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: 07:34, 6 November 2024 (EDT) New Features Super Mario Bros.:The Lost Levels Worlds I have noticed recently that none of the worlds in Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels have their own article. I realize that the reason for this is probably that the game is too similar to the original SMB to have it's own pages for the worlds, but it is a COMPLETELY separate game. There are new backgrounds, different and more challenging levels, backward warp zones, trampolines, overworld bloopers, etc. Another reason it may not have these articles may be because the game was never originally released outside of Japan, but though Super Mario All-Stars, Super Mario Bros. Deluxe, and the virtual console almost every country has had the opportunity to play this game. So, I propose that just like the original game, we should make one article for each world and have the world's four levels on the article, amounting to eight new articles. Proposer: Glitchman (talk · contribs) Deadline: May 13, 2008, 17:00 Make new pages for each world Glitchman (talk · contribs) Per myself. — Stooben Rooben Per Glitchman. YELLOWYOSHI398 Per Glitchman. Isn't SMB:LL's only real similarity with the original SMB the two games' use ofthe same graphics? Is DP's opposition really legitimate? Stumpers! They're different levels, which is enough for me. Grandy02: There are many similar graphics (though they are even not exactly the same), but the levels are definitely different, so they deserve articles. Cobold (talk · contribs) - The levels are about the only things that were different in this game. They are not modified versions of the SMB ones, but newly designed ones. HyperToad@Proposals - Per Cobold. Walkazo - Per all. My Bloody Valentine I changed my vote, seeing how each level is entirely new. BLOC PARTIER. Per Glitchman. Bob-omb buddy -It does it on most games,Even if it is simalar and people want to compare it to the original. CrystalYoshi If it's all completely new, and enough users have played it to be able to write about it, then yeah, I'm for. Super-YoshiTalk? C???-Per Stumpers. File:RPGMarioin3D.PNG Clay Mario File:RPGMarioin3D.PNG - Per the thought that Super Mario Bros. 1 and the Lost Levels are completely different Don't make new pages for each world Comments Perhaps my opposition isn't valid... I've never played either game, so I have no idea what the differences are. My Bloody Valentine Well, the levels are laid out differently, enemies can be found in different locations, the graphics are slightly enhanced, and the game has many new features to each level. I think that about sums it up. — Stooben Rooben 00:49, 7 May 2008 (EDT) But, basically, they are still the same levels? If so, I tend to oppose. But I haven't played the games either. Time Questions 04:29, 7 May 2008 (EDT) Hmmm... Now I'm not sure what to vote for... I think I'll stay on the Opposition side for a little bit. There's still 7 days left, after all. My Bloody Valentine They created entirely new levels. There are no "differences", you'd have to mention everything for that. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 13:29, 7 May 2008 (EDT) Cobold's right. Some are completely new. HyperToad (talk · contribs) All of the levels are completely new, actually. Glitchman (talk · contribs) All the overworlds too. - Walkazo The only thing I'm worried about is that not enough users have played SMB:LL. It is a Japan-only game, after all. Well, there is Super Mario All-Stars, but that's from a while ago. CrystalYoshi 17:38, 9 May 2008 (EDT) I see your point, but SMB:LL was released on the virtual console all over the world too, even though it was taken off the market in Europe and Australia after two weeks. I have SMB:LL on the VC myself, but I could still use some help with the articles. Glitchman (talk · contribs) Okay. CrystalYoshi 12:52, 10 May 2008 (EDT) Smash Bros. Series Articles Currently, this wiki has article on the Super Mario series (as a whole), as well as Donkey Kong. I think we should have articles on Template:Fakelink and ect. This espically goes for Template:Fakelink. This could mention the series appearences in the Marioverse (e. g. SSB, M&S) and a brief section about the series it's self, perhaps. Proposer: HyperToad@Proposals Deadline: May 14, 2008, 17:00 Make the Articles User:Yoshitheawesome They are something that at least come in contact with Mario in Smash, so they should have their own articles. Master Lucario The Aura is with me... Per Yoshitheawesome. rend (talk) (edits) Only Sonic HyperToad@Proposals - Yes, I, the proposer, have changed my stance. Sonic has background as a rivalry with Nintendo. — Stooben Rooben Per the common sense of the comments below. Blitzwing (talk · gnome work) - Per the fact that I was the one to suggest it. And also per my comment below, Stumpers! I like this idea just because it would be nice to see all the Sonic info in one place. Maybe that's the only page we need... could it be a merge of all Sega topics. Just a thought. Walkazo - Per Blitzwing. BLOC PARTIER. Per all My Bloody Valentine I am ONLY voting for the Sonic series article, nothing else. RedFire Mario - I'm choosing Sonic, because the Mario & Sonic game can be a series in the future and Mario is in the game besides series like The Legend of Zedla. Per all Shrikeswind - I feel that, as a Mario Wiki, this should focus solely on the Super Mario series and its related subseries. That said, due to the Sonic the Hedgehog series being historically regarded as the main third-party rival to the Super Mario series, the series bears a form of relevance to the Super Mario series as a whole despite the fact that neither side appeared in a game together until Mario & Sonic at the Olympics and Super Smash Bros. Brawl. The same can't be said for all that many other series. GreenKoopa - Comments or questions?If we keep the SSBB articles about Samus, Snake, ect. the CHARACTERS, and dun make articles about Sonic games and just sonic as a series. Time Questions: Per Blitzwing. Nope Glitchman (talk · contribs) This is supposed to be the MARIO wiki, we already have to much to do with the SSB series as it is, so we shouldn't bring the Sonic and Metroid series in JUST because they appeared in the smash bros. games!!! XzelionETC Per the More Intelligent people above me. Palkia47 We are a Mariowiki, not a Nintendowiki. Since we a Mariowiki, we should not have articles about other series, when we are a Mariowiki. Storm YoshiThe Donkey Kong series is actually part of Mario contunity as he is a big 8 member. Whats the use of have Metroid when SSB is the only series it has appeared close to the Mario series...And Sonic series has no right to be here unless you define Sega as nintendo Bob-omb buddy Just because they appered in a few mario games doesn't mean we should make a page for it. Leave that to sonic wiki. WikiGuest This is a Mario Wiki, not a Sonic Wiki. :/ Toadster_04 Like many above me, this is MarioWiki. We should not have articles about other series. Sonic & co., Samus, Link, etc. already have pages for their roles in Mario games. They shouldn't have pages for their roles in non-Mario games. Sonic games are fun, but that doesent mean that his articles should come to MarioWiki. Come on, thats just common sense there. Whats gonna be next, Ness appeared in Smash so we can have all of Mother's articles??? Super-YoshiTalk? C??? ~PY - These series have only appeared in crossover games. Those games aren't really supposed to be [art of the series. And it's too minor anyway. And, per all. Per Storm Yoshi. SJ derp :P Knife (talk) 12:10, 11 May 2008 (EDT) - No way. Mario's "rivalry" is not a good reason we should create an article on the Sonic series. I'm fine with making articles on items, characters, etc. related to him but creating an article on his whole series would add too much focus on him. Even if it's one article. The Sonic series status is on par with all other series and a "rivalry" and one set of crossover games (Mario & Sonic) do not make him more important. Comments As I said in the vote headers, I wouldn't oppose having an article on the Sonic series, which would provides (very) basic information about the franchise and details how it affected Mario. For example, the Transformers wiki has an article on "The Gobots", which were the main competitor of Transformers some times ago. The article gives information about Gobot without having too much non-specific Transformers information and also have a section about how Gobot got referenced in Transformers and vice-versa. Considering that Sonic was Mario main competitor back in the 90's, I think having an article on it would be about right. --Blitzwing 18:01, 7 May 2008 (EDT) I'm with Blitz on this one. The Sonic series can get its own article; There's already a lot of series information on Sonic's very own article. Perhaps Pokémon as well, but maybe not. But as for everything else, big NO. My Bloody Valentine How 'bout a list? HyperToad (talk · contribs) nty. I think the character articles are enough. My Bloody Valentine Uh... if that's everyone's reasoning that we are a MARIOwiki, then why do we have SSB at all? HyperToad (talk · contribs) Because Mario plays a big part in SSB. And uh, because a ot of our editors are SSB fans, duh. --Blitzwing 08:12, 8 May 2008 (EDT) The reason I'm opposing is because there IS a limit to the amount of Smash information allowed here. :| My Bloody Valentine Ok, Mario plays a large role in SSB, I understand that. Why do we have articles like Blizzard, Waddle Dee Toss and Condor (yes, I regret supporting that now) but not this? HyperToad (talk · contribs) Well, I don't fully understand your reasoning for wanting to create articles on the seperate series. I mean, we have the character articles that detail cameos and whatnot, isn't that enough? :\ My Bloody Valentine I suppose. What about the Sonic series though? HyperToad (talk · contribs) Hmmmmmm... That's quite possibly the ONLY exception. If you look at it, whereas Pokémon is the second best-selling series after Mario, have they REALLY had such a vicious rivalry? Have they REALLY taunted each other so much and considered each other a major threat? Not really. Sonic, on the other hand. Both series have posed as a huge threat to each other in the past, and their history with each other is far greater than any other series made to oppose Mario. Sonic and Mario have a long detailed history, so a Sonic series article would definitely be valid, IMHO. My Bloody Valentine So long as it only details the series' history with the Mario series, nothing more. So what exactly are we going to do with a Sonic (series) article? Are we going to go through every single game and describe how its sales affected Mario's sales? Are we going to compare Sonic Spinball to Mario Pinball Land? Are we going to compare Sonic's countless battles with Dr. Robotnik with Mario's countless battles with Bowser? Are we going to say how many similarities the series had? It's common knowledge that Sonic and Mario were big competitors in the early-to-mid-90's – especially in the 16-bit era. I still don't find this to be a good idea. Creating an article on the Sonic (series) is opening a door that we're constantly going to have to re-close. Users will come along, see that we have an article on the Sonic (series), and demand that we make articles on the Metroid (series), The Legend of Zelda (series), Star Fox (series), Pokemon (series)...etcetera, etcetera. I mean, this could even cause users to want an article on the Dance Dance Revolution (series) for obvious reasons; then that would lead to users wanting articles on the Karaoke Revolution (series), which would lead to an article on Rock Band, which would lead to an article on the Guitar Hero (series)... Do I need to go on? This is gonna make chaos on the wiki. >_> — Stooben Rooben No offense, HT. Not if we come to a consenses that only Sonic is allowed. I think the whole "Sonic is Mario's rival" thing get way exagerated. And no Stoobs, we wouldn't include trivial things like Sonic Spinball and MPL. >_> And nobody here is stupid enough to want to make articles on Gutair Hero. HyperToad am leik Proposals Alright. As long as we make it completely clear, I'm on board. — Stooben Rooben 11:56, 8 May 2008 (EDT) While I agree that a Sonic article might be a good idea, I'm leery to vote. We've already had three attempts in the last few months to circumvent the consensus that Conker and Banjo should be kept off the wiki. As I seem to remember us already agreeing on a Sonic article at one point, I see this as the fourth attempt to mess with consensus. -- Chris 20:13, 8 May 2008 (EDT) Wait, what exactly is the proposal for? Just for making articles for serieses, right? Not making articles about things in the serieses?? CrystalYoshi Well, the Sonic article would probably just detail the Sonic series' rivalry with the Mario series, and how it's had a huge impact on Mario. Storm Yoshi, please read our reasoning before choosing to leave out the Sonic series article just cuz you hate Sonic... :| My Bloody Valentine Guys, SEE COMMON SENSE HERE, we don't have articles about the Zelda and Metroid and Star Fox and (perhaps more notably) Banjo & Conker, so why should we just have Sonic?! And in case you all forgot, this is the MARIO wiki, and Sonic not only doesn't have enough to do with Mario to have his own articles here, he wasn't even made by Nintendo!! I mean c'mon, this is insane to make articles about him!! You all know there will be more proposals suggesting the deletion of them, right?! Glitchman (talk · contribs) Holy bloody Marry, calm down, no need to get all pissy-pissy from soemthing that minor, gee -_-. It isn't entirely unreasonable to makes an article on the Sonic series considering that both franchises mocked each-other on various occasions and eventually had a much publicized crossover. That's certainly more notable that Metroid being a part of SSB or Banjo & Conker appearance in Diddy Kong Racing. --Blitzwing 17:55, 9 May 2008 (EDT) Wait, I'm confused, no one answered my question! This is only for making an article Sonic the Hedgehog (series) right? Nothing else? If it passes, we're not going to start making articles all about the characters/things in the Sonic series, right? CrystalYoshi 18:03, 9 May 2008 (EDT) Only an article about the series. --Blitzwing 18:09, 9 May 2008 (EDT) (calms down) Well, I guess if it's just one article and not numerous other articles about Sonic games and stuff, it would be acceptable. I still disagree, though. Glitchman (talk · contribs) But as others have said the article would be dealing with Sonic's rivalry with Mario, so it's not quite like talking about a diiferent game series itself, more like talking about how it affected Mario, making it perfectly in accordance with this Wiki. - Walkazo And that brings up another issue. There is no official...well, anything, stating that Mario and Sonic have a rivalry. Nintendo and Sega, sure, but this being extended to the mascots..... -- Chris 16:38, 10 May 2008 (EDT) Thanks, Blitzwing. CrystalYoshi 12:56, 10 May 2008 (EDT) Couple random thoughts, one of which has nothing to do with anything but in its own screwed up way kinda relates. One: If we did this, it might be a good idea to link the game titles and characters who have no relevance to Mario (for example, Jet the Hawk) to the Sonic Wiki, that way, we don't have to make seperate pages for every single character and every single game, but we can still provide information (or more accurately, a source of information) on the characters who don't matter to Mario. Two: Bulbapedia has a good plan of action with regards to the Smash Bros. series: Only if it bears relevance to the series. This may be a good idea here, too. Three: Singly out of curiosity, why no Banjo-Kazooie and Conker? ~ Shrikeswind 22:25, 10 May 2008 I think what some opposers are missing is that an article Template:Fakelink would NOT include everything about the Sonic series (like an article "Sonic (series)" in a Sonic Wiki would do) but of course only the facts that are relevant to the Mario series... Time Questions 15:13, 11 May 2008 (EDT) NWFC Chat add to sidebar It's a pain to type "/j mwikionline" all the time when you enter chat. Why not have a seperate thing on the sidebar that says "Wifi Chat" or something which is a direct link to "/j mwikionline"? We could get some more users who dont know the room by name into the room and we can get more wifi competitors! i mean is it just me or are the same users in that room every time we go check? i mean i only go in when someone tells me to go in and i bet alot of people do that too.i feel it should be publicized to our community .Wonder how many users new this room existed before i made this Proposal. Just my point. i mean image average guests coming in and wants to Brawl, Race, or what not? We could get a whole new breed of online social mobility! Any Goers? Proposer: -- WarioLoaf (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2008 (EDT) Deadline: May 17, 2008, 20:00 YAY WarioLoaf (talk) - I'm the one who proposed it , if i said NAY i'd be the wiki idiot wouldn't i be? Knife (talk) 12:02, 11 May 2008 (EDT) - Maybe not on the sidebar, but I do consider it the most important sub-chat of #mariowiki. Of course, its not as important as the main channel, but there should be a link to it in the intro message of the chat saying "please do not organize online matches here, do so in #mwikionline", or something like that. NAY Wa TC@Y – no no no. #mwikionline is a sub-chatroom of #mariowiki, not equally separate from it. It's easy enough to tell users what to do to get there from #mariowiki. ~PY - Per Wayo. It would be really annoying for people who didn't want to go on the chat. If you want more people there, ask them to come. Per Purple Yoshi. For people like me who don't go on the chat, that would jus be extremely annoying. SJ derp :P — Stooben Rooben Per all. It just seems like it would be kind of annoying. Super-YoshiTalk? C??? - Come on , dont be THAT lazy. It takes like 2 seconds. Comments Badges I was looking at "Unused Badges" and I found alot of "Unknowns" and what not. So I was asking, if that info is not filled in, why is it part of the page? I also looked at the little green badge with a sun in the middle of it, and someone wrote down " It's possible to make the sun in Flower Fields shine more with this badge" or something along the lines of it. But there are no sources for that line. So if we dont have any information or any sources and other stuff like that, why not make a seperate new section for it? It would go well and when we find the information we an merge it in the Unused Badge's page again, so it will look more neater and proffesional. I propose that we should make a new page for these unknown badges, and when information is found, put them in the unused badges again. Anyone with me? Proposer: Super-YoshiTalk? C??? Deadline: May 19, 2008, 17:00 Make New Page Super-YoshiTalk? C??? I am the proposer, so I say yes Don't Make New Page Stumpers! This proposal could use examples and specific references. It is far to general and confusing to me right know. Page and section were used interchangably above, for example. Please clarify and repost. Comments Create Smash Bros costumes page I was just thinking about how we could have a page where users could look at the costumes and see descriptions of their appearance. How this could be done, you ask? A contributer(s) with an SD card could take small resolution pics of each costume and fit them into one image. Since each character has a unique set of costumes, with some even resembling other characters, I thought this would be a good idea. The table would look something like this: Mario (insert pic of all costumes) Costume 1: Mario's basic outfit. Costume 2: Fire Mario. Costume 3: Mario's normal outfit with red and blue switched. Costume 4: Wario's color scheme. Costume 5: Brown hat, overalls and gray sleeves. Costume 6: Green hat, sleeves and tan overalls. So, opinions? Proposer: huntercrunch Deadline: May 19, 2008, 10:00 Make New Page huntercrunch My reasons are given above Don't Make New Page 1. Ninjayoshi- Per stumpers with his idea on no individual articles, but sections on each character. Comments Wouldn't this be better on the Smash Bros. section in each character article? Stumpers! 00:34, 13 May 2008 (EDT) Removals None at the moment. Splits & Merges Split Para-Beetle from Parabuzzy I was looking around the wiki one day and I saw that Para-Beetle is a redirect to Parabuzzy. I checked the talk page, and saw that users had said the name was changed. Now, this did not make sense to me, simply because I had not heard from anywhere official that Para-Beetles got a name change. So I say we split the two pages, as they are a separate species. And also... I do not believe that, when split, the two pages will become stubs. This is because once they have all the information possible on their topic, they won't be a stub. Proposer: BLOC PARTIER. Deadline: Tuesday, May 15, 2008, at 17:00 Split It BLOC PARTIER. I'm the proposer. :O — Stooben Rooben Per InfectedShroom. Glitchman (talk · contribs) Per IS, as long as we're not dealing with stubs here. Walkazo - If you look at the pictures, Para Beetles don't have legs and Parabuzzies do. Plus, they behave differenty: if you jump on a Beetle it supports you, but if you jump on a Buzzy it's wings fall off. It's not just the name that seperates them, so they should be split. SJ derp :P Well, duh. Why shouldn't we split them. Like Walkazo said, they behave to differently, so per her. Toadster_04 They are separate enemies that do different things as said previously by Walkazo. Stumpers! Different enemies that have spanned multiple games... well the Buzzies have... anyway, definately for splitting them since there's enough info. No Split CrystalYoshi 20:39, 8 May 2008 (EDT) Sorry to disagree with you IS, but I think they are supposed to be same species. If CrystalYoshi is right and they are the same species, it would be pointless to split them. Otherwise, we'd need to split Kuribo and Goomba as well, for example. --Pikax 13:48, 9 May 2008 (EDT) Comments It doesn't even have holes that allow legs to come out of the body. Yeah, Walkazo makes the point I was gonna say if I was put in a corner: they are biologically different. Also, remember this proposal and it's outcome? The winning side argued that Sufits are a separate species because of their biological makeup. And, more specifically, that they have legs. BLOC PARTIER. You're right, but I need one more piece of evidence that they're different, and then I'll take my opposition away. The addition of legs is probably just character development. After all, their names are both supposed to be Para mixed with Buzzy Beetle, so I think that means they're the same. If you have evidence that they're different, tell me. CrystalYoshi 13:05, 10 May 2008 (EDT) Parabeetles have different-colored shells. They would have different wings, as Buzzies have a bigger sprite than the Beetles(:P). Images: Parabeetle: Parabuzzy: Notice the size difference? The smaller wings would look bad on the Buzzy. Not exactly decisive evidence, but great evidence nonetheless. Also, I'll have more evidence soon. BLOC PARTIER. Image explains it all. also, look at the image above and its caption. BLOC PARTIER. But I don't think all of those sprites are real. What are the two small sprites from? I know the red one is from SMB3, but what's the other one from? And the comparison image, I think the red one is just an edited image of the blue one. The red legless one and the blue one with legs never appeared in a game together, I think. CrystalYoshi Pikax, that example is bad. Kuribo is Goomba's Japanese name. It's the same thing. CrystalYoshi, that sprite isn't doctored from anything. They appear in Mario 3 as 2 different enemies. SJ derp :P Parabuzzies are in SMB2? No, the article says they first appeared in SMB3. And I'm also talking about the comparison image: the images in them are from a Paper Mario game, right? But there were no red, legless parabuzzies in that game, only blue ones with legs. CrystalYoshi You didn't read what I said very well, did you. I said they appeared in Mario 3. Also, IS was just saying a buzzy shell would make a parabeetle look bad. SJ derp :P Yes. I created those images. I'm saying that if there were Parabuzzies in SMB3, they would be unable to use the Parabeetle's wings, as their sprite is larger. And the PM sprite was an example that if Parabeetles were in PM, they would look considerably different, as they wouldn't have the bottom half of the shell. BLOC PARTIER. Sorry, T4E. I read it wrong and thought you said "They appear in Mario 3 and 2 as different enemies. InfectedShroom, what you're saying is that the small Parabuzzy sprite is a SMB3 Buzzy Beetle that you added wings to? And the Paper Mario-ish Parabeetle is a Paper Mario Parabuzzy that you edited? And also, you might have convinced me. CrystalYoshi 18:24, 11 May 2008 (EDT) More or less. Also, the above image shows what I used to make the PM image. It has all of the part, and I pieced them together. I'm sure you can tell what I mean now. ;) BLOC PARTIER. Changes None at the moment. Miscellaneous Trouble Center On this wiki, there have been many Not Taken spots in the trouble center. Sometimes, this spot can go for a long time, basically never getting it done. I propose we should make automatic match-ups for troubles. (Meaning, a user posts up a trouble, and one random user gets to do that trouble.) But of course, the user does not have to do it. If he/she refuses another user gets it. If this was done, much more troubles would get completed.What do you think? Proposer: Ninja Yoshi Deadline: May 16, 2008, 20:00 Agree Reason stated above.Ninja Yoshi Oppose Dark Lakitu 789 The User could be inactive.So the trouble could take a very long time to/never get completed. Stumpers! Something inherent to any Wiki is that a user cannot be forced to do anything. So, the chance that the user decided would be one who had it in there ability to fill the trouble and was also willing is very low, even when you cycle through multiple users. You'll need to get a technical mastermind to confirm this, but I believe the only way we could do this would be through a committee of users doing this by hand. My Bloody Valentine You can't force Users to do something. It's cruel! I actually think the Trouble Center should be removed... — Stooben Rooben Per all. The trouble center is redundant. 99% of the time, users just ask other users (or Sysops) for help on their talk pages. Time Questions: Per Stumpers and DP, forcing users to do things is bad. Besides, I also agree that the Trouble Center should get removed. BLOC PARTIER. Oh. Now I understand what this proposal is about. :P Per Stoobs. And yeah, the trouble center is no longer used. X_X Comments Hey, Goldguy: You might want to support your own proposal. ;) — Stooben Rooben 18:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT) Honestly, I agree with DP. This mess has been around long enough. I've had two proposals about this already. I still think they way we did it before the Trouble Center was better. For those who don't remember those days, we just created a challenges page for each user and other users randomly added sets of challenges for the user to complete. We got a lot more done then than we do now. -- Chris 02:11, 10 May 2008 (EDT) Yeah. The old way is normally the right way. My Bloody Valentine NO!That's not what I meant.Any user can refuse until one user takes it.Ninja Yoshi But do you think any user is really gonna want to do that? Everyone will refuse. Having users get to choose things is the way to go. I don't think I'll vote, though, because I don't really know anything about the trouble center. CrystalYoshi 18:26, 11 May 2008 (EDT) Mario Kart Wii Karts and Bikes Mario Kart Wii Karts and Bikes have different names in the North American and the PAL versions of the game. Currently, the pages are called like e.g. Sugarscoot (Bon Bon), the first being the NA name and the second the PAL one. I am under the impression that we never used both names in one article name, and it also isn't needed. I think it is enough to simply state the PAL name in the article itself, and leave the NA name in the article title. Proposer: Cobold (talk · contribs) Deadline: May 18th, 15:00 Use North American name in the article title only Cobold (talk · contribs) - The article names should not be cluttered up, the added note is unnecessary when using redirects. BLOC PARTIER. Per Cobold. The North American Name is what we use for everything else, so we should not create confusion. — Stooben Rooben Per Cobold. I was going to move those articles to just their NA name, but I didn't know if some new rule had been passed where there had to be 2 names. Time Questions: Per Cobold, plus with the PAL name in brackets, it looks as if it was used to distinguish the article from another one with the same name, such as Mario Tennis (N64) and Mario Tennis (GBC)... Grapes Per all. This sound like a great ideas so wikiers can know both Pal and American names. Glitchman (talk · contribs) Per all, as long as the European names redirect to the page. Stumpers! For consistency's sake. Plus, if you did that to all the articles, you'd end up with a Wiki full of links to redirect pages rather than articles themselves. Keep as currently Comments I would like to add that having PAL names in the article name only is against the Importance Policy as it is currently. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 12:08, 11 May 2008 (EDT) Princess Grapes Butterfly: Er, are you sure you know what the proposal is about? You're voting against keeping both NA and PAL names in the article title. Time Questions 18:48, 11 May 2008 (EDT) American Spellings This proposal wasn't inspired by the above one or anything, but kind of coincedential, lol. Anyway, I've noticed for a long time now about the inconsistent American and English spellings for certain words in articles. Some examples would include Colour, Favourite, Centre, and some others; although it may not seem important(and it probably isn't all that much). I'm not saying one is better than the other, I'm just saying we should stay consistent. Proposer: Marcelagus (T • C • E) Deadline: May 19th, 15:00 American Spellings Marcelagus (T • C • E) - This wiki was made in America, and is based primarily on Americans. I think we should stay consistent.(As said in the proposal itself) Per GM. SJ derp :P BLOC PARTIER. As moronic as I feel saying this... Per consistency. British Spellings Comments I'm not sure I completely understand; is this just moving articles to their NA name? Or, is it fixing the British spelling to be American? I've been doing the latter since I came here, and if that's what the proposal's about, I don't see its point. It's kind of hard to tell English citizens to spell like Americans; they grow up spelling how they do. — Stooben Rooben Sorry if that sounds blunt. Slightly confusing. I use a spell check, so I don't know what it would pick up differently, but I don't think we really need a proposal for this. ForeverDaisy09