MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/8: Difference between revisions
Bloc Partier (talk | contribs) (New page: __NOEDITSECTION__ <table style="background:#fefffe;color:black;-moz-border-radius:8px;border:2px solid black;padding:4px" width=100%><tr><td> <div class="proposal"> {| align="center" style...) |
m (Text replacement - "\|(right|thumb)(\|[^\]\n]+)?\|(right|thumb)" to "|thumb$2") |
||
(17 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/Template}} | |||
{{MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive Template}} | |||
<div style="font-size:95%">__TOC__</div> | <div style="font-size:95%">__TOC__</div> | ||
===Speculative Relationships=== | ===Speculative Relationships=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|15-1|remove speculation from relationship sections}} | |||
OK, so, I've gone through many articles and noticed a lot of speculative relationships in the Relationships section. [[Baby Daisy]] and [[Princess Daisy]] are HUGE offenders. While some relationships, like [[Mario]]'s relationship with [[Luigi]], are fine, others, like Princess Daisy's relationship with [[Waluigi]], are overly speculative, and have no place on this Wiki. I propose to remove any relationship that has no real proof and is merely complete speculation. I mean, c'mon, [[Diddy Kong]] was on Mario's relationships list at one point! DIDDY KONG!!! | OK, so, I've gone through many articles and noticed a lot of speculative relationships in the Relationships section. [[Baby Daisy]] and [[Princess Daisy]] are HUGE offenders. While some relationships, like [[Mario]]'s relationship with [[Luigi]], are fine, others, like Princess Daisy's relationship with [[Waluigi]], are overly speculative, and have no place on this Wiki. I propose to remove any relationship that has no real proof and is merely complete speculation. I mean, c'mon, [[Diddy Kong]] was on Mario's relationships list at one point! DIDDY KONG!!! | ||
And an added idea by [[User:Time Q|Time Q]], we could move unsure relationships, like [[Baby Daisy]] and [[Baby Luigi]], to the Trivia sections of the article. | And an added idea by [[User:Time Q|Time Q]], we could move unsure relationships, like [[Baby Daisy]] and [[Baby Luigi]], to the Trivia sections of the article. | ||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Pokemon DP}}<br> | |||
'''Proposer:''' {{User | '''Deadline:''' May 5, 2008, 17:00 EDT | ||
'''Deadline:''' May 5, 2008, 17:00 | |||
==== Remove overly speculative relationships ==== | ====Remove overly speculative relationships==== | ||
#{{User | #{{User|Pokemon DP}} I am the proposer, and my reasons are given above. Or possibly below, assuming some Users decide to argue. =<nowiki>|</nowiki> | ||
#{{User | #{{User|Time Q}}: Per DP, the relationships section is not the right place for speculation. Uncertain relationships could be mentioned in the trivia section though. | ||
#{{User | #{{User|Ghost Jam}} per suggestions by DP and Time Q. | ||
#{{User | #{{User|Cobold}} - Per Time Q. | ||
#{{User | #{{User|Blitzwing}} - 'Big duh here. It's like saying "Rewrite Poorly Written articles" | ||
#{{User | #{{User|Glitchman}} Per Ghost Jam. | ||
#{{User | #{{User|Wayoshi}} – Per all. Come on, babies aren't supposed to have romantic relationships. | ||
#Per all. I had done this, but Fixitup got a section made again. | #{{User|Toadette 4evur}} Per all. I had done this, but Fixitup got a section made again. | ||
#{{User | #{{User|InfectedShroom}} Per all. Those sections are ridiculous. And people, from my view, the Baby Daisy/Baby Luigi example was just an '''example'''. There are more relationships like theirs that are speculative. | ||
#{{User | #{{User|Stooben Rooben}} Speculation is a big no-no around here. | ||
#{{ | #{{User|Garlic Man}} Indeed. I removed the Baby Daisy section several times, but got re-added by Fixit several times... gr... | ||
#{{User | #{{User|Stumpers}} Speculation has no place on a Wiki that even suspects the official alternate forms of media as being alternate canon. | ||
#{{User | #{{User|CrystalYoshi}} If what we're talking about is baseless fan made-up stuff, I'm supporting this, since this is an encyclopedia; no reason to keep random theories. | ||
#[[User: Coincollector| | #[[User:Coincollector|Coincollector]] The speculative content of the relationships sections come from the opinions from the masses (I mean, people)... | ||
#Per all. The relationships between Daisy and other characters are uncertain. | #{{User|Nothing444}} Per all. The relationships between Daisy and other characters are uncertain. | ||
==== Keep the relationships in question ==== | ====Keep the relationships in question==== | ||
#[[User:Moonshine|Moonshine]]- At this point there's no support for the relationship section anymore. But it is worth mentioning. I think a trivia section would suffice though. | #[[User:Moonshine|Moonshine]]- At this point there's no support for the relationship section anymore. But it is worth mentioning. I think a trivia section would suffice though. | ||
==== Comments ==== | ====Comments==== | ||
I agree to remove those relationships from the section. However, I think putting them as Trivia items would be okay (that is, if it's not complete speculation, but if there is some indication that it might be true (as seems to be the case with Babies Daisy and Luigi)). Anyway. When you say "remove any relationship [...]", do you mean from the relationships section or altogether? {{User | I agree to remove those relationships from the section. However, I think putting them as Trivia items would be okay (that is, if it's not complete speculation, but if there is some indication that it might be true (as seems to be the case with Babies Daisy and Luigi)). Anyway. When you say "remove any relationship [...]", do you mean from the relationships section or altogether? {{User|Time Q}} 05:30, 28 April 2008 (EDT) | ||
That Trivia idea is kinda good... I'm on board with that. And, when I say "remove any relationship", I mean to remove the certain character relationship section, not the whole Relationships section as a whole. {{User | That Trivia idea is kinda good... I'm on board with that. And, when I say "remove any relationship", I mean to remove the certain character relationship section, not the whole Relationships section as a whole. {{User|Pokemon DP}} | ||
:Yup, I got that, what I meant was whether you only want to remove the "possible relation" from the relationships section or not mention it in the article at all. But if you say you're on board with the trivia section, I think I can support :P {{User | :Yup, I got that, what I meant was whether you only want to remove the "possible relation" from the relationships section or not mention it in the article at all. But if you say you're on board with the trivia section, I think I can support :P {{User|Time Q}} 06:36, 28 April 2008 (EDT) | ||
First of all, this was unneeded as we already had solved this issue. Nice job, hur. Secondly, this is worded in a way that is completely wrong. You're making it sound like all relationship sections on the Daisy and Baby Daisy pages have no meaning and as you said are "baseless", That's your opinion, and saying that misleads any users into thinking there really is something bad about the sections. There's nothing more "baseless" about these sections than there are to any other pages. This was solved, you're bringing it back up, and you're not doing so correctly. [[User:Fixitup|Fixitup]] | First of all, this was unneeded as we already had solved this issue. Nice job, hur. Secondly, this is worded in a way that is completely wrong. You're making it sound like all relationship sections on the Daisy and Baby Daisy pages have no meaning and as you said are "baseless", That's your opinion, and saying that misleads any users into thinking there really is something bad about the sections. There's nothing more "baseless" about these sections than there are to any other pages. This was solved, you're bringing it back up, and you're not doing so correctly. [[User:Fixitup|Fixitup]] | ||
:The purpose behind the proposal is allowing each user to review the facts, discuss the matter and draw their own conclusions, so no real misleading is taking place. Beyond that, the war continued well past repeated protections, so the problem is obviously not solved. -- | :The purpose behind the proposal is allowing each user to review the facts, discuss the matter and draw their own conclusions, so no real misleading is taking place. Beyond that, the war continued well past repeated protections, so the problem is obviously not solved. -- [[User:Ghost Jam|Chris]] 08:25, 28 April 2008 (EDT) | ||
I don't give a [[Rat Funk]]'s squeek about what you think of this Proposal being "pointless", Fixitup. Cos' your little edit war with [[User:Toadette 4evur|Toadette 4evur]] sure proved that the problem WAS NOT resolved. I am not at all saying that everything on their pages is baseless speculation. For example, [[Princess Daisy]]'s relationship with [[Luigi]] is valid, since [[Nintendo]] is purposely hinting that relationship in basically every game the two have appeared in together. Stuff like Princess Daisy's relationship with [[Waluigi]], and [[Mario]]'s relationship with [[Diddy Kong]] should be removed... That last one is the most "WTF" of them all. This has been a delightful message from: {{User | I don't give a [[Rat Funk]]'s squeek about what you think of this Proposal being "pointless", Fixitup. Cos' your little edit war with [[User:Toadette 4evur|Toadette 4evur]] sure proved that the problem WAS NOT resolved. I am not at all saying that everything on their pages is baseless speculation. For example, [[Princess Daisy]]'s relationship with [[Luigi]] is valid, since [[Nintendo]] is purposely hinting that relationship in basically every game the two have appeared in together. Stuff like Princess Daisy's relationship with [[Waluigi]], and [[Mario]]'s relationship with [[Diddy Kong]] should be removed... That last one is the most "WTF" of them all. This has been a delightful message from: {{User|Pokemon DP}} - And don't you forget it! | ||
:I suggest you calm down. You're starting to sound like you're going off on me again. Anyway, I don't see how you couldn't have explained that already. Also, sections like that don't necessarily need to be removed. They just need to be reworded. Like the Baby Daisy/Baby Luigi relationship. Obviously that has enough information to back it up (meaning it's not baseless) same goes with the Baby Daisy/Baby Peach relationship. (obviously not as much, but still doesn't need to be completely removed or even thrown to a trivia section) Also, the Daisy/Waluigi relationship is backed up by their team names in Mario Party, their chemistry with one another, and their rivalry in Mario Strikers Charged. How is that baseless? I can understand a relationship like Toad/Mario being baseless in some manner, but as long as two people have a history in any manner, there should be a relationship section. Why are proposals always about removing, never fixing? Also, the edit war was over as you saw booster was the last one to revert Toadette4evur's final part in the edit war. He even asked them what reasoning they had, and they disregarded it until a while after. (Hm) [[User:Fixitup|Fixitup]] | :I suggest you calm down. You're starting to sound like you're going off on me again. Anyway, I don't see how you couldn't have explained that already. Also, sections like that don't necessarily need to be removed. They just need to be reworded. Like the Baby Daisy/Baby Luigi relationship. Obviously that has enough information to back it up (meaning it's not baseless) same goes with the Baby Daisy/Baby Peach relationship. (obviously not as much, but still doesn't need to be completely removed or even thrown to a trivia section) Also, the Daisy/Waluigi relationship is backed up by their team names in Mario Party, their chemistry with one another, and their rivalry in Mario Strikers Charged. How is that baseless? I can understand a relationship like Toad/Mario being baseless in some manner, but as long as two people have a history in any manner, there should be a relationship section. Why are proposals always about removing, never fixing? Also, the edit war was over as you saw booster was the last one to revert Toadette4evur's final part in the edit war. He even asked them what reasoning they had, and they disregarded it until a while after. (Hm) [[User:Fixitup|Fixitup]] | ||
:Wow great, the information is now two times in the article, once in the relationship section and once in the trivia. What happened to our compromise? - {{User | :Wow great, the information is now two times in the article, once in the relationship section and once in the trivia. What happened to our compromise? - {{User|Cobold}} 08:47, 28 April 2008 (EDT) | ||
It went in one ear, and out the other, Cobold. ;) {{User|Pokemon DP}} | |||
It went in one ear, and out the other, Cobold. ;) {{User | |||
WaYoshi... the section wasn't about romance, it was just about a relationship. Regardless, they're not real. Real babies don't talk or drive. I fail to see how an infant having a crush on another infant is impossible, especially under the circumstances. [[User:Fixitup|Fixitup]] | WaYoshi... the section wasn't about romance, it was just about a relationship. Regardless, they're not real. Real babies don't talk or drive. I fail to see how an infant having a crush on another infant is impossible, especially under the circumstances. [[User:Fixitup|Fixitup]] | ||
Line 62: | Line 52: | ||
First off, I just see this proposal as a selfish way to get rid of the Baby Daisy section...again. I NEVER would have written the section in the first place if I knew it would spontaneously ignite edit wars and then lead to the deletion of all the other speculated relationships. Going by your definition, anything that is a possibility is merely speculation and should go. All in all, thats EVERY relationship section. Take the Daisy & Luigi relationship section. Clearly Nintendo is hinting at a relationship between the two, but it hasn't been OUTRIGHT CONFIRMED. But still, everyone still thinks of them as a couple. The same can be said with any other relationship, Nintendo hasn't confirmed that Luigi is jealous of some of Mario's abilities, and yet no attention is brought to that about being speculation (you even refer to this section as being fine). The Baby Daisy section was deleted quite literally for having the word "May" in it, and thus being unconfirmed. While yes, it's not confirmed, neither is the regular Daisy and Luigi section, but still it's hinted at. You can't just delete SOME articles for being mere speculation and keep the others while they too are speculation. While yes, other sections might be a little more supported than than others, but Proof is proof and you can't just deny it. -[[User:Moonshine|Moonshine]] | First off, I just see this proposal as a selfish way to get rid of the Baby Daisy section...again. I NEVER would have written the section in the first place if I knew it would spontaneously ignite edit wars and then lead to the deletion of all the other speculated relationships. Going by your definition, anything that is a possibility is merely speculation and should go. All in all, thats EVERY relationship section. Take the Daisy & Luigi relationship section. Clearly Nintendo is hinting at a relationship between the two, but it hasn't been OUTRIGHT CONFIRMED. But still, everyone still thinks of them as a couple. The same can be said with any other relationship, Nintendo hasn't confirmed that Luigi is jealous of some of Mario's abilities, and yet no attention is brought to that about being speculation (you even refer to this section as being fine). The Baby Daisy section was deleted quite literally for having the word "May" in it, and thus being unconfirmed. While yes, it's not confirmed, neither is the regular Daisy and Luigi section, but still it's hinted at. You can't just delete SOME articles for being mere speculation and keep the others while they too are speculation. While yes, other sections might be a little more supported than than others, but Proof is proof and you can't just deny it. -[[User:Moonshine|Moonshine]] | ||
All these proposals just because of the Baby Daisy page! Anyway, my position here depends on exactly what you mean by "speculation". Is this about all ideas that haven't been confirmed by Nintendo, or just ones that seem unlikely and have no official evidence? {{User | All these proposals just because of the Baby Daisy page! Anyway, my position here depends on exactly what you mean by "speculation". Is this about all ideas that haven't been confirmed by Nintendo, or just ones that seem unlikely and have no official evidence? {{User|CrystalYoshi}} | ||
You DO know who is the cause of all these [[Baby Daisy]]-related problems, right? What I mean is relationships that are complete fan-made BS, like [[Princess Daisy]]'s relationship with [[Waluigi]], or [[Mario]]'s relationship with [[Diddy Kong]], or [[Princess Peach]]'s relationship with [[Wario]]. Stuff like Mario's relationship with [[Luigi]], or Peach's relationship with [[Bowser]] are fine, since they do have backgrounds worth calling official/notable. And Daisy's relationship with Luigi, I do believe that IS official/notable, seeing as Nintendo is purposely implying that in almost every game they appear in together. Even their bios in these games says stuff relating to them being in love with each other. Stuff like [[Baby Daisy]]'s relationship with [[Baby Luigi]], that should be moved to the Trivia section. {{User | You DO know who is the cause of all these [[Baby Daisy]]-related problems, right? What I mean is relationships that are complete fan-made BS, like [[Princess Daisy]]'s relationship with [[Waluigi]], or [[Mario]]'s relationship with [[Diddy Kong]], or [[Princess Peach]]'s relationship with [[Wario]]. Stuff like Mario's relationship with [[Luigi]], or Peach's relationship with [[Bowser]] are fine, since they do have backgrounds worth calling official/notable. And Daisy's relationship with Luigi, I do believe that IS official/notable, seeing as Nintendo is purposely implying that in almost every game they appear in together. Even their bios in these games says stuff relating to them being in love with each other. Stuff like [[Baby Daisy]]'s relationship with [[Baby Luigi]], that should be moved to the Trivia section. {{User|Pokemon DP}} | ||
:Are you honestly blaming this on me? You're the one that brought this back up when it had finally settled down again, not me. I already told you how I backed that up, also, if you are referring to specific relationships, maybe you should actually try to fix them yourself before making a big proposal about it? We just had a proposal of someone wanting to remove trivia, and since no one supported it, we decided we should try our best to integrate any information into the article. We don't put things in trivia because someone doesn't find them important enough, we put them there because there is NO place to put them in the article. At the most, the Baby Daisy/Baby Peach relationship should be changed, not the Baby Daisy/Baby Luigi relationship. Why do you think they would be in two GIANT GOLDEN STATUES with each other if they weren't meant to have chemistry? Also, like I said before, sections like Daisy/Waluigi DO have information to back it up. Just because there are sections like Diddy/Mario doesn't mean you have to make a proposal saying we should remove anything considerably speculative. Everyone should know that we would have to consider most sections speculative, and that includes Mario and Peach! This proposal is useless when we could go through articles and fix such things like we had before you made it. [[User:Fixitup|Fixitup]] - Peace | :Are you honestly blaming this on me? You're the one that brought this back up when it had finally settled down again, not me. I already told you how I backed that up, also, if you are referring to specific relationships, maybe you should actually try to fix them yourself before making a big proposal about it? We just had a proposal of someone wanting to remove trivia, and since no one supported it, we decided we should try our best to integrate any information into the article. We don't put things in trivia because someone doesn't find them important enough, we put them there because there is NO place to put them in the article. At the most, the Baby Daisy/Baby Peach relationship should be changed, not the Baby Daisy/Baby Luigi relationship. Why do you think they would be in two GIANT GOLDEN STATUES with each other if they weren't meant to have chemistry? Also, like I said before, sections like Daisy/Waluigi DO have information to back it up. Just because there are sections like Diddy/Mario doesn't mean you have to make a proposal saying we should remove anything considerably speculative. Everyone should know that we would have to consider most sections speculative, and that includes Mario and Peach! This proposal is useless when we could go through articles and fix such things like we had before you made it. [[User:Fixitup|Fixitup]] - Peace | ||
The situation was resolved? Ha... HA... HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! That was the best joke I've heard all week, Fixit. The situation was clearly not resolved. And, what do you do with a big situation like this? You start a Proposal! I can't just remove it all without getting everyone's opinion on the situation. That's what Proposals are for. And regardless of what you think, relationships like Daisy/Waluigi are meaningless, something 11 other Users have agreed on. Even if you think this Proposal is pointless, it doesn't matter. For, you see, I actually MAKE a Proposal to see what OTHERS think, instead of going ahead and getting in an edit war to try and get MY way. {{User | The situation was resolved? Ha... HA... HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! That was the best joke I've heard all week, Fixit. The situation was clearly not resolved. And, what do you do with a big situation like this? You start a Proposal! I can't just remove it all without getting everyone's opinion on the situation. That's what Proposals are for. And regardless of what you think, relationships like Daisy/Waluigi are meaningless, something 11 other Users have agreed on. Even if you think this Proposal is pointless, it doesn't matter. For, you see, I actually MAKE a Proposal to see what OTHERS think, instead of going ahead and getting in an edit war to try and get MY way. {{User|Pokemon DP}} Hmph, fine. | ||
:Wow, I'm not going to start calling you immature names or anything, but I can say if I wasn't holding myself back I would. If you refer to booster's talk page, you can see that the edit war was resolved. Also, I didn't start that edit war, I was simply a part of it, and a small part at that. Just because people agree with you, doesn't mean anything. What's their reasoning, that it's speculative? How is stating their past experience with each other to back up a point speculative? That's exactly what the Mario/Peach relationship does. I don't care if people agree with you, I still haven't received any feedback with reasoning that proves how it is more speculative than other relationship sections. Do you realize the Japaneses wikipedia even has a relationship for them? That means it's world-wide common knowledge.[[User:Fixitup|Fixitup]] | :Wow, I'm not going to start calling you immature names or anything, but I can say if I wasn't holding myself back I would. If you refer to booster's talk page, you can see that the edit war was resolved. Also, I didn't start that edit war, I was simply a part of it, and a small part at that. Just because people agree with you, doesn't mean anything. What's their reasoning, that it's speculative? How is stating their past experience with each other to back up a point speculative? That's exactly what the Mario/Peach relationship does. I don't care if people agree with you, I still haven't received any feedback with reasoning that proves how it is more speculative than other relationship sections. Do you realize the Japaneses wikipedia even has a relationship for them? That means it's world-wide common knowledge.[[User:Fixitup|Fixitup]] | ||
::I'm going to say this as nicely as I can. You think it was resolved 'cause you got your way. Sorry if I sounded rude to you here, but DP's got a good point. {{User | ::I'm going to say this as nicely as I can. You think it was resolved 'cause you got your way. Sorry if I sounded rude to you here, but DP's got a good point. {{User|Toadette 4evur}} | ||
:::Wow, if you're going to change your comments to make yourself look better, then so will I. [[User:Fixitup|Fixitup]] | :::Wow, if you're going to change your comments to make yourself look better, then so will I. [[User:Fixitup|Fixitup]] | ||
::::I would say that he has more room than you. | ::::I would say that he has more room than you. | ||
::::Stop pointing fingers and discuss the issue at hand. -- | ::::Stop pointing fingers and discuss the issue at hand. -- [[User:Ghost Jam|Chris]] 21:24, 30 April 2008 (EDT) | ||
Do we have evidence of any kind that these freaken babies have a relationship of any kind? And I mean direct, documented proof, not conjecture, not fan crap, not 'Oh, look! They are next to each other on a menu screen! OBVIOUSLY they are bestest frends4leif!!!!!!!'. -- | Do we have evidence of any kind that these freaken babies have a relationship of any kind? And I mean direct, documented proof, not conjecture, not fan crap, not 'Oh, look! They are next to each other on a menu screen! OBVIOUSLY they are bestest frends4leif!!!!!!!'. -- [[User:Ghost Jam|Chris]] 00:23, 29 April 2008 (EDT) | ||
Well, [[Baby Daisy]]'s relationship with [[Baby Peach]] seems kinda... Fan-made to me. Her relationship with [[Baby Luigi]] has SOME proof; a statue of the two dancing in the [[Daisy Circuit]] stage. That said, its hardly enough to merit its own section, or even be considered truly official. {{User | Well, [[Baby Daisy]]'s relationship with [[Baby Peach]] seems kinda... Fan-made to me. Her relationship with [[Baby Luigi]] has SOME proof; a statue of the two dancing in the [[Daisy Circuit]] stage. That said, its hardly enough to merit its own section, or even be considered truly official. {{User|Pokemon DP}} | ||
I don't see why the regular statue of Daisy and Luigi get acknowledged to further their relationship, while the one of the Babies get swept under the rug. If people take the one of the adults as a sign of a relationship, why does no one do the same for the babies? [[User:Moonshine|Moonshine]] | I don't see why the regular statue of Daisy and Luigi get acknowledged to further their relationship, while the one of the Babies get swept under the rug. If people take the one of the adults as a sign of a relationship, why does no one do the same for the babies? [[User:Moonshine|Moonshine]] | ||
:Because when people meet, they become best friends forever, with no exceptions, right? -- | :Because when people meet, they become best friends forever, with no exceptions, right? -- [[User:Ghost Jam|Chris]] 19:57, 29 April 2008 (EDT) | ||
::That is totally irrelevant. Again, I don't see why this is getting flamed. It is NOT baseless, a giant statue of the two babies dancing has to mean ''something''. Sure her relationship with Baby Peach might be cutting it, but the Baby Luigi one is certainly not. -[[User:Moonshine|Moonshine]] | ::That is totally irrelevant. Again, I don't see why this is getting flamed. It is NOT baseless, a giant statue of the two babies dancing has to mean ''something''. Sure her relationship with Baby Peach might be cutting it, but the Baby Luigi one is certainly not. -[[User:Moonshine|Moonshine]] | ||
:::It is not irrelevant. Your first point was that just because the adults are friends (which is also debatable) the babies should be too. Secondly, you're suggesting that a state of two characters stands for this and that. Can you show me text confirming that? Can you show me pictorial evidence of this, besides one stinking statue? Please don't mistake a heated discussion for a flame war. -- | :::It is not irrelevant. Your first point was that just because the adults are friends (which is also debatable) the babies should be too. Secondly, you're suggesting that a state of two characters stands for this and that. Can you show me text confirming that? Can you show me pictorial evidence of this, besides one stinking statue? Please don't mistake a heated discussion for a flame war. -- [[User:Ghost Jam|Chris]] 17:34, 30 April 2008 (EDT) | ||
::::How come no one is responding to the points being made here? I think you all know why. [[User:Fixitup|Fixitup]] | ::::How come no one is responding to the points being made here? I think you all know why. [[User:Fixitup|Fixitup]] | ||
::::I know that the Baby Peach one was overly speculative, but the Baby Luigi one is not. I can't prove that Baby Daisy has a crush on Baby Luigi, but nor can I do the same for half the OTHER relationships mentioned in the wiki. Proof is proof, even if it's just one little statue. Just because this isn't as supported as others doesn't mean it should be completely dismissed.[[User:Moonshine|Moonshine]] | ::::I know that the Baby Peach one was overly speculative, but the Baby Luigi one is not. I can't prove that Baby Daisy has a crush on Baby Luigi, but nor can I do the same for half the OTHER relationships mentioned in the wiki. Proof is proof, even if it's just one little statue. Just because this isn't as supported as others doesn't mean it should be completely dismissed.[[User:Moonshine|Moonshine]] | ||
Because we have ''lives''. Anyway, while lots of these relationships (i.e. Daisy/Waluigi) have been hinted at by | Because we have ''lives''. Anyway, while lots of these relationships (i.e. Daisy/Waluigi) have been hinted at by Nintendo (or at least thrown out there by some cheeky team name, or whatever), speculative aspects of any article are best relegated to the Trivia sections; just to clean things up and make us look more professional. - [[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]] | ||
:Oh you're cool. Sure, but that doesn't mean that it's baseless speculation. [[User:Fixitup|Fixitup]] | :Oh you're cool. Sure, but that doesn't mean that it's baseless speculation. [[User:Fixitup|Fixitup]] | ||
Agreed with Walkazo. And lol at your "we have lives" comment. BTW, how come you haven't voted, Fixit? {{User|Pokemon DP}} | |||
Agreed with Walkazo. And lol at your "we have lives" comment. BTW, how come you haven't voted, Fixit? {{User | |||
:I haven't voted because this proposal isn't worthy of my vote. I'm not going to cast my vote in a section you labeled as supporting baseless speculation when that's not what I am supporting. Also, we don't have to remove anything. You see how the Waluigi/Daisy relationship might say something like, "But their true relationship is unkown". That's what we should be removing, not, "And as shown in Mario Strikers, they have a disliking of eahcother". The second example shouldn't be considered speculation, and you're showing it off as if it was. For example, we could keep the Baby Luigi/Baby Daisy relationship, just take out the part where it suggests that they have more of a relationship then shown with the trophy, same with Baby Peach and the picture. Using factual information isn't speculation as long as you're not speculating anything while using it as back up. [[User:Fixitup|Fixitup]] | :I haven't voted because this proposal isn't worthy of my vote. I'm not going to cast my vote in a section you labeled as supporting baseless speculation when that's not what I am supporting. Also, we don't have to remove anything. You see how the Waluigi/Daisy relationship might say something like, "But their true relationship is unkown". That's what we should be removing, not, "And as shown in Mario Strikers, they have a disliking of eahcother". The second example shouldn't be considered speculation, and you're showing it off as if it was. For example, we could keep the Baby Luigi/Baby Daisy relationship, just take out the part where it suggests that they have more of a relationship then shown with the trophy, same with Baby Peach and the picture. Using factual information isn't speculation as long as you're not speculating anything while using it as back up. [[User:Fixitup|Fixitup]] | ||
That's kinda arrogant of you, but, OK! I don't care if you ''think'' it's not worthless speculation, half the people around here believe it is. I see no point in making a section about Princess Daisy's hatred of Waluigi based on gameplay elements. It doesn't make sense. {{User | That's kinda arrogant of you, but, OK! I don't care if you ''think'' it's not worthless speculation, half the people around here believe it is. I see no point in making a section about Princess Daisy's hatred of Waluigi based on gameplay elements. It doesn't make sense. {{User|Pokemon DP}} | ||
:That didn't go off as correctly as I thought it would. I don't think I'm too good to vote on this, I think I shouldn't vote on something that doesn't give me an option to support my opinion. Hatred? That's a going pretty far. Also, I haven't actually seen anyone else say they agree with you about the Waluigi/Daisy relationship. And anyway, what does the fact it's a bad relationship have to do with anything? Luigi/Daisy and Mario/Peach's relationships are based on gameplay too. You're not giving any reasoning behind the fact you think it's speculation. How does it not make sense? Elaborate, please. I don't see how facts don't make sense. Also, even if this does end up going through, do you honestly think that means that gives you the right to just get rid of any information like this? You're not allowed to remove information that isn't speculation, regardless of the outcome of this proposal. So far, no one has proven to anyone how the Waluigi sections is baseless speculaiton, same goes with the Baby Daisy/Baby Luigi section. Everyone knows that there is information to be used, we just won't be able to come to any conclusions with them. [[User:Fixitup|Fixitup]] | :That didn't go off as correctly as I thought it would. I don't think I'm too good to vote on this, I think I shouldn't vote on something that doesn't give me an option to support my opinion. Hatred? That's a going pretty far. Also, I haven't actually seen anyone else say they agree with you about the Waluigi/Daisy relationship. And anyway, what does the fact it's a bad relationship have to do with anything? Luigi/Daisy and Mario/Peach's relationships are based on gameplay too. You're not giving any reasoning behind the fact you think it's speculation. How does it not make sense? Elaborate, please. I don't see how facts don't make sense. Also, even if this does end up going through, do you honestly think that means that gives you the right to just get rid of any information like this? You're not allowed to remove information that isn't speculation, regardless of the outcome of this proposal. So far, no one has proven to anyone how the Waluigi sections is baseless speculaiton, same goes with the Baby Daisy/Baby Luigi section. Everyone knows that there is information to be used, we just won't be able to come to any conclusions with them. [[User:Fixitup|Fixitup]] | ||
::What we're taling about here ''is'' speculation, Fixitup :<nowiki>|</nowiki> You haven't given any good examples of proof that Daisy hates Waluigi, because there aren't any. {{User | ::What we're taling about here ''is'' speculation, Fixitup :<nowiki>|</nowiki> You haven't given any good examples of proof that Daisy hates Waluigi, because there aren't any. {{User|Glitchman}} | ||
:::I just said to DP that I don't think Daisy hates Waluigi, and that the section doesn't say she hates him. It was shown in Mario Strikers Charged that they had a rivalry. They have bad chemistry in MarioSBB. Their team names often explain a bad relationship. What more do you need to provide the foundation for a relationship at the least? HUH?... [[User:Fixitup|Fixitup]] | :::I just said to DP that I don't think Daisy hates Waluigi, and that the section doesn't say she hates him. It was shown in Mario Strikers Charged that they had a rivalry. They have bad chemistry in MarioSBB. Their team names often explain a bad relationship. What more do you need to provide the foundation for a relationship at the least? HUH?... [[User:Fixitup|Fixitup]] | ||
Can we at least agree that the Baby Daisy & Baby Luigi can remain in the form of a trivia section like time q suggested?-[[User:Moonshine|Moonshine]] | Can we at least agree that the Baby Daisy & Baby Luigi can remain in the form of a trivia section like time q suggested?-[[User:Moonshine|Moonshine]] | ||
:You know what I like to do in these situations is this: peel back the speculation and post the fact: Baby Daisy does have a fountain/statue/whatever of her with Baby Luigi, just as their older selves do. Period. You don't have to write any more. Let the reader come up with his or her own theories. Remember: as an encyclopedia, we can, and should, just post the facts. Don't stress yourself trying to think of what Nintendo is saying, just report the hints, and don't conclude. {{User | :You know what I like to do in these situations is this: peel back the speculation and post the fact: Baby Daisy does have a fountain/statue/whatever of her with Baby Luigi, just as their older selves do. Period. You don't have to write any more. Let the reader come up with his or her own theories. Remember: as an encyclopedia, we can, and should, just post the facts. Don't stress yourself trying to think of what Nintendo is saying, just report the hints, and don't conclude. {{User|Stumpers}} 20:16, 1 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
::Wow, at least someone can get at the truth here. [[User:Fixitup|Fixitup]] | ::Wow, at least someone can get at the truth here. [[User:Fixitup|Fixitup]] | ||
:::Thanks. So, I guess what you could say on the article would be to mention the hint in a section about Mario Kart Wii, or maybe just a section on... I dunno... influence on Mushroom World culture? It's a toughie. {{User | :::Thanks. So, I guess what you could say on the article would be to mention the hint in a section about Mario Kart Wii, or maybe just a section on... I dunno... influence on Mushroom World culture? It's a toughie. {{User|Stumpers}} 00:27, 3 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
That was very rude, Fixitup. I'm-a go now before I get scolded, though... {{User | That was very rude, Fixitup. I'm-a go now before I get scolded, though... {{User|Pokemon DP}} | ||
:What are you referring to? Also, why haven't you responded to the fact I gave you reasoning as to why the Waluigi/Daisy relationship isn't baseless? [[User:Fixitup|Fixitup]] | :What are you referring to? Also, why haven't you responded to the fact I gave you reasoning as to why the Waluigi/Daisy relationship isn't baseless? [[User:Fixitup|Fixitup]] | ||
I was thinking of creating a page dedicated to the characters' relationships. I took the idea from this [http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/PokéShipping page], where users can put their evidences about the topic. Why not make such a page, something similar to the [[MarioWiki:BJAODN|BJAODN]] article? {{User | I was thinking of creating a page dedicated to the characters' relationships. I took the idea from this [http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/PokéShipping page], where users can put their evidences about the topic. Why not make such a page, something similar to the [[MarioWiki:BJAODN|BJAODN]] article? {{User|Coincollector}} 23:47, 4 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
:For starters, that'd be a fanon page. Stuff like that belongs on a fanon site. {{User | :For starters, that'd be a fanon page. Stuff like that belongs on a fanon site. {{User|Stooben Rooben}} 21:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
:Not really fanon, as you can see, the article shows some evidences about the relationships. However, putting a personal opinion like a fanon comment, could be possible vandalism (my idea is talk about the relatonships, but this time, with facts and theories as references and not speculations or fanatics) {{User|Coincollector}} 00:03, 6 May 2008 (EDT) | |||
---- | |||
===Subspace Army Enemies=== | ===Subspace Army Enemies=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|11-2|merge}} | |||
So, I've been going through the Wiki, and I've noticed a lot of articles being made on the the [[Subspace Army]] enemies. IMO, these articles are worthless. Yes, I know, it's amazing that I have a limit to the Smash Bros. content on the Wiki, but I believe the Subspace Army enemies are too minor to have their own articles. I propose we merge them all with the Subspace Army article. | So, I've been going through the Wiki, and I've noticed a lot of articles being made on the the [[Subspace Army]] enemies. IMO, these articles are worthless. Yes, I know, it's amazing that I have a limit to the Smash Bros. content on the Wiki, but I believe the Subspace Army enemies are too minor to have their own articles. I propose we merge them all with the Subspace Army article. | ||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Pokemon DP}}<br> | |||
'''Proposer:''' {{User | '''Deadline:''' May 8, 2008, 17:00 EDT | ||
'''Deadline:''' May 8, 2008, 17:00 | |||
====Merge with [[Subspace Army]]==== | ====Merge with [[Subspace Army]]==== | ||
#{{User | #{{User|Pokemon DP}} I am the proposer, and... Blah blah blah. | ||
#{{User | #{{User|RAP}} Per DP. | ||
#{{User | #{{User|Glitchman}} Per DP. | ||
#{{User | #{{User|Stooben Rooben}} Per DP. The less stublets, the better. | ||
#{{User | #{{User|InfectedShroom}} Per DP. | ||
#{{User | #{{User|Garlic Man}} Per DP - I already redirected a whole bunch of the enemies before, but now it's starting again... D: | ||
#{{User | #{{User|Storm Yoshi}} Per DP but... | ||
#{{User | #{{User|Green Guy}} Per DP, Stooben, and the Grarlic Guy | ||
#[[User:1337Yoshi|1337Yoshi]] Per everyone else. | #[[User:1337Yoshi|1337Yoshi]] Per everyone else. | ||
# | #{{User|MarioGalaxy2433g5}} - Per all | ||
#{{User | #{{User|HyperToad}} - Per DP. | ||
====Keep 'em split==== | ====Keep 'em split==== | ||
#{{User | #{{User|Cobold}} - Those are just as notable as Melee Adventure mode enemies, who all have articles undebated last time I checked. | ||
#{{User | #{{User|Plumber}} Per Cobold | ||
====Comments==== | ====Comments==== | ||
Eh, to be fair, they're more major than [[Condor]]. At least they have a '''name'''. --[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] 06:38, 1 May 2008 (EDT) | Eh, to be fair, they're more major than [[Condor]]. At least they have a '''name'''. --[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] 06:38, 1 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
And I didn't want that article made. My point being, THERE IS A LIMIT! <_< {{User | And I didn't want that article made. My point being, THERE IS A LIMIT! <_< {{User|Pokemon DP}} | ||
:Blitzwing, this proposal could be what you're looking for. I'm sure you've noticed this before, but sometimes one proposal dominoes into another, with the new proposals being supported by the results of the previous one. {{User | :Blitzwing, this proposal could be what you're looking for. I'm sure you've noticed this before, but sometimes one proposal dominoes into another, with the new proposals being supported by the results of the previous one. {{User|Stumpers}} 20:19, 1 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
At least have one on Primid, please? {{User | At least have one on Primid, please? {{User|MegaMario9910}} | ||
:Yeah, having a Primid one ''would'' be nice, IMO. {{User | :Yeah, having a Primid one ''would'' be nice, IMO. {{User|InfectedShroom}} | ||
::There's always room in lists for a main article template, right? {{User | ::There's always room in lists for a main article template, right? {{User|Stumpers}} 20:19, 1 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
Perhaps Primid could be an exception... Ehhhhhhh... That's debatable, I think. {{User | Perhaps Primid could be an exception... Ehhhhhhh... That's debatable, I think. {{User|Pokemon DP}} | ||
:But articles like [[Octorok]], [[ReDead]] and [[Polar Bear]] are okay? I don't see them being any different to Subspace Army enemy articles. - {{User | :But articles like [[Octorok]], [[ReDead]] and [[Polar Bear]] are okay? I don't see them being any different to Subspace Army enemy articles. - {{User|Cobold}} 09:22, 2 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
Those articles should be merged into their own page as well... {{User | Those articles should be merged into their own page as well... {{User|Pokemon DP}} | ||
:Which would have a conjectural name. Or simply "List of enemies". I don't think we can put all those Subspace Emissary enemies into the Subspace Army article, I'm not quite sure where they all belong. - {{User | :Which would have a conjectural name. Or simply "List of enemies". I don't think we can put all those Subspace Emissary enemies into the Subspace Army article, I'm not quite sure where they all belong. - {{User|Cobold}} 09:54, 2 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
Seeing as all the SSE enemies are members of the Subspace Army, they DO fit in that article... And, making a list of enemies... How's that bad? Dude, you make articles on simple ENEMIES, then we'll have to make articles on Assist Trophies and Pokémon... =| {{User | Seeing as all the SSE enemies are members of the Subspace Army, they DO fit in that article... And, making a list of enemies... How's that bad? Dude, you make articles on simple ENEMIES, then we'll have to make articles on Assist Trophies and Pokémon... =| {{User|Pokemon DP}} | ||
:Yeah, things are debatable around here, and there's no clear line. In my opinion, we should have enemy articles. Thus I am voting for keeping them. This doesn't mean I would support Assist Trophy/Pokémon articles either. - {{User | :Yeah, things are debatable around here, and there's no clear line. In my opinion, we should have enemy articles. Thus I am voting for keeping them. This doesn't mean I would support Assist Trophy/Pokémon articles either. - {{User|Cobold}} 11:34, 2 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
::IMO, we should have a page titled "List of Enemies and stage hazard in the Smash. Bros." series. I don't understand why we have articles on completly random things like [[Tingle]], [[Ultimate Chimera]] and the guys Cobold listed above. --[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] 11:40, 2 May 2008 (EDT) | ::IMO, we should have a page titled "List of Enemies and stage hazard in the Smash. Bros." series. I don't understand why we have articles on completly random things like [[Tingle]], [[Ultimate Chimera]] and the guys Cobold listed above. --[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] 11:40, 2 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
Agreed, Blitzwing. {{User | Agreed, Blitzwing. {{User|Pokemon DP}} | ||
:Enemies have always had more importance than things like trophies. I'm with the merge side I think just because of the stubbiness factor. {{User | :Enemies have always had more importance than things like trophies. I'm with the merge side I think just because of the stubbiness factor. {{User|Stumpers}} 01:20, 5 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
---- | |||
===Coconut Mall Department Stores=== | ===Coconut Mall Department Stores=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|7-12|make no list or seperate articles}} | |||
In ''[[Mario Kart Wii]]'', the [[Coconut Mall]] course has many little stores, advertisements, and other things like that. I think we should make articles for each of these, such as the one I already made, [[Coco Burger]]. If a store exists in the game and we can give the article enough information, I think we should go for it. What do you guys think? | In ''[[Mario Kart Wii]]'', the [[Coconut Mall]] course has many little stores, advertisements, and other things like that. I think we should make articles for each of these, such as the one I already made, [[Coco Burger]]. If a store exists in the game and we can give the article enough information, I think we should go for it. What do you guys think? | ||
Line 176: | Line 164: | ||
To clarify even further: Yes, the first option means that a separate list will be made. Separate from the sponsors list. Because the stores in the mall are not sponsors of Mario Kart. | To clarify even further: Yes, the first option means that a separate list will be made. Separate from the sponsors list. Because the stores in the mall are not sponsors of Mario Kart. | ||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Tiptup_Jr.}}<br> | |||
'''Proposer:''' {{User | '''Deadline:''' May 9, 2008, 20:00 EDT | ||
'''Deadline:''' May 9, 2008, 20:00 | |||
====Make them/Make a list!==== | ====Make them/Make a list!==== | ||
#{{User | #{{User|Tiptup_Jr.}} So... yeah. I'm the proposer and all. Reasons stated above. | ||
#[[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]] - A LIST. Not | #[[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]] - A LIST. Not separate articles; they'd be stumps and a waste of space. However, since we have that Sponsor list, we might-as-well have one for the stores too. It's all valid information, even if it's just a bunch of easter-eggs. | ||
#{{User | #{{User|Blitzwing}} - What Walkazo said. | ||
#{{User | #{{User|Snack}} Per Walkazo. | ||
#{{User | #{{User|Arend}} Besides it is a little bit unneed, it CAN be added. We can add a whole list to the Coconut article | ||
#[[User | #[[User|GreenKoopa|GreenKoopa]] - See comment. | ||
#{{User | #{{User|Glitchman}} Per Walkazo and Arend. | ||
====Oppose!==== | ====Oppose!==== | ||
#{{User | #{{User|Pokemon DP}} This is the most ridiculous Proposal I've ever seen. They are merely stores and posters; No REAL information is EVER given. They are just easter eggs/minor additions, nothing more. And, Stumpers, play the game first before you assume the stores and posters have information... Uh-oh, that sounded kinda impolite. D= On that note, quite a bit of the information shown on the example given by Tiptup Jr. is kinda false... I don't remember seeing any menus or anything of the sort. | ||
#[[User:Supertroopa|Supertroopa]] Per DP. This way can't work because we can't have seperate articles of every single insignificant easter eggs as said before by DP. This has to be a wiki of more important information rather than more articles about shops that are advertised on a course of like Coconut Mall. | #[[User:Supertroopa|Supertroopa]] Per DP. This way can't work because we can't have seperate articles of every single insignificant easter eggs as said before by DP. This has to be a wiki of more important information rather than more articles about shops that are advertised on a course of like Coconut Mall. | ||
#The main the you see of the stores is a poster that says stuff you can't read. Like DP said, WHAT info is given about them: nothing. This is just plain stupid. Plus, like 90% of the Coco Burger article is false. Pictures on a wall, that isn't much of a menu. If you don't believe me, I just checked. | #{{User|Toadette 4evur}} The main the you see of the stores is a poster that says stuff you can't read. Like DP said, WHAT info is given about them: nothing. This is just plain stupid. Plus, like 90% of the Coco Burger article is false. Pictures on a wall, that isn't much of a menu. If you don't believe me, I just checked. | ||
#{{User | #{{User|Ghost Jam}} Another stub article we don't need. Just merge into [[List of Mario Kart Sponsors]]. | ||
#{{User | #{{User|Green Guy}} Per DP. Plus it's rather futile to have articles on things that don't even effect game play. | ||
#{{User | #{{User|Plumber}} Merge into List of Mario Kart Sponsors and move that to [[Mario Kart Advertisements]] (since the ads themselves aren't sponsors). | ||
#{{User | #{{User|Stumpers}} In my defense it was assuming good faith. Whatever though. Per Ghost Jam. | ||
#{{User | #{{User|Stooben Rooben}} Per DP. These places don't even affect gameplay! K.K. Slider somewhat affects gameplay in ''Brawl'' and HE doesn't even HAVE an article. If something doesn't affect gameplay, it doesn't really deserve it's own article. | ||
#[[User: Booster|Booster]] -- Per Ghost Jam. Just put them on the sponsors list, perhaps in their own little section. | #[[User:Booster|Booster]] -- Per Ghost Jam. Just put them on the sponsors list, perhaps in their own little section. | ||
# | #{{User|MarioGalaxy2433g5}}- per all | ||
#{{User | #{{User|InfectedShroom}} Per all. LOL, is that descriptive enough? :P J/K | ||
#{{User | #{{User|Princess Strawberry Butterfly}} Why we should make a list for them if they contain no info and no image of the foods. (It like the foods from Paper Mario but they had info.) | ||
====Comments==== | ====Comments==== | ||
I think making these articles would make the Mario Wiki a more complete guide to Mario's world and would help people find as much information as possible about Mario Kart Wii. We could also put what type of Miis appear in each advertisement, like a female for a certain store, and a male for another. Just a thought. {{unsigned|Tiptup Jr.}} | I think making these articles would make the Mario Wiki a more complete guide to Mario's world and would help people find as much information as possible about Mario Kart Wii. We could also put what type of Miis appear in each advertisement, like a female for a certain store, and a male for another. Just a thought. {{unsigned|Tiptup Jr.}} | ||
Tiptup Jr., please always add a reason next to your vote, otherwise it's invalid. Even if you're the proposer. :/ {{User | Tiptup Jr., please always add a reason next to your vote, otherwise it's invalid. Even if you're the proposer. :/ {{User|Time Q}} 05:53, 3 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
Since there is no actual information given on any of the stores and posters in this circuit, any information added to the article will be speculation and fan junk... {{User|Pokemon DP}} | |||
What's about putting info of these things on the [[List of Mario Kart Sponsors]]? --[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] 07:37, 3 May 2008 (EDT) | What's about putting info of these things on the [[List of Mario Kart Sponsors]]? --[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] 07:37, 3 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
Seems like a good idea, Blitzwing. {{User | Seems like a good idea, Blitzwing. {{User|Pokemon DP}} | ||
Technically, the stores in Coconut Mall are ''not'' sponsors of Mario Kart, they're just... there. Maybe we could make a separate article with a list of Coconut Mall stores, instead of one article for each store? {{User | Technically, the stores in Coconut Mall are ''not'' sponsors of Mario Kart, they're just... there. Maybe we could make a separate article with a list of Coconut Mall stores, instead of one article for each store? {{User|Tiptup Jr.}} | ||
I 99.9% want to say oppose because this seems like a waste of time if theses stores are just random easter eggs in a Mario Kart course-- but I haven't ever played the game yet, which is the 0.1% holding me back from voting. {{User | I 99.9% want to say oppose because this seems like a waste of time if theses stores are just random easter eggs in a Mario Kart course-- but I haven't ever played the game yet, which is the 0.1% holding me back from voting. {{User|CrystalYoshi}} 09:44, 3 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
Add them to the [[List of Mario Kart Sponsors]]. <u>'''THIS I COMMAND!!!'''</u> {{User | Add them to the [[List of Mario Kart Sponsors]]. <u>'''THIS I COMMAND!!!'''</u> {{User|Pokemon DP}} | ||
{{quote|This is the most ridiculous Proposal I've ever seen.|User:Pokemon DP}} | {{quote|This is the most ridiculous Proposal I've ever seen.|User:Pokemon DP}} | ||
Obviously, you've forgotten a little thing called Pie (otherwise known as Proof there is a God). Also, they can't be merged with [[List of Mario Kart Sponsors]] since they aren't sponsors. I think they should be added to List of Mario Kart Sponsors, but only if the page is then moved to Mario Kart Advertisements. {{User | Obviously, you've forgotten a little thing called Pie (otherwise known as Proof there is a God). Also, they can't be merged with [[List of Mario Kart Sponsors]] since they aren't sponsors. I think they should be added to List of Mario Kart Sponsors, but only if the page is then moved to Mario Kart Advertisements. {{User|Plumber}} 20:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
Agreed with Plumber. The Pie Proposal was at least funny. :( {{User | Agreed with Plumber. The Pie Proposal was at least funny. :( {{User|Pokemon DP}} | ||
:It's nice to know that you can't really call something around these parts stupid without referring to one of my creations. XD -- | :It's nice to know that you can't really call something around these parts stupid without referring to one of my creations. XD -- [[User:Ghost Jam|Chris]] 15:49, 5 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
Really, only if there really is enough information. If not, then consider merging it. | Really, only if there really is enough information. If not, then consider merging it. [[User:Nothing444]] 00:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
DP, are you saying that all the information on the article example given by the proposer was false fanon? That would change things quite a bit, really. {{User | DP, are you saying that all the information on the article example given by the proposer was false fanon? That would change things quite a bit, really. {{User|Stumpers}} 01:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
All that information is false, yes. I don't remember any menus or anything of the sort. {{User | All that information is false, yes. I don't remember any menus or anything of the sort. {{User|Pokemon DP}} | ||
:So why haven't we deleted/removed false data from that article than? {{User | :So why haven't we deleted/removed false data from that article than? {{User|Stumpers}} 01:16, 5 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
For evidence, perhaps? {{User | For evidence, perhaps? {{User|Pokemon DP}} | ||
:Well, you're heading the opposition so do as you wish, but can you at least make a note of that so people don't get confused? {{User | :Well, you're heading the opposition so do as you wish, but can you at least make a note of that so people don't get confused? {{User|Stumpers}} 07:52, 5 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
Er, [[User:Yoshitheawesome|Yoshitheawesome]], your vote isn't really valid since Stumpers changed his vote. {{User | Er, [[User:Yoshitheawesome|Yoshitheawesome]], your vote isn't really valid since Stumpers changed his vote. {{User|Stooben Rooben}} 15:53, 5 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
Once this proposal fails there should be another one concerning lists of stores only. The options could be "No List", " | Once this proposal fails there should be another one concerning lists of stores only. The options could be "No List", "Separate List", or "Sponsors List". By the looks of it, one of the latter two options would win that proposal, so the information will get onto the Wiki one way or another. And that's what matters, right? - [[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]] | ||
:No offense, but the only way I see a list working is if there is enough information. While I do feel the [[Coco Burger]] has a fairly decent amount of information for a non-affective store, I doubt that all stores would have enough info for even their own spots on a list. But, I don't own the game, so I couldn't say for sure. {{User | :No offense, but the only way I see a list working is if there is enough information. While I do feel the [[Coco Burger]] has a fairly decent amount of information for a non-affective store, I doubt that all stores would have enough info for even their own spots on a list. But, I don't own the game, so I couldn't say for sure. {{User|Stooben Rooben}} 20:53, 5 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
::According to DP that whole page just about is fanon. I have no idea, but he doesn't want to take it down for the sake of example... I dunno. If anyone knows what is real and what isn't can you please take care of it? {{User | ::According to DP that whole page just about is fanon. I have no idea, but he doesn't want to take it down for the sake of example... I dunno. If anyone knows what is real and what isn't can you please take care of it? {{User|Stumpers}} 21:51, 5 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
Regardless, it is FAR too minor to get its own article. A... Minor cameo with no significance other than being a minor easter egg, with it's very own article? ...Uhhhhhhh... Logic is lacking in that plan. {{User | Regardless, it is FAR too minor to get its own article. A... Minor cameo with no significance other than being a minor easter egg, with it's very own article? ...Uhhhhhhh... Logic is lacking in that plan. {{User|Pokemon DP}} | ||
:Can you please clarify this: is that article fanon or not? {{User | :Can you please clarify this: is that article fanon or not? {{User|Stumpers}} 21:32, 6 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
The general article is true, but the entire menu is fanon. And the Pianta getting angry... Ehhhhh, not so sure about that one. {{User | The general article is true, but the entire menu is fanon. And the Pianta getting angry... Ehhhhh, not so sure about that one. {{User|Pokemon DP}} | ||
Tiptup Jr. should clarify the voting options. What does "Make a list" mean? Make a list separate from the Sponsors list, or make a list and put it to the Sponsors page? Because if you're thinking of the latter, several people currently opposing should better put their vote to the support section... Still, in case the support side wins, the only thing we'll know is that the information is going to be included in the wiki ''somehow''. Whether in a list or as separate articles will still be unsettled... so I don't think it's a good idea of merging "Make separate articles" and "Make a list" into one voting option. {{User | Tiptup Jr. should clarify the voting options. What does "Make a list" mean? Make a list separate from the Sponsors list, or make a list and put it to the Sponsors page? Because if you're thinking of the latter, several people currently opposing should better put their vote to the support section... Still, in case the support side wins, the only thing we'll know is that the information is going to be included in the wiki ''somehow''. Whether in a list or as separate articles will still be unsettled... so I don't think it's a good idea of merging "Make separate articles" and "Make a list" into one voting option. {{User|Time Q}} 13:47, 6 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
To all those saying these Coconut business aren't sponsors, I was playing the game with a friend the other night, who pointed out that the race is taking place in the Coconut Mall, so it, and any business therein, is sponsoring the race. Same with NASCAR. -- | To all those saying these Coconut business aren't sponsors, I was playing the game with a friend the other night, who pointed out that the race is taking place in the Coconut Mall, so it, and any business therein, is sponsoring the race. Same with NASCAR. -- [[User:Ghost Jam|Chris]] 14:55, 6 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
Okey, I think we should make a list... and put it in a List of Implied Buisnesses page. We could do that with other small... easteregg... things, like YOSHIKART in other Mariokart titles and those Supa Koopa Sneakers Koopa the quick mentions in SM64. I'm writing this in comments to explain my vote. [[User:GreenKoopa|GreenKoopa]] - [[User talk:GreenKoopa|Comments or questions?]] | Okey, I think we should make a list... and put it in a List of Implied Buisnesses page. We could do that with other small... easteregg... things, like YOSHIKART in other Mariokart titles and those Supa Koopa Sneakers Koopa the quick mentions in SM64. I'm writing this in comments to explain my vote. [[User:GreenKoopa|GreenKoopa]] - [[User talk:GreenKoopa|Comments or questions?]] | ||
:I'm fond of this idea. Didn't we have a List of Implied Businesses article at one time? -- [[ | :I'm fond of this idea. Didn't we have a List of Implied Businesses article at one time? -- [[User:Ghost Jam|Chris]] 23:32, 6 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
Actually... Since the buisnesses are ALL on [[Coconut Mall]], I think they should be added to the Coconut Mall article. Thoughts? {{User|Pokemon DP}} | |||
:That works too. -- [[User:Ghost Jam|Chris]] 23:32, 6 May 2008 (EDT) | |||
Oh, the menu in Coco Burger is not false. If you drive up and look closely enough, you ''can'' see the menu items. {{User|Tiptup Jr.}} | |||
: | :Uhh, when I mess around I run into walls for no reason, and when I did that on Coconut Mall, I didn't see ''any'' menus ''at all''. {{User|Toadette 4evur}} | ||
::Question: why was my vote removed? *Is too lazy to look in history* {{User|InfectedShroom}} | |||
:::It had no valid reason. I think it was just something like "Hmm... just merge it". {{User|Time Q}} 04:44, 8 May 2008 (EDT) | |||
::::Oh kay. Lemme fix it. {{User|InfectedShroom}} | |||
So... Can we all agree to add all this information to the [[Coconut Mall]] article? {{User|Pokemon DP}} | |||
:I can't think of any reason why not. {{User|Stumpers}} 00:42, 8 May 2008 (EDT) | |||
::I'll contact the proposer about this. 'cause strictly speaking, currently more voters vote ''against making a list'', and to include the information in the Coconut Mall article would be like making a list, basically. Given that there doesn't seem to be an opposition to this idea, though, we might remove the proposal, with Tiptup Jr.'s approval. {{User|Time Q}} 04:28, 8 May 2008 (EDT) | |||
::We should definitely do that. {{User|CrystalYoshi}} 20:44, 8 May 2008 (EDT) | |||
---- | |||
===Super Mario Galaxy signposts merge=== | ===Super Mario Galaxy signposts merge=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|13-10|merge}} | |||
For a long time now, I have been considering a merge of four articles, [[Gil Board]], [[Phil Board]], [[Bill Board]], and [[Jill Board]]. All of these are very similar talking signposts that appear as minor characters in Super Mario Galaxy that provide hints hints to the player, such as how to perform a wall kick or control Mario's Boo suit. As these articles are all very short and the characters playing only miniscule roles in the game and essentially non-existant roles in the Mario universe as a whole, I suggest these four articles be merged into a new one entitled "Boards (Super Mario Galaxy)". | For a long time now, I have been considering a merge of four articles, [[Gil Board]], [[Phil Board]], [[Bill Board]], and [[Jill Board]]. All of these are very similar talking signposts that appear as minor characters in Super Mario Galaxy that provide hints hints to the player, such as how to perform a wall kick or control Mario's Boo suit. As these articles are all very short and the characters playing only miniscule roles in the game and essentially non-existant roles in the Mario universe as a whole, I suggest these four articles be merged into a new one entitled "Boards (Super Mario Galaxy)". | ||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Snack}}<br> | |||
'''Proposer:''' {{User | '''Deadline:''' May 12, 2008, 17:00 EDT | ||
'''Deadline:''' May 12, 2008, 17:00 | |||
====Merge into "Boards (Super Mario Galaxy)"==== | ====Merge into "Boards (Super Mario Galaxy)"==== | ||
#{{User|Snack}} (As said above) | |||
#{{User | #{{User|Blitzwing}} Per Snack. | ||
#{{User | #{{User|Uniju :D}} Per Snack, as long as the images don't end up deleted. | ||
#{{User | |||
#[[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]] - Per Snack. | #[[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]] - Per Snack. | ||
#{{User | #{{User|Pokemon DP}} Per Snack. | ||
#{{User | #{{User|Princess Grapes Butterfly}} Per all. (Hey wasn't that the same idea I wrote in on the [[Talk:Bill Board]]?) | ||
#{{User | #{{User|Stumpers}} The subjects are too minor for separation (more so than Ashley and Red, for example). Plus, they are stubs, and on one of them, literally half of the text was conjecture (about being related to the other boards, for example). Remove that, as should be done per current Wiki policy, and they are DEFINATELY stubs. | ||
#{{User | #{{User|Garlic Man}} Per All. | ||
#[[User:Mushroomkingdom.nl|Mushroomkingdom.nl]] Per All | #[[User:Mushroomkingdom.nl|Mushroomkingdom.nl]] Per All | ||
#[[User:Yoshitheawesome]]. Per all. | #[[User:Yoshitheawesome]]. Per all. | ||
#[[User:RedFire Mario|RedFire Mario]] Per all | #[[User:RedFire Mario|RedFire Mario]] Per all | ||
#[[User:Reecer6]] Per all | #[[User:Reecer6]] Per all | ||
#{{User | #{{User|Purple Yoshi}} - They're too minor. Are you going to have an article about everything that mentions it's name? | ||
====Keep them Seperate==== | ====Keep them Seperate==== | ||
#{{User | #{{User|Stooben Rooben}} Even if they ARE similar in nature, they still have official names and provide information completely different from each other. They contain all the information required in each article, and each have their own image. | ||
#{{User|Toadette 4evur}} Per Stooby. Plus, they're not even stubs, almost defeating the purpose of merging. | |||
#[[User:HyperToad|HyperToad]] Per Stoob. | #[[User:HyperToad|HyperToad]] Per Stoob. | ||
#{{User | #{{User|Arend}} Per EVERYONE who voted on this section of this proposal | ||
#{{User | #{{User|Bob-omb buddy}} Per all. They are just simalar,not the same and are different charecters that are not in a group. | ||
#{{User | #{{User|Glitchman}} Per all. They're not even stubs, so, no reason to merge them. | ||
#{{User | #{{User|YellowYoshi398}} They seem just about like the different Paper Mario NPCs to me, and they're decided to have their own articles. | ||
#[[User:CountBlumiere|CountBlumiere]] Per all. They're different characters, so they should have different articles. | #[[User:CountBlumiere|CountBlumiere]] Per all. They're different characters, so they should have different articles. | ||
#{{User | #{{User|InfectedShroom}} Uh, Per all. They ain't stubs. | ||
#{{User | #{{User|EnPeached}}Aren't they also in Super Paper Mario? Anyway, they shouldn't be combined, because they may be in other games. Also, per all. | ||
====Comments==== | ====Comments==== | ||
I removed two votes with invalid reasons. Canama, [[Ashley and Red]] are also different characters, yet they are merged, so this logic doesn't work. However, I'm still not sure if all of the oppose voters have valid reasons. "Officially named" isn't reason enough to make a separate article, neither is "each has their own image" (again, cf. Ashley and Red example), and probably "they're not stubs" isn't either. Though I have no example for this. {{User | I removed two votes with invalid reasons. Canama, [[Ashley and Red]] are also different characters, yet they are merged, so this logic doesn't work. However, I'm still not sure if all of the oppose voters have valid reasons. "Officially named" isn't reason enough to make a separate article, neither is "each has their own image" (again, cf. Ashley and Red example), and probably "they're not stubs" isn't either. Though I have no example for this. {{User|Time Q}} 04:36, 7 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
To all those saying the Board should be kept split because they're different, the [[Isle Delfino Birds]] are also different (They have different colors and gives different things when you kill them), and yet they got merged. The Boards doesn't seems to have a whole load of differences from each other apart from their names. --[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] 06:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT) | To all those saying the Board should be kept split because they're different, the [[Isle Delfino Birds]] are also different (They have different colors and gives different things when you kill them), and yet they got merged. The Boards doesn't seems to have a whole load of differences from each other apart from their names. --[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] 06:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
I dunno where to side here. The arn't stubs, but they ARE short. [[User:HyperToad | I dunno where to side here. The arn't stubs, but they ARE short. [[User:HyperToad]] | ||
:I'm with HyperToad here. {{User|CrystalYoshi}} 18:07, 9 May 2008 (EDT) | |||
---- | |||
===Super Mario Bros.:The Lost Levels Worlds=== | ===Super Mario Bros.:The Lost Levels Worlds=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|14-0|make extra articles}} | |||
I have noticed recently that none of the worlds in [[Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels]] have their own article. I realize that the reason for this is probably that the game is too similar to the original SMB to have it's own pages for the worlds, but it is a COMPLETELY separate game. There are new backgrounds, different and more challenging levels, backward warp zones, trampolines, overworld bloopers, etc. Another reason it may not have these articles may be because the game was never originally released outside of Japan, but though [[Super Mario All-Stars]], [[Super Mario Bros. Deluxe]], and the virtual console almost every country has had the opportunity to play this game. So, I propose that just like the [[Super Mario Bros.|original]] game, we should make one article for each world and have the world's four levels on the article, amounting to eight new articles. | I have noticed recently that none of the worlds in [[Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels]] have their own article. I realize that the reason for this is probably that the game is too similar to the original SMB to have it's own pages for the worlds, but it is a COMPLETELY separate game. There are new backgrounds, different and more challenging levels, backward warp zones, trampolines, overworld bloopers, etc. Another reason it may not have these articles may be because the game was never originally released outside of Japan, but though [[Super Mario All-Stars]], [[Super Mario Bros. Deluxe]], and the virtual console almost every country has had the opportunity to play this game. So, I propose that just like the [[Super Mario Bros.|original]] game, we should make one article for each world and have the world's four levels on the article, amounting to eight new articles. | ||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Glitchman}}<br> | |||
'''Proposer:''' {{User | '''Deadline:''' May 13, 2008, 17:00 EDT | ||
'''Deadline:''' May 13, 2008, 17:00 | |||
====Make new pages for each world==== | ====Make new pages for each world==== | ||
#{{User | #{{User|Glitchman}} Per myself. | ||
#{{User | #{{User|Stooben Rooben}} Per Glitchman. | ||
#{{User | #{{User|YellowYoshi398}} Per Glitchman. Isn't SMB:LL's only real similarity with the original SMB the two games' use ofthe same graphics? Is DP's opposition really legitimate? | ||
#{{User | #{{User|Stumpers}} They're different levels, which is enough for me. | ||
#[[User:Grandy02|Grandy02]]: There are many similar graphics (though they are even not exactly the same), but the levels are definitely different, so they deserve articles. | #[[User:Grandy02|Grandy02]]: There are many similar graphics (though they are even not exactly the same), but the levels are definitely different, so they deserve articles. | ||
#{{User | #{{User|Cobold}} - The levels are about the only things that were different in this game. They are not modified versions of the SMB ones, but newly designed ones. | ||
#{{User | #{{User|HyperToad}} - Per Cobold. | ||
#[[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]] - Per all. | #[[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]] - Per all. | ||
#{{User | #{{User|Pokemon DP}} I changed my vote, seeing how each level is entirely new. | ||
#{{User | #{{User|InfectedShroom}} Per Glitchman. | ||
#{{User | #{{User|Bob-omb buddy}}-It does it on most games,Even if it is simalar and people want to compare it to the original. | ||
#{{User | #{{User|CrystalYoshi}} If it's all completely new, and enough users have played it to be able to write about it, then yeah, I'm for. | ||
#{{User | #{{User|Super-Yoshi}}-Per Stumpers. | ||
# | #{{User|Clay Mario}} - Per the thought that Super Mario Bros. 1 and the Lost Levels are completely different | ||
====Don't make new pages for each world==== | ====Don't make new pages for each world==== | ||
====Comments==== | ====Comments==== | ||
Perhaps my opposition isn't valid... I've never played either game, so I have no idea what the differences are. {{User | Perhaps my opposition isn't valid... I've never played either game, so I have no idea what the differences are. {{User|Pokemon DP}} | ||
:Well, the levels are laid out differently, enemies can be found in different locations, the graphics are slightly enhanced, and the game has many new features to each level. I think that about sums it up. {{User | :Well, the levels are laid out differently, enemies can be found in different locations, the graphics are slightly enhanced, and the game has many new features to each level. I think that about sums it up. {{User|Stooben Rooben}} 00:49, 7 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
::But, basically, they are still the same levels? If so, I tend to oppose. But I haven't played the games either. {{User | ::But, basically, they are still the same levels? If so, I tend to oppose. But I haven't played the games either. {{User|Time Q}} 04:29, 7 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
Hmmm... Now I'm not sure what to vote for... I think I'll stay on the Opposition side for a little bit. There's still 7 days left, after all. {{User | Hmmm... Now I'm not sure what to vote for... I think I'll stay on the Opposition side for a little bit. There's still 7 days left, after all. {{User|Pokemon DP}} | ||
:They created entirely new levels. There are no "differences", you'd have to mention everything for that. - {{User | :They created entirely new levels. There are no "differences", you'd have to mention everything for that. - {{User|Cobold}} 13:29, 7 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
::Cobold's right. Some are completely new. | ::Cobold's right. Some are completely new. {{User|HyperToad}} | ||
:::All of the levels are completely new, actually. {{User | :::All of the levels are completely new, actually. {{User|Glitchman}} | ||
::::All the overworlds too. - [[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]] | ::::All the overworlds too. - [[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]] | ||
The only thing I'm worried about is that not enough users have played SMB:LL. It is a Japan-only game, after all. Well, there is Super Mario All-Stars, but that's from a while ago. {{User | The only thing I'm worried about is that not enough users have played SMB:LL. It is a Japan-only game, after all. Well, there is Super Mario All-Stars, but that's from a while ago. {{User|CrystalYoshi}} 17:38, 9 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
:I see your point, but SMB:LL was released on the virtual console all over the world too, even though it was taken off the market in Europe and Australia after two weeks. I have SMB:LL on the VC myself, but I could still use some help with the articles. {{User | :I see your point, but SMB:LL was released on the virtual console all over the world too, even though it was taken off the market in Europe and Australia after two weeks. I have SMB:LL on the VC myself, but I could still use some help with the articles. {{User|Glitchman}} | ||
:Okay. {{User | :Okay. {{User|CrystalYoshi}} 12:52, 10 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
---- | |||
===Smash Bros. Series Articles=== | ===Smash Bros. Series Articles=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|3-11-12|no articles about other series}} | |||
Currently, this wiki has article on the Super Mario series (as a whole), as well as Donkey Kong. I think we should have articles on {{fake link|Metroid (series)}} and ect. This espically goes for {{fake link|Sonic the Hedgehog (series)}}. This could mention the series appearences in the Marioverse (e. g. SSB, M&S) and a brief section about the series it's self, perhaps. | |||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|HyperToad}}<br> | '''Proposer:''' {{User|HyperToad}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline:''' May 14, 2008, 17:00 | '''Deadline:''' May 14, 2008, 17:00 EDT | ||
====Make the Articles==== | ====Make the Articles==== | ||
Line 441: | Line 423: | ||
Couple random thoughts, one of which has nothing to do with anything but in its own screwed up way kinda relates. One: If we did this, it might be a good idea to link the game titles and characters who have no relevance to Mario (for example, Jet the Hawk) to the Sonic Wiki, that way, we don't have to make seperate pages for every single character and every single game, but we can still provide information (or more accurately, a source of information) on the characters who don't matter to Mario. Two: Bulbapedia has a good plan of action with regards to the Smash Bros. series: Only if it bears relevance to the series. This may be a good idea here, too. Three: Singly out of curiosity, why no Banjo-Kazooie and Conker? ~ {{User|Shrikeswind}} 22:25, 10 May 2008 | Couple random thoughts, one of which has nothing to do with anything but in its own screwed up way kinda relates. One: If we did this, it might be a good idea to link the game titles and characters who have no relevance to Mario (for example, Jet the Hawk) to the Sonic Wiki, that way, we don't have to make seperate pages for every single character and every single game, but we can still provide information (or more accurately, a source of information) on the characters who don't matter to Mario. Two: Bulbapedia has a good plan of action with regards to the Smash Bros. series: Only if it bears relevance to the series. This may be a good idea here, too. Three: Singly out of curiosity, why no Banjo-Kazooie and Conker? ~ {{User|Shrikeswind}} 22:25, 10 May 2008 | ||
I think what some opposers are missing is that an article {{ | I think what some opposers are missing is that an article {{fake link|Sonic (series)}} would NOT include everything about the Sonic series (like an article "Sonic (series)" in a Sonic Wiki would do) but of course only the facts that are relevant to the Mario series... {{User|Time Q}} 15:13, 11 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
:I don't mean to sound like a moron, but what happens if this proposal ties? {{User|Stooben Rooben}} 13:32, 13 May 2008 (EDT) | :I don't mean to sound like a moron, but what happens if this proposal ties? {{User|Stooben Rooben}} 13:32, 13 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
::I guess it just stays on this page until one side pulls ahead by one vote. {{User|Glitchman}} | ::I guess it just stays on this page until one side pulls ahead by one vote. {{User|Glitchman}} | ||
Line 447: | Line 429: | ||
::I thought it would be archived, but listed as "No Quorum". {{User|Time Q}} 18:56, 13 May 2008 (EDT) | ::I thought it would be archived, but listed as "No Quorum". {{User|Time Q}} 18:56, 13 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
:::I thought that was for proposals with less than 3 votes? Well, we'll find out shortly. {{User|Stooben Rooben}} 19:04, 13 May 2008 (EDT) | :::I thought that was for proposals with less than 3 votes? Well, we'll find out shortly. {{User|Stooben Rooben}} 19:04, 13 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
---- | |||
===Split Para-Beetle from [[Parabuzzy]]=== | ===Split Para-Beetle from [[Parabuzzy]]=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|9-1|split}} | |||
I was looking around the wiki one day and I saw that [[Para-Beetle]] is a redirect to [[Parabuzzy]]. I checked the talk page, and saw that users had said the name was changed. Now, this did not make sense to me, simply because I had not heard from anywhere official that Para-Beetles got a name change. So I say we split the two pages, as they are a separate species. | I was looking around the wiki one day and I saw that [[Para-Beetle]] is a redirect to [[Parabuzzy]]. I checked the talk page, and saw that users had said the name was changed. Now, this did not make sense to me, simply because I had not heard from anywhere official that Para-Beetles got a name change. So I say we split the two pages, as they are a separate species. | ||
And also... I do not believe that, when split, the two pages will become stubs. This is because once they have all the information possible on their topic, they won't be a stub. | And also... I do not believe that, when split, the two pages will become stubs. This is because once they have all the information possible on their topic, they won't be a stub. | ||
'''Proposer''': {{User|InfectedShroom}}<br> | '''Proposer''': {{User|InfectedShroom}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline''': | '''Deadline''': May 15, 2008, 17:00 EDT | ||
====Split It==== | ====Split It==== | ||
Line 468: | Line 449: | ||
#{{User|Toadster_04}} They are separate enemies that do different things as said previously by Walkazo. | #{{User|Toadster_04}} They are separate enemies that do different things as said previously by Walkazo. | ||
#{{User|Stumpers}} Different enemies that have spanned multiple games... well the Buzzies have... anyway, definately for splitting them since there's enough info. | #{{User|Stumpers}} Different enemies that have spanned multiple games... well the Buzzies have... anyway, definately for splitting them since there's enough info. | ||
#Upon closer inspection, it turns out that the two are different species and I had never heard of Parabeetle being called Parabuzzy until now. | #{{User|Pikax}} Upon closer inspection, it turns out that the two are different species and I had never heard of Parabeetle being called Parabuzzy until now. | ||
#{{User|Storm Yoshi}}Per the Shroom that is Infected | #{{User|Storm Yoshi}}Per the Shroom that is Infected | ||
Line 475: | Line 456: | ||
====Comments==== | ====Comments==== | ||
[[ | [[File:CartoonParabeetle.jpg|thumb|It doesn't even have holes that allow legs to come out of the body.]] | ||
Yeah, Walkazo makes the point I was gonna say if I was put in a corner: they are biologically different. Also, remember [[MarioWiki:Proposals/ | Yeah, Walkazo makes the point I was gonna say if I was put in a corner: they are biologically different. Also, remember [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/6#Snifit or Snufit?|this proposal]] and it's outcome? The winning side argued that Sufits are a separate species because of their biological makeup. And, more specifically, that they have legs. {{User|InfectedShroom}} | ||
::You're right, but I need one more piece of evidence that they're different, and ''then'' I'll take my opposition away. The addition of legs is probably just character development. After all, their names are both supposed to be Para mixed with Buzzy Beetle, so I think that means they're the same. If you have evidence that they're different, tell me. {{User|CrystalYoshi}} 13:05, 10 May 2008 (EDT) | ::You're right, but I need one more piece of evidence that they're different, and ''then'' I'll take my opposition away. The addition of legs is probably just character development. After all, their names are both supposed to be Para mixed with Buzzy Beetle, so I think that means they're the same. If you have evidence that they're different, tell me. {{User|CrystalYoshi}} 13:05, 10 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
:::Parabeetles have different-colored shells. They would have different wings, as Buzzies have a bigger sprite than the Beetles(:P). Images: Parabeetle: http://upload.scribblewiki.com/images/upload/6/67/Parabeetle.gif Parabuzzy: http://upload.scribblewiki.com/images/upload/3/37/Para-buzzy.gif Notice the size difference? The smaller wings would look bad on the Buzzy. Not exactly decisive evidence, but great evidence nonetheless. Also, I'll have more evidence soon. {{User|InfectedShroom}} | :::Parabeetles have different-colored shells. They would have different wings, as Buzzies have a bigger sprite than the Beetles(:P). Images: Parabeetle: http://upload.scribblewiki.com/images/upload/6/67/Parabeetle.gif Parabuzzy: http://upload.scribblewiki.com/images/upload/3/37/Para-buzzy.gif Notice the size difference? The smaller wings would look bad on the Buzzy. Not exactly decisive evidence, but great evidence nonetheless. Also, I'll have more evidence soon. {{User|InfectedShroom}} | ||
Line 492: | Line 473: | ||
:Also, the above image shows what I used to make the PM image. It has all of the part, and I pieced them together. I'm sure you can tell what I mean now. ;) {{User|InfectedShroom}} | :Also, the above image shows what I used to make the PM image. It has all of the part, and I pieced them together. I'm sure you can tell what I mean now. ;) {{User|InfectedShroom}} | ||
---- | |||
===Trouble Center=== | ===Trouble Center=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|1-9|don't force users to do troubles}} | |||
On this wiki, there have been many '''Not Taken''' spots in the trouble center. Sometimes, this spot can go for a long time, basically never getting it done. I propose we should make automatic match-ups for troubles. (Meaning, a user posts up a trouble, and one random user gets to do that trouble.) But of course, the user does not have to do it. If he/she refuses another user gets it. If this was done, much more troubles would get completed.What do you think? | On this wiki, there have been many '''Not Taken''' spots in the trouble center. Sometimes, this spot can go for a long time, basically never getting it done. I propose we should make automatic match-ups for troubles. (Meaning, a user posts up a trouble, and one random user gets to do that trouble.) But of course, the user does not have to do it. If he/she refuses another user gets it. If this was done, much more troubles would get completed.What do you think? | ||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Goldguy}}<br> | '''Proposer:''' {{User|Goldguy}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline:''' May 16, 2008, 20:00 | '''Deadline:''' May 16, 2008, 20:00 EDT | ||
====Agree==== | ====Agree==== | ||
# | #{{User|Goldguy}} Reason stated above. | ||
====Oppose==== | ====Oppose==== | ||
Line 528: | Line 508: | ||
NO!That's not what I meant.Any user can refuse until one user takes it.{{User|Goldguy}} | NO!That's not what I meant.Any user can refuse until one user takes it.{{User|Goldguy}} | ||
:But do you think any user is really gonna want to do that? Everyone will refuse. Having users get to choose things is the way to go. I don't think I'll vote, though, because I don't really know anything about the trouble center. {{User|CrystalYoshi}} 18:26, 11 May 2008 (EDT) | :But do you think any user is really gonna want to do that? Everyone will refuse. Having users get to choose things is the way to go. I don't think I'll vote, though, because I don't really know anything about the trouble center. {{User|CrystalYoshi}} 18:26, 11 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
---- | |||
===NWFC Chat add to sidebar=== | ===NWFC Chat add to sidebar=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|3-6|no extra link}} | |||
It's a pain to type "/j mwikionline" all the time when you enter chat. Why not have a seperate thing on the sidebar that says "Wifi Chat" or something which is a direct link to "/j mwikionline"? We could get some more users who dont know the room by name into the room and we can get more wifi competitors! i mean is it just me or are the same users in that room every time we go check? i mean i only go in when someone tells me to go in and i bet alot of people do that too.i feel it should be publicized to our community .Wonder how many users new this room existed before i made this Proposal. Just my point. | It's a pain to type "/j mwikionline" all the time when you enter chat. Why not have a seperate thing on the sidebar that says "Wifi Chat" or something which is a direct link to "/j mwikionline"? We could get some more users who dont know the room by name into the room and we can get more wifi competitors! i mean is it just me or are the same users in that room every time we go check? i mean i only go in when someone tells me to go in and i bet alot of people do that too.i feel it should be publicized to our community .Wonder how many users new this room existed before i made this Proposal. Just my point. | ||
Line 539: | Line 519: | ||
Any Goers? | Any Goers? | ||
'''Proposer:''' {{user|WarioLoaf}} 23:43, 10 May 2008 (EDT)<br> | |||
'''Proposer:''' | '''Deadline:''' May 17, 2008, 20:00 EDT | ||
'''Deadline:''' May 17, 2008, 20:00 | |||
====YAY==== | ====YAY==== | ||
Line 558: | Line 537: | ||
====Comments==== | ====Comments==== | ||
I have redirected [[Mario Wiki Chat]] to the chat room so you can just type that into the search bar, easier and simpler (if i wasnt aloud to do this just let me know...:/)<br>~~{{user|theused}} | I have redirected [[Mario Wiki Chat]] to the chat room so you can just type that into the search bar, easier and simpler (if i wasnt aloud to do this just let me know...:/)<br>~~{{user|theused}} | ||
---- | |||
===Mario Kart Wii Karts and Bikes=== | ===Mario Kart Wii Karts and Bikes=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|14-0|use north american name in the article title only}} | |||
Mario Kart Wii Karts and Bikes have different names in the North American and the PAL versions of the game. Currently, the pages are called like e.g. [[Sugarscoot (Bon Bon)]], the first being the NA name and the second the PAL one. I am under the impression that we never used both names in one article name, and it also isn't needed. I think it is enough to simply state the PAL name in the article itself, and leave the NA name in the article title. | Mario Kart Wii Karts and Bikes have different names in the North American and the PAL versions of the game. Currently, the pages are called like e.g. [[Sugarscoot (Bon Bon)]], the first being the NA name and the second the PAL one. I am under the impression that we never used both names in one article name, and it also isn't needed. I think it is enough to simply state the PAL name in the article itself, and leave the NA name in the article title. | ||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Cobold}}<br> | '''Proposer:''' {{User|Cobold}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline:''' May | '''Deadline:''' May 18, 2008, 15:00 EDT | ||
==== Use North American name in the article title only ==== | ====Use North American name in the article title only==== | ||
#{{User|Cobold}} - The article names should not be cluttered up, the added note is unnecessary when using redirects. | #{{User|Cobold}} - The article names should not be cluttered up, the added note is unnecessary when using redirects. | ||
#{{User|InfectedShroom}} Per Cobold. The North American Name is what we use for everything else, so we should not create confusion. | #{{User|InfectedShroom}} Per Cobold. The North American Name is what we use for everything else, so we should not create confusion. | ||
Line 585: | Line 563: | ||
#{{User|Storm Yoshi}} Yes I may be against the ameracanizing of this wiki but we can just put this kinda stuff in the trivia section can't we? | #{{User|Storm Yoshi}} Yes I may be against the ameracanizing of this wiki but we can just put this kinda stuff in the trivia section can't we? | ||
==== Keep as currently ==== | ====Keep as currently==== | ||
==== Comments ==== | ====Comments==== | ||
I would like to add that having PAL names in the article name only is against the [[MarioWiki:Importance Policy|Importance Policy]] as it is currently. - {{User|Cobold}} 12:08, 11 May 2008 (EDT) | I would like to add that having PAL names in the article name only is against the [[MarioWiki:Importance Policy|Importance Policy]] as it is currently. - {{User|Cobold}} 12:08, 11 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
Line 597: | Line 575: | ||
Someone changed them back to [[Sugarscoot (Bon Bon)]]. We REALLY need to enforce what we have decided. There's really a HUGE fight between NTSC and PAL people. What can we do to make sure everything doesn't keep on changing? It seems like NTSC won, but everything's still changing. Any ideas? {{User|EnPeached}} 15:32, 14 May 2008 (EDT) | Someone changed them back to [[Sugarscoot (Bon Bon)]]. We REALLY need to enforce what we have decided. There's really a HUGE fight between NTSC and PAL people. What can we do to make sure everything doesn't keep on changing? It seems like NTSC won, but everything's still changing. Any ideas? {{User|EnPeached}} 15:32, 14 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
:We wait until the deadline is over. - {{User|Cobold}} 15:33, 14 May 2008 (EDT) | :We wait until the deadline is over. - {{User|Cobold}} 15:33, 14 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
---- | |||
===Badges=== | ===Badges=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|1-5|make no new page}} | |||
I was looking at "Unused Badges" and I found alot of "Unknowns" and what not. So I was asking, if that info is not filled in, why is it part of the page? I also looked at the little green badge with a sun in the middle of it, and someone wrote down " It's possible to make the sun in Flower Fields shine more with this badge" or something along the lines of it. But there are no sources for that line. So if we dont have any information or any sources and other stuff like that, why not make a seperate new section for it? It would go well and when we find the information we an merge it in the Unused Badge's page again, so it will look more neater and proffesional. I propose that we should make a new page for these unknown badges, and when information is found, put them in the unused badges again. EDIT: I am trying to say that the "Unused Badges" page is too informal, it needs some fixing up to do. So for now, why dont we put the Incomplete page template or either make a new page for the badges that have no info on them. Now anyone see what Im sayin? | I was looking at "Unused Badges" and I found alot of "Unknowns" and what not. So I was asking, if that info is not filled in, why is it part of the page? I also looked at the little green badge with a sun in the middle of it, and someone wrote down " It's possible to make the sun in Flower Fields shine more with this badge" or something along the lines of it. But there are no sources for that line. So if we dont have any information or any sources and other stuff like that, why not make a seperate new section for it? It would go well and when we find the information we an merge it in the Unused Badge's page again, so it will look more neater and proffesional. I propose that we should make a new page for these unknown badges, and when information is found, put them in the unused badges again. EDIT: I am trying to say that the "Unused Badges" page is too informal, it needs some fixing up to do. So for now, why dont we put the Incomplete page template or either make a new page for the badges that have no info on them. Now anyone see what Im sayin? | ||
Anyone with me? | Anyone with me? | ||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Super-Yoshi}}<br> | '''Proposer:''' {{User|Super-Yoshi}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline:''' May 19, 2008, 17:00 | '''Deadline:''' May 19, 2008, 17:00 EDT | ||
====Make New Page==== | ====Make New Page==== | ||
Line 617: | Line 594: | ||
#{{User|Cobold}} - Any unused sprites should be at the [[Beta Elements]] page. Unless we're planning to split that, I don't see a need for an Unused Badges page. | #{{User|Cobold}} - Any unused sprites should be at the [[Beta Elements]] page. Unless we're planning to split that, I don't see a need for an Unused Badges page. | ||
#{{user|InfectedShroom}} Per Stoobs. Plus, why would we need a new page? We already have a seperate section for them. :S | #{{user|InfectedShroom}} Per Stoobs. Plus, why would we need a new page? We already have a seperate section for them. :S | ||
#{{ | #{{User|Walkazo}} - Per all. | ||
====Comments==== | ====Comments==== | ||
Line 624: | Line 601: | ||
I don't understand the proposal. I see you're saying that some of the unused badges section is missing information or has no sources, but why does that mean it should have a seperate page? Since I don't get why, I'm leaning towards oppose. {{User|CrystalYoshi}} It's 1:49 on May 17. Am I allowed to do <nowiki>~~~~~</nowiki> to show the time? | I don't understand the proposal. I see you're saying that some of the unused badges section is missing information or has no sources, but why does that mean it should have a seperate page? Since I don't get why, I'm leaning towards oppose. {{User|CrystalYoshi}} It's 1:49 on May 17. Am I allowed to do <nowiki>~~~~~</nowiki> to show the time? | ||
:Hmm, I see your point, but Stumpers has a point too. Give me a few days to decide if I ever do. {{User|CrystalYoshi}} | :Hmm, I see your point, but Stumpers has a point too. Give me a few days to decide if I ever do. {{User|CrystalYoshi}} | ||
---- | |||
===Create Smash Bros costumes page=== | ===Create Smash Bros costumes page=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|3-9|make no new page}} | |||
I was just thinking about how we could have a page where users could look at the costumes and see descriptions of their appearance. How this could be done, you ask? A contributer(s) with an SD card could take small resolution pics of each costume and fit them into one image. Since each character has a unique set of costumes, with some even resembling other characters, I thought this would be a good idea. The table would look something like this: | I was just thinking about how we could have a page where users could look at the costumes and see descriptions of their appearance. How this could be done, you ask? A contributer(s) with an SD card could take small resolution pics of each costume and fit them into one image. Since each character has a unique set of costumes, with some even resembling other characters, I thought this would be a good idea. The table would look something like this: | ||
Line 650: | Line 627: | ||
So, opinions? | So, opinions? | ||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|huntercrunch}}<br> | '''Proposer:''' {{User|huntercrunch}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline:''' May 19, 2008, 10:00 | '''Deadline:''' May 19, 2008, 10:00 EDT | ||
====Make New Page==== | ====Make New Page==== | ||
Line 678: | Line 654: | ||
:A single page for each character, or a single page for all costumes of all characters? If it's the second one, I guess it would be okay, but a section for this in each character article would also be good. {{User|CrystalYoshi}} 1:54 on May 17 | :A single page for each character, or a single page for all costumes of all characters? If it's the second one, I guess it would be okay, but a section for this in each character article would also be good. {{User|CrystalYoshi}} 1:54 on May 17 | ||
::I think he means one page for ALL the costumes of all the characters. - {{User|Walkazo}} | ::I think he means one page for ALL the costumes of all the characters. - {{User|Walkazo}} | ||
---- | |||
===American Spellings=== | ===American Spellings=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|2-13|make no change}} | |||
This proposal wasn't inspired by the above one or anything, but kind of coincedential, lol. Anyway, I've noticed for a long time now about the inconsistent American and English spellings for certain words in articles. Some examples would include Colour, Favourite, Centre, and some others; although it may not seem important(and it probably isn't all that much). I'm not saying one is better than the other, I'm just saying we should stay consistent. | This proposal wasn't inspired by the above one or anything, but kind of coincedential, lol. Anyway, I've noticed for a long time now about the inconsistent American and English spellings for certain words in articles. Some examples would include Colour, Favourite, Centre, and some others; although it may not seem important(and it probably isn't all that much). I'm not saying one is better than the other, I'm just saying we should stay consistent. | ||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Garlic Man}}<br> | '''Proposer:''' {{User|Garlic Man}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline:''' May | '''Deadline:''' May 19, 2008, 15:00 EDT | ||
====American Spellings==== | ====American Spellings==== | ||
Line 718: | Line 693: | ||
::I'll just add that, then. :P {{User|Stumpers}} 23:39, 13 May 2008 (EDT) | ::I'll just add that, then. :P {{User|Stumpers}} 23:39, 13 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
:::You guys have good points, but I'm not in the mood for taking sides yet. {{User|CrystalYoshi}} | :::You guys have good points, but I'm not in the mood for taking sides yet. {{User|CrystalYoshi}} | ||
---- | |||
===Merge Super Mushroom to Mushroom=== | ===Merge Super Mushroom to Mushroom=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|1-14|no merge}} | |||
I think we should merge the [[Super Mushroom]] article to the [[Mushroom]] article. Why? They're almost THE SAME! I mean, look at the beginning phrase of the Super Mushroom article. It says: "A Super Mushroom is a red Mushroom that allows whoever eats it to grow to an enormous size". The normal Mushroom is also red and also will you grow. However, the Mushroom have some other effects in other series. But, notice the images on the Super Mushroom article. You'll see an artwork of ''[[Mario Kart Super Circuit]]''. But in other Mario Kart games, it's called Mushroom. Also, the [[Golden Mushroom]] was sometimes called Super Mushroom. In SSB series, they are called Super Mushrooms, but they are still the same. | I think we should merge the [[Super Mushroom]] article to the [[Mushroom]] article. Why? They're almost THE SAME! I mean, look at the beginning phrase of the Super Mushroom article. It says: "A Super Mushroom is a red Mushroom that allows whoever eats it to grow to an enormous size". The normal Mushroom is also red and also will you grow. However, the Mushroom have some other effects in other series. But, notice the images on the Super Mushroom article. You'll see an artwork of ''[[Mario Kart Super Circuit]]''. But in other Mario Kart games, it's called Mushroom. Also, the [[Golden Mushroom]] was sometimes called Super Mushroom. In SSB series, they are called Super Mushrooms, but they are still the same. | ||
Line 733: | Line 708: | ||
Do you also think that the Super Mushroom article should be merged to the Mushroom article? Or do you think of NOT? | Do you also think that the Super Mushroom article should be merged to the Mushroom article? Or do you think of NOT? | ||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Arend}}<br> | '''Proposer:''' {{User|Arend}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline:''' May 23, 2008, 20:00 | '''Deadline:''' May 23, 2008, 20:00 EDT | ||
==== Merge the Super Mushroom Article! ==== | ====Merge the Super Mushroom Article!==== | ||
#{{User|Arend}} What do you think? I'm the proposer! | #{{User|Arend}} What do you think? I'm the proposer! | ||
==== Don't Merge it! ==== | ====Don't Merge it!==== | ||
#{{User|Stumpers}} I'm opposing because "Super Mushroom" and "Mushroom" are two distinct items in many (all?) Mario RPGs. You bring up a very good point which made question my oppose: the two articles do need clean-up. How to go about doing that for an item that is the same in the platformers but different in the RPGs is a tough question. | #{{User|Stumpers}} I'm opposing because "Super Mushroom" and "Mushroom" are two distinct items in many (all?) Mario RPGs. You bring up a very good point which made question my oppose: the two articles do need clean-up. How to go about doing that for an item that is the same in the platformers but different in the RPGs is a tough question. | ||
#While I do think some things should be moved from one page to the other, I think that they are things that should have independant articles. Also per Stumpers. -[[user:Canama|Canama]] | #While I do think some things should be moved from one page to the other, I think that they are things that should have independant articles. Also per Stumpers. -[[user:Canama|Canama]] | ||
# {{User|Ninjayoshi}} - Per all. | #{{User|Ninjayoshi}} - Per all. | ||
# To follow on from what Stumpers said, the Mushroom and Super Mushroom are distinct items in the Mario Kart series as well. | #[[User:Pikax|Pikax]] To follow on from what Stumpers said, the Mushroom and Super Mushroom are distinct items in the Mario Kart series as well. | ||
#{{User|Pokemon DP}} - Per Stumpers. | #{{User|Pokemon DP}} - Per Stumpers. | ||
#{{User|CrystalYoshi}} Per Stumpers. I have some issues with those two pages, actually. The main picture on the Mushroom page is actually a Super Mushroom (It's from New Super Mario Bros.). Plus the Mushroom page doesn't cover enough about all Mushrooms in general, and the Super Mushroom page doesn't cover enough about it in platformers. | #{{User|CrystalYoshi}} Per Stumpers. I have some issues with those two pages, actually. The main picture on the Mushroom page is actually a Super Mushroom (It's from New Super Mario Bros.). Plus the Mushroom page doesn't cover enough about all Mushrooms in general, and the Super Mushroom page doesn't cover enough about it in platformers. | ||
Line 764: | Line 738: | ||
:::Check the Europese Mario Kart DS site for example. {{User|Arend}} | :::Check the Europese Mario Kart DS site for example. {{User|Arend}} | ||
::::Thanks, Arend. Europese! {{User|Stumpers}} | ::::Thanks, Arend. Europese! {{User|Stumpers}} | ||
---- | |||
===Featured Article Voting Modification=== | ===Featured Article Voting Modification=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|12-7|change the current system}} | |||
Browsing the current FAs Nominations on this Wiki, I have noticed users complaining about two types of votes. (1) Support votes cast because of personal favor to the subject of the article, aka "fan votes", ie "Peach deserves the nomination." as opposed to, "Well written article about a notable character." (2) Oppose votes that do not specify enough information for supporters to fix the problem, ie "This article has poor structure." as opposed to, "The Mario Kart information should be placed in one section." I am proposing that, in light of votes such as these, we give the users power to remove votes on Featured Article nomination pages in the same way users have power to remove votes from the Proposals section (see the top of this page for more information) with a few modifications to prevent the posibility of three users teaming up. | Browsing the current FAs Nominations on this Wiki, I have noticed users complaining about two types of votes. (1) Support votes cast because of personal favor to the subject of the article, aka "fan votes", ie "Peach deserves the nomination." as opposed to, "Well written article about a notable character." (2) Oppose votes that do not specify enough information for supporters to fix the problem, ie "This article has poor structure." as opposed to, "The Mario Kart information should be placed in one section." I am proposing that, in light of votes such as these, we give the users power to remove votes on Featured Article nomination pages in the same way users have power to remove votes from the Proposals section (see the top of this page for more information) with a few modifications to prevent the posibility of three users teaming up. | ||
Line 775: | Line 749: | ||
An oppose vote that has been appeased can be removed in the same manner if the opposer is not in discussion. | An oppose vote that has been appeased can be removed in the same manner if the opposer is not in discussion. | ||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Stumpers}}<br> | '''Proposer:''' {{User|Stumpers}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline:''' May 26, 2008, 17:00 | '''Deadline:''' May 26, 2008, 17:00 EDT | ||
====Support (Give Users This Power)==== | ====Support (Give Users This Power)==== | ||
Line 865: | Line 838: | ||
::True. While we're at it, I wonder whether Hemu's reason is valid. There's no direct relation between flaming and the current FA system, and there's no proof whatsoever that the system Stumpers is proposing would help to prevent flaming. Before actually removing his vote, I wanted to bring that up here. {{User|Time Q}} | ::True. While we're at it, I wonder whether Hemu's reason is valid. There's no direct relation between flaming and the current FA system, and there's no proof whatsoever that the system Stumpers is proposing would help to prevent flaming. Before actually removing his vote, I wanted to bring that up here. {{User|Time Q}} | ||
:::"At any time a vote may be rejected if at least three active users believe the vote truly has no merit or was cast in bad faith. However, there must be strong reasons supporting the invalidation." You're going to need two other users to support that, and I'm not one of them: there was a minor flame associated with an oppose vote about three days ago. {{User|Stumpers}} 16:35, 23 May 2008 (EDT) | :::"At any time a vote may be rejected if at least three active users believe the vote truly has no merit or was cast in bad faith. However, there must be strong reasons supporting the invalidation." You're going to need two other users to support that, and I'm not one of them: there was a minor flame associated with an oppose vote about three days ago. {{User|Stumpers}} 16:35, 23 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
::::Well, I never witnessed any actual discussion on whether a vote should be removed or not. When it wasn't appropriate, someone removed it. That's a weak argument, I know, because there's still the rule you quoted. But there's another rule that outweighs it: ''Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so, not, e.g., "I like this idea!"''. There's no strong reason whatsoever for Hemu's vote. But wait, I see he has put "per all" - the "phrase that's always appropriate" (no, I don't want to [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 2#Pers, I agrees...|ban]] it, even if it's annoying). {{User|Time Q}} | ::::Well, I never witnessed any actual discussion on whether a vote should be removed or not. When it wasn't appropriate, someone removed it. That's a weak argument, I know, because there's still the rule you quoted. But there's another rule that outweighs it: ''Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so, not, e.g., "I like this idea!"''. There's no strong reason whatsoever for Hemu's vote. But wait, I see he has put "per all" - the "phrase that's always appropriate" (no, I don't want to [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/2#Pers, I agrees...|ban]] it, even if it's annoying). {{User|Time Q}} | ||
:::::"Featured Article which is for good articles not good characters" There's his reason, and since several people are against this proposal because of the fact that, in their opinion, per all means an automatic acceptable vote, he did say per all. {{User|Stumpers}} 12:21, 26 May 2008 (EDT) | :::::"Featured Article which is for good articles not good characters" There's his reason, and since several people are against this proposal because of the fact that, in their opinion, per all means an automatic acceptable vote, he did say per all. {{User|Stumpers}} 12:21, 26 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
---- | |||
===Site Logos=== | ===Site Logos=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|3-13|accept images containing site logos}} | |||
I have always had this huge pet peeve on any wikipedia site, especially this one, over how bad images look when they contain a site logo. This includes character artworks, screen shots, and any other images that are not for a users personal use. Sometimes they're not really THAT noticeable, but when you resort to using imagery just because you don't have it in spite of it having a sites logo stamped on it, it's depressing to see articles get featured or even nominated when they contain low quality imagery such as this. On a side note, a lot of these logos can be digitally removed which in the case of editing an image before upload is completely harmless. If you don't know how, then make a note of it when you upload the image, or better yet, in the images description. It's not hard, it's quick, and it makes a big difference. Regardless, I don't feel images containing site logos should be permitted for upload on the supermariowiki unless it is for user purposes (talk pages etc.) If you oppose this, you support the idea of keeping images which lower the quality of our wiki. If you support, you agree to make it so that no images with site logos may be allowed on our wiki without at the very least having them edited out of site. | I have always had this huge pet peeve on any wikipedia site, especially this one, over how bad images look when they contain a site logo. This includes character artworks, screen shots, and any other images that are not for a users personal use. Sometimes they're not really THAT noticeable, but when you resort to using imagery just because you don't have it in spite of it having a sites logo stamped on it, it's depressing to see articles get featured or even nominated when they contain low quality imagery such as this. On a side note, a lot of these logos can be digitally removed which in the case of editing an image before upload is completely harmless. If you don't know how, then make a note of it when you upload the image, or better yet, in the images description. It's not hard, it's quick, and it makes a big difference. Regardless, I don't feel images containing site logos should be permitted for upload on the supermariowiki unless it is for user purposes (talk pages etc.) If you oppose this, you support the idea of keeping images which lower the quality of our wiki. If you support, you agree to make it so that no images with site logos may be allowed on our wiki without at the very least having them edited out of site. | ||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|ForeverDaisy09}}<br> | '''Proposer:''' {{User|ForeverDaisy09}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline:''' May 27, 2008, 17:00 | '''Deadline:''' May 27, 2008, 17:00 EDT | ||
====Support (Remove+Refuse Imagery With Logos)==== | ====Support (Remove+Refuse Imagery With Logos)==== | ||
Line 900: | Line 872: | ||
====Comments==== | ====Comments==== | ||
All I can say is good luck trying to enforce this, and fix it now... {{User|Wayoshi}} 17:54, 20 May 2008 (EDT) | All I can say is good luck trying to enforce this, and fix it now... {{User|Wayoshi}} 17:54, 20 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
:Images with low quality or site logos are merely tolerated, but definitely not encouraged. I don't see any policy change in this proposal. See [[:Category: | :Images with low quality or site logos are merely tolerated, but definitely not encouraged. I don't see any policy change in this proposal. See [[:Category:Images to be reuploaded with higher quality]]. - {{User|Cobold}} 17:59, 20 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
::Well, I think FD09 is proposing to get rid of these images, i.e. to introduce a policy which forbids uploading such images. That would be different from "merely tolerating" them. Did I get that right? {{User|Time Q}} | ::Well, I think FD09 is proposing to get rid of these images, i.e. to introduce a policy which forbids uploading such images. That would be different from "merely tolerating" them. Did I get that right? {{User|Time Q}} | ||
:::Basically, I think that sounds right. - {{User|ForeverDaisy09}} | :::Basically, I think that sounds right. - {{User|ForeverDaisy09}} | ||
Line 922: | Line 894: | ||
:::Sure thing, yo.- {{User|ForeverDaisy09}} | :::Sure thing, yo.- {{User|ForeverDaisy09}} | ||
::::That's for understandin', bro. {{User|Stumpers}} | ::::That's for understandin', bro. {{User|Stumpers}} | ||
---- | |||
===Repeal "Featured Article Voting Modification"=== | ===Repeal "Featured Article Voting Modification"=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|10-0|repeal previous proposal}} | |||
I'll just cut to the chase here: I propose we repeal [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive#Featured_Article_Voting_Modification|this proposal]]. | I'll just cut to the chase here: I propose we repeal [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive#Featured_Article_Voting_Modification|this proposal]]. | ||
Line 941: | Line 913: | ||
You now have our opinions. Users of the MarioWiki, you must now vote on what you think is best. Take your time, review our points, and make sure that you make the best decision possible. | You now have our opinions. Users of the MarioWiki, you must now vote on what you think is best. Take your time, review our points, and make sure that you make the best decision possible. | ||
'''Proposers:''' {{user|InfectedShroom}} and {{user|Time Q}}<br> | |||
'''Proposers:''' {{user|InfectedShroom}} and {{user|Time Q}}<br>'''Deadline:''' | '''Deadline:''' June 5, 2008, 17:00 EDT | ||
====Support (Repeal proposal and restore the option to discuss oppose votes)==== | ====Support (Repeal proposal and restore the option to discuss oppose votes)==== | ||
Line 972: | Line 944: | ||
I find kinda ironic (and rather hypocritical) that you patronise users over the "lack of proffesionalism" of their edits even thought you haven't yourself made any signifiant mainspace contribution in '''over a year'''. Hypocrisy much? {{User|Blitzwing}} | I find kinda ironic (and rather hypocritical) that you patronise users over the "lack of proffesionalism" of their edits even thought you haven't yourself made any signifiant mainspace contribution in '''over a year'''. Hypocrisy much? {{User|Blitzwing}} | ||
:I'll be the first to admit that I am in the same club as Wayoshi, but let's not turn this into anymore than just a discussion. -- {{user|Ghost Jam}} | :I'll be the first to admit that I am in the same club as Wayoshi, but let's not turn this into anymore than just a discussion. -- {{user|Ghost Jam}} | ||
---- | |||
===Humourous Image Captions=== | ===Humourous Image Captions=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|20-6|allow them}} | |||
'Nuff said. Nah, I'm just kidding. OK, so, a long, long time ago, we removed clever/witty/humourous image captions from the Wiki. The only one I can remember so far was the [[Groove Guy]] caption, which stated "Groovy.", but there were plenty across the Wiki, I'm sure. While most would consider this "unprofressional", with clever headers like "Sharp Shooting" or "Mario and the Seven Koopa Hotels", which were deemed allowed in a previous Proposal, surely we can stand to add humourous captions to images (of course, so long as it abides to the rules). | 'Nuff said. Nah, I'm just kidding. OK, so, a long, long time ago, we removed clever/witty/humourous image captions from the Wiki. The only one I can remember so far was the [[Groove Guy]] caption, which stated "Groovy.", but there were plenty across the Wiki, I'm sure. While most would consider this "unprofressional", with clever headers like "Sharp Shooting" or "Mario and the Seven Koopa Hotels", which were deemed allowed in a previous Proposal, surely we can stand to add humourous captions to images (of course, so long as it abides to the rules). | ||
And note, I'm only proposing humourous image captions. I'm not proposing any major changes to the article itself, just the images. | And note, I'm only proposing humourous image captions. I'm not proposing any major changes to the article itself, just the images. | ||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Pokemon DP}}<br> | '''Proposer:''' {{User|Pokemon DP}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline:''' June 5, 2008, 17:00 | '''Deadline:''' June 5, 2008, 17:00 EDT | ||
==== Allow Humourous Image Captions ==== | ====Allow Humourous Image Captions==== | ||
#{{User|Pokemon DP}} - I am the Proposer and my reasons are given... Blah blah blah blah, just vote. | #{{User|Pokemon DP}} - I am the Proposer and my reasons are given... Blah blah blah blah, just vote. | ||
#{{User|Jdrowlands}} - Per DP. This would certainly make the wiki a better place. | #{{User|Jdrowlands}} - Per DP. This would certainly make the wiki a better place. | ||
Line 1,007: | Line 978: | ||
#{{User|RedFire Mario}} - The wiki would be better if we have one | #{{User|RedFire Mario}} - The wiki would be better if we have one | ||
==== Do Not Allow Humourous Image Captions ==== | ====Do Not Allow Humourous Image Captions==== | ||
#{{user|Stumpers}} I can't believe no one's opposed this after all the fear we have of Flame/Edit Wars on this Wiki. Does anyone else feel that this could be a source of conflict between users? What if User A makes a caption that User B reverts on the basis of it not being as funny as the previous one (which happens to be his). Users already get possessive of pages, but that leads to their improvement. What happens when a user gets possessive of his/her humorous caption? | #{{user|Stumpers}} I can't believe no one's opposed this after all the fear we have of Flame/Edit Wars on this Wiki. Does anyone else feel that this could be a source of conflict between users? What if User A makes a caption that User B reverts on the basis of it not being as funny as the previous one (which happens to be his). Users already get possessive of pages, but that leads to their improvement. What happens when a user gets possessive of his/her humorous caption? | ||
#{{user|HyperToad}} I originally didn't oppose this because I figured my opinion wouldn't count, but I'm doing it now anyway. First of all, one of the reason I opposed the BJAODN proposal was because I had a feeling it would spread. Second, writing on this wiki should look profestional in my opinion, as we want to be taken seriously, right? If so many users want humorous image captions we have [[MarioWiki:BJAODN]] for that. The page was made for the reason of being funny, so why does anybody have to put funny stuff in article? Third, there's this place called [http://marioswiki.scribblewiki.com/Main_Page Marios Wiki] that some of you might find intresting. Fourth, Per Stumpers, minus his last two sentences. Fifth, this comment was waaaaaaaaay too long... ._. (Note from [[User:Stumpers|Stumpers]] I just removed those two sentences) | #{{user|HyperToad}} I originally didn't oppose this because I figured my opinion wouldn't count, but I'm doing it now anyway. First of all, one of the reason I opposed the BJAODN proposal was because I had a feeling it would spread. Second, writing on this wiki should look profestional in my opinion, as we want to be taken seriously, right? If so many users want humorous image captions we have [[MarioWiki:BJAODN]] for that. The page was made for the reason of being funny, so why does anybody have to put funny stuff in article? Third, there's this place called [http://marioswiki.scribblewiki.com/Main_Page Marios Wiki] that some of you might find intresting. Fourth, Per Stumpers, minus his last two sentences. Fifth, this comment was waaaaaaaaay too long... ._. (Note from [[User:Stumpers|Stumpers]] I just removed those two sentences) | ||
Line 1,015: | Line 986: | ||
#{{User|ChaosNinji}} - Per Stumpers and HyperToad. | #{{User|ChaosNinji}} - Per Stumpers and HyperToad. | ||
==== Comments ==== | ====Comments==== | ||
I don't know what you mean by "humorous" and I don't know which "rules" you're talking about the captions should abide. I love humor and funny image captions are appropriate for gaming magazines. But you should remember that the MarioWiki attempts to be an encyclopedia. Have you ever seen an encyclopedia with "funny" image captions? I haven't. I'm not saying that the wiki shouldn't be "fun", but when it comes to articles, they should be as neutral as possible. There's also a difference between the [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 2#"Creative" header|"creative headers"]] you're mentioning and humorous image captions, in my opinion. The headers aren't humorous, they're merely an alternative to simply putting the game title as the header. I'm leaning towards oppose, but perhaps you could explain a bit further what you mean by "humorous"? {{user|Time Q}} | I don't know what you mean by "humorous" and I don't know which "rules" you're talking about the captions should abide. I love humor and funny image captions are appropriate for gaming magazines. But you should remember that the MarioWiki attempts to be an encyclopedia. Have you ever seen an encyclopedia with "funny" image captions? I haven't. I'm not saying that the wiki shouldn't be "fun", but when it comes to articles, they should be as neutral as possible. There's also a difference between the [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/2#"Creative" header|"creative headers"]] you're mentioning and humorous image captions, in my opinion. The headers aren't humorous, they're merely an alternative to simply putting the game title as the header. I'm leaning towards oppose, but perhaps you could explain a bit further what you mean by "humorous"? {{user|Time Q}} | ||
:Actually, the [http://transformers.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page Transformers Wiki is an encyclopedia] with "funny" image captions, and it's '''used and edited''' by personallities that have worked on the ''Transformers'' brand, so please don't pull out the "IT'S NOT ENCYCLOPEDIC!!!!111!" bullcrap. {{User|Blitzwing}} | :Actually, the [http://transformers.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page Transformers Wiki is an encyclopedia] with "funny" image captions, and it's '''used and edited''' by personallities that have worked on the ''Transformers'' brand, so please don't pull out the "IT'S NOT ENCYCLOPEDIC!!!!111!" bullcrap. {{User|Blitzwing}} | ||
::I wouldn't say it's bullcrap, 'cause that's how I think it is. Thanks for the example though. The image captions on this wiki (I randomly looked at [http://transformers.wikia.com/wiki/Decepticon Decepticon]) are '''way''' too "funny" in my opinion. I mean, nobody of us would want to change the general style of articles to a more "funny" style (at least I hope so), so why should we do that with image captions? It wouldn't fit the general style of the wiki. {{User|Time Q}} | ::I wouldn't say it's bullcrap, 'cause that's how I think it is. Thanks for the example though. The image captions on this wiki (I randomly looked at [http://transformers.wikia.com/wiki/Decepticon Decepticon]) are '''way''' too "funny" in my opinion. I mean, nobody of us would want to change the general style of articles to a more "funny" style (at least I hope so), so why should we do that with image captions? It wouldn't fit the general style of the wiki. {{User|Time Q}} | ||
Line 1,036: | Line 1,007: | ||
Well, that's okay. I'm not actually going to vote, but it's a landslide already. {{User|CrystalYoshi}} | Well, that's okay. I'm not actually going to vote, but it's a landslide already. {{User|CrystalYoshi}} | ||
---- | |||
===Last names from Super Mario Movie=== | ===Last names from Super Mario Movie=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|failed|7-24-1|keep names from movie}} | |||
For some time now, I've seen last names for Mario and Luigi to be Mario Mario, or Luigi Mario, taken from the movie. I don't really consider the movie canon, because they were never proven in games. So I am proposing that we take away the last names from the movie. | |||
'''Proposer:''' [[User:Clay Mario|Clay Mario]]<br> | |||
'''Deadline:''' June 14, 2008, 20:00 EDT | |||
'''Proposer:''' [[User:Clay Mario|Clay Mario]]<br | |||
'''Deadline:''' June 14, 2008, 20:00 | |||
==== Take away the last names from the movie ==== | ====Take away the last names from the movie==== | ||
#{{User|Clay Mario}} - Per my proposal | #{{User|Clay Mario}} - Per my proposal | ||
#{{User|KP Shadow}} - Per Clay Mario. | #{{User|KP Shadow}} - Per Clay Mario. | ||
Line 1,056: | Line 1,026: | ||
#{{User|Starry Parakarry}}- Per Clay Mario. | #{{User|Starry Parakarry}}- Per Clay Mario. | ||
==== Keep the last names from the movie ==== | ====Keep the last names from the movie==== | ||
# {{User|Tucayo}} Well, actually the last names '''are''' Mario, because when they say Mario Bros., they are saying that they are the Mario brothers, that makes them Mario Mario and Luigi Mario. | #{{User|Tucayo}} Well, actually the last names '''are''' Mario, because when they say Mario Bros., they are saying that they are the Mario brothers, that makes them Mario Mario and Luigi Mario. | ||
#{{User|Toadette 4evur}} Per Tucayo. | #{{User|Toadette 4evur}} Per Tucayo. | ||
#{{User|MegaMario9910}} Per Tucayo. All the info has to come from something Mario related, and which the movie is related. | #{{User|MegaMario9910}} Per Tucayo. All the info has to come from something Mario related, and which the movie is related. | ||
# [[User: Booster|Booster]] -- Their last name isn't from the truest canon, but they ''are'' the Mario Bros. TSMBSS also used Mario as their last name. Also, nothing seems to dispove this theory, aside from the fact that their last name is never mentioned in any game. | #[[User:Booster|Booster]] -- Their last name isn't from the truest canon, but they ''are'' the Mario Bros. TSMBSS also used Mario as their last name. Also, nothing seems to dispove this theory, aside from the fact that their last name is never mentioned in any game. | ||
#{{User|Cobold}} - content from the movie is alternate canon, and we already have rules how to deal with it. When the last name is mentioned somewhere, there should be a note that it is indeed from the movie and not from the games. It also should only appear in the initial section and in the movie section, perhaps in the personal description section, but not anywhere else. | #{{User|Cobold}} - content from the movie is alternate canon, and we already have rules how to deal with it. When the last name is mentioned somewhere, there should be a note that it is indeed from the movie and not from the games. It also should only appear in the initial section and in the movie section, perhaps in the personal description section, but not anywhere else. | ||
#{{User|Pikax}}Per Tucayo - that Mario bros. point is impossible to object to. | #{{User|Pikax}}Per Tucayo - that Mario bros. point is impossible to object to. | ||
Line 1,069: | Line 1,039: | ||
#[[User:MC Hammer Bro.|MC Hammer Bro.]] Per Stumpers ''(and see comment below)'' | #[[User:MC Hammer Bro.|MC Hammer Bro.]] Per Stumpers ''(and see comment below)'' | ||
#{{User|DragonFeather}} Per Tucayo. | #{{User|DragonFeather}} Per Tucayo. | ||
# [[User:Ninjayoshi|Ninjayoshi]] - Per all. Also, InfectedShroom is right. | #[[User:Ninjayoshi|Ninjayoshi]] - Per all. Also, InfectedShroom is right. | ||
# {{User|Shroobario}} It's the Mario Bros. what makes Mario be Mario Mario and Luigi be Luigi Mario, They didn't invent that in the movie. | #{{User|Shroobario}} It's the Mario Bros. what makes Mario be Mario Mario and Luigi be Luigi Mario, They didn't invent that in the movie. | ||
# {{User|Paper Jorge}} Per all, mostly Stumpers. The Mario Movie may not have been canon but it exists so we have to mention that it at least exists. | #{{User|Paper Jorge}} Per all, mostly Stumpers. The Mario Movie may not have been canon but it exists so we have to mention that it at least exists. | ||
# {{User|Dzamper}} Actually, they're '''Mario''' Brothers. So, e.g. if I'm called ''Bimmy Nerd'' and my brother name's ''Jimmy Nerd'', we're ''Nerd brothers''. ;) | #{{User|Dzamper}} Actually, they're '''Mario''' Brothers. So, e.g. if I'm called ''Bimmy Nerd'' and my brother name's ''Jimmy Nerd'', we're ''Nerd brothers''. ;) | ||
#{{User|Rouge2}} They are the Mario Bros. The first game was titled [[Mario Bros.]] and the series is the Super Mario Bros. which means Mario and Luigi's last names is Mario. | #{{User|Rouge2}} They are the Mario Bros. The first game was titled [[Mario Bros.]] and the series is the Super Mario Bros. which means Mario and Luigi's last names is Mario. | ||
#{{User|The.Real.Izkat}} No way! The movie may not be canon but it's part of the legacy that is Mario! You can't take that away! A mario fan should know not even to bring upsomething so ridiculous! plus its the only thing we have towards their names so lets keep that way! | #{{User|The.Real.Izkat}} No way! The movie may not be canon but it's part of the legacy that is Mario! You can't take that away! A mario fan should know not even to bring upsomething so ridiculous! plus its the only thing we have towards their names so lets keep that way! | ||
#{{User|Laebear12}} i agree they are known as the '''mario bros.''' so the name should stay the same. unless the nitendo company gives them a last name it should stay as mario | #{{User|Laebear12}} i agree they are known as the '''mario bros.''' so the name should stay the same. unless the nitendo company gives them a last name it should stay as mario | ||
#[[User:Toadster_04|Toadster_04]] It is Mario. Confirmed by Nintendo on the old Nsider forums, if that counts for anything. Their house in Paper Mario/TTYD also has their last name (MARIO) on it. | #[[User:Toadster_04|Toadster_04]] It is Mario. Confirmed by Nintendo on the old Nsider forums, if that counts for anything. Their house in Paper Mario/TTYD also has their last name (MARIO) on it. | ||
# {{User|LBD Nytetrayn}} I vote to keep it, as there seems to be more argument that it would be Mario, and nothing really disproving it, other than a 20-year old Inside Edition newscast that's likely been overruled. And why is it always the movie given precedence on this? The Super Show did it first. | #{{User|LBD Nytetrayn}} I vote to keep it, as there seems to be more argument that it would be Mario, and nothing really disproving it, other than a 20-year old Inside Edition newscast that's likely been overruled. And why is it always the movie given precedence on this? The Super Show did it first. | ||
# {{User|Lavender}}Why would they be called "Mario bros" if it wasn't there last name? Almost everything in these games are never directly pointed out, but the hints make it pretty obvious. | #{{User|Lavender}}Why would they be called "Mario bros" if it wasn't there last name? Almost everything in these games are never directly pointed out, but the hints make it pretty obvious. | ||
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per all the points listed above by variuous users using slightly different wording. | #{{User|Walkazo}} - Per all the points listed above by variuous users using slightly different wording. | ||
#{{User|Goomb-omb}} Aren't Mario and Luigi's parents called Mr.Mario and Mrs.Mario in Yoshi's Island? I know that their mom is at least Mama Mario. Wouldn't that make Mario their last name? | #{{User|Goomb-omb}} Aren't Mario and Luigi's parents called Mr.Mario and Mrs.Mario in Yoshi's Island? I know that their mom is at least Mama Mario. Wouldn't that make Mario their last name? | ||
==== Make a seperate Section/Article for Non-game info ==== | ====Make a seperate Section/Article for Non-game info==== | ||
#{{User|Garlic Man}} - Per comments below. | #{{User|Garlic Man}} - Per comments below. | ||
==== Comments ==== | ====Comments==== | ||
Uh... KP, you can't do that. {{User|MegaMario9910}} | Uh... KP, you can't do that. {{User|MegaMario9910}} | ||
Line 1,122: | Line 1,091: | ||
To wrap this up: we can limit the number and type of pictures or quotes we post. We can chose not to cover the strategy of each level. All this is because of our job as a Wiki: to create an easy-access method for Mario fans to immerse themselves into the complete series. However, failing to mention a key fact, such as Mario's full name in the movie, is big. What if we didn't mention the history behind Princess Peach's name change? How about the change in Yoshi's voice? It's about time that we on this Wiki acknowledged a key fact: There is canon and there is nonfictional history. Who completely different things that the Wiki must cover, lest we be forced to call ourselves a "guide to what, as established throuh proposals, our users feel is canon to the Mario storyline" instead of a "Complete guide to the complete Mario series". Which would you rather read? {{User|Stumpers}} 03:15, 8 June 2008 (EDT) | To wrap this up: we can limit the number and type of pictures or quotes we post. We can chose not to cover the strategy of each level. All this is because of our job as a Wiki: to create an easy-access method for Mario fans to immerse themselves into the complete series. However, failing to mention a key fact, such as Mario's full name in the movie, is big. What if we didn't mention the history behind Princess Peach's name change? How about the change in Yoshi's voice? It's about time that we on this Wiki acknowledged a key fact: There is canon and there is nonfictional history. Who completely different things that the Wiki must cover, lest we be forced to call ourselves a "guide to what, as established throuh proposals, our users feel is canon to the Mario storyline" instead of a "Complete guide to the complete Mario series". Which would you rather read? {{User|Stumpers}} 03:15, 8 June 2008 (EDT) | ||
:Well then, why not have a section about the two possibilities? Even though we cover the movie, that doesn't mean we consider the movie to be part of the continuity. {{User|CrystalYoshi}} 07:56, 8 June 2008 (EDT) | :Well then, why not have a section about the two possibilities? Even though we cover the movie, that doesn't mean we consider the movie to be part of the continuity. {{User|CrystalYoshi}} 07:56, 8 June 2008 (EDT) | ||
::I haven't voted yet, because this proposal needs another section; I agree with Crystal Yoshi here. I think the article should have a sepreate section, with everything non-gamical in there; comics, cartoons, Movie, etc. But the main infobox at the top of the article should stay Mario. The diferrent non-game section could perhaps have Mario Mario. Or, as suggested somewhere else, we could make a seperate article. {{ | ::I haven't voted yet, because this proposal needs another section; I agree with Crystal Yoshi here. I think the article should have a sepreate section, with everything non-gamical in there; comics, cartoons, Movie, etc. But the main infobox at the top of the article should stay Mario. The diferrent non-game section could perhaps have Mario Mario. Or, as suggested somewhere else, we could make a seperate article. {{fake link|Mario (movie)}} or something, I guess. EDIT: A new section following CrystalYoshi's comment has been created.{{User|Garlic Man}} | ||
:::If it was JUST the movie, sure, but it seems to have become far more widespread than that.{{User|LBD_Nytetrayn}} | :::If it was JUST the movie, sure, but it seems to have become far more widespread than that.{{User|LBD_Nytetrayn}} | ||
Line 1,160: | Line 1,129: | ||
::::That's what the imbedded citations are for. And remember not to use your sig here. - {{User|Walkazo}} | ::::That's what the imbedded citations are for. And remember not to use your sig here. - {{User|Walkazo}} | ||
:::::I'm pretty sure those are more meant to give a webpage or book that you found something in, like saying, "Sigeru Miyamoto (2010). ''Super Mario Continuity''. 2011 ed." <--P.S. I want that book. {{User|Stumpers}} | :::::I'm pretty sure those are more meant to give a webpage or book that you found something in, like saying, "Sigeru Miyamoto (2010). ''Super Mario Continuity''. 2011 ed." <--P.S. I want that book. {{User|Stumpers}} | ||
---- | |||
===Orange Yoshi & Brown Yoshi=== | ===Orange Yoshi & Brown Yoshi=== | ||
{{ProposalOutcome|passed|7-3|merge}} | |||
On this Wiki, we currently have articles that are technically conjecturally named: [[Orange Yoshi]] and [[Brown Yoshi]]. They are named in the same pattern as we saw in ''[[Yoshi's Story]]'' for the green, red, yellow, pink, blue, and light blue Yoshis. The articles say that Brown Yoshi appears in ''[[Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island]]'' and ''[[Yoshi's Island: Super Mario Advance 3]]''. In the latter his shoes and saddle were recolored to match the current shoes and sattle of Orange Yoshi. The article claims that Brown Yoshi was replaced by Orange Yoshi in ''[[Yoshi's Island DS]]''. Yet, in all of the artwork for both of the games we claim Brown Yoshi to be in depict Orange Yoshi instead of Brown Yoshi. This includes the soundtrack album as well. Another claim is that Brown Yoshi made a cameo in the ''[[Yoshi's Story]]'' introduction. Take a look:[http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p38/StumpersII/BrownYoshi.jpg] That's Orange Yoshi, without a doubt. I've also noticed that all of the in-game artwork of Brown Yoshi (seen only in the Japanese version) appear to have replaced Orange Yoshi with Brown Yoshi! | On this Wiki, we currently have articles that are technically conjecturally named: [[Orange Yoshi]] and [[Brown Yoshi]]. They are named in the same pattern as we saw in ''[[Yoshi's Story]]'' for the green, red, yellow, pink, blue, and light blue Yoshis. The articles say that Brown Yoshi appears in ''[[Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island]]'' and ''[[Yoshi's Island: Super Mario Advance 3]]''. In the latter his shoes and saddle were recolored to match the current shoes and sattle of Orange Yoshi. The article claims that Brown Yoshi was replaced by Orange Yoshi in ''[[Yoshi's Island DS]]''. Yet, in all of the artwork for both of the games we claim Brown Yoshi to be in depict Orange Yoshi instead of Brown Yoshi. This includes the soundtrack album as well. Another claim is that Brown Yoshi made a cameo in the ''[[Yoshi's Story]]'' introduction. Take a look:[http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p38/StumpersII/BrownYoshi.jpg] That's Orange Yoshi, without a doubt. I've also noticed that all of the in-game artwork of Brown Yoshi (seen only in the Japanese version) appear to have replaced Orange Yoshi with Brown Yoshi! | ||
Line 1,171: | Line 1,140: | ||
The proposal: I'd like us to merge the two articles together under the title "Orange Yoshi." Of course, we'd need to include info regarding how Orange Yoshi looked Brown. | The proposal: I'd like us to merge the two articles together under the title "Orange Yoshi." Of course, we'd need to include info regarding how Orange Yoshi looked Brown. | ||
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Stumpers}}<br> | '''Proposer:''' {{User|Stumpers}}<br> | ||
'''Deadline:''' June 18, 2008, 17:00 | '''Deadline:''' June 18, 2008, 17:00 EDT | ||
====Support (merge)==== | ====Support (merge)==== | ||
Line 1,200: | Line 1,168: | ||
Just a note on the latest vote: you say that there ''could be'' dozens of reasons. You only gave me a couple, the last of which was speculation. {{User|Stumpers}} 23:18, 17 June 2008 (EDT) | Just a note on the latest vote: you say that there ''could be'' dozens of reasons. You only gave me a couple, the last of which was speculation. {{User|Stumpers}} 23:18, 17 June 2008 (EDT) | ||
Well there ''could'' be dozens, doesn't mean that I can think of dozens. :P I'm sure that there are a lot of technology issues that I'm not savvy enough to understand that could account for not putting Brown Yoshi in more recent games. But merging the articles, and saying that Brown Yoshi was recolored is speculation, since we have no proof that Nintendo intended to replace Brown Yoshi with Orange Yoshi. If Nintendo originally wanted an Orange Yoshi, they could have included him in the game, so there must be some reason that they chose brown instead of orange. {{User|Goomb-omb}} P.S. the second reason was a joke ;P {{User|Goomb-omb}} | Well there ''could'' be dozens, doesn't mean that I can think of dozens. :P I'm sure that there are a lot of technology issues that I'm not savvy enough to understand that could account for not putting Brown Yoshi in more recent games. But merging the articles, and saying that Brown Yoshi was recolored is speculation, since we have no proof that Nintendo intended to replace Brown Yoshi with Orange Yoshi. If Nintendo originally wanted an Orange Yoshi, they could have included him in the game, so there must be some reason that they chose brown instead of orange. {{User|Goomb-omb}} P.S. the second reason was a joke ;P {{User|Goomb-omb}} | ||
Latest revision as of 15:10, April 12, 2023
Speculative Relationshipsremove speculation from relationship sections 15-1 And an added idea by Time Q, we could move unsure relationships, like Baby Daisy and Baby Luigi, to the Trivia sections of the article. Proposer: Pokemon DP (talk) Remove overly speculative relationships
Keep the relationships in question
CommentsI agree to remove those relationships from the section. However, I think putting them as Trivia items would be okay (that is, if it's not complete speculation, but if there is some indication that it might be true (as seems to be the case with Babies Daisy and Luigi)). Anyway. When you say "remove any relationship [...]", do you mean from the relationships section or altogether? Time Q (talk) 05:30, 28 April 2008 (EDT) That Trivia idea is kinda good... I'm on board with that. And, when I say "remove any relationship", I mean to remove the certain character relationship section, not the whole Relationships section as a whole. Pokemon DP (talk)
First of all, this was unneeded as we already had solved this issue. Nice job, hur. Secondly, this is worded in a way that is completely wrong. You're making it sound like all relationship sections on the Daisy and Baby Daisy pages have no meaning and as you said are "baseless", That's your opinion, and saying that misleads any users into thinking there really is something bad about the sections. There's nothing more "baseless" about these sections than there are to any other pages. This was solved, you're bringing it back up, and you're not doing so correctly. Fixitup
I don't give a Rat Funk's squeek about what you think of this Proposal being "pointless", Fixitup. Cos' your little edit war with Toadette 4evur sure proved that the problem WAS NOT resolved. I am not at all saying that everything on their pages is baseless speculation. For example, Princess Daisy's relationship with Luigi is valid, since Nintendo is purposely hinting that relationship in basically every game the two have appeared in together. Stuff like Princess Daisy's relationship with Waluigi, and Mario's relationship with Diddy Kong should be removed... That last one is the most "WTF" of them all. This has been a delightful message from: Pokemon DP (talk) - And don't you forget it!
It went in one ear, and out the other, Cobold. ;) Pokemon DP (talk) WaYoshi... the section wasn't about romance, it was just about a relationship. Regardless, they're not real. Real babies don't talk or drive. I fail to see how an infant having a crush on another infant is impossible, especially under the circumstances. Fixitup First off, I just see this proposal as a selfish way to get rid of the Baby Daisy section...again. I NEVER would have written the section in the first place if I knew it would spontaneously ignite edit wars and then lead to the deletion of all the other speculated relationships. Going by your definition, anything that is a possibility is merely speculation and should go. All in all, thats EVERY relationship section. Take the Daisy & Luigi relationship section. Clearly Nintendo is hinting at a relationship between the two, but it hasn't been OUTRIGHT CONFIRMED. But still, everyone still thinks of them as a couple. The same can be said with any other relationship, Nintendo hasn't confirmed that Luigi is jealous of some of Mario's abilities, and yet no attention is brought to that about being speculation (you even refer to this section as being fine). The Baby Daisy section was deleted quite literally for having the word "May" in it, and thus being unconfirmed. While yes, it's not confirmed, neither is the regular Daisy and Luigi section, but still it's hinted at. You can't just delete SOME articles for being mere speculation and keep the others while they too are speculation. While yes, other sections might be a little more supported than than others, but Proof is proof and you can't just deny it. -Moonshine All these proposals just because of the Baby Daisy page! Anyway, my position here depends on exactly what you mean by "speculation". Is this about all ideas that haven't been confirmed by Nintendo, or just ones that seem unlikely and have no official evidence? CrystalYoshi (talk) You DO know who is the cause of all these Baby Daisy-related problems, right? What I mean is relationships that are complete fan-made BS, like Princess Daisy's relationship with Waluigi, or Mario's relationship with Diddy Kong, or Princess Peach's relationship with Wario. Stuff like Mario's relationship with Luigi, or Peach's relationship with Bowser are fine, since they do have backgrounds worth calling official/notable. And Daisy's relationship with Luigi, I do believe that IS official/notable, seeing as Nintendo is purposely implying that in almost every game they appear in together. Even their bios in these games says stuff relating to them being in love with each other. Stuff like Baby Daisy's relationship with Baby Luigi, that should be moved to the Trivia section. Pokemon DP (talk)
The situation was resolved? Ha... HA... HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! That was the best joke I've heard all week, Fixit. The situation was clearly not resolved. And, what do you do with a big situation like this? You start a Proposal! I can't just remove it all without getting everyone's opinion on the situation. That's what Proposals are for. And regardless of what you think, relationships like Daisy/Waluigi are meaningless, something 11 other Users have agreed on. Even if you think this Proposal is pointless, it doesn't matter. For, you see, I actually MAKE a Proposal to see what OTHERS think, instead of going ahead and getting in an edit war to try and get MY way. Pokemon DP (talk) Hmph, fine.
Do we have evidence of any kind that these freaken babies have a relationship of any kind? And I mean direct, documented proof, not conjecture, not fan crap, not 'Oh, look! They are next to each other on a menu screen! OBVIOUSLY they are bestest frends4leif!!!!!!!'. -- Chris 00:23, 29 April 2008 (EDT) Well, Baby Daisy's relationship with Baby Peach seems kinda... Fan-made to me. Her relationship with Baby Luigi has SOME proof; a statue of the two dancing in the Daisy Circuit stage. That said, its hardly enough to merit its own section, or even be considered truly official. Pokemon DP (talk) I don't see why the regular statue of Daisy and Luigi get acknowledged to further their relationship, while the one of the Babies get swept under the rug. If people take the one of the adults as a sign of a relationship, why does no one do the same for the babies? Moonshine
Because we have lives. Anyway, while lots of these relationships (i.e. Daisy/Waluigi) have been hinted at by Nintendo (or at least thrown out there by some cheeky team name, or whatever), speculative aspects of any article are best relegated to the Trivia sections; just to clean things up and make us look more professional. - Walkazo
Agreed with Walkazo. And lol at your "we have lives" comment. BTW, how come you haven't voted, Fixit? Pokemon DP (talk)
That's kinda arrogant of you, but, OK! I don't care if you think it's not worthless speculation, half the people around here believe it is. I see no point in making a section about Princess Daisy's hatred of Waluigi based on gameplay elements. It doesn't make sense. Pokemon DP (talk)
Can we at least agree that the Baby Daisy & Baby Luigi can remain in the form of a trivia section like time q suggested?-Moonshine
That was very rude, Fixitup. I'm-a go now before I get scolded, though... Pokemon DP (talk)
I was thinking of creating a page dedicated to the characters' relationships. I took the idea from this page, where users can put their evidences about the topic. Why not make such a page, something similar to the BJAODN article? Coincollector (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
Subspace Army Enemiesmerge 11-2 Proposer: Pokemon DP (talk) Merge with Subspace Army
Keep 'em split
CommentsEh, to be fair, they're more major than Condor. At least they have a name. --Blitzwing 06:38, 1 May 2008 (EDT) And I didn't want that article made. My point being, THERE IS A LIMIT! <_< Pokemon DP (talk)
At least have one on Primid, please? MegaMario9910 (talk)
Perhaps Primid could be an exception... Ehhhhhhh... That's debatable, I think. Pokemon DP (talk)
Those articles should be merged into their own page as well... Pokemon DP (talk)
Seeing as all the SSE enemies are members of the Subspace Army, they DO fit in that article... And, making a list of enemies... How's that bad? Dude, you make articles on simple ENEMIES, then we'll have to make articles on Assist Trophies and Pokémon... =| Pokemon DP (talk)
Agreed, Blitzwing. Pokemon DP (talk)
Coconut Mall Department Storesmake no list or seperate articles 7-12 Okay, just to clarify the options: The first one means that we make a list of all the places in Coconut Mall,similar to the list of Mario Kart sponsors. The second one means you don't want to. To clarify even further: Yes, the first option means that a separate list will be made. Separate from the sponsors list. Because the stores in the mall are not sponsors of Mario Kart. Proposer: Tiptup_Jr. (talk) Make them/Make a list!
Oppose!
CommentsI think making these articles would make the Mario Wiki a more complete guide to Mario's world and would help people find as much information as possible about Mario Kart Wii. We could also put what type of Miis appear in each advertisement, like a female for a certain store, and a male for another. Just a thought. Tiptup Jr., please always add a reason next to your vote, otherwise it's invalid. Even if you're the proposer. :/ Time Q (talk) 05:53, 3 May 2008 (EDT) Since there is no actual information given on any of the stores and posters in this circuit, any information added to the article will be speculation and fan junk... Pokemon DP (talk) What's about putting info of these things on the List of Mario Kart Sponsors? --Blitzwing 07:37, 3 May 2008 (EDT) Seems like a good idea, Blitzwing. Pokemon DP (talk) Technically, the stores in Coconut Mall are not sponsors of Mario Kart, they're just... there. Maybe we could make a separate article with a list of Coconut Mall stores, instead of one article for each store? Tiptup Jr. (talk) I 99.9% want to say oppose because this seems like a waste of time if theses stores are just random easter eggs in a Mario Kart course-- but I haven't ever played the game yet, which is the 0.1% holding me back from voting. CrystalYoshi (talk) 09:44, 3 May 2008 (EDT) Add them to the List of Mario Kart Sponsors. THIS I COMMAND!!! Pokemon DP (talk)
Obviously, you've forgotten a little thing called Pie (otherwise known as Proof there is a God). Also, they can't be merged with List of Mario Kart Sponsors since they aren't sponsors. I think they should be added to List of Mario Kart Sponsors, but only if the page is then moved to Mario Kart Advertisements. Plumber (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT) Agreed with Plumber. The Pie Proposal was at least funny. :( Pokemon DP (talk)
Really, only if there really is enough information. If not, then consider merging it. User:Nothing444 00:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT) DP, are you saying that all the information on the article example given by the proposer was false fanon? That would change things quite a bit, really. Stumpers (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT) All that information is false, yes. I don't remember any menus or anything of the sort. Pokemon DP (talk)
For evidence, perhaps? Pokemon DP (talk)
Er, Yoshitheawesome, your vote isn't really valid since Stumpers changed his vote. Stooben Rooben (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2008 (EDT) Once this proposal fails there should be another one concerning lists of stores only. The options could be "No List", "Separate List", or "Sponsors List". By the looks of it, one of the latter two options would win that proposal, so the information will get onto the Wiki one way or another. And that's what matters, right? - Walkazo
Regardless, it is FAR too minor to get its own article. A... Minor cameo with no significance other than being a minor easter egg, with it's very own article? ...Uhhhhhhh... Logic is lacking in that plan. Pokemon DP (talk) The general article is true, but the entire menu is fanon. And the Pianta getting angry... Ehhhhh, not so sure about that one. Pokemon DP (talk) Tiptup Jr. should clarify the voting options. What does "Make a list" mean? Make a list separate from the Sponsors list, or make a list and put it to the Sponsors page? Because if you're thinking of the latter, several people currently opposing should better put their vote to the support section... Still, in case the support side wins, the only thing we'll know is that the information is going to be included in the wiki somehow. Whether in a list or as separate articles will still be unsettled... so I don't think it's a good idea of merging "Make separate articles" and "Make a list" into one voting option. Time Q (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2008 (EDT) To all those saying these Coconut business aren't sponsors, I was playing the game with a friend the other night, who pointed out that the race is taking place in the Coconut Mall, so it, and any business therein, is sponsoring the race. Same with NASCAR. -- Chris 14:55, 6 May 2008 (EDT) Okey, I think we should make a list... and put it in a List of Implied Buisnesses page. We could do that with other small... easteregg... things, like YOSHIKART in other Mariokart titles and those Supa Koopa Sneakers Koopa the quick mentions in SM64. I'm writing this in comments to explain my vote. GreenKoopa - Comments or questions?
Actually... Since the buisnesses are ALL on Coconut Mall, I think they should be added to the Coconut Mall article. Thoughts? Pokemon DP (talk)
Oh, the menu in Coco Burger is not false. If you drive up and look closely enough, you can see the menu items. Tiptup Jr. (talk)
So... Can we all agree to add all this information to the Coconut Mall article? Pokemon DP (talk)
Super Mario Galaxy signposts mergemerge 13-10 Proposer: Snack (talk) Merge into "Boards (Super Mario Galaxy)"
Keep them Seperate
CommentsI removed two votes with invalid reasons. Canama, Ashley and Red are also different characters, yet they are merged, so this logic doesn't work. However, I'm still not sure if all of the oppose voters have valid reasons. "Officially named" isn't reason enough to make a separate article, neither is "each has their own image" (again, cf. Ashley and Red example), and probably "they're not stubs" isn't either. Though I have no example for this. Time Q (talk) 04:36, 7 May 2008 (EDT) To all those saying the Board should be kept split because they're different, the Isle Delfino Birds are also different (They have different colors and gives different things when you kill them), and yet they got merged. The Boards doesn't seems to have a whole load of differences from each other apart from their names. --Blitzwing 06:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT) I dunno where to side here. The arn't stubs, but they ARE short. User:HyperToad
Super Mario Bros.:The Lost Levels Worldsmake extra articles 14-0 Proposer: Glitchman (talk) Make new pages for each world
Don't make new pages for each worldCommentsPerhaps my opposition isn't valid... I've never played either game, so I have no idea what the differences are. Pokemon DP (talk)
Hmmm... Now I'm not sure what to vote for... I think I'll stay on the Opposition side for a little bit. There's still 7 days left, after all. Pokemon DP (talk)
The only thing I'm worried about is that not enough users have played SMB:LL. It is a Japan-only game, after all. Well, there is Super Mario All-Stars, but that's from a while ago. CrystalYoshi (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
Smash Bros. Series Articlesno articles about other series 3-11-12 Proposer: HyperToad (talk) Make the Articles
Only Sonic
Nope
CommentsAs I said in the vote headers, I wouldn't oppose having an article on the Sonic series, which would provides (very) basic information about the franchise and details how it affected Mario. For example, the Transformers wiki has an article on "The Gobots", which were the main competitor of Transformers some times ago. The article gives information about Gobot without having too much non-specific Transformers information and also have a section about how Gobot got referenced in Transformers and vice-versa. Considering that Sonic was Mario main competitor back in the 90's, I think having an article on it would be about right. --Blitzwing (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2008 (EDT) I'm with Blitz on this one. The Sonic series can get its own article; There's already a lot of series information on Sonic's very own article. Perhaps Pokémon as well, but maybe not. But as for everything else, big NO. Pokemon DP (talk) How 'bout a list? HyperToad (talk) nty. I think the character articles are enough. Pokemon DP (talk) Uh... if that's everyone's reasoning that we are a MARIOwiki, then why do we have SSB at all? HyperToad (talk)
The reason I'm opposing is because there IS a limit to the amount of Smash information allowed here. :| Pokemon DP (talk) Ok, Mario plays a large role in SSB, I understand that. Why do we have articles like Blizzard, Waddle Dee Toss and Condor (yes, I regret supporting that now) but not this? HyperToad (talk) Well, I don't fully understand your reasoning for wanting to create articles on the seperate series. I mean, we have the character articles that detail cameos and whatnot, isn't that enough? :\ Pokemon DP (talk) I suppose. What about the Sonic series though? HyperToad (talk) Hmmmmmm... That's quite possibly the ONLY exception. If you look at it, whereas Pokémon is the second best-selling series after Mario, have they REALLY had such a vicious rivalry? Have they REALLY taunted each other so much and considered each other a major threat? Not really. Sonic, on the other hand. Both series have posed as a huge threat to each other in the past, and their history with each other is far greater than any other series made to oppose Mario. Sonic and Mario have a long detailed history, so a Sonic series article would definitely be valid, IMHO. Pokemon DP (talk) So long as it only details the series' history with the Mario series, nothing more.
Wait, what exactly is the proposal for? Just for making articles for serieses, right? Not making articles about things in the serieses?? CrystalYoshi (talk) Well, the Sonic article would probably just detail the Sonic series' rivalry with the Mario series, and how it's had a huge impact on Mario. Storm Yoshi, please read our reasoning before choosing to leave out the Sonic series article just cuz you hate Sonic... :| Pokemon DP (talk)
Couple random thoughts, one of which has nothing to do with anything but in its own screwed up way kinda relates. One: If we did this, it might be a good idea to link the game titles and characters who have no relevance to Mario (for example, Jet the Hawk) to the Sonic Wiki, that way, we don't have to make seperate pages for every single character and every single game, but we can still provide information (or more accurately, a source of information) on the characters who don't matter to Mario. Two: Bulbapedia has a good plan of action with regards to the Smash Bros. series: Only if it bears relevance to the series. This may be a good idea here, too. Three: Singly out of curiosity, why no Banjo-Kazooie and Conker? ~ Shrikeswind (talk) 22:25, 10 May 2008 I think what some opposers are missing is that an article Sonic (series) would NOT include everything about the Sonic series (like an article "Sonic (series)" in a Sonic Wiki would do) but of course only the facts that are relevant to the Mario series... Time Q (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
Split Para-Beetle from Parabuzzysplit 9-1 And also... I do not believe that, when split, the two pages will become stubs. This is because once they have all the information possible on their topic, they won't be a stub. Proposer: InfectedShroom (talk) Split It
No Split
CommentsYeah, Walkazo makes the point I was gonna say if I was put in a corner: they are biologically different. Also, remember this proposal and it's outcome? The winning side argued that Sufits are a separate species because of their biological makeup. And, more specifically, that they have legs. InfectedShroom (talk)
Pikax, that example is bad. Kuribo is Goomba's Japanese name. It's the same thing. CrystalYoshi, that sprite isn't doctored from anything. They appear in Mario 3 as 2 different enemies.Toadette 4evur (talk)
Trouble Centerdon't force users to do troubles 1-9 Proposer: Goldguy (talk) AgreeOppose
CommentsHey, Goldguy: You might want to support your own proposal. ;) Stooben Rooben (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT) Honestly, I agree with DP. This mess has been around long enough. I've had two proposals about this already. I still think they way we did it before the Trouble Center was better. For those who don't remember those days, we just created a challenges page for each user and other users randomly added sets of challenges for the user to complete. We got a lot more done then than we do now. -- Ghost Jam (talk) 02:11, 10 May 2008 (EDT) Yeah. The old way is normally the right way. Pokemon DP (talk) NO!That's not what I meant.Any user can refuse until one user takes it.Goldguy (talk)
NWFC Chat add to sidebarno extra link 3-6 i mean image average guests coming in and wants to Brawl, Race, or what not? We could get a whole new breed of online social mobility! Any Goers? Proposer: WarioLoaf (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2008 (EDT) YAY
NAY
CommentsI have redirected Mario Wiki Chat to the chat room so you can just type that into the search bar, easier and simpler (if i wasnt aloud to do this just let me know...:/) Mario Kart Wii Karts and Bikesuse north american name in the article title only 14-0 Proposer: Cobold (talk) Use North American name in the article title only
Keep as currentlyCommentsI would like to add that having PAL names in the article name only is against the Importance Policy as it is currently. - Cobold (talk) 12:08, 11 May 2008 (EDT) Princess Grapes Butterfly: Er, are you sure you know what the proposal is about? You're voting against keeping both NA and PAL names in the article title. Time Q (talk) 18:48, 11 May 2008 (EDT) ...Lol, I already moved all the pages back, Cobold. XP Pokemon DP (talk)
Someone changed them back to Sugarscoot (Bon Bon). We REALLY need to enforce what we have decided. There's really a HUGE fight between NTSC and PAL people. What can we do to make sure everything doesn't keep on changing? It seems like NTSC won, but everything's still changing. Any ideas? EnPeached (talk) 15:32, 14 May 2008 (EDT) Badgesmake no new page 1-5 Proposer: Super-Yoshi (talk) Make New Page
Don't Make New Page
CommentsIt seems to me like you want to remove the parts of the article that are incomplete. that defeats the point of the Wiki, which is for people to both consume information and add what isn't there. You'd be hiding the incomplete information from users who might be able to make it complete. Stumpers (talk) 23:33, 13 May 2008 (EDT) I don't understand the proposal. I see you're saying that some of the unused badges section is missing information or has no sources, but why does that mean it should have a seperate page? Since I don't get why, I'm leaning towards oppose. CrystalYoshi (talk) It's 1:49 on May 17. Am I allowed to do ~~~~~ to show the time?
Create Smash Bros costumes pagemake no new page 3-9 Mario (insert pic of all costumes) Costume 1: Mario's basic outfit. Costume 2: Fire Mario. Costume 3: Mario's normal outfit with red and blue switched. Costume 4: Wario's color scheme. Costume 5: Brown hat, overalls and gray sleeves. Costume 6: Green hat, sleeves and tan overalls.
Proposer: huntercrunch (talk) Make New Page
Don't Make New Page
CommentsWouldn't this be better on the Smash Bros. section in each character article? Stumpers (talk) 00:34, 13 May 2008 (EDT) Agreed. Pokemon DP (talk) I'm not suggesting a page for each costume, that's just silly. I'm proposing a SINGLE PAGE. Just to clarify. huntercrunch (talk)
American Spellingsmake no change 2-13 Proposer: Garlic Man (talk) American Spellings
Oppose (use either)
CommentsI'm not sure I completely understand; is this just moving articles to their NA name? Or, is it fixing the British spelling to be American? I've been doing the latter since I came here, and if that's what the proposal's about, I don't see its point. It's kind of hard to tell English citizens to spell like Americans; they grow up spelling how they do. Stooben Rooben (talk) Sorry if that sounds blunt. Slightly confusing. I use a spell check, so I don't know what it would pick up differently, but I don't think we really need a proposal for this. ForeverDaisy09 (talk)
The oppose should be to turn down the proposal and continue with the old way of dealing with the problem. As it stands, you're asking us to either go with the US or the UK spellings, you don't leave an option for leaving it as it is. Stumpers (talk) 23:35, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
Merge Super Mushroom to Mushroomno merge 1-14 I also readed on the Super Mushroom article that a Super Mushroom appeared in Super Mario 64 DS that will let you grow. But on the Mushroom article, there stands information that has the same meaning. And there was only ONE red-capped Mushroom in that game! So both articles has information about the same item. So, now I told enough information from why we should merge the Super Mushroom Article to the Mushroom Article. When we have merged, we can maybe (I say "Maybe") make a Disambiguestion page with the name "Super Mushroom" (I told that the Golden Mushroom also sometimes was called Super Mushroom). Sooo... Do you also think that the Super Mushroom article should be merged to the Mushroom article? Or do you think of NOT? Proposer: Arend (talk) Merge the Super Mushroom Article!Don't Merge it!
CommentsI thought we solved this problem long ago by combining all mushrooms into the main mushroom article. -- Ghost Jam (talk) 21:03, 16 May 2008 (EDT) Pikax, in Mario Kart series, there ia an item called Golden Mushroom, who is SOMETIMES known as Super Mushroom. You didn't really readed the proposal fully. Arend (talk) Featured Article Voting Modificationchange the current system 12-7 Briefly, this would mean that if three users believe a support vote is a fan vote or an oppose vote is is impossible to appease without further comment from the opposer, the vote could be removed. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THREE SUPPORTERS/OPPOSERS CAN REMOVE RIVAL VOTES BASED SOLELY ON OPINION! ONLY FAN VOTES WITHOUT FURTHER REASONING OR OPPOSE VOTES THAT ARE NOT CLARIFIED CAN BE REMOVED! IF AN USER IS DISCUSSING HIS/HER VOTE ON THE NOMINATION PAGE, THE VOTE CANNOT BE REMOVED WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THREE SYSOPS AND/OR USERS OF HIGHER RANK. An oppose vote that has been appeased can be removed in the same manner if the opposer is not in discussion. Proposer: Stumpers (talk) Support (Give Users This Power)
Oppose (No Modifications to the Current System)
CommentsI know this vote gives more power to sysops under rare circumstances. Supporters are free to specify that every sysop except me should have this power, just so that you know this proposal is not a ploy to give me more power. Stumpers (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
I'd also like to mention this: The vast majority of support votes, especially for articles such as Mario, consists of what seem to be "fan votes". Now, wouldn't it make things really complicated if for any of these votes we required three users (btw, what does "higher rank" mean...?) to support the removal of the vote? Not only it would make things complicated (and the comments section really long and unclear), it also serves no purpose, because as said above, FA support votes basically change nothing. Sure, there is the tiny possibility of five "fan votes" being collected for a bad article, without any other users noticing that, making it featured after a week. But I guess that won't ever happen, because, well, first we need five votes (there are several users observing the Recent Changes, including me - if I noticed such a case I would try and find a valid oppose in order to let the article stay unfeatured), and then there's still one week left to oppose. So this possibility practically can be excluded. Now, there's no reason left to worry about so-called "fan votes", right? Time Q (talk) 05:07, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
I'm sorry...but Son of Suns himself said that fan votes were just as important as well-reasoned votes? When the heck was that? Wayoshi (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
Stooben Rooben and Princess Grapes Butterfly argue that the rules Stumpers is proposing could help prevent flame wars. But Blitzwing has an interesting point - arguing about whether a vote should be removed or not is much more likely to cause flame wars rather than to prevent them. Sure, arguing about the validity of oppose votes already happens, and there's nothing bad about that. But allowing to decide on (and, before that, discuss) the validity of support votes will open the door to useless and long discussions - and possibly flame wars! - which, at the end of the day, would be based solely on opinion. Time Q (talk)
Numbers 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,11,12,13, Sounds like opinions(*cough* & 7 was my sis cough&) Oh and Stumpers the still two users name that you for got to move. Princess Strawberry Butterfly (talk) Okay. Stumpers, first I'd like to thank you for replying to my comments. You could easily ignore my objections and win with currently 11 supporters against 4 opposers, so it doesn't go without saying that you're actually replying. But still, there are several questions open. Let me list them: Unanswered questions:
I would really appreciate it if you could try to answer these questions (and, in case you find that there is no answer, modify the proposal accordingly). The topic may seem minor, but I think it's more important than it looks like. Time Q (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
Hey, Stumpers and Time Q, I feel kinda posh correcting a sysop, but be sure to sign with {{user}} and not your sig. ;) InfectedShroom (talk)
Site Logosaccept images containing site logos 3-13 Proposer: ForeverDaisy09 (talk) Support (Remove+Refuse Imagery With Logos)
Oppose (Continue Accepting Images Containing Website Logos)
CommentsAll I can say is good luck trying to enforce this, and fix it now... Wayoshi (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
FD09: I do not "support the idea of keeping images which lower the quality of our wiki." That would be ridiculous. Most people do not support that, as it would be stupid. I believe that if an image can show more than text, even if that image is lower quality, it is beneficial to the wiki. This is probably the mentality of other users. InfectedShroom (talk)
I fully oppose this proposal. Images with a website logo or a water-mark should only be removed if an appropriate alternative can be found. In other words, these offending images should be replaced, not removed; furthermore, images such as these should not be immediately refused, especially if the article in question lacks any images at all. --Tykyle 18:54, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
Regardless of weather or not this goes through, we all still have the ability to edit site logos out of images. You don't always need to be good with the computer, or even have a good art program to edit out logos. I use paint more than photoshop to edit out site logos. Don't act like everyone is helpless just because they don't have photoshop. Also, it is still my opinion that these images (with site logos) do lower the quality of pages, regardless of what information they provide. A good example would be a screen shots section. It's not there to show you a crappy image of a character from the specified game, it's there to show off the quality of their appearance in that game. - ForeverDaisy09 (talk)
Repeal "Featured Article Voting Modification"repeal previous proposal 10-0 Now, this proposal was accepted very well. Many people thought that it would be the best option available for the wiki. It seemed so at the time. However, there are many faults in this system:
This was the one good thing because it allowed users to get rid of oppose votes that were impossible to appease or unneeded to the article. I also propose that, after repealing the current system, that we restore this option for users. The restoration would come with some differences from the original proposal, however: Five users, including a sysop, must vote to remove the vote, and each remover must have a valid reason for the removal. You now have our opinions. Users of the MarioWiki, you must now vote on what you think is best. Take your time, review our points, and make sure that you make the best decision possible. Proposers: InfectedShroom (talk) and Time Q (talk) Support (Repeal proposal and restore the option to discuss oppose votes)
Oppose (Keep everything how it already is)CommentsComment OneI'm beginning to think that I voted too quickly and rationally on the last proposal. I didn't really think through with what I was saying should be done to the FA pages. While I find it quite necessary to remove fan support votes (due to the fact that they are merely biased votes about the character and not the article itself), I also find non-descriptive oppose votes to be invalid. If a user merely states, "the article has bad writing", or "some areas need expansion" it does not help the decision to feature said article whatsoever. I feel that oppose votes should be quite informative as to what that user feels is wrong with the article. For example, rather than stating "some areas need expansion", one should state "while parts of the article are thoroughly written, I find that the Yoshi's Safari, Super Mario Galaxy, and Other Appearances sections are quite minimal". I'm not requesting that every opposer speak in "fancy words", I merely believe that the opposers state precisely which section(s) require work; by doing so, others can fix the "bad" area(s) of the article, making the article more suitable for an opposer to become a supporter. Stooben Rooben (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
Comment TwoThere is only one certain thing about our FA problem: there is no simple solution. It is our own users who are not as professional as Wookiepedia and the other successful non-Wikipedia wiki communities out there. We are more loose on purpose to make others feel welcome, and with the good things that come with it come some drawbacks as well. There may be no solution at all, as long as users continue to care mostly about their Userpedia content and their status in the community, not just how our articles are coming along. Wayoshi (talk) 21:53, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
I find kinda ironic (and rather hypocritical) that you patronise users over the "lack of proffesionalism" of their edits even thought you haven't yourself made any signifiant mainspace contribution in over a year. Hypocrisy much? Blitzwing (talk)
Humourous Image Captionsallow them 20-6 And note, I'm only proposing humourous image captions. I'm not proposing any major changes to the article itself, just the images. Proposer: Pokemon DP (talk) Allow Humourous Image Captions
Do Not Allow Humourous Image Captions
CommentsI don't know what you mean by "humorous" and I don't know which "rules" you're talking about the captions should abide. I love humor and funny image captions are appropriate for gaming magazines. But you should remember that the MarioWiki attempts to be an encyclopedia. Have you ever seen an encyclopedia with "funny" image captions? I haven't. I'm not saying that the wiki shouldn't be "fun", but when it comes to articles, they should be as neutral as possible. There's also a difference between the "creative headers" you're mentioning and humorous image captions, in my opinion. The headers aren't humorous, they're merely an alternative to simply putting the game title as the header. I'm leaning towards oppose, but perhaps you could explain a bit further what you mean by "humorous"? Time Q (talk)
What Walkazo said. Pokemon DP (talk) I see no problem with it, it adds to our reputation as carefree, not too strict on the rules like Wikipedia. Wayoshi (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
...We don't need witty captions on ALL the images. Hell, we don't need a caption on all of them, full stop. This is kind of an optional thing; If the current image caption is pathetic (like the "A Goomba" example) or if there is no image caption, then feel free to add something clever and witty. It's not a neccessity. Pokemon DP (talk) Yes, we can do without the really lame ones. (One example is, "Waluigi, in his normal attire, wearing a purple shirt, black overalls, and orange elf-like shoes." from the Waluigi page. Anyone with eyes enough to read can see that he's wearing that)Mumbles (talk) Well, that's okay. I'm not actually going to vote, but it's a landslide already. CrystalYoshi (talk) Last names from Super Mario Moviekeep names from movie 7-24-1 Proposer: Clay Mario Take away the last names from the movie
Keep the last names from the movie
Make a seperate Section/Article for Non-game info
CommentsUh... KP, you can't do that. MegaMario9910 (talk) Double votes I'm sure is against MarioWiki Policy. Clay Mario (talk)
actually, I use ~~~ because I don't have time to make a sig subpage. So, I just use the user template. Clay Mario (talk)
I think that even if if was in the tsmbss it still may not be true. because the show was not made directly by nintendo. Dryest_bowser (talk)
Well, is there any proof from the games that the last name is Mario? If there isn't, I'd support. Sure, they are the Mario Bros., but maybe they're just called that since Mario's the leader. If we put "Mario" for Mario's name in the infobox, it's not saying his last name definitely isn't Mario, it's just saying that his first name is all we're sure of. And that seems true now, with this controversy. The question is, why would parents name their kid Mario Mario? Well, things in Mario don't have to make sense, actually. CrystalYoshi (talk) I guess there is slight evidence because, in Dr. Mario, his name is Dr. Mario. Usually the last name would follow the title. But then again, things in mario don't have to make sense, it could be his first name. Clay Mario (talk)
Cobold has a point, sometimes Mario games are made by third-party developers. But when its made by third-party developers, usually, there are no significant changes. For example, Mario Superstar Basbeball, developed by Namco doesn't feature new enemies or characters. Clay Mario (talk)
In the SMA comic, Bowser calls Mario & Luigi "The Mario's" keep-em. - Ultimatetoad Well if you look at many websites and other media (mario fan based or not) the last name of "Mario" has been used. Plus why would nintendo call the game " Mario Bros. " if Luigi had just been introduced (without knowing wheather or not he'd be the "side kick" and or "the new leader")? One more question: what is the way the Japanease would call to brothers in this manner? Would they use the older brother's first name? Beats me. Ok I'm done!- MC Hammer Bro.
I'd like to challenge this proposal's validity to a certain extent, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. It was my impression that proposals were here so that we could discuss the way information is presented (merges, splits, features, placing spin-off information in separate sections, etc.), right? Another area we could vote on is how in depth to go. (include Banjo articles, include cries and other noises in the quote section, Snufit Ball, etc.) Originally I just assumed that this proposal was one of the latter, but what I'm thinking now is that this proposal really isn't fair. It would be fair to vote for movie information to be separated from main character pages (after all, the storyline is different, personalities are different, backstories, even species... the list goes on.) say onto a different page like "Mario Mario (film character)" or something. However, this article is saying that we would be allowed to mention all movie information in a character's article except for their full names according to the movie. Not only would this confuse readers and new editors, it's a little flawed. We shouldn't be selectively chosing what points of information are included and are not. Either all official video games should be here or they shouldn't be. Either the movie should be here or it shouldn't be. Not mentioning "Mario Mario" as a full name would only be acceptable if the movie was not covered by this Wiki. Otherwise it's confusing. We'd need to change our policy to say, "We cover the Mario video games, comics, and TV shows completly. We also cover the movie, except for Mario and Luigi's names in the film." To wrap this up: we can limit the number and type of pictures or quotes we post. We can chose not to cover the strategy of each level. All this is because of our job as a Wiki: to create an easy-access method for Mario fans to immerse themselves into the complete series. However, failing to mention a key fact, such as Mario's full name in the movie, is big. What if we didn't mention the history behind Princess Peach's name change? How about the change in Yoshi's voice? It's about time that we on this Wiki acknowledged a key fact: There is canon and there is nonfictional history. Who completely different things that the Wiki must cover, lest we be forced to call ourselves a "guide to what, as established throuh proposals, our users feel is canon to the Mario storyline" instead of a "Complete guide to the complete Mario series". Which would you rather read? Stumpers (talk) 03:15, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
I strongly disagree with making a new section for every different incarnation of Mario. They're doing that right now on Wikipedia with Sonic the Hedgehog characters, and it's an extremly stupid process. They are the SAME person. - Ultimatetoad
Well, at the same time, I don't think that movie & game info should be mixed. They should each have their own seperate section, just in the same article (see Princess Daisy). Maybe we should just make the intro to the Mario article look like this "Mario (Mario Mario in some Media...." I should mention that I also oppose the recent mixing of cartoon show & game info in the Mario article. They should be discussed seperately, just in the same article. - Ultimatetoad Well, lets see if I can do that without babbling or confusing myself: 1. The Mario from the Super Mario Bros. series, the Mario from the Super Mario Bros. Super Show! Series, and the Mario from the Super Mario Bros. Movie are all the same character, just put into different situations. 2. Mario does not have a real "backstory" inside the games, any more than Mickey Mouse or Kermit the Frog has one in their respective shows. Notice how each game can easily stand by itself: You don't need to have played Super Mario 64 to understand Sunshine. There is no real "Mario Continunuity" or timeline (no official one, at any rate). 3. Thus, every appearence Mario makes should looked at as a "canonical" appearence. 4. So, the Mario article should not be grouped according to appearence, but Media type: Appearences in: Games Televsion Theater Movies etc. - Ultimatetoad
Orange Yoshi & Brown Yoshimerge 7-3 So what does this all mean? Provided that no one has an official source that I don't know about, there is no proof that Orange Yoshi and Brown Yoshi are simply a recoloring of the same character, done as a result of technical limitations of the Yoshi's Island engine. My biggest support is that all artwork outside of the game shows Orange Yoshi. If there really were two different characters, why would Nintendo choose to draw Orange Yoshi rather than Brown Yoshi in promotional artwork? Or to chose Orange Yoshi instead of Brown Yoshi for the Yoshi's Story cameo? The proposal: I'd like us to merge the two articles together under the title "Orange Yoshi." Of course, we'd need to include info regarding how Orange Yoshi looked Brown. Proposer: Stumpers (talk) Support (merge)
Oppose (keep separate)
CommentsJust a note to everyone who doesn't want all Yoshi's merged, you should know that I am a separatist in light of the six Yoshi characters in Yoshi's Story. This proposal has nothing to do with that. :) Stumpers (talk) I removed my above comment to try to avoid confusing peoples........ but, yeah, I always thought the Orange Yoshi article was weird... - Ultimatetoad Just about the latest oppose vote, no, I have no quote that says, "Those Yoshis are the same." However, you do not have one that says, "Those Yoshis are different." I have noted the fact that there is no Brown Yoshi in the artwork, it is always replaced by the Yellow Yoshi, even when we claim that a Brown Yoshi is in the game. Can you give me proof about your way? Because I've seen plenty of characters who have had color inconsistency between games, even sometimes in the same game. Remember Bowser in Super Mario 64? He changed colors for the last boss battle. Birdo from Super Mario Bros. 2 USA/Super Mario Advance? It changed colors for certain boss battles. Remember Yoshi in Mario Power Tennis? He changed colors whenever he did a defensive power shot. Princess Peach's hair and dress color changed after the NES days. Does that mean there are two Princess Peaches? Color differences, especially minor color differences between games like the one we're talking about with Yellow Yoshi, haven't meant anything... especially when the first game was on a system that was less technically capable than the other. Stumpers (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
Just a note on the latest vote: you say that there could be dozens of reasons. You only gave me a couple, the last of which was speculation. Stumpers (talk) 23:18, 17 June 2008 (EDT) Well there could be dozens, doesn't mean that I can think of dozens. :P I'm sure that there are a lot of technology issues that I'm not savvy enough to understand that could account for not putting Brown Yoshi in more recent games. But merging the articles, and saying that Brown Yoshi was recolored is speculation, since we have no proof that Nintendo intended to replace Brown Yoshi with Orange Yoshi. If Nintendo originally wanted an Orange Yoshi, they could have included him in the game, so there must be some reason that they chose brown instead of orange. Goomb-omb (talk) P.S. the second reason was a joke ;P Goomb-omb (talk) |