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" 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. CURRENTLY: 17:19, 30 December 2024 (EDT) New Features Abreviation Pages I feel this should be added for begginers. I am proposing that abreviations commonly used in this Wiki should have their own page. It took me 2 months to find out what NPC means. If this does not happen, then I propose instead that we change all abreviations not used in games to be changed to what they really mean. Proposer: MisterJaffffey G0 Proposals Deadline: January 24, 2008, 17:00 Support Orangeyoshi I agree, because I'm new! I want to be able to learn things like that. Stumpers! But only as redirects to their entries on the glossary, 'k? Walkazo - Per Stumpers. BLOC PARTIER. Per the one who Stumps. Oppose Time Questions This is Super Mario Wiki, not Abbreviation Wiki. There may be people who do not know what "NPC" means, but we cannot explain everything (which we would have to do if we made articles on abbreviations). And where's the problem in searching Wikipedia for NPC? It does not take 2 months, it takes 2 seconds. Er, per Cobold. (I didn't know about that Glossary page, which is indeed a good place for explaining these abbreviations.) Cobold (talk · contribs) - That's exactly what the Glossary is for. Chaos NEEDS MOAR NINJI - Per Cobold. Mr. Guy the Guy Talk!E Per Cobold Jdrowlands (talk) Per Cobold Comments Don't forget to vote on your owm proposal! Anyway, abreviations are annoying but I disagree with your secondary suggestion to cut them out if this translation-page proposal doesn't fly. One major problem people might have will be "canon vs. fanon" slang, but the page could always be divided into those respective sections... I dunno, I have to think about this one. - Walkazo What's about a List of Abreviations used on the Mariowiki? Ah, didn't see the Glossary. --Blitzwing 17:14, 17 January 2008 (EST) Orangeyoshi That would work too! I just want someplace to learn the abbreveations. By the way, what does NPC mean? Non Player Character, Characters that appear in a game, but that you can't play as. Those are mainly enemies or generic towns-people in the RPG games. --Blitzwing 18:19, 17 January 2008 (EST) Can't we do what Stumpers suggested and redirect abrieviations to their glossary entries?Knife (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2008 (EST) Would be possible if they had entries in the glossary in the first place, which is currently not the case. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 16:17, 18 January 2008 (EST) Cobold: I can help there. So, what abbreviations are we talking about? Just list 'em out and then I can take care of 'em all at once. Stumpers! 18:19, 18 January 2008 (EST) Well, NPC for starters. I guess RPG is we wanna be thorough. What other abbreviations do we use a lot (besides things like SMB for Super Mario Bros. 'cuz those can simply be redirected to the actual game pages)? - Walkazo They should be in the glossary as well, but I would redirect 'em to the actual game page, because the glossary will just say, "An achronym for Super Mario Bros., usually the game rather than the movie." Stumpers! 21:31, 18 January 2008 (EST) Orangeyoshi 16:56, 20 January 2008 (EST) Cobold is right. "NPC" isn't in the glossary. I wouldn't know what it means unless Blitzwing told me. STUMPERS' LIST OF ABREVIATIONS TO ADD: NPC, RPG, Bros. (everyone: feel free to add more!) Removals None at the moment Splits & Merges Merge the different colored Yoshi articles I propose that we merge Green Yoshi, Cyan Yoshi, Orange Yoshi, etc. into one article. I find it unnessacarry to have seperate articles on each color. We can easily merge each color and it's abilities into one article. Proposer: King Boo Deadline: January 23, 2008, 17:00 Support King Boo - Per myself. Oppose, each color should have it's own article ~PY I don't see what the problem is. The articles aren't stubs, why should we merge them? Stumpers! As it stands, I'm gonna say no b/c of differences in Super Mario World. I could change easily, though. Walkazo - Per all. We touched on this subject in that old Isle Delfino Birds proposal (which hasn't been fulfilled yet...) and decided these Yoshi pages stay... However inconveniant it is to flick through them all. Explosive Pants Modifier THE YOSHI ARTICLES HAVE TO STAY APART. per all. HyperToad Per all. Orangeyoshi Yeah, I thought about it, and they each have enough info to stay seperate. I agree with everyone.. and, there'd be no Orange Yoshi article (no article of me!) MarioGalaxy2433g5 Per all except for the last 2 comments of Orangeyoshi. Comments Can you expand on your reasoning a little more? I'm not sure which way I want to go yet. Stumpers! 21:31, 16 January 2008 (EST) We had this proposal before, it did not pass. Time Questions 01:41, 17 January 2008 (EST) BlueYoshter, I don't understand what you mean by "THEY MUST STAY." Could you elaborate, please? Chaos NEEDS MOAR NINJI This did fail before. Merge of the same stages/courses into one article and split the the different ones I propose to merge the various courses from the spin-off series that have their own articles. This also goes for those who have appeared in main games before, and only have changed layouts, with (almost) identical names. One great example of this is Bowser's Castle from the main-games which has individual pages for the stages named Bowser('s) Castle in Mario Kart and even the Bowser Castle stadium in Mario Superstar Baseball while the Bowser Castle-stage for Itadaki Street DS is STILL in the main-game's article of Bowser's Castle. I also propose to split the pages that have two or more entirely different stages in the same article, mostly the Super Smash Bros. stages, such as the article with the original's and Melee's Mushroom Kingdom, two ENTIRELY different stages. Well, you may think "But they have the same name and design!" No, they don't. All stages based on Super Mario Bros. would have that design and the Melee versions is called Mushroom: Kingdom, with "Mushroom" being the stage location and "Kingdom" the name. (BTW, I is not neutral to English and this is the first time I porposes so if anything is spelled wrong or wrong in any other way, feel free to edit this.) Proposer: KingMario Deadline: January 26, 2008, 20:00 EDIT 20/01: Looks like i forgot the idea to add a category in which users can support one idea only. Support Blitzwing Per KingMario. Xpike the hedgehog per KingM King Boo Per King Mario. Oppose Explosive Pants Modifier i have to oppose cause those are completley different places. Stumpers! I like your second idea, not so much the first. I wouldn't think you'd want to combine an article about a race track in a city and the city itself, would you? Bowser's Castle is larger than most cities in the Mario series, so... I wouldn't think that you'd want to combine these based on the fact that they have the same name. Oh, and remember that we have articles on individual rooms in Luigi's Mansion? We've already combined the clearly different racetracks, so at this point it'd be like making the article about the individual Toad a sub-portion of the article about his species. Remember, we even split the Mr. E article (two minor subjects w/ same name = two articles). Merging is only applicable when you have minor subjects with different names, not major subjects with the same name. huntercrunch Per Stumpers. Cobold (talk · contribs) - Per Stumpers. Bowser's Castle isn't the same castle in most games, anyway. It is a place in Super Mario World, a flying building in Paper Mario and a Bowser-Statue-formed Battleship in Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga. Walkazo - Per Stumpers. Nay to the First, Yea to the second. Per Stupers, in other words. BLOC PARTIER. Supporting one idea Comments Are you gonna vote, KM? NMRodo I'm split. No to the first, yes to the second. Where do I put my vote? O_o BLOC PARTIER. If we're merging areas in the spin-off games with the main games, than shouldn't the same be done for Super Smash Bros. stages? Your argument about how they're different places is valid, however the same could be said for al the other spin-off places (i.e. MSB's Bowser Castle stadium is certainly not the same as the Castle he actually lives in). Also, the individual stages of most games (except more obscure games like the Japanese-only Itadaki Street DS) already have articles and not all of them have corresponding main-game areas, so it's going to be difficult acting on this Proposal. Then there's the other option of cramming all these odd-ball stages together into lists of stages for each game, which would also have links to the main-game artciles for the stages that were merged in that fashion. It's a very big and daunting undertaking, but I still don't want to vote against it, since if it's done right it could be beneficial... Walkazo InfectedShroom, you may want to put your vote in oppose so that the proposal doesn't go through? If you don't you might lose both of your arguments. Stumpers! 13:02, 21 January 2008 (EST) I think we should split this proposal into two different ones, people's votes shouldn't be influenced by only offering one rating on two different issues. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 13:05, 21 January 2008 (EST) Stumpers: You have a point. Thank you. BLOC PARTIER. Snifit or Snufit? Note: Message is edited from Talk:Snufit So, um, according to TMK, these guys' Japanese names are exactly the same as a normal Snifit's. On top of that, i and u are right next to each other on most English keyboards. They look nearly identical (especially in the remake, which makes almost all enemies look more like their traditional forms), and, floating aside, act identical as well--and the originals could jump and hover for a short time anyway. And this very wiki says that they were "accidentally" referred to as Snifits in one of the MPs anyway.... Considering all that, can we really say that they're intended to be different enemies? I'd suggest a merge. Proposer: Dazuro and Knife Deadline: 26 January, 2008, 20:00 Keep as Snufit Walkazo - See comment below. Cobold (talk · contribs) - Per below. Explosive Pants Modifier PER ALL. A snifit has legs. A snufit is like a ghost snifit, but theyre different :P BLOC PARTIER. Per everyone. Merge to Snifit Dazuro - Per above. Per below. Per common sense. Per logic. And, most importantly, per the designers' own designation! Blitzwing - The fact that they were refered to as Snifit in Mario Party kind ofp oint out to the fact that those things are infact Snifit. I think the proposer could be more polite and reasonable, thought. Comments They're different species, but I do see what you're getting at with your arguments on the talk page. I agree that it's strange how Koopa Troopas started out quardrupedial and are now totally different but retain the same name. If it were up to me, the 4-legged ones would be called Shellcreepers and only the anthropormorphic turtles would be Troopas, but it's not up to me, it's up to Nintendo, and they say they're all Koopa Troopas. It's the same case with the Paratroopas: they're just Koopa Troopas with wings, but they've been given different names so we have to say they're different species, and the same goes for Snifits and Snufits. Of course, I'd still want to list Paratroopas as their own species (or at least sub-species) anyway, since they look and act different from Koopa Troopas, which are the main criteria for determining species in biology (aside from genetics, which doesn't really apply here as this is the fictional Marioverse where DNA means squat and anything can happen, including a species getting its wings knocked off and magically turning into another species). Maybe Snifits and Snufits were meant to be the same thing, but they're not. They act and look different, just like the two kinds of Koopa Troopas, and just like Paratroopas and Troopas; but like the latter, they got seperate names. It doesn't matter if it was a typo, Nintendo has spoken and we're obligated to follow it. - Walkazo I just want to point out that if this proposal pass, we should also perhap split the Super Mario World Goomba from the Goomba article since they act differently and haves a different name in the Japanese localisation, which is kinda the opposite of this "Snifit = Snufit?" deal. --Blitzwing 12:22, 20 January 2008 (EST) Exactly. Whether NoA screwed up the localization or not, they were designed as the same characters (Snifit example) and different characters (Goomba example), and we should respect that. I mean, come on--Bloopers were known as Bloobers in a few games, but we aren't rushing to make new pages for those! You say it's up to Nintendo, Walkazo--well, Nintendo says they're the same. Just because NoA typoed doesn't change that fact. Dazuro 13:14, 20 January 2008 (EST) Your Blooper example doesn't work: Blooper and Blooper look and act exactly the same way. Snufit and Snifit are obliviously different (If similar) creature, beside, we are an english-speaking wiki, I think it make sense to follow the American localisation. --Blitzwing 13:17, 20 January 2008 (EST) Come on. The Japanese creators of a Japanese game say they're the same species. The American translators change one easily-typoed letter, be it by accident or otherwise, and redesign them even less drastically than others that remain the same species. They then proceed to call them by the "other species"'s name even in American publications. Where's the logic in saying they're different? There is not a single argument for keeping it Snufit that doesn't apply to dozens of other changes you never questioned. The American localization has screwed up in the past. We don't follow those mistakes. What makes this one different? Dazuro 13:19, 20 January 2008 (EST) The difference between this case and Pakkun Flower (which is a half-translated Piranha Plant), is that Snufits actually look different and have different abilities (flying). So as there is already an official name for this sub-species, we should use it. Because these are a sub-species, not regular Snifits. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 13:26, 20 January 2008 (EST) NoJ says otherwise. Dazuro 15:19, 20 January 2008 (EST) I was not referring to the name, but the appearance. Check again. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 08:10, 21 January 2008 (EST) And your point is? NoJ says they're the same species. NoJ designed them. NoA may have said they're the same species with a minor typo, or they may have been foolish enough to try to make a new species out of something that's clearly not supposed to be so. Either way, what's the point? Every single creature in 64 that I can think of except the goombas changed in some major way from their previous selves. "It isn't like the old snifits" is NOT a valid argument unless you're completely blind to all forms of common sense and pattern recognition. There is not a single reason to say it's different--except for a ONE-KEY-OVER LETTER, which was later corrected anyway! You people are being completely irrational! Dazuro 14:26, 21 January 2008 (EST) Keep a cool head. Anyway, do they fix this typo in SM64DS? If not, then they were meant to be a separate species. If they did, then they are Snifits. Either way, I think their official name in SM64DS should be the deciding factor here.Knife (talk) 15:49, 21 January 2008 (EST) It should be noted that, even when they are called Snifits, the "Snufits" are a sub-species nethertheless. They just have features regular Snifits don't, or better the other way round, they are lacking Snifit bodies. They are a subspecies, it is just the question whether they have an official name. The Bloober <-> Blooper example doesn't really fit here because of that. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 16:09, 21 January 2008 (EST) Cobold, you're entirely missing my point. Every enemy in SM64 has features they didn't before, so that is NOT a valid argument. Knife, are they ever even named ingame? And I'd keep a cool head if these people would stop acting so ridiculously dense. -_- But hey, what do I know? I'm only following the original creators' obvious-as-hell intentions, after all. Sheesh... Dazuro 19:39, 21 January 2008 (EST) Okay, so having looked at SM64DS's revamped model (it has a TAIL!), it's clearly intended as a subspecies. This, however, does not prove anything. After all, was not Bubba turned into a different species (Big Bertha, IIRC?) for the DS one? Yet we still have the Bubba article for the original game's sake. So, while it seems that 64's Snifits were apparently retconned into Snufits, they were Snifits in the original game. Dazuro 19:49, 21 January 2008 (EST) Changes Citing Sources Around the wiki, we have always been quite lazy citing our sources. We do not have any system of giving references like at Wikipedia, and everyone just adds information he has taken from a random site. The best example for this is Super Smash Bros. Brawl, which got flooded with information from questionable sites, or the name of the site was not given at all. In order to save our credibility, I suggest that we start to quote our sources, as long as they are not the game (/comic/TV episode/Brawl Dojo) itself, either, if we can get it, by Wikipedia's reference system or by simply by adding an external link like this: [1]. This should prevent further unsourced speculation in the articles, and also prevent random questionable Trivia items like on Princess Rosalina, as currently, to quote the user, there is "no need to source". Proposer: Cobold (talk · contribs) Deadline: January 22nd, 17:00 (EDT) Use Reference System Cobold (talk · contribs) - Per above. Alphaclaw11 - Per Cobold and it is illegal to get info from someone/where else and not say who/where you got it from. Blitzwing I thought of doing a proposal about this matter, but Cobold beat me to it. Per Cobold. Stumpers! I'm loving this. Can we also start using the image infobox template to show which site we got it from in the "source" section rather than the game it is from? Ghost Jam Haha, I always thought we had a reference system...we just didn't use it. But, yeah, it's needed. Knife (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2008 (EST) A lot of effort but a lot of reward. Our wiki's credibility is important. ~Uniju(T-C-E)I certainly don't see why not, and it's not like it's very hard to cite sources. My Bloody Valentine Per Cobold. I'm so sick of this unsourced crap! We need to know WHERE you found the information. RAP... Per all. Does it include the images in this database that needed cite sources too? Mr. Guy the Guy Talk!E Per DP, wait that's per-ing Cobold That Guy We should definitely cite the sources. MarioBros777 It's Back to Editing!!!Of course we should have this, it has helped on many occasions when doing so on Wikipedia. Per all. BLOC PARTIER. I'm down with everything everyone said. Jdrowlands (talk) It's a big job but it needs to be done. MarioGalaxy2433g5 22:47, 18 January 2008 (EST) See comment below. Walkazo - Per All. Use not Peachycakes 3.14 Not only is it annoying for everyone to always have to cite they're sources, but why should your edits be reversed because of it. Yes, some of it might be spam, but most of it isn't, and if it looks suspicious you could ask them where they found it. Or even wait for the game to come out. Glitchman (talk · contribs) That's not a very good example, most if not all of the information on Brawl's page is from Dojo!, and there's already a link for that. Peachycakes also has a point. Mewtwo49 Per Glitchman. Comments Alphaclaw11: It's only illegal when the author holds the right on it. For information about Nintendo video games, you may always use it as a part of press freedom (when new game), and because Nintendo does not mind (obviously). The sites like IGN don't own the right on Brawl information, for example. Only when you copy a text 1:1 (e.g. GameFAQs walkthrough), it's possibly a copyright violation without naming the author. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 12:05, 15 January 2008 (EST) I know but arent you talking about non-oficail sites. Alphaclaw11 12:09, 15 January 2008 (EST) IGN is an unofficial site. As long as the content we take from unofficial sites is about a Nintendo game, it's Nintendo's intellectual property, not the site's. And Nintendo game information/images are used on the whole wiki already under Nintendo's terms: So as long as these criteria are met and we quote or rephrase other sites, it's perfectly legal to take their information. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 12:15, 15 January 2008 (EST) OkayAlphaclaw11 12:20, 15 January 2008 (EST) but still, if it is from a non-offical site then you need to say where you got it in cause it was wrong Of course. That's what this is about. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 12:35, 15 January 2008 (EST) Citation extensions literally cover MediaWiki.com on sub-pages galore, which I assume is Wikipedia's shortcut <references>. If we really want to go that far, it can be done. Wa TC@Y 15:49, 15 January 2008 (EST) That would be great, clears the article from the links but also explains the page without the user having to click it. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 16:56, 15 January 2008 (EST) Stumpers: The current rules of the {{aboutfile}} template say that the source website should indeed be listed as "source". The problem is more that currently, older files didn't get the update, and we don't have a section for the game any more. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 16:56, 15 January 2008 (EST) What if we're drawing from our personal experiences, do we cite the games themselves? Cuz that might seem a bit redundant, ex: "In Super Paper Mario, Mario, Luigi, Peach and Bowser are on a quest to stop Count Bleck from destroying all the dimensions [Super Paper Mario, 2007]." (I know it's not a proper citation, but you get the point). Also, what if you see screenshots of a game on a website, which to you cite? - Walkazo IMO, what we should do is this: don't bother with siting a game on its own page and only site it once in its section in a bibliography. If you mention an event from the game in relationships, you should site it as well. But, let's see what the people who actually know what they're talking about think. Stumpers! 18:47, 15 January 2008 (EST) Read above, I've mentioned it, of course you don't have to cite the games! This is mostly about unreleased games or other statements drawn from the internet. And even then, you don't have to mention the Smash Bros. Dojo 100,000 times in the Brawl article, it's okay when it is linked to only at the top. But Bob Hoskins could get a link to the Guardian interview which is avaiable on their website. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 12:20, 16 January 2008 (EST) *AHEM* I have one problem with this proposal... Everyone looks at citing sources as just like on Wikipedia, but it's not really, we're about a series of video games, so the source could be the actual game itself. Everyone says things like "We need to know WHERE you FOUND the information" as if the internet is the only thing we have to find information about a series of video games. I don't really see it being easy to just say "I played the game itself" on this place, seeing as how people seem to LOVE arguing about that kind of stuff, and it could be used to back up conjectural information for more minor video games. Of course, I don't really see how this would majorly effect citing sources much, since conjectural information is rarely placed on articles anyway... But, it may still cause conflicts, especially when it comes to obscure games. </pointless rant> ~Uniju(T-C-E) I thought you could site non-internet sources, though? Maybe we could ask for people to say which chapter or something (for Paper Mario) or level (for SMG) they got the information from when they site their sources? I dunno. Stumpers! 22:31, 15 January 2008 (EST) I think the sourcing system here (If this proposal pass) should perhap be less strict than Wikipedia. There, every bit of cretinous informations like "X organisation is the bad guy of the game" or "X character return from the previous game" require to be sourced, even if the information can be found in the game itself. I think only really obscure info (Like Nastasia having a crush on Count Bleck) or things like the crap about Rosalina being related to Peach in SMG beta should be sourced. --Blitzwing 06:55, 16 January 2008 (EST) You're right, we shouldn't get on Wikipedia level. It's mostly about speculation here. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 12:20, 16 January 2008 (EST) Peachycakes 3. 14:You know, we can alway use the (in)famous "citation needed" tag of Wikipedia if the information isn unsourced. For what we know, the information added could be one of those "I heard somewhere that..." deal whose original meaning get warped over time. Sourcing mean we can verify the credibility of the infos. --Blitzwing 18:16, 16 January 2008 (EST) Alright, I too think we should cite. HOWEVER: I have done many things here that I just pulled out my DS and started looking for info. How the heck are we supposed to cite that? I never even go to other websites for info. I just look it up in the game or the guide. Another thing: how are we supposed to quote Official Guides? it's a bit hard... BLOC PARTIER. A "reference" isn't necessarily a link. It may as well be simply a text string which reads "Nintendo Power Official Super Mario *enter game name here* Guide, page XX". At least, that is what Wikipedia's reference system allows perfectly well. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 13:04, 17 January 2008 (EST) Well, probably we could do like what Geographers do when the map maps. They write "Field Work" so just replace it with "Own Source" or something... MarioBros777 It's Back to Editing!!! Could work... We need to know where we get our info. Before I posted a message on the talk page of shrowser, I didn't know the name was official because it didn't say where the name came from. If we don't give our sources, a lot of questions will be asked like mine. MarioGalaxy2433g5 22:56, 18 January 2008 (EST) I've done that a lot, too. Right now I'm trying to find where the term "Earth" was used to describe the "Real World" from the cartoon shows. Could have saved me a lot of time if someone noted that. Stumpers! 16:47, 19 January 2008 (EST) Miscellaneous Character Stats and Desriptions I find it rather odd that semi-minor characters such as Daisy and Waluigi have extremely detailed stats and character descriptions from recent spinoff games such as Mario Party DS and Mario Superstar Baseball while main characters such as Mario and Wario have very vague stats and no descriptions for games such as Mario Party DS. It seems like a minor complaint, but for the Super Mario Wiki, it seems kind of unfair and silly not to include thorough stats for everyone, especially main characters such as those mentioned. For those who can not find out for themselves (such as myself), the Mario Wiki should definitely include the information to live up to its reputation as a thorough database. All who support should be for attempting to locate these stats or finding one who is able to. Proposer: Have A Rotten Day! Deadline: January 28, 2008, 17:00 Support 1. Have A Rotten Day - Per myself Oppose Comments The main reason for that, is 'cos Daisy and Waluigi's articles are hit by incredibly over-zealous fanboys, who put all their time to that one article. That's awesome for us, cos' we need all the info we can get, but other articles are ignored in this way. I'm only commenting to give the reason why this has happened, sorry. My Bloody Valentine So, anyway, what exactly are we Supporting and Opposing here? Outside Info Recently, I've seen a very large amount of Super Smash Bros. content all over the wiki, which includes stages, items, and all sorts of other junk taken from all kinds of other series'. I'll put it plain and simple, I believe that we should removed this immense amount of uneeded Super Smash Bros. series stuff(Including cutting down on the insane page for the game, Super Smash Bros. Brawl), since we are the Super 'Mario' Wiki, not the Super Smash Bros. Wiki, and with the amount of Super Smash Bros. Brawl content we could even be the Super Smash Bros. 'Brawl' Wiki. I know that this is the exact opposite of a proposal I previously made, but things like this just seem totally wrong how we're doing it... Everyone said no to my last proposal, but after it was archived, the immense amount of Super Smash Bros. Brawl info continued to flow in, mostly about the stages, items, and character that where shown on Smash Bros DOJO!!, and it almost seemed like everyone would have liked my proposal if it had instead been "Add more Super Smash Bros content to the wiki". If you havn't noticed from this whole thing, I am proposing that we shorten, merge, and delete pages relating only to the Super Smash Bros. series, or other series' that where introduced to the Mario Wiki through Super Smash Bros. Proposer: Uniju :D Deadline: January 22, 2008, 17:00 Support, we are the Super Mario wiki GrodenE T C El I get sick of this SBB being Marfio 100% crap. ~Uniju(T-C-E) Forgot this... Per myself. User:NintendoExpert89 Mixing Mario with something else does not make it Mario related. Please see my "comment" below. Oppose My Bloody Valentine It features several Mario, Yoshi, Donkey Kong and Wario characters as major playable characters, and has several Mario-based items and stages, moreso than any other series, at least. I think it is worthy to be part of the extended Mario series. Master Crash Per DP. King Boo - What if people want to know other stuff BESIDES the Mario content? We should cover EVERYTHING. It wouldn't be fair to only cover Mario content, in such an important series. I oppose this proposal. I am 100% against it. Alphaclaw11Per PDP Mr. Guy the Guy Talk!E Let's have everything SSB related, but let's keep it below information from other series (The trophy info is fine) Stumpers! Uniju, didn't you previously want a page for everything? Merging is unpredictable: you do it once and more stuff follows. Will the Yoshi and DK series be next if we do this? HyperToadPer DP! Although this is a MarioWiki, let's not pull a Wikipedia and cut down articles that give usefull infomation. Cobold (talk · contribs) - Per all. Considering that your argument is that the Brawl article is too long, I wonder whether this is even a reason to qualify as a vote. Also, I've removed the tag of the "Oppose" header because while Smash Bros. can stay, it still doesn't mean that we need an article on NBA Street V3 which had Mario, Luigi and Peach as guest characters. That's a place for Game Sightings still. Xpike the hedgehog - Per all. And Uniju you're so inmature that you're leaving. huntercrunch Per all. Also, might I add, SSB IS closely related to the Mario series. Booster Keep, but see my comment. Walkazo - See below comment. BLOC PARTIER. Super Mario Wiki we are, but who cares if we have SSB articles? Per all. Glitchman (talk · contribs) Per Booster and Walkazo. Paper Jorge Per all, specially Cobold. Jdrowlands (talk) Per all. We MUST keep all this. Comments DP & Crash(and the rest of the hoard coming to per him): I see where your coming from, but just because there's Mario stuff in it, that doesn't mean we should cover the whole thing. Do we cover all about the TV shows Mario cameos in? And, KingBoo, that's not what everyone said last time, everyone said that we should just link to other sites. Which I now see is the better way to do it. ~Uniju(T-C-E) That's a cameo, its just minor, and has no significance. Smash Bros. features a major role for Mario and his friends. In fact, there's more Mario content in the game than any other series. My Bloody Valentine I'm just saying, Mario and his allies play a major role in Smash Bros. Putting it that way, scroll up. Look at Banjo and Conker, who both have a large connection to the Mario Series are both being kicked off the wiki. It seems to me that your all simply biased towards Super Smash Bros. ~Uniju(T-C-E) I expect the only response to be "Your biased against it", so please give a VALID argument. I'm not gonna say that, Uni, so stop being so immature. Banjo and Conker only made minor appearances in one game, with them being kicked out in the remake. After that, their respective series never got linked to the Mario series again, or Donkey Kong, for that matter. They became their own unique series with no relation to DK or Mario, whereas Smash Bros. brings in attributes from the Mario, Yoshi, DK and Wario series. My Bloody Valentine King Boo - You just said it yourself, Uniju. We are the MARIO wiki. Therefore we should completely cover every game that has MARIO content. If Super Smash Bros. has content from Mario, then we should cover the content from Mario. I don't see why we need to cover EVERYTHING ELSE. And I don't see why all the stages and such can't just be tossed into a table like a lot of things can. ~Uniju(T-C-E) Ya see, here's the problem. If we ONLY cover the Mario-based information from Smash Bros., then the Smash Bros. articles are worthless. What's the point of covering one side of the game, but not covering the other side? If it has Mario in it, we should at least mention it, right? But, the Smash Bros. articles would have no use if it did not tell you EVERYTHING that's in the game. My Bloody Valentine If you get rid of Smash Bros., you must get rid of the Final Fantasy articles as well. On a related note, I DO think that the items don't deserve articles, or the moves. HyperToad Could you explain why? Especially about the Final Smashes we have a lot to say, more than about Flutter Jump. Of course we shouldn't have articles on A attacks, but Special Moves and Items pages are created for the mainstream Mario articles as well, so I don't see a reason why not Smash Bros. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 12:24, 16 January 2008 (EST) The proposal is right about one thing. A LOT of emphasis (too much?) goes into the Smash Bros. articles. If something appeared, or is going to appear in a Smash game, it's guaranteed to have proper coverage, and will never be in danger of being a poorly-written stub. Looking at the front page right now, all three news articles are about Brawl. The featured article? Melee. We do look like the Smash Wiki just from glancing at the front page. Too much attention is being given to the Smash Bros. games. I know they're uber popular and everything, but they shouldn't be the center of attention on the Mario Wiki. I'm not saying that we can't have all these articles, but that the people who write them should dip into other subjects when they get the chance. Look at Super Mario Bros. or Super Mario Bros. 3. Landmark games with lousy articles for what they are. -- Booster It wouldn't be got not to feature Super Smash Bros. Melee but instead Super Mario Bros. 3, simply because Super Mario Bros. 3 is quite a bad article. That's also something, and if you want to change it, you'd have to sit down yourself and work on the article. It's possible, most of the work on the Melee article was done by myself. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 17:00, 16 January 2008 (EST) As long as we only give a brief background on non-Mario things like in the Link article these articles are fine (because it's still relevant to Mario). As others have said already, these games are Mario games, just like Mario Hoops 3-on-3, only instead of one crossover series there's several. The very name Super Mario Bros. is homage to Mario and Mario being a playable character could make it more of a Mario game in some peoples' eyes than things like Donkey Kong Country or Wario Land 4 that have no sign of Mario at all. Yes, Smash Bros. is a bit over-hyped, but its a good series and with a new instalation about to come out it's bound to get lots of attention. Step back and wait for the game to be released and all the information digested into the Wiki before deciding what should stay and what should be merged... But the proposal probably won't fly then either. - Walkazo Kind of in line with what you were saying, we cover what we do on the Wiki because of the relation to the main Mario video games. The movie wasn't in the same world or with the same characters (just the same names and general roles), but we still have it there because it's part of the history of the Mario series. Smash Bros. is the same, so the question shouldn't be "Should we limit SSB articles" but "Should we limit articles on subjects that follow alternate storylines?" And then you get into a whole crudload of speculation. Stumpers! 21:41, 16 January 2008 (EST) Too true, makes me think of that old expression: "leave well-enough alone." - Walkazo I think that these connections being made between series is getting a little far-fetched. I myself believe the amount of Smash content should be limited, and I have a reason why. I may have a tough time explaining (I might be sounding like I'm being contradicting here and there), so please don't fret if you cannot understand. Alright, the Smash Bros series is closely related to Mario, as some of you argue. But "closely" is not the same as "directly": Smash series did not come straight from Mario. Smash is more like a salad of different Nintendo (and other) series blended together. Mario being mixed with everybody else does not make them all related to Mario. The Yoshi, Wario, and DK series are Mario related, because they stemmed directly from the Mario universe. Diddy Kong, King K. Rool, and everyone else there is Mario related, because they are part of the DK series (stemming from Mario). But, characters like Conker and Banjo did not stem out from Mario, but from DK and thus became a whole different franchise altogether. From this we can conclude we should only cover characters and whatnot that are within the Mario universe and those that stemmed directly from it. But now you all must be thinking "what about Sonic? He and Mario are in a game together!" Mario & Sonic is a Mario game to begin with but had allowed Sonic, a completely different character, to be a guest in the universe. So the Sonic characters that appeared there should be covered on the Wiki as they were directly put within or extremely near the Mario universe for at least a while. The Smash series differs from this situation in that it is several video game universes in one big collage, rather than a direct implementation of one universe into another. It doesn't focus directly at Mario, Sonic, Pokemon, or at Pikmin. All of them are in for it. So, back my first point: the Smash series is a big (mostly Nintendo) video game collage; the series doesn't solely take place in the Mario universe. Several franchises meet together, but doesn't make them related as they didn't originate from one another. Zelda did not come from Mario, and neither did Pokemon, Metroid, Star Fox, etc. Therefore the Mario Wiki is being cluttered with many articles that not even related to Mario: only because Mario is in the game. Sonic is a very loose exception, as he and Mario were the direct focus of the game mentioned earlier-- Well... look, I'm not saying we should simply throw out all things non-Mario, I'm saying that they should be controlled. I myself suggest that we do directly focus on primarily on the Mario components and gameplay of Brawl and Melee while giving mention to the other franchises within. I suggest links to non-Mario Smash articles (Link, Final Cutter, Smashville, End of Day) be replaced with links to those at Smash Wiki's. This way, I believe it does not ignore the majority of Smash itself, but rather lets more appropriate sources fill that void. I hope at least many of you were able to see what I'm saying. --NintendoExpert89 02:07, 18 January 2008 (EST) I cannot follow your reasons about Mario and Sonic being different to Smash Bros. Also, we will stay independent from SmashWiki, it's something completely different and not written in a neutral style. It does have nothing to do with the MarioWiki and will stay that way in the future. Same goes for "the Userpedia" and all that stuff. Second, it was initially decided to feature the Smash Bros. series on the wiki because the majority (not absolute, but relative) of its content is indeed featuring the Mario universe. Currently, removing the Smash Bros. content from the Wiki again would look like a foolish attempt which, in my opinion, is only triggered because the articles have been expanded that much. Long articles on Smash Bros. are not to be discriminated against by Mario articles of the same length, as per the Importance Policy. The Smash Bros. series is related to the Mario series enough to be featured in here, as are other crossovers like Mario & Sonic. And this still doesn't mean that we should include Banjo or Conker or games were Mario made a cameo in. My vote is mainly because I don't want to lose all the work I put into the articles, that's true as well. In my opinion, if we hadn't wanted Smash on the Wiki, we should have decided it earlier, now you're too late. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 15:34, 18 January 2008 (EST) Wouldn't Smash Bros fall into the same category as the Wario & DK games in that they all stem back to the Mario series - Kamicciolo Orangeyoshi 17:18, 20 January 2008 (EST) Super Smash Bros. articles are fine. But I don't think those games should be considered part of the main Mario series. They're not even really Mario spin-offs-- they're more like general Nintendo character games. When I read the ESRB article, it said no Mario, Yoshi, Donkey Kong, or Yoshi game had ever been rated EC, M, or AO. That made me curious about what game was rated T. When I found out it was SSB Melee, I was like, "Oh, THAT game." On this wiki, it's considered to much as part of the series. The articles are fine. But that's what I have to say about this matter.