| Any proposal decided and past is archived here. Use the scroll box to see votes and comments. This page is protected to maintain the discussion as was. Please add archived proposals to the bottom of the page.
|
| All past proposals are archived here. This page is protected to maintain the discussion as was.
|
Species from Adventure Mode In Melee
MERGE 8-0
Okay, as many of you already know, we merged the Subspace Emissary enemies in to one article. But I noticed recently that the enemies from Adventure mode in Melee, such as Like Like, Octorok, Redead, Polar Bear, and others still have articles by themselves. I propose these should all be merged into one article, followed by their trophy descrpition, similar to the Subspace Emissary article. Those enemy articles virtually have nothing to do with Mario, and are likely not worthy enough of having their own articles.
Proposer: Garlic Man (talk)
Deadline: August 14th, 2008, 17:00
Support
- Garlic Man (talk) Per my proposal. (I haven't made one in a while, I just realized...)
- Blitzwing (talk) - Per Garlic.
- Stumpers (talk) - Merging/Splitting really shows our position on importance, so this is good if we want to take the importance of of SSB, but still keep the info.
- tanokkitails (talk)-per all
- Walkazo (talk) - Per all.
- Stooben Rooben (talk) - Per all.
- Glitchman (talk) - Per all, as long as each enemy has the same amount of information about it.
- Iron Maiden (talk) - Per all, no doubt.
Oppose
If this proposal goes through, what exactly would be the page that would have the enemies? Palkia47 (talk)
I agree with this proposal, but i tihnk we should also get rid of minor stage-hazard like Tingle or Ultimate chimera (Or whatever the heck it's spell) Blitzwing (talk)
- Palkia: I haven't decided what the article name would be, but I guess something like "List of Adventure Mode Enemies" or something along those lines.
- Blitz: Those articles should probably be merged with the stage themselves. (Though Tingle has a different role in Brawl than he does in Melee). Garlic Man (talk)
|
Trophy Locations
TIE 3-3
I was reading the page of trophy descriptions for Super Smash Bros Brawl and noticed that the page lacks of locations of the trophies. I was in need of finding a few and hoped the page would help. It was rather discouraging to find no trophy locations at all. My proposal is that we add the necessary locations of each trophy, such as which challenge to complete, if it needs to be hit by a trophy stand in the SSE, if it just has to be found in coin launcher, etc. I don't wish to make this a complete guide, just a simple description of how to get a certain trophy.
Proposer:Luigi001 (talk)
Deadline: August 15, 2008, 20:00
Support
- I am the proposer, my reasons are above. I'd also like to say that Dom makes a good point in his comment below, which is how I think the page should be like. Luigi001 (talk)
- Glitchman (talk) - I agree, I went to that page once to look for trophy locations but, alas, there was nothing. The only problem is...does anyone remember where most of the trophies came from?
- Palkia47 (talk) - Per Luigi001 and Glitchy. Any plyars having trouble trying to find the trophies that happened to stumble upon here could figure out where to look/how to unlock. I could provide how to unlock the trophies in the Challenges section under Vault in the game.
Oppose
- Tucayo (talk) - Per tanookkitails. Well only a few have got locations, you get some by doing certain things, and others with the Trophy Stand, so is merely useless.
- Garlic Man (talk) - One of the big reasons I'm against this, is because it has nothing to do with the Mario series. I mean, if this proposal gets passed, some will feel the urgency to put Sticker locations as well, and that really doesn't help back up The Importance Policy.
- Cobold (talk) - The Mario Wiki isn't a game guide. Get some official guide or go to GameFAQs for that.
Tanukkitails: I'm saying to put that they're found randomly on stages, or the SSE, or etc. I'm not saying put "this trophy can be found on......" I mean to say is to put "trophy is SSE" or "Found in coin launcher" and etc. Luigi001 (talk)
- Tucayo:It is not useless! There are many trophies that can be unlocked via certain things, like completing challenges, playing certain things with specific characters, etc. It will actually prove more of of a use than you think. Luigi001 (talk)
- well, i didnt mean that, i meant that it shouldn't be in the trophy descriptions page, it should have its own page. Tucayo (talk)
- I don't see what your saying. Do you mean make a page titles something like "List of trophy locations in SSBB?" Luigi001 (talk)
- Considering that most of them are random when found in the SSE mode, without set locations, this seems a bit pointless, but I suppose you could write on the page a paragraph explaining this randomness issue, but with the ones that have set ways of being obtained - their means can definitely be added. Dom (talk)
- Good point. It suppose at the top we could put "most trophies are found in coin launcher, SSE randomly, etc." But then we put what trophies need if they are under a challenge, how or what to do. Luigi001 (talk)
I used to be against this but he convinced me.
The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tanokkitails (talk).
Let me clarify. I do think a few make good points for opposing, I still think this proposal is worth a shot. I don't want to make this a guide, but what I mean is note somewhere on the page that most trophies are found at random, but also put what challenge to complete if a trophy is unlocked via one. And I have no idea how the matter of stickers came up, because, while from the same game, are mainly unrealated. Basically, I'm saying put what challenge to complete to get a trophy, and for the others just note somewhere on the page that they are found at random. Luigi001 (talk)
|
Removal/Merging of non-Mario articles
KEEP ARTICLES THE WAY THEY ARE 5-13
This sort of follows up on my Melee enemies proposal. I noticed articles like Leon Powalski, Mei Ling, Otacon, Colonel Roy Campbell, etc, of articles that have nothing to do with Mario himself, but rather created from interest of the Super Smash Bros. Series. Those characters never interact with Mario in any of his games, nor do they affect them. I say they should either be completely removed, or Merged into their respective Stage/Character articles (Character meaning Snake, Fox, etc. Stage meaning, Lylat Cruise, Shadow Moses Island, etc.) Those articles make it seem like Super Smash Bros. is secondary importance or something. (Not, of course)
Proposer: Garlic Man (talk)
Deadline: August 20th, 2008, 17:00
Support
- Garlic Man (talk) - Once Again, Per my Proposal.
- Magikoopa67 (talk) - I agree. This is a mario wiki, not a super smash bros. wiki.
- WikiMario (talk) - I say they should be completely removed from the site since this is a Super Mario Wiki.
- User:Luigi3000 -Merge with the stage and all will be peaceful Per Garlic!!!!
- mariomaster10-since ssb has only some to do with mario i gotta agree
Oppose
- Walkazo (talk) - See below comments. Also, the proposal is a bit too vague about how the removals/merges will be handled, and I don't want to see any useful information scrapped.
- Stumpers (talk) - It would be a confusing concept, especially for new readers/contributors. No other character articles on the Wiki would also be about other characters. For example, if a user looks up Mario, he won't learn about Princess Peach's birth. However, if a user looks at Solid Snake, they would learn about Mei Ling. If a user looks up Mushroom Kingdom, they won't find information about Piranha Plants. However, if a user looks up Termina Bay, they'll learn about the turtle. This is going to not only cause confusion in the new readers, but also new contributors, meaning that experienced contributors like you, Walkazo, and me, would now have to also be on the lookout for confused people adding information about Banzai Bill to the Princess Peach's Castle article and information about Zelda to the Link article. On the other hand, if we make series articles, we can merge all of the minor subjects into one, much like we do on List of Implied Characters. In the event that a subject from the series is major, like Link, for example, we could include a short blurb and link users to Link's article (no pun intended) using the main article template. Not only does this solve the problem of whether Link, Zelda, Sheik, or Ganon will get information about Legend of Zelda content, but it also is much simpler. There's no need for a lengthy set of rules to read just to figure out where a bit of information should go and where to link the redirect pages.
- Booster -- Per Stumpers. At least merge the minor non-playable non-Mario characters onto their own pages or something.
- InfectedShroom (talk) - Per Stumpers. And my opposal in the first place.
- Pikax (talk) - They're all characters in their own right, therefore they should have their own articles. End of.
- tanokkitails (talk)-per all
- Yoshikart (talk)-F***! I hate this proposal. PER ALL!
- Dryest bowser (talk)- I agree with Stumpers 100%. it would be really confusing
- Arend (talk) - What Dryest bowser said. Also, if we do this, then we can remove EVERY template what has any mean with the SSB series!
- Thanos6 (talk) - This isn't Wikipedia, we shouldn't be merging anything.
- Bob-omb buddy (talk) - Even if this is a mario wiki, SSBB is a mario game.
- Tucayo (talk) -. Per all, as a mariowiki, we must inform the most possible about mario games, including SSB
- King Mario (talk) - Per All
How will you decide to merge or remove the articles? I'd just split the support sections into "Remove" or "Merge". Cuz I really don't want those articles removed. :\ InfectedShroom (talk)
Problem here: an article about Sonic is about the character, not the series. Same with Snake. The article is about the fictional individual rather than the series behind him. Also, that's going to create a monster of an article for characters like Samus, and how do you propose that we decide whether to deposit the Legend of Zelda series on Link, Zelda, or Ganon? The entire Pokemon series on the Pikachu, Jigglypuff, Pichu, Mewtwo, or Lucario articles? Here's a solution to that problem: series pages. We could create a page for each series that has crossed over. There could be a short blurb up top regarding when the series crossed over, and then the article would have all the content from that series that crossed over, with each character, item, etc. getting its own section. Any subject, such as a playable Super Smash Bros. character, could get a short blurb as well, with a "main article" link to their larger article. Stumpers (talk) 15:01, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
- I like Stumpers' idea. In fact, I've always wondered why we don't have series pages: we might be the Mario Wiki, but it's still felt like a glaring omission. - Walkazo (talk)
- I like that idea. InfectedShroom (talk)
- I don't. Seems like it could easily be used as a way to shoehorn in Banjo and Conker article(s). -- Ghost Jam (talk)
Stumpers: I wasn't talking about the biggies (Sonic, who was in Olympic games and Brawl), but rather those characters who don't even really show up, but rather just make codec calls from somewhere, and have nothing to do with anything. Sonic and Snake and Samus and all those people can still have own articles; just not "Otacon", and those others. Garlic Man (talk)
- The problem is what to do with those minor characters. As Stumpers said, merging them with the main characters and the stages will result in large, unruly articles, and confuse navigation surrounding those series. Yes, the minor characters shouldn't have articles, but a better way to deal with them are series articles. - Walkazo (talk)
Should I make a proposal for merging into series lists? Stumpers (talk) 16:30, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
- Yeah, something like that would be great. -- Booster
- Once this one ends. - Walkazo (talk)
I have a feeling a bunch of people misunderstood my proposal; oh well. Anyway, could we at least merge Colonel Roy Campbell, Mei Ling, Otacon, Slippy Toad, Peppy Hare, Krystal and Navi into List of Cameos? Garlic Man (talk)
- NO!!! Arend (talk) - well, in my opinion...
- Wasn't the proposal about whether to merge Roy Campbell with Snake, etc.? Don't you worry, though. Based on how many people supported the series links idea, you'll probably get your wish. Here's my idea: we don't truncate the articles at all, we just merge. The original articles will then become redirects to their section on the "Metal Gear Solid" (or whatever) pages. Trust me, I know from the list of implied characters, this method works very well when implemented correctly. Stumpers (talk) 13:58, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
Wow. Your argumentation is mind-blowing, Arend.
I don't like the series page idea. As Ghost Jam said, it could be used to shoeorn in unrelated series. And beside, do we really need to have a page on Metal Gear because Snake happened to be in the same game as Mario? i think something among the line of "List of minor Crossover characters in Super Smash Bros" would work better. Blitzwing (talk)
- Or perhaps even a "List of minor Crossover characters" in general. (e.g. Big the Cat and other Refs in Mario & Sonic). Garlic Man (talk)
I'd just like to say now that I object to WikiMario's vote. Yes, we are a Super Mario Wiki, not a Super Smash Bros. Wiki, but the reason we have Super Smash Bros. articles is because Mario plays a significant role in the series and even some of the minor characters from other series (such as Otacon and Slippy Toad) still have certain roles that cannot be overlooked. Pikax (talk)
So let me get this straight before I vote. Stumpers, your idea is to merge articles based on the series they come from? Such as merging Pikachu, Jigglypuff, and other Pokemon themed things into one big article? I would be in for that. I see nothing wrong with unimportant Sonic articles or other Nintendo Series into one thing for each series. So like all the Mario & Sonic at the Olympic games characters and refs like Vector, knuckles, Cream and all the others would merge into one big Sonic page? Moonshine (talk)
- Not quite, but I'll spell it out completely when I propose the idea. For now, let me tell you what I'm thinking. First, we would create several articles about series, such as "Sonic the Hedgehog (series)," "Legend of Zelda," and "Metroid (series)." These articles would both outline the way in which the series has crossed over with the Super Mario series. Then, it would have one section for each character, location, item, etc. that has ever crossed-over with Super Mario. On the "Sonic the Hedgehog" article, that would include Green Hill Zone, Sonic the Hedgehog, Big the Cat and others. These sections will be complete replications of the current articles. All the text from "Big the Cat" will be transfered to the "Big the Cat" section on the "Sonic the Hedgehog (series)" page. The Big the Cat page will then become a redirect to the Big the Cat section. However, major characters, such as those playable in Brawl and Mario & Sonic, will keep their pages. Instead of simply copying over their entire articles for the series page, we will write a short blurb and link to the subject's main article. From there we can deside through more propsals if characters are major enough to deserve their own article, and of course if a character is wrongly merged we can easily revert the merge because no text is lost.
- For your examples: Pikachu and Jigglypuff will have their articles still because they are playable characters in Smash. Palkia, Entei, and other non-playable Pokemon will be merged with "Pokemon (series)." The referies of Mario & Sonic will be merged to "Sonic the Hedgehog (series)" while Tails and Shadow retain their articles because they were playable in Mario & Sonic. If you think that "playable = article" is not a good guideline, let me know. Stumpers (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
Alright. I see what your saying now. I like the idea. Sonic referees are indeed very minor, so yeah, those should merge. Same with Pokeball Pokemon. What about stages from brawl that come from minor franchises like Hannebow(sp?), Pictochat, and other like that? Moonshine (talk)
- All stages qualify for their own articles. -- Booster
- Well, from what I understand I think Stumpers means that we would merge the stages with the series pages. Such as Brige of Eldin and Termia Bay going to the new Zelda series page. That would still leave articles like Pictochat, Battlefield, and others, though. - Moonshine (talk)
- Speaking from observations regarding "merge" proposals, the less that is merged, the more likely the proposal is to succeed. We don't want the Smash Bros. editors to think that we are negating the importance of their edits. For the purpose of this "experiment" I would say we should merge little cameos and references first, then step back and assess whether stages should be merged as well. Right now, I'd say not because, in a series like Mario or Zelda, we're looking at something like 8 stages, and stage articles are rather long. I think items would be merge-worthy, though. What do you think? Stumpers (talk) 22:55, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
- I see your point. I think right now own main concern should be items, Pokeball Pokemon, cameos, and the trophies already mentioned in the wiki. Depending on the outcome of the proposal we should then turn our attention to the stages like you said. -Moonshine (talk)
|
E.T. Templates
USE ALIEN TEMPLATE 8-5
Currently, we have both Template:Alien and Template:Cosmic Species, and Garlic Man and I have had some disagreement over how it should be dealt with. I say the Alien template should be used for all species and characters not originating on the Mushroom World, while Garlic Man feels we should keep Cosmic Species. My rationalle is that typing {{Template:Alien}} is easier than {{Template:Cosmic Species}}, his is that the Cosmic Species template was around first. To avoid edit wars, I've brought the issue here, for more feedback over what we should do. Also, I feel it would be best to use this instead of the current configurations for whichever template we decide to use: it uses terms from both existing templates, and improves organization overall.
Proposer: Walkazo (talk)
Deadline: August 23th, 2008, 20:00
Use Alien Template
- Walkazo (talk) - Per myself.
- Stumpers (talk) - "Alien" is an in-universe term. "Cosmic Species" is not.
- InfectedShroom (talk) - I personally think this is a ridiculous proposal, as it is mostly about what name to use, but I like the fact that "alien" is easy to write. Oh, and if that's not enough reason, per Stumpers.
- The Writing Guy (talk) - Per all. For instance, Cosmic Species is just changing the name.
- Luigi001 (talk) Per all.
- Pikax (talk) - Like the proposal about changing "Species" to "Character type", "Cosmic Species" is unnecessary nitpicking.
- Stooben Rooben (talk) - Per Walkazo. (Yes, I did make those templates; feel free to rub the error in my face. o:)
- Toadette 4evur (talk) Per all.
- Tykyle (talk) - Per all
Use Cosmic Species Template
- Garlic Man (talk) - Sort of contradicting on what Stumpers said; Alien, in fact, the dictionary definition is: "a resident born in or belonging to another country who has not acquired citizenship by naturalization", or a "Foreigner", or "a person who has been edtranged or exluded". What this means, is that Aliens are always something invading from somewhere else, so for instance, Shroobs are aliens, because they invaded Earth, and the Mushroom Kingdom. However, Luma is not an alien, due to the fact that it is in it's designated "home", where it belongs to be. In fact, if we twisted the definition of "Alien", we could even say Sonic is an "Alien" to the Mario series. Alien does not necessarily mean outer space, but Extraterrestial does. By saying extraterrestrial, we are signifying that the species/characters can be either ally or enemy. Aliens, although not neccesarily enemies, show that they are somewhere where they do not belong, and thus are invading, or there without permission of some sort. So, the "Extraterrestial Characters and Species" template seems more appropriate. I hope that makes my point clear.
- H Poke (talk) - I agre with garlic man "Alien" is someone from a different place that doesn't neccesarily mean other plent like Cosmic Beings
- Arend (talk) I've seen that the Cosmic Species and characters template appears to have more links then the Aliens template. So, yeah...
- Purple Yoshi (talk) In proper Mario games, they never use the word Alien. Anyway, Cosmic Species is more...mario-ish.
- Phoenix Rider (talk) See below.
- 1337Yoshi (talk) - Per Garlic. Although the definition of "alien" has been twisted to mean "extraterrestrial being", that is not its actual meaning. Illegal immigrants are "aliens". Do they come from another planet? No. The proper term is cosmic/extraterrestrial beings.
I've only included options for one or the other now, as we can't have two templates about the same thing. Another idea I had was to limit Cosmic Species to Super Paper Mario extraterrestrial enemies, as then we might be able to include variations of the species that are found in other dimensions, but I felt this would confuse the issue a bit too much. - Walkazo (talk)
- Garlic Man: just because something is not native to a certain place doesn't mean they don't belong there. A Luma came to the Mushroom World, but it was born in space: it's not a native species, ergo, it is an alien. If you want to get into semantics, we can't even call these things Extraterrestrials because we're not talking about Earth we're talking about the Mushroom World.
- Arend: the only reason Cosmic Species has more links was because Garlic Man added them, after reverting my edit on "Aliens" that bolstered its link count, I decided to come here instead of retaliate on my own.
- Anyway, I stand by my assertuion that writing "Alien" is easier than "Cosmic Species", though I've designed a new template (see the last line I added to the Proposal) compromising between the two sets of terminology. - Walkazo (talk)
- Oh, no, Luma was NOT in the Mushroom kingdom, except at the very end of the story, if my memory is correct. Mario was the one who went to outer space to chase Bowser and Peach, and met the Lumas. The Lumas never actually went anywhere besides the observatory. Mario was the "alien" in this case. Also, saying that "Writing Alien is easier" is a lame reason, and has nothing to do with the proposal itself. Garlic Man (talk)
- And at the very beginning; but the point is, Lumas were on the Mushroom World, and that means they can be labeled as "aliens". This is why I suggested the compromise-template - so people won't get bent out of shape over the words. For example, Template:Fire included things that aren't actually fire, yet the name is used because it is descriptive and simple. If you want to add a template about "extraterrestrials", you'd try trying in {{Extraterrestrials}} or {{Aliens}} long before {{Cosmic Species}} comes to mind. Yes, I know you can always seek out a different article that has the template to find out the proper code, but people are lazy, and they get side-tracked (myself included). "Alien" seems like a more natural title for these creatures. - Walkazo (talk)
- Actually, the Cosmic species template was originally made for creatures like Cosmic Bullet Bills, Cosmic Goombas, Cosmic Bloopers, Cosmic Toads, Cosmic Tox Boxes, most of which later got merged into their respective articles. So, it became a template for any kind of species found in outer space, whether alien or non-alien, covering a wider variety of species. Garlic Man (talk)
like i said in my vote aliens can refer to anything not from the same place as such Beanish are aliens to Toads Hemu (talk)
- Exactly. The Beanbean Kingdom and the Mushroom Kingdom were two different places; When cackletta sneaked into Peach's castle, she was an "alien"; but, not from outer space. Garlic Man (talk)
- Garlic Man: your template is not called, "Extraterrestrials" - it's called "Cosmic Species." So why were you arguing that extraterrestrials is better than alien if your template is called "Cosmic Species"? I'd be supporting you if you were using extraterrestrials. As to the word cosmic: "–adjective 1. of or pertaining to the cosmos: cosmic laws.
- 2. characteristic of the cosmos or its phenomena: cosmic events.
- 3. immeasurably extended in time and space; vast.
- 4. forming a part of the material universe, esp. outside of the earth." As you can see, cosmic has four definitions, where as extraterrestrial is,
- "–adjective 1. outside, or originating outside, the limits of the earth.
- –noun 2. an extraterrestrial being: a science fiction novel about extraterrestrials conquering the earth." In other words, extraterrestrial is much closer to what you are thinking of, especially if we use, "Extraterrestrials," because that is always a noun, and that always means "an extraterrestrical being"
- To the user that said aliens are not mentioned in a proper Mario game, you're wrong, but it doesn't matter: it appeared in an official Nitnendo published title (actually, all throughout the Mario Party series) and therefore should be considered official, canon, or what have you.
- I'm fine with using an unofficial term, but just make sure that it actually applies to the subject at hand. Stumpers (talk)
So is this a proposal about which template we should use or what we should call the template? Pikax (talk)
- What we should call it. All subjects of the "alien" and "cosmic species" templates will be merged to the chosen template. Stumpers (talk) 12:56, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
- I've actually made an improved template (the link's up in the proposal too) with more species, higher organization and clearer terminology that I will put in place of whichever template is chosen. - Walkazo (talk)
- Just a small note, Walkazo, about your template, the Cosmic Tox Box enemy is no longer called that. ;) InfectedShroom (talk)
I think the main thing that's got everyone so hung up is that the Cosmic Species template's header doesn't match. It does make it abundantly clear that we are referring to creatures from space. Whether it's official or not has no bearing on the outcome. It's about clarity. Phoenix Rider (talk)
- Yes, that's exactly what I'm trying to say. And saying that "Alien is a shorter word to type" seems more like an excuse than a reason; the cosmic species template, while the name is longer, is still more accurate as to what it has on the template. Everything on the Cosmic species template are "cosmic species", while not everything on the "Alien" template are not "aliens". Garlic Man (talk)
- Actually, the characters in the Cosmic Species template aren't "cosmic species", whereas they're all foreign to the Mushroom Planet and are aliens in that sense of the word (a sense that is made clear in the new template headers). Walkazo (talk)
|
Mario Super Sluggers Cutscenes
MERGE INTO MAIN ARTICLE 11-4
Currently, we have an article entitled Challenge Mode Cutscenes (Mario Super Sluggers). So my question is; is this article really needed? I mean all it is is the story of MSS in it's own article. It really doesn't have a point. Shouldn't it just be included in the main article? And having this page gives me a feeling that we need an article about cutscenes in Super Mario Galaxy, or Super Mario Sunshine. (Note how on those pages the cutscenes are merged nicely with the Story/Plot sections.)
I'd also like to address the length matter. Number one: Does it really matter about how long the article is? Look at the SSBB article's story (or the Subspace Emissary in it's case.) It's extremely long, but no one is complaining about it. And second of all, I don't mean to put every single bit of information from the page in the actual article. All we need is the major details, because, like Moonshine said, we don't need to know who threw what to who. And as for the pictures, I say we use the best ones and put it right next to the story section, or, if we still want the pictures, make a gallery at the page's bottom that has them in it, and call it Challenge mode screenshots or the like.
Proposer: Luigi001 (talk)
Deadline: August 28, 2008, 17:00
Merge into main article
- Luigi001 (talk) Per myself (above and below.)
- Palkia47 (talk) Per 001. I don't think it would make it long; I mean, just look at the Super Smash Bros. Brawl article, it has info on just about every cutscene in the Subspace Emissary, and that article would be way longer even if the cutscenes for MSS were added to the article.
- Moonshine (talk) Per my comment below. As said below, if we merge it, we should shorten it significantly.
- King Mario (talk) Per All. The Challenge Mode stuff should be there with most of the images.
- Cobold (talk) Story mode of a game? Any modes don't get articles because that would leave little to say in the game's main article.
- Walkazo (talk) - Per all. Also, the Cutscene's page is too gaudy as it is, so merging it would be a good time to cut out the superfluous charts and screenshots.
- Pikax (talk) - Per Cobold. See my comment below for why I question the oppose votes.
- Stooben Rooben (talk) - Per Cobold. The exact same thing happened with the Mario Kart (series) article.
- Toadette 4evur (talk) Per all.
- Phailure (talk) Per Palkia47.
- Coincollector (talk) According to Stoob.
Keep Article
- Arend (talk) - The MSS Page has enough info. Also, the cutscene article of MSS is detailed with everything what happens, for just 4 Cutscenes! And the article is already long enough to deserve a standard place on this Wiki. Other cutscenes, like SMG and SSBB aren't detailed, because there are many, many cutscenes of those games, and are long either.
- tanokkitails (talk)-Getting rid off them would take a while and if we merge it with anything else that article would be much longer so keeping it makes the most sense.
- MeritC (talk) - I also say that this should stay a separate article for the SMW. As others have pointed out on this section of the proposal, if this were to be "merged" with the main Mario Super Sluggers article, then it would be way too long. Besides, as long as this article has active links to to the main Mario Super Sluggers article page, then I don't see any need in merging the Mario Super Sluggers cutscene article. What we do need to know, however, is what criteria needs to be met to view the fourth and final cutscene so that we can make any necessary edits on that part of the cutscene article itself.
- ForeverDaisy09 (talk) -It's extremely spoiler filled, and extremely lengthy. I don't want to give people the excuse of taking out the galleries, shortening it by taking out sentences, or whatever.
That's not entirely true Infected Shroom. Notice how on the SMG page there is a nice little paragraph about each cutscene. It doesn't have all that who is involved or the picture galleries. I mean, do we really need those? All we need are little paragraphs on the cutcenes, not an entire article. If we have the article, we may as well make one for every game with cutscenes. Luigi001 (talk)
- Yeah, it is true. First off, the SMS article doesn't have a giant table with all the characters on it. Also, the "Story" in Sluggers is supposed to be unlike the story of any other sports game. And no, technically we don't need them. It just makes for a better experience when reading the page. InfectedShroom (talk)
All in all, I think that the Cutscenes page is essentially just the story of MSS, which the MSS page is missing. The story, especially in this case, is far more important that what's on the MSS page now. Why do we have an in depth explanation of Toy Field but no story? The page really needs to get it's priorities in order. It's not hard to cut down the cutscenes page. Simply merge it with the MSS page, give it it's own section entitled "story" and it's done. There's no need for each scene to have an infobox, and there's no need for 10 pics per scene either. You could put like 1 or 2 pics in the section, and get rid of the rest. Also, most of the info is unneeded and over-descriptive. We don't need to put 'who Mario threw the ball too in the intro' and things like that. If we do this then the MSS page won't be THAT long. But if we were to merge it the way it is now, I agree that it would be too long. Moonshine (talk)
OK, to the opposers: IT'S AN ARTICLE ABOUT THE STORY OF A GAME! We may as well call it: Story (Mario Super Sluggers). And who really cares if it make the article too long? No one's complaining about the length of the SSBB or Mario articles! I mean seriously! Even if we put every last bit of information from the article in the MSS article, it would barely be half the size of either of the two mentioned articles! And what's so bad about taking long? There's no time limit to how long an approved proposal must take to complete it! All you have to do is copy & paste, then edit it to fit in the MSS article! Do you get my point, opposers? Luigi001 (talk)
- Yes, I do get your point. However, if I had total control over this wiki, I would split up the Mario and SSBB pages myself. And actually, you'd probably copy it, find a spot for it, and then paste it. 'Least, it's what I'd do. InfectedShroom (talk)
- But the fact is, they're not split like the MSS one. I still think that the cutscenes could, and should, be shortened if it's merged. -Moonshine (talk)
I've looked at the reasons for people opposing and it may just be my way of thinking, but I don't think any of them are actually good reasons. Pikax (talk)
- I agree Pikax. Too long, too many spoilers, etc are not really good reasons. Luigi001 (talk) (No offense.)
- I'm moving my list of reasons for the oppose votes being terrible down here so that I can format it better. Pikax (talk)
Why I object to the objections:
Arend
An article about a game should have all of the information about the game. I can understand if, for example, the Mario Kart: Double Dash article only has information about each vehicle's statistics and not why they look like what they look like because such information does not pertain to the game. A game's story, however, does pertain to the game, therefore it should be shown in the game's article and not given a separate article.
tanokkitails
Surely merging two articles together means that all of the information from both articles remains, except possibly very unimportant information, and the information that isn't removed is reformatted if necessary, which is exactly what Luigi001 says will happen. Arguing that the process will take a while is just plain stupid. Typing up Mario's article probably took a while. Would you have opposed to the creation of Mario's article? I didn't think so.
Merit C
As well as my reasons for objecting to Arend's vote, I noticed that you said that the merge will make the article too long. Since when has an article's length actually mattered (apart from a minimum length to be suitable for FA status)? In fact, an article being long implies that it has plenty of information. I know you can argue that copying and pasting "I like cheese" umpteen times makes the article longer without adding information, the cutscene article isn't just a load of waffle.
ForeverDaisy09
Aside from the reasons I opposed tanokkitails' vote, several game articles (Mario Kart DS and Super Smash Bros. Brawl, for example) have spoilers in them. Why should Mario Super Sluggers be any different?
Let me know if you disagree with anything I've said. Pikax (talk)
Oh, what the heck. I don't even care about this proposal. I withdraw. InfectedShroom (talk)
- Dunno, but I still oppose. And if the articles are merged, I think you gonna be sorry to yourself, but I'm not sure. Arend (talk)
- What is that supposed to mean? ForeverDaisy09 (talk)
- Basically, it means "Too many spoilers" and "Too long" are invalid reasons. Pikax (talk)
|
Princess?
KEEP "ROSALINA" 10-26
Currently, Rosalina's page is just called Rosalina because she is never called a princess in the games.
But I found official proof. This is the first part of Rosalina's bio in Super Mario Galaxy. The whole bio can be found at the end of Rosalina's page.
Not much is known about Rosalina, the lonely princess who wanders the cosmos in the Comet Observatory, a giant starship that travels the celestial expanse.
Now we found proof, I think we can move the page. But before doing anything, users must agree with this. What shall we do?
Proposer: Arend (talk)
Deadline: August 28th, 2008, 17:00
Change to Princess Rosalina
- Arend (talk) Super Mario Galaxy has spoken.
- Tucayo (talk) Per Arend,and because she wears a crown
- King Mario (talk)- Per Mr.Arend
- YoshiAndMe10 (talk) if shes a princess than call her princess rosalina pretty simple.
- Dry Funky (talk) I agree with all above.
- Mr. Br Mario (talk) I agree with that. After all, he's using canonical information. Canonical information is the most precious information that could belong to Super Mario Wiki. So, let's do this!
- BeeBop! (talk) I agree with all above. As per (Princess) Rosalina's bio, she is known as a 'Princess' in Super Mario Galaxy
- The.Real.Izkat (talk) omg obviously she's a princess! she was originally planned to be related to peach, the info in the guide and game booklet lists her as a Princess! She wears an effing crown and has a brooch that is close to peach's and daisy's who are also princesses! how can you say she isn't a Princess. The info we have is official! You can't change official no matter how much you want to!
- Myaca (talk) I have beaten the game at least three times, and in all three times she is refered to as Princess, so, as is the scientific experimental proposal, three times is the charm, and makes it one of the laws of nature. Nof sed
- luigi3000 (talk) I have beaten it 10 times and it calls her princess 4 times!
Keep Rosalina
- Master Lucario (talk) Wearing a crown means nothing. I get a crown in my Burger King Kid's Meal. Am I a king? No. She's not royalty of any sort. I oppose this proposal.
- Garlic Man (talk) -- Whoa, whoa, wait up, here. Just because it says she IS a princess, the game never calls her by the title "Princess Rosalina". It calls her Rosalina. You know how Bowser is not King Bowser? Yeah, because he's Bowser. Nowhere is Rosalina ever fully called "Princess Rosalina". I oppose. (obviously)
- YellowYoshi398 (talk) - Per Garlic. Plus, even if we did discover an official mention of "Princess Rosalina," just plain Rosalina would outweigh it because it is used more often.
- Time Q (talk): Per Garlic Man. Just because she is something doesn't mean the article should be called that.
- Booster (talk) -- Per Garlic Man.
- Palkia47 (talk) - Per Garlic and AgentCH (below). If its not seen in the game or manual, then it probably had to be from a guide. We don't exactly allow information from guides (ie. seen in the MKWii Guide as Peach and Daisy are cousins).
- Stooben Rooben (talk) - Per Garlic Man. There are no citations anywhere on that page to prove that she is in fact a princess. If Nintendo has given no proof, then it is clearly speculation.
- LinkTheLefty (talk) - It's probably a translation error. If anyone remembers the travesty that is Sonic 2006, Blaze was called a Queen in that game's profile, yet she's supposed to be a princess. It could be a one-time thing. That, and the fact that Rosalina was a princess in concept development before ties with Peach were broken off. I think we should, however, mention it in the article... Provided it's from a tangible source (second or third party sources shouldn't make a difference).
- Walkazo (talk) - Per all.
- Moonshine (talk) - Per all. Another example being Mario. We all know he's a plumber, but we don't call him "Mario the Plumber" in the title.
- InfectedShroom (talk) - Per all. "Princess" is not her official title.
- MC Hammer Bro. (talk)- per all and see comment.
- Pikax (talk) - Per Garlic. We don't call Baby Daisy and Baby Peach "Baby Princess Daisy" and "Baby Princess Peach" because they're not given such titles in the games they appear in.
- Bob-omb buddy (talk)Per all. princess dosen't have to mean royalty. It can be discription, not a title.
- Dom (talk) Per all, including Master Lucario's LOL comment, and in particular Garlic Man's comment.
- AgentCH (talk) - Per Garlic and my own reason below.
- Yoshikart (talk)- I have no proof.
- Myles (talk) - Per Garlic Man and Pikax. I'd also like to add that we don't call Mario: Mario Mario, or Luigi: Luigi Mario. We call them what they are usually called. It should however be noted that she is a princess.
- Super Fuelbot (talk) - Per Garlic Man.
- Cobold (talk) - no source given. Check my comment below.
- 1337Yoshi (talk) - Per all.
- Super-Yoshi (talk) - Per All.
- Clay Mario (talk) - Per Garlic
- Per Palkia47. Doesn't the Mario Party 4 guide say that Luigi has a crush on Daisy? And yet, it is still often stated that Nintendo's only official word about Luigi and Daisy came in her trophy in Melee. White Knight (talk)
- Even if it says she's a princess in the bio, no instruction manual or game addresses her as one. Toadette 4evur (talk)
- Lules (talk) Even thought she might be a princess, she's never been called by the title "Princess Rosalina". That, and just plain "Rosalina" sounds better. And it's used much more often.
I'm leaning toward opposing, since "Princess Rosalina" is not her official title. But I'd like to hear a few more opinions, considering she is a princess. InfectedShroom (talk)
- I have placed a part of Rosalina's Official bio in the proposal. She is called a princess in the bio. Arend (talk)
- Just where is this official bio from? As has been said before, it's not said in-game that she's a princess, and I just checked the manual and it doesn't say anything either. Is this from a guide? A Prima guide, perhaps? AgentCH (talk)
- I agree with AgentCH. Prima puts fake stuff in their guides. For example look at the MKWii guide. They say Waluigi owns Waluigi Industries and Daisy is Peach's cousin. Totally fake. No Proof from NP. Yoshikart (talk)
Wow, after I placed my oppose, there was a rush of opposes following mine... I feel Special. :P Anyway, I do also agree with AgentCH, because if it's not in-game or in-manual, then it's probably not our most reliable source. We may as well move Mario to Template:Fakelink (hey, a red link!). Garlic Man (talk)
The term princess could be just a "nick name" and not a true title. The "princess that wonders the stars" Princess could be saying that she is a legondary person. Or maybe just because she is beautiful (I never said that. I've just heard people say she is ;) ). I think that it is just a play on words. MC Hammer Bro. (talk)
- Oh, then should Princess Peach move to Peach, and Princess Daisy to Daisy. Arend (talk)
- No, because (from what I know) they are both referred to as "Princess Peach" and "Princess Daisy", respectively, in the games. Rosalina is never referred to as "Princess Rosalina". Time Q (talk)
- Peach is called a princess, but Daisy is never called princess in every game she appeard in. In Super Mario Land, Mario just calls her Daisy. Other games she appeard in are spin-offs. Daisy (and Peach) aren't called princesses in these games. Daisy is only called a princess in game manuals. Arend (talk)
- But she is given at least once the title "Princess Daisy", isn't she? Because if she isn't, maybe we should think about moving her page to "Daisy" indeed. Time Q (talk)
- I did a little research. On the European Mario site (who doesn't exist enymore), Daisy wasn't called (unlike Peach) a princess. Nintendo said Daisy isn't called a princess in later appearences. But even in Super Mario Land, Mario didn't call her a princess. However, in Daisy's Smash Bros Melee a trophy discription, she is in one line called Princess Daisy (this is the only time she is called Princess Daisy in a game), but the title of the trophy still is just Daisy. Manuals also make great use of Princess Daisy. This is the only in game refearence I found. I Mario Smash Football/Super Mario Strikers, when you select Peach, Peach will say Pricess Peach, but if you select Daisy, Daisy will say just Daisy. Arend (talk)
- I agree with you that Daisy's trophy description shouldn't be taken as proof, because I heard they often contain mistakes. But I believe manuals are perfectly valid and reason enough to keep her article as "Princess Daisy". Time Q (talk)
Bio where? Page what? The proposal fails to cite its references. The question in the comments wasn't answered. Enough reason to oppose. - Cobold (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2008 (EDT)
- I found this bio on Rosalina's page. I thought it was from the American game manual. I don't live in the US or UK. Game manuals can differ per region. I was wrong. Arend (talk)
Considering more often than not, Peach is referred to as Princess Peach on official sites, and Daisy is just called Daisy, I don't think Rosalina should be called Princess here. Think about it on a leveled set of the terms use.ForeverDaisy09 (talk)
I would just like to state if you oppose her being Princess Rosalina, you don't deserve to be a Mario fan.The.Real.Izkat (talk)
- So do you want us to call Bowser "King Bowser" as well? Pikax (talk)
- IF YOU DONT THINK MARIO IS ITALIAN YOURE NOT A TRUE FAN
IF YOU DONT THINK BOWSER TRUE NAME IS "GREAT DEMON KING", YOURE NOT A TRUE FAN
- Sorry to tell you but "Demon King" is already taken. Final boss in Fire Emblem: the Sacred Stones. Shyguy27 (talk)
IF YOU DONT THINK LUGI IS IN SM64 YOURE NOT A TRUE FAN
I would just like to state that if you use the same broken way of thinking as The.Real.Izkat, You're a, true, moron. --Blitzwing 16:41, 24 August 2008 (EDT)
I would like to note that in the story book thing she reads to thhe lumas there's a castle in the background this is probably a conicedince and if not she's still only called rosilina in the game.tanokkitails.
Bowser is a King. He calls himself a king in Mario & Luigi Superstar Saga, when he regains his memory. As is Rosalina. Totally a princess, (hot one too)
The preceding unsigned comment was added by Myaca (talk).
- And as said above, Mario is a plumber. Still, we don't call him "Mario the Plumber" in the article. Get why? Time Q (talk)
- Or do you want us to call Bowser "King Bowser" as well, even though (to my knowledge) there aren't any games in which he is given the title "King Bowser"? Pikax (talk)
:P she is Princess Rosalina end of story, it should be her proper title and the article name, even if she isn't called Princess it is her proper and official title, end.of.story The.Real.Izkat (talk)
- LOL. You have no proof at all, so yeah - end of story. Time Q (talk)
Hey - so should we put "Princess" in the infobox or not? Stumpers (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2008 (EDT)
- It doesn't seem so. Stooben Rooben (talk)
- That was Nintendo's name for her before the game was in final form, so it should be noted somewhere. Stumpers (talk) 15:56, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
I'm not voting, but if neither the game or manual calls her "Princess Rosalina", we shouldn't call the article that. We can say in the article, "according to her bio from whatever, she is a princess. This is not confirmed in the game or manual." CrystalYoshi (talk)
Luigiweege:If she hasn't been called Princess Roasalia in any of the just let the page be called Rosalia until further notice.
- Stumpers: Just note it in a trivia section. Stooben Rooben (talk)
Okay, I was reading through, but I kinda lost the thing. However, Daisy has been referred to as the Princess of Sarasaland on various official occasions, such as her in-game bios. I find that, while she's rarely if ever referred to as Princess Daisy, calling her Princess Daisy isn't exactly as big of a stretch as it would be with Rosalina, because Rosalina, as it stands, is being debated on shaky information. ~ Shrikeswind
Whoa, I voted on this proposal? I wasn't going to bother voting because the outcome was so one sided at the time (it still is, haha). Anyway, The deadline passed some time ago, so why is this still here? It's pretty obvious that everyone wants her article to stay the way it is, so can we get rid of it now? Or is this still up for other reasons? -Moonshine (talk)
- Yeah, I missed this one. Just like to note that Daisy has been referred to as Princess Daisy, in the Super Mario Land manual (p. 3: "[...] Now, he wants to marry Princess Daisy of Sarasaland [...] where Princess Daisy is held captive [...] and rescue Princess Daisy? [...]") Time Q (talk)
|
Super Mario Western Show
NO WESTERN SHOW CONTENT 0-6
On YouTube it has become a phenomenon, simply by searching the title. I mean, it's Mario noteworthy I would think, if it's become popular -- I just wanted to see if anyone had an opinion to share on this.
Proposer: Crystal Batamon (talk)
Deadline: September 3, 2008, 17:00
Support
Oppose
- Walkazo (talk) - We only incude official Mario information here, not fan-creations.
- Toadette 4evur (talk) Per Walkazo.
- Stumpers (talk) - If they're ever endorsed or licensed, we can mention them. If they become prominent, like being on TV, you can mention it on TV Sightings or the respective page.
- Time Q (talk) Per all. (I've always wanted to put this, and only this.)
- Stooben Rooben (talk) - Per Time Q.
- Clay Mario (talk) - Per Stumpers and Walkazo
Walkazo: If you think about it, the Mario Bros. Comics, TV shows, Movies, w/e, are all "fan-creations", mind you. :\ Garlic Man (talk)
- But they were published works, meaning they had to get licensing, etc.; there's a HUGE difference between that and YouTube. Also, we already had a proposal about Flash fan videos (a long time ago), like The Rise of the Mushroom Kingdom, which lost. - Walkazo (talk)
- Our definition of "fan-creations" are those which are created with no official connection to Nintendo whatsoever. Additionally, parodies, such as those on the Simpsons, are included on the Sightings pages. However, the comics, TV shows, movies, manga, anime, and even the coloring books were officially licensed by Nintendo, which means they are just as official as titles such as Mario Hoops 3-on-3, in which another company requested Nintendo's permission first rather than having Nintendo ask them. Mind you, I'm sure that at least one of the alternate media sources was created as a result of Nintendo approaching the company responsible, such as Valient or DiC. So, unless you're about to start calling a variety of video games, "fan-creations," you're going to want to know the difference between 1st Party, 2nd Party, 3rd Party, and fan-creations. Ah yes, speaking of: another "canon" source in which Nintendo didn't publish it was Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games. If you remember, that one was overseen by Sigeru Miyamoto, so I don't think that publisher should be grounds for defining fan-creation either. Stumpers (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2008 (EDT)
|
|
|
