MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/9: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 18:54, May 28, 2023

All past proposals are archived here. This page is protected to maintain the discussion as was.

Insert info from Games

do not insert info from sonic games 5-21
Alright. I was happening to look through Shadow the Hedgehog's article, and had edited something that was info from the games. I thought maybe, why not put info from the games into the articles (i e. Like add Sonic Rush info in Sonic, Tails, Blaze, Amy, Eggman, Cream, and Knuckles articles). This will also help some stub articles. This is overview, not in-depth. Add information from games, or don't add information from games?

Proposer: MegaMario9910 (talk)
Deadline: June 19, 2008, 15:00 EDT

Add Information from Games

MegaMario9910 (talk) I'm the proposer, so per me.
Dr. Hammer (talk) It would mean more complete articles for the characters, so I suppose I support. And they technically were in Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games and SSBB, so...
Walkazo (talk) - A paragraph overview of these series in already existing articles will give people context for what these characters are about. The bare basics are not gonna change us into "Videogame Wiki".
InfectedShroom (talk) - Per Walkazo.
MamaLuigi2 (talk)- Agreed. Sure, it's the MARIO wiki, but without Sonic, Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games wouldn't excist.

Don't Add Information from Games

Purple Yoshi (talk) - Um, no. This isn't a Sonic wiki, or even a third-party wiki. The games have NOTHING to do with Mario.
Pokemon DP (talk) - No, just no. BRIEF, I repeat, BRIEF descriptions about the characters personality and debut appearance from his/her original series are fine, but no way in HELL should we allow large amounts of outside information. It's just not right. And there are other Wiki's to link to about this stuff, ya know.
Blitzwing (talk) - This rpoposal has been brought up at least twice before. Per DP.
Per DP version of Pokemon (heh heh). Toadette 4evur (talk)
Ninjayoshi - Per Pokemon DP.
HyperToad (talk) Per DP and PY.
Bob-omb buddy (talk) - The games aren't even including mario charecters! Only include the first apperance and apperances from mario games.
Clay Mario (talk) - Per my comment below.
Starry Parakarry (talk)- Per Purple Yoshi and Pokemon DP.
Pikax (talk)- Information about the character and his/her appearances in Mario games is enough.
RedFire Mario (talk) - I am a Sonic the Hedgehog fan, but this isn't a Sonic Wiki, so we shouldn't add any info of games that doesn't have to do anything of Mario. If you want to add Sonic info, go and find a Sonic Wiki like DarkHero Sonic's new one, not here
Dryest bowser (talk)- This is not a sonic wiki, so shadow should not have info from sonic games. only mario games
Laebear12 (talk)- agrees with dryest bowser and redfire mario
Storm Yoshi (talk) Per the DP of Pokemon and Yoshi of Purple
Tucayo (talk) Per Purple Yoshy. this is a MARIO wiki, not sonic. Everything here must be related to MARIO.
Alphaclaw11 (talk) If we add info from sonic games we will have to add articles on sonic games, that way it is understandable, but being a Mario(and Mario-related) Wiki we shouldn't even if we could have info from other games. A small note may be able to be added to extra, maybe.
Iron Maiden (talk) I love that blue hedgie, but things would be much too sonical if we add all that uneeded information. No Super Sonic Wiki here lololol
Super-Yoshi (talk) - =\ Like DP said, It's just not right.
Moonshine (talk) Per DP and Dryest Bowser.
Glitchman (talk) - I thought we had already decided this...no articles concerning the Sonic series (except for what was in Brawl and Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games) AT ALL!
Goomb-omb (talk) Their articles should only extend as far as their involvement in the Marioverse.

Comments

This will be my first successful proposal. MegaMario9910 (talk)

I would agree like this if we're talking about generalities, so like, for Sonic, it would read:

Sonic the Hedgehog is the main character of the Sonic the Hedgehog series of video games. Since the beginning of the series, Sonic has been the champion of peace, risking his life to stop the plots of a variety of violent foes, particularly Dr. Eggman, in order to establish worldwide peace. Along the way, he has been aided by many characters, including his friends Miles "Tails" Prower, Knuckles the Echidna, Amy Rose, and occassionally Shadow the Hedgehog. Sonic's greatest asset is his ability to run at supersonic speeds. However, he is Sonic's fame rivals that of Mario, and like Mario, Sonic the Hedgehog's series has also spawned television shows, comic series, and even original video animations.

I think any more than that make us unfocused the Mario series. However, I've always been one to think that this Wiki should at least provide some background (not a lot) for the chrossover characters. If you could edit your proposal to say that this would be an overview thing rather than an in-depth (ala Sonic News Network) then you'd have my support and doubtless the support of many others. Even if this doesn't go through, you are currently allowed to use information from Mario and Super Smash Bros. games, including trophy information in Brawl, to write about crossover characters. A significant portion of the above example could be compiled based on those. Stumpers (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Done. MegaMario9910 (talk)

At least according to DP, brief information is ok... I think maybe your proposal, with your change, may already be acceptable! Time to get to work, both of us. Stumpers (talk) 11:39, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

Hmm... I'm kind of agreeing with the supporters here. But the opposers have a point, as too much info would suck. What would be an example of what you would put in, say, the Sonic article under this new system? InfectedShroom (talk)

Err... wait, whatta mean, Stumpers? And... maybe some info about his history through the games, and a bit of info about those games, IS. MegaMario9910 (talk)

I mean that the example I gave is already approved for use in the articles. Stumpers (talk)

Yay. Now, let's go this work done. MegaMario9910 (talk)

Oh. Duh. I guess I didn't really read your example. My bad. And yeah, it's a great idea. InfectedShroom (talk)

Uh... not really has there been two proposals brought up before. One was to make articles for the crossovers, and the other one was to make a list. Care to explain why you said that, Blitz? MegaMario9910 (talk)

Because both were about to add unrelated info to a specific group of article, duh. Blitzwing (talk)

Yeesh! Why do proposals always get people riled up? Stumpers (talk)

If voting to support this proposal will be result in general series/character summaries like your example then you're right, people are getting way too distraught. It's not gonna turn us into Sonic Wiki or whatever, it'll just add to general knowledge of gaming and save our readers the trouble of going elsewhere for the bare basics (and who knows, maybe they'll get preoccupiued wherever they went for further reading and we lose our audience). Being elitist never helped anyone. - Walkazo (talk)

Thanks, Walkazo. Stumpers (talk)

"NO PROPOSALS ABOUT HAVING BANJO AND CONKER ARTICLES-- The Management" Hmm... I wonder if this also applies to sonic. There is a sonic wiki. We only have a sonic article because hes included in brawl and Olympic Games. For non-mario brawl characters, don't go to much in-depth. Just give information about them in brawl and Olympic games. Clay Mario (talk)

That message means that we will not cover all topics in Banjo or Conker games, only those whom have appeared in Mario media. Likewise, we won't be covering Princess Elise or the SatAM TV show from the Sonic series, but we will cover Sonic, Tails, Knuckles, etc. Don't forget: Brawl gives information from the series' too, so that would work as well. Stumpers (talk)

Do remember that we aren't creating articles, we're just putting info from the games into the character's ARTICLE. Maybe people would like to know some info about Sonic and friends from the games, but the article only covers Olympics and Brawl, which doesn't explain much for the characters, and gives very less of their backstory (what happened in the games; what was the history of Sonic and friends, etc.). And remember that we aren't only covering Sonic, but series that were in the Super Smash Bros. series also (yet, I'm not sure we would add Solid Snake, due to the fact that a lot of his games were rated higher than Mario games). And this part is for Blitzwing: The proposals weren't mained about adding info from games to the articles. One was to create the articles, while the other was to create a crossover list. MegaMario9910 (talk)

We're not trying to cover information from outside series. Only information from Mario-based games. Including a HIGHLY detailed back story on outside characters is just too damn much. There's a borderline to the outside information we can add here; Information on characters from the SSB series and ONLY their appearance in the SSB series is fine; we're detailing information from that one series, since it's linked to the Mario series. That's fine. But including information on, say, what Blaze did in all of Sonic Rush and Sonic the Hedgehog 2006, or what Fox McCloud did in all 5 Star Fox games. That makes us a "Video game Wiki", not a "Mario Wiki". And remember, there's something called "external linking". Pokemon DP (talk)

DP, I said some, not all. MegaMario9910 (talk)

I am in agreement with DP. Unless it is a game in which Mario is a significant character, information about it should not be included. Pikax (talk)

But this doen't mean we're making detailed backstories, look at Stumpers' Sonic example: it's just the bare basics. I.e. for Star Fox it'd be along the lines of: "Fox McCloud first appeared in Star Fox, in which he led his teammates Falco, Slippy and Peppy against the armies of the evil scientist Andross in their Arwings. Later, team Star Fox were shown to drive Landmaster Tanks, and travel by foot, fighting with handheld lasers among other weapons..." It'd also mention his rivalry with Wolf, and his romance with Krystal; but not every little detail of every game (it'd simply state what game introduced what, and only if that "what" was significant, like The Great Fox; etc.). It's just gonna be a synopsis of the series to provide context for things that happen in Brawl and whatnot. - Walkazo (talk)

Brawl features appearances of Wolf, Fox, Slippy, Krystal, and Falco. Brawl is sort of Mario media, but doesn't show Mario as a significant character. We still have articles on Super Smash Bros anyway. We don't have any articles on Sonic characters like Jet the Hawk because he doesn't appear in Mario media. Clay Mario (talk)

CM: I said we weren't making articles. Walkazo: Thanks, Walkazo. MegaMario9910 (talk)

Sorry. You were only putting information in the articles. But then you should only put information of the characters in mario media to make us stay the MARIO wiki Clay Mario (talk)

In the circumstance that you need to mention a character or place that wasn't in the Smash Bros. games in the overview paragraph, do so. However, someone like Jet the Hawk, who is a rival in a spin-off of the main series, doesn't need to be mentioned. Look at my example: "to stop the plots of a variety of violent foes, particularly Dr. Eggman," I'm not sure if Jet was ever violent, but I think Jet is an example of one of the villains I didn't mention. I also didn't mention Silver, you'll notice, because he's just a cameo. I did mention Shadow because he's an assist trophy. I hope that helps! Stumpers (talk)

Here's my comment: MegaMario9910 himself told me clearly that he doesn't want it to create extra articles, just add tiny bits of info. So listen. -- Dom (talk)

Forms

do not merge 1-10
I've been wanting to do this for a while, ao I'll be blunt: having articles like Fire Mario is stupuid. It's Mario with a Fire Flower: all of that info belongs in the Fire Flower article. The same goes for all Mario's forms: Ice Mario, Wing Mario, etc., and quite a few "subspecies": Beach Koopas (Koopa's without their shells) and Fishin' Lakitus (lakitus with Fishing Poles). I never did quite understand why these articles were needed. My proposal is that we merge all of these "form" articles with their respective power-up/character.

Please note that full-fledged alter-egos (like Dr. Mario) should certainly stay, as should "forms" that are treated like seperate characters (Dry Bowser and Giga Bowser); but there are limits, people.

Proposer: Ultimatetoad
Deadline: June 19, 2008, 17:00 EDT

Support

Ultimatetoadper proposal

Oppose

MegaMario9910 (talk) The forms are different from what the main character is. Each form has played a role in a game(s), so its not much minor.
InfectedShroom (talk) - Per myself in the comments.
Stumpers (talk) - I could see this maybe for minor transformations, but something like Fire Mario? That's come up in a huge number of games in a huge number of forms... for instance the revival in SMG.
Per the smart people above me. Toadette 4evur (talk)
Ninjayoshi - Per all, especially InfectedShroom.
Goomb-omb (talk) if we can provide separate articles for each, each one providing encyclopedic information, why shouldn't we?
Clay Mario (talk) - Per all
Tykyle (talk) - See my comments below.
Dryest bowser (talk) - Per stumpers
Bob-omb buddy (talk) - Articles are only merged if they are too similar or are the same thing,Which these are not.

Comments

OK, I have two reasons for opposing this proposal. 1) They (they being the other forms) have official names, have long enough articles to be stubs, and are a different part of the Mario Universe. For example, Fishin' Lakitus are more different than one would think. They will not attack Mario unless he grabs the Mushrooom, making them harmless until the player takes action. Also, take the Mario forms thing as an example. Statue Mario would not fit under the Tanooki suit article. This is because the Tanooki Suit article explains what the Tanooki Suit does, while the Statue Mario article explains what Statue Mario is. 2) This proposal is too vague. You did not specify which articles would need this, as some people may agree on some articles but not on others. This must be a long, article by article process if everyone is to agree. Sorry to bore you with such a long explanation, but there's my opinion. InfectedShroom (talk)

Um.... the Statue Mario page is already merged with Tanooki suit. I will reply to both of you'r opposals in order:

1. Statue Mario is.... Mario turned into a statue. If that info does not belong on the Tanooki suit page then at least it can be merged into the Mario page.

2. Which articles am i talking about? well, for a beggining, we could do all of the articles in the Mario Forms template. Those are the ones that this proposal is mainly about. The Beach Koopa and Fishing Lakitu thing is debatable: I might remove them from the proposal, especially after that little tidbit you gace me just now. My real problem with these articles is that, when you get right down to it, whther it behaves differently or not, it is still just a lakitu with a fishing pole. Maybe it does'nt attack Mario because it's hands are full.... - Ultimatetoad

Ah. Shoulda checked my sources on the Statue Mario thing. My bad. But the point still stands. The "Mario" article tells what it is, and the power-up article tells what it does. And I still don't think that the enemies should be merged simply because they do behave differently... InfectedShroom (talk)

Not all of the power-ups serve only the single purpose of turning Mario into _____-Mario. A good example of this is the Fire Flower. It serves a completely different purpose in some games; in the Paper Mario games it functions as an attack item. Likewise Mario is able to use fireballs without a Fire Flower as in Super Mario RPG.
The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tykyle (talk).

Prevent loss of information (Recipes)

RULE THAT A MERGE OF THE RECIPES ARTICLES CANNOT LEAD TO LOSS OF INFORMATION 4-0
A previously passed proposal (which can be found here) called for the merging of the Recipes articles into one long page. While I'm not particularly bothered about this, I fear the possibility of information (such as notable trivia or complete lists of combinations) being removed so as to avoid an overly long page. (The second sentence of what appears to be Xzelion's page for working on the merge suggests an intention to not include every combination, for instance.) I propose that it be set down that if any merge of the Recipes pages does eventually take place, all possible recipe combinations and all pieces of important trivia must remain somewhere easily accessible on the wiki, such as a separate page for combinations. (The combinations page is only a suggestion and not part of the proposal.) My reasoning is that useful information should not be removed from this wiki for the sake of convenience, that the wiki should be a compendium of all things Mario-related, and that one should not have to visit another fansite to find out recipe combinations.

Proposer: Soler
Deadline: June 20, 2008, 20:00 EDT

Rule that a merge cannot lead to loss of information (Support)

Soler (talk) (I am the proposer: my reasons are above.)
Super-Yoshi (talk) Per Soler.
Bob-omb buddy (talk)-If it is on one page then it should be good enough for the next one.
Ninjayoshi- Per my comments below.

Allow loss of information (Oppose)

Comments

I think that we should have two pages for the Recipes: Recipes and Recipes (Trivia). Recipes (Trivia) will list the Recipe, then game, and finally the trivia. No descriptions on the Trivia page. Ninjayoshi

No, that'd be too disorganized/disjointed, and too much of a hastle for readers to go flicking back and forth between the two articles. The recipies page should simply be a big table listing all the things that can be baked/cooked, all the different recipies for making each one (with what game they come from indicated somehow), and the effects, etc. of the thing made. A Trivia section could be added at the bottom of the article; but only if it deals with the recipies, because as far as I know most, if not all of the ingrediants and final products have their own articles anyway. - Walkazo (talk)

Walkazo's idea sounds good to me, but personally I don't mind too much how this is done so long as it's done somehow. Also, the final products won't have their own articles if the project initiated by the previous Recipes proposal is completed. That's why I made this proposal in the first place: to ensure that all the content of the deleted articles will remain on the wiki, in an easily accessible format. —Soler (talk).

Yeah, didn't think about the flipping back and forth. Maybe, to shorten the page length, we could have two pages (again): Recipes (A-M) and Recipes (N-Z). Go ahead prove me wrong. Ninjayoshi

Remove Automatons, Machinations, Ghosts, Ghouls, and Specters from the "Species" Category

keep as species 2-11
It is true that a species is a group of of living things. It is also true, that undead things, and robotic things, are not living things, and do not constitute a species. Since common sense often fails, I'll included dictionary definitions of a species in my comments below. Now, many of you who are reading this will think I'm just getting bogged down by semantics, but any errors in the wiki reflect on the wiki (and us, the users) and I think an error as large as this one greatly detracts from the credibility of this wiki.

Proposer: Goomb-omb
Deadline: June 27, 2008, 20:00 EDT

Support

Goomb-omb per my reasoning above and below
Soler (talk) —Accuracy is key, and "Character Type" (see comment by Goomb-omb below) seems to be an adequate term.

Oppose

Stumpers (talk) I'm afraid this is nitpicking, but I'm usually all for that. What I'm thinking of is a page like Bow or another notable Boo. What should we put in the species section of the character infobox? If you have another word we should use instead of species, that would help.
Ninjayoshi Per Stumpers. Also, Boos are a species. Thirdly, if we change 'species' on any robot family and the like, we should change it to something like 'series'.
InfectedShroom (talk) - Per Stumpers. This seems a bit... Particular... about what we should add to our articles. Also, the Mario Bros. series is not the most scientific series (Being able to float in space? :O), so I think that this would not be necessary.
Pikax (talk) - "Species" is simple enough to understand and, like Stumpers said, this is nitpicking.
Blitzwing (talk) - Per Pikax and IS. Mario isn't exactly the most scientifically-correct out there.
Toadette 4evur (talk) Per all.
Walkazo (talk) - Per all.
The.Real.Izkat (talk)-A boo is a speices though. and i mean its really simple anyways. Per Blitzwing about the scientific thing.
reecer6 (talk) - Why would you take them out? they are a kind of species! all species, NO MATTER WHAT, goes in the species section.
Tykyle (talk) - Per all above, and a complete lack of evidence for them not being species. A dictionary is not enough when discussing a work of fiction.
Uniju :D (talk) - Although you might be correct that robots and such are not ACTUALLY a species by our standards in real life, I believe that any sentient beings should be treated equally(by that, I mean that the term "species" should be used to refer to living things, and you can't quite be sentient without being alive), and as you can clearly see just by playing a Mario game, EVERYTHING is sentient in Mario games. And not to start going even more off-topic, but sometime in the future human beings will most likely become beings of data that roam the intahrwebz and such, but I don't think we will stop being considered a species.

Comments

Definitions of species according to two credible dictionaries:According to Encarta World English Dictionary a species is ''a subdivision of a genus. . .containing individuals that resemble one another and that may interbreed'' And in Websters New Revised Dictionary of the English Language species is defined as ''A category of animals or plants. . .with the capacity of interbreeding only among themselves.'' I don't think MeowMaids fit any of that criteria. Goomb-omb (talk)

Stumpers, I think something along the lines of "Character Type" would be sufficient.Goomb-omb (talk)

Sorry I didn't respond to your comment sooner! That would be cool... I think there's a pretty clear concensus already, though... :( Stumpers (talk)

Ninjayoshi, the 12:02, 13 June 2008 (EDT) revision of the Boo article quotes Goombario's tattle for Igor thus: " ‘He probably was a merchant before he became a Boo,’ " and goes on to speculate that "Boos may be a species of ghosts [sic—ghosts cannot belong to a species] who were once living." It is therefore possible that Boos are ghosts, and so do not belong to a species. —Soler (talk)

Should have checked my sources, my bad.-Ninjayoshi

Actually, Soler's quote proves this proposal's wrong: clearly there can be species of ghosts in the Marioverse, or they (the writers) wouldn't've made that tattle. Besides, "Character Type" sounds more like when you say whether or not a player's a Power Character or a Technique Character, etc. in sports/kart racing titles. - Walkazo (talk)

Er... no, sorry, the quote does nothing of the kind. A ghost, in this context, is "the disembodied spirit of a dead person, supposed to haunt the living as a pale or shadowy vision; phantom." (Collins English Dictionary, third edition). Spirit, for the record, in this context means "the force or principle of life that animates the body of living things". As far as I know, "life forces/principles" can't breed, and according to BOTH of Goomb-omb's dictionaries, members of a species may interbreed. The article, not the tattle, used the word species, and thus contradicted itself: that's why I used "sic" (There is, however, still the possibility that Boos are not ghosts, but a ghost-like species that one can transform into in place of dying; however, in SM64DS, the message "Ghosts don't DIE!" sometimes appears after defeating a Boo, which would seemingly refute this argument.) Perhaps my first comment was ambiguous: I should've probably used single and double quotes on the first quotation, to show a "double quotation", and only used double on the second quote. I'll fix that now. —Soler (talk).

And about Mario not being scientific, that is completely irrelevant--this wiki should still strive be scientific. Isn't the goal to make an encyclopedic catalog of everything Mario? You can't accomplish that without being scientific, errors like this just make it look like the people who work on the wiki don't actually care enough to make sure that everything is correct (no offense to any one of course!!). Goomb-omb (talk)

Hear hear. —Soler (talk).

I object. Since when was a mushroom making Mario grow to double his size (or sometimes even bigger) scientific? Since when was a turtle flying in a cloud, holding a fishing rod and dropping spiked eggs scientific? Since when was racing on a giant pinball table scientific? The Mario Wiki already has plenty of material that isn't scientific, so changing "Species" to something like "Character Type" is going to make hardly any difference at all. Pikax (talk)

If you read what I wrote, I just said Mario not being scientific is irrelevant. As in, Mario isn't scientific. The goal of a wiki is provide a encyclopedic database, and to be encyclopedic one must scientific cataloging, such as dividing articles into categories, (which we do) and to use proper terminology (which we do not) Goomb-omb (talk)

Wait, you're saying that we should be scientific about something that isn't scientific? That's like saying we should make a rock solid flannel. Pikax (talk)

No, it isn't. "Scientific" here refers to a type of accuracy, and inaccuracy borders on giving misinformation. —Soler (talk)

About the Boo thing, there is multiple kind of Ghost. In a way, the Boos are a "species" of Ghost, uh. Blitzwing (talk)

The Boos would be a type/form/kind of ghost, rather than a species, unless the Marioverse had the (somewhat disturbing) distinction of allowing its ghosts to breed... —Soler (talk).

If this were a wiki about, oh say, Dora the Explorer, would we write about how Swiper the Fox is a kleptomaniac? I think you're looking at it a bit too hard..... - Ultimatetoad

If Swiper is a kleptomaniac, why not? —Soler (talk)

You said scientific meant a type of accuracy? Why not just use the word accurate to describe the situation in the first place? Pikax (talk)

I did. See my vote. Other people started using the word scientific. —Soler (talk).

O.K., lets look at in another way. The mario series exists in a different reality then the one we exist in. Who says the idea of a species in this fictional reality is the same as ours? A lot of fiction represent robots as a type of species: ghost's too, now that I think about it (anyone here read Bruce Coville?). One of OUR dictionaries does'nt have much impact: so the question is, have Boos/Machine-Mades/Meow-Maids ever been reffered to as a species in the Mario series? - Ultimatetoad

As of yet, no one here has provided evidence that the idea of a species in the Marioverse is any different to ours. Therefore I am assuming that the word "species" means the same thing in the Marioverse as it does on Earth. —Soler (talk)

As of yet no one here has provided evidence that the idea of a species in the Marioverse is the same as ours.

--Tykyle 17:13, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

One could just as easily say, "As of yet no one here has provided evidence that the idea of a mince pie in the Marioverse is the same as ours. Thererefore I propose that all the recipes in the Paper Mario series be classified as mince pies." —Soler (talk).

...Right... Anyway, just to clarify my earlier post, I thought the second quote was taken from the tattle, but your edited comment is much clearer and I now see that I was mistaken. - Walkazo (talk)

Well, the whole point of this was to increase accuracy and precision, which no one seems to care about excepting Soler and myself. I'm not going to start debating whether or not Mechakoopas are sapient beings, or whether or not Kingdom-Phylum-Class-Order-Family-Genus-Species exists in marioverse, because these are things we'll never know. I just wanted to make the terminology correct, but I guess I didn't realize that people felt so passionately about keeping such an insignificant thing the same.Goomb-omb (talk) Again, no offense and no hard feelings to anyone. :)

Write Articles in the Same Tense

no such rule 3-6
Here I go: I mean tense as in past, present, future. Now, I've been looking at quite a few character articles, but this also applies to game articles, in the Story sections. I've noticed that the older games and characters' articles seem to be written in past tense, as in "Mario then defeated Bowser and then went psycho" - but more recent games/characters (e.g. Rosalina, Super Mario Galaxy...) are in present tense, like "Mario defeats Bowser and returns peace to the kingdom." So, I think it makes sense to have them all in present tense, no matter how old the character/game is. It's all about consistency, if you ask me. This is my first proposal, so I've probably done it wrong and it might get deleted...oh well, I tried.

UPDATE: OK, I'll admit I kind of confused myself with what I wrote at first. OK, after reading the Comments and Oppositions...here's my change:

There should be a rule that determines how to write an article...such as a rule about how old the game/event/whatever is. Or the rule could be that certain Sections, such as Story or History, are always consistent for any article, but that same article may have the more appropriate tense in other sections. Does that make sense?

Proposer:Dom
Deadline: June 27, 2008, 20:00 EDT

Support

Blitzwing (talk) - Per Dom.
MegaMario9910 (talk) - Per Dom. It would cause confusion if an early game article had the past tense, while the new ones would have the present tense.
Cobold (talk) - all sections should be in the same time. But for flashbacks within a section, the past tense still should be used. (like explaining the preface of PM:TTYD in Peach's article)

Oppose

Ninjayoshi - No. Mario does have a timelime. In some games, they even reference back in the timeline.
Stumpers (talk) - Past tense always sounds better for a history section in an encyclopedia. Also, enforcing this will be very difficult if it is passed -- you've got about 800 pages that will need to be changed.
InfectedShroom (talk) Yeah, sorry for the vote change. Anyway, Past tense makes things flow more easily. IMO, we should do the lead in Present and the body in Past.
Per all. Toadette 4evur (talk)
Per all RedFire Mario (talk)
Walkazo (talk) - Per IS.

Comments

'Wouldn't this cause confusion' if Super Mario World and Super Mario World 2 were written as if they were happening at the same time?Ninjayoshi

Should this really be generalised for all? For the character bios I wrote, I wrote about story-relevant events in past tense, independent of how new the game is, since these events already passed. I have to agree with Ninjayoshi's demur. --Grandy02 12:11, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

Ninjayoshi: if you write both sections in the past tense, no, it won't. Stumpers (talk)

Hey, I forgot to say stuff about articles to do with future games or characters...maybe that should also be discussed? Dom (talk)

I'm confused about this proposal. Stumpers wrote in his support vote that past tense should be used for passed events, and I think the same. However, this proposal is about present tense in every case, isn't it? I'm for consistency, but not for present tense everytime. What is it all about now, really?? --Grandy02 07:44, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

That was my fault. I misread the proposal and though this was to make all tenses be consistent in each sub-section. Sorry about that. You're going to want to oppose if you want to be allowed to write in the past tense still. Stumpers (talk)

By the way, I'm really not sure how one would enforce this rule, even after you spend countless hours fixing each tense. I've done some tense fixing before, and let me tell you: its like rewriting the entire thing. It will probably take you one half the time that it took the contributor to write the original text. Let's think about this then: on the first part of the history section for Mario up to Super Mario Bros. 2 USA, it took me probably a total of five hours to write. That means that for one third of one third of one article, (one ninth of an article), you're gonna need roughly 2 hours. As the proposer, you and the other supporters are going to have to put this into effect. Do you really want to be in charge of changing all the past tenses into present and then changing every new edit by a user who doesn't know about this proposal? Stumpers (talk) 10:54, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

Make sure you read my UPDATE before any more comments. Dom (talk)

I meant that if they were both written in present tense, because I support writing in past tense.-Ninjayoshi

It doesn't take a long time to fix tenses with the ctrl+f function (find). Just type in ed, ing, etc. in the find window. Clay Mario (talk)

If only English were that simple! Take "is," one of the most common verbs. It's past tense is "was." Don't forget about "are" and "were," too. There are other verbs like that, too. "Run" vs. "ran," for example. The only way to do it right would be to go through line by line and fix it, although yours would work for an initial fix, I have to admit. Stumpers (talk)

Yo, CM, one more thing. My computer is limited just to finding things outside of the edit box. Which conveniently takes away that option for me and other Mac users. ;) InfectedShroom (talk)

You'd have to copy it into a word processor and use the find fuction, then, right? Stumpers (talk) 02:43, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm a Mac user and I made the Proposal...but I never thought of issues related to finding words to change. Dom (talk)

Just copy and paste the text from the edit box to Word and find it there. That's what I do whenever I have to find something on my cruddy 10-year-old Mac. (Convoluted workarounds/"shortcuts" are my specialty these days.) - Walkazo (talk)

Star Rod

split 20-0
The Star Rod article is currently about both the Star Rod that Bowser stole in Paper Mario and the item used in the Super Smash Bros. series that originated from the Kirby series. Should the article be split in two articles, or remain as one article about two subjects?

Proposer: Stumpers (talk)
Deadline: June 30, 2008, 17:00 EDT

Support (split article)

Stumpers (talk) - Historically, multiple subjects have only been on the same page if they are minor (Board (Super Mario Galaxy)) or they are very closely connected (Ashley & Red). The two Star Rods are neither: they are prominent subjects from different video game series. Each has its own distinct history. I have heard the arguement that the Paper Mario Star Rod is a reference to the Kirby Star Rod, but this arguement has no source behind it, official or otherwise. Even if it was a reference, I fail to see why the two should be merged. The Devolution Gun isn't merged with the Super Scope, for example, as both have significant, distinct roles in the Super Mario franchise.
MegaMario9910 (talk) - Both have had different roles, and are complete different things in the Marioverse. One SSB (which is also the same one from Kirby), and the one from Paper Mario. Per Stumpers.
MC Hammer Bro. (talk)-Good point. Both have different powers and different uses. And plus only one is used in SSB while the other isn't.
The.Real.Izkat (talk)-Per MegaMario9910 which inadvertatley means Per Stumpers.
InfectedShroom (talk) - Per Stupmers.
PeteyPiranhaLover (talk) - Per Stmpers.
Ninjayoshi - Per Stumpers.
Starry Parakarry (talk)- Per Stumpers. Shouldn't we have the MP 8 Star Rod included in the PM Star Rod article as well?
Dryest bowser (talk)- per stumpers
Reecer6 (talk)- I wasn't going to per stumpers 'till i saw his reason. so now: per stumpers
ItameMarioFan (talk) - Per Stumpers. Both have their own history, both differ with powers, etc.
luigi3000 (talk) - Per Stumpers.Stumpers has a good idea.
Mrsdaisyluigi (talk) - per Stumpers. two completley differnt things
Walkazo (talk) - Per all.
Mario321 (talk) - Two different things. There needs to be two different articles on each.
Glitchman (talk) - Why does nobody ever oppose proposals made by Stumpers? XD Per all.
Snack (talk) - Per Stumpers.
Dr. Hammer (talk) - Per all.
Dom (talk) - Yep, I say they should be split, they're much different.
1337Yoshi (talk) Different things, seperate articles. Per Stumpers.

Oppose (keep as one article)

Comments

We need to decide what we're going to do about the split if it happens. When someone types in "Star Rod," should it go to a disambiguation page or to the Paper Mario Star Rod? I'm inclined to think the latter. If we do that, the Paper Mario Star Rod can be left on the "Star Rod" page and the Kirby Star Rod can go to "Star Rod (item)" Sound good? Stumpers (talk)

There was a comment about a Star Rod from Mario Party 8. For now, the above proposal would only split out the Kirby Star Rod. If it would better the article to have it removed, a follow-up proposal splitting the article further is in order. We'll have to see. ~Stumpers (talk)

In that case, "Star Rod" should lead to the Paper Mario Star Rod page, with that little notice at the top giving you the option of going to a different Star Rod page ("Star Rod (SSB)", perhaps). - Walkazo (talk)

You know what, since there's three Star Rods, maybe we should make a Star Rod redirect to Star Rod (disambiguation) and then have it go to Star Rod (PM), Star Rod (MP8), and Star Rod (SSB). Sound good? Stumpers (talk)

Yep. - Walkazo (talk)

The Notability Standard

new notability standard 10-0
To quote one of the standards for a Featured Article as established by MarioWiki:Featured articles, to become an FA an article must, "…be notable and have significant content – some complete articles like Spiny Shroopa do not have enough information to become FAs." On a number of Featured Article Nominations, including Smithy and Alien (Club Nintendo), the nomination has been questioned on the basis of this rule. If a single user feels that a subject is too minor, he or she can stop the nomination in its tracks by casting an oppose vote. In my opinion, the quoted standard leaves too much up to opinion of a small group of users and defeats the purpose of an oppose vote. The point of an oppose vote is to help the supporters to make improvements on the article (as established by MarioWiki:Featured Articles). The supporters cannot make a subject more notable. In addition, the rule may hinders desire to edit an article about a minor topic. However, I do appreciate the need for a featured article to be longer than Spiny Shroopa if the Wiki is to look established and appealing to new editors and casual readers. Therefore, I propose that we replace the above condition with the following: to become an FA, an article must have at least 4,000 characters (letters, spaces, etc.) not including templates, categories, quotes, images, and "official profiles and statistics" sections. Text in an image thumbnail is included. Examples of articles that just make this limit are Baby Daisy and Booster. I am currently open to increasing the minimum character limit or removing non-breaking spaces (the ones the spacebar puts in) from that limit; please discuss. Microsoft Word includes a statistic feature that allows a user to easily find the character count with and without spaces.

Proposer: Stumpers (talk)
Deadline: June 30, 2008, 17:00 EDT

Support (replace standard)

Stumpers (talk) - See proposal. This proposal would limit the amount of pointless discussion without allowing short articles to hinder the appearance of the Wiki further.
Ultimatetoad This is a good Idea. Having a length requirement sort of ensures that the chracter is "important", without allowing arguments over chracters that only appeared in one game.
InfectedShroom (talk) - Great idea. Per Stumpers.
Soler (talk) —Having a definite standard would in all probability speed up the process and avoid petty disputes. Great idea.
Ninjayoshi - Yeah, some pointless articles have been nominated. Per Stumpers.
Cobold (talk) - Sounds like the best solution, no more fights on what's important enough and what not.
Starry Parakarry (talk)-Pretty good idea! I like it, a lot actually! Per Stumpers!
Walkazo (talk) - Per all.
Clay Mario (talk) - Per Stumpers.
P. Trainer (talk) Per all.

Oppose (maintain standard)

Comments

Not a bad idea. However, do you have plans to do a Byte limit as well? That would wear it down to an even finer point. I dunno, just a suggestion. Thought I'd throw it out there. :P InfectedShroom (talk)

Do you know how you find the byte count for the articles? If so that might work better. Stumpers (talk)

Yeah, just go into the history and it's right in the last edit message: (cur) (last) 11:18, 24 June 2008 Ninjayoshi (Talk | contribs) (18,397 bytes). ;) InfectedShroom (talk)

Awesome. Let me experiment with that a bit and see if it's a better alternative. I really like that we can check that on-website, but I'm worried about users adding lots of quotes or screenshots to make an article meet the requirement. Stumpers (talk)

Bytes could be difficult to determine. I'd go with a bottom limit of 4000 characters, including spaces. Cobold (talk)

Okay, I'll keep the proposal as it is, then. Thanks for the support, everyone. Stumpers (talk)

Allow cameo appearences to be documented in character articles

add cameo appearances to character articles 14-0
The Cameo page currently includes numerous examples of purposeful Mario appearences by Nintendo. These incude his appearences in those sports games )can't remember the names) Mike Tyson's Punch-Out Kirby Superstar, etc. I propose that we incorporate these "official" cameo's into the main characters article, as a way to include more info.

Proposer: Ultimatetoad
Deadline: July 1, 2008, 17:00 EDT

Support

Ultimatetoadper above
Blitzwing (talk) - Per Above (Ahahaha).
Stumpers (talk) - We do the same for Nintendo cameos within Mario/Donkey Kong/Yoshi games (see Link or Sonic), so why not? Would this also include the official crossovers NBA Street V3, SSX on Tour, and Itadiki Street DS? I suppose it should since we already include Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games.
Cobold (talk) per all of them.
Ninjayoshi (talk) - Vote Change. Yeah, after reading Stumpers' vote, it makes sense. Per all, and I agree with Blitzwing in the comments.
Dryest bowser (talk) - per all
Glitchman (talk) - I think this would be a good idea for minor characters like Stanley the Bugman, Donkey Kong Jr., ect., but characters like Mario, Luigi, and Peach already have sooooo many appearances, why bother? So in short, no for major characters, yes for minor ones.
MelissaMarioSister (talk) - Per Ultimatetoad and Stumpers. In response to Glitchman: yes, the main characters have many appearances, but this is a reference site. I think the goal here is to be as complete as possible.
Iron Maiden (talk) - Great idea. Per all.
P. Trainer (talk) Per all
Tucayo (talk) Per all, its a great idea for having more information.
Ambo100 (talk) I support, Infomation should be displayed like that.
1337Yoshi (talk) Per all.
Walkazo (talk) - Per all.

Oppose

Comments

I dunno. If we listed every time Mario has been seen/mentioned in a tv show, the page would be (even more) horribly long. --Blitzwing 12:41, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

I am not suggesting that we mention every Mention, or even every appearence. For instance several series feature characters who dress in a style similar to Mario: these can be left out of the article. However, when Mario (or any other character, for that matter) makes a full-fledged appearence and has an actual role in an episode, it should be mentioned. - Ultimatetoad

Maybe we should cover official cameos on that page and leave unoffical ones out? It would keep it short. Stumpers (talk)

Hmmmmm..... what would classify as an official cameo? - Ultimatetoad

Indeed, what's an official cameo? One put into a non-Mario game by Nintendo themselves? One Nintendo gave permission to? (those sports games for the GameCube with Mario, Luigi and Peach in it). - Cobold (talk) 13:31, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

That was what I was thinking. Thanks for defining it! Stumpers (talk)

Ultimatetoad, please always add a reason to your votes, even if you're the proposer. Time Q (talk)

But I don't wanna - Ultimatetoad

As much as I'm all in favor of forcing voters to give their reasons, this is ridiculous. Blitzwing (talk)

Not really, it could prevent users from seeing the "unreasoned" vote and thinking "Oh hey, there's someone who doesn't give a reason, so I don't have to either". It's like the "Per [insert user]" thing, almost everyone uses it now, most of them just copying what other users do. Time Q (talk)

I was just joking. I dit put a reason, even if it is just : please refer above (ok, so maybe it's just "above, you know what it means.

I think that Stumpers had a good idea: non-mario games which Mario appears in (and games which are made by nintendo) should be incorporated into the character page. Everything else can stay on Cameo. I will change my proposal to reflect this. - Ultimatetoad

Currently, NBA V3 and SSX on Tour (I believe those are the names) are both on the Game Sightings page. Stumpers (talk) 09:22, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

erm, well, thos are "official" sightings too, so they should probably be moved.... I mean, we have articles for the games. don't we? - Ultimatetoad

At one time we did, which is probably what you were remembering. With the introduction of the game sightings article, someone merged them. I'd be for separating them, though. Stumpers (talk)

Since discerning official and unofficial cameos is gonna get hairy, why not just include a short, concise list of all the cameos on the page, minus generic allusions to the character by non-Nintendo/video game sources (as Ultimatetoad mentioned earlier). The list would be something like this:

Tennis - Mario is the referee.
Banjo-Kazooie - Mario is mentioned by someone (can't remembr who).
Pokémon Red/Blue/Yellow/Fire Red/Leaf Green - Mario and Wario is depicted on a TV.

Admittedly for Mario it's basically a streamlined version of Cameo, but for the other characters it'd be more original and usefull. - Walkazo (talk)

Well:

Any appearence/mention on a game for a NINTENDO CONSOLE will be in the main character article. These include everything Walkazo just said as well as the ones listed at the top and... some other ones.

Any appearence/mention on a non-nintendo console, show, movie, etc., will stay on the cameo page.

Obviously I'm excluding games or shows where Mario is a main character, like Hotel Mario & the SMBSS. - Ultimatetoad

Of course: those are in the actual Appearance sections. - Walkazo (talk)

Merge Mario's clothing

no merge 1-7
So I've been looking around the wiki, and I recently noticed that there are articles of each piece of Mario's clothing (excluding his overalls). I find this a bit odd. They aren't very notable in any way. So I think we should merge each piece into one article. It would be named something like "Mario's clothing" or "List of Mario's clothing" or something to that effect. Opinions?

Proposer:huntercrunch
Deadline: July 3, 2008, 17:00 EDT

Support

huntercrunch (talk) - I am the proposer and I give my reasons above.

Oppose

Time Q (talk): Per Stumpers in the comments. Mario's Hat should have its own article. His gloves and shoes also seem to play a more or less important role, according to the respective articles.
Ninjayoshi - Per Stumpers and Time Q. Also, the hat has been in every single Mario game. Ex. his overalls were changed around in the beginning
InfectedShroom (talk) - Per Time. The gloves and shoes are rather important in Luigi's Mansion.
Glitchman (talk) - Mario's Hat, Shoes, and Glove all have an important role in Luigi's Mansion, plus the hat also has an important role in Super Mario 64. Keep them how they are.
1337Yoshi (talk) Mario's hat is the only one that really plays a significant role in multiple games (Super Mario 64, Super Mario Sunshine, Luigi's Mansion, etc.), so at least that deserves an article. The others seem to be more or less secondary, and could be merged into one article.
Walkazo (talk) - Per Stumpers (below) and everyone else who agreed with him, including 1337.
Mumbles (talk) Per everyone.

Comments

Just so that people can judge better, the articles are: Mario's Hat, Mario's Glove, Mario's Shoe, Mario's Shirt, Mario's Overalls, and, if you consider it, Mario's Star. I would agree with you on the glove, shoes, shirt, and overalls. We did the same with Pauline's Items. However, the hat is what's getting to me. That has played an important role in the series and is apparently the secret to Mario's power (see Super Mario 64). Stumpers (talk)

I think his shoes and gloves should be merged. -Ninjayoshi

I agree with Stumpers. After this proposal dies we should have another one to merge everything but Mario's Hat (since it's too late to alter this one). - Walkazo (talk)

Will do. Stumpers (talk)

Dom (talk) Insignificant items like his gloves and er, shoes, should be merged, but stuff like his hat and main clothes are quite deserving of their own articles. There are articles about MUCH less significant things on this Wiki...

Fire and Ice Templates

change templates 12-0
As I said on the Fire talk page, too many things use fire (or ice) for these templates to be practical. Instead, I propose we alter these templates so that they only include things made of, or irrefutably linked to fire/ice. This is a better design because readers could then research creatures of fire or ice with as much ease as if they were using the Bird or Fish Templates to research those kinds of beings, instead of getting bogged down with species that only use fire or ice. For example, if someone wants to research Birds, anything else in the Bird Template that flies but isn't a bird would slow them down; however a misfile like this would be obvious as a bird is a clearly defined animal, while what can be considered appropriately placed under "Fire" and "Ice" is much more subjective. As such, I'm open to suggestions on what should or shouldn't be removed, my first attempt (complete with justifications for my choices) can be seen alongside the original templates here; as are newer split-template versions of Fire and Ice suggested by Soler below, which are now the designs I plan to put into effect if this proposal passes.

Proposer:Walkazo
Deadline: July 9, 2008, 17:00 EDT

Support

Walkazo (talk) - My reasons above.
Pikax (talk) - I have seen what Walkazo plans to separate from the templates and why she wants to separate those things, and I have no objections to her plan.
Dryest bowser (talk)-per all
The Writing Guy (talk) - Per Walkazo.
ParaBob-omb (talk)- Per all.
Dom (talk) - Per the above users who are crushing my writing here with their heavy words. I say Soler's comment below which includes his 2 split templates is a perfect solution, that should be used instead of what currently exists.
MegaMario9910 (talk) - Per Walkazo and Soler's comment.
Mrsdaisyluigi (talk) - Per all
Tucayo (talk) - Per Walkazo. They should be separated, its OK for characters like bowser to be removed, because the fact they spit fire doesnt make him a fire creature.
Stooben Rooben (talk) - Per Walkazo, the Proposal-Genius. 23:18, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
Soler (talk): per all.
Pokemon DP (talk) Per Walkazo.

Oppose

Comments

How about something like this for the Fire template, and something similar for the Ice? I tried to simulate Walkazo's formatting as best as I could: feel free to fix the formatting. I feel that this would serve both people with Walkazo's view of the term and those with a broader view of it. If the show/hide feature is unnecessary, please remove it. Another option would be to split the templates in two. —Soler (talk). (I am going on holidays on Sunday, so please excuse me if I do not reply to your unrelenting criticism...)

Dom (talk) - Hey, the User called Soler made these templates about fire! Get it? Solar...fire? Ha ha...........???

On a serious note: Soler's split templates are a brilliant idea, better than the all-in-one oversized template.

Yeah, I definately like that idea, too! Awesome work, Soler! Stumpers (talk)

Oh, thanks! Does anyone think that two Ice and two Fire templates would be better than the above idea of a "double template"? (I myself think that the double one would be easier for navigation.) —Soler (talk).

I prefer the double one, and I've taken your example and refined new split-templates for both Fire and Ice which I've put up here with the earlier versions. As I said in the added last line of the Proposal, I'd rather go with them than my earler attempts. Nice going! - Walkazo (talk)

Repeated Info, Pointless Pages?

remove individual smash info on the final smash page 13-0
If you look at the Final Smash page, you'll see that each one is listed in a table, along with a fairly large amount of info about it. Each one has a link to the page that is specifically about that particular Final Smash (e.g. the Aura Storm has its own page, etc). I've read these individual separate pages, and their info is practically the same as what it says on the main Final Smash page. So, are these small pages kind of pointless? In fact, some of the descriptions on the FS page are more detailed than on the page they link to, as they contain info about damage percentages and stuff.

I think either one of these options should be considered: We either remove all the individual FS pages (as in End of Day, Mario Finale, etc) and make the info in the table of Final Smash page more detailed...

OR we only include very small amounts of info on the main Final Smash page, so that it's actually worth having the linked pages.

Proposer: Dom
Deadline: July 13, 2008, 15:00 EDT

Support

Dom (talk) - I'm thinking my second option is the better one, after reading Pokemon DP's comment. In other words, I'm kind of supporting myself.
Freekhenstra (talk) - See my comment
MegaMario9910 (talk) - Per Dom and Freekhenstra
Pikax (talk) - Per Freekhenstra
Tucayo (talk) - I support the idea of erasing the individula pages, it's better to have them in a unique, more complete page
Glitchman (talk) - See my comment below.
ItameMarioFan (talk) - Yes. The pages have the same description as on the Final Smash page. Only thing new is the throphies. Per Dom and Glitchman (comment below).
Luigi001 (talk) Per Dom and Pokemon DP. Expanding the individual pages would make much more sense than getting rid of them all.
Walkazo (talk) - I guess something's better than nothing.
Toadette 4evur (talk) Per DP.
Yowuza (talk) Yeah, this isn't the SmashWiki, this is the Super Mario Wiki.
Sonic64 (talk) Per DP
Luigi3000 (talk)Per 4Evar

Oppose

Comments

If the moves have articles, Final Smashes should have them too. The Final Smash article has too many details, Aura Storm for example. It can be shortened to just: "Lucario jumps high above the stage, then fires a beam of Aura, that the player can guide across the stage to devastate his opponents". The Final Smash article should have descriptions like that, while the article of the Final Smash itself could have the details. Freekhenstra (talk)

That sounds good in theory, but I'm going to respectfully disagree. While the idea of getting rid of information on the main page to make all of the pages incomplete would definitely lead to more proposals down the road, I do agree that we should get rid of all the off-shoot pages and have all of the final smashes on one big, complete page. Each of the final smashes would just have to redirect to that page. Glitchman (talk)

Uhh, I don't get what the proposal is saying, what are we supporting? I'm confused. Toadette 4evur (talk)

Same, it's not really clear whether we're deleting the list or the articles, as it is now, "Support" is just saying we do something. Anyway, I support Glitchman's idea, for all the reasons listed above as well as the fact that the Final Smash articles could be turned into redirects, wheras the list would be harder to deal with. However, if memory serves, a similar proposal was shot down a couple months/weeks ago, on the basis of Freekhanstr'a point that moves have articles too, and they're more minor than FSs. I say the moves and the Final Smashes should be nixed, though sadly I don't think that will fly. - Walkazo (talk)

I actually have to say, asking for all the respective pages to be deleted was the dumbest thing I ever heard. If we do that, we might as well delete all the special move articles, which would be of less importance than the Final Smashes. Regardless, I agree that the information on the Final Smash article is overboard. But do not touch the individual articles; ONLY the Final Smash article. Pokemon DP (talk)

Note to Toadette 4evur: I guess the support means that you agree that some information should be moved/merged to or from the main FS page and the individual pages. That sounds a bit vague, I know. Dom (talk)

Note to Pokemon DP: I hope you weren't calling me dumb... I'll admit it would be a bit harsh to delete all those articles, but that's why I mentioned 2 options. And I'm leaning towards the second one, the one you agreed was more appropriate. Dom (talk)

But even considering to delete those articles as an option wasn't very wise... Well, whatever. I'm still all for shortening the (supposedly) brief descriptions on the Final Smash article. Pokemon DP (talk)

What option do you vote for when supporting? I am for individual articles and less information on the Final Smash page. - Cobold (talk) 10:41, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Note to Cobold: - Since my comments to 2 other users, I guess I've kind of confirmed that the Support means what you agreed to - less info on Final Smash page. Dom (talk)

Paper Luigi

no separate article 1-5
It is pretty hard to find all of the data from Luigi's quest from The Thousand-Year Door, on this wiki. So I propose that we merge all the articles that have to do with luigi's quest in the waffle kingdom, into one single article. that way, if someone needs to look it up, they can easily find it. (I know that this is a pretty short proposal)

Proposer: Dryest bowser
Deadline: July 17, 2008, 17:00 EDT

Support

Dryest bowser- per myself

Oppose

Walkazo (talk) - See below.
Pokemon DP (talk) - I couldn't - And still cannot - make any sense out of what Dryest Bowser hopes to accomplish. So... Per Walkazo.
Luigi3000 (talk)Per DP and Walkazo!
MegaMario9910 (talk) - Per all.
Glitchman (talk) Why would you want to merge stuff Luigi's done into an entirely separate article?

Comments

I don't get this Proposal at all. Pokemon DP (talk)

Neither do I. I dont think weshould do it cus it is fine as is.Luigi3000 (talk)

Dryest bowser (talk) I just want to make a single article for luigi's story in paper mario the thousand year door. it will make the wiki more organized. and we can stop having extremly short articless for all of the ccharacters and places

As in this? If not, kindly provide a link to the pages you are talking about. - Walkazo (talk)

Dryest bowser (talk) I mean articles like jerry,Hizza and torque. these articles are kind of minor,and It would be easier to merge them

They're characters, and all characters get their own articles unless they're carbon copies of each other like the Boards, or if they're always found together and do nothing significant individually, like Ashley and Red and Kat and Ana. The only one you can argue over is Hizza, since his article's a stub; and because he wasn't encountered by the player, meaning he could be considered an implied character and can therefore be relegated to the List of Implied Characters, or converted into a redirect to Plumpbelly Village. However, neither of those options is what you want for this proposal; what you're asking just isn't feasible, sorry. - Walkazo (talk)

Dryest bowser- ok, that's ok, let's do that, all the characters like hizza,crepe, and even princess eclair should be merged with the implied characters

Merlon

merge 5-4
There are two Merlon articles, one for Paper Mario and PM:TTYD, and another one for Super Paper Mario. This is useless because all 3 Merlons are from the same series and serve similar purposes. That way Merlon would be easier to look up and easier to maintain.

Proposer: StarYoshi1
Deadline: July 21, 2008, 17:00 EDT

Support

StarYoshi1-per myself
Sonic64-Per SY1. Plus, they all have the same name, they're all shamans, and they all have mustaches. EDIT: If they aren't merged, then split the original one to Merlon and Merlon (Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door).
Booster -- Even if they aren't the same character, they're all too similar to require seperate articles. At least mention that they may not all be the same character near the top of their page or something.
Glitchman (talk) - Per all.
Per All. -Canama

Oppose

Walkazo (talk) - The Merlon from SPM and PM/PM:TTYD are totally different. The SPM one never acknowledges that he met Mario before; he also lives in another dimension and had to send Tippi to find Mario, meaning he probably hasn't been there himself, etc.
GinnyN (talk) - Per Walkazo. Appart, the Merlon from PM is different from the Merlon of PM:TTYD. The 3 are different characters who are called the same for some reasons. There's somewhere in this Wiki which appears that Carlson, from PM:TTYD, explain, that a Clan which name the members depending of his Job. If my memory does not fail, that's explain why they are different characters.
Stumpers (talk) - If we separated the Star Rods, we can certainly separate three much more major topics.
Pikax (talk) - Since the three Merlons are all clearly different characters, I suggest that they all have their own articles rather than being merged into one or, as the case is right now, two.

Comments

Pikax (talk) - This is from the Merlon (Super Paper Mario) article: "Similar to the Merlon in Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door, this may be a different Merlon." Plus, contrary to what StarYoshi has said, the three Merlons do not all serve the same purpose. Also, Sonic64, the similarities you have listed are pretty much all of the similarities between the Merlons. It looks to me like someone has either had the idea of splitting all three Merlons into separate articles or merging them all into one article, but only done half the job. Unfortunately, I don't know which it is, which is why I'm not voting on this proposal.

Grandy02 (talk) - If this proposal succeeds, the articles for Merlee should be merged as well.

StarYoshi1 (talk) - No. The Merlees are distinct characters and serve totally different roles from each other. The Merlee articles should not be merged.

Pikax (talk) - It says in the Merlon (Super Paper Mario) article that he may be a different Merlon to the other two and it says in the other Merlon article that the PM:TTYD Merlon might be a different one to the PM one. Therefore, the Merlons could be as different as the Merlees.

The second paragraph here supports the theory that they're all different (it's what GinnyN was referencing, I believe). Of course, this means the Merlon (Paper Mario, Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door) article needs to be split, as does Merluvlee. Though all that might require another proposal, assuming that this one doesn't pass. - Walkazo (talk)

Signature Image Height Restriction

change maximum image height to 35 pixels 5-0
This is mostly a clarification of a certain rule on the Mario Wiki. Here, it says that an image in a signature can be no taller than 20 pixels. Here, it says that your signature must fit in a 225x35-pixel space. In a discussion I had with Time Q, he said that there are many users with images taller than 20 pixels and that he was unaware of the 20-pixel-height rule until I pointed it out to him. Therefore, I propose that the 20-pixel-height rule be changed to 35 pixels to match the height of the Sigbox.

Proposer: Pikax
Deadline: July 22, 2008, 17:00 EDT

Support (change maximum image height to 35 pixels)

Pikax (talk) - As it is, there are a lot of people who have images taller than 20 pixels and if an image is 35 pixels tall, the signature as a whole will still fit in the Sigbox.
Time Q (talk): As above, it is hard to find any user who has an image in his/her signature and who doesn't break this rule. I think it didn't hurt anyone in the past, and it won't in the future. The only other possible solutions: 1) To enforce this rule, which would affect many users (and to me, personally, the image in this sig doesn't seem too tall, even if it breaks the rule). 2) To keep the rule, but accept taller images tacitly, which is obviously bad. Neither of these two options seem attractive to me, so I vote for easing the limit.
Sonic64 (talk): Per all.
Glitchman (talk): Per all.
Walkazo (talk) - Per all.

Oppose (leave it as 20 pixels)

Comments

On a different note, can someone explain why the Comments header wasn't being properly formatted until I put this comment in? Pikax (talk)

That always happens with the last line of the page. Just put &nsbp ; in it to make it work next time. - Cobold (talk)

Time Q: Third option - Do away with sig images altogether and make plain text the norm. That would certainly solve the problem AND reduce overall lag on the site. -- Ghost Jam (talk)

True. I certainly would support that, but I guess the majority wouldn't. Time Q (talk)

Is my signature too big? Check here. If it is, then I would have to say the restrictions are slightly too harsh, and should allow just a tiny bit of extra sig space. Dom (talk)

It's definitely too wide and I think, even if the height rule were changed to 35 pixels, it'd still be too tall. Pikax (talk)

I just checked it and your sig is 340x58 pixels, which is definitely too big. Pikax (talk)

I replied on your talk page. Time Q (talk)

Could you check if my signature is too big? Please check here. Mateus 23 (talk)

Under current rules, it is too big. If my proposal passes, however, it won't be. Pikax (talk)

No requests to check your sigs here please. Ask other users on their talk pages instead. Time Q (talk)

Actually, MarioWiki:Signatures says "A small image may be used, limited to 35 pixels in height." If MarioWiki:Personal images says someething different, that's an inconsistency. CrystalYoshi (talk)

This proposal is mostly about sorting out this inconsistency. Pikax (talk)

Multi-Appearing Mario Kart Track Pages

use new page layout 13-3
Since it was unanimous to keep tracks with multiple appearances in Mario Kart games merged, I added an info box to each version of the track to keep things less cluttered. I was planning on including a gallery with several screen shots and artwork (if any) in a gallery at the end of the section pertaining to the game's version of the track. Coincollector seems to disagree. He feels that every version of the track should be squished into one info box. This is how the page is currently set up. With screenshots cluttered around left and right. If you look at my version, everything was a bit more organized in my opinion. My version is also not complete, as it was cut off before I could finish it. The finished version would still be filled out a bit more. However, I think it still illustrates the idea. Coincollector and myself both believe in our versions, so I wanted to hear some opinions on this.

Proposer: Mario Gamer
Deadline: July 22, 2008, 17:00 EDT

Support

Mario Gamer- In my opinion the less cluttered, more easily identifiable version is better.
Starry Parakarry (talk) - I'm gonna go with Mario Gamer on this one. It's nice, neat, and I think because all of the pictures are there, it really looks bright, colorful, and it looks like effort was put into it to make it a great article, instead of just slapping an obvious picture of the course on.
If tracks with the same name are all going to be on one page, at least differentiate them a bit. -- Booster
Pikax (talk) - Much better than when I first looked at it. Now I have nothing against the new design.
Mateus 23 (talk) - Per all. I think the new version is more organized than the other one.
Bob-omb buddy (talk) - Multiple info boxes mean more facts can be put in on for each game.
Per all. Canama
Glitchman (talk) - Per all.
Iceyoshi Yeah, I think it looks organized. Also, it gets annoying when screenshots are place left and right with the info.
P. Trainer (talk) Per all
huntercrunch (talk) Per MG. It looks a lot cleaner and organized.
GinnyN (talk) I love it ^^!, per all
User:DaWeegeeMan It's really organized and you wouldnt have to keep changing pages it just seems more convinent.

Oppose

Coincollector - My revision, obviously. However, if my proposal does not win, I'll try to make some changes on Gamer's page.
King Mario (talk) - Per Coincollector
Mrsdaisyluigi (talk) - Per All.

Comments

Mario Gamer (talk) - Just letting Pikax know I updated my version to a more complete version to portray what a more final version of mine would look like.

Coincollector (talk) - Although you version is getting good right now, the article still have the problem with the infoboxes. As I told you, a information box must contain general info, but it seems you put some of specific elements for each racecourse, something that other courses don't have while comparing each other. Then, it's better put these elements in the text instead of putting in an infobox, because don't do it would reduce the importance of reading the text. By the other hand, why the Mario Kart DS section lacks of an infobox?

Mario Gamer (talk) - The way I divided them was by each "version" of the track. That way if a person is looking for say, if Wifi is playable on the GBA version of Luigi's Circuit in MKDS it's right there. Or if someone wants to know what cup the Wii version of Luigi Circuit is, it's right there, they don't have to go searching through text. I'm not sure why an info box can't be specific, and the reason other courses don't have them is because you stopped me before I could do them all. I didn't add a info box to Mario Kart DS because there is no new circuit on there. I did leave info explaining that while there was no new one, two did reappear and info can be found in the respective boxes. Let's look at it this way. A Goomba has a different info box for each of it's appearances in a Paper Mario game. What makes that different from a race course? The information changes each time.

Coincollector (talk) I was thinking that the reappearances section must be abolished, because the reappearance can be set in the "appearances" section as well - An option nothing special. Aditionally, The Goomba article shows many paper-mario infoboxes, because there are differents templates to use for each game.

Mario Gamer (talk) - To be fair the layout changes depending on the Mario Kart game as well. Some have WiFi while others list the distance in the box. But what your talking about is merging all of the versions into one big info box. Why not do that on the Goomba? It'd be just as easy.

Pikax (talk) - the biggest problem with your version, Mario Gamer, is that the images appear rather staggered.

c- Could you tell me what you mean by staggered?

Pikax (talk) - If you look at the Super Circuit gallery, it overlaps the info box. In fact, I really think that the galleries for all of them ought to be centered rather than left aligned. Also, why are we numbering our comments?

Mario Gamer (talk) - I don't see any overlapping what so ever. I see what the gallery goes slightly past the bottom of the info box like this, but I don't see any overlapping. Is this what you're talking about? If not take a picture for me and I'll try to look over it. As for the numbers, they just got added, ignore them or take them off I don't care.

Here's what Pikax sees.

Mario Gamer (talk) - Well I think that is a problem with your browser or resolution, not the layout. I don't know of a way to fix that problem since it doesn't occur to me.

Coincollector (talk) - For Pikax, the only solution is putting all the screenshots in a gallery, near the bottom of the article, as usually galleries of articles appear. the second solution would be to use the {{br}} between text and the gallery to move the gallery that overlaps the table. Now, respecting to the templates, It would not be a problem to me to make templates, although I should do that and see how it results.

Mario Gamer (talk) - The page already had those <br> tags set up. I edited it slightly to see if I could fix the problem, but again it doesn't happen on any of the three computers I've viewed it with. Let me know if this solves it Pikax.

Pikax (talk) - Never mind, I've sorted it out.

Pikax (talk) - Argh! The edits I made changed the wrong version! Anyway, Mario Gamer, just stick those {{br}} tags before and after all of the galleries and the problem will be solved.

Mario Gamer (talk) - I don't mean to sound rude here Coincollector, but what is the point of this proposal if you're just going to be changing the layout later? I think the layout should stay as the people vote on it.

Mateus 23 (talk) - You're right, Mario Gamer. We should respect the votes, even if our proposal loses.

Coincollector (talk) - It seems you misunderstood. I'll make some (minor) edits in the article. I never said I'm going to alter or cut your work off or so... For example, the tables - I've already made a template for the racecourses.

Mario Gamer (talk) - Then I apologize, I just read it as you were going to change my article anyway. I do not mean to keep you from improving the page.

While I approve of splitting up the article and using templates for each game, all the image galleries make the article seem a bit too spaceous. IMO, using Coincollector's Racecourse templates for each section and then having one big gallery at the bottom would be the best thing for the article (organization and aesthetics). - Walkazo (talk)

Coincollector (talk) - It seems better in that way, I agree for Walkazo.

Mario Gamer (talk) - No. Then we'd have to also say which game the shot came from in the description which would just get repetitive. I put them under the info on purpose and if you don't like that, vote against it.

Not any more repetative than some of the captions in your example: "The icon from the menu" is used at least twise (three times if you include "The icons from the menu" for MKDS). With the gallery, similar images could be put side-by-side to show how the games differ, i.e. "The long turns on the ends of the MK64 course" next to "Yoshi and DK going around a curve in MK:DD" and "DK and Luigi going around the first turn in MKWii", to show the differences in the curves. That's much more helpfull than some of the individual galleries set up in the example, like the nearly identical images captioned "Luigi racing on the MK:DD port" and "Bowser racing on the MK:DD port" in the aforementioned MKDS section. Anyway, I'm not voting against this proposal because I want to see the articles split, but I might make another proposal about the seperate galleries in the future. - Walkazo (talk)

Mario Gamer (talk) - Okay, maybe repetitive was a bad word choice. My point is if I was looking at an article on Mario Kart 64's Luigi Circuit and I wanted to see some pictures I'd rather have them right there. Not fishing through a big gallery on the bottom. I think it looks loads more organized and I just don't see what having one big gallery offers to having several. The only argument I see is that it's too spacious. In that case I really don't know what to tell you if you can't scroll a few more inches. It's not written in stone anywhere that there has to be one gallery, nor should it be. It simply looks better and more organized as several. When I click a track I want all my info right there. Not spread out over a big page.

Both ways have their own advantages and disadvantages, there's no denying it. You think it's better your way, and I think it's better my way; but we need everyone else's opinions on the matter to get anywhere, so another vote's the only real solution. Anyway, these last couple comments were added after this proposal passed, so they're not gonna get archived, but I thought I'd speak up now anyway. - Walkazo (talk)

Legendary Dogs

keep as it is 2-5-9
Alright, when I was doing some infoboxes on some articles, one was the Entei article. When I tryed typing Suicune down, the article wasn't created. I tried Raikou, also, and there was no page. I don't see why we have an Entei article when there's not a Suicune and/or Raikou article. I'm proposing that we either: delete the Entei article; create the Suicune and Raikou article; or keep the Entei article and don't create the Suicune and Raikou article. For those who don't know who these three are and why Suicune and Raikou should have articles: is because that they are the three legendaries from the Pokemon games (ie. Zapdos, Moltres, and Articuno), so having one legendary dog without the other two is pointless. So, which option?

Proposer: MegaMario9910 (talk)
Deadline: July 27, 2008, 15:00 EDT

Create Raikou and Suicune Article

MegaMario9910 (talk) - Its best to create the article, since they've appeared in the same games that Entei has.
per Megamario9910 a.k.a weird guy. Mrsdaisyluigi (talk)

Delete Entei Article

Sonic64 (talk)-All non-playable Pokemon should be in the Pokemon article. Thet's what it's for.
Glitchman (talk) Per Sonic64.
DaWeegeeMan (talk) Per Sonic64
Blitzwing (talk) Per Sonic64.
Mateus 23 (talk) Per Sonic64.

Keep as it is

Stumpers (talk) None of the Pokemon are given articles unless they played a large role in Smash Bros, such as being a trophy stage.
Walkazo (talk) - Per Stumpers (and Grandy02 below).
Pikax (talk) - Per Walkazo.
Cobold (talk) - It has been pointed out at several occasions that Entei only has an article because he is a stage.
Pokemon DP (talk) - ...Um, why would you even want to create an article on Raikou and Suicune? To be honest, this Proposal seemed to lack logic. But enough of me insulting MegaMario, Entei has an article because it's an Event Match stage in Melee. Hence, it deserves an article.
Luigi3000 (talk) Per Stumpers mi little freind.
Dom (talk) - Per most of the people in this section - Suicune and Raikou don't have important enough roles to deserve their own page, they can be on the Pokemon page with Goldeen and other crap Pokemans. Sorry, MM9910 (or Palkia47?)!
Jdrowlands (talk) - Per all, especially Stumpers.
Stooben Rooben (talk) - Per the geniuses above me. 14:10, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Comments

As far as I know, there's an article for Entei because the Entei trophy is a stage in an event in Melee. That's the only reason, if there were no Entei stage, it would just be merged with the Poké Ball article like Raikou and Suicune. --Grandy02 (talk)

But isn't that a bit minor? Its just an event, and the stage is a trophy, and a trophy is a trophy. I know its not the exact same trophy (no description, you battle on it), but its still a trophy, and which a trophy is a trophy. MegaMario9910 (talk)...I know that made no sense.

I'm not making the guide lines. Majora's Mask has an article for the same reason. Grandy02 (talk)

Pikax (talk) - In terms of gameplay, the Entei stage is not a trophy.

Gale Boomerang and Fire Bow

keep separate 1-8
Currently, there are articles for Gale Boomerang and Fire Bow, special attacks in the Smash Bros series. However, these attacks are both VERY similar to their respective counterparts (Boomerang and Bow). So I propose that both of those moves will be merged with the latter. Below are some of my specific merging reasons:

1. They both serve the same purpose and have similar mechanics

2. Well.. it's just a boomerang with a whirlwind around it, so it is also the same item (technically)

3.The bows (with the exception of Y. Link), Bombs, Spin attacks and Boomerangs all share an article (except the Gale Boomerang, obviously).

4. The Fire Bow is just a bow that shoots fire arrows. Big difference.

5. Articles such as Blaster, reflector, Thunder, Skull Bash, Thunder jolt, Super Jump Punch and Counter share an article, among others.

So there are all my reasons. Also, if this proposal passes, I think we should make Gale Boomerang redirect to Boomerang and Fire Bow to Bow.

Proposer: User:huntercrunch
Deadline: July 31, 2008, 17:00 EDT

Merge

User:huntercrunch - I am the proposer and my reasons are given above.

Keep separate

Pikax (talk) - if the weapons are considerably different, such as the Fire Bow shooting fiery arrows and the Gale Boomerang having that whirlwind, then they should be recognised as different by having their own articles.
Cobold (talk) - per Pikax.
1.they do have different mechanics 2.their different attacks doing different damage 3. wikis which specialize in SSB keep em sperate --Hemu (talk)
Glitchman (talk) - Per all.
Mateus 23 (talk) - Per all. They're different moves, so keep them separate.
Stooben Rooben (talk) - Per Pikax.
Tucayo (talk) - Per Pikax
DaWeegeeMan (talk) Per Pikax

Comments

Not to be a purist, but the two bows are different: fire arrows set the opponent on fire and do more damage. According to the Zelda storyline, the boomerangs are two distinctly different items. The Gale Boomerang holds a wind spirit within it while the boomerang is a generic child's toy. Stumpers (talk)

For the record, point 5 in the proposal is incorrect. Pikax (talk)

You know, I could see a proposal calling for each character's Super Smash Bros. movies to be put on one page, so it would be something like, "Fox's Smash Bros. Special Moves" and "Mario's Smash Bros. Special Moves" the reason I wouldn't do just "Mario's Special Moves" is because there are so many moves he has outside of Smash Bros. that are also considered special moves. What do you think? Stumpers (talk)

I'd support that proposal. But remember to use {{User|___}} on this page. - Walkazo (talk)

Hemu: To your third point, I'd just like to point out that we are not a specialized SSB wiki. -- Ghost Jam (talk)

Grandma Toadstool

split 7-0
A little bit of history before the proposal: in The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! episode "Little Red Riding Princess" (1989), the character Grandma Toadstool was introduced as Peach's grandmother. This was her official name, as seen on her mailbox, and it was a proper noun (ex. "Baby Mario" rather than "baby Mario"). Grandma Toadstool was a human character who lived in the Mushroom Woods. Later, in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars (1996), a Toad character living in the Mushroom Castle appeared under the improper name, "Toadstool's grandma"/"Toadstool's grandmother." (note improper capitalization).

Currently, our article named Grandma Toadstool is a joint article about both characters. The writers speculate that the two characters are the same person. However, I'm proposing that we split the article into two articles: one for each grandmother. Here's my reasoning: as seen in the Paper Mario, family structure in the Mushroom World is similar to non-fictional human family structure (Goombario's family and others). It is only logical that Princess Toadstool would have two grandmothers.

This proposal aims to end the conjecture that the two characters with different names are the same person when they look entirely different. However, we can of course note the possibility that the two characters are the same on their respective articles, and I will include a template at the top of the articles linking to the other grandmother to avoid confusion.

Proposer: Stumpers (talk)
Deadline: August 7, 2008, 17:00 EDT

Support

Stumpers (talk) The two characters have nothing in common (not even species) and it is conceivable that Toadstool would have two grandmothers.
Cobold (talk) Two entirely different characters with the same name have been split in the past.
Stooben Rooben (talk) - Per Stumpers and Cobold. 02:43, 2 August 2008 (EDT)
Luigi001 (talk)Per Stumpers.
tanokkitails (talk) per all
Glitchman (talk) I would have said no, but Stumpers's reasoning finally convinced me. I can't say no to his proposals.
Walkazo (talk) - Per Stumpers.

Oppose

Comments

Just for the record, if this passes the page names will be "Grandma Toadstool" for the SMBSS character and "Toadstool's grandmother" for the SMRPG one unless someone has an official name for the latter. (and can back it up!) Stumpers (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

Is a Toad really Peach's grandmother? If that was true, wouldn't Peach have some sort of Toad-like feature? Anyway, some people consider the Super Mario Bros. Super Show to be alternate canon since it wasn't made by Nintendo. So, uh, the one from the show might not canonically be one of Peach's grandmothers. But sure, split the page if you guys think it's a good idea. CrystalYoshi (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Alternate canon simply means, according to Son of Suns, sources of unconfirmed connection to the main series of video games, so it's really not an issue whether it is alternate canon or not. I wouldn't assume that Rosalina and Peach were the same character if one came from alternate canon sources, so I wouldn't consider Peach's grandmothers to be the same character. By the way, if you want to consider only content made by Nintendo to be canon, then Super Mario RPG (made by SquareSoft) is also non-canon, and therefore both grandmothers would be, "non-canon." Stumpers (talk)

Wow, canonicity's become a real hot topic all of a sudden. Anyway, there's been speculation that calling the Toad "Grandma" is just a term of endearment, based on Peach's lack of mushroomness, so there's a good chance they're not blood relations. And speaking of speculation, I think the article's assertion that Grandma Toadstool is the King's mother is wrong, seeing as one Granny lived in a woodland cottage, and the other didn't seem like the "King Mother"/"ex-Queen"-type. Even if we say the grandmothers are from either side, it's still questionable who mothered who, as it's been revelaed that King Toadstool is a human, and the reigning monarch, meaning his parents were the former rulers, and are now (or at least his father, if grandma married into the family) are dead (and certainly not living in the woods). Speculation makes a mess of things. And remember to use {{User|___}} here, please. - Walkazo (talk)

Yeah, we're going to have to fix that. Instead of saying that she is on the paternal side, we could instead say that, "Because Grandma Toadstool, King Toadstool, and Princess Toadstool all share the same surname, Grandma Toadstool may be the mother of the king and the princess's paternal grandmother, although no official source has confirmed this." I suppose that a woman could end up living in the Mushroom Woods rather than a more... elegant location because of King Koopa's reign over the Mushroom Kingdom during the SMBSS, but then we're getting into speculation again. Princess Peach explicitly states that Grandma Toadstool is her grandmother, she doesn't say which side. Speaking of, is there any line in SMRPG that confirms that Toadstool's grandmother is actually her grandmother? Stumpers (talk)

Bios

no such bios 5-9
I have noticed, that the people's pages (i.e. Satoru Iwata) haven't got many or any information about their lives, childhood, etc. So i propse to add a decent bio to the most important pages.

Proposer: User:Tucayo
Deadline: August 7, 2008, 17:00 EDT

Support

Stooben Rooben (talk) - While it may not have much to do with Mario, I agree that the articles should be much larger. The Deanna Mustard article is fantastic (in my opinion), because it contains a lot about her life and how she got to be a voice actor.
Tucayo (talk) - Per my proposal.
Mario Gamer (talk) - Just because it doesn't directly relate to the Mario Wiki doesn't mean it's not an interesting read this website can provide someone with. I don't understand why people would vote against adding length to a relatively empty page.
Luigi001 (talk)Per Stooben Rooben. The people do have a connection to the Mario series (voice acting, production, etc.) and we are a wiki covering anything Mario related, so the people deserve good bios.
Per all. -Canama

Oppose

Palkia47 (talk) - No, as it has nothing to do with the Mario Wiki. As seen in my past proposals and other places, we are not to create/add info that have nothing to do with the Mario/DK/Yoshi/Wario/SSB series'. This possibly goes for profiles/bios for real life people whom had some kind of relation to Mario via creating games, etc.
Mrsdaisyluigi (talk) Per Palkia47.
Per Palkia Toadette 4evur (talk)
DaWeegeeMan (talk) Per Palkia
Goomb-omb (talk) only information related to mario should be added. example: Charles Martinet's favorite type of milkshake has nothing to do with his voice acting.
Stumpers (talk) This proposal is not as specific as it should be. To what extent are you asking that we include information? As Goomb-omb said, you could conceivably use this proposal to justify putting in bits of trivia like favorite milkshakes. I really believe that our current policy on biographies is all that is needed: if anything lead up to a person's involvement, it can be lightly referenced, as can the reasons they left.
Time Q (talk): Per Palkia and Stumpers.
Walkazo (talk) - Per Stumpers. While minimalistic articles are a pain, this proposal would basically mean everything goes, which it shouldn't. If people really want to read about the person in-depth, they can always use the external links.
Tanokkitails (talk)-as palkia47 said, they have absolutely nothing to do with the wiki.

Comments

You're allowed to include any information about what lead to their current position in the Mario production process. For example, with Lou Albano you would briefly mention that he earned his fame first as a wrestler and then as an wrestling manager, and eventually he started doing TV work. Then he was contacted to read for Mario and blah, blah, blah. At this point you get specific because it's about his role in the Super Show! rather than information about his life prior. So, as it stands you are allowed to lightly touch on what you're talking about as long as it pertains in someway to their role later in life. Reasons for leaving (if applicable) should also be mentioned. You could also mention a short bit about what they did after their involvement, but again, just touch on it. Stumpers (talk)

Additionally, a link could be provided to a persons Wikipedia article in case the reader would like further information. -- Ghost Jam (talk)

Palkia47 opposing something because it "has nothing to do with Mario"? Ohhhh the irony! Blitzwing (talk)

...I'm taking that has sarcasm or an insult. Needless to say, should I remove my vote? Palkia47 (talk)

Is Tucayo going to support his own proposal or not? Pikax (talk)

Wow, i tought i had alredy did, but it seems that me didn't
The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tucayo (talk).

This proposal isn't specific enough. Yes, I think a "decent bio" would be helpful, but I also agree with Palkia and Stumpers that we shouldn't cover aspects which aren't related to Mario. What should I vote for then? Could you please clarify what you're aiming to achieve with this proposal, Tucayo? Time Q (talk)

I second this. The proposal should be such that voting against it maintains the norm. If I vote against it, am I saying that I don't want there to be, "decent bios" for real people? Stumpers (talk)

For those of you opposing, this is a section from the Deanna Mustard article:

"Deanna enjoyed school, was involved in choir and theater, and kept busy outside of school with dance. Participating in extra curricular activities introduced Deanna to a diverse group of peers. Deanna did not always want to be an actor though. She was interested in dance for most of her childhood, and wasn't actually introduced to theater until high school when she decided to audition for a one act play written by another student. Deanna was then approached by the drama teacher who persuaded her to sign up for her class. Deanna did, and she fell in love with it.

Deanna's first job was working for her grandparents, where she would answer the office telephone and file papers. As a senior, Mustard was in an advanced drama class, and graduated in 1999. Deanna joined the theater department at Cornish College of the Arts in the fall, and she received her degree in acting in the spring of 2003. Deanna loved playing Gertrude Stein in a piece called "Notorious Women." Deanna researched the role, which she has stated was a challenge. Deanna also has a special place in her hear for the character Darla Danson."

Now what part of that is anything close to Mario related? Garlic Man (talk) If you're gonna oppose, then you might as well fix the other articles first.

Okay... what exactly are you trying to say? And please sign with {{User|__}} here. Anyway, how about this version:

Deanna was interested in dance for most of her childhood, only being introduced to theatre in high school when she decided to audition for a one act play written by another student. Deanna was then approached by the drama teacher and was persuaded to sign up for her class. Aside from dance and her newfound love for theatre, Deanna was involved in choir, and enjoyed school as a whole. After taking an advanced drama class in her senior year, Deanna graduated in 1999 and joined the theater department at Cornish College of the Arts in the fall, receiving her degree in acting in the spring of 2003. Ironically, her first job had nothing to do with neither acting nor dance; she answered the office telephone and filed papers for her grandparents.

It's shorter, and keeps all the important information about her education and career path. If people want more, they should go elsewhere. - Walkazo (talk)

Yeah, the information might be important, but it's not Mario-Related. And that's why the opposers are opposing, because the bios would be "Non-Mario-Related". But there's plenty of non-mario-related info on Deanna Mustard. I was just wondering why they just let that one slip by. Garlic Man (talk)

Maybe it was because it was a Featured Article. The article needs this info to pretty much be a Featured Article. Palkia47 (talk)

Exactly. That article would not be featured, without the long biography. However, non-mario-related info is not supposed to be there. And the info that's not supposed to be there, made that article featured. Which is pretty ironic. Garlic Man (talk)

It's like I said above: we already can discuss their life overall, so yes we will have to trim down Deanna's article slightly. What we're opposing are articles that would go on and on and on about one's childhood experiences, trivial things like favorite foods, or complete lists of all movies and TV shows a person has acted for (filmography). Stumpers (talk)

Catch Card Locations

add catch card locations 6-3
As I ran across the List of Catch Cards page, I noticed that the locations of the catch cards are not listed whatsoever. I found this rather...disappointing. So here's what I propose: Add an additional brief description as to the location of each catch card. This would include city (i.e. Lineland), if one must flip or enter a pipe to reach the card, and perhaps the chapter in which it is located to the List of Catch Cards article.

I'd also like to note that I do not know the locations of really any catch cards, so I will need help from some other, more experienced Super Paper Mario players. Thanks in advance for whoever helps.

Proposer: Stooben Rooben (talk)
Deadline: August 14, 2008, 17:00 EDT

Support

Stooben Rooben (talk) - I am the proposer, thus my reasons are stated above.
Dom (talk) - This might sound biased because I'm a huge fan of Stooben - but I like this idea - I mean, why aren't the locations there? Although, it could get a bit repetitive since many cards are obtained by using a Catch Card or Catch Card SP on the enemy...so, hmm. Nah, it doesn't matter...
Luigi001 (talk) Per all.
Dustof DryBones (talk) - I aproove and would be glad to help build it up.
Mr. Br Mario (talk) - I'd really love to have such information, mainly because I have friends who play Super Paper Mario, and if they'd like to take their time in searching for the Catch Cards (I would like to), I'm pretty sure they'd be more than happy to have this kind of information, as would all the collectible-lovers who play Super Paper Mario. And I'd love to help build this up. For example, Watchitt's Catch Card can be found by blowing up a wall in the very room where you got Boomer, and then flip to 3D to find it on the other side. This is just a preview of what kind of help I could offer...
Mariomaster43 (talk)-Yeah that's a really good idea i want super paper mario but i don't have it yet but i want so i toatally support 150% :)

Oppose

Phoenix Rider (talk) As I stated on the Catch Card discussion page, the majority of Catch Cards must be purchased, and even then, the location list would really just become a list of enemy locations, which can be found at each enemy's respective page.
Garlic Man (talk) Per Phoenix, as yes, many(if not most) must be bought or taken from enemies. I actually don't really find the locations necessary, as this wiki is not a game guide.
KingNess700 (talk) I believe that not revealing the locations of catch cards on the internet leaves still some challenge to the player to truly complete the game as opposed to a step by step guide on them. If players want that, they can buy the players guide.

Comments

Per Dom and Pheonix. Although helpful, the repetitive occurrence of many of the cards may be a bother. Perhaps we can make it work, by displaying the locations of the cards that are NOT obtainable by a Catch Card? Furthermore, almost every obtainable card in the game may also be bought in a Card Shop respectively. Honestly, I believe this may just confuse some people, but it has potential of working. Just keep in mind that the repetition for over 90% of the cards may state something similar to this: Title; Lineland, Catch Card, Card Shop. Ominous (talk)

I do see your point. However, it really doesn't have to be all that complicated. For example, the page would look somewhat like this. It's really quite basic; just a minor adjustment to the wiki-coding and it turns out like in my example. Stooben Rooben (talk) 23:04, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

In the example, what would the "World 0-0" represent? The place a card can be found that's not a shop or by using a Catch Card? - Walkazo (talk)

"Chapter 0-0" represents which chapter the player will find the catch card in, (i.e. chapter 7-3). "City-Name" is self-explanatory. As for the third location (marked "Catch Card SP") – if I'm not mistaken, any common enemy can be caught with a Catch Card SP. In return, I believe at a various time, any card can be purchased at a shop – that's why I didn't add "shop" to the location list. Stooben Rooben (talk)

Mhmm, Stooben has obviously shown a way that this can work. Is it possible that in the explanatory paragraph before the chart shown, we can simply state something similar to; "Almost every card [excluding boss and character cards] may be collected by a Catch Card or may be bought at at a Card shop." This will clear confusion and repetition. This also leaves the apparent space for the editor to list the cards that are found during gameplay. -Ominous (talk)

I think that could work. Good thinking. Stooben Rooben (talk)

I think "shop" should actually be added because some cards cannot be caught with a catch card like Bonechill, but can be bought and at the same found with a map/in the wild. And what will you do with the Gnaw card, it's technically part of the "shop" section under Flint (? What's his name ?)the merchand's inventory. Dustof DryBones (talk)

Dustof DryBones: I still agree with Ominous here; his statement, if placed at the top of the article, would prevent mass repetition. As for the Gnaw Card, I do not know. I have not collected the card yet; but, if it is in the merchant's inventory, I still think it would fall under "shop", and would require a location listing.
KingNess700: Many articles in this wiki contain spoilers, such as SSBB, MKWii, PM:TTYD, etc. Because of this, and the fact that not everyone wants to see the spoilers, {{Spoiler}} was created. Thus, I do not entirely feel you vote is valid; I do however see your point. Stooben Rooben (talk)^

Well, I was agreeing on everything he said (when I read the proposal, I thought of doing such a thing myself.) The only thing I, personally, would've added is the "shop" section for the Gnaw card. Unless, we were to do an approach more like this:

[([([([Specific Location])])([([Can be bought at Card Shop; Yes or No])])([([Can be caught by a type of Catch Card; Yes or No])])])])] The Gnaw card would then go under "Specific Location" and not shop. Dustof DryBones (talk)

Point taken. Stooben Rooben (talk) 16:31, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

So, what are we waiting for, exactly? I'm eager to start it. Dustof DryBones (talk)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-__NOEDITSECTION__
+{{MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/Template}}
-<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="width: 95%; background-color: #f1f1de; border: 2px solid #996; padding: 5px; color:black"
-|Any proposal decided and past is archived here. Use the scroll box to see votes and comments. This page is protected to maintain the discussion as was. Please add archived proposals to the '''bottom''' of the page.
-|}
-{{MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive Template}}
 <div style="font-size:95%">__TOC__</div>
-===Speculative Relationships===
+=== Insert info from Games ===
-<span style="color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;font-size:150%">REMOVE SPECULATION FROM RELATIONSHIP SECTIONS 15-1</span>
+{{ProposalOutcome|failed|5-21|do not insert info from sonic games}}
+Alright. I was happening to look through [[Shadow the Hedgehog]]'s article, and had edited something that was info from the games. I thought maybe, why not put info from the games into the articles (i e. Like add Sonic Rush info in Sonic, Tails, Blaze, Amy, Eggman, Cream, and Knuckles articles). This will also help some stub articles. This is overview, not in-depth. Add information from games, or don't add information from games?
-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.
-{{scroll box|content=
+'''Proposer:''' {{User|MegaMario9910}}<br>
-'''Proposer:''' {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}}<br>
+'''Deadline:''' June 19, 2008, 15:00 EDT
-'''Deadline:''' May 5, 2008, 17:00
-==== Remove overly speculative relationships ====
+==== Add Information from Games ====
-#{{User:Pokemon DP/sig}} I am the proposer, and my reasons are given above. Or possibly below, assuming some Users decide to argue. =<nowiki>|</nowiki>
+#{{User|MegaMario9910}} I'm the proposer, so per me.
-#{{User:Time Q/sig}}: Per DP, the relationships section is not the right place for speculation. Uncertain relationships could be mentioned in the trivia section though.
+#{{User|Dr. Hammer}} It would mean more complete articles for the characters, so I suppose I support. And they technically were in Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games and SSBB, so...
-#{{User:Ghost Jam/sig}} per suggestions by DP and Time Q.
+#{{User|Walkazo}} - A paragraph ''overview'' of these series in ''already existing articles'' will give people context for what these characters are about. The bare basics are not gonna change us into "Videogame Wiki".
-#{{User:Cobold/sig}} - Per Time Q.
+#{{user|InfectedShroom}} - Per Walkazo.
-#{{User:Blitzwing/sig}} - 'Big duh here. It's like saying "Rewrite Poorly Written articles"
+#{{user|MamaLuigi2}}- Agreed. Sure, it's the MARIO wiki, but without Sonic, Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games wouldn't excist.
-#{{User:Glitchman/sig}} Per Ghost Jam.
-#{{User:Wayoshi/sig}} &ndash; 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/sig}}
-#{{User:InfectedShroom/sig}} 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:Stooben Rooben/sig|Speculation is a big no-no around here.}}
-#{{USer:Garlic Man/sig}} Indeed. I removed the Baby Daisy section several times, but got re-added by Fixit several times... gr...
-#{{User:Stumpers/sig}} Speculation has no place on a Wiki that even suspects the official alternate forms of media as being alternate canon.
-#{{User:CrystalYoshi/sig}} 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|&euro;zlo]] 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. [[Image:Don Pianta2.PNG|50px]][[User:Nothing444]]<sup>[[user talk:Nothing444|sup?]]</sup> 01:27, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
-==== Keep the relationships in question ====
+==== Don't Add Information from Games ====
-#[[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|Purple Yoshi}} - Um, no. This isn't a Sonic wiki, or even a third-party wiki. The games have NOTHING to do with Mario.
+#{{User|Pokemon DP}} - No, just no. BRIEF, I repeat, BRIEF descriptions about the characters personality and debut appearance from his/her original series are fine, but no way in HELL should we allow large amounts of outside information. It's just not right. And there are other Wiki's to link to about this stuff, ya know.
+#{{User|Blitzwing}} - This rpoposal has been brought up at least twice before. Per DP.
+#Per DP version of Pokemon (heh heh). {{User|Toadette 4evur}}
+# [[User:Ninjayoshi|Ninjayoshi]] - Per Pokemon DP.
+#{{user|HyperToad}} Per DP and PY.
+#{{user|Bob-omb buddy}} - The games aren't even including mario charecters! Only include the first apperance and apperances from mario games.
+#{{user|Clay Mario}} - Per my comment below.
+#{{user|Starry Parakarry}}- Per Purple Yoshi and Pokemon DP.
+#{{user|Pikax}}- Information about the character and his/her appearances in Mario games is enough.
+#{{user|RedFire Mario}} - I am a Sonic the Hedgehog fan, but this isn't a Sonic Wiki, so we shouldn't add any info of games that doesn't have to do anything of Mario. If you want to add Sonic info, go and find a Sonic Wiki like DarkHero Sonic's new one, not here
+#{{user|Dryest bowser}}- This is not a sonic wiki, so shadow should not have info from sonic games. only mario games
+#{{user|Laebear12}}- agrees with dryest bowser and redfire mario
+#{{User|Storm Yoshi}} Per the DP of Pokemon and Yoshi of Purple
+#{{User|Tucayo}} Per Purple Yoshy. this is a MARIO wiki, not sonic. Everything here must be related to MARIO.
+#{{User|Alphaclaw11}} If we add info from sonic games we will have to add articles on sonic games, that way it is understandable, but being a Mario(and Mario-related) Wiki we shouldn't even if we could have info from other games. A small note may be able to be added to extra, maybe.
+#{{User|Iron Maiden}} I love that blue hedgie, but things would be much too sonical if we add all that uneeded information. No Super Sonic Wiki here lololol
+#{{User|Super-Yoshi}} - =\ Like DP said, '''It's just not right'''.
+#{{User|Moonshine}} Per DP and Dryest Bowser.
+#{{User|Glitchman}} - I thought we had already decided this...no articles concerning the Sonic series (except for what was in Brawl and [[Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games]]) AT ALL!
+#{{User|Goomb-omb}} Their articles should only extend as far as their involvement in the Marioverse.
 ==== 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:Time Q/sig}} 05:30, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
+This will be my first successful proposal. {{User|MegaMario9910}}
+:I would agree like this if we're talking about generalities, so like, for Sonic, it would read: <blockquote>'''[[wikipedia:Sonic the Hedgehog (character)|Sonic the Hedgehog]]''' is the main character of the ''Sonic the Hedgehog'' series of video games.  Since the beginning of the series, Sonic has been the champion of peace, risking his life to stop the plots of a variety of violent foes, particularly [[Dr. Eggman]], in order to establish worldwide peace.  Along the way, he has been aided by many characters, including his friends [[Miles "Tails" Prower]], [[Knuckles the Echidna]], [[Amy Rose]], and occassionally [[Shadow the Hedgehog]].  Sonic's greatest asset is his ability to run at supersonic speeds.  However, he is   Sonic's fame rivals that of Mario, and like Mario, Sonic the Hedgehog's series has also spawned television shows, comic series, and even original video animations.</blockquote> I think any more than that make us unfocused the Mario series.  However, I've always been one to think that this Wiki should at least provide some background (not a lot) for the chrossover characters.  If you could edit your proposal to say that this would be an overview thing rather than an in-depth (ala [http://sonic.wikia.com Sonic News Network]) then you'd have my support and doubtless the support of many others.  Even if this doesn't go through, you are currently allowed to use information from Mario and Super Smash Bros. games, including trophy information in ''Brawl'', to write about crossover characters.  A significant portion of the above example could be compiled based on those. {{User|Stumpers}} 23:27, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
+::Done. {{User|MegaMario9910}}
+:::At least according to DP, brief information is ok... I think maybe your proposal, with your change, may already be acceptable!  Time to get to work, both of us. {{User|Stumpers}} 11:39, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
+:Hmm... I'm kind of agreeing with the supporters here. But the opposers have a point, as too much info would suck. What would be an example of what you would put in, say, the Sonic article under this new system? {{user|InfectedShroom}}
+::Err... wait, whatta mean, Stumpers? And... maybe some info about his history through the games, and a bit of info about those games, IS. {{User|MegaMario9910}}
+:::I mean that the example I gave is already approved for use in the articles. {{User|Stumpers}}
+::::Yay. Now, let's go this work done. {{User|MegaMario9910}}
+:::::Oh. Duh. I guess I didn't really read your example. My bad. And yeah, it's a great idea. {{User|InfectedShroom}}
+::::::Uh... not really has there been two proposals brought up before. One was to make articles for the crossovers, and the other one was to make a list. Care to explain why you said that, Blitz? {{User|MegaMario9910}}
+:::::::Because both were about to add unrelated info to a specific group of article, '''duh'''. {{User|Blitzwing}}
+::::::Yeesh!  Why do proposals always get people riled up? {{User|Stumpers}}
+:::::If voting to support this proposal will be result in general series/character summaries like your example then you're right, people are getting way too distraught. It's not gonna turn us into Sonic Wiki or whatever, it'll just add to general knowledge of gaming and save our readers the trouble of going elsewhere for the bare basics (and who knows, maybe they'll get preoccupiued wherever they went for further reading and we lose our audience). Being elitist never helped anyone. - {{User|Walkazo}}
+::::::Thanks, Walkazo. {{User|Stumpers}}
-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/sig}}
+::"NO PROPOSALS ABOUT HAVING BANJO AND CONKER ARTICLES-- The Management" Hmm... I wonder if this also applies to sonic. There is a sonic wiki. We only have a sonic article because hes included in brawl and Olympic Games. For non-mario brawl characters, don't go to much in-depth. Just give information about them in brawl and Olympic games. {{user|Clay Mario}}
+:::That message means that we will not cover all topics in Banjo or Conker games, only those whom have appeared in Mario media.  Likewise, we won't be covering Princess Elise or the SatAM TV show from the Sonic series, but we will cover Sonic, Tails, Knuckles, etc. Don't forget: Brawl gives information from the series' too, so that would work as well. {{User|Stumpers}}
+::::Do remember that we aren't creating articles, we're just putting info from the games into the character's ARTICLE. Maybe people would like to know some info about Sonic and friends from the games, but the article only covers Olympics and Brawl, which doesn't explain much for the characters, and gives very less of their backstory (what happened in the games; what was the history of Sonic and friends, etc.). And remember that we aren't only covering Sonic, but series that were in the Super Smash Bros. series also (yet, I'm not sure we would add [[Solid Snake]], due to the fact that a lot of his games were rated higher than Mario games). And this part is for Blitzwing: The proposals weren't mained about adding info from games to the articles. One was to create the articles, while the other was to create a crossover list. {{User|MegaMario9910}}
-: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/sig}} 06:36, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
+We're not trying to cover information from outside series. Only information from Mario-based games. Including a HIGHLY detailed back story on outside characters is just too damn much. There's a borderline to the outside information we can add here; Information on characters from the SSB series and ONLY their appearance in the SSB series is fine; we're detailing information from that one series, since it's linked to the Mario series. That's fine. But including information on, say, what Blaze did in all of Sonic Rush and Sonic the Hedgehog 2006, or what Fox McCloud did in all 5 Star Fox games. That makes us a "Video game Wiki", not a "Mario Wiki". And remember, there's something called "external linking". {{User|Pokemon DP}}
+:DP, I said some, not all. {{User|MegaMario9910}}
+::I am in agreement with DP. Unless it is a game in which Mario is a significant character, information about it should not be included. {{User|Pikax}}
+:::But this '''doen't''' mean we're making detailed backstories, look at Stumpers' Sonic example: it's just the bare basics. I.e. for Star Fox it'd be along the lines of: "Fox McCloud first appeared in ''Star Fox'', in which he led his teammates  [[Falco]], [[Slippy]] and [[Peppy]] against the armies of the evil scientist [[Andross]] in their Arwings. Later, team Star Fox were shown to drive Landmaster Tanks, and travel by foot, fighting with handheld lasers among other weapons..." It'd also ''mention'' his rivalry with [[Wolf]], and his romance with Krystal; but not every little detail of every game (it'd simply state what game introduced what, and only if that "what" was significant, like ''The Great Fox''; etc.). It's just gonna be a synopsis of the series to provide context for things that happen in ''Brawl'' and whatnot. - {{User|Walkazo}}
-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]]
+Brawl features appearances of Wolf, Fox, Slippy, Krystal, and Falco. Brawl is sort of Mario media, but doesn't show Mario as a significant character. We still have articles on Super Smash Bros anyway. We don't have any articles on Sonic characters like Jet the Hawk because he doesn't appear in Mario media. {{User|Clay Mario}}
-: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. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]][[User:Ghost Jam|Chris]][[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 08:25, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
+:CM: I said we weren't making articles. Walkazo: Thanks, Walkazo. {{User|MegaMario9910}}
-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/sig}} - And don't you forget it!
+Sorry. You were only putting information in the articles. But then you should only put information of the characters in mario media to make us stay the MARIO wiki {{User|Clay Mario}}
-: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:Cobold/sig}} 08:47, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
+In the circumstance that you need to mention a character or place that wasn't in the Smash Bros. games in the overview paragraph, do so.  However, someone like Jet the Hawk, who is a rival in a spin-off of the main series, doesn't need to be mentioned.  Look at my example: "to stop the plots of a variety of violent foes, particularly [[Dr. Eggman]],"  I'm not sure if Jet was ever violent, but I think Jet is an example of one of the villains I didn't mention.  I also didn't mention Silver, you'll notice, because he's just a cameo.  I did mention Shadow because he's an assist trophy.  I hope that helps! {{User|Stumpers}}
-It went in one ear, and out the other, Cobold. ;) {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}}
+Here's my comment: MegaMario9910 himself told me clearly that he doesn't want it to create extra articles, just add tiny bits of info. So listen. --  {{User|Dom}}
-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]]
+----
-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]]
+===Forms===
+{{ProposalOutcome|failed|1-10|do not merge}}
+I've been wanting to do this for a while, ao I'll be blunt: having articles like [[Fire Mario]] is stupuid. It's Mario with a Fire Flower: all of that info belongs in the [[Fire Flower]] article. The same goes for all Mario's forms: [[Ice Mario]], [[Wing Mario]], etc., and quite a few "subspecies": [[Beach Koopa]]s (Koopa's without their shells) and [[Fishin' Lakitu]]s (lakitus with Fishing Poles). I never did quite understand why these articles were needed. My proposal is that we merge all of these "form" articles with their respective power-up/character.
-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/sig}}
+Please note that full-fledged alter-egos (like [[Dr. Mario]]) should certainly stay, as should "forms" that are treated like seperate characters ([[Dry Bowser]] and [[Giga Bowser]]); but there are limits, people.
-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/sig}}
+'''Proposer''': [[User:Ultimatetoad|Ultimatetoad]]<br>
-: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
+'''Deadline''': June 19, 2008, 17:00 EDT
-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/sig}} Hmph, fine.
+====Support====
+#[[User:Ultimatetoad|Ultimatetoad]]per proposal
-: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]]
+====Oppose====
-::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/sig}}
+#{{User|MegaMario9910}} The forms are different from what the main character is. Each form has played a role in a game(s), so its not much minor.
+#{{user|InfectedShroom}} - Per myself in the comments.
+#{{User|Stumpers}} - I could see this maybe for minor transformations, but something like Fire Mario?  That's come up in a huge number of games in a huge number of forms... for instance the revival in SMG.
+#Per the smart people above me. {{user|Toadette 4evur}}
+#[[User:Ninjayoshi|Ninjayoshi]] - Per all, especially InfectedShroom.
+#{{User|Goomb-omb}} if we can provide separate articles for each, each one providing encyclopedic information, why shouldn't we?
+#{{user|Clay Mario}} - Per all
+#{{user|Tykyle}} - See my comments below.
+#{{user|Dryest bowser}} - Per stumpers
+#{{user|Bob-omb buddy}} - Articles are only merged if they are too similar or are the same thing,Which these are not.
-:::Wow, if you're going to change your comments to make yourself look better, then so will I. [[User:Fixitup|Fixitup]]
+====Comments====
-::::I would say that he has more room than you.
+OK, I have two reasons for opposing this proposal. 1) They (they being the other forms) have official names, have long enough articles to be stubs, and are a different part of the Mario Universe. For example, Fishin' Lakitus are more different than one would think. They will not attack Mario unless he grabs the Mushrooom, making them harmless until the player takes action. Also, take the Mario forms thing as an example. Statue Mario would not fit under the Tanooki suit article. This is because the Tanooki Suit article explains what the Tanooki Suit ''does'', while the Statue Mario article explains what Statue Mario ''is''. 2) This proposal is too vague. You did not specify which articles would need this, as some people may agree on some articles but not on others. This must be a long, article by article process if everyone is to agree. Sorry to bore you with such a long explanation, but there's my opinion. {{user|InfectedShroom}}
-::::Stop pointing fingers and discuss the issue at hand. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]][[User:Ghost Jam|Chris]][[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 21:24, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
+Um.... the [[Statue Mario]] page is already merged with Tanooki suit. I will reply to both of you'r opposals in order:
-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!!!!!!!'. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]][[User:Ghost Jam|Chris]][[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 00:23, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
+. Statue Mario is.... Mario turned into a statue. If that info does not belong on the Tanooki suit page then at least it can be merged into the Mario page.
-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/sig}}
+. Which articles am i talking about? well, for a beggining, we could do all of the articles in the Mario Forms template. Those are the ones that this proposal is mainly about. The Beach Koopa and Fishing Lakitu thing is debatable: I might remove them from the proposal, especially after that little tidbit you gace me just now. My real problem with these articles is that, when you get right down to it, whther it behaves differently or not, it is still just a lakitu with a fishing pole. Maybe it does'nt attack Mario because it's hands are full.... - [[User:Ultimatetoad|Ultimatetoad]]
+:Ah. Shoulda checked my sources on the Statue Mario thing. My bad. But the point still stands. The "Mario" article tells what it ''is'', and the power-up article tells what it ''does''. And I still don't think that the enemies should be merged simply because they ''do'' behave differently... {{user|InfectedShroom}}
-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]]
+Not all of the power-ups serve only the single purpose of turning Mario into _____-Mario. A good example of this is the Fire Flower. It serves a completely different purpose in some games; in the Paper Mario games it functions as an attack item. Likewise Mario is able to use fireballs without a Fire Flower as in Super Mario RPG. {{unsigned|Tykyle}}
-:Because when people meet, they become best friends forever, with no exceptions, right? -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]][[User:Ghost Jam|Chris]][[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 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]]
-:::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. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]][[User:Ghost Jam|Chris]][[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 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]]
-::::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 Nintedno (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]]
+===Prevent loss of information (Recipes)===
-:Oh you're cool. Sure, but that doesn't mean that it's baseless speculation. [[User:Fixitup|Fixitup]]
+{{ProposalOutcome|passed|4-0|RULE THAT A MERGE OF THE RECIPES ARTICLES CANNOT LEAD TO LOSS OF INFORMATION}}
+A previously passed proposal (which can be found [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/7#Recipes|here]]) called for the merging of the [[:Category:Recipes|Recipes articles]] into one long page. While I'm not particularly bothered about this, I fear the possibility of information (such as notable trivia or complete lists of combinations) being removed so as to avoid an overly long page. (The second sentence of [[User:Xzelion/Recipes|what appears to be Xzelion's page for working on the merge]] suggests an intention to not include every combination, for instance.) I propose that it be set down that '''if any merge of the Recipes pages does eventually take place, ''all possible recipe combinations and all pieces of important trivia'' must remain somewhere easily accessible on the wiki''', such as a separate page for combinations. (The combinations page is ''only a suggestion'' and not part of the proposal.) My reasoning is that useful information should not be removed from this wiki for the sake of convenience, that the wiki should be a compendium of all things Mario-related, and that one should not have to visit another fansite to find out recipe combinations.
+'''Proposer:''' [[User:Soler|Soler]]<br>
+'''Deadline:''' June 20, 2008, 20:00 EDT
-Agreed with Walkazo. And lol at your "we have lives" comment. BTW, how come you haven't voted, Fixit? {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}}
+====Rule that a merge cannot lead to loss of information (Support)====
-: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]]
+#{{User|Soler}} (I am the proposer: my reasons are above.)
+#{{User|Super-Yoshi}} Per Soler.
+#{{User|Bob-omb buddy}}-If it is on one page then it should be good enough for the next one.
+#[[User:Ninjayoshi|Ninjayoshi]]- Per my comments below.
-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/sig}}
+====Allow loss of information (Oppose)====
-: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]]
+====Comments====
+I think that we should have two pages for the Recipes: Recipes and Recipes (Trivia).  Recipes (Trivia) will list the Recipe, then game, and finally the trivia.  No descriptions on the Trivia page. [[User:Ninjayoshi|Ninjayoshi]]
+:No, that'd be too disorganized/disjointed, and too much of a hastle for readers to go flicking back and forth between the two articles. The recipies page should simply be a big table listing all the things that can be baked/cooked, all the different recipies for making each one (with what game they come from indicated somehow), and the effects, etc. of the thing made. A Trivia section could be added at the bottom of the article; but only if it deals with the recipies, because as far as I know most, if not all of the ingrediants and final products have their own articles anyway. - {{User|Walkazo}}
+::Walkazo's idea sounds good to me, but personally I don't mind too much how this is done so long as it's done somehow. Also, the final products '''won't''' have their own articles if the project initiated by [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/7#Recipes|the previous Recipes proposal]] is completed. That's why I made this proposal in the first place: to ensure that all the content of the deleted articles will remain on the wiki, in an easily accessible format. —{{User|Soler}}.
+:Yeah, didn't think about the flipping back and forth.  Maybe, to shorten the page length, we could have two pages (again): Recipes (A-M) and Recipes (N-Z).  Go ahead prove me wrong.  [[User:Ninjayoshi|Ninjayoshi]]
-::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/sig}}
+----
-:::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]]
+===Remove Automatons, Machinations, Ghosts, Ghouls, and Specters from the "Species" Category===
-: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/sig}} 20:16, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
+{{ProposalOutcome|failed|2-11|keep as species}}
-::Wow, at least someone can get at the truth here. [[User:Fixitup|Fixitup]]
+It is true that a species is a group of of living things.  It is also true, that undead things, and robotic things, are not ''living'' things, and do not constitute a species.  Since common sense often fails, I'll included dictionary definitions of a species in my comments below.
-:::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/sig}} 00:27, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
+Now, many of you who are reading this will think I'm just getting bogged down by semantics, but any errors in the wiki reflect on the wiki (and us, the users) and I think an error as large as this one greatly detracts from the credibility of this wiki.
-That was very rude, Fixitup. I'm-a go now before I get scolded, though... {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}}
+'''Proposer''': [[User:Goomb-omb|Goomb-omb]]<br>
-: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]]
+'''Deadline''': June 27, 2008, 20:00 EDT
-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/sig}} 23:47, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
+====Support====
-:For starters, that'd be a fanon page. Stuff like that belongs on a fanon site. {{User:Stooben Rooben/sig}} 21:00, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
+#[[User:Goomb-omb|Goomb-omb]] per my reasoning above and below
+#{{User|Soler}} —Accuracy is key, and "Character Type" (see comment by Goomb-omb below) seems to be an adequate term.
-: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/sig}} 00:03, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
+====Oppose====
-}}
+#{{User|Stumpers}} I'm afraid this is nitpicking, but I'm usually all for that.  What I'm thinking of is a page like [[Bow]] or another notable Boo.  What should we put in the species section of the character infobox?  If you have another word we should use instead of species, that would help.
+#[[User:Ninjayoshi|Ninjayoshi]] Per Stumpers.  Also, Boos are a species.  Thirdly, if we change 'species' on any robot family and the like, we should change it to something like 'series'.
-===Subspace Army Enemies===
+#{{user|InfectedShroom}} - Per Stumpers. This seems a bit... Particular... about what we should add to our articles. Also, the Mario Bros. series is not the most scientific series (Being able to float in space? :O), so I think that this would not be necessary.
-<span style="color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;font-size:150%">MERGE 11-2</span>
+#{{User|Pikax}} - "Species" is simple enough to understand and, like Stumpers said, this is nitpicking.
+#{{User|Blitzwing}} - Per Pikax and IS. Mario isn't exactly the most scientifically-correct out there.
-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.
+#{{user|Toadette 4evur}} Per all.
+#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per all.
-{{scroll box|content=
+#{{User|The.Real.Izkat}}-A boo is a speices though. and i mean its really simple anyways. Per Blitzwing about the scientific thing.
-'''Proposer:''' {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}}<br>
+#{{User|reecer6}} - Why would you take them out? they are a kind of species! all species, NO MATTER WHAT, goes in the species section.
-'''Deadline:''' May 8, 2008, 17:00
+#{{User|Tykyle}} - Per all above, and a complete lack of evidence for them not being species. A dictionary is not enough when discussing a work of fiction.
+#{{User|Uniju :D}} - Although you might be correct that robots and such are not ACTUALLY a species by our standards in real life, I believe that any sentient beings should be treated equally(by that, I mean that the term "species" should be used to refer to living things, and you can't quite be sentient without being alive), and as you can clearly see just by playing a Mario game, '''EVERYTHING''' is sentient in Mario games. And not to start going even more off-topic, but sometime in the future human beings will most likely become beings of data that roam the intahrwebz and such, but I don't think we will stop being considered a species.
-====Merge with [[Subspace Army]]====
-#{{User:Pokemon DP/sig}} I am the proposer, and... Blah blah blah.
-#{{User:RAP/sig}} Per DP.
-#{{User:Glitchman/sig}} Per DP.
-#{{User:Stooben Rooben/sig|Per DP. The less stublets, the better.}}
-#{{User:InfectedShroom/sig}} Per DP.
-#{{User:Garlic Man/sig}} Per DP - I already redirected a whole bunch of the enemies before, but now it's starting again... D:
-#{{User:Storm Yoshi/sig}} Per DP but...
-#{{User:Green Guy/sig|Per DP, Stooben, and the Grarlic Guy}}
-#[[User:1337Yoshi|1337Yoshi]] Per everyone else.
-# [[User:MarioGalaxy2433g5|<span style="color:#309">MarioGalaxy2433g5</span>]]  {[[User talk:MarioGalaxy2433g5|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/MarioGalaxy2433g5|Contribs]]} - Per all
-#{{User:HyperToad/sig}} - Per DP.
-====Keep 'em split====
-#{{User:Cobold/sig}} - Those are just as notable as Melee Adventure mode enemies, who all have articles undebated last time I checked.
-#{{User:Plumber/Pignature}} Per Cobold
 ====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)
+Definitions of species according to two credible dictionaries:According to ''Encarta World English Dictionary'' a species is <nowiki>''a subdivision of a genus. . .containing individuals that resemble one another and that may interbreed''</nowiki>
+And in ''Websters New Revised Dictionary of the English Language'' species is defined as <nowiki>''A category of animals or plants. . .with the capacity of interbreeding only among themselves.''</nowiki>
+I don't think [[MeowMaid|MeowMaids]] fit any of that criteria.
+{{user|Goomb-omb}}
+:Stumpers, I think something along the lines of "Character Type" would be sufficient.{{user|Goomb-omb}}
+::Sorry I didn't respond to your comment sooner!  That would be cool... I think there's a pretty clear concensus already, though... :( {{User|Stumpers}}
-And I didn't want that article made. My point being, THERE IS A LIMIT! <_< {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}}
+Ninjayoshi, the 12:02, 13 June 2008 (EDT) revision of the [[Boo]] article quotes [[Goombario|Goombario's]] tattle for [[Igor]] thus: " ‘''He probably was a merchant before he became a Boo,''’ " and goes on to speculate that "Boos may be a species of ghosts [''sic''—ghosts cannot belong to a species] who were once living." It is therefore possible that Boos are ghosts, and so do not belong to a species. —{{User|Soler}}
-: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/sig}} 20:19, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
+:Should have checked my sources, my bad.-[[User:Ninjayoshi|Ninjayoshi]]
+Actually, Soler's quote proves this proposal's wrong: clearly there ''can'' be species of ghosts in the ''Marioverse'', or they (the writers) wouldn't've made that tattle. Besides, "Character Type" sounds more like when you say whether or not a player's a Power Character or a Technique Character, etc. in sports/kart racing titles. - {{User|Walkazo}}
+:Er... no, sorry, the quote does nothing of the kind. A ''ghost'', in this context, is "the disembodied spirit of a dead person, supposed to haunt the living as a pale or shadowy vision; phantom." (''Collins English Dictionary'', third edition). ''Spirit'', for the record, in this context means "the force or principle of life that animates the body of living things". As far as I know, '''''<u>"life forces/principles" can't breed</u>''''', and according to BOTH of Goomb-omb's dictionaries, members of a species may interbreed. The ''article'', not the tattle, used the word ''species'', and thus contradicted itself: that's why I used "''sic''" (There is, however, still the possibility that Boos are not ghosts, but a ghost-like species that one can transform into in place of dying; however, in SM64DS, the message "Ghosts don't DIE!" sometimes appears after defeating a Boo, which would seemingly refute this argument.) Perhaps my first comment was ambiguous: I should've probably used single ''and'' double quotes on the first quotation, to show a "double quotation", and only used double on the second quote. I'll fix that now. —{{User|Soler}}.
+::And about Mario not being scientific, that is completely irrelevant--this wiki should still strive be scientific.  Isn't the goal to make an encyclopedic catalog of everything Mario?  You can't accomplish that without being scientific, errors like this just make it look like the people who work on the wiki don't actually care enough to make sure that everything is correct (no offense to any one of course!!). {{User|Goomb-omb}}
+:::Hear hear. —{{User|Soler}}.
+::::I object. Since when was a mushroom making Mario grow to double his size (or sometimes even bigger) scientific? Since when was a turtle flying in a cloud, holding a fishing rod and dropping spiked eggs scientific? Since when was racing on a giant pinball table scientific? The Mario Wiki already has plenty of material that isn't scientific, so changing "Species" to something like "Character Type" is going to make hardly any difference at all. {{User|Pikax}}
+::::If you read what I wrote, I just said Mario not being scientific is irrelevant.  As in, Mario isn't scientific.  The goal of a wiki is provide a encyclopedic database, and to be encyclopedic one must scientific cataloging, such as dividing articles into categories, (which we do) and to use proper terminology (which we do not) {{User|Goomb-omb}}
+:::::Wait, you're saying that we should be scientific about something that isn't scientific? That's like saying we should make a rock solid flannel. {{User|Pikax}}
+::::::'''''No, it isn't.''''' "''Scientific''" here refers to a type of ''accuracy'', and inaccuracy '''borders on giving misinformation'''. —{{User|Soler}}
+:::::::About the Boo thing, [[Boo|there]] [[Portrait Ghost|is]]  [[Eerie|multiple]] kind of Ghost. In a way, the Boos are a "species" of Ghost, uh. {{user|Blitzwing}}
+::::::::The Boos would be a '''type/form/kind''' of ghost, rather than a ''species'', unless the Marioverse had the (somewhat disturbing) distinction of allowing its ghosts to breed... —{{User|Soler}}.
-At least have one on Primid, please? {{User:MegaMario9910/sig}}
+If this were a wiki about, oh say, Dora the Explorer, would we write about how Swiper the Fox is a kleptomaniac? I think you're looking at it a bit too hard..... - [[User:Ultimatetoad|Ultimatetoad]]
-:Yeah, having a Primid one ''would'' be nice, IMO. {{User:InfectedShroom/sig}}
+:If Swiper ''is'' a kleptomaniac, why not? —{{User|Soler}}
-::There's always room in lists for a main article template, right? {{User:Stumpers/sig}} 20:19, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
+You said scientific meant a type of accuracy? Why not just use the word accurate to describe the situation in the first place? {{User|Pikax}}
+::I did. See my vote. Other people started using the word ''scientific''. —{{User|Soler}}.
-Perhaps Primid could be an exception... Ehhhhhhh... That's debatable, I think. {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}}
+O.K., lets look at in another way. The mario series exists in a different reality then the one we exist in. Who says the idea of a species in this ''fictional'' reality is the same as ours? A lot of fiction represent robots as a type of species: ghost's too, now that I think about it (anyone here read Bruce Coville?). One of OUR dictionaries does'nt have much impact: so the question is, have Boos/Machine-Mades/Meow-Maids ever been reffered to as a species in the Mario series? - [[User:Ultimatetoad|Ultimatetoad]]
-: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/sig}} 09:22, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
+:As of yet, no one here has provided evidence that the idea of a species in the Marioverse is any different to ours. Therefore I am assuming that the word "species" means the same thing in the Marioverse as it does on Earth. —{{User|Soler}}
+::As of yet no one here has provided evidence that the idea of a species in the Marioverse is the same as ours.
+--[[User:Tykyle|Tykyle]] 17:13, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
+:::One could just as easily say, "As of yet no one here has provided evidence that the idea of a mince pie in the Marioverse is the same as ours. Thererefore I propose that all the recipes in the Paper Mario series be classified as mince pies." —{{User|Soler}}.
+...Right... Anyway, just to clarify my earlier post, I thought the second quote was taken from the tattle, but your edited comment is much clearer and I now see that I was mistaken. - {{User|Walkazo}}
+:::Well, the whole point of this was to increase accuracy and precision, which no one seems to care about excepting Soler and myself.  I'm not going to start debating whether or not Mechakoopas are sapient beings, or whether or not Kingdom-Phylum-Class-Order-Family-Genus-Species exists in marioverse, because these are things we'll never know. I just wanted to make the terminology correct, but I guess I didn't realize that people felt so passionately about keeping such an insignificant thing the same.{{User|Goomb-omb}} Again, no offense and no hard feelings to anyone. :)
-Those articles should be merged into their own page as well... {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}}
+----
-: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/sig}} 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:Pokemon DP/sig}}
+===Write Articles in the Same Tense===
-: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/sig}} 11:34, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
+{{ProposalOutcome|failed|3-6|no such rule}}
-::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)
+Here I go: I mean tense as in ''past, present, future.'' Now, I've been looking at quite a few character articles, but this also applies to game articles, in the Story sections. I've noticed that the older games and characters' articles seem to be written in past tense, as in "Mario then defeated Bowser and then went psycho" - but more recent games/characters (e.g. Rosalina, Super Mario Galaxy...) are in present tense, like "Mario defeats Bowser and returns peace to the kingdom." So, I think it makes sense to have them all in present tense, no matter how old the character/game is. It's all about consistency, if you ask me. This is my first proposal, so I've probably done it wrong and it might get deleted...oh well, I tried.
-Agreed, Blitzwing. {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}}
+'''UPDATE:''' OK, I'll admit I kind of confused myself with what I wrote at first. OK, after reading the Comments and Oppositions...here's my change:
-: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/sig}} 01:20, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
-}}
-===Coconut Mall Department Stores===
+There should be a rule that determines how to write an article...such as a rule about how old the game/event/whatever is. Or the rule could be that certain Sections, such as Story or History, are always consistent for any article, but that same article may have the more appropriate tense in other sections. Does that make sense?
-<span style="color:red;font-family:Comic Sans MS;font-size:150%">MAKE NO LIST OR SEPERATE ARTICLES 12-7</span>
-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?
+'''Proposer''':[[User:Dom|Dom]]<br>
+'''Deadline''': June 27, 2008, 20:00 EDT
-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.
+====Support====
+#{{User|Blitzwing}} - Per Dom.
+#{{User|MegaMario9910}} - Per Dom. It would cause confusion if an early game article had the past tense, while the new ones would have the present tense.
+#{{User|Cobold}} - all sections should be in the same time. But for flashbacks within a section, the past tense still should be used. (like explaining the preface of PM:TTYD in Peach's article)
-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.
+====Oppose====
+#[[User:Ninjayoshi|Ninjayoshi]] - No.  Mario '''does''' have a timelime.  In some games, they even reference back in the timeline.
-{{scroll box|content=
+#{{User|Stumpers}} - Past tense always sounds better for a history section in an encyclopedia.  Also, enforcing this will be very difficult if it is passed -- you've got about 800 pages that will need to be changed.
-'''Proposer:''' {{User:Tiptup_Jr./sig}}<br>
+#{{user|InfectedShroom}} Yeah, sorry for the vote change. Anyway, Past tense makes things flow more easily. IMO, we should do the lead in Present and the body in Past.
-'''Deadline:''' May 9, 2008, 20:00
+#Per all. {{user|Toadette 4evur}}
+#Per all {{user|RedFire Mario}}
-====Make them/Make a list!====
+#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per IS.
-#{{User:Tiptup_Jr./sig}} So... yeah. I'm the proposer and all. Reasons stated above.
-#[[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]] - A LIST. Not seperate artciles; 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:Blitzwing/sig}} - What Walkazo said.
-#{{User:Snack/Sig}} Per Walkazo.
-#{{User:Arend/Sig|Besides it is a little bit unneed, it CAN be added. We can add a whole list to the Coconut article}}
-#[[User:GreenKoopa|GreenKoopa]] - [[User talk:GreenKoopa|Comments or questions?]]See comment.
-#{{User:Glitchman/sig}} Per Walkazo and Arend.
-====Oppose!====
-#{{User:Pokemon DP/sig}} 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.
-#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/sig}}
-#{{User:Ghost Jam/sig}} Another stub article we don't need. Just merge into [[List of Mario Kart Sponsors]].
-#{{User:Green Guy/sig}} Per DP. Plus it's rather futile to have articles on things that don't even effect game play.
-#{{User:Plumber/Pignature}} 20:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT) Merge into List of Mario Kart Sponsors and move that to [[Mario Kart Advertisements]] (since the ads themselves aren't sponsors).
-#{{User:Stumpers/sig}} In my defense it was assuming good faith.  Whatever though. Per Ghost Jam.
-#{{User:Stooben Rooben/sig|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:MarioGalaxy2433g5|<span style="color:#309">MarioGalaxy2433g5</span>]]  {[[User talk:MarioGalaxy2433g5|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/MarioGalaxy2433g5|Contribs]]}-  per all
-#{{User:InfectedShroom/sig}} {{User:InfectedShroom/sig|Per all. LOL, is that descriptive enough? :P J/K}}
-#{{User:Princess Strawberry Butterfly/sig}} 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====
-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.}}
+'Wouldn't this cause confusion' if Super Mario World and Super Mario World 2 were written as if they were happening at the same time?[[User:Ninjayoshi|Ninjayoshi]]
+:Should this really be generalised for all? For the character bios I wrote, I wrote about story-relevant events in past tense, independent of how new the game is, since these events already passed. I have to agree with Ninjayoshi's demur. --[[User:Grandy02|Grandy02]] 12:11, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
+::Ninjayoshi: if you write both sections in the past tense, no, it won't. {{User|Stumpers}}
-Tiptup Jr., please always add a reason next to your vote, otherwise it's invalid. Even if you're the proposer. :/ {{User:Time Q/sig}} 05:53, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
+Hey, I forgot to say stuff about articles to do with future games or characters...maybe that should also be discussed? {{User|Dom}}
-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/sig}}
+I'm confused about this proposal. Stumpers wrote in his support vote that past tense should be used for passed events, and I think the same. However, this proposal is about present tense in every case, isn't it? I'm for consistency, but not for present tense everytime. What is it all about now, really?? --[[User:Grandy02|Grandy02]] 07:44, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
+:That was my fault.  I misread the proposal and though this was to make all tenses be consistent in each sub-section.  Sorry about that.  You're going to want to oppose if you want to be allowed to write in the past tense still. {{User|Stumpers}}
+::By the way, I'm really not sure how one would enforce this rule, even after you spend countless hours fixing each tense.  I've done some tense fixing before, and let me tell you: its like rewriting the entire thing.  It will probably take you one half the time that it took the contributor to write the original text.  Let's think about this then: on the first part of the history section for Mario up to Super Mario Bros. 2 USA, it took me probably a total of five hours to write.  That means that for one third of one third of one article, (one ninth of an article), you're gonna need roughly 2 hours.  As the proposer, you and the other supporters are going to have to put this into effect.  Do you really want to be in charge of changing all the past tenses into present and then changing every new edit by a user who doesn't know about this proposal? {{User|Stumpers}} 10:54, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
+'''Make sure you read my UPDATE before any more comments.''' {{User|Dom}}
+:I meant that if they were both written in present tense, because I support writing in past tense.-[[User:Ninjayoshi|Ninjayoshi]]
-What's about putting info of these things on the [[List of Mario Kart Sponsors]]? --[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] 07:37, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
+It doesn't take a long time to fix tenses with the ctrl+f function (find). Just type in ed, ing, etc. in the find window. {{user|Clay Mario}}
+:If only English were that simple!  Take "is," one of the most common verbs.  It's past tense is "was."  Don't forget about "are" and "were," too.  There are other verbs like that, too.  "Run" vs. "ran," for example.  The only way to do it right would be to go through line by line and fix it, although yours would work for an initial fix, I have to admit. {{User|Stumpers}}
+::Yo, CM, one more thing. My computer is limited just to finding things ''outside'' of the edit box. Which conveniently takes away that option for me and other Mac users. ;) {{user|InfectedShroom}}
+:::You'd have to copy it into a word processor and use the find fuction, then, right? {{User|Stumpers}} 02:43, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
-Seems like a good idea, Blitzwing. {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}}
-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./sig}}
+I'm a Mac user and I made the Proposal...but I never thought of issues related to finding words to change. {{User|Dom}}
+:Just copy and paste the text from the edit box to Word and find it there. That's what I do whenever I have to find something on my cruddy 10-year-old Mac. (Convoluted workarounds/"shortcuts" are my specialty these days.) - {{User|Walkazo}}
-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/sig}} 09:44, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
+----
-Add them to the [[List of Mario Kart Sponsors]]. <u>'''THIS I COMMAND!!!'''</u> {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}}
+===Star Rod===
+{{ProposalOutcome|passed|20-0|split}}
+The [[Star Rod]] article is currently about both the Star Rod that [[Bowser]] stole in ''[[Paper Mario]]'' and the item used in the ''[[Super Smash Bros. (series)|Super Smash Bros.]]'' series that originated from the ''[[Kirby]]'' series.  Should the article be split in two articles, or remain as one article about two subjects?
-{{quote|This is the most ridiculous Proposal I've ever seen.|User:Pokemon DP}}
+'''Proposer:''' {{User|Stumpers}}<br>
+'''Deadline:''' June 30, 2008, 17:00 EDT
-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/Pignature}} 20:34, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
+====Support (split article)====
+#{{User|Stumpers}} - Historically, multiple subjects have only been on the same page if they are minor ([[Board (Super Mario Galaxy)]]) or they are very closely connected ([[Ashley & Red]]).  The two Star Rods are neither: they are prominent subjects from different video game series.  Each has its own distinct history.  I have heard the arguement that the ''Paper Mario'' Star Rod is a reference to the ''Kirby'' Star Rod,  but this arguement has no source behind it, official or otherwise.  Even if it was a reference, I fail to see why the two should be merged.  The [[Devolution Gun]] isn't merged with the [[Super Scope]], for example, as both have significant, distinct roles in the ''[[Super Mario (franchise)|Super Mario]]'' franchise.
+#{{User|MegaMario9910}} - Both have had different roles, and are complete different things in the Marioverse. One SSB (which is also the same one from Kirby), and the one from Paper Mario. Per Stumpers.
+#{{User|MC Hammer Bro.}}-Good point. Both have different powers and different uses. And plus only one is used in SSB while the other isn't.
+#{{User|The.Real.Izkat}}-Per MegaMario9910 which inadvertatley means Per Stumpers.
+#{{user|InfectedShroom}} - Per Stupmers.
+#{{User|PeteyPiranhaLover}} - Per Stmpers.
+#[[User:Ninjayoshi|Ninjayoshi]] - Per Stumpers.
+#{{User|Starry Parakarry}}- Per Stumpers. Shouldn't we have the MP 8 Star Rod included in the PM Star Rod article as well?
+#{{User|Dryest bowser}}- per stumpers
+#{{User|Reecer6}}- I wasn't going to per stumpers 'till i saw his reason. so now: per stumpers
+#{{User|ItameMarioFan}} - Per Stumpers. Both have their own history, both differ with powers, etc.
+#{{User|luigi3000}} - Per Stumpers.Stumpers has a good idea.
+#{{User|Mrsdaisyluigi}} - per Stumpers. two completley differnt things
+#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per all.
+#{{User|Mario321}} - Two different things. There needs to be two different articles on each.
+#{{User|Glitchman}} - Why does nobody ever oppose proposals made by Stumpers? XD Per all.
+#{{User|Snack}} - Per Stumpers.
+#{{User|Dr. Hammer}} - Per all.
+#{{User|Dom}} - Yep, I say they should be split, they're much different.
+#{{User|1337Yoshi}} Different things, seperate articles. Per Stumpers.
-Agreed with Plumber. The Pie Proposal was at least funny. :( {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}}
+====Oppose (keep as one article)====
-:It's nice to know that you can't really call something around these parts stupid without referring to one of my creations. XD -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]][[User:Ghost Jam|Chris]][[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 15:49, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
-Really, only if there really is enough information. If not, then consider merging it. [[Image:Don Pianta2.PNG|70px]][[User:Nothing444]]<sup>[[user talk:Nothing444|sup?]]</sup> 00:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
+====Comments====
+We need to decide what we're going to do about the split if it happens.  When someone types in "Star Rod," should it go to a disambiguation page or to the ''Paper Mario'' Star Rod?  I'm inclined to think the latter.  If we do that, the ''Paper Mario'' Star Rod can be left on the "Star Rod" page and the ''Kirby'' Star Rod can go to "Star Rod (item)" Sound good? {{User|Stumpers}}
+:There was a comment about a Star Rod from ''[[Mario Party 8]]''.  For now, the above proposal would only split out the ''Kirby'' Star Rod.  If it would better the article to have it removed, a follow-up proposal splitting the article further is in order.  We'll have to see. ~{{User|Stumpers}}
+::In that case, "Star Rod" should lead to the ''Paper Mario'' Star Rod page, with that little notice at the top giving you the option of going to a different Star Rod page ("Star Rod (SSB)", perhaps). - {{User|Walkazo}}
+:::You know what, since there's three Star Rods, maybe we should make a Star Rod redirect to Star Rod (disambiguation) and then have it go to Star Rod (PM), Star Rod (MP8), and Star Rod (SSB).  Sound good? {{User|Stumpers}}
+::::Yep. - {{User|Walkazo}}
-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/sig}} 01:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
+----
-All that information is false, yes. I don't remember any menus or anything of the sort. {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}}
+===The Notability Standard===
-:So why haven't we deleted/removed false data from that article than? {{User:Stumpers/sig}} 01:16, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
+{{ProposalOutcome|passed|10-0|new notability standard}}
+To quote one of the standards for a Featured Article as established by [[MarioWiki:Featured articles]], to become an FA an article must, "…be notable and have significant content – some complete articles like [[Spiny Shroopa]] do not have enough information to become FAs."  On a number of Featured Article Nominations, including [[Smithy]] and [[Alien (Club Nintendo)]], the nomination has been questioned on the basis of this rule.  If a single user feels that a subject is too minor, he or she can stop the nomination in its tracks by casting an oppose vote.  In my opinion, the quoted standard leaves too much up to opinion of a small group of users and defeats the purpose of an oppose vote.  The point of an oppose vote is to help the supporters to make improvements on the article (as established by MarioWiki:Featured Articles).  The supporters cannot make a subject more notable.  In addition, the rule may hinders desire to edit an article about a minor topic.  However, I do appreciate the need for a featured article to be longer than Spiny Shroopa if the Wiki is to look established and appealing to new editors and casual readers.  Therefore, I propose that we replace the above condition with the following: '''to become an FA, an article must have at least 4,000 characters (letters, spaces, etc.) not including templates, categories, quotes, images, and "official profiles and statistics" sections.  Text in an image thumbnail is included.'''  Examples of articles that just make this limit are [[Baby Daisy]] and [[Booster]].  I am currently open to increasing the minimum character limit or removing non-breaking spaces (the ones the spacebar puts in) from that limit; please discuss.  Microsoft Word includes a statistic feature that allows a user to easily find the character count with and without spaces.
-For evidence, perhaps? {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}}
+'''Proposer:''' {{User|Stumpers}}<br>
-: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/sig}} 07:52, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
+'''Deadline:''' June 30, 2008, 17:00 EDT
-Er, [[User:Yoshitheawesome|Yoshitheawesome]], your vote isn't really valid since Stumpers changed his vote. {{User:Stooben Rooben/sig}} 15:53, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
+====Support (replace standard)====
+#{{User|Stumpers}} - See proposal.  This proposal would limit the amount of pointless discussion without allowing short articles to hinder the appearance of the Wiki further.
+#[[User:Ultimatetoad|Ultimatetoad]] This is a good Idea. Having a length requirement sort of ensures that the chracter is "important", without allowing arguments over chracters that only appeared in one game.
+#{{user|InfectedShroom}} - Great idea. Per Stumpers.
+#{{User|Soler}} —Having a definite standard would in all probability speed up the process and avoid petty disputes. Great idea.
+#[[User:Ninjayoshi|Ninjayoshi]] - Yeah, some pointless articles have been nominated. Per Stumpers.
+#{{User|Cobold}} - Sounds like the best solution, no more fights on what's important enough and what not.
+#{{User|Starry Parakarry}}-Pretty good idea! I like it, a lot actually! Per Stumpers!
+#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per all.
+#{{user|Clay Mario}} - Per Stumpers.
+#{{user|P. Trainer}} Per all.
-Once this proposal fails there should be another one concerning lists of stores only. The options could be "No List", "Seperate 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]]
+====Oppose (maintain standard)====
-: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/sig}} 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:Stumpers/sig}} 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:Pokemon DP/sig}}
+====Comments====
-:Can you please clarify this: is that article fanon or not? {{User:Stumpers/sig}} 21:32, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
+Not a bad idea. However, do you have plans to do a Byte limit as well? That would wear it down to an even finer point. I dunno, just a suggestion. Thought I'd throw it out there. :P {{user|InfectedShroom}}
+:Do you know how you find the byte count for the articles?  If so that might work better. {{User|Stumpers}}
+::Yeah, just go into the history and it's right in the last edit message: (cur) (last)  11:18, 24 June 2008 Ninjayoshi (Talk <nowiki>|</nowiki> contribs) ('''18,397 bytes'''). ;) {{User|InfectedShroom}}
+:::Awesome.  Let me experiment with that a bit and see if it's a better alternative.  I really like that we can check that on-website, but I'm worried about users adding lots of quotes or screenshots to make an article meet the requirement. {{User|Stumpers}}
+Bytes could be difficult to determine. I'd go with a bottom limit of 4000 characters, including spaces. {{User|Cobold}}
+:Okay, I'll keep the proposal as it is, then.  Thanks for the support, everyone. {{User|Stumpers}}
-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/sig}}
+----
-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/sig}} 13:47, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
+===Allow cameo '''appearences''' to be documented in character articles===
+{{ProposalOutcome|passed|14-0|add cameo appearances to character articles}}
+The Cameo page currently includes numerous examples of purposeful Mario appearences by Nintendo. These incude his appearences in those sports games )can't remember the names) Mike Tyson's Punch-Out Kirby Superstar, etc. I propose that we incorporate these "official" cameo's into the main characters article, as a way to include more info.
-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. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]][[User:Ghost Jam|Chris]][[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 14:55, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
+'''Proposer''': [[User:Ultimatetoad|Ultimatetoad]]<br>
+'''Deadline''': July 1, 2008, 17:00 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?]]
+====Support====
-:I'm fond of this idea. Didn't we have a List of Implied Businesses article at one time? -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]][[User:Ghost Jam|Chris]][[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 23:32, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
+#[[User:Ultimatetoad|Ultimatetoad]]per above
+#{{User|Blitzwing}} - Per Above (Ahahaha).
+#{{User|Stumpers}} - We do the same for Nintendo cameos within Mario/Donkey Kong/Yoshi games (see Link or Sonic), so why not?  Would this also include the official crossovers NBA Street V3, SSX on Tour, and Itadiki Street DS?  I suppose it should since we already include Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games.
+#{{User|Cobold}} per all of them.
+#{{User|Ninjayoshi}} - Vote Change.  Yeah, after reading Stumpers' vote, it makes sense. Per all, and I agree with Blitzwing in the comments.
+#{{User|Dryest bowser}} - per all
+#{{User|Glitchman}} - I think this would be a good idea for minor characters like Stanley the Bugman, Donkey Kong Jr., ect., but characters like Mario, Luigi, and Peach already have sooooo many appearances, why bother?  So in short, no for major characters, yes for minor ones.
+#{{User|MelissaMarioSister}} - Per Ultimatetoad and Stumpers. In response to Glitchman: yes, the main characters have many appearances, but this is a reference site. I think the goal here is to be as complete as possible.
+#{{User|Iron Maiden}} - Great idea. Per all.
+#{{User|P. Trainer}} Per all
+#{{User|Tucayo}} Per all, its a great idea for having more information.
+#{{User|Ambo100}} I support, Infomation should be displayed like that.
+#{{User|1337Yoshi}} Per all.
+#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per all.
-Actually... Since the buisnesses are ALL on [[Coconut Mall]], I think they should be added to the Coconut Mall article. Thoughts? {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}}
+====Oppose====
-:That works too. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]][[User:Ghost Jam|Chris]][[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 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./sig}}
-: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/sig}}
-::Question: why was my vote removed? *Is too lazy to look in history* {{User:InfectedShroom/sig}}
-:::It had no valid reason. I think it was just something like "Hmm... just merge it". {{User:Time Q/sig}} 04:44, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
-::::Oh kay. Lemme fix it. {{User:InfectedShroom/sig}}
-So... Can we all agree to add all this information to the [[Coconut Mall]] article? {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}}
-:I can't think of any reason why not. {{User:Stumpers/sig}} 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/sig}} 04:28, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
-::We should definitely do that. {{User:CrystalYoshi/sig}} 20:44, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
-}}
-===Super Mario Galaxy signposts merge===
-<span style="color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;font-size:150%">MERGE 13-10</span>
-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)".
-{{scroll box|content=
-'''Proposer:''' {{User:Snack/Sig}}<br>
-'''Deadline:''' May 12, 2008, 17:00
-====Merge into "Boards (Super Mario Galaxy)"====
-#{{User:Snack/Sig}} (As said above)
-#{{User:Blitzwing/sig}} Per Snack.
-#{{User:Uniju :D/sig}} Per Snack, as long as the images don't end up deleted.
-#[[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]] - Per Snack.
-#{{User:Pokemon DP/sig}} Per Snack.
-#{{User:Princess Grapes Butterfly/sig}} Per all. (Hey wasn't that the same idea I wrote in on the [[Talk:Bill Board]]?)
-#{{User:Stumpers/sig}} 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:Garlic Man/sig}} Per All.
-#[[User:Mushroomkingdom.nl|Mushroomkingdom.nl]] Per All
-#[[User:Yoshitheawesome]]. Per all.
-#[[User:RedFire Mario|RedFire Mario]] Per all
-#[[User:Reecer6]] Per all
-#{{User:Purple Yoshi/sig}} - They're too minor. Are you going to have an article about everything that mentions it's name?
-====Keep them Seperate====
-#{{User:Stooben Rooben/sig|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.}}
-#Per Stooby. Plus, they're not even stubs, almost defeating the purpose of merging. {{User:Toadette 4evur/sig}}
-#[[User:HyperToad|HyperToad]] Per Stoob.
-#{{User:Arend/Sig|Per EVERYONE who voted on this section of this proposal}}
-#{{User:Bob-omb buddy/sig}} Per all. They are just simalar,not the same and are different charecters that are not in a group.
-#{{User:Glitchman/sig}} Per all.  They're not even stubs, so, no reason to merge them.
-#{{User:YellowYoshi398/sig}} 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:InfectedShroom/sig}} Uh, Per all. They ain't stubs.
-#{{User:EnPeached/sig}}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====
-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/sig}} 04:36, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
+I dunno. If we listed '''every''' time Mario has been seen/mentioned in a tv show, the page would be (even more) horribly long. --[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] 12:41, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
+:I am not suggesting that we mention every Mention, or even every appearence. For instance several series feature characters who dress in a style similar to Mario: these can be left out of the article. However, when Mario (or any other character, for that matter) makes a full-fledged appearence and has an actual role in an episode, it should be mentioned. - [[User:Ultimatetoad|Ultimatetoad]]
+::Maybe we should cover official cameos on that page and leave unoffical ones out? It would keep it short. {{User|Stumpers}}
-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|<font color=blue>Hyper</font color>]][[User Talk:HyperToad|<font color=navy>Toad</font color>]][[Special:EditCount?target=HyperToad&doeditcount=Show+count|<font color=purple>@{{PAGENAME}}</font color>]][[Image:HT Sig.png]]
+Hmmmmm..... what would classify as an official cameo? - [[User:Ultimatetoad|Ultimatetoad]]
+:Indeed, what's an official cameo? One put into a non-Mario game by Nintendo themselves? One Nintendo gave permission to? (those sports games for the GameCube with Mario, Luigi and Peach in it). - {{User|Cobold}} 13:31, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
+::That was what I was thinking.  Thanks for defining it! {{User|Stumpers}}
-:I'm with HyperToad here. {{User:CrystalYoshi/sig}} 18:07, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
+Ultimatetoad, please always add a reason to your votes, even if you're the proposer. {{User|Time Q}}
-}}
-===Super Mario Bros.:The Lost Levels Worlds===
+But I don't '''wanna''' - [[User:Ultimatetoad|Ultimatetoad]]
-<span style="color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;font-size:150%">MAKE EXTRA ARTICLES 14-0</span>
+:As much as I'm all in favor of forcing voters to give their reasons, this is ridiculous. {{User|Blitzwing}}
+::Not really, it could prevent users from seeing the "unreasoned" vote and thinking "Oh hey, there's someone who doesn't give a reason, so I don't have to either". It's like the "Per ''[insert user]''" thing, almost everyone uses it now, most of them just copying what other users do. {{User|Time Q}}
-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 was just joking. I dit put a reason, even if it is just : please refer above (ok, so maybe it's just "above, you know what it means.
-{{scroll box|content=
+I think that Stumpers had a good idea: non-mario games which Mario appears in (and games which are made by nintendo) should be incorporated into the character page. Everything else can stay on [[Cameo]]. I will change my proposal to reflect this. - [[User:Ultimatetoad|Ultimatetoad]]
-'''Proposer:''' {{User:Glitchman/sig}}<br>
+:Currently, NBA V3 and SSX on Tour (I believe those are the names) are both on the Game Sightings page. {{User|Stumpers}} 09:22, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
-'''Deadline:''' May 13, 2008, 17:00
-====Make new pages for each world====
+erm, well, thos are "official" sightings too, so they should probably be moved.... I mean, we have articles for the ''games''. don't we? - [[User:Ultimatetoad|Ultimatetoad]]
-#{{User:Glitchman/sig}} Per myself.
+:At one time we did, which is probably what you were remembering.  With the introduction of the game sightings article, someone merged them.  I'd be for separating them, though. {{User|Stumpers}}
-#{{User:Stooben Rooben/sig|Per Glitchman.}}
+::Since discerning official and unofficial cameos is gonna get hairy, why not just include a short, concise list of all the cameos on the page, minus generic allusions to the character by non-Nintendo/video game sources (as Ultimatetoad mentioned earlier). The list would be something like this:
-#{{User:YellowYoshi398/sig}} 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?
+::*Tennis - Mario is the referee.
-#{{User:Stumpers/sig}} They're different levels, which is enough for me.
+::*Banjo-Kazooie - Mario is mentioned by someone (can't remembr who).
-#[[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.
+::*Pokémon Red/Blue/Yellow/Fire Red/Leaf Green - [[Mario and Wario]] is depicted on a TV.
-#{{User:Cobold/sig}} - 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.
+::Admittedly for [[Mario]] it's basically a streamlined version of [[Cameo]], but for the other characters it'd be more original and usefull. - {{User|Walkazo}}
-#{{User:HyperToad/sig}} - Per Cobold.
-#[[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]] - Per all.
-#{{User:Pokemon DP/sig}} I changed my vote, seeing how each level is entirely new.
-#{{User:InfectedShroom/sig}} Per Glitchman.
-#{{User:Bob-omb buddy/sig}}-It does it on most games,Even if it is simalar and people want to compare it to the original.
-#{{User:CrystalYoshi/sig}} 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:Super-Yoshi/sig}}-Per Stumpers.
-# [[Image:RPGMarioin3D.PNG|24px]] [[User:Clay Mario|Clay]] [[user talk:Clay Mario|Mario]] [[Image:RPGMarioin3D.PNG|24px]] - Per the thought that Super Mario Bros. 1 and the Lost Levels are completely different
-====Don't make new pages for each world====
+Well:
-====Comments====
+Any appearence/mention on a game for a NINTENDO CONSOLE will be in the main character article. These include everything Walkazo just said as well as the ones listed at the top and... some other ones.
-Perhaps my opposition isn't valid... I've never played either game, so I have no idea what the differences are. {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}}
-: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/sig}} 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:Time Q/sig}} 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:Pokemon DP/sig}}
+Any appearence/mention on a non-nintendo console, show, movie, etc., will stay on the cameo page.
-:They created entirely new levels. There are no "differences", you'd have to mention everything for that. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 13:29, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
-::Cobold's right. Some are completely new. <span style="font-family: Centaur; font-size:11px;">[[User:HyperToad|<span style="font-size:16px;">H</span>yperToad]] ([[User talk: HyperToad|<span style="font-size:14px;">t</span>alk]] &middot; [[Special:Contributions/HyperToad|<span style="font-size:14px;">c</span>ontribs]])</span>
-:::All of the levels are completely new, actually. {{User:Glitchman/sig}}
-::::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:CrystalYoshi/sig}} 17:38, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
+Obviously I'm excluding games or shows where Mario is a main character, like Hotel Mario & the SMBSS. - [[User:Ultimatetoad|Ultimatetoad]]
-: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/sig}}
+:Of course: those are in the actual Appearance sections. - {{User|Walkazo}}
-:Okay. {{User:CrystalYoshi/sig}} 12:52, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
-}}
-===Smash Bros. Series Articles===
+----
-<span style="color:red;font-family:Comic Sans MS;font-size:150%">NO ARTICLES ABOUT OTHER SERIES 12-11-3</span>
-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 {{fakelink|Metroid (series)}} and ect. This espically goes for {{fakelink|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.
+===Merge Mario's clothing===
+{{ProposalOutcome|failed|1-7|no merge}}
+So I've been looking around the wiki, and I recently noticed that there are articles of each piece of Mario's clothing (excluding his overalls). I find this a bit odd. They aren't very notable in any way. So I think we should merge each piece into one article. It would be named something like "Mario's clothing" or "List of Mario's clothing" or something to that effect. Opinions?
-{{scroll box|content=
+'''Proposer''':[[User:huntercrunch|huntercrunch]]<br>
-'''Proposer:''' {{User|HyperToad}}<br>
+'''Deadline''': July 3, 2008, 17:00 EDT
-'''Deadline:''' May 14, 2008, 17:00
-====Make the Articles====
+====Support====
-#{{User|Yoshitheawesome}} They are something that at least come in contact with Mario in Smash, so they should have their own articles.
+#{{User|huntercrunch}} - I am the proposer and I give my reasons above.
-#{{User|Master Lucario}} Per Yoshitheawesome.
-#{{User|Arend}} I think we should every seies instead of one. Pikachu appeared more in games with Mario, 5 Final Fantasy characters are playable in Mario Hoops 3-on-3, and Link and Samus "cameoed" BOTH in Super Mario RPG along with a Final Fantasy boss (SMRPG and MH3O3 are from Square(-Enix)). Mario and others from Mario Series ALSO "Cameoed" in a Legend of Zelda game!
-====Only Sonic====
+====Oppose====
-#{{User|HyperToad}} - Yes, I, the proposer, have changed my stance. Sonic has background as a rivalry with Nintendo.
+#{{user|Time Q}}: Per Stumpers in the comments. [[Mario's Hat]] should have its own article. His gloves and shoes also seem to play a more or less important role, according to the respective articles.
-#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} Per the common sense of the comments below.
+#[[User:Ninjayoshi|Ninjayoshi]] - Per Stumpers and Time Q.  Also, the hat has been in every single Mario game.  Ex. his overalls were changed around in the beginning
-#{{User|Blitzwing}} -  Per the fact that I was the one to suggest it. And also per my comment below,
+#{{user|InfectedShroom}} - Per Time. The gloves and shoes are rather important in Luigi's Mansion.
-#{{User|Stumpers}} I like this idea just because it would be nice to see all the Sonic info in one place.  Maybe that's the only page we need... could it be a merge of all Sega topics.  Just a thought.
+#{{User|Glitchman}} - Mario's Hat, Shoes, and Glove all have an important role in [[Luigi's Mansion]], plus the hat also has an important role in Super Mario 64.  Keep them how they are.
-#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per Blitzwing.
+#{{User|1337Yoshi}} Mario's hat is the only one that really plays a significant role in multiple games (Super Mario 64, Super Mario Sunshine, Luigi's Mansion, etc.), so at least that deserves an article. The others seem to be more or less secondary, and could be merged into one article.
-#{{User|InfectedShroom}} Per all
+#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per Stumpers (below) and everyone else who agreed with him, including 1337.
-#{{User|Pokemon DP}} I am ONLY voting for the Sonic series article, nothing else.
+#{{User|Mumbles}} Per everyone.
-#{{User|RedFire Mario}} - I'm choosing Sonic, because the Mario & Sonic game can be a series in the future and Mario is in the game besides series like The Legend of Zedla. Per all
-#{{User|Shrikeswind}} - I feel that, as a Mario Wiki, this should focus solely on the Super Mario series and its related subseries.  That said, due to the Sonic the Hedgehog series being historically regarded as the main third-party rival to the Super Mario series, the series bears a form of relevance to the Super Mario series as a whole despite the fact that neither side appeared in a game together until Mario & Sonic at the Olympics and Super Smash Bros. Brawl.  The same can't be said for all that many other series.
-#{{User|GreenKoopa}} - [[User talk:GreenKoopa|Comments or questions?]]If we keep the SSBB articles about Samus, Snake, ect. the CHARACTERS, and dun make articles about Sonic games and just sonic as a series.
-#{{User|Time Q}}: Per Blitzwing.
-====Nope====
-#{{User|Glitchman}} This is supposed to be the MARIO wiki, we already have to much to do with the SSB series as it is, so we shouldn't bring the Sonic and Metroid series in JUST because they appeared in the smash bros. games!!!
-#{{User|Xzelion}} Per the More Intelligent people above me.
-#{{User|MegaMario9910}} We are a '''''Mariowiki''''', not a Nintendowiki. Since we a Mariowiki, we should not have articles about other series, when we are a '''Mario'''wiki.
-#{{User|Storm Yoshi}}The Donkey Kong series is actually part of Mario contunity as he is a big 8 member. Whats the use of have Metroid when SSB is the only series it has appeared close to the Mario series...And Sonic series has no right to be here unless you define Sega as nintendo
-#{{User|Bob-omb buddy}} Just because they appered in a few mario games doesn't mean we should make a page for it. Leave that to sonic wiki.
-#{{User|WikiGuest}} This is a Mario Wiki, not a Sonic Wiki. :/
-#{{User|Toadster_04}} Like many above me, this is ''MarioWiki''. We should not have articles about other series. Sonic & co., Samus, Link, etc. already have pages for their roles in Mario games. They shouldn't have pages for their roles in non-Mario games.
-#Sonic games are fun, but that doesent mean that his articles should come to MarioWiki. Come on, thats just common sense there. Whats gonna be next, Ness appeared in Smash so we can have all of Mother's articles??? {{User|Super-Yoshi}}
-#{{User|Purple Yoshi}} - These series have only appeared in crossover games. Those games aren't really supposed to be [art of the series. And it's too minor anyway. And, per all.
-#Per Storm Yoshi. {{User|Toadette 4evur}}
-#{{User|Knife}} 12:10, 11 May 2008 (EDT) - No way. Mario's "rivalry" is not a good reason we should create an article on the Sonic series. I'm fine with making articles on items, characters, etc. related to him but creating an article on his whole series would add too much focus on him. Even if it's one article. The Sonic series status is on par with all other series and a "rivalry" and one set of crossover games (Mario & Sonic) do not make him more important.
-#{{User|Cobold}} - The "rivalry" is not important enough to have its own page. We already stated it on Sonic's and on SEGA's page, no need for anything more on the <u>Mario</u> Wiki.
 ====Comments====
-As 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 [http://transformers.wikia.com/wiki/Tonka_GoBots "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.
+Just so that people can judge better, the articles are: [[Mario's Hat]], [[Mario's Glove]], [[Mario's Shoe]], {{fake link|Mario's Shirt}}, [[Mario's Overalls]], and, if you consider it, [[Mario's Star]].  I would agree with you on the glove, shoes, shirt, and overalls.  We did the same with [[Pauline's Items]].  However, the hat is what's getting to me.  That has played an important role in the series and is apparently the secret to Mario's power (see Super Mario 64). {{User|Stumpers}}
-Considering that Sonic was Mario main competitor back in the 90's, I think having an article on it would be about right. --{{User|Blitzwing}} 18:01, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
+I think his shoes and gloves should be merged. -[[User:Ninjayoshi|Ninjayoshi]]
+:I agree with Stumpers. After this proposal dies we should have another one to merge everything but Mario's Hat (since it's too late to alter this one). - {{User|Walkazo}}
+::Will do. {{User|Stumpers}}
-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. {{User|Pokemon DP}}
+{{User|Dom}} Insignificant items like his gloves and er, shoes, should be merged, but stuff like his hat and main clothes are quite deserving of their own articles. There are articles about MUCH less significant things on this Wiki...
-How 'bout a list? {{User|HyperToad}}
+----
-nty. I think the character articles are enough. {{User|Pokemon DP}}
+===Fire and Ice Templates===
+{{ProposalOutcome|passed|12-0|change templates}}
+As I said on the [[Template_talk:Fire|Fire talk page]], too many things use fire (or ice) for these templates to be practical. Instead, I propose we alter these templates so that they only include things made of, or irrefutably linked to fire/ice. This is a better design because readers could then research creatures of fire or ice with as much ease as if they were using the [[Template:Birds|Bird]] or [[Template:Fish|Fish]] Templates to research those kinds of beings, instead of getting bogged down with species that only use fire or ice. For example, if someone wants to research Birds, anything else in the Bird Template that flies but isn't a bird would slow them down; however a misfile like this would be obvious as a bird is a clearly defined animal, while what can be considered appropriately placed under "Fire" and "Ice" is much more subjective. As such, I'm open to suggestions on what should or shouldn't be removed, my first attempt (complete with justifications for my choices) can be seen alongside the original templates [[User:Walkazo/Templates|here]]; as are newer split-template versions of Fire and Ice suggested by [[User:Soler|Soler]] below, which are now the designs I plan to put into effect if this proposal passes.
-Uh... if that's everyone's reasoning that we are a '''MARIO'''wiki, then why do we have SSB at all? {{User|HyperToad}}
+'''Proposer''':[[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]]<br>
-:Because Mario plays a big part in SSB. And uh, because a ot of our editors are SSB fans, duh. --{{User|Blitzwing}} 08:12, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
+'''Deadline''': July 9, 2008, 17:00 EDT
-The reason I'm opposing is because there IS a limit to the amount of Smash information allowed here. :<nowiki>|</nowiki> {{User|Pokemon DP}}
+====Support====
+#{{User|Walkazo}} - My reasons above.
+#{{User|Pikax}} - I have seen what Walkazo plans to separate from the templates and why she wants to separate those things, and I have no objections to her plan.
+#{{User|Dryest bowser}}-per all
+#{{User|The Writing Guy}} - Per Walkazo.
+#{{user|ParaBob-omb}}- Per all.
+#{{User|Dom}} - Per the above users who are crushing my writing here with their heavy words. I say Soler's comment below which includes his 2 split templates is a perfect solution, that should be used instead of what currently exists.
+#{{User|MegaMario9910}} - Per Walkazo and Soler's comment.
+#{{User|Mrsdaisyluigi}} - Per all
+# {{User|Tucayo}} - Per Walkazo. They should be separated, its OK for characters like [[bowser]] to be removed, because the fact they spit fire doesnt make him a fire creature.
+# {{User|Stooben Rooben}} - Per Walkazo, the Proposal-Genius. 23:18, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
+#{{User|Soler}}: per all.
+#{{User|Pokemon DP}} Per Walkazo.
-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? {{user|HyperToad}}
+====Oppose====
-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? :\ {{User|Pokemon DP}}
+====Comments====
+How about something like this for the Fire template, and something similar for the Ice? I tried to simulate Walkazo's formatting as best as I could: feel free to fix the formatting. I feel that this would serve both people with Walkazo's view of the term and those with a broader view of it. If the show/hide feature is unnecessary, please remove it. Another option would be to split the templates in two. —{{User|Soler}}. (I am going on holidays on Sunday, so please excuse me if I do not reply to your unrelenting criticism...)
-I suppose. What about the Sonic series though? {{user|HyperToad}}
+<!--
+{| align="center" width=100% class="toccolours" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2"
-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. {{User|Pokemon DP}} So long as it only details the series' history with the Mario series, nothing more.
+|-
-:So what exactly are we going to do with a Sonic (series) article? Are we going to go through every single game and describe how its sales affected ''Mario's'' sales? Are we going to compare ''Sonic Spinball'' to ''Mario Pinball Land''? Are we going to compare Sonic's countless battles with Dr. Robotnik with Mario's countless battles with Bowser? Are we going to say how many similarities the series had? It's common knowledge that Sonic and Mario were big competitors in the early-to-mid-90's &ndash; especially in the 16-bit era. I still don't find this to be a good idea. Creating an article on the Sonic (series) is opening a door that we're constantly going to have to re-close. Users will come along, see that we have an article on the Sonic (series), and demand that we make articles on the Metroid (series), The Legend of Zelda (series), Star Fox (series), Pokemon (series)...etcetera, etcetera. I mean, this could even cause users to want an article on the Dance Dance Revolution (series) for obvious reasons; then that would lead to users wanting articles on the Karaoke Revolution (series), which would lead to an article on ''Rock Band'', which would lead to an article on the Guitar Hero (series)... Do I need to go on? This is gonna make chaos on the wiki. >_> {{User|Stooben Rooben}} No offense, HT.
+| align=center bgcolor=orange style="border: 1px solid white"|<div style="background:#orange; text-align=center;">'''Fire Creatures'''<showhide><small>__HIDER__</small><hide><div>
-:Not if we come to a consenses that only Sonic is allowed. I think the whole "Sonic is Mario's rival" thing get way exagerated. And no Stoobs, we wouldn't include trivial things like Sonic Spinball and MPL. >_> And nobody here is stupid enough to want to make articles on Gutair Hero. {{user|HyperToad}}
+{| width=100%
-::Alright. As long as we make it completely clear, I'm on board. {{User|Stooben Rooben}} 11:56, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
+| align="center" style="font-size: smaller; background:ghostwhite" | [[Angry Sun]] | [[Blargg]] | [[Bomb (species)|Bomb]] | [[Burn Bit]] | [[Czar Dragon]] | [[Ember]] | [[Fiery Bubble]] | [[Fire Chomp]] | [[Fire Elemental Ghost]] | [[Fire Snake]] | [[Fireball (enemy)|Fireball]] | [[Fryguy]] | [[Fryguy (species)|Fryguys]] | [[Helio]] | [[Hot Foot]] | [[Hot Lips]] | [[Hothead]] | [[Kleever]] | [[Lava Bubble]] | [[Lava Bud]] | [[Lava Drop]] | [[Lava Ghost]] | [[Lava Piranha]] | [[Li'l Sparky]] | [[Mini Fryguy]] | [[Petit Piranha]] | [[Phantom Ember]] | [[Podoboo]] | [[Pyro Guy]] | [[Pyrosphere]] | [[Sparky]] | [[Sun (character)|Sun]] | [[Torcher]] | [[Trouble Bug]]
-:::While I agree that a Sonic article might be a good idea, I'm leery to vote. We've already had three attempts in the last few months to circumvent the consensus that Conker and Banjo should be kept off the wiki. As I seem to remember us already agreeing on a Sonic article at one point, I see this as the fourth attempt to mess with consensus. -- {{User|Ghost Jam}} 20:13, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
+|}</div></hide></showhide></div>
-Wait, what exactly is the proposal for? Just for making articles ''for serieses'', right? Not making articles about things ''in the serieses??'' {{User|CrystalYoshi}}
+|-
+| align=center bgcolor=orange style="border: 1px solid white"|<div style="background:orange; text-align=center; color:black">'''Fire-Related Creatures'''<showhide><small>__HIDER__</small><hide><div>
-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... :<nowiki>|</nowiki> {{User|Pokemon DP}}
+{|
-:Guys, SEE COMMON SENSE HERE, we don't have articles about the Zelda and Metroid and Star Fox and (perhaps more notably) Banjo & Conker, so why should we just have Sonic?!  And in case you all forgot, this is the MARIO wiki, and Sonic not only doesn't have enough to do with Mario to have his own articles here, he wasn't even made by Nintendo!!  I mean c'mon, this is insane to make articles about him!!  You all know there will be more proposals suggesting the deletion of them, right?! {{User|Glitchman}}
+| align="center" style="font-size: smaller; background:ghostwhite" | [[Baby Bowser]] | [[Birdo]] | [[Bowser]] | [[Bowser Jr.]] | [[Calm Volcano Plant]] | [[Dhalsim]] | [[Dino-Torch]] | [[Fire Bro.]] | [[Flare]] | [[Gao]] | [[Iggy Koopa]] | [[Jumping Piranha Plant]] | [[King Totomesu]] | [[Lava Lotus]] | [[Ludwig von Koopa]] | [[Sumo Bro.]] |  [[Tryclyde]] | [[Venus Fire Trap]] | [[Vivian]] | [[Volcano Lotus]] | [[Zeus Guy (Bandit)]] | [[Zeus Guy (Snifit)]]
-::Holy bloody Marry, '''calm down''', no need to get all pissy-pissy from soemthing that minor, gee -_-. It isn't entirely unreasonable to makes an article on the Sonic series considering that both franchises mocked each-other on various occasions and eventually had a much publicized crossover. That's certainly more notable that Metroid being a part of SSB or Banjo & Conker appearance in [[Diddy Kong Racing]]. --{{User|Blitzwing}} 17:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
+|}</div></hide></showhide></div>
-:Wait, I'm confused, no one answered my question! This is ''only for'' making an article Sonic the Hedgehog (series) right? Nothing else? If it passes, we're not going to start making articles all about the characters/things in the Sonic series, right? {{User|CrystalYoshi}} 18:03, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
+|}
-:Only an article about the series. --{{User|Blitzwing}} 18:09, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
+-->
-::(calms down) Well, I guess if it's just '''one''' article and not numerous other articles about Sonic games and stuff, it would be acceptable.  I still disagree, though. {{User|Glitchman}}
-:::But as others have said the article would be dealing with ''Sonic'''s '''rivalry with ''Mario''''', so it's not quite like talking about a diiferent game series itself, more like talking about how it affected ''Mario'', making it perfectly in accordance with this Wiki. - {{User|Walkazo}}
-::::And that brings up another issue. There is no official...well, anything, stating that Mario and Sonic have a rivalry. Nintendo and Sega, sure, but this being extended to the mascots..... -- {{User|Ghost Jam}} 16:38, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
-::Thanks, Blitzwing. {{User|CrystalYoshi}} 12:56, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
-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 {{fakelink|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 guess it just stays on this page until one side pulls ahead by one vote. {{User|Glitchman}}
-:::Thanks. I've never witnessed a tied proposal. {{User|Stooben Rooben}} 17:58, 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)
-}}
-===Split Para-Beetle from [[Parabuzzy]]===
-<span style="color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;font-size:150%">SPLIT 9-1</span>
-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.
-{{scroll box|content=
+{{User|Dom}} - Hey, the User called ''Soler'' made these templates about fire! Get it? Solar...fire? Ha ha...........???
-'''Proposer''': {{User|InfectedShroom}}<br>
-'''Deadline''': Tuesday, May 15, 2008, at 17:00
-====Split It====
+On a serious note: Soler's split templates are a brilliant idea, better than the all-in-one oversized template.
-#{{User|InfectedShroom}} I'm the proposer. :O
+:Yeah, I definately like that idea, too!  Awesome work, Soler! {{User|Stumpers}}
-#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} Per InfectedShroom.
+::Oh, thanks! Does anyone think that two Ice and two Fire templates would be better than the above idea of a "double template"? (I myself think that the double one would be easier for navigation.) —{{User|Soler}}.
-#{{User|Glitchman}} Per IS, as long as we're not dealing with stubs here.
+:::I prefer the double one, and I've taken your example and refined new split-templates for both Fire and Ice which I've put up [[User:Walkazo/Templates|here]] with the earlier versions. As I said in the added last line of the Proposal, I'd rather go with them than my earler attempts. Nice going! - {{User|Walkazo}}
-#{{User|Walkazo}} - If you look at the pictures, Para Beetles don't have legs and Parabuzzies do. Plus, they behave differenty: if you jump on a Beetle it supports you, but if you jump on a Buzzy it's wings fall off. It's not just the name that seperates them, so they should be split.
-#{{User|Toadette 4evur}} Well, duh. Why shouldn't we split them. Like Walkazo said, they behave to differently, so per her.
-#{{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.
-#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}} 13:30, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
-#{{User|Storm Yoshi}}Per the Shroom that is Infected
-====No Split====
+----
-#{{User|CrystalYoshi}} 20:39, 8 May 2008 (EDT) Sorry to disagree with you IS, but I think they are supposed to be same species.
-====Comments====
+===Repeated Info, Pointless Pages?===
-[[Image:CartoonParabeetle.jpg|thumb|right|It doesn't even have holes that allow legs to come out of the body.]]
+{{ProposalOutcome|passed|13-0|remove individual smash info on the final smash page}}
-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}}
+If you look at the [[Final Smash]] page, you'll see that each one is listed in a table, along with a fairly large amount of info about it. Each one has a link to the page that is specifically about that particular Final Smash (e.g. the Aura Storm has its own page, etc). I've read these individual separate pages, and their info is practically the same as what it says on the main Final Smash page. So, are these small pages kind of pointless? In fact, some of the descriptions on the FS page are more detailed than on the page they link to, as they contain info about damage percentages and stuff.
-::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}}
-::::http://upload.scribblewiki.com/images/upload/2/23/Comparison.png Image explains it all. also, look at the image above and its caption.  {{User|InfectedShroom}}
-:::::But I don't think all of those sprites are real. What are the two small sprites from? I know the red one is from SMB3, but what's the other one from? And the comparison image, I think the red one is just an edited image of the blue one. The red legless one and the blue one with legs never appeared in a game together, I think. {{User|CrystalYoshi}}
-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''.{{User|Toadette 4evur}}
+I think either one of these options should be considered: We either remove all the individual FS pages (as in [[End of Day]], [[Mario Finale]], etc) and make the info in the table of Final Smash page more detailed...
-:Parabuzzies are in SMB2? No, the article says they first appeared in SMB3. And I'm also talking about the comparison image: the images in them are from a Paper Mario game, right? But there were no red, legless parabuzzies in that game, only blue ones with legs. {{User|CrystalYoshi}}
-::You didn't read what I said very well, did you. I said they appeared in Mario 3. Also, IS was just saying a buzzy shell would make a parabeetle look bad. {{User|Toadette 4evur}}
-:::Yes. I created those images. I'm saying that ''if'' there ''were'' Parabuzzies in SMB3, they would be unable to use the Parabeetle's wings, as their sprite is larger. And the PM sprite was an example that if Parabeetles were in PM, they would look considerably different, as they wouldn't have the bottom half of the shell. {{User|InfectedShroom}}
-::Sorry, T4E. I read it wrong and thought you said "They appear in Mario 3 ''and'' 2 ''as'' different enemies. InfectedShroom, what you're saying is that the small Parabuzzy sprite is a SMB3 Buzzy Beetle that you added wings to? And the Paper Mario-ish Parabeetle is a Paper Mario Parabuzzy that you edited? And also, you ''might'' have convinced me. {{User|CrystalYoshi}} 18:24, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
-:More or less.
-http://hocuspocus.penguinia.net/rii/pm2/buzzy.png
+OR we only include very small amounts of info on the main Final Smash page, so that it's actually worth having the linked pages.
-: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}}
+'''Proposer''': [[User:Dom|Dom]]<br>
-}}
+'''Deadline''': July 13, 2008, 15:00 EDT
-===Trouble Center===
+====Support====
-<span style="color:red;font-family:Comic Sans MS;font-size:150%">DON'T FORCE USERS TO DO TROUBLES 9-1</span>
+#{{User|Dom}} - I'm thinking my second option is the better one, after reading Pokemon DP's comment. In other words, I'm kind of supporting myself.
+#{{User|Freekhenstra}} - See my comment
-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?
+#{{User|MegaMario9910}} - Per Dom and Freekhenstra
+#{{User|Pikax}} - Per Freekhenstra
-{{scroll box|content=
+#{{User|Tucayo}} - I support the idea of erasing the individula pages, it's better to have them in a unique, more complete page
-'''Proposer:''' {{User|Goldguy}}<br>
+#{{User|Glitchman}} - See my comment below.
-'''Deadline:''' May 16, 2008, 20:00
+#{{User|ItameMarioFan}} - Yes. The pages have the same description as on the [[Final Smash]] page. Only thing new is the throphies. Per Dom and Glitchman (comment below).
+#{{user|Luigi001}} Per Dom and Pokemon DP. Expanding the individual pages would make much more sense than getting rid of them all.
-====Agree====
+#{{User|Walkazo}} - I guess something's better than nothing.
-#Reason stated above.{{User|Goldguy}}
+#{{user|Toadette 4evur}} Per DP.
+#{{user|Yowuza}} Yeah, this isn't the SmashWiki, this is the Super Mario Wiki.
+#{{user|Sonic64}} Per DP
+#{{User|Luigi3000}}Per 4Evar
 ====Oppose====
-#{{User|Lakitu bros}}The User could be inactive.So the trouble could take a very long time to/never get completed.
-#{{User|Stumpers}} Something inherent to any Wiki is that a user cannot be forced to do anything.  So, the chance that the user decided would be one who had it in there ability to fill the trouble and was also willing is very low, even when you cycle through multiple users.  You'll need to get a technical mastermind to confirm this, but I believe the only way we could do this would be through a committee of users doing this by hand.
-#{{User|Pokemon DP}} You can't force Users to do something. It's cruel! I actually think the Trouble Center should be removed...
-#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} Per all. The trouble center is redundant. 99% of the time, users just ask other users (or Sysops) for help on their talk pages.
-#{{User|Time Q}}: Per Stumpers and DP, forcing users to do things is bad. Besides, I also agree that the Trouble Center should get removed.
-#{{User|InfectedShroom}} Oh. Now I understand what this proposal is about. :P Per Stoobs. And yeah, the trouble center is no longer used. X_X
-#{{User|Glitchman}} I don't think the Trouble Center should be removed, it is useful, but per Stumpers and Lakitu Bros.
-#{{User|Cobold}} - The wiki is and stays voluntary work. Nobody is forced to do anything.
-#If the user isn't forced to do anything and, after a while, the problem is passed on to someone else, what is the point of this system? It changes absolutely nothing. --[[User:Pikax|Pikax]] 06:28, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
 ====Comments====
-Hey, Goldguy: You might want to support your own proposal. ;) {{User|Stooben Rooben}} 18:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
+If the moves have articles, Final Smashes should have them too. The Final Smash article has too many details, Aura Storm for example. It can be shortened to just: "Lucario jumps high above the stage, then fires a beam of Aura, that the player can guide across the stage to devastate his opponents". The Final Smash article should have descriptions like that, while the article of the Final Smash itself could have the details. {{User|Freekhenstra}}
+:That sounds good in theory, but I'm going to respectfully disagree. While the idea of getting rid of information on the main page to make all of the pages incomplete would definitely lead to more proposals down the road, I do agree that we should get rid of all the off-shoot pages and have all of the final smashes on one big, complete page. Each of the final smashes would just have to redirect to that page. {{User|Glitchman}}
-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.
+Uhh, I don't get what the proposal is saying, what are we supporting? I'm confused. {{User|Toadette 4evur}}
+:Same, it's not really clear whether we're deleting the list or the articles, as it is now, "Support" is just saying we do ''something''. Anyway, I support Glitchman's idea, for all the reasons listed above as well as the fact that the Final Smash articles could be turned into redirects, wheras the list would be harder to deal with. However, if memory serves, a similar proposal was shot down a couple months/weeks ago, on the basis of Freekhanstr'a point that moves have articles too, and they're more minor than FSs. I say the moves ''and'' the Final Smashes should be nixed, though sadly I don't think that will fly. - {{User|Walkazo}}
-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. -- {{User|Ghost Jam}} 02:11, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
+I actually have to say, asking for all the respective pages to be deleted was the dumbest thing I ever heard. If we do that, we might as well delete all the special move articles, which would be of less importance than the Final Smashes. Regardless, I agree that the information on the Final Smash article is overboard. But do not touch the individual articles; ONLY the Final Smash article. {{User|Pokemon DP}}
-Yeah. The old way is normally the right way. {{User|Pokemon DP}}
+'''Note to Toadette 4evur:''' I guess the support means that you agree that some information should be moved/merged to or from the main FS page and the individual pages. That sounds a bit vague, I know. {{User|Dom}}
-NO!That's not what I meant.Any user can refuse until one user takes it.{{User|Goldguy}}
+'''Note to Pokemon DP:''' I hope you weren't calling ''me'' dumb...   I'll admit it would be a bit harsh to delete all those articles, but that's why I mentioned 2 options. And I'm leaning towards the second one, the one you agreed was more appropriate.  {{User|Dom}}
-: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===
+But even considering to delete those articles as an option wasn't very wise... Well, whatever. I'm still all for shortening the (supposedly) brief descriptions on the Final Smash article. {{User|Pokemon DP}}
-<span style="color:red;font-family:Comic Sans MS;font-size:150%">NO EXTRA LINK 6-3</span>
+:What option do you vote for when supporting? I am for individual articles and less information on the Final Smash page. - {{User|Cobold}} 10:41, 7 July 2008 (EDT)
-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.
+'''Note to Cobold:''' - Since my comments to 2 other users, I guess I've kind of confirmed that the Support means what you agreed to - less info on Final Smash page. {{User|Dom}}
-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?
+===Paper Luigi===
+{{ProposalOutcome|failed|1-5|no separate article}}
+It is pretty hard to find all of the data from Luigi's quest from The Thousand-Year Door, on this wiki. So I propose that we merge all the articles that have to do with luigi's quest in the waffle kingdom, into one single article. that way, if someone needs to look it up, they can easily find it.
+(I know that this is a pretty short proposal)
-{{scroll box|content=
+'''Proposer''': [[User:Dryest bowser|Dryest bowser]]<br>
-'''Proposer:''' -- {{user|WarioLoaf}} 23:43, 10 May 2008 (EDT)<br>
+'''Deadline''': July 17, 2008, 17:00 EDT
-'''Deadline:''' May 17, 2008, 20:00
-====YAY====
+====Support====
-#{{User|WarioLoaf}} - I'm the one who proposed it , if i said NAY i'd be the wiki idiot wouldn't i be?
+#[[User:Dryest bowser|Dryest bowser]]- per myself
-#{{User|Knife}} 12:02, 11 May 2008 (EDT) - Maybe not on the sidebar, but I do consider it the most important sub-chat of #mariowiki. Of course, its not as important as the main channel, but there should be a link to it in the intro message of the chat saying "please do not organize online matches here, do so in #mwikionline", or something like that.
-#{{User|Master Crash}} - I for one didn't even know this place existed! Makes me wonder what else i didn't know :o
-====NAY====
+====Oppose====
-#{{User|Wayoshi}} &ndash; no no no. #mwikionline is a sub-chatroom of #mariowiki, not equally separate from it. It's easy enough to tell users what to do to get there from #mariowiki.
+#{{User|Walkazo}} - See below.
-#{{User|Purple Yoshi}} - Per Wayo. It would be really annoying for people who didn't want to go on the chat. If you want more people there, ask them to come.
+#{{User|Pokemon DP}} - I couldn't - And still cannot - make any sense out of what Dryest Bowser hopes to accomplish. So... Per Walkazo.
-#Per Purple Yoshi. For people like me who don't go on the chat, that would jus be extremely annoying. {{User|Toadette 4evur}}
+#{{User|Luigi3000}}Per DP and Walkazo!
-#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} Per all. It just seems like it would be kind of annoying.
+#{{User|MegaMario9910}} - Per all.
-#{{User|Super-Yoshi}} - Come on , dont be THAT lazy. It takes like 2 seconds.
+#{{User|Glitchman}} Why would you want to merge stuff Luigi's done into an entirely separate article?
-#{{User|Pokemon DP}} - Yeah... Uh, WarioLoaf, you must be REALLY lazy to make a Proposal asking to make something that takes, like, 2 seconds easier for you. XD Per all.
 ====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 don't get this Proposal at all. {{User|Pokemon DP}}
-}}
-===Mario Kart Wii Karts and Bikes===
+Neither do I. I dont think weshould do it cus it is fine as is.{{User|Luigi3000}}
-<span style="color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;font-size:150%">USE NORTH AMERICAN NAME IN THE ARTICLE TITLE ONLY 14-0</span>
-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.
+{{User|Dryest bowser}} I just want to make a single article for luigi's story in paper mario the thousand year door. it will make the wiki more organized. and we can stop having extremly short articless for all of the ccharacters and places
+:As in [[Super Luigi Series|this]]? If not, kindly provide a link to the pages you '''are''' talking about. - {{User|Walkazo}}
-{{scroll box|content=
+{{User|Dryest bowser}} I mean articles like [[jerry]],[[Hizza]] and [[torque]]. these articles are kind of minor,and It would be easier to merge them
-'''Proposer:''' {{User|Cobold}}<br>
+:They're characters, and all characters get their own articles unless they're carbon copies of each other like the [[Board (Super Mario Galaxy)|Board]]s, or if they're always found together and do nothing significant individually, like [[Ashley and Red]] and [[Kat and Ana]]. The only one you can argue over is Hizza, since his article's a stub; and because he wasn't encountered by the player, meaning he could be considered an implied character and can therefore be relegated to the [[List of Implied Characters]], or converted into a redirect to [[Plumpbelly Village]]. However, neither of those options is what you want for this proposal; what you're asking just isn't feasible, sorry. - {{User|Walkazo}}
-'''Deadline:''' May 18th, 15:00
-==== Use North American name in the article title only ====
+[[user:Dryest bowser|Dryest bowser]]- ok, that's ok, let's do that, all the characters like hizza,crepe, and even princess eclair should be merged with the implied characters
-#{{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|Stooben Rooben}} Per Cobold. I was going to move those articles to just their NA name, but I didn't know if some new rule had been passed where there had to be ''2'' names.
-#{{User|Time Q}}: Per Cobold, plus with the PAL name in brackets, it looks as if it was used to distinguish the article from another one with the same name, such as [[Mario Tennis (N64)]] and [[Mario Tennis (GBC)]]...
-#{{User|Princess Grapes Butterfly}} Per all. This sound like a great ideas so wikiers can know American names.
-#{{User|Glitchman}} Per all, as long as the European names redirect to the page.
-#{{User|Stumpers}} For consistency's sake.  Plus, if you did that to all the articles, you'd end up with a Wiki full of links to redirect pages rather than articles themselves.
-#{{User|EnPeached}} - Per all, expecially Glitchman.
-#{{User|Master Crash}} - Per All
-#I support as long as the European names are mentioned somewhere in the articles. If these are going to be removed from the articles, I will change my vote to an oppose. --[[User:Pikax|Pikax]] 12:56, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
-#[[User: Booster|Booster]] - Per All.
-#Per All. -[[user:Canama|Canama]]
-#{{User|MarioGalaxy2433g5}} - Per All.
-#{{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 ====
+----
-==== Comments ====
+===Merlon===
-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)
+{{ProposalOutcome|passed|5-4|merge}}
+There are two Merlon articles, [[Merlon (Paper Mario, Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door)|one for Paper Mario and PM:TTYD]], and [[Merlon (Super Paper Mario)|another one for Super Paper Mario.]] This is useless because all 3 Merlons are from the same series and serve similar purposes. That way Merlon would be easier to look up and easier to maintain.
-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. {{User|Time Q}} 18:48, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
+'''Proposer''': [[User:StarYoshi1|StarYoshi1]]<br>
+'''Deadline''': July 21, 2008, 17:00 EDT
-...Lol, I already moved all the pages back, Cobold. XP {{User|Pokemon DP}}
+====Support====
-:That's the easy way. But it is always helpful to have a proposal backing yourself up. :P - {{User|Cobold}} 11:46, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
+#[[User:StarYoshi1|StarYoshi1]]-per myself
+#[[User:Sonic64|Sonic64]]-Per SY1. Plus, they all have the same name, they're all shamans, and they all have mustaches. EDIT: If they aren't merged, then split the original one to Merlon and Merlon (Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door).
+#[[User: Booster|Booster]] -- Even if they aren't the ''same'' character, they're all too similar to require seperate articles. At least mention that they may not all be the same character near the top of their page or something.
+#{{User|Glitchman}} - Per all.
+#Per All. -[[User:Canama|Canama]]
-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)
+====Oppose====
-:We wait until the deadline is over. - {{User|Cobold}} 15:33, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
+#{{User|Walkazo}} - The Merlon from SPM and PM/PM:TTYD are totally different. The SPM one never acknowledges that he met Mario before; he also lives in another dimension and had to send Tippi to find Mario, meaning he probably hasn't been there himself, etc.
-}}
+#{{User|GinnyN}} - Per Walkazo. Appart, the Merlon from PM is different from the Merlon of PM:TTYD. The 3 are different characters who are called the same for some reasons. There's somewhere in this Wiki which appears that Carlson, from PM:TTYD, explain, that a Clan which name the members depending of his Job. If my memory does not fail, that's explain why they are different characters.
+#{{User|Stumpers}} - If we separated the [[Star Rod]]s, we can certainly separate three much more major topics.
-===Badges===
+#{{User|Pikax}} - Since the three Merlons are all clearly different characters, I suggest that they all have their own articles rather than being merged into one or, as the case is right now, two.
-<span style="color:red;font-family:Comic Sans MS;font-size:150%">MAKE NO NEW PAGE 5-1</span>
-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?
-{{scroll box|content=
-'''Proposer:''' {{User|Super-Yoshi}}<br>
-'''Deadline:''' May 19, 2008, 17:00
-====Make New Page====
-#{{User|Super-Yoshi}} I am the proposer, so I say yes
-====Don't Make New Page====
-#{{User|Stumpers}} This proposal could use examples and specific references.  It is far to general and confusing to me right know.  Page and section were used interchangably above, for example.  Please clarify and repost.
-#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} Per Stumpers. This proposal is too vague for my liking.
-#{{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|Walkazo}} - Per all.
 ====Comments====
-It 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. {{User|Stumpers}} 23:33, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
+{{User|Pikax}} - This is from the [[Merlon (Super Paper Mario)]] article: "Similar to the Merlon in Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door, this may be a different Merlon." Plus, contrary to what StarYoshi has said, the three Merlons do '''not''' all serve the same purpose. Also, Sonic64, the similarities you have listed are pretty much all of the similarities between the Merlons. It looks to me like someone has either had the idea of splitting all three Merlons into separate articles or merging them all into one article, but only done half the job. Unfortunately, I don't know which it is, which is why I'm not voting on this proposal.
-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?
+{{User|Grandy02}} - If this proposal succeeds, the articles for [[Merlee]] should be merged as well.
-:Hmm, I see your point, but Stumpers has a point too. Give me a few days to decide if I ever do. {{User|CrystalYoshi}}
+:{{User|StarYoshi1}} - No. The Merlees are distinct characters and serve totally different roles from each other. The Merlee articles should not be merged.
-}}
+::{{User|Pikax}} - It says in the [[Merlon (Super Paper Mario)]] article that he may be a different Merlon to the other two and it says in the other Merlon article that the PM:TTYD Merlon might be a different one to the PM one. Therefore, the Merlons could be as different as the Merlees.
+:::The second paragraph [[Shaman|here]] supports the theory that they're all different (it's what GinnyN was referencing, I believe). Of course, this means the [[Merlon (Paper Mario, Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door)]] article needs to be split, as does [[Merluvlee]]. Though all that might require another proposal, assuming that this one doesn't pass. - {{User|Walkazo}}
-===Create Smash Bros costumes page===
+----
-<span style="color:red;font-family:Comic Sans MS;font-size:150%">MAKE NO NEW PAGE 9-3</span>
-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:
+===Signature Image Height Restriction===
+{{ProposalOutcome|passed|5-0|change maximum image height to 35 pixels}}
+This is mostly a clarification of a certain rule on the Mario Wiki. [[MarioWiki:Personal_images|Here]], it says that an image in a signature can be no taller than 20 pixels. [[MarioWiki:Signatures|Here]], it says that your signature must fit in a 225x35-pixel space. In a discussion I had with [[User:Time Q|Time Q]], he said that there are many users with images taller than 20 pixels and that he was unaware of the 20-pixel-height rule until I pointed it out to him. Therefore, I propose that the 20-pixel-height rule be changed to 35 pixels to match the height of the [[Template:Sigbox|Sigbox]].
-'''Mario'''
+'''Proposer''': [[User:Pikax|Pikax]]<br>
+'''Deadline''': July 22, 2008, 17:00 EDT
-(insert pic of all costumes)
+====Support (change maximum image height to 35 pixels)====
+#{{User|Pikax}} - As it is, there are a lot of people who have images taller than 20 pixels and if an image is 35 pixels tall, the signature as a whole will still fit in the Sigbox.
+#{{user|Time Q}}: As above, it is hard to find any user who has an image in his/her signature and who doesn't break this rule. I think it didn't hurt anyone in the past, and it won't in the future. The only other possible solutions: 1) To enforce this rule, which would affect many users (and to me, personally, the image in [[User:RAP/sig|this]] sig doesn't seem too tall, even if it breaks the rule). 2) To keep the rule, but accept taller images tacitly, which is obviously bad. Neither of these two options seem attractive to me, so I vote for easing the limit.
+#{{user|Sonic64}}: Per all.
+#{{User|Glitchman}}: Per all.
+#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per all.
-Costume 1: Mario's basic outfit.
+====Oppose (leave it as 20 pixels)====
-Costume 2: Fire Mario.
+====Comments====
+On a different note, can someone explain why the Comments header wasn't being properly formatted until I put this comment in? {{User|Pikax}}
+:That always happens with the last line of the page. Just put &nsbp ; in it to make it work next time. - {{User|Cobold}}
-Costume 3: Mario's normal outfit with red and blue switched.
+Time Q: Third option - Do away with sig images altogether and make plain text the norm. That would certainly solve the problem AND reduce overall lag on the site. -- {{user|Ghost Jam}}
+:True. I certainly would support that, but I guess the majority wouldn't. {{User|Time Q}}
-Costume 4: Wario's color scheme.
-Costume 5: Brown hat, overalls and gray sleeves.
+Is my signature too big? Check [[User:Dom/sig|here]]. If it is, then I would have to say the restrictions are slightly too harsh, and should allow just a tiny bit of extra sig space. {{User|Dom}}
+:It's definitely too wide and I think, even if the height rule were changed to 35 pixels, it'd still be too tall. {{User|Pikax}}
+::I just checked it and your sig is 340x58 pixels, which is definitely too big. {{User|Pikax}}
+:I replied on your talk page. {{user|Time Q}}
-Costume 6: Green hat, sleeves and tan overalls.
+Could you check if my signature is too big? Please check [[User:Mateus 23/sig|here]]. {{User|Mateus 23}}
+:Under current rules, it is too big. If my proposal passes, however, it won't be. {{User|Pikax}}
-So, opinions?
+'''No requests to check your sigs here please.''' Ask other users on their talk pages instead. {{user|Time Q}}
-{{scroll box|content=
+Actually, [[MarioWiki:Signatures]] says "A small image may be used, limited to 35 pixels in height." If [[MarioWiki:Personal images]] says someething different, that's an inconsistency. {{User|CrystalYoshi}}
-'''Proposer:''' {{User|huntercrunch}}<br>
+:This proposal is mostly about sorting out this inconsistency. {{User|Pikax}}
-'''Deadline:''' May 19, 2008, 10:00
-====Make New Page====
+----
-#{{User|huntercrunch}} My reasons are given above
-#{{User|MegaMario9910}} I have to agree with his comment. Besides, we have a lot of Brawl stuff in the characters articles, so let's lessen some out. I also think this is a good idea.
-#{{User|DarkMario}} I have un-retired only for this proposal. Let's do it! It's okay to make some minor pages that deal with cosmetic stuff.It gives the reader an idea of why they wear the costume, and Brawl needs more individual pages. So, let's a-go!
-====Don't Make New Page====
+===Multi-Appearing Mario Kart Track Pages===
-#{{User|Ninjayoshi}}- Per stumpers with his idea on no individual articles, but sections on each character.
+{{ProposalOutcome|passed|13-3|use new page layout}}
-#{{User|HyperToad}} Per Ninjayoshi
+Since it was unanimous to keep tracks with multiple appearances in Mario Kart games merged, I added an info box to each version of the track to keep things less cluttered. I was planning on including a gallery with several screen shots and artwork (if any) in a gallery at the end of the section pertaining to the game's version of the track. [[User:Coincollector|Coincollector]] seems to disagree. He feels that every version of the track should be squished into one info box. [http://www.mariowiki.com/Luigi_Circuit This is how the page is currently set up.] With screenshots cluttered around left and right. If you look at my [http://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Luigi_Circuit&oldid=415321 version], everything was a bit more organized in my opinion. My version is also not complete, as it was cut off before I could finish it. '''The finished version would still be filled out a bit more.''' However, I think it still illustrates the idea. Coincollector and myself both believe in our versions, so I wanted to hear some opinions on this.
-#{{User|Glitchman}} This is a bad idea, we already have too much info on the SSB games as it is, a new page for each costume would result to hundreds of pages and, added to the pre-existing SSB pages, thousands.
-#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} Per Stumpers and Glitchman.
-#{{User|Cobold}} - Per Stumpers' comment below and per Glitchman.
-#{{User|Stumpers}} See my comment.
-#{{User|EnPeached}} Per Ninjayoshi/Stumpers
-#{{User|Hemu}} per anyone with a better reason than me
-#{{User|Knife}} Per all
-====Comments====
+'''Proposer''': [[User:Mario Gamer|Mario Gamer]]<br>
-Wouldn't this be better on the Smash Bros. section in each character article? {{User|Stumpers}} 00:34, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
+'''Deadline''': July 22, 2008, 17:00 EDT
-Agreed. {{User|Pokemon DP}}
+====Support====
+#[[User:Mario Gamer|Mario Gamer]]- In my opinion the less cluttered, more easily identifiable version is better.
+#{{User|Starry Parakarry}} - I'm gonna go with Mario Gamer on this one. It's nice, neat, and I think because all of the pictures are there, it really looks bright, colorful, and it looks like effort was put into it to  make it a great article, instead of just slapping an obvious picture of the course on.
+#If tracks with the same name are all going to be on one page, at least differentiate them a bit. -- [[User: Booster|Booster]]
+#{{User|Pikax}} - Much better than when I first looked at it. Now I have nothing against the new design.
+#{{User|Mateus 23}} - Per all. I think the new version is more organized than the other one.
+#{{User|Bob-omb buddy}} - Multiple info boxes mean more facts can be put in on for each game.
+#Per all. [[User:Canama|Canama]]
+#{{User|Glitchman}} - Per all.
+#[[User:Iceyoshi|Iceyoshi]] Yeah, I think it looks organized. Also, it gets annoying when screenshots are place left and right with the info.
+#{{User|P. Trainer}} Per all
+#{{User|huntercrunch}} Per MG. It looks a lot cleaner and organized.
+#{{User|GinnyN}} I love it ^^!, per all
+#[[User:DaWeegeeMan]] It's really organized and you wouldnt have to keep changing pages it just seems more convinent.
-I'm not suggesting a page for each costume, that's just silly. I'm proposing a SINGLE PAGE. Just to clarify. {{User|huntercrunch}}
+====Oppose====
-: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
+#[[User:Coincollector|Coincollector]] - My revision, obviously. However, if my proposal does not win, I'll try to make some changes on Gamer's page.
-::I think he means one page for ALL the costumes of all the characters. - {{User|Walkazo}}
+#{{User|King Mario}} - Per Coincollector
-}}
+#{{User|Mrsdaisyluigi}} - Per All.
-===American Spellings===
-<span style="color:red;font-family:Comic Sans MS;font-size:150%">MAKE NO CHANGE 13-2</span>
-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.
-{{scroll box|content=
-'''Proposer:''' {{User|Garlic Man}}<br>
-'''Deadline:''' May 19th, 15:00
-====American Spellings====
-#{{User|Garlic Man}} - This wiki was made in America, and is based primarily on Americans. I think we should stay consistent.(As said in the proposal itself)
-#{{User|MegaMario9910}} Per GM
-====Oppose (use either)====
-#{{User|Storm Yoshi}}Its whoever spells it first. Not to an Americans Enjoyment >_>
-#{{User|Blitzwing}} - Using exclusively American spelling simply because a lot of our contributers are American is complete BS. Nowhere does the rules says that the wiki is American, and that's being disrespectful to editors that comes from other part of the word.
-#{{User|Cobold}} - There is no need to create any consistency in spellings that are so minor as to whether there is a u in favourite or not. Per Blitzwing.
-#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} - Per the comments below, but especially per Blitzwing.
-#{{User|EnPeached}} - There words are somewhat universal. People on both sides understand what they mean. Unless there's paticular confusion, nothing needs to be changed.
-#Per all. {{User|Toadette 4evur}}
-#{{User|Stumpers}} - Beggars can't be choosers as they say.  If a UK speller wants to contribute, let him/her use his/her favorite spellings.
-#{{User|Hemu}} american spellings and brittish spellings are pretty much the same except for like 1 or 2 letters people will understand if brittish spellings are used I mean I use both
-#Per Stumpers and EnPeached. --[[User:Pikax|Pikax]] 12:58, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
-#{{User|Arend}} Per all! Per All! PER ALL!
-#{{User|Princess Grapes Butterfly}} Per Stumpers, EnPeach, and Hemu. I agree about what there saying.
-#{{User|Clay Mario}} Per All.
-#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per all, this is an international Wiki, so people shouldn't be surprised/irritated by international spelling.
 ====Comments====
-I'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. {{User|Stooben Rooben}} Sorry if that sounds blunt.
+{{user|Mario Gamer}} - Just letting Pikax know I updated my version to a more complete version to portray what a more final version of mine would look like.
+:{{user|Coincollector}} - Although you version is getting good right now, the article still have the problem with the infoboxes. As I told you, a information box must contain general info, but it seems you put some of specific elements for each racecourse, something that other courses don't have while comparing each other. Then, it's better put these elements in the text instead of putting in an infobox, because don't do it would reduce the importance of reading the text. By the other hand, why the ''Mario Kart DS'' section lacks of an infobox?
+::{{user|Mario Gamer}} - The way I divided them was by each "version" of the track. That way if a person is looking for say, if Wifi is playable on the GBA version of Luigi's Circuit in MKDS it's right there. Or if someone wants to know what cup the Wii version of Luigi Circuit is, it's right there, they don't have to go searching through text. I'm not sure why an info box can't be specific, and the reason other courses don't have them is because you stopped me before I could do them all. I didn't add a info box to ''Mario Kart DS'' because there is no new circuit on there. I did leave info explaining that while there was no new one, two did reappear and info can be found in the respective boxes. Let's look at it this way. A Goomba has a different info box for each of it's appearances in a ''Paper Mario'' game. What makes that different from a race course? The information changes each time.
+:::{{user|Coincollector}} I was thinking that the reappearances section must be abolished, because the reappearance can be set in the "appearances" section as well - An option nothing special. Aditionally, The Goomba article shows many paper-mario infoboxes, because there are differents templates to use for each game.
+::::{{user|Mario Gamer}} - To be fair the layout changes depending on the Mario Kart game as well. Some have WiFi while others list the distance in the box. But what your talking about is merging all of the versions into one big info box. Why not do that on the Goomba? It'd be just as easy.
+{{User|Pikax}} - the biggest problem with your version, Mario Gamer, is that the images appear rather staggered.
+:c- Could you tell me what you mean by staggered?
+::{{User|Pikax}} - If you look at the Super Circuit gallery, it overlaps the info box. In fact, I really think that the galleries for all of them ought to be centered rather than left aligned. Also, why are we numbering our comments?
+:::{{user|Mario Gamer}} - I don't see any overlapping what so ever. I see what the gallery goes slightly past the bottom of the info box like [http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/7822/luigicircuitviewit8.jpg this], but I don't see any overlapping. Is this what you're talking about? If not take a picture for me and I'll try to look over it. As for the numbers, they just got added, ignore them or take them off I don't care.
+::::[http://img89.imageshack.us/my.php?image=evidencewl6.png Here's what Pikax sees.]
+:::::{{user|Mario Gamer}} - Well I think that is a problem with your browser or resolution, not the layout. I don't know of a way to fix that problem since it doesn't occur to me.
+{{user|Coincollector}} - For '''Pikax''', the only solution is putting all the screenshots in a gallery, near the bottom of the article, as usually galleries of articles appear. the second solution would be to use the <tt><nowiki>{{br}}</nowiki></tt> between text and the gallery to move the gallery that overlaps the table. Now, respecting to the templates, It would not be a problem to me to make templates, although I should do that and see how it results.
+:{{user|Mario Gamer}} - The page already had those <nowiki><br></nowiki> tags set up. I edited it slightly to see if I could fix the problem, but again it doesn't happen on any of the three computers I've viewed it with. Let me know if this solves it Pikax.
+::{{User|Pikax}} - Never mind, I've sorted it out.
+:::{{User|Pikax}} - '''Argh! The edits I made changed the wrong version!''' Anyway, Mario Gamer, just stick those <tt><nowiki>{{br}}</nowiki></tt> tags before and after all of the galleries and the problem will be solved.
-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. {{User|ForeverDaisy09}}
+{{user|Mario Gamer}} - I don't mean to sound rude here Coincollector, but what is the point of this proposal if you're just going to be changing the layout later? I think the layout should stay as the people vote on it.
-:I have to agree with FD09 here. {{User|Stooben Rooben}} 11:46, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
+:{{User|Mateus 23}} - You're right, Mario Gamer. We should respect the votes, even if our proposal loses.
-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. {{User|Stumpers}} 23:35, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
+{{user|Coincollector}} - It seems you misunderstood. I'll make some (minor) edits in the article. I never said I'm going to alter or cut your work off or so... For example, the tables - I've already made a template for the racecourses.
-:That's why I haven't voted. :| {{User|Stooben Rooben}} 23:37, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
+:{{User|Mario Gamer}} - Then I apologize, I just read it as you were going to change my article anyway. I do not mean to keep you from improving the page.
-::I'll just add that, then. :P {{User|Stumpers}} 23:39, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
+While I approve of splitting up the article and using templates for each game, all the image galleries make the article seem a bit too spaceous. IMO, using Coincollector's Racecourse templates for each section and then having one big gallery at the bottom would be the best thing for the article (organization ''and'' aesthetics). - {{User|Walkazo}}
-:::You guys have good points, but I'm not in the mood for taking sides yet. {{User|CrystalYoshi}}
+:{{user|Coincollector}} - It seems better in that way, I agree for Walkazo.
-}}
+::{{User|Mario Gamer}} - No. Then we'd have to also say which game the shot came from in the description which would just get repetitive. I put them under the info on purpose and if you don't like that, vote against it.
+:::Not any more repetative than some of the captions in your example: "The icon from the menu" is used at least twise (three times if you include "The icons from the menu" for ''MKDS''). With the gallery, similar images could be put side-by-side to show how the games differ, i.e. "The long turns on the ends of the ''MK64'' course" next to "Yoshi and DK going around a curve in ''MK:DD''" and "DK and Luigi going around the first turn in ''MKWii''", to show the differences in the curves. That's much more helpfull than some of the individual galleries set up in the example, like the nearly identical images captioned "Luigi racing on the ''MK:DD'' port" and "Bowser racing on the ''MK:DD'' port" in the aforementioned ''MKDS'' section. Anyway, I'm not voting against this proposal because I want to see the articles split, but I might make another proposal about the seperate galleries in the future. - {{User|Walkazo}}
+::::{{User|Mario Gamer}} - Okay, maybe repetitive was a bad word choice. My point is if I was looking at an article on Mario Kart 64's Luigi Circuit and I wanted to see some pictures I'd rather have them right there. Not fishing through a big gallery on the bottom. I think it looks loads more organized and I just don't see what having one big gallery offers to having several. The only argument I see is that it's too spacious. In that case I really don't know what to tell you if you can't scroll a few more inches. It's not written in stone anywhere that there has to be one gallery, nor should it be. It simply looks better and more organized as several. When I click a track I want all my info right there. Not spread out over a big page.
+:::::Both ways have their own advantages and disadvantages, there's no denying it. You think it's better your way, and I think it's better my way; but we need everyone else's opinions on the matter to get anywhere, so another vote's the only real solution. Anyway, these last couple comments were added after this proposal passed, so they're not gonna get archived, but I thought I'd speak up now anyway. - {{User|Walkazo}}
-===Merge Super Mushroom to Mushroom===
+----
-<span style="color:red;font-family:Comic Sans MS;font-size:150%">NO MERGE 14-1</span>
-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.
+===Legendary Dogs===
+{{ProposalOutcome|failed|2-5-9|keep as it is}}
+Alright, when I was doing some infoboxes on some articles, one was the [[Entei]] article. When I tryed typing Suicune down, the article wasn't created. I tried Raikou, also, and there was no page. I don't see why we have an Entei article when there's not a Suicune and/or Raikou article. I'm proposing that we either: delete the Entei article; create the Suicune and Raikou article; or keep the Entei article and don't create the Suicune and Raikou article. For those who don't know who these three are and why Suicune and Raikou should have articles: is because that they are the three legendaries from the Pokemon games (ie. Zapdos, Moltres, and Articuno), so having one legendary dog without the other two is pointless. So, which option?
-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.
+'''Proposer''': {{User|MegaMario9910}}<br>
+'''Deadline''': July 27, 2008, 15:00 EDT
-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).
+====Create Raikou and Suicune Article====
+#{{User|MegaMario9910}} - Its best to create the article, since they've appeared in the same games that Entei has.
+#per Megamario9910 a.k.a weird guy. {{User|Mrsdaisyluigi}}
-Sooo...
+====Delete Entei Article====
+#{{User|Sonic64}}-All non-playable Pokemon should be in the [[Pokemon]] article. Thet's what it's for.
+#{{User|Glitchman}} Per Sonic64.
+#{{user|DaWeegeeMan}} Per Sonic64
+#{{User|Blitzwing}} Per Sonic64.
+#{{User|Mateus 23}} Per Sonic64.
-Do you also think that the Super Mushroom article should be merged to the Mushroom article? Or do you think of NOT?
+====Keep as it is====
+#{{User|Stumpers}} None of the Pokemon are given articles unless they played a large role in Smash Bros, such as being a trophy stage.
+#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per Stumpers (and Grandy02 below).
+#{{User|Pikax}} - Per Walkazo.
+#{{User|Cobold}} - It has been pointed out at several occasions that Entei only has an article because he is a stage.
+#{{User|Pokemon DP}} - ...Um, why would you even want to create an article on Raikou and Suicune? To be honest, this Proposal seemed to lack logic. But enough of me insulting MegaMario, Entei has an article because it's an Event Match stage in Melee. Hence, it deserves an article.
+#{{User|Luigi3000}} Per Stumpers mi little freind.
+#{{User|Dom}} - Per most of the people in this section - Suicune and Raikou don't have important enough roles to deserve their own page, they can be on the Pokemon page with Goldeen and other crap Pokemans. Sorry, MM9910 (or Palkia47?)!
+#{{User|Jdrowlands}} - Per all, especially Stumpers.
+#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} - Per the geniuses above me. 14:10, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
-{{scroll box|content=
+====Comments====
-'''Proposer:''' {{User|Arend}}<br>
+As far as I know, there's an article for Entei because the Entei trophy is a stage in an event in ''Melee''. That's the only reason, if there were no Entei stage, it would just be merged with the Poké Ball article like Raikou and Suicune. --{{User|Grandy02}}
-'''Deadline:''' May 23, 2008, 20:00
+:But isn't that a bit minor? Its just an event, and the stage is a trophy, and a trophy is a trophy. I know its not the exact same trophy (no description, you battle on it), but its still a trophy, and which a trophy is a trophy. {{User|MegaMario9910}}...I know that made no sense.
+::I'm not making the guide lines. [[Majora's Mask]] has an article for the same reason. {{User|Grandy02}}
+::{{User|Pikax}} - In terms of gameplay, the Entei stage is not a trophy.
-==== Merge the Super Mushroom Article! ====
+----
-#{{User|Arend}} What do you think? I'm the proposer!
-==== Don't Merge it! ====
+===Gale Boomerang and Fire Bow===
-#{{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.
+{{ProposalOutcome|failed|1-8|keep separate}}
-#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]]
+Currently, there are articles for Gale Boomerang and Fire Bow, special attacks in the Smash Bros series. However, these attacks are both VERY similar to their respective counterparts (Boomerang and Bow). So I propose that both of those moves will be merged with the latter. Below are some of my specific merging reasons:
-# {{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]] 06:17, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
-#{{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|EnPeached}} Per all. They're not stubs, so why be merged?
-#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per all.
-#{{user|InfectedShroom}} Per all. I'd say more, but everyone else has me covered.
-#{{user|Glitchman}} Normally I'd agree with Arend here, but they both aren't stubs, have images, and are officially named, so....yeah.
-#{{User|Paper Jorge}} I'm agreeing with Stumpers. Those articles need clean-up, that's all.
-#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} - Per Stumpers.
-#{{User|Bob-omb buddy}}-Mushroom talks about ALL of them but super mushroom is a  type and offical name.
-#{{User|Princess Strawberry Butterfly}} Are they two different articles with detail and no stubs.
-==== Comments ====
+. They both serve the same purpose and have similar mechanics
-I thought we solved this problem long ago by combining all mushrooms into the main mushroom article. -- {{User|Ghost Jam}} 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. {{User|Arend}}
+. Well.. it's just a boomerang with a whirlwind around it, so it is also the same item (technically)
-:Can you give us an example of the Golden Mushroom being called a Super Mushroom? - {{User|Walkazo}}
-::I'm pretty sure that MK64 is the only place it could be.  Someone should check. {{User|Stumpers}} 19:17, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
-:::Check the Europese Mario Kart DS site for example. {{User|Arend}}
-::::Thanks, Arend.  Europese! {{User|Stumpers}}
-}}
-===Featured Article Voting Modification===
+.The bows (with the exception of Y. Link), Bombs, Spin attacks and Boomerangs all share an article (except the Gale Boomerang, obviously).
-<span style="color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;font-size:150%">CHANGE THE CURRENT SYSTEM 12-7</span>
-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.
+. The Fire Bow is just a bow that shoots fire arrows. Big difference.
-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.
+. Articles such as Blaster, reflector, Thunder, Skull Bash, Thunder jolt, Super Jump Punch and Counter share an article, among others.
-An oppose vote that has been appeased can be removed in the same manner if the opposer is not in discussion.
+So there are all my reasons. Also, if this proposal passes, I think we should make Gale Boomerang redirect to Boomerang and Fire Bow to Bow.
-{{scroll box|content=
+'''Proposer''': [[User:huntercrunch]]<br>
-'''Proposer:''' {{User|Stumpers}}<br>
+'''Deadline''': July 31, 2008, 17:00 EDT
-'''Deadline:''' May 26, 2008, 17:00
-====Support (Give Users This Power)====
+====Merge====
-#{{User|Stumpers}} This would prevent an article from being supported on the basis of the subject rather than the article.  Additionally, oppose votes that do not enable the improvement of the article could be removed, both of would allow the FA process to more effectively serve its purpose of improving articles and celebrating good editing.  It would also prevent users who have opposed and now left the page from bringing the process to a halt.
+#[[User:huntercrunch]] - I am the proposer and my reasons are given above.
-#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} - Per Stumpers. This will also probably decrease the likelihood of flaming on FA pages. It just clears things up for everyone, making it a lot simpler than it was.
-#{{User|Glitchman}} - You're not going to remove my opposed vote are you? XD No, I think this is just common sense, if someone doesn't think an article is good enough to be featured, they HAVE to explain WHY it isn't so someone can DO something about it!
-#{{User|Xzelion}} - Per all
-#{{User|Super-Yoshi}} Per Xze
-#{{User|Purple Yoshi}} - Per all. I am sick of votes like that.
-#{{User|Pokemon DP}} - Per all. SoS always said that Fan Votes have just as much relevance as a serious vote. What a bunch of crap. Fan Votes mean the person likes the ''Subject'', not the ''Content''. -_-
-#{{user|Coincollector}} - Fanatic opinions don't really support the article itself, and sometimes users sign for opposing the article to be featured, because the articles can't be featured without any reason.
-#{{User|Princess Grapes Butterfly}} Per all I agree. (It might prevent flaming.)
-#{{User|EnPeached}}Per all
-#{{User|Misterhappy2}} Per all!!!
-#{{User|Hemu}}Per all flaming is not for things like Featured Article which is for good articles not good characters
-====Oppose (No Modifications to the Current System)====
+====Keep separate====
-#{{User|Time Q}}: No. Sorry, but giving users the power to remove ''support'' votes is a ''very bad idea''. SoS is absolutely correct here, they won't change anything if there is just one oppose vote, so we really shouldn't care about them. And SoS had another really good point: if a supporter says "B0wzA r000lzz!!!1111!one!!1", how do we know that he really refers to the character, not the article? Why should we force supporters to give a reason for their vote, when all they can really say is "good article", "looks good to me", "I like it"; basically, how can one give reasons for support, without mentioning every criteria the article has to meet in order to become a FA? Sorry, I know I'm talking like SoS, but that doesn't make sense to me.
+#{{User|Pikax}} - if the weapons are considerably different, such as the Fire Bow shooting fiery arrows and the Gale Boomerang having that whirlwind, then they should be recognised as different by having their own articles.
-#Per Time Q, plus, with regards to oppose votes that aren't specific enough, there must surely be a better solution than what Stumpers is suggesting. --[[User:Pikax|Pikax]] 15:34, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
+#{{User|Cobold}} - per Pikax.
-#{{User|Blitzwing}} - Per Time Q and Cobold in the comments. Removing the "fan-votes" is purposeless since the supporter might aswell say "Per X", and if anything, this new rule will creates a lot of pointless flame war in the FA Nomination page comments.
+#1.they do have different mechanics 2.their different attacks doing different damage 3. wikis which specialize in SSB keep em sperate --{{User|Hemu}}
-#{{user|InfectedShroom}} - Per all. Don't get me wrong, I hat fan votes. I do believe, however, that this is not the system that is necessary for removing them. If any three users can remove any vote (essentially), then that means that there could be unnecessary conflict. And a user may not be in the discussion any more simply because (s)he is on vacation, grounded, on hiatus, forgot about the vote, etc. Perhaps if there were a warning system, I would be more likely to support this idea. ;)
+#{{User|Glitchman}} - Per all.
-#{{User|Clay Mario}} - Per my comment below.
+#{{User|Mateus 23}} - Per all. They're different moves, so keep them separate.
-#{{User|Goldguy}} - KInd of harsh, don't you think?Per SoS and TimeQ
+#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} - Per Pikax.
-#{{User|Knife}} 11:40, 26 May 2008 (EDT) It doesn't matter if we remove fan-votes, because they could just as easily say "Per someone else with a real reason".
+#{{User|Tucayo}} - Per Pikax
+#{{user|DaWeegeeMan}} Per Pikax
 ====Comments====
-I 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. {{User|Stumpers}} 23:41, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
+Not to be a purist, but the two bows are different: fire arrows set the opponent on fire and do more damage.  According to the Zelda storyline, the boomerangs are two distinctly different items.  The Gale Boomerang holds a wind spirit within it while the boomerang is a generic child's toy. {{User|Stumpers}}
-:While this is a good idea, I also think that they would be fights and edit wars on which vote gets removed. Also if it does get removed, will the user be able to vote again? -{{User|Clay Mario}}
+For the record, point 5 in the proposal is incorrect. {{User|Pikax}}
-::Of course they could vote again. {{User|Stumpers}} 13:50, 22 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? {{User|Time Q}} 05:07, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
+You know, I could see a proposal calling for each character's ''Super Smash Bros.'' movies to be put on one page, so it would be something like, "Fox's Smash Bros. Special Moves" and "Mario's Smash Bros. Special Moves" the reason I wouldn't do just "Mario's Special Moves" is because there are so many moves he has outside of Smash Bros. that are also considered special moves.  What do you think? {{User|Stumpers}}
-:But what about the other half of the proposal? About oppose votes that aren't specific? --[[User:Pikax|Pikax]] 11:45, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
+:I'd support that proposal. But remember to use <nowiki>{{User|___}}</nowiki> on this page. - {{User|Walkazo}}
-::If I disagree with one part of the proposal, I necessarily disagree with the whole proposal. Still, I think the "unspecific oppose votes" part is reasonable. Users should have the power to remove such votes. I just wonder whether this needs to be proposed, or whether it goes without saying. Current rules state: <blockquote>[...] Others will object to the nomination if they disagree that the article is good enough; they will then supply reasons for doing so, and ways to improve the article (errors, style, organization, images, notability, sources). Supporters adjust the article until the objectors (with reasonable objections) are satisfied. [...]</blockquote> To be very exact, it isn't mentioned explicitly that opposers need to give ''specific'' reasons (''where'' in the article is something wrong?), so Stumpers' proposal probably has a point. Sometimes it's better to lay down rules officially than to assume them tacitly. Still, I think the proposal will have very bad consequences, if it goes through in its current form. Unlike oppose votes, deciding on the validity of support votes is just biased and pointless. {{User|Time Q}} 15:20, 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? {{User|Wayoshi}} 17:52, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
+Hemu: To your third point, I'd just like to point out that we are not a specialized SSB wiki. -- {{User|Ghost Jam}}
-:Yeah, I remember that someone, probably him, said that fan votes don't matter because a thousand fan votes can be ruled out by a single opposing vote - as long as there is one, the article can't get featured. There would not be much difference when forcing fan votes to get removed - a single user would make an acceptable point, the rest goes "per XXX", as here in the proposals. - {{User|Cobold}} 17:56, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
-::True. Besides, I still wonder what such an "acceptable" point would be. What makes a support acceptable? What more can you say than "The article is FA worthy"? {{User|Time Q}}
-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. {{User|Time Q}}
+----
-:Time Q, I know you can tell the difference between a valid support and a fan vote.  Can you tell the difference between these real votes? "She's so beautiful and make Princess Peach as a featured article!" vs. "Stooben Rooben  Okay, the article isn't as bad as I thought. It was just that first part, which I fixed."  Now, the policy you quoted above looks good, doesn't it?  The problem is confronting a user who has not followed the guideline, standing by an oppose that dose not specify what should be done.  This came up on the Princess Peach nomination the other day.  "Page still contains much speculation, misplaced information, etc. When I'm done COMPLETELY reviewing the page, I will support."  You look at this and it's pretty good.  It points out what is wrong.  The problem is that it makes generalizations (often speculation isn't viewed as such by the writers; misplaced information is something that needs to be discussed, but cannot be if information isn't specified; what does etc. pertain?  Again, can't be discussed).  Then, there's the solution: for the specific opposer (not the Wiki as a whole) to fix the problem.  In other words, the problem cannot be solved by supporters and the FA process is halted.  There's validity in your concerns about needing a rule like this, but even with the policy Time Q quoted, there is no way of enforcing it if the user doesn't see that his/her oppose doesn't help the process. {{User|Stumpers}}
-::I don't really have concerns about the "oppose vote" part of your proposal. As I said above, I'm not sure if it's really necessary, but it certainly doesn't hurt. All my concerns are about the "suppose vote" part. You gave an example for a "fan vote" in your proposal discription: ''Peach deserves the nomination.'' Perhaps that was just a bad example, but ''Peach'' might refer to the article just as well as to the character. Now imagine a situation when three users stumble upon this ambiguous sentence and interpret it as: >Peach as a character deserves the nomination. [I don't care what the article looks like.]< According to the rule you're proposing, they were allowed to remove this - possibly perfectly valid - vote. Obviously that's unfair. So I think I proved that the "support vote" part of your proposal might have bad consequences. What about good ones? Well, I certainly can't see any, and you didn't mention any either. Your only point seems to be that there are some people whining about those "useless fan votes". I agree that so-called "fan votes" are useless. But 1) there's the problem of telling whether or not a vote really is a "fan vote" (sure, sometimes it seems obvious, like your example ''She's so beautiful and make Princess Peach as a featured article!'' shows. But how do you know that the voter doesn't actually care about the article? Why should (s)he explain his-/herself for thinking an article is good? How can one give reasons for that?), and 2) caring about those "fan votes" would be even more useless than the votes themselves. ''They don't hurt anybody.'' In short, seeing no advantages in limiting support votes, actually seeing several dangers, I ask you to remove the "fan vote" part of the proposal. {{User|Time Q}}
-:::Unfortunately neither of us can remove the fan votes part of the proposal without removing the entire proposal altogether, as set forth by the precedent the latest censorship proposal, which fell appart when the proposer removed/edited the content of the proposal after people voted.  While I see your point, I'd like to challenge your argement: do you have any specific instances in which a user has used a subject's name to refer to the article rather than the subject?  Also, I'm not following the logic of your comment.  You took the quote I gave and used it out of context, which defeats your purpose.  The first part without the second part does sound... sort of... ''maybe'' like it could be a very vague support, but the second part is what clarifies it (you admit that later).  But, the FA pages always have the votes in context.  I'd like you to do me a favor and test your theory out about the subject/article thing being a problem by looking at a real nomination's support votes... let's stick with Princess Peach:
-#good article with lots of details and no glaring ommisions
+===Grandma Toadstool===
-#Now its better than the last time.
+{{ProposalOutcome|passed|7-0|split}}
-#If Princess Daisy is nominated, Princess Peach deserves it also.
+A little bit of history before the proposal: in ''[[The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!]]'' episode "[[Little Red Riding Princess]]" (1989), the character [[Grandma Toadstool]] was introduced as Peach's grandmother.  This was her official name, as seen on her mailbox, and it was a proper noun (ex. "Baby Mario" rather than "baby Mario").  Grandma Toadstool was a [[human]] character who lived in the [[Mushroom Woods]].  Later, in ''[[Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars]]'' (1996), a [[Toad (species)|Toad]] character living in the [[Mushroom Castle]] appeared under the improper name, "Toadstool's grandma"/"Toadstool's grandmother." (note improper capitalization).
-#She's so beautiful and make Princess Peach as a featured article!
-#Per everybody, it's a greatly written article for a great character
-#Peach deserves it
-#Peach is the greatest she deserves a page right next to Daisy!
-#G0 Featured Articles/N/Princess Peach I think Peach is great as both a regular non-playable character and as a playable on in RPGs and sports games. She's also a HECK of a lot better than Daisy or K. Rool for that matter.
-#I say yes to peachy nomination
-#10 Nitendo has done so much with Peach in the last couple years. Making her such a strong character in Melee and Brawl and releasing Super Princess Peach. She really is working her way up!
-#Peach needs to be nominated always being kidnapped and all...
-#Okay, the article isn't as bad as I thought. It was just that first part, which I fixed.
-#Per all.
-#Not bad. I added a bit to the SMB2 part, but otherwise, it looks great.
-:::I've removed the names, but nothing else is changed. Which of these would you call fan votes? {{User|Stumpers}} 17:52, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
+Currently, our article named [[Grandma Toadstool]] is a joint article about both characters.  The writers speculate that the two characters are the same person.  However, I'm proposing that we split the article into two articles: one for each grandmother.  Here's my reasoning: as seen in the ''[[Paper Mario]]'', family structure in the [[Mushroom World]] is similar to non-fictional human family structure ([[Goombario]]'s family and others). It is only logical that Princess Toadstool would have two grandmothers.
-::::Yes, you ''can'' remove a part of this proposal: 1) You're the proposer. 2) There's enough time left so anybody who has voted yet can change his or her vote if feeling the need for doing so. [Plus, if you did remove one part, you wouldn't lose any supporters - currently, they support ''both'' parts of your proposal. Now, if you removed one part, why should they suddenly stop supporting the left over part?] 3) There's no rule against that. That Bob Hoskins proposal was something quite different, because it got ''essentially'' changed. (Besides, if I remember correctly it was finally removed because the proposer was believed to have said that it should be removed. <small><- Probably embarrassingly poor grammar, but I hope you know what I mean.</small>) Now, before I reply to any of your other comments, let me ask which quote you mean I have taken "out of context". I really don't know what you're talking about, sorry. {{User|Time Q}} 18:14, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
-:"Peach deserves the nomination. She's so beautiful and make Princess Peach as a featured article!" You took the first sentence, called it a "bad example" of a fan vote, and then later said it wasn't a bad example because it was clarified with "She's so beautiful and make Princess Peach as a featured article!" {{User|Stumpers}} 18:27, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
-::Ah, okay. You got me wrong then. In your proposal _description_, you quoted: ''Peach deserves the nomination.'' In your comment, you quoted: ''She's so beautiful and make Princess Peach as a featured article!'' You didn't quote both sentences together, so I thought those were two independent votes. {{User|Time Q}} 18:31, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
-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. {{User|Princess Strawberry Butterfly}}
+This proposal aims to end the conjecture that the two characters with different names are the same person when they look entirely different.  However, we can of course note the possibility that the two characters are the same on their respective articles, and I will include a template at the top of the articles linking to the other grandmother to avoid confusion.
-:Thank you for pointing those out.. {{User|Stumpers}} 18:27, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
-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:
+'''Proposer''': {{User|Stumpers}}<br>
+'''Deadline''': August 7, 2008, 17:00 EDT
-'''Unanswered questions:'''
+====Support====
-*'''Why force supporters to explain their votes?''' From my point of view, a support vote is a suggestion. Supporters suggest that an article is good enough to get to FA status. No one needs to justify that. Only opposers should have the duty to explain their view.
+#{{User|Stumpers}} The two characters have nothing in common (not even species) and it is conceivable that Toadstool would have two grandmothers.
-*'''What should a "good" support vote look like?''' I fail to see what an "appropriate" reason for a support should look like. "The article is good"? "I like it"? "The article meets every criteria needed for FA status"? Either I'm blind, or it is impossible to explain your support "appropriately".
+#{{User|Cobold}} Two entirely different characters with the same name have been split in the past.
-*You say ''[...] THE VOTE CANNOT BE REMOVED WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THREE SYSOPS AND/OR USERS OF HIGHER RANK.'' '''What are "users of higher rank"?''' Who determines that? Before this is clarified, the proposal is way too vague to be actually applied. Similarly the next point:
+#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} - Per Stumpers and Cobold. 02:43, 2 August 2008 (EDT)
-*You say 3 users (or rather "sysops and/or users of higher rank", but I'll simplify it to "users" for this purpose) are required to remove a vote. That means, as soon as three users agree that a vote should be removed, it will get removed. But '''what about users who oppose the removal?''' How many opposers are needed to reject the removal of a vote? One? Three? Five? None (i.e. as soon as there are three users who think a vote is invalid, the vote will be removed, no matter how many opposers there are)?
+#{{user|Luigi001}}Per Stumpers.
-*My most important point, and the question I'm really eager to get an answer to (because I don't think there's an answer): '''Why care about support votes?''' As pointed out above several times, they ''don't change anything'' (except when there are five of them and no oppose votes, but that's really hypothetical and can easily be avoided). Why make any trouble about them, when we could so easily just ignore them? I assume it's just a personal antipathy. One which I do understand. But personal antipathy is not a reason to ban them. I also assume it's some kind of satisfaction for you (and I'm not talking specifically to you, Stumpers!) to see those unloved "fan votes" get removed. That's kind of stubborn, in my opinion. After all, "fan votes" don't change anything. To put it in a nutshell-- '''what are the advantages of limiting support votes?'''
+#{{user|tanokkitails}} per all
-*My last point: '''Why risk pointless discussions and flame wars about the validity of support votes?''' Basically, we got two options. First, we might continue to allow any form of support votes. To me, it seems obvious that this won't cause any flame wars. Alternatively, we could allow users to remove support votes, as you're proposing. Even if all users agree on the invalidity of a vote, this will flood the FA nomination pages. Let alone a situation where there are different opinions on the validity, and where actually a discussion (and possibly a flame war?) starts.
+#{{User|Glitchman}} I would have said no, but Stumpers's reasoning finally convinced me. I can't say no to his proposals.
+#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per Stumpers.
-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. {{User|Time Q}} 19:46, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
+====Oppose====
-:Hey, you're taking the time to worry about the proposal, it's only logical and ethical that I do the same, because you have some very valid points that are making me think.  Here's a rundown:
-*'''Why force supporters to explain their votes?''' I would consider simply saying, "The article is high quality" to be a valid vote, just like it is on the proposals page.
-*'''Users of Higher Rank''' This is to prevent the flame wars you're talking about.  These users would be sysops, bureaucrats, and everything in between.  Of course, I'd be happy to forgo this power myself, even though I'm a sysop, since this proposal isn't about increasing my power.  If it would help your doubts I can add a provision to the proposal that says, "all sysops except Stumpers and all bureaucrats."
-*'''What about users who oppose the removal?''' Point taken, although I doubt you'd have a situation where you'd see it, I'd support a majority-rules system, with three users required on either side to make it go through.
-*'''Why risk pointless discussions and flame wars about the validity of support votes?''' Quite simply, I wanted to give more power to both the opposers and supporters of articles, so that power wouldn't become unbalanced. {{User|Stumpers}} 20:05, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
-Hey, Stumpers and Time Q, I feel kinda posh correcting a sysop, but be sure to sign with <nowiki>{{user}}</nowiki> and not your sig. ;) {{User|InfectedShroom}}
+====Comments====
-:Heh-heh... thanks!  All this discussion makes it feel like a talk page. {{User|Stumpers}} 00:09, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
+Just for the record, if this passes the page names will be "Grandma Toadstool" for the SMBSS character and "Toadstool's grandmother" for the SMRPG one unless someone has an official name for the latter. (and can back it up!) {{User|Stumpers}} 18:39, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
-::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}}
+:Is a Toad really Peach's grandmother? If that was true, wouldn't  Peach have some sort of Toad-like feature? Anyway, some people consider the Super Mario Bros. Super Show to be alternate canon since it wasn't made by Nintendo. So, uh, the one from the show might not canonically be one of Peach's grandmothers. But sure, split the page if you guys think it's a good idea. {{User|CrystalYoshi}} 21:15, 4 August 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)
+::Alternate canon simply means, according to Son of Suns, sources of unconfirmed connection to the main series of video games, so it's really not an issue whether it is alternate canon or not.  I wouldn't assume that Rosalina and Peach were the same character if one came from alternate canon sources, so I wouldn't consider Peach's grandmothers to be the same character.  By the way, if you want to consider only content made by Nintendo to be canon, then Super Mario RPG (made by SquareSoft) is also non-canon, and therefore both grandmothers would be, "non-canon." {{User|Stumpers}}
-::::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}}
+:::Wow, canonicity's become a real hot topic all of a sudden. Anyway, there's been speculation that calling the Toad "Grandma" is just a term of endearment, based on Peach's lack of mushroomness, so there's a good chance they're not blood relations. And speaking of speculation, I think the article's assertion that Grandma Toadstool is the King's mother is wrong, seeing as one Granny lived in a woodland cottage, and the other didn't seem like the "King Mother"/"ex-Queen"-type. Even if we say the grandmothers are from either side, it's still questionable who mothered who, as it's been revelaed that [[King Toadstool]] is a human, and the reigning monarch, meaning his parents were the former rulers, and are now (or at least his father, if grandma married into the family) are dead (and certainly not living in the woods). Speculation makes a mess of things. And remember to use <nowiki>{{User|___}}</nowiki> here, please. - {{User|Walkazo}}
-:::::"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/sig}} 12:21, 26 May 2008 (EDT)
+::::Yeah, we're going to have to fix that.  Instead of saying that she is on the paternal side, we could instead say that, "Because Grandma Toadstool, King Toadstool, and Princess Toadstool all share the same surname, Grandma Toadstool may be the mother of the king and the princess's paternal grandmother, although no official source has confirmed this." I suppose that a woman could end up living in the Mushroom Woods rather than a more... elegant location because of King Koopa's reign over the Mushroom Kingdom during the SMBSS, but then we're getting into speculation again.  Princess Peach explicitly states that Grandma Toadstool is her grandmother, she doesn't say which side.  Speaking of, is there any line in SMRPG that confirms that Toadstool's grandmother is actually her grandmother? {{User|Stumpers}}
-}}
-===Site Logos===
+----
-<span style="color:red;font-family:Comic Sans MS;font-size:150%">ACCEPT IMAGES CONTAINING SITE LOGOS 13-3</span>
-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.
+===Bios===
+{{ProposalOutcome|failed|5-9|no such bios}}
+I have noticed, that the people's pages (i.e. [[Satoru Iwata]]) haven't got many or any information about their lives, childhood, etc. So i propse to add a decent bio to the most important pages.
-{{scroll box|content=
+'''Proposer''': [[User:Tucayo]]<br>
-'''Proposer:''' {{User|ForeverDaisy09}}<br>
+'''Deadline''': August 7, 2008, 17:00 EDT
-'''Deadline:''' May 27, 2008, 17:00
-====Support (Remove+Refuse Imagery With Logos)====
+====Support====
-#{{User|ForeverDaisy09}} - Images as suggested lower the quality of any page they are associated with, and are simply put, an eyesore.
+#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} - While it may not have much to do with Mario, I agree that the articles should be much larger. The [[Deanna Mustard]] article is fantastic (in my opinion), because it contains a lot about her life and how she got to be a voice actor.
-#{{User|Glitchman}} - FINALLY someone notices this problem!!  I agree with ForeverDaisy09 in all aspects, it's an annoying and pointless problem that can be fixed.  How could you say no to this?
+#{{User|Tucayo}} - Per my proposal.
+#{{User|Mario Gamer}} - Just because it doesn't directly relate to the Mario Wiki doesn't mean it's not an interesting read this website can provide someone with. I don't understand why people would vote against adding length to a relatively empty page.
+#{{User|Luigi001}}Per Stooben Rooben. The people do have a connection to the Mario series (voice acting, production, etc.) and we are a wiki covering anything Mario related, so the people deserve good bios.
 #Per all. -[[user:Canama|Canama]]
-====Oppose (Continue Accepting Images Containing Website Logos)====
+====Oppose====
-#{{user|InfectedShroom}} - As you said: people can edit the logo out. But not all people. Microsoft Paint makes it very difficult, and it's not easy in Photoshop. And as Wayo said: it's a very hard rule to enforce.
+#{{User|Palkia47}} - No, as it has nothing to do with the Mario Wiki. As seen in my past proposals and other places, we are not to create/add info that have nothing to do with the Mario/DK/Yoshi/Wario/SSB series'. This possibly goes for profiles/bios for real life people whom had some kind of relation to Mario via creating games, etc.
-#{{user|Tykyle}} - Per my comment below.
+#{{User|Mrsdaisyluigi}} Per Palkia47.
-#{{user|Blitzwing}} - Per Tykyle.
+#Per Palkia {{user|Toadette 4evur}}
-#{{user|Shroobario}} - Per Tykyle.
+#{{user|DaWeegeeMan}} Per Palkia
-#{{user|RAP}} - Per Tykyle.
+#{{User|Goomb-omb}} only information related to mario should be added.  example: Charles Martinet's favorite type of milkshake has nothing to do with his voice acting.
-#{{user|Stooben Rooben}} - Per Tykyle. I also want to note that just because we oppose this proposal, '''does not''' mean that support the lessening of quality on this wiki. It could just be that we think an image is an image, regardless of a small logo.
+#{{User|Stumpers}} This proposal is not as specific as it should be.  To what extent are you asking that we include information?  As Goomb-omb said, you could conceivably use this proposal to justify putting in bits of trivia like favorite milkshakes.  I really believe that our current policy on biographies is all that is needed: if anything lead up to a person's involvement, it can be lightly referenced, as can the reasons they left.
-#{{User|Stumpers}} With images on any Wiki, here's how it goes: you get an image you can legally use that illustrates what you're looking for, no matter how cruddy.  Then, the low quality image serves the purpose of being an informational aid AND a request for someone to upload a higher quality image (like one w/o a site logo).  Because we're here to provide information rather than be an art show, anyone who says that information in picture form should be removed just because it doesn't "look good" is lowering the quality of the Wiki.
+#{{User|Time Q}}: Per Palkia and Stumpers.
-#{{User|Pokemon DP}} - While they are annoying, they shouldn't be removed completely. What if no better image can be found? While I'd prefer no logos, sometimes, there is no other choice.
+#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per Stumpers. While minimalistic articles are a pain, this proposal would basically mean everything goes, which it shouldn't. If people really want to read about the person in-depth, they can always use the external links.
-#{{User|EnPeached}}Per Tykyle and DP
+#{{User|Tanokkitails}}-as palkia47 said, they have absolutely nothing to do with the wiki.
-#{{user|Bob-omb buddy}}-They may be the only option,and if left up a user can edit it out by copy and paste
-#{{User|Clay Mario}} Per Tykle
-#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per all.
-#{{User|Toadette 4evur}}-Per all.
 ====Comments====
-All I can say is good luck trying to enforce this, and fix it now... {{User|Wayoshi}} 17:54, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
+You're allowed to include any information about what lead to their current position in the Mario production process.  For example, with Lou Albano you would briefly mention that he earned his fame first as a wrestler and then as an wrestling manager, and eventually he started doing TV work.  Then he was contacted to read for Mario and blah, blah, blah.  At this point you get specific because it's about his role in the ''Super Show!'' rather than information about his life prior.  So, as it stands you are allowed to lightly touch on what you're talking about as long as it pertains in someway to their role later in life.  Reasons for leaving (if applicable) should also be mentioned.  You could also mention a short bit about what they did after their involvement, but again, just touch on it. {{User|Stumpers}}
-: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:Quality requested]]. - {{User|Cobold}} 17:59, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
+:Additionally, a link could be provided to a persons Wikipedia article in case the reader would like further information. -- {{User|Ghost Jam}}
-::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}}
-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. {{user|InfectedShroom}} <s>And we should have a list or something of all the images like that, as I can easily edit them. :/</s> OOps. Cobold's Category is what I wanted. ;)
+Palkia47 opposing something because it "has nothing to do with Mario"? Ohhhh the irony! {{User|Blitzwing}}
-::The main point is to prevent such imagery from being used on our wiki. The point is an image is meant to visually show something, and when that purpose is interrupted with an ugly site logo, it's purpose is no where near an acceptable standard. - {{User|ForeverDaisy09}}
+:...I'm taking that has sarcasm or an insult. Needless to say, should I remove my vote? {{User|Palkia47}}
-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.  --[[User:Tykyle|Tykyle]] 18:54, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
+Is Tucayo going to support his own proposal or not? {{User|Pikax}}
-::Like I said right above, bad images take away the purpose of imagery at all. I already suggested an alternative just to make it that much easier. - {{User|ForeverDaisy09}}
-:::A small, 75 x 25 px watermark does not take away from the imagery. And that alternative (of digitally editing) is not great, as many users are probably unable to edit the mark out. {{user|InfectedShroom}}
-::::Just for the sake of argument, I'll point out that if we have a member with the time and a reasonably new copy of Photoshop the watermark can be removed. -- {{User|Ghost Jam}} 22:42, 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. - {{User|ForeverDaisy09}}
+:Wow, i tought i had alredy did, but it seems that me didn't {{unsigned|Tucayo}}
-:I wasn't acting "like everyone is helpless just because they don't have photoshop." I was saying that some users may not have the skill to professionally remove a web logo. And not all screenshots are meant to show off the quality of a certain game. As Nintendo doesn't always make good graphics, screenshots aren't always meant to show the quality of the game. Ah, well, I'm done with this conversation. {{user|InfectedShroom}}
-::Ok, let's take IGN's images for example.  Great quality, but watermarked/logo'd.  Definatly not a "crappy image", but it has a watermark.  It doesn't instantly turn to "crap" just because there's a mark in the corner.  And, I should remind you: often editing out a logo means editing out a chunk of the image itself.  So, if you feel that black spots on images is preferable to logos... {{User|Stumpers}} 18:05, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
-:::So you automatically assume editing out a logo means putting a black censor block over it? That's cool. :<nowiki>|</nowiki> - {{User|ForeverDaisy09}}
-:I kinda agree with the oppose people here, but I don't have a strong enough opinion to vote. {{User|CrystalYoshi}} 10:52, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
-::FD09: What would rather have, an article with an image that has a logo or no image at all? Sometimes, that's all we can get in at that time, it's not like we're going to get a perfect image on the 1st try. Besides, half the time the logo barely visible. It's nothing to make proposal about. {{User|Toadette 4evur}}
-:::You can make a proposal on almost anything. I would rather have no image. Obviously that's why I made this proposal. Nice job understanding that. - {{User|ForeverDaisy09}}
-::Please cut the sarcasm. {{User|Stumpers}} 00:39, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
-:::Sure thing, yo.- {{User|ForeverDaisy09}}
-::::That's for understandin', bro. {{User|Stumpers}}
-}}
-===Repeal "Featured Article Voting Modification"===
+This proposal isn't specific enough. Yes, I think a "decent bio" would be helpful, but I also agree with Palkia and Stumpers that we shouldn't cover aspects which aren't related to ''Mario''. What should I vote for then? Could you please clarify what you're aiming to achieve with this proposal, Tucayo? {{user|Time Q}}
-<span style="color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;font-size:150%">REPEAL PREVIOUS PROPOSAL 10-0</span>
+:I second this.  The proposal should be such that voting against it maintains the norm.  If I vote against it, am I saying that I don't want there to be, "decent bios" for real people? {{User|Stumpers}}
+::For those of you opposing, this is a section from the [[Deanna Mustard]] article:
+:::"Deanna enjoyed school, was involved in choir and theater, and kept busy outside of school with dance. Participating in extra curricular activities introduced Deanna to a diverse group of peers. Deanna did not always want to be an actor though. She was interested in dance for most of her childhood, and wasn't actually introduced to theater until high school when she decided to audition for a one act play written by another student. Deanna was then approached by the drama teacher who persuaded her to sign up for her class. Deanna did, and she fell in love with it.
-I'll just cut to the chase here: I propose we repeal [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive#Featured_Article_Voting_Modification|this proposal]].
+:::Deanna's first job was working for her grandparents, where she would answer the office telephone and file papers. As a senior, Mustard was in an advanced drama class, and graduated in 1999. Deanna joined the theater department at Cornish College of the Arts in the fall, and she received her degree in acting in the spring of 2003. Deanna loved playing Gertrude Stein in a piece called "Notorious Women." Deanna researched the role, which she has stated was a challenge. Deanna also has a special place in her hear for the character Darla Danson."
+::Now what part of that is anything close to Mario related? {{User|Garlic Man}} If you're gonna oppose, then you might as well fix the other articles first.
+:::Okay... what exactly are you trying to say? And please sign with <nowiki>{{User|__}}</nowiki> here. Anyway, how about this version:
+::::''Deanna was interested in dance for most of her childhood, only being introduced to theatre in high school when she decided to audition for a one act play written by another student. Deanna was then approached by the drama teacher and was persuaded to sign up for her class. Aside from dance and her newfound love for theatre, Deanna was involved in choir, and enjoyed school as a whole. After taking an advanced drama class in her senior year, Deanna graduated in 1999 and joined the theater department at Cornish College of the Arts in the fall, receiving her degree in acting in the spring of 2003. Ironically, her first job had nothing to do with neither acting nor dance; she answered the office telephone and filed papers for her grandparents.''
+:::It's shorter, and keeps all the important information about her education and career path. If people want more, they should go elsewhere. - {{User|Walkazo}}
+::Yeah, the information might be ''important'', but it's not Mario-Related. And that's why the opposers are opposing, because the bios would be "Non-Mario-Related". But there's plenty of non-mario-related info on Deanna Mustard. I was just wondering why they just let that one slip by. {{User|Garlic Man}}
+:::Maybe it was because it was a Featured Article. The article needs this info to pretty much be a Featured Article. {{User|Palkia47}}
+::::Exactly. That article would not be featured, without the long biography. However, non-mario-related info is not supposed to be there. And the info that's not supposed to be there, made that article featured. Which is pretty ironic. {{User|Garlic Man}}
+:::It's like I said above: we already can discuss their life overall, so yes we will have to trim down Deanna's article slightly.  What we're opposing are articles that would go on and on and on about one's childhood experiences, trivial things like favorite foods, or complete lists of all movies and TV shows a person has acted for (filmography). {{User|Stumpers}}
-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:
+----
-*As per [[MarioWiki_talk:Featured_Articles#Problem_with_New_Rules|this comment]], the votes can be removed as soon as three users call for the deletion of a vote. This can mean a five-minute discussion and then a deletion of any vote.
+===Catch Card Locations===
-*The original proposal said: <blockquote>ONLY FAN VOTES WITHOUT FURTHER REASONING [...] CAN BE REMOVED!</blockquote> Now look at one of the support votes for [[MarioWiki:Featured Articles/N/Paper Mario|Paper Mario]]: "''Awsome!''" It is obvious that it is a vote without further reasoning. It is anything but obvious, however, that it is a fan vote, because it possibly refers to the quality of the article. So, can this vote be removed or not? Pointless discussions could evolve around issues like this.
+{{ProposalOutcome|passed|6-3|add catch card locations}}
-*Flame wars could be a big factor in this system. If a (*ahem* ''volatile'') user opposes a vote of another easily distressed user, it could be a long and bad flame war, and would probably draw other users in. This would cause tension and distrust between the users and may lead to other problems.
+As I ran across the [[List of Catch Cards]] page, I noticed that the locations of the catch cards are not listed whatsoever. I found this rather...disappointing. So here's what I propose: Add an additional brief description as to the location of each catch card. This would include city (i.e. [[Lineland]]), if one must flip or enter a pipe to reach the card, and perhaps the chapter in which it is located to the [[List of Catch Cards]] article.
-*Anyone who opposes a removal does not need to give a reason. Take the comments of [[MarioWiki:Featured_Articles/N/Petey_Piranha|this page]] for example. Time Q is able to just oppose the removal and is not forced to give his thoughts on ''why'' it should stay.
-*It's a useless system. One single oppose vote can cancel out an infinite number of support votes. Which gives us the question: Why do we need this system in the first place? Also, only five support votes are necessary to Feature an article with no opposes. So, most of the time, there are already enough legit votes to feature an article even if all the fan votes are removed.
-To cut a long story short, the new system tries to regulate things ("useless" support votes) that don't need to be regulated (because support votes don't really matter). '''There is no need whatsoever to regulate support votes.''' If the rules were simple and clear, we could accept them (even though they would still be rather useless), but they pose several problems, as pointed out above. There was one good thing about this proposal, however. This was the following portion: <blockquote>[...]OPPOSE VOTES THAT ARE NOT CLARIFIED CAN BE REMOVED[...]</blockquote>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.
+I'd also like to note that I do not know the locations of really any catch cards, so I will need help from some other, more experienced ''Super Paper Mario'' players. Thanks in advance for whoever helps.
-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.
+'''Proposer''': {{User|Stooben Rooben}}<br>
+'''Deadline''': August 14, 2008, 17:00 EDT
-{{scroll box|content=
+====Support====
-'''Proposers:''' {{user|InfectedShroom}} and {{user|Time Q}}<br>'''Deadline:''' Thursday, June 5<sup>th</sup>, 2008, 17:00
+#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} - I am the proposer, thus my reasons are stated above.
+#{{User|Dom}} - This might sound biased because I'm a huge fan of Stooben - but I like this idea - I mean, why ''aren't'' the locations there? Although, it could get a bit repetitive since many cards are obtained by using a Catch Card or Catch Card SP on the enemy...so, hmm. Nah, it doesn't matter...
+#{{User|Luigi001}} Per all.
+#{{User|Dustof DryBones}} - I aproove and would be glad to help build it up.
+#{{User|Mr. Br Mario}} - I'd really love to have such information, mainly because I have friends who play Super Paper Mario, and if they'd like to take their time in searching for the Catch Cards (I would like to), I'm pretty sure they'd be more than happy to have this kind of information, as would all the collectible-lovers who play Super Paper Mario. And I'd love to help build this up. For example, [[Watchitt]]'s Catch Card can be found by blowing up a wall in the very room where you got Boomer, and then flip to 3D to find it on the other side. This is just a preview of what kind of help I could offer...
+#{{User|Mariomaster43}}-Yeah that's a really good idea i want super paper mario but i don't have it yet but i want so i toatally support 150% :)
-====Support (Repeal proposal and restore the option to discuss oppose votes)====
+====Oppose====
-#{{user|InfectedShroom}} - My reasons above.
+#{{User|Phoenix Rider}} As I stated on the [[Talk:List of Catch Cards|Catch Card discussion page]], the majority of Catch Cards must be purchased, and even then, the location list would really just become a list of enemy locations, which can be found at each enemy's respective page.
-#{{user|Time Q}}: Per IS and myself. In short: There are several problems arising with the new system, some of which surely could be solved, but it's simply not worth the time and work, because it's a simple as that: Support votes don't change nothing, only oppose votes do. Even so-called "fan votes" don't hurt anyone, ergo no need to waste our time discussing them.
+#{{User|Garlic Man}} Per Phoenix, as yes, many(if not most) must be bought or taken from enemies. I actually don't really find the locations necessary, as this wiki is not a game guide.
-#{{user|Toadette 4evur}} Per IS and Time Q. Before we know it, all the FA nomination pages will be empty if we keep this system.
+#{{User|KingNess700}} I believe that not revealing the locations of catch cards on the internet leaves still some challenge to the player to truly complete the game as opposed to a step by step guide on them. If players want that, they can buy the players guide.
-#{{user|Glitchman}} Per IS and Time Q.
-#{{user|Blitzwing}} Per my opposition of the Proposal in the first place.
-#{{user|Stooben Rooben}} - Per IS and Time Q.
-#{{user|Clay Mario}} - Per my opposition of the proposal in the first place.
-#{{user|Stumpers}} - My reason for creating the original proposal was to force users to actually clarify their oppose votes once they were cast instead of leaving behind generalities that left the supporters in the dark.  The proposal was backed because of the fan vote aspect rather than the oppose vote aspect, and frankly if I could go back and "do it over," I'd like to remove the fan vote aspect.  Per most of/all of Time Q's arguements on the original proposal.
-#{{User|Cobold}} There is no reason to remove support votes. Removing oppose votes easily can be a problem, as featured articles meet requirements to get featured the next day already. It might not give the opposer the needed time to rethink his vote and add different reasons to it.
-#{{User|Knife}} A fan vote has just as much value as a "per" vote. The opposition will fix any flaws in the system, so it doesn't matter if we remove support votes in the first place.
-====Oppose (Keep everything how it already is)====
 ====Comments====
-=====Comment One=====
+Per Dom and Pheonix. Although helpful, the repetitive occurrence of many of the cards may be a bother. Perhaps we can make it work, by displaying the locations of the cards that are NOT obtainable by a Catch Card? Furthermore, almost every obtainable card in the game may also be bought in a Card Shop respectively. Honestly, I believe this may just confuse some people, but it has potential of working. Just keep in mind that the repetition for over 90% of the cards may state something similar to this: Title; Lineland, Catch Card, Card Shop. {{User|Ominous}}
-I'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. {{user|Stooben Rooben}} 18:59, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
+:I do see your point. However, it really doesn't have to be all that complicated. For example, the page would look somewhat like [[User:Stooben Rooben/Proposal Example|this]]. It's really quite basic; just a minor adjustment to the wiki-coding and it turns out like in my example. {{User|Stooben Rooben}} 23:04, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
-:Well, that's what we are trying to fix here; if a oppose vote is too vague, the users shall discuss it, and if the original opposer does nothing about it, their vote can be removed, as we don't know which sections they are talking about. ;) {{user|InfectedShroom}}
+::In the example, what would the "World 0-0" represent? The place a card can be found that's not a shop or by using a Catch Card? - {{User|Walkazo}}
-::Thanks. I'll support then. {{User|Stooben Rooben}} 23:18, 30 May 2008 (EDT)
+:::"Chapter 0-0" represents which chapter the player will find the catch card in, (i.e. chapter 7-3). "City-Name" is self-explanatory. As for the third location (marked "Catch Card SP") &ndash; if I'm not mistaken, any common enemy can be caught with a Catch Card SP. In return, I believe at a various time, any card can be purchased at a shop &ndash; that's why I didn't add "shop" to the location list. {{User|Stooben Rooben}}
+:::: Mhmm, Stooben has obviously shown a way that this can work. Is it possible that in the explanatory paragraph before the chart shown, we can simply state something similar to; "''Almost every card [excluding boss and character cards] may be collected by a Catch Card or may be bought at at a Card shop.''" This will clear confusion and repetition. This also leaves the apparent space for the editor to list the cards that are found during gameplay. -{{User|Ominous}}
-=====Comment Two=====
+:::::I think that could work. Good thinking. {{User|Stooben Rooben}}
-There 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. {{user|Wayoshi}} 21:53, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
+::::::I think "shop" should actually be added because some cards cannot be caught with a catch card like Bonechill, but can be bought and at the same found with a map/in the wild. And what will you do with the Gnaw card, it's technically part of the "shop" section under Flint (? What's his name ?)the merchand's inventory. {{User|Dustof DryBones}}
-:(Yes, I know this is not related to the proposal, but I need to get it out of my chest)
+:::::Dustof DryBones: I still agree with Ominous here; his statement, if placed at the top of the article, would prevent mass repetition. As for the Gnaw Card, I do not know. I have not collected the card yet; but, if it is in the merchant's inventory, I still think it would fall under "shop", and would require a location listing.<br> KingNess700: Many articles in this wiki contain spoilers, such as [[SSBB]], [[MKWii]], [[PM:TTYD]], etc. Because of this, and the fact that not everyone wants to see the spoilers, {{tem|Spoiler}} was created. Thus, I do not entirely feel you vote is valid; I do however see your point. {{User|Stooben Rooben}}^
+:::::::Well, I was agreeing on everything he said (when I read the proposal, I thought of doing such a thing myself.) The only thing I, personally, would've added is the "shop" section for the Gnaw card. Unless, we were to do an approach more like this:
-:I see your point, but you're off by a bit. The users as a whole aren't any more professional at Wookiepedia, Bulbapedia, etc. than they are here. They just happen to be blessed with a large number of skilled editors, as we are. All communities have issues with users who care more about status than editing. All. Look at Wookiepedia that limits the amount edits to ones userspace, or Bulbapedia that has suspended all userspace edits entirely. What you seem to be expecting from the community is nearly impossible. -- {{user|Ghost Jam}}
+[([([([Specific Location])])([([Can be bought at Card Shop; Yes or No])])([([Can be caught by a type of Catch Card; Yes or No])])])])]
+The Gnaw card would then go under "Specific Location" and not shop. {{User|Dustof DryBones}}
-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}}
+::::::::Point taken. {{User|Stooben Rooben}} 16:31, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
-: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}}
+:::::::So, what are we waiting for, exactly? I'm eager to start it. {{User|Dustof DryBones}}
-}}
-===Humourous Image Captions===
-<span style="color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;font-size:150%">ALLOW THEM 20-6</span>
-'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.
-{{scroll box|content=
-'''Proposer:''' {{User|Pokemon DP}}<br>
-'''Deadline:''' June 5, 2008, 17:00
-==== Allow Humourous Image Captions ====
-#{{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|Dom}} - Yeah, seriously, I agree with DP! I love funny captions, especially if they're random. The gaming magazine I read has heaps of good ones, and it really brightens it up. And most of the captions are pretty useless, like a picture of Mario would say something like "Mario wearing his trademark outfit" or something (I made that up).
-#{{user|InfectedShroom}} - Hmm... Per Blitz. Captions can tell a lot about a picture. So long as good captions are not lost, this is a good idea.
-#{{user|Toadette 4evur}} Per all.
-#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per Blitzwing, et al.
-#{{User|Glitchman}} - Despite the fact that this proposal seems a bit pointless, I'll side with DP.
-#{{User|Wayoshi}} &ndash; see comment below
-#{{User|Pikax}} Provided that users don't go over the top with this, I see no reason to oppose.
-#{{User|YellowYoshi398}} - Per DP, but I'm gonna have to say I won't want captions like [http://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Big_Bubble&oldid=40557 this] to reappear...
-#{{User|WiiBoy7}} - I think it would be a great addition. It would improve the Wiki in my opinion.
-#{{User|Storm Yoshi}} - Kirby Wiki has this and so does Zelda Wiki. I would say Zelda Wiki is more mature (the series being so) so why not here?
-#{{User|Clay Mario}} - Per DP
-#{{User|Uniju :D}} - Per all
-#{{User|Super-Yoshi}} - It will give the wiki a nice touch.
-#{{User|CountBlumiere}} - Per Pikax
-#{{User|Mumbles}} - Per Blitzwing
-#[[User:1337Yoshi|1337Yoshi]] - Per all.
-#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} - As long as they're still informative, I'm all for hilarity.
-#{{User|RedFire Mario}} - The wiki would be better if we have one
-==== 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|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|Knife}} Per Stumper's influential comment.
-#{{User|Blitzwing}} - This isn't going to change anything, but Per Stumpers.
-#{{User|RAP}} - Per Stumpers, I'm concerned about those flame slash edit wars also.
-#{{User|ChaosNinji}} - Per Stumpers and HyperToad.
-==== 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}}
-: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}}
-:::Yeah, that Decepticon article ''was'' a bit too informal, but I dion't think that's what DP's going for with this proposal. His "Groovy" example's good, because it's funny but not unneccesary, especially when the alternative is "A Groove Guy": 99% of the time that would result in a "no duh" from the reader, sorta like "A Pirate Goomba is a pirate Goomba." If there's nothing worthwile to say about the picture, then there's no harm in a bit of wit; as long as its done in moderation. - {{User|Walkazo}}
-What Walkazo said. {{User|Pokemon DP}}
-I see no problem with it, it adds to our reputation as carefree, not too strict on the rules like Wikipedia. {{User|Wayoshi}} 22:03, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
-:I think Wayoshi is right, I mean, we're just a wiki about Mario, we don't always have to be super-serious. But is this just for allowing witty captions and leaving them alone, or would we try to hav mostly funny captions? The first would be okay, but the second would be overkill. Which one is it? {{User|CrystalYoshi}} 16:19, 30 May 2008 (EDT)
-::I'm pretty sure it means that if there's a good, reasonable caption, we don't change it to a witty one. If there's a bad caption, like "A Goomba," we shall add a more witty one.
-::Also, (no to offense Blitz) the Tranformers wiki's captions ''are'' overkill. They, like Time Q said, are a bit ''too'' funny. We sholdn't go ''that'' far with them. Well, that's my opinion, at least. {{user|InfectedShroom}}
-:::Well, I agree that the Transformers Wiki is maybe a bit too lax concerning images caption. I just brought it up because I think their policies influenced this proposal (I think). {{User|Blitzwing}}
-::Well okay, but would we start racking are brains for something clever just for image captions? That doesn't seem necessary. I mean, they're fine, and they should be allowed if someone thinks of one. But trying to think of one for every single image caption that doesn't really present information... I see a lot of bad jokes ahead. {{User|CrystalYoshi}}
-...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. {{User|Pokemon DP}}
-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){{User|Mumbles}}
-Well, that's okay. I'm not actually going to vote, but it's a landslide already. {{User|CrystalYoshi}}
-}}