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: 23:54, 30 May 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. — Stooben Rooben I don't see the harm. And, per my below comment. 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 beta elements where it belongs in a nice neat page the is in A B C order. 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 User:Meat Knight Frankly I would really just want to read about beta elements in the beta elements section 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 Totally, but we sould use that "Main Article" template instead of a normal link. - Walkazo Smart thinking. — Stooben Rooben I never even thought of that. 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. CrystalYoshi If what we're talking about is baseless fan made-up stuff, I'm supporting this, since this is an encyclopedia; no reason to keep random theories. Keep the relationships in question 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. Wow, I'm not going to start calling you immature names or anything, but I can say if I wasn't holding myself back I would. If you refer to booster's talk page, you can see that the edit war was resolved. Also, I didn't start that edit war, I was simply a part of it, and a small part at that. Just because people agree with you, doesn't mean anything. What's their reasoning, that it's speculative? How is stating their past experience with each other to back up a point speculative? That's exactly what the Mario/Peach relationship does. I don't care if people agree with you, I still haven't received any feedback with reasoning that proves how it is more speculative than other relationship sections. Do you realize the Japaneses wikipedia even has a relationship for them? That means it's world-wide common knowledge.Fixitup I'm going to say this as nicely as I can. You think it was resolved 'cause you got your way. Sorry if I sounded rude to you here, but DP's got a good point. SJ derp :P Wow, if you're going to change your comments to make yourself look better, then so will I. Fixitup I would say that he has more room than you. Stop pointing fingers and discuss the issue at hand. -- Chris 21:24, 30 April 2008 (EDT) Do we have evidence of any kind that these freaken babies have a relationship of any kind? And I mean direct, documented proof, not conjecture, not fan crap, not 'Oh, look! They are next to each other on a menu screen! OBVIOUSLY they are bestest frends4leif!!!!!!!'. -- 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 I don't see why the regular statue of Daisy and Luigi get acknowledged to further their relationship, while the one of the Babies get swept under the rug. If people take the one of the adults as a sign of a relationship, why does no one do the same for the babies? Moonshine Because when people meet, they become best friends forever, with no exceptions, right? -- Chris 19:57, 29 April 2008 (EDT) That is totally irrelevant. Again, I don't see why this is getting flamed. It is NOT baseless, a giant statue of the two babies dancing has to mean something. Sure her relationship with Baby Peach might be cutting it, but the Baby Luigi one is certainly not. -Moonshine It is not irrelevant. Your first point was that just because the adults are friends (which is also debatable) the babies should be too. Secondly, you're suggesting that a state of two characters stands for this and that. Can you show me text confirming that? Can you show me pictorial evidence of this, besides one stinking statue? Please don't mistake a heated discussion for a flame war. -- Chris 17:34, 30 April 2008 (EDT) How come no one is responding to the points being made here? I think you all know why. Fixitup I know that the Baby Peach one was overly speculative, but the Baby Luigi one is not. I can't prove that Baby Daisy has a crush on Baby Luigi, but nor can I do the same for half the OTHER relationships mentioned in the wiki. Proof is proof, even if it's just one little statue. Just because this isn't as supported as others doesn't mean it should be completely dismissed.Moonshine Because we have lives. Anyway, while lots of these relationships (i.e. Daisy/Waluigi) have been hinted at by Nintedno (or at least thrown out there by some cheeky team name, or whatever), speculative aspects of any article are best relegated to the Trivia sections; just to clean things up and make us look more professional. - Walkazo Oh you're cool. Sure, but that doesn't mean that it's baseless speculation. Fixitup Agreed with Walkazo. And lol at your "we have lives" comment. BTW, how come you haven't voted, Fixit? My Bloody Valentine I haven't voted because this proposal isn't worthy of my vote. I'm not going to cast my vote in a section you labeled as supporting baseless speculation when that's not what I am supporting. Also, we don't have to remove anything. You see how the Waluigi/Daisy relationship might say something like, "But their true relationship is unkown". That's what we should be removing, not, "And as shown in Mario Strikers, they have a disliking of eahcother". The second example shouldn't be considered speculation, and you're showing it off as if it was. For example, we could keep the Baby Luigi/Baby Daisy relationship, just take out the part where it suggests that they have more of a relationship then shown with the trophy, same with Baby Peach and the picture. Using factual information isn't speculation as long as you're not speculating anything while using it as back up. Fixitup That's kinda arrogant of you, but, OK! I don't care if you think it's not worthless speculation, half the people around here believe it is. I see no point in making a section about Princess Daisy's hatred of Waluigi based on gameplay elements. It doesn't make sense. My Bloody Valentine That didn't go off as correctly as I thought it would. I don't think I'm too good to vote on this, I think I shouldn't vote on something that doesn't give me an option to support my opinion. Hatred? That's a going pretty far. Also, I haven't actually seen anyone else say they agree with you about the Waluigi/Daisy relationship. And anyway, what does the fact it's a bad relationship have to do with anything? Luigi/Daisy and Mario/Peach's relationships are based on gameplay too. You're not giving any reasoning behind the fact you think it's speculation. How does it not make sense? Elaborate, please. I don't see how facts don't make sense. Also, even if this does end up going through, do you honestly think that means that gives you the right to just get rid of any information like this? You're not allowed to remove information that isn't speculation, regardless of the outcome of this proposal. So far, no one has proven to anyone how the Waluigi sections is baseless speculaiton, same goes with the Baby Daisy/Baby Luigi section. Everyone knows that there is information to be used, we just won't be able to come to any conclusions with them. Fixitup What we're taling about here is speculation, Fixitup :| You haven't given any good examples of proof that Daisy hates Waluigi, because there aren't any. Glitchman (talk · contribs) Can we at least agree that the Baby Daisy & Baby Luigi can remain in the form of a trivia section like time q suggested?-Moonshine Fixit, the reason I changed my text is because you purposely put your comment in front of mine so it sounded like I was agreeing with you. Also, I didn't do it to make myself look good, and you know it. So please stop blaming everything on me, because if anyone is trying to make themself look good, then its you. Sorry if I sound rude here, but you crossed the line with me now. SJ derp :P 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. Per all. -Canama Don't Split Marcelagus (T • C • E) Per my comments below. Walkazo - In theory this seems straightforward and sensible, but all these little articles are going to clutter up the wiki, confuse n00bs, and irritate people who don't enjoy navigating five articles to read about one place and its doppelgängers. Blitzwing (talk · gnome work) - Per Walkazo. My Bloody Valentine Per Walkazo and Garlic. One vote CAN make a difference, hopefully. 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 I figure: if they are different courses we should have a different article regardless - their differences are the only official word we have on the connection between subjects... arg, Nintendo! Why can't you make clear cut continuity decisions! Stumpers! 20:16, 29 April 2008 (EDT) Garlic Man and Walkazo have good points, I'm starting to lean towards oppose... CrystalYoshi 19:24, 30 April 2008 (EDT) In response to Walkazo, we'll use disambiguation pages to make navigation easier for all. I can't imagine things getting all that complex. -- Booster I have to agree with Garlic and Walkazo on this. Sorry, Booster... My Bloody Valentine Don't be sorry for having an opinion! ;) Anyway, just about Garlic Man's comment, I was thinking that the reason this is different from the Paper Mario/Mario thing is that these are separate completely different courses, not just visual changes. You know, like the Luigi's Mansion course in Double Dash is a battle course while the one in DS is a racecourse. And, just because something has the same name has made no difference in the past: Toad v. Toad (species), Yoshi v. Yoshi (species), Super Mario World v. Super Mario World (cartoon), Magikoopa v. Kamek (same name in Japanese versions), Birdo v. Birdo (character)... the list goes on... oh, yeah: Super Mario Bros. v. Super Mario Bros. (movie). Stumpers! 23:47, 30 April 2008 (EDT) Can't we at least split up the racetracks? Their layouts are never consistent. -- 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 Oh yeah, that is an idea... CrystalYoshi 19:25, 30 April 2008 (EDT) I just can't decide! 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. Stumpers! Took the text right out of my keys, Cobold. I'd like to add the DiC cartoons and the movie to the list of sources he is a character in. Walkazo - Per all. Besides, plenty of other characters have been AWOL for years too, if we scrap Toad's artcile, we'd have to can half the Wiki. CountBlumiere - Per all. Donkey Kong Jr. hasn't been in any games recently, but we aren't merging him with Donkey Kong. 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"... Hypertoad: "I don't think there is a character anymore," Like what, he died? XP - Walkazo (Super Paper Mario proves otherwise) He's in Mario Kart Wii too. :/ Seriously, even if he wasn't a character anymore, he was at one point, leaving enough reason to keep his article separate from the species' article. — Stooben Rooben 18:24, 30 April 2008 (EDT) Good point Walkazo. And on the same note, even if he died, that doesn't automatically make him the same as Toad the species. CrystalYoshi 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) GreenKoopa - Comments or questions?Thats like seperating SMB3 mario from SM64 mario because of the different style. Walkazo - Per all. Grapes .....k? Mario just Mario no matter what form he is and even if he's paper his it does mean his a "tranformed" different charater. (Same persona, same person.) user:Meat Knight Though I do love Paper Mario very much, in the end, he's still just Mario. 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) Actually, the proposals thing is about taking things literally, so you shouldn't take offense at being "lectured" when I'm trying to clarify your point for people who haven't voted yet. Stumpers! 20:10, 29 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) Ha Ha! Mario's Schizophrenic! LOL! But seriously, I've been irritated by "Dr. Mario" for years, and while I'd fully support moving him to the main Mario page, I have a feeling that won't fly. Which is unreasonable. It's been stated they're the same guy, only one time he's acting like a doctor and the other time he's acting like a plumber... or a demolitionist... or a kart, stunt-bike or motorcycle racer... or a soccer, hockey, baseball, basketball, golf or tennis player... or a fireman, party host or ring-leader... or a juggler... so... what exacly, besides the name, sets Dr. Mario apart? The "both forms of Mario fight in SSB" isn't too good since Baby Mario's also been around at the same time as adult Mario, so the time-space continuum obviously doesn't apply to spin-offs. - Walkazo ...or a teacher... or a factory-head/company owner... or a chef... Subspace Army Enemies So, I've been going through the Wiki, and I've noticed a lot of articles being made on the the Subspace Army enemies. IMO, these articles are worthless. Yes, I know, it's amazing that I have a limit to the Smash Bros. content on the Wiki, but I believe the Subspace Army enemies are too minor to have their own articles. I propose we merge them all with the Subspace Army article. Proposer: My Bloody Valentine Deadline: May 8, 2008, 17:00 Merge with Subspace Army My Bloody Valentine I am the proposer, and... Blah blah blah. RAP... Per DP. Glitchman (talk · contribs) Per DP. — Stooben Rooben Per DP. The less stublets, the better. Green Guy Talk!E The majority of them have no images... Keep 'em split Comments Eh, to be fair, they're more major than Condor. At least they have a name. --Blitzwing 06:38, 1 May 2008 (EDT) And I didn't want that article made. My point being, THERE IS A LIMIT! <_< My Bloody Valentine At least have one on Primid, please? Palkia47 Changes None at the moment. Miscellaneous None at the moment.