MarioWiki:Proposals

Proposals can be new features (such as an extension), removal of a previously added feature that has tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action(s) are done. Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so, not, e.g., "I like this idea!" "Vote" periods last for one week. All past proposals are archived. A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed with the signature code ~~~(~). How To Actions that users feel are appropriate to have community approval first can be added by anyone, but they must have a strong argument. Users then vote and discuss on the issue during that week. The "deadline" for the proposal is one week from posting at: Monday to Thursday: 17:00 (5pm) Friday and Saturday: 20:00 (8pm) Sunday: 15:00 (3pm) Every vote should have a reason accompanying it. 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. "# " should be added under the last vote of each support/oppose section to show another blank line. At the deadline, the validity of each vote and the discussion is reviewed by the community. Any proposal that has three votes or less at deadline will automatically be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion. All proposals are archived. The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of a sysop, the proposer can ask for that help. The times are in EDT, and are set so that the user is more likely to be online at those times (after school, weekend nights). So for example, if a proposal is added on Saturday night at 11:59 PM EDT, the deadline is the next Saturday night at 8:00 PM. If it is indeed a minute later, the deadline is a day plus 15 hours (Sunday), as opposed to a day minus 4 hours. Also, NO PROPOSALS ABOUT HAVING BANJO AND CONKER ARTICLES -The Management. CURRENTLY: 09:55, 23 November 2024 (EDT) New Features Beta Elements I say we put a beta section on each page, so we won't have to go to the beta elements page. Here would be an examlpe for Mario Kart Double Dash!! "This was supposed to be a stage (blahblahblah)" Proposer Blue KoopC Deadline: May 1, 2008, 17:00 support Stumpers! What I often find is that by not mentioning beta elements on a game's page, we lose the ability to see how the the game developed and so on. Besides, this proposal doesn't mean the end of the Beta Elements page. I could really see the BE page being a collection of "cream of the crop" Beta Elements while the game articles show all the nitty gritty little details. Or vice versa. Blue KoopC I say we do this, and for those who oppose saying were going to get rid of the beta elements page if we do do this, were not. :| I never liked the beta element page. BLOC PARTIER. I vote here as long as this means that we do not delete the BE page and simply add sections on other pages. My Bloody Valentine This Proposal is NOT asking to remove the Beta Elements page, people. It is merely asking to add Beta information to the articles they belong on. So quit saying "The Beta Elements page is good, so I'll oppose.", because it is NOT valid, since we are NOT removing the Beta Elements page. Wow, long pointless rant in my vote, eh? =P HyperToad Per all. oppose Walkazo - I bearily remember the proposal going the other way on this issue a few months back... Anyway, see below for my real resoning. Grapes Per all to me just leave the bete element where it belongs in a nice neat page. Ninja Yoshi-Think about it.You can just go to one page to find all the wierd and cool stuff Nintendo has left out of games. XzelionETC Per All Green Guy Talk!E Per all Palkia47 Also like SR & IS said. I'm not against your idea, but I always like the Beta Elements page, also. But if we did add beta elements to the pages, it would be in the trivia section. And you know how much Beta Elements are in each game. Knife (talk) 11:42, 26 April 2008 (EDT) I think it is okay to use both ideas. Glitchman (talk · contribs) No, because some games have only maybe an enemy or a level that are BETA and that's it, so most games don't have enough Beta elements to have its own section on the games page. Better to keep them all on one. Per all. -Canama comments Hey, Blue Koop, you gonna vote for your own proposal? ;) BLOC PARTIER. It all comes down to a question of whether more people will want to read about Beta Elements all together or while they read the specific game articles. The real problem is how much variance there is in the amount of beta elements between games: some have enought for a nice big section, others have a line or two of iffy info. For the latter, it would make more sence to give a link to the section of the Beta Elements page, because there, the information scraps fit in. Plus, it makes writing and editing info on beta elements easier doiwn the road, since they're all in one place and you don't have to go hunting around the various port and remake articles of a game to find the differneces, etc. - Walkazo Walkazo -- the ports of games have all been combined, with the exception of recreations, such as Super Mario 64 DS and Diddy Kong Racing DS. In the case of recreations, a game had to be remade from scratch to fit a completely different control scheme, so it's not really the same game in terms of the actual programing, as far as my understanding goes. What I'm saying is: with very few exceptions the ports and remakes are on the same pages now. That should ease your trouble a bit. :) Stumpers! 23:33, 24 April 2008 (EDT) Eh, I don't quite understand what you are trying to get to. You are lecturing Walkazo about game ports... on a proposal about having Beta Elements information on game articles? Also, the Yoshi's Story page do have a section about Beta Elements. Just want to point that out. Blitzwing (talk · gnome work) Yeah, I don't get what you're trying to say about ports and remakes either... anyway, I'm not sure where to vote. I'm leaning toward "oppose" since I don't see a reason for it not to be in one page. CrystalYoshi 10:28, 25 April 2008 (EDT) He was talking about the trouble it would be for a reader/editor to track down all of the changes and beta elements made in ports. With recent changes made to the SMA series (merges), I'm pretty sure that problem has been fixed. All the remakes I know of with the exception of two significant ones mentioned in my previous comment are merged. I don't know why I'm summarizing the comments for you, but maybe that makes it easier to understand. Stumpers! 16:50, 27 April 2008 (EDT) I don't think this Proposal is asking to remove the Beta Elements page. I think its merely asking to just add Beta Element information to the articles they belong on. My Bloody Valentine Yeah, there are a lot of votes that are inappricable in light of that. But, then again, the proposal is asking for permission to do something that I don't think is banned (see Blitzwing's example). Stumpers! 16:50, 27 April 2008 (EDT) Okay, there are 6 oppose votes there that are inapplicable because they either defend the Beta Elements page or per someone who did so. Knife's oppose vote asks for both Beta Elements page and sections on game pages to be present, so it's really a support vote. People with opposes that are invalid because the beta elements page is not being deleted: Infected Shroom Princess Grapes Goldguy Xzelion (a per all, potentially valid b/c that includes Walkazo's reason) StoobenRooben Green Guy (a per all, potentially valid b/c that includes Walkazo's reason) MegaMario9910 Knife (supports both, so is in support of the proposal) That leaves Walkazo and Glitchman as the only definately solid opposers. Xzelion and Green Guy are also potentially valid, although the question is whether or not they looked at Walkazo's reasoning below or not. Stumpers! 17:48, 27 April 2008 (EDT) Oh. But is that really necessary? I'm not sure, actually, so I just won't vote. I'll see what the majority thinks. CrystalYoshi 16:46, 27 April 2008 (EDT) Ah, now I see what you're saying. I'll move my vote. ;) BLOC PARTIER. I do support the idea of putting beta elements on game articles where appropriate, but Glitchman has a point: Some games just have too little beta info to make an extra section. But your proposal says to "put a beta section on each page", so in its current wording, I cannot support it, sorry :P Time Questions 13:46, 28 April 2008 (EDT) I still think there should be a link. For example: Paper Mario Beta Elements See here. "Paper Mario" is an example of the page title, while "beta elements" is an example of a sub-header. — Stooben Rooben Removals Speculative Relationships 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 Time Q, we could move unsure relationships, like Baby Daisy and Baby Luigi, to the Trivia sections of the article. Proposer: My Bloody Valentine Deadline: May 5, 2008, 17:00 Remove overly speculative relationships My Bloody Valentine I am the proposer, and my reasons are given above. Or possibly below, assuming some Users decide to argue. =| Time Questions: Per DP, the relationships section is not the right place for speculation. Uncertain relationships could be mentioned in the trivia section though. Ghost Jam per suggestions by DP and Time Q. Cobold (talk · contribs) - Per Time Q. Blitzwing (talk · gnome work) - 'Big duh here. It's like saying "Rewrite Poorly Written articles" Glitchman (talk · contribs) Per Ghost Jam. Wa TC@Y – 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. SJ derp :P BLOC PARTIER. 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. — Stooben Rooben Speculation is a big no-no around here. Marcelagus (T • C • E) Indeed. I removed the Baby Daisy section several times, but got re-added by Fixit several times... gr... Stumpers! Speculation has no place on a Wiki that even suspects the official alternate forms of media as being alternate canon. Keep the baseless speculation 1. Moonshine- At this point there's no support for the relationship section anymore. But it is worth mentioning. I think a trivia section would suffice though. Comments 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? Time Questions 05:30, 28 April 2008 (EDT) That Trivia idea is kinda good... I'm on board with that. And, when I say "remove any relationship", I mean to remove the certain character relationship section, not the whole Relationships section as a whole. My Bloody Valentine 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 Time Questions 06:36, 28 April 2008 (EDT) First of all, this was unneeded as we already had solved this issue. Nice job, hur. Secondly, this is worded in a way that is completely wrong. You're making it sound like all relationship sections on the Daisy and Baby Daisy pages have no meaning and as you said are "baseless", That's your opinion, and saying that misleads any users into thinking there really is something bad about the sections. There's nothing more "baseless" about these sections than there are to any other pages. This was solved, you're bringing it back up, and you're not doing so correctly. Fixitup The purpose behind the proposal is allowing each user to review the facts, discuss the matter and draw their own conclusions, so no real misleading is taking place. Beyond that, the war continued well past repeated protections, so the problem is obviously not solved. -- Chris 08:25, 28 April 2008 (EDT) I don't give a Rat Funk's squeek about what you think of this Proposal being "pointless", Fixitup. Cos' your little edit war with 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: My Bloody Valentine - And don't you forget it! I suggest you calm down. You're starting to sound like you're going off on me again. Anyway, I don't see how you couldn't have explained that already. Also, sections like that don't necessarily need to be removed. They just need to be reworded. Like the Baby Daisy/Baby Luigi relationship. Obviously that has enough information to back it up (meaning it's not baseless) same goes with the Baby Daisy/Baby Peach relationship. (obviously not as much, but still doesn't need to be completely removed or even thrown to a trivia section) Also, the Daisy/Waluigi relationship is backed up by their team names in Mario Party, their chemistry with one another, and their rivalry in Mario Strikers Charged. How is that baseless? I can understand a relationship like Toad/Mario being baseless in some manner, but as long as two people have a history in any manner, there should be a relationship section. Why are proposals always about removing, never fixing? Also, the edit war was over as you saw booster was the last one to revert Toadette4evur's final part in the edit war. He even asked them what reasoning they had, and they disregarded it until a while after. (Hm) 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? - Cobold (talk · contribs) 08:47, 28 April 2008 (EDT) It went in one ear, and out the other, Cobold. ;) My Bloody Valentine WaYoshi... the section wasn't about romance, it was just about a relationship. Regardless, they're not real. Real babies don't talk or drive. I fail to see how an infant having a crush on another infant is impossible, especially under the circumstances. Fixitup First off, I just see this proposal as a selfish way to get rid of the Baby Daisy section...again. I NEVER would have written the section in the first place if I knew it would spontaneously ignite edit wars and then lead to the deletion of all the other speculated relationships. Going by your definition, anything that is a possibility is merely speculation and should go. All in all, thats EVERY relationship section. Take the Daisy & Luigi relationship section. Clearly Nintendo is hinting at a relationship between the two, but it hasn't been OUTRIGHT CONFIRMED. But still, everyone still thinks of them as a couple. The same can be said with any other relationship, Nintendo hasn't confirmed that Luigi is jealous of some of Mario's abilities, and yet no attention is brought to that about being speculation (you even refer to this section as being fine). The Baby Daisy section was deleted quite literally for having the word "May" in it, and thus being unconfirmed. While yes, it's not confirmed, neither is the regular Daisy and Luigi section, but still it's hinted at. You can't just delete SOME articles for being mere speculation and keep the others while they too are speculation. While yes, other sections might be a little more supported than than others, but Proof is proof and you can't just deny it. -Moonshine All these proposals just because of the Baby Daisy page! Anyway, my position here depends on exactly what you mean by "speculation". Is this about all ideas that haven't been confirmed by Nintendo, or just ones that seem unlikely and have no official evidence? CrystalYoshi 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. My Bloody Valentine 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. Fixitup - Peace The situation was resolved? Ha... HA... HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! That was the best joke I've heard all week, Fixit. The situation was clearly not resolved. And, what do you do with a big situation like this? You start a Proposal! I can't just remove it all without getting everyone's opinion on the situation. That's what Proposals are for. And regardless of what you think, relationships like Daisy/Waluigi are meaningless, something 11 other Users have agreed on. Even if you think this Proposal is pointless, it doesn't matter. For, you see, I actually MAKE a Proposal to see what OTHERS think, instead of going ahead and getting in an edit war to try and get MY way. My Bloody Valentine Hmph, fine. Good point... SJ derp :P Do we have evidence of any kind that these freaken babies have a relationship of any kind? And I mean direct, documented proof, not conjecture, not fan crap, not 'Oh, look! They are next to each other on a menu screen! OBVIOUSLY they are bestest frends4leif!!!!!!!'. -- Chris 00:23, 29 April 2008 (EDT) Well, Baby Daisy's relationship with Baby Peach seems kinda... Fan-made to me. Her relationship with Baby Luigi has SOME proof; a statue of the two dancing in the Daisy Circuit stage. That said, its hardly enough to merit its own section, or even be considered truly official. My Bloody Valentine Splits & Merges Courses and Stages with the Same Name In many games there are courses that appear multiple times, but have a different layout each time. Take for instance Luigi's Mansion (place). While it's good to have an article about the mansion itself, it also talks about how it appears as a basketball court, a tennis court and a SSBB stage, all of which have different layouts, and are crammed down at the bottom of the page. Meanwhile, something like Mushroomy Kingdom gets its own article, instead of being merged with say Mushroom Kingdom or World 1 (SMB), just because it has an extra letter in its name. Another example is the many Bowser Castle courses. The SMK ones have their own articles just because they're numbered in-game, while the rest all are lumped together, despite not being the same actual course. What I'm asking is that we split all these courses, stages and such into their own, seperate articles. Recurring courses that don't actually change appearance much or at all, like Final Destination should stay the way they are, since it isn't necessary for that. Proposer: Booster April 27, 2008, 12:00 Deadline: May 4, 2008, 15:00 Split Booster Per above. BLOC PARTIER. Per Booster. I've thought about doing this once or twice, especially for Bowser's Castle. Stumpers! Per Booster. Can you give us a full list of articles this would apply to? — Stooben Rooben Per Booster. Glitchman (talk · contribs) This is a good idea, part way at least. It might be best to have an article for Luigi's Mansion (place) as it appears in the game of the same name, and then another one for Luigi's Mansion (stage) that talks about its racecourse in MKDS, its basketball stadium in MH3on3, its battle course in MKDD, and it's stage in Brawl. At least two splits. Don't Split Marcelagus (T • C • E) Per my comments below. Comments Hmmm, I don't think I quite understand what this is for. If this passes, will Bowser's Castle become Bowser's Castle and Bowser's Castle (stage)? Or will it be Bowser's Castle, Bowser's Castle (MK64), Bowser's Castle (MK:DD), etc.? What I'm asking is, will the pages be split into individual pages for each game, or will they be split into a general article and a course article? CrystalYoshi 16:33, 27 April 2008 (EDT) It'd be split so that we have a seperate page for each track/course/stage with a shared name. So yes, we'd have Bowser's Castle (MK64), Bowser's Castle (MK:DD), etc. This would include, at the very least: Princess Peach's Castle Yoshi's Island (place) Luigi's Mansion (place) Bowser Castle includes the numbered ones as well Rainbow Road Luigi Circuit Mario Circuit Wario Stadium Rumble Falls Rainbow Ride (I mean, Cruise) Kongo Jungle Jungle Japes Mushroom Kingdom (stage) Roof (perhaps just delete the SM64 stuff) -- Booster Sweet. I completely approve of everything with a possible exception of Peach's Castle. What do you intend to do with it? Stumpers! 19:02, 27 April 2008 (EDT) There are two different Smash Bros. stages named Peach's Castle. One from the N64 game, and one from Melee. -- Booster I'm gonna remain neutral on this. You bring up a very good point, but at the same time, I feel its better to keep all of it merged. I tried to make Mushroomy Kingdom and Mushroom Kingdom one article, but Cobold split them. So, well... I dunno what to vote for. My Bloody Valentine Look at the Luigi's Mansion (place) article. The stage you fight on in Brawl is not the actual mansion itself, since it's much smaller than before, is missing rooms, and is now on a floating platform. It's not the same mansion IMO, and if it is, they did a lot of renovating. I'm not saying we should make an article for, say every castle Bowser has in each game, but for stages with their own features and layouts, then perhaps yes. -- Booster Its still the same mansion... Even if it does look different, the overall design is still Luigi's Mansion. But, like I said before, I will remain neutral on this. My Bloody Valentine I'm gonna be with DP on this one. CrystalYoshi 21:03, 28 April 2008 (EDT) Okay, I have some reasons to oppose: I see what Booster is trying to say, and it makes sense. However, despite having diffirent features, they represent the same place in the Marioverse. This sorta brings up a point about the other Paper Mario proposal that's going on, but, while having different features, Paper Mario and 3D Mario are the same person, thus the same article. I think the same could be said with Luigi Mansion in LM, MKDS, and Brawl. Marcelagus (T • C • E) A course dreamed up by Master Hand based off of Princess Peach's Castle is not the same location as the actual Princess Peach's castle. The Smash Bros series worlds are: (original) dreamed up by Master Hand, (Melee) unconfirmed, but in a world where trophies smaller than a human hand battle, and (Brawl) in a completely separate world where trophies BASED off of the Nintendo cast fight. In other words, the Mushroom Kingdom is not the world of trophies/master hand's imagination. Stumpers! 20:26, 28 April 2008 (EDT) Actually, I was about to revise my comment, saying that all of the Mario games(Does not inculde crossovers, such as SSB) are the same locations. So, uh, Brawl doesn't count, I guess. But anyway, besides brawl, Luigi Mansion is always the same place in the Marioverse. There aren't 5 Luigi Masnions out there. {{User:Garlic Man/sig} Luigi's Mansion may not be the best example, but you can't tell me that every Rainbow Road track is the same course. Also compare Luigi's Mansion from the Luigi's Mansion game itself, the Double Dash Battle course, and the DS Racetrack. Yes, they're all called Luigi's Mansion, and look similar, but with that logic you could say that several Burger King locations are all the same place. -- Booster Recipes Ok, here we go. I've been looking through some pages and I saw that there is a different page for each of Saffron, Zess T., and Tayce T.'s recipes, even though the grand majority of them are stubs. I propose that we merge them all into a table on the Recipes page for easier access to them, sort of like the Badges page. So it's up you know. Tell me what you think. Proposer: SJ derp :P April 24, 2008, 20:54 Deadline: May 1, 2008, 17:00 Merge recipes SJ derp :P What I stated above. BLOC PARTIER. Per T4E. I have done the same thing. We need just one page for all the recipes. Blitzwing (talk · gnome work) There was a proposal about this (Which failed). I agree that the Recipes article are rather short and minor. Grapes Sound great merging a the stub into one great stub free page in a neat order. Also we'll have less recipes page. XzelionETC Per All; I had this proposal going before, had tons of supporters, than SoS opposed it, then everyone opposed it. ;-; — Stooben Rooben Per all. I like GJ's idea; neat and compact...it sounds good. Walkazo - Per all. Green Guy Talk!E Per all is all I can say Knife (talk) 11:44, 26 April 2008 (EDT) I originally suggested this, but the vote was to keep it separate. I have an idea for a template. User:Byfordej per all. Ghost Jam per my comments below. Glitchman (talk · contribs) Per all. Leave them the way they are YELLOWYOSHI398 They're officially named items; I think they're worthy of articles. Some even have backstories, like Cake and Couple's Cake. They also have other notability (like maybe TTYD recipes needed for troubles, or even physical descriptions) that could give them longer articles with some work, and it seems like a lot of them could at least have the bare bones "____ is an item in Super Paper Mario that restores 398 HP and is made by having Dyliss cook a ___ and a ___"; maybe the articles that just CAN'T have any more info than that can be, like, exempt from being stubs or something. (That could even be a proposal...) Wikiguest - Per YellowYoshi398. Marcelagus (T • C • E) - Per YY398 Stumpers! Very good point, YellowYoshi. Although I'm not against a big list, I am against a merge because of the exceptions mentioned. How is this list going to tell the story of how the Paper Mario cake lead to Tayce T.'s marriage? Comments This is a good proposal; I can tell, because I'm having a hard time deciding what side to vote on. So, good work on that, T4e! ;) While I do agree that a good portion of the recipe articles are stubs, merging all 174 of them into one article...I think that the one big article would be very large and take a while to load. And, each recipe has a different effect...what to vote... — Stooben Rooben Hmmm, maybe we could have 2 pages. SJ derp :P No, that would just make navigation confusing. Besides, what about the Recipes page? Or do you want something more? Also, we already had a proposal about this a few weeks ago, so I'll reiterate my point form then: the recepies aren't substantial enough for their own articles, the existing Recepies Page is perfectly fine for that; however, the ingrediant/product pages should all list the recepies they are involved with to make it easier to research things concerning them. - Walkazo Walkazo: We don't want 100-some stub pages. It would be easier to merge them all. SJ derp :P Oh, I get what you're saying now, yeah, totally we don't need the individual recepis pages, I wa salways againt that. But I still think the big list of recepies is enough: it indicates the game the recipe comes from and it has the ingrediants and products; if you want to find out what they do, just use the link. What more is there to write about? - Walkazo We can merge the info onto the page. SJ derp :P Uh oh, a no solution problem. The articles themselves are too small. But a page with all of them would be too big. And two pages would be weird. I thought about "list of recipes in Paper Mario", "list of recipes in PM:TTYD", etc. But that wouldn't work since some recipes are in both. CrystalYoshi 10:35, 25 April 2008 (EDT) Everything could merged onto a table on the Recipes page. We don't need to go into super detail over what an item is, how it works and where to get it. Just how to make it, a note about what it does...maybe how much it sells for. -- Chris 12:06, 25 April 2008 (EDT) You mean sort of like the Badges page? — Stooben Rooben Hmmm... when you put it that way, it doesn't sound bad. Maybe I'll vote support when I've thought about it more. CrystalYoshi 17:13, 25 April 2008 (EDT) And when I'm feeling a bit less lazy. Great idea, Ghost Jam! I changed the proposal so that we can do that. SJ derp :P Neatness and compactness, all in one page; this is what is needed. — Stooben Rooben YellowYoshi398: Even if they're officially named, do you want 174 2-4 sentence articles? The badges were officially named, and they are all on one page. SJ derp :P I do feel like they're worthy of articles... And I guess my real point was that there's more to be said about them. I kinda feel the same about Badges, though... YELLOWYOSHI398 About 130 of them are stubs, though. We can get rid of all of them by making this one page. SJ derp :P That is a good point... CrystalYoshi 11:17, 26 April 2008 (EDT) Stumpers: Put that on the Tayce T. article. SJ derp :P Toads Hiya. With the recently release of Sper Smash Bros. Brawl and Super Mario Galaxy, I would like to make a shocking proposal: merge Toad with Toads. Though it makes me ache to say it, Toad is no longer a valid character. Yoshi still has enough separateness to have his own article, in fact I think the "Yoshi-Yoshi's" conundrum has actually ben mentioned by Yoshi once or twice, but look at the Toad trophy in SSBB! It makes no attempt to divide the character from the species. The biggest problem is that the articles will suffer from us not being sure whether a certain red spotted mushroom man was THE Toad or A Toad.... I know this is not a very well written proposal, but you get what I'm trying to say right? Proposer: Ultimatetoad April 27, 2008, 11:45 Deadline May 4, 2008, 15:00 Merge Toad with Toads Ultimatetoad Keep as is Merging is only for articles that don't have enough info to have it's own article. Toad has enough info to stay separate, plus, he is a major Toad like Toadette and Toadsworth. SJ derp :P BLOC PARTIER. The two pages are much different, and Toad used to be a major character in and of himself, before there were the other ones. Toad is still a unique character, despite getting fewer and fewer roles over the years. Even if he were forgotten entirely doesn't mean we should drop his article. And he did make an appearance at the start of Super Paper Mario, for what that's worth. Booster CrystalYoshi Come on, Toad is a character! There's a species just like him, but there's still one with a red cap in a blue vest who's Princess Peach's main attendant and has helped Mario out since Super Mario Bros. 2. And plus both articles have a lot of info. — Stooben Rooben All the other characters/species are separate, thus, Toad should be too. Palkia47 If we do this, we'll have an article too big. Toad has a whole page to himself, and the speceis have their own. If the speceis was merged, then we'd have no clue which was the actual Toad. There's still a seperate character named Toad. -Canama Cobold (talk · contribs) - There might be no clearly definable character Toad in modern games. But that doesn't take the character Toad out of earlier games such as SMB2. Comments Infected, You realize that I'm not actually saying we should merge Toad just with Toads, but that they both be deleted and a combination page of both be written, a page that has info on the species and the (questionable) character. Frankly, I don't think there is a character anymore, thats why I made this proposal. - Ultimatetoad Ultimatetoad, don't forget to add a reason for your vote, even if you're the proposer. Toadette, I think you got the proposal wrong; what Ultimatetoad is trying to say is that there's no difference between the character Toad and the species Toad. Thus your reason "the Toad (Species) article is only for generic Toads" doesn't make much sense. Time Questions 15:11, 27 April 2008 (EDT) Ultimatetoad: Yes, I realize that. You just made it sound like you wanted to merge one with the other. I'll change my oppose. BLOC PARTIER. Why to merge Toad and Toads? If there was a person named human, you wouldn't merge him with Human (species) because they have the same name. Think of it that way. And Toad's a valid character, although he doesn't play many roles now. CrystalYoshi 18:23, 27 April 2008 (EDT) He's still referred to "Toad", not just "A Toad"... Paper Mario Is Paper Mario a seperate character from Mario? If so should we make a seperate article for Paper Mario Just asking. Proposer:Dragonson 16:39, 27 April 2008 (EDT) Deadline: May 4, 2008, 15:00 Support Paper Mario is Mario in 2-D graphics; however, Nintendo has them as different characters ; use the Brawl trophies. Nintendofan146 14:51, 29 April 2008 (EDT) Oppose Blitzwing (talk · gnome work) He's Mario, nuff said. If we makes a separate article for Paper Mario, we should do the same for 3D Mario, Super Smash Bros. Mario, Godawful Movie Mario, Hotel Mario Mario, Mama Luigi... Ect. Glitchman (talk · contribs) Per the Winging-Blitz :P CrystalYoshi He's just Mario, after getting a magic spell making him 2D... just kidding. Per Blitzwing. Besides, what is there to say about Paper Mario? People expect the information about him in Paper Mario games to be in his own article. BLOC PARTIER. Per the lighning wing. Stumpers! It's just an art style change. On a related note, Blitzwing's comment about separating SSB Mario isn't a good oppose: according to Sakurai, it's trophies fighting in Brawl. The Mario of the main series isn't a trophy, so technically they are two different people... but a separate character doesn't always mean a separate article (Ashley and Red), so that's why they're still together in one article. Girrrtacos The Mario from SMB2 is the same Mario as SM64, just as Paper Mario. My Bloody Valentine Even if its alternate canon (I still think the RPG's is official canon, but others disagree), Paper Mario is still Mario. This isn't Legend of Zelda, ya know. — Stooben Rooben A person is a person, no matter how small. Mario is Mario, no matter what form. Paper Mario doesn't qualify as a form or seperate character IMO. Just keep it as is -- Booster User:Byfordej Per All Bob-omb buddy -Paper mario is just mario but in a different form. Same 'ol Mario -Canama It's just Mario with a different art style. It's still him. Seperate Brawl trophies means nothing, or else Striker Mario is a different character too.Darth Waluigi 19:18, 29 April 2008 (EDT) Comments Stumper: Eh, never heard of a wonderful thing called "No taking things literally"? I was taking SSB Mario as an example, no needs to lecture me about him being a different character blablablablab but that he is merged because blablabla. That's really annoying. --Blitzwing 06:51, 28 April 2008 (EDT) Not that I don't agree with you guys, but then, WHAT ABOUT Dr. Mario?!?!1111///1 HyperToad Well, Gameplay-wise, Dr. Mario is a different character from Mario because of his appearance in Super Smash. Bros. Melee. --Blitzwing 16:39, 28 April 2008 (EDT) Uh oh, HyperToad is right... CrystalYoshi P.S. Blitzwing, please try to talk to Stumpers in a nicer way. HyperToad: Although Dr. Mario is a seperate article, it's one of Mario's personas. Paper Mario, on the otehr hand, is him without a different job and costume. The only difference is the art style.Darth Waluigi 19:23, 29 April 2008 (EDT) Changes What's-a-Gibberish? Hey-hey, come on! Ok users, pay attention, and read carefully. As some of you may know, there was a proposal that said, "Lately i've been searching around the wikis quotes, and have seen quotes like "whupee heeheeheehee!" when thats just a bunch of giberious and also something like AHHH!!! thats just someone yelling! should we get rid of these?". Now, the problem some users (including me, of course) have encountered is what to actually consider a "gibberish" quote. Now look at the quotes that have been recently removed from the Baby Daisy article: "Baby Daisy!" – Mario Kart Wii "Ha-ha! YAY!" – Mario Kart Wii "Go-go!" – Mario Kart Wii "GO!" – Mario Kart Wii "NO!" – Mario Kart Wii "NOoooo.." – Mario Kart Wii "Heh-heh!" – Mario Kart Wii "Okey-dokey. Yeah!" – Mario Kart Wii "Yaaaay! Whoo-hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo." – Mario Kart Wii "Yipee. Yipee. Yi-hee-hee-hm-hm.." – Mario Kart Wii Okay,just so you know, a current issue trying to be settled is, which of these quotes actually count as gibberish, and which should actually be allowed to stay. Now, as of the current point in time, and according to the outcome of the proposal linked above, gibberish quotes count as anything that is random babbling or plain screaming. So, Which of these quotes qualifies in those groups? Well, as the quotes that contain nothing but yelling qualify as gibberish, you COULD mark out these: "Baby Daisy!" – Mario Kart Wii "Ha-ha! YAY!" – Mario Kart Wii "Go-go!" – Mario Kart Wii "GO!" – Mario Kart Wii "NO!" – Mario Kart Wii "NOoooo.." – Mario Kart Wii "Heh-heh!" – Mario Kart Wii "Okey-dokey. Yeah!" – Mario Kart Wii "Yaaaay! Whoo-hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo." – Mario Kart Wii Oh, but wait! All of these quotes contain yelling! There's the first problem. Just because quotes contain a character showing excitement, in any odd manner of saying it, does that mean we should count it as actual gibberish? Last time I checked, gibberish was random babbling, not yelling because of excitement or anything otherwise. Also, just because a character is exclaiming something like Yay, No, or laughter, doesn't mean their mindlessly speaking in tongue, does it? So, what it comes down to is, do we remove all quotes that are to a short point, and that are exclaiming remarks? As I gave examples on the Baby Daisy talk page, many characters plenty good quotes would qualify for this, thus leaving certain pages to the point of "quote-less". Now, I know most people know what a quality quote is, but I also know that a quote shouldn't have to be entertaining or a long sentence in order to define characteristics of said character. Please take in to account the outcome of your vote, and also take into account that gibberish is quite literally random babbling and not actual wording. P.S: Choosing support doesn't mean quotes considered gibberish will stay, it means quotes not to be confused with gibberish cannot be removed for that reason. Therefore, certain quotes would stay, while certain quotes would be removed. According to ACTUAL consideration. Proposer: Fixitup April 22, 2008, 23:01 Deadline: April 29, 2008, 17:00 Support (Keep Certain Quotes Considerably Acceptable, Regardless Of Length Or What's Being Said) Fixitup Per above, lol. HyperToad Per Fixitup. Plus, Peach has a "HELP!" quote. WTF? Oppose (Remove All Quotes Containing Those Of Examples Listed, And Any More Found Throughout Other Pages) My Bloody Valentine The official definition of "gibberish" may be random babbling, but this Wiki has a different definition. Its any quote that is just a simple stupid expression that says nothing about the character. "NO!" is NOT a valid quote. Why? Its just someone saying "No". Its not unique AT ALL. It says nothing about the character's personality. Any simple quote like this, or any compilation of things like "WHOO-HOO-HOO-HOO! WHEE!", should not be considered a REAL quote. Its not professional, AT ALL. That's my two cents. Wa TC@Y – per DP. A quote should be revelant and not be a restatement. Blitzwing (talk · gnome work) - What's the point of knowing that some guy said random nonsense like "AAHAHAHAH" or "NO"? Those kinds of quotes are a waste. XzelionETC Perl All. — Stooben Rooben Per all. Anybody can scream or cry. Specified quotes like "Only cheaters mess up", make Waluigi different from Peach. Waluigi and Peach have both screamed and cried before, so it's pointless. Grapes Per all. Marcelagus (T • C • E) - Per DP. Whether they are real words or not, they make no sense at all, and are thus "gibberish". Anyone can say "woo hoo!". Only quotes like "Toadette's the winner!" should be kept, because it is unique, unlike "woo hoo!". SJ derp :P BLOC PARTIER. Per all. Comments Well you know, DP, when I gave examples of other quotes, that have been here for quite a long time, someone said to me something like, well although this quote is almost the EXACT same line, this one is more humorous, therefore is fine. Does that make sense? I didn't think so. Also, like I said, not all of these quotes are just, "NO". Fixitup Also, I don't no if I said this incorrectly above, but I know quotes should be relevant, but I know that not all of these quotes are at all irrelevant. Fixitup First of all, I didn't understand what you said. You are treating this like "Since its on other pages, it should be on every page.". That's not the case. The case here should be that ALL quotes like this should be removed from ALL pages, not added to others just cos' other people decided to add them to other articles. And no one is saying they are all just "NO!". SOME of the quotes you gave are fine, most of them are just... No, sorry. My Bloody Valentine I'm not saying that, I'm saying that's how it was, and I don't see why we are just now getting to that. Naw mean? Well the thing is, on the Baby Daisy talk page, that IS what they were telling me, that all are not allowed. Listen, the accept choice is not to allow quotes that count as gibberish, it's to allow quotes that may be confused because of how they are worded. Fixitup I tend to agree with the second option, but wouldn't that also include quotes like "It's-a-me, Mario!", which Mario is famous for? It's an exclamation, yes, and in most cases such quotes should be removed, but I feel we need to make exceptions to this rule. Saying "It's-a-me, Mario!" is very characteristic of Mario, while Baby Daisy saying "Baby Daisy!" is just random. Maybe one day, when she has appeared in more games than Mario Kart Wii, it turns out that she actually commonly uses this phrase as her "identifying feature", but until this point we shouldn't allow that (and the other) quote(s). Time Questions 04:33, 23 April 2008 (EDT) Somebody give Time Q the "Most logical User of the Year" award! My Bloody Valentine Yeah... Baby Daisy won't have many good quotes until she's in a game that's not a spin-off. CrystalYoshi 08:30, 23 April 2008 (EDT) I don't think I'll vote just yet, though. Hmmm... I'm preferring the second option. But the word "all" in it's title is a little ominous. We shouldn't need to delete all the quotes from a page, just most of them. Leaving a page with no quotes is... Not preferable. BLOC PARTIER. Sorry if that didn't make much sense, I couldn't find a way to say it perfectly... DP, you just said that only certain quotes listed from the Baby Daisy page should be removed. Then you agreed with TimeQ that none of the quotes were relelvant. I don't know if anyone has noticed, but Mario hardly even says "It's-a-me. Mario!" anymore. Aside from that, some of you are ignoring the fact that I stated that supporting this isn't to support quotes like, "No!"/"Wahaha!". It's to allow certain quotes, like SOME of the quotes from the Baby Daisy page. If you are against keeping any of the quotes on the Baby Daisy page, then you are against most of the other quotes used as examples, which I know for a fact hardly anyone disagrees with. As I expected, everyone is misinterpreting the outcome of this proposal. Fixitup Then make the meaning clearer. Short and concise is a much better way to go then long, rambling and sarcastic. Anyway, the only quote I think is relevant up in your example is "Okey-dokey, yeah!", since "okey-dokey" is something usually uttered by Mario, making it strange coming from Baby Daisy (though the "yeah!" part was in character with her older self). - Walkazo I think it is safe to say how this proposal will turn out, therefore the only type of "work" I will be doing around this type of situation will be resolving it on the Baby Daisy talk page. I know how votes go sometimes, regardless of what I would've liked, it is obvious most of you have a mind set. Fixitup While we're on the subject of removing quotes, can someone please put Bowser's Quotes back on his page? I tried to undo the edit that scrapped them myself, but my ancient computer couldn't handle the amount of coding. Also, what's the status about the pages devoted entiurely to quotes? Are they still being constructed or have those projects been abandoned & forgotten? Sorry if this is a bit off-topic, but it's not quite enough for a stand-alone proposal, and nobody's done anything about the issues when they're brought up on the individual talk pages. - Walkazo Ah! About quote pages... I am still making them. I did kinda abandon them for a bit there, but I am working on it again. :') And also, where is that edit that deleted his quotes? I can't find it in the history. BLOC PARTIER. Note: Go here for a category of the quote pages. Format of Quotes Next up, I have noticed articles such as Wario and Princess Rosalina have a different format for quotes compared to many other pages. For example, the Rosalina page quotes appear as this: Template:Llquote While a format of quotes used on other pages look like this: "Oh, I've won! Hooray for me!" - Mario Power Tennis You'll notice the first style is obviously "neater" and more formal than the second, but takes up much more space. Sooo, we should decide on one quoting system in order to make sure pages follow a specific guideline. One, the first style, or the other, the second style. Obviously this isn't a big deal, but should be addressed. I actually have a hard time choosing myself. Proposer: Fixitup April 22, 2008, 23:01 Deadline: April 29, 2008, 17:00 Support (Star Using First Format) Fixitup Per above again, lol. Bob-omb buddy The first one may be longer but it is much neater. Oppose (Keep Using second Format) Wa TC@Y – This meaning both formats are kept, right? The standard one works well with top of pages, this bullet-formatted one works well for multiple little quotes related to each other. I can incorporate all of these into RandomQuote if I had some time over the weekend... BLOC PARTIER. Per Wayoshi. Multiple quotes look a bit better when they're in a list, and the {{quote}} looks great on the top of the page. IMO. Walkazo - Per Wayoshi. Per Wayoshi. SJ derp :P — Stooben Rooben Per Wayoshi. My Bloody Valentine Per Wayoshi. Time Questions: The "neater" layout takes too much space when there are many quotes. Grapes Per Time Q More space more KB. (Another pointless proposal.) CrystalYoshi How is the first "neater"? It's just longer and more annoying, not neater. In fact, I think the second one is neater. It's bulletpointed, and plus it only takes up one line. And the quote doesn't need to tell who's saying it, we already know from who the article is about. Comments Um, I think there was a reason the {{quote}} template wasn't used like that. I think it was that ALL the quotes on the page would end up on the Random Quote of the Day Template, instead of just one. At least, I THINK this was the reason. I don't remember. My Bloody Valentine Yes, second choice is for both being kept, as in first format at top only, and second used in quotes section. First choice is for first format in both quotes section, and at top of page. Fixitup Yeah, the first format is for the quote at the top of the page, and the second is better for quote lists. It takes up less space, and you don't need to tell who says it; everyone already knows. Is the oppose side for keeping two types in quote lists, or for having only the second in quote lists? CrystalYoshi 08:34, 23 April 2008 (EDT) I don't see how the first is more formal. Princess Grapes Butterfly, this one definitely isn't pointless. There are obviously different layouts of quotes on this wiki, but we should use a consistent way, so this proposal helps us deciding which way to choose. Time Questions 15:52, 24 April 2008 (EDT) Miscellaneous None at the moment.