00 Deadline: 29 March 2010, 23:59

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.

Comments
I don't think this needs a proposal. Yes, we should split the archives, that's common sense. It's just that nobody has done it yet.
 * Yes, per Time Q. I can get to this tomorrow.

Any reason why this is still here?
 * I had removed it, but KS3 said we didnt do what the proposal said...
 * The reason why this is still here is because it says it will be similar to the test4 RAP is creating

Change the structure of the main character articles
As many of us are aware, the Super Mario Wiki has joined forces with and  and created the Nintendo Independent Wiki Alliance. As an active user of both Bulbapedia and the SMW, it has come to my attention that the quality of Bulbapedia's Pok&eacute;mon articles (eg., , etc) are of much higher quality (in terms of structure) than the Super Mario Wiki's main character articles (eg. Mario, Luigi, Princess Peach, Yoshi etc.).

The structure of Bulbapedia's Pok&eacute;mon articles can be found. I propose that, now that the Super Mario Wiki has allied with Bulbapedia, we should raise the standard of our articles to a similar standard to that of Bulbapedia, starting with the main characters.

Proposer: Voting start: 22 March 2010, 19:33 Deadline: 29 March 2010, 23:59

Support

 * 1) per what I wrote above.
 * 2) - Per SE and Tucayo.
 * 3) The example is MUCH more organized than the jumbled mess of game appearances we have...
 * 4) Well, the examples are about minor characters and are better than our main character articles, It is illogical to wait any longer to fix the articles.

Oppose

 * 1) - Mario and Pokémon are incomparably different, and reformatting our wiki to be like Bulbapedia would not work. We have to deal with many more games than they do and have been given much less structure to do it with by Nintendo; we can't make nice Canonicity statements because we have no canon to work with besides release dates, and we can't afford to make "History" a place to talk about character development when there's so many appearances we have to deal with first. But even if we do leave the development in the "Characteristics" section (currently known as "Character Information" on the more up-to-date pages), simply put the appearances in "History" as they're set up now, set aside the fact that your template doesn't include any mention of Stats, Tattles and other minutiae which currently go at the bottoms of our pages, and ignore the entire "Alternate Media?" debate, the new template still requires us to reorganize almost every single page in the entire Super Mario Wiki. Like the Sysops said last time a proposal was made about the History Organization Standard, we haven't even finished reformatting this place based on the last change or even the change before that, and making another, even more radical change is not a wise move - not until we're done playing catch-up. The last thing NIWA needs in its first few months of existence is for one of the founding wikis to turn itself inside-out. Maybe we could look into making a few smaller changes, but a complete overhaul of everything is NOT feasible, and changing the "main character articles" only would be extremely inconsistent and would make us look very disorganized.
 * 2) Per Walkazo and his mighty wall of text.
 * 3) - Per Walkazo. She seems to be right about this, I think.
 * 4) - Per Walkazo. It appears that were still not done with the reformatting for the majority of the articles.
 * 5) - Per Walkazo. It's a good idea, but it is too drastic and it doesn't make sense in this context.
 * 6) - Per all. Change over the way the character articles are shown currently is an unexpected twist and a cumbersome work on redoing them all by other new means. Just because we made an alliance that doesn't mean we must follow all the ways that the other wikis propose. Bulbapedia has a way to show an information and the Zeldawiki has its own way likewise.
 * Per Walkazo.
 * 1) Per Walkazo.
 * 2) Although the structure seems to be better organized than the one we currently have now, Pokemon and Mario are very two different types of games. Like some others say, we don't have to exactly follow the way Bulbapedia is structured.
 * 3) It could work for Yoshi (since he acts like a Pokemon) but it would break consistency. Per all
 * 4) Per all. What do you think of making a "diet" for Rosalina. "Gender differences" won't work, and she travels everywhere, so "habitat" doesn't work. Same thing with Luigi and Pauline. It might work for Yoshi or Birdo, but that breaks consistency
 * 5) - Per all, this is the Super Mario Wiki, not a Pokémon Wiki.
 * 6) – Per all.
 * 7) Per all, this wiki needs to maintain its sovereignty despite the alliance.
 * 8) Although the pages are in some cases a little messy, it is not impossible to find information. There are advantages to not having a template, such as each article being tailored to suit the character. Pages need some re-organizing here and there, but a major template overhaul is not necessary and in some cases may be detrimental to the quality.

Comments
Hmmm..... remember that we can't use thing as "Gender differences", "habitat", "diet" and those things :/
 * Yes, the BP article structure is tailored for Pokémon information. -

@Silver Eevee: Perhaps you could show us an example of what an article might look like in the new format. This will allow us to see exactly the format you're proposing. Just a suggestion.
 * @ Bloc Partier: Sure, I'll get one up in my sandbox straight away.
 * Okay, it's done. '''Please go here
 * Hm. Characteristics being at the top I agree with, personally; I always thought it was a bit odd when a character's physical appearance etc. is listed below their appearances games. As for games, I like how those are currently arranged by series, and it enables one to sum up all of a character's appearance in a sub-series like the Super Mario Kart series where there are often not too many differences between a character's role in individual games; if we split them up into individual titles rather than series, those would all need a different sub-section. I also don't think we need seperate sections for cartoons and comics like on Bulbapedia. Neither any cartoons nor any comics based on the Mario series have a comparable degree of prominence as the Pokémon Anime and Manga. The frequently used "in other media" section encompassing everything that's not a game does the job quite well. As for names in other languages, I disagree with those being part of the Trivia section. Names in non-English languages are hardly trivia; Bulbapedia does not combine those sections either, in fact.--
 * Thank you! Well. Hm. This is quite a drastic change. I'll certainly have to think about this one. I will, however, point out to everyone that this is an extremely drastic proposal and that any voters should very carefully consider the advantages and disadvantages of this proposal; if it succeeds, it will overturn countless proposals before it that have changed the ordering of articles. In fact, some articles have not yet reached the standards of the last massive reorder. Just a warning.


 * I also have one question for the proposer: Will this affect tiny articles such as Dark Paratroopa? If so, would we have all that initial information, like appearance and whatnot, in the article? And what about the games the character appears in? Just curious.
 * Thanks everyone for your interest. As for Bloc's question: no, probably not, as the smaller articles like that are still important but all the categories and stuff isn't nessecary.
 * Ok. Thanks for the info. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to disagree on this one.

Characters' Order
I notice when I read a bunch of articles on different characters and games they have a section on their list of characters, and the order of each character on every different article is different and disorginized, so I came up with an idea.... well three ideas of how to orginized these characters on every article: (I will use characters from Super Mario Galaxy as an example on all ideas)


 * Chronological Order (Games Only): In this one, the first character to appear in gameplay will be first, then the next character will be second, then the third one, and so on. If two or more characters appear at the same time then it will go on alphabetical order. Example: Mario, Peach, Bowser, Rosalina, Bowser Jr., and Luigi


 * Importance: This one will make the order out of the character's overall importance in all Mario games. Example: Mario, Luigi, Peach, Bowser, Bowser Jr., and Rosalina


 * ABC: In this one all the characters will be organized alphabetically. Example: Bowser Jr., Bowser, Luigi, Mario, Peach, and Rosalina

Proposer: Voting start: 22 March, 2010, 19:33 Deadline: 29 March, 2010, 23:59

ABC

 * 1) - Seems the most objective way. And there can't be different opinions on how to order them
 * 2) It's the most helpful for people who doesn't play the Mario series, or at least the game. It could also be helpful for people who regularly plays the games too!
 * 3) I have no idea how it will work chronologically, and importance will be full of oppinions.
 * 4) per all.
 * 5) I am Zero! I change my mind, chronological will get confusing and importance, well the list will obviously go as: Mario, Luigi, Peach, Bowser, and either Daisy or Bowser Jr., after that there will be a bit of a debate. Zero signing out.
 * Per Tucayo.
 * 1) Well, the other ones are very confusing for novice users who want to know about the Mario series and would have much debate about the order of enemies, and this one has a basic alphabetical order that can not change.
 * 2) - Per all.
 * 3) - Per all. We already use alphabetical order on other articles (i.e. the List of Quotes pages), so it would be logical (and consistent) to use it on the game pages too.
 * 4) – Per all.
 * 5) per Reversinator. Importance will cause arguments.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Chronological order will become a disaster, and importance is subjective, while alphabetical is definitive and easy to find. Per all.

Comments
I'm not sure if I understand the "chronological" thing. The character to appear in gameplay first? Do you mean arranging them by when they debuted, and then by when they appear in that game if several debut in the same one (e.g. Mario and Donkey Kong)? Even then, several may appear at the same moment. A chronological order of sorts would make sense though seeing how that is how the games are arranged. I'm tied between that and alphabetical order at the moment. Maybe a combination of both even; by date of debut, and then alphabetical if muliple characters debuted at the same time? May be too needlessly complicated that way though. "Importance" I am against, since deciding which character is more "important" is an extremely subjective matter, and subjectivity doesn't belong here.--
 * I agree with Vellidragon about the importance thing. If I had to pick one, I'd think alphabetical order would be the trustiest way to handle this, because it is the most objective one. -


 * I am Zero! Vellidragon I like your thinking of a Chronological Alphabetical order I'll change the rules for the chronological one. Well using SMG as an example again chronological basically mean, the first character you see in gameplay is obviously Mario, he goes to the castle to see Peach, she'll be second, then Bowser attacks, he'll be third. And what I mean by imprtance for example is not like I like Luigi better then Mario so I think he is more important, it is more like their participatience in each game put together. Zero signing out.

In terms of spin-offs, the character order is usually in terms of the order the characters appear on the select screen of the game. It can vary, but I didn't see anything wrong with common sens ordering. ForeverDaisy09 17:03, 26 March 2010 (EDT)

Delete FA Nominations that are going nowhere
While checking the FA nominations I noticed some noms have been there for like 2 years(!) and they aren't going anywhere. Lets see, the Luigi nomination, one of the most popular Nintendo characters, and who naturally, has a LOT of fans. The nomination vote says "Dude this artical rocks!!!!! If you don't choose it I will!!!!!!!!". Is that a vote? Well, sadly, by our standards, it is. That nomination has been there for a lot of time because naturally, all the fan boys support, and while many users oppose, the nomination can't get deleted after it isn't edited 1 month, which doesn't happen at all, because some random day, one of these fanboys come and add a vote. And so we have to wait for another month, and the same thing happens each time, so it won't get removed. Believe, I have seen MANY users that register just to support an FA nomination, which leads me to another thing I will propose in the admins board.... What I propose, is that if after 2 months the article hasn't become featured, we archive the nomination, because it won't become featured! Who are we trying to fool? And I also propose the article is not ellegible for re-nomination before 2 months, and JUST IF MAJOR CHANGES HAVE BEEN APPLIED. EDIT: Time Q pointed out a flaw. So, the only nominations that will be deleted are the ones that have lasted for more than 4 months, and that have at least a .5:1 opposers to supporters ratio. So, what do you think?

Proposer: Voting Starts: Monday, March 23th 21:00 Deadline: Monday, March 30th 2010, 23:59

I can see those nominations are not going anywhere

 * 1) - Per me.
 * 2) - Per Tucayo.
 * 3) Per proposal. You know it's not going anywhere any time soon if the nomination lasts longer than 2 years. Ouch.
 * 4) Per proposal. And there are nominations for articles WE KNOW won't pass, but they will stay here for at least month. And there are nominations that last for 2 years (and growing)! Luigi's nomination, for example, is here ever since 2008! WHOA!!!
 * 5) Per proposal. That Luigi nomination has been here FOREVER!!! and it's going nowhere.
 * 6)  The way it now is is messy
 * 7) - Per all.
 * 8) I am Zero! Those FAs are not going to go anywhere at all, Per all. Zero signing out.
 * 9) – Per all.
 * 10) I'm a new guy but I see what your're going with there. I agree
 * 11) - A Featured Article should be of so astoundingly splendid quality that there is no question about its nomination . This is the way it should be. If a nominated article has to struggle for two whole months, then its clear there is something wrong with it. This is a very simple principle, and the facts about its flaws are exaggerated.

Oppose

 * 1) Per the comment of mine that is below.
 * 2) - Per Time Q in the comments. It has it's flaws, especially with the deletion of the Luigi article. Also, this vote option's title is extremely biased.
 * I do agree we need a rule to delete certain FA nominations; however I don't agree with the rule proposed here. The proposed .5:1 opposers to supporters ratio won't work, see the comments below.
 * 1) Per all.
 * 2) per all. The headers are biased towards the support side.
 * 3) – Besides the bias, I don't think that we should delete F.A. Nominations; I would rather have them archived/protected for future viewing.
 * 4) Per all. It'd just be nominated again with the same problems that were making it unfeatured/featured.

Comments
Tucayo, shouldn't the headers be non-biased (and you spelled "article" wrong)?.
 * They are not biased, they are creative, but they are non biased, still. And that is a pun from the nomination reason for Luigi :)
 * I do think the first one is biased. More opinions?

If the nomination page gets deleted, someone will simply renominate it. And if you point out the thing about the major changes, that someone will simply argue for hours with you. -
 * Well, they will have to wait 2 months, and I think everyone can see what major changes are. It will be obvious if the article has changed since it was last nominated. If you have any suggestion please tell me :)

...Isn't that the rule already? Except, I thought the current rule kept the nominations for only one month... I could be wrong.
 * There is, IIRC. This proposal proposes to change it to 2 months :)
 * Um, but why would you change it if you're trying to delete the nominations? I guess I'm missing something here.
 * Nominations are deleted if they are not edited for one month. However, there's no rule to delete nominations that are frequently edited but don't pass.

I don't think this is a good idea. 2 months seem too short to me. Also, your proposal doesn't consider special cases; for example, say after 1 month and 25 days, there are no opposes and at least 5 support votes, which means the nomination will pass after one week. However, according to your proposal the nomination would be deleted because 2 months have passed. This is obviously bad. Also, nominations with only one single oppose vote would be treated the same as nominations such as Luigi with lots of opposes. Do we really want that? I think it would be a better idea to find a system that allows us to delete nominations based on the amount of support and oppose votes. However, this needs to be discussed carefully, best on the FA talk page, rather than proposing a rule in a hurry that could have bad consequences.

Tucayo, this is exactly what i asked you. Badges, Geno, mama Mario, all those articles that have been featured latley you could not vote for!
 * I don't get your reason for opposing, Raphael.
 * @Time Q: Ah, thanks, I missed that part!

Where did all my supporters go.
 * They all added their votes before voting time started, so I had to remove them, sorry.
 * Oh, it's OK then :) For a reason I highly doubt most of them will re-support it....

.5:1 ratio? This would mean that the Luigi nomination can't be deleted.
 * My bad, I had said "supporters to opposers" I mean "opposers to supporters". @KS3: Thats not true.
 * Well, but then the Luigi nomination couldn't be deleted either.

Raphaelraven: You could always vote to unfeature them if you think they don't deserve to be featured...
 * @BLOF&Revirsinator: i opposed because not long ago i sent Tucayo a message asking why the articles that we get to vote for on the FA page never get featured, and the ones that do get featured (i.e. Mama mario, geno, shadow queen, badges etc...) we dont get to vote for. I hate to say his answer didnt help much. So, i fwhat im saying is true, theres no point in this proposal so we should just go and delete all the FA nominations B/C theyll never get featured!!!!!!!!

If this passes, we should also make a proposal on deleting FI proposals that don't get passed within a few months (like this)


 * But the voting system is entirely different than the Featured Article one!
 * Agree with LGM. RR497: I think you are not understanding my point. We are deleting nominations that, as the header, WHICH IS NOT BIASED BECAUSE THOSE NOMS ARE NOT GOING ANYWHERE, will never get decided. Tell me, what is the point in keeping the Luigi nomination? Never will all those 23 opposers be convinced to remove their oppose vote. Many of them don't even come in the wiki anymore, so, that nomination will be there FOREVER. @Opposers: You can't deny it. @Time Q: What do you think would be a fit method? Actually, this proposal will give the articles a second chance, starting anew, with no supporters, no opposers, which is good, isn't it?
 * They won't necessarily stay forever, for two reasons: First, they may stay unedited for one month, so they will be deleted. Second, all the points the opposers made may be fixed. Afterwards, the opposers remove their votes, or if they don't (because they're inactive or whatever), we can have a vote to remove the votes. You don't refer to my actual reason of opposing this proposal. You want to get rid of the Luigi nomination, but it won't work with the system you're proposing. I haven't thought about a good method of selecting nominations to delete, that's why I suggested to first discuss it on the FA talk page rather than make a proposal right away.

@SMB: The proposal says they will be archived, not deleted :)

Tucayo: Your proposal dates are March 23 and March 30, both are a tuesday, but it states monday. You should fit date.
 * Tucky: You actually state both archiving and deleting, which is rather confusing.


 * First off, the name of the proposal itself is "Delete FA Nominations that are going nowhere"... Yikes!
 * "That nomination has been there for a lot of time because naturally, all the fan boys support, and while many users oppose, the nomination can't get deleted after it isn't edited 1 month, which doesn't happen at all, because some random day, one of these fanboys come and add a vote." – Sounds like you are supporting a deletion right there.
 * "And so we have to wait for another month, and the same thing happens each time, so it won't get removed. " – This part is actually a bit ambiguous, and can probably be interpreted as either deleting or archiving.
 * "What I propose, is that if after 2 months the article hasn't become featured, we archive the nomination, because it won't become featured!" – This is really the only part where you clearly state that these nominations will be archived.
 * And then you leave off with, "So, the only nominations that will be deleted are the ones that have lasted for more than 4 months, and that have at least a .5:1 opposers to supporters ratio."
 * Overall, I cannot support your proposal, for you contradict what you are saying in the proposal and in the comments, and even in the proposal itself.
 * This is splitting hairs. Deletion does not automatically exclude archival storage . He does not contradict himself in any way, and he said deleted nominations are definitely archived. And that's actually all you are asking for. -

@Edo: You're aware that if you support a proposal, you support it with all its consequences, right? Can you please explain to me why you support the .5:1 ratio? And the facts about its flaws are not exaggerated >.< I can't understand why people support something knowing about its flaws but ignoring them 'cause they are "exaggerated" or unlikely. What if they do happen someday?


 * I shall explain my thoughts to you. First: I have read the proposal text several times and have thought thoroughly about it. The proposal is known for a few days to me now, so I had enough time. I do not ignore the flaws this proposal might have, I merely deem them too minor to interfere. Maybe you see a terrible apocalyptic flaw somewhere that I overlooked, I don't know. All I see is the suggestion to close FA nominations that have been around for two months without a decision, which I deem a good thing. Let me elaborate that: I believe if an article is to receive featured status, it has to be flawless, well-written, well-researched and overall of very, very good quality. Our visitors should see it and instantly think: "Man, this article is just awesome!". Now if we, the writers, nominate an article for FA status, and we cannot make up our minds for two whole months whether this article is "awesome" or not, then honestly, there is no doubt that there have to be flaws left in the article, or otherwise we wouldn't argue for so long. So, the nomination gets closed, the flaws get expelled, and then we can begin to argue again. This simple principle is actually valid for all FA nominations. The cause about the ratio just makes it more complicated.


 * This is how I imagine things to happen if this proposal passes. No desasters, no apocalypses, just the removal of pointless nominations and arguments that eat that time we actually should use to improve the articles themselves . -
 * What's to stop them from just nominating it again anyway? Some newbie may just go right back to the Luigi page, think, "Hey! I should nominate this!" and start the whole vote over again. And if history repeats itself, the page will still get tons of fan votes and tons of oppose votes. The cycle will go on and on. Don't you think there's a better way of going about this? Not to mention the fact that the Luigi article won't even be deleted.
 * @BP: If I understand it correctly, the proposal bans re-nomination of deleted nominations for 2 months. @Edo: All you see "is the suggestion to close FA nominations that have been around for two months without a decision"? Then obviously you didn't read the proposal very well. Only those articles that have at least a .5:1 opposers to supporters ratio will be deleted. That's the whole point I'm criticizing about this proposal, but you didn't even mention it. Once again: If you support a proposal, you support it with all its implications. Now why in the world would you support that ratio rule? And please don't be ridiculous, I never said this proposal will have "apocalyptic" consequences, just that it will establish a rule that at least to me makes no sense whatsoever.
 * Ah. Well, IMO, that's a worse idea, since people can just wait two months and then re-nominate. But that's just me.
 * Time Q: After reading your comment, you're the right person to point out I didn't read something completely. Towards the end of my comment I said: "The cause about the ratio just makes it more complicated.", thanks for acknowledging. When I first read the proposal, this part wasn't there. As far as I see it got tacked on after a complaint from you. The part about the ratio actually makes it worse, it should be cut off again. Anyway, I think the idea as a whole is a good thing. Every new step comes with a few flaws, flaws which have to be expelled manually. If it weren't for those steps, the wiki wouldn't be what it is now. We have a problem here. A problem with nominations that just rot somewhere and clog our nomination lists. Tucayo is trying to move something to solve this problem. This is respectable. So, instead of standing in the way and complaining about how "inapropriate" and "flawy" this proposal is, you should focus this energy on helping Tucayo, and making your own suggestions to get rid of these flaws.


 * Well anyway, I know too well how these heated debates tend to get to me, and I know my limits, so this comment will be the last one I make for this discussion. I explained everything I think of this proposal, that's enough. Have a nice day. -

Notable "Unofficial" Games
Why isn't there a section for notable "unlicensed" games? The page on Canonicity states that "fan creations, such as fan-fiction, fan-made video games, or fan-theories, are not to be referenced within our articles". I understand the "no-fanfiction" part, but I've seen what seems to be fan theories on several pages ("he is possibly a ..., but this is uncertain") and the page on Super Mario Bros. Special mentions the unofficial NES port.

My suggestion is not referring to crappy recolors or "Super (word) Bros." or the like. I refer to well-received fan-hacks such as...
 * The games of Dahrkdaiz (NES): I especially refer to Mario Adventure, a hack of Super Mario Bros. 3 that essentially rebuilt the game from the ground-up.
 * The Super Mario Bros. Deluxe series (SNES): A series of three Super Mario World hacks that import the levels of Mario 1, 2, and Lost Levels respectively plus a few bonuses – such as World-e in Lost Levels Deluxe.
 * Kaizo Mario World (SNES): Hack of Super Mario World that has become rather well-known for its insane difficulty.
 * Mushroom Kingdom Fusion (PC): A massive crossover-game featuring Mario and Sonic characters among many, many others. Has its own Wiki.

I also refer to "pirated" games that, although unofficial, have nonetheless been well-noticed by the fan community.
 * Super Mario 3 Special (GBC): Port of Super Mario Bros. 3 that, although very accurate in some respects, does not control very well. Uses a rather obscure mapper, which renders the game unplayable in most Game Boy (Color/Advance) emulators.
 * Super Mario World (NES), aka "Mario World NES": A 1995 release that ported quite a chunk of its source material despite the NES' limitations (no Banzai Bill, sorry!) – including the original game's "magic", as it were. There are two versions of this game, one of which may be a prototype of the other.
 * Kart Fighter (NES): A Super Mario Kart/Street Fighter II hybrid that predates (and may even have inspired) Super Smash Bros. Released by Hummer Team (same company that made "Mario World NES").
 * Somari the Adventurer (NES): A hack/port of Sonic the Hedgehog starring Mario, with a lot being ported from the source material. Released by "Somari Team".
 * Super Boy (Sega Master System/MSX): A series of four games that use Mario sprites and music.
 * The Great Giana Sisters (Commodore 64/DS): Game series that was a direct attempt to rip-off Super Mario Bros. Apparently these were "official" (not pirated) games, with the latter licensed by Nintendo.

And there are other games – such as Super Donkey Kong (NES), Donkey Kong Country 2 (NES), Super Mario 4 (GB), Mario Lottery (NES), and a few others – that capture the spirit of the games in this Wiki while still being unlicensed.

Basically, I propose that this site should devote articles to at least a few of the games which, although unofficial, are rather noteworthy in their own right (and in the positive sense, for the most part). If anyone wishes to know more about any of the aforementioned games, please let me know – but I won't link to ROMs.

Proposer: Voting start: 24 March, 2010, 18:20. Deadline: 31 March 2010, 23:59 (GMT).

No "unofficial" games should be included

 * 1) - per BabyLuigiOnFire's comment
 * 2) - unofficial games should not be mentioned. We cover the Mario series as made by Nintendo.
 * 3) - Per comment below.
 * 4) Per all
 * 5) Per comment above.
 * 6)  PEr below
 * Per all.
 * I'm against covering anything "unofficial" as long as we don't have a nearly "complete" coverage of past games, and they are still various gaps.
 * 1) - Per all.
 * 2) - Per all.
 * 3) - Per comment (short version: I don't think it would improve the wiki to list fan-made games.)
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) – Per all.
 * 6) Per all. Anyone can write an unofficial game. Leave this stuff at the Mario Fanon Wiki.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Not me and per all.
 * 10) Per absolutely everything above and below.

Comments
No fanon should be allowed. We should only talk about official and stuff that are true in the Mario series. The only content we accept is stuff sponsored by Nintendo. Plus, this site isn't made for fanon. Make a wiki, or something else that deals with this. We are here for official Mario stuff only. I don't want fanon flooding pages either.
 * Making articles on hacks & bootlegs is not quite "fanon", but I agree that if it's not official (i.e. at least licensed by Nintendo), this Wiki is no place for it, no matter if it "captures the spirit" of the official games (which most of the games mentioned among the examples don't even do; Super Mario 4 for instance is a terrible hack of a Crayon Shin Chan game). How would it be decided if something is "worthy" of being covered anyway? Obviously everyone would add their own creations to the Wiki, and if things like these were allowed, we couldn't even stop them from doing that. Add to that the fact that none of these are legal and you have enough of a reason not to cover them.--

@Cobold: Your comment has a problem. Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games was made by Sega, a bunch of games were made by Hudson Soft, Diddy Kong Racing was made by Raveware, and Mario hoops: 3 on 3 was made by a company I forgot.


 * @KS3: No, he's right. Those were all supporting companies that helped make the game. Check the back of the box (or is it front?) and find the official Nintendo Seal. If it's there, than it was made by Nintendo. If it's not there, then it wasn't made by Nintendo.
 * The Nintendo Seal of Quality doesn't have to mean it was made by Nintendo, it just means it was licensed by Nintendo. A lot of Mario-related games and merchandise weren't made by Nintendo but are still officially licensed. These hacks and bootlegs are not.--
 * Basically, games that you can find on stores and ads and have that Nintendo/SEGA/Whatever logo on the bottom right hand corner is feasible to add on this wiki.

Well, you don't actually define "unofficial" but you sort of give an idea of it. I don't think fan games (or fan media) should be allowed. I am pretty sure that any game made, sold and marketed by a professional company has the proper licensing to legally use a character which is trademarked by Nintendo. Any game which contains a properly licensed Mario (or Donkey Kong) character I feel is eligible for inclusion in this wiki. I can not think of anything the wiki would gain from indexing fan works.

Removing FI Votes
I go on the Featured Image page every day. Latley, I've noticed a lot of votes that say, "I just like it," or "I just don't like it," or "Yay!" or "Yes," and even plain old "No." I think every user should state a specific reason of why he/she is supporting or opposing, even if it is a s simple as "Bad Quality". If there is no reason, there's no point in voting at all! As most of you know, when voting for a Featured Article, users have the right to say why they want another users support/oppose vote removed. If other people agree, that vote is removed. I say we should add this feature to the Featured Images page, so we can remove support/oppose votes as we fell fit.

Proposer: Voting Start: 25 March 2010, 14:42 Deadline: 1 April 2010, 23:59

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) Per everybody else in the commens section.
 * Per my comment below.
 * 1) Per comments above and/or below.
 * 2) - Per Time Q, and this was said before.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) – Per all.
 * 5) Per comments.
 * 6) - The whole voting process is stained with flaws... This will probably make it even worse.
 * 7) The thing is, your saying we cant JUST say that we like it. But, What else are we gonna say? "It contains quality information or whatever"? If we like it, we vote for it.
 * 8) After just checking the FI page I realise this proposal would make life harder for voters.
 * Per Time Q.
 * 1) Per all.
 * 2) Well, this would make the flawed FI voting system even worse, so I have to disagree with you, Raphael.

Comments
This was brought up at least once before and is a very bad idea. Voting on FIs is a highly subjective thing, which means that in most cases you vote for an image because of your personal opinion. Thing is, you can't force people to reason their personal opinion, that's absurd. Also, look at the archives, when we started the FIs almost nobody put any text there beside their username, and it worked perfectly this way. Seriously, I think people are making way too much fuss about the FIs. It's just images that you support because you like them or oppose because you don't like them! If people can't accept that, the best way to deal with this is getting rid of the FIs completely.
 * Whether one likes a picture or not is an entirely subjective thing; a picture may appeal to one person, but not to someone else, not because of flaws in the image, but because of personal preferences. If someone likes the proposed FI, then they will support it because of that; if they don't like it, they will oppose. I don't think we can force them to state a specific reason why they (dis)like it, since that can be very hard to impossible to precisely point out, and something like "I like it because it looks nice to me" isn't any more informative than just the "I like it" vote.--

All I have got to say is that opinions are subjective; even I have a problem supporting a picture without a "good" reason. That's why featured images is a nice concept, but it doesn't fit with our factual-oriented wiki (and that's also why we had at least 2 proposals on removing it.)

Man, we should make a rule about this: Remember, all votes are based on opinions of the picture. It's ok if you don't like it, but someone else thinks it's super special awesome. We all have different opinions whether a picture is good or not. Or something like that.

@MATELEOBACAN: remember that ive only been on the wii since janurary 2010.


 * I'm pretty sure we had the other proposal like this before January.

"If people can't accept that, the best way to deal with this is getting rid of the FIs completely." – I can agree to this.

Change Catch Card List Organization
After looking at Paper Mario/Bestiary and Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door/Bestiary, I found that they were easy to navigate, although the original one is incomplete. Then, I stumbled upon List of Catch Cards and found that it isn't sortable. It needs to be put in a table of the same format as its predecessors.

Proposer: Voting Starts: Sunday, March 28, 2010, 23:45 GMT Deadline: Sunday, April 4, 2010, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) – Per proposal.
 * 2) Per Proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) You have no reason as to why it's a "pain in the ass to navigate", and to me it's perfectly fine.
 * 2) - Yes, it does take awhile to get to one enemy, but a template change is not going to make a big difference. It's not the template's fault, it the fact that it is about 2x the amount of the pervious installments. Also, just to add, we need to change the page name though...
 * 3) Most modern browsers have some sort of "find" function. If you are looking for a specific card by name, this should work fine. This can also be used to skip to a certain number, if for some reason scrolling down a numbered list is too time consuming. The "find" feature can also allow you to see what cards are in what locations. As cards seem to be mostly numbered by location, they are already grouped.
 * 4) Per BMB.
 * 5) Well, the template's fault, it is the greater number of cards that is to blame. Though, we would have to leave the number the same, as this is not a fanon Wiki, and there is nothing to change to make it better without ruining it.

Comments
Basically, the Catch Card list is a pain in the ass to navigate. –
 * Can you elaborate on why it's a "pain in the ass to navigate"? If anything, it looks more neater then the other two.
 * Uh, yeah, I'd like to see your reasoning behind this. The only problem with it is the fact that I have to boost the font size on my browser to read the tiny text. Besides, this could very plausibly be a Talk Page Proposal.
 * Ah, I see his point. He wants the little sorting buttons at the top, like the other two pages. I don't think this warrants a proposal; just go out and do it.
 * This should be a Talk Page Proposal because a proposal on deleting a template is on a talk page.
 * No, it shouldn't. We should move every proposal to a talk page because almost everything has a page for it to be on, right? (It's true! We have all sorts of MediaWiki pages that get proposed for changing, and proposals for the Main Page should go on Talk:Main Page, right?) To be more clear, I think Talk Page Proposals are more for mainspace articles than anything else, really. 01:19, 4 April 2010 (EDT)

I think this whole discussion is unnecessary. Just listen to what Bloc Partier said earlier, and we're done here. -

Another No-Signature Policy Amendment
Alright, I think that we should make a tiny change to the No-Signature Policy that states that on voting pages that apply the policy; only the voting sections cannot contain signatures; and that users can sign with their signatures in the comments sections unless it is specified on the page specifically not to.

I'd like that to apply on this page as well.

Proposer: Voting Starts: 6 April 2010, 04:35 GMT Deadline: 13 April 2010, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) It won't have an effect on the vote count, but it will be more efficient for the users.

Oppose

 * 1) - I'm sorry, but I believe a rule shouldn't include exceptions when they can be avoided. It's easier to say "Don't use signatures on this page" than it is to say "Don't use signatures there and there, but it's ok to use them there, there, and there. Oh, but not there.". Simple rules are better comprehensible to new users. On a side note: Less signatures make this page load faster, which is good for people with old computers. People with out-dated models might not be able to visit this page properly, because it already has a lot of traffic going on here, and signatures just put extra-stress on their computers. So, let's not resort to make in-page-exceptions. This will likely cause more confusion than it adds comfort.
 * Per Edo. Also per my comment below.
 * 1) - Per Edofenrir and Time Q (though with the new archiving system, it's not as big a problem as in the past). I quite like being able to view this page on my twelve-year-old computer - unlike most high-traffic user talk pages, or the talk pages of popular articles, which are often "load at your own risk". The only reason the TPPs' sigs haven't caused issues is because they're mostly held on small talk pages, so the images (and whatnot) don't add up as they would here.
 * 2) Per all. Also, if a new user for some reason didn't read that you could use sigs in comments, they might think: "Oh, if they're using signatures there, then I must be able to use them here!" and mess up the vote count.
 * 3) - I agree with Walkazo, the reason we forbid signatures is that pages that include many different sigs tage ages to load for people with an older computer or a bad internet connection. And even those with a better connection noticed this page loading a lot faster when the sigs were removed.
 * 4) Well, sigs can cause lag on older browsers and simple rules are better for new users, so it is illogical to have exceptions for sigs, or lag on the Super Mario Wiki.
 * 5) This idea would be a great idea. However, per all.
 * 6) Per All - Don't make simple things complicated.
 * 7) - Per all.
 * 8) No it won't. right now you will just have to type  . If we made that allowed, you can type , which takes up more space/bytes.
 * 9) Per all.

Comments
Aren't some signatures pretty distracting and take up a lot of space (mine, for instance)?

(BTW, I had that idea earlier on, but I didn't make it into a proposal. What a pity...)


 * I don't really find that distractions will be a problem. They may take up a bit of space, but this proposal is more for efficiency for our users rather than making any major changes. Signatures were banned from this page because users couldn't bother to code their signatures correctly and it ruined the voting count. However, this solution allows users to save time when making comments, and it keeps the vote count safe from getting messed up. 00:49, 5 April 2010 (EDT)
 * Oh, ok. I thought that would be a major issue.


 * Seems pretty flawless unless someone has an insanely huge pic in their sig, their sig is really long, or they have more than one image. It becomes a pain in the neck to continuously type, especially if you have a long name like BLOF for example or have symbols like ñ or è or others.


 * Actually, I don't mind typing but I like colorful signatures. I can always shorten my signature if you think it's too long.


 * I always seem to mess up by typing USer instead os User, which pisses me off sometimes. I agree with the proposal.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the No-Signature Policy was introduced because some users couldn't view the proposals archives because of the sigs. If we allow sigs in comments, the old problem will be there again.

If this proposal doesn't pass, then why are users allowed to sign in the talk page proposals comments section?
 * I think because it's already a talk page and has them anyway but... it is rather silly and uneven.

Oh, I see that section on the Proposals talk page. It seems that Pokemon DP could not access the page to vote when signatures were put on. But, I'm just curious, how do signatures affect things here and not everywhere else? I assume that it must have been an issue with votes being signed with signatures. If it isn't, then there is a coding issue with signature and it should be fixed. As for the issue with big images and whatnot, I believe that there is a size limit for signatures with images, although I'm not exactly sure. 13:27, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

Remove "Did you Know" section from Main Page
I don't know the last time someone edited it, but every time I go on it always has the same stuff. Since hardly anyone is editing it, I propose we get rid of it.

Proposer: Voting start: April 13 2010, 23:12 (GMT) Deadline: April 20 2010, 23:59 (GMT) Date Withdrawn: April 19, 2010, 21:05 GMT

Support

 * 1) If no one edits it, then we should get rid of it.
 * 2) I am Zero! I made a proposal like this a little while back, but when it started a few people wanted to volunteer to change it so it was cancelled. The problem is that the same boring facts are there for months and it seems like the only time anybody changes the trivia is when someone references to the Did You Know? section or complain about it. Zero signing out.
 * 3) It is not really necessary,per KS3.

Oppose

 * 1) IIRC, Edo told me that this was used to get people to look at newly made articles and help contribute to them incase there are any mistakes. There is usually two trivias from previous articles and one from a newly made article, to help promote its view count.
 * 2) - I thought the template was protected. Anyways, everything that GF75 said plus the facts of changing it more often really does give a lot of information onto the Main Page. In fact, it helped me find pages I never thought of before.
 * 3) - Per Time Q in the comment section, and per the two who voted before me.
 * Edo wants to continue updating it, so IMO there's no reason to get rid of it.
 * 1) As long as someone starts to update it more often, I'm supporting. Also, per Gamefreak.
 * 2) - Per Baby Mario Bloops. Also, since it gets updated, I don't see any reason to remove it.
 * 3) Well, since it has been recently updated, I think this proposal is illogical and pointless.
 * 4) If the Did You Know section doesn't get updated for another 66 months because the updaters are inconsistent, I'll support. But I hope Edofenrir and some others maybe are consistent because I'm opposing this proposal.
 * 5) - Per all. "Did You Know?" is interesting, and if you care enough to complain when it's not updated to your liking, you should care enough to update it yourself.
 * 6) - Per Walkazo...and I guess Edo....

Comments
I want to say this for the billionth time "THE TEMPLATE IS NOT PROTECTED". But it may be good to remove it, that way we could have space for... other stuff.


 * Emphasize on "other stuff". I'm curious...is it more text?
 * It might be a Featured Video, Featured Quote, PipeProjects, or the immortal pie button.
 * Definitely not the featured video. Quote is scrapped. PipeProjects is already there. And I LOVE PIE!!..but no.
 * Not pie, thats for sure. If it is removed, we already have a use for the space.
 * That's what I want to know. Is it about NIWA or something?
 * @KS3: Cut it out about the pie.
 * @Question: Well, there's practically nothing we can add for the blank spot. We could just talk about NIWA on MarioWiki Community. But either way, it seems kind of useless, seeing that most of the trivia is just information about characters, like "So-and-so is a something-something".

I will just say this again, we have a use for that space ;)
 * Maybe we should move the PipeProjects from Community to below the Featured Images. the title can be List of PipeProjects or List of Inactive PipeProjects or something. Another way is to put the TPPs there.
 * Let me guess. This "use" is something secret that you won't share with us.
 * It is. @KS3, if you could make a draft of how the MP would look with those moves, it would be great.
 * Here are 2 versions: version1 and version 2. There is still the PipeProject section in the community because I am using the community template, which currently contains that.
 * I heard from here that we're going to create a template for the 'Shroom that is going to replace the "Did You Know" section.

You can remove it if you like. I won't complain anymore. -
 * Um... I don't think that we should remove this template. We could totally get rid of other useless templates, like the Community template or the Featured Images template, which take up a lot of space that doesn't need to be taken up.

The Community template of the Main Page could be compared to the QOTD template that used to be on the Main Page... Although it doesn't consist of DPL only, it still consists of DPL. This coding, from what I've heard, has proven to slow down the Main Page. Now, it provides community news; and that's great, and all, but I don't think that it's really worthy of being on the Main Page. We could find some other way to present community news (we even have the Pipe Plaza as a part of The 'Shroom, so a 'Shroom template replacing the Community template sounds reasonable to me; as it would link to the sections of The 'Shroom and the community news).

The Featured Images issue is one that has been debated for a while now. Is it, and the whole process in itself, really necessary? Should we even have Featured Images, seeing as the images are not our own work? Is it a waste of time? Well, it has been stated many times in the past that the project is full of flaws, but the proposals made that will help fix the project have been overruled by those wanting to keep the process because they see nothing wrong with it (even though we have a ton of proposals coming in to try and make improvements– making users provide reasons to their votes, making a limit on how many times an image can be nominated within a certain time-frame, and quite a few other suggestions. Seeing this, I would feel by now that many of the other users would see what's wrong with the current F.I. system itself, but I guess that I'm wrong.

I have pointed out two templates/systems that have a variety of flaws with them. The flaws are probably more than the Did You Know? section. Who knows, maybe we'll see an overhaul of the Main Page (I'm actually working on a better looking Main Page design as we speak, it's just school and stuff that prevents me from finishing). But yes, I stated my opinion above. Please consider what I have said. 20:57, 15 April 2010 (EDT)

Zero777: I used to update the template on a regular basis, until I got sick of all the complaints about it. What you wrote in your vote is pretty insolent. -
 * I really liked the trivia you put in there, so if the complaints are the only reason stopping you from updating it, you should definitely reconsider ;)

Revise Featured Images Images way
I was checking WiKirby one day and found out that their Featured Images was based on Zelda Wiki. I checked Zelda Wiki's and found it is similar to our Featured Images. To make our Featured Images more productive, we should make it like Zelda Wiki's, have a set of guidelines, and when there are no opposes and at least 5 support votes.

Proposer: Voting start: 0:00, 21 April 2010 Proposed Deadline: April 28 2010, 24:00 Date Withdrawn: March 6, 2010, 04:47 GMT

Support

 * 1) per proposal.

Comments
To make our Featured Images more productive, we should make it like Zelda Wiki's, have a set of guidelines, and when there are no opposes and at least 5 support votes. That sentence make no sense whatsoever. Can you please emphasize?

People, do you know what will hapen with all this FI-revision proposals? The FI's will have the same fate as polls.


 * I agree with Tucayo. I suggest that we stop making these worthless proposals for the FI. It will eventually collapse on itself and cause a domino effect throughout. Anyway, how many proposals for the revision of the featured articles have passed. I'm taking a lucky guess: somewhere above 90% have FAILED! We are our own wiki and we don't need to follow the format of another wiki. I have stated my point.

Suggestion, KS3. Delete the proposal, or get risked to have the FIs put in hiatus.

Revising Nomination Process of Images
We had this situation with images several times, and that's ok because they are made by different users. But then, we had times where the same people nominate an image that failed dozens of times (eg Avalanche! image). I propose that within a 1 month time period, the nominator who nominated an image that failed should not nominate it again. Any nominator who violates this rule will get their nomination deleted. This will not flood the nomination page with people making the same complaints about it being featured again and again! This should not apply to other users nominating the image, because they may not know the image they nominated had been put down previously.

Proposer: Voting Starts: Monday, April 5, 23:17 Deadline: Monday, April 12, 23:59 GMT Extended: April 19, 2010, 23:59 April 26, 2010, 23:59

Support

 * 1) Who likes to see a nomination that JUST failed be placed up again by the EXACT same user who nominated it previously?
 * 2) I am Zero! Not a bad idea.... alright I guess I'll go for it, you got my vote. Zero signing out.
 * 3) Per my comment.
 * 4) – Per BabyLuigiOnFire.
 * 5) per all
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) The same thing's happening with Featured Articles, so why can't it happen here.

Oppose

 * I just don't think this rule is necessary. See my comment below.
 * 1) Per Time Q and LGM's comment. EDIT: I made an article to change part of the FI process and Tucayo came here and said that if I don't delete my proposal the FI process will go onto hiatus.
 * 2) - Per Time Q.
 * 3) Per Time Q.
 * 4) - Why are you complaining? If the image failed before by a large amount then there's a pretty good chance it's gonna fail again. If it failed by a small amount, maybe you should look back at the image and think, maybe it isn't so bad after all...after all, it only failed by a small amount so everyone must have had a reason - it must be worthy.
 * 5) - Per Marioguy1
 * 6) - I don't see a point in this. Many images failed the first time and succeeded the second time; I've nominated such an image, which has now gained featured status.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) - Per all.
 * 9) - Per all.
 * 10) - Per all.

Comments
Hey, every time I nominated the Avalanche! picture there was a 1-2 month period of time between each nomination.
 * and I only nominated it twice.


 * No. It JUST failed and you happened to renominate it again. You should hear their complaints.


 * When???
 * I can't exactly give you proof or when, but ask the people who usually vote on the FI page. Well, let me get this straight: First, it was nominated by iforgotwho (no offense), then, you renominated it for a fresh start. Then, when it failed, you renominated it, saying "Great resolution: 4535 × 3000, depicts of the characters skiing through snow. (If you enlarge it, you can actually see the tracks made by Mario.)"

Raphaelraven398: Remember to place your vote back up when the voting period starts (I hate that when that happens to, but we gotta deal with it)

KS3: Before I deleted your vote, you mentioned some other picture. The thing is, the poor user who nominated it didn't know it was just put down. In this case, however, you happened to renominate the image JUST as it failed. It's just not right.
 * Blame it on Nintendo. If Nintendo didn't make that minigame this whole "argument" wouldn't exist.
 * Blame it on Nintendo? Without Nintendo this wiki wouldn't even exist. Anyways, I think we should extend that time where you can't re-nominate a failed image to at least one month or two.
 * I was thinking about a month, but I thought it would be too long. You made me reconsider this; I'll change it.

So what; after one month the picture is just going to appear again. The 1 month wait seems a little too short.
 * Think about how long and boring one month is. Why won't you say the rule of new users that can't create pages? They can wait to vandalize it as well.

I think this proposal is a good idea, just to point out. It might be hard to keep track of which nominations are going through because there are so many, but I can see this working with effort being put into it. Also, I'd like to suggest making the waiting time either 28 days or 56 days; both are intervals of 7 and are the closest to 1 month or two months (respectively) that are easy to track on a calendar. 00:21, 5 April 2010 (EDT)


 * We can do this. I'm pretty sure about that. Ok, I change the date once more.

So, if different people alternately nominate the same image constantly, it's alright? I feel it would just be too easy to exploit this system. However, we do need to try something different, so I don't want to vote against this.


 * Well, I had thought this issue, but few people deliberately team up and try to nominate images like that. But if just delete nominations because it was nominated already, it wouldn't be nice to the people who didn't know that. Besides, several images that got put down ended up getting featured, so we can't just make a no-renominating rule. Again, this isn't as major as vandalism, but it can be very annoying. We can probably make another rule where you can't repeatedly nominate the same images over and over even past expiration date.


 * I'm not saying that this WILL be prevented, but it will discourage silly nominations like the Avalanche image.


 * Okay, so what you're looking to do is stop frivolous nominations by the same person, not actually prevent the same image from being brought up again and again. I have a vauge idea for how a system could work, but I might need to review the actual process first. Your proposal would work for preventing silly nominations, I think, but I shudder to think who would be tasked with keeping track of them. I'll support it now that I know it's intent.


 * I can do it. I'm pretty good at keeping track of stuff and I'm super active on this wiki.

I don't know. This proposal seems somewhat unnecessary to me. I really don't know why people make such a fuss about the FIs. Why can't we just have a funny, little page where you can vote whether you like an image or not? Why set up more and more rules? If someone re-nominates an image that just failed, it will probably be voted down in the next week. What's the problem? Maybe it's just me, but we shouldn't ban something just because it's "annoying".

I don't think this proposal is necessary either. If an image is going go be renominated, chances are, it's just going to get put down again.

I know images nominated again will fail again. But we don't appreciate it. You should see the people's reactions to that page when it was nominated twice in a row.

@Commander Code-8: The proposal said that it will not affect other users nominating the same picture after it was deleted, but the FA proposal said that it affects everyone.