MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/9

Any proposal decided and past is archived here. Use the scroll box to see votes and comments. This page is protected to maintain the discussion as was. Please add archived proposals to the bottom of the page. All past proposals are archived here. This page is protected to maintain the discussion as was. Previous proposals Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 Archive 58 Archive 59 Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62 Archive 63 Archive 64 Archive 65 Archive 66 Insert info from Games DO NOT INSERT INFO FROM SONIC GAMES 21-5 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 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 10-1 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 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: 20:00, Friday June 20, 2008 A.D. (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 11-2 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 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 6-3 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 27th 20:00 PM. 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 30th, 17:00 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 series. 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, 17:00 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 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 7-1 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 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. {{scroll box|content= Proposer:Walkazo Deadline: July 9, 2008, 17:00 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 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 5-1 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 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 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)