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 using the code {{user|User name}}. Signing with the signature code ~~~(~) is not allowed due to technical issues. 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: 05:12, 6 November 2024 (EDT) New Features None at the moment. Removals None at the moment. Splits & Merges Orange Yoshi & Brown Yoshi On this Wiki, we currently have articles that are technically conjecturally named: Orange Yoshi and Brown Yoshi. They are named in the same pattern as we saw in Yoshi's Story for the green, red, yellow, pink, blue, and light blue Yoshis. The articles say that Brown Yoshi appears in Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island and Yoshi's Island: Super Mario Advance 3. In the latter his shoes and saddle were recolored to match the current shoes and sattle of Orange Yoshi. The article claims that Brown Yoshi was replaced by Orange Yoshi in Yoshi's Island DS. Yet, in all of the artwork for both of the games we claim Brown Yoshi to be in depict Orange Yoshi instead of Brown Yoshi. This includes the soundtrack album as well. Another claim is that Brown Yoshi made a cameo in the Yoshi's Story introduction. Take a look:[1] That's Orange Yoshi, without a doubt. I've also noticed that all of the in-game artwork of Brown Yoshi (seen only in the Japanese version) appear to have replaced Orange Yoshi with Brown Yoshi! So what does this all mean? Provided that no one has an official source that I don't know about, there is no proof that Orange Yoshi and Brown Yoshi are simply a recoloring of the same character, done as a result of technical limitations of the Yoshi's Island engine. My biggest support is that all artwork outside of the game shows Orange Yoshi. If there really were two different characters, why would Nintendo choose to draw Orange Yoshi rather than Brown Yoshi in promotional artwork? Or to chose Orange Yoshi instead of Brown Yoshi for the Yoshi's Story cameo? The proposal: I'd like us to merge the two articles together under the title "Orange Yoshi." Of course, we'd need to include info regarding how Orange Yoshi looked Brown. Proposer: Stumpers (talk) Deadline: June 18, 2008, 17:00 Support (merge) Stumpers (talk) My reasoning is above. In my opinion, we have simply mistaken the color intended to be orange to be brown instead. Ultimatetoad. (Stumpers' note: his reason is below.) Ninjayoshi - Only these Yoshi articles should be merged. Otherwise, per Stumpers. InfectedShroom (talk) - Per Stupmers and the fact that Brown Yoshi is a tiny article. Walkazo (talk) - Per all. Plus, having all the conjecture, controversy and subjective images on one page will make it easier for readers to understand the matter and make their own deductons. Oppose (keep separate) HyperToad (talk) I see no reason for this. It hasn't been proven they are the same, and I think they should have their own articles. Comments Just a note to everyone who doesn't want all Yoshi's merged, you should know that I am a separatist in light of the six Yoshi characters in Yoshi's Story. This proposal has nothing to do with that. :) Stumpers (talk) I removed my above comment to try to avoid confusing peoples........ but, yeah, I always thought the Orange Yoshi article was weird... - Ultimatetoad Forms I've been wanting to do this for a while, ao I'll be blunt: having articles like Fire Mario is stupuid. It's Mario with a Fire Flower: all of that info belongs in the Fire Flower article. The same goes for all Mario's forms: Ice Mario, Wing Mario, etc., and quite a few "subspecies": Beach Koopas (Koopa's without their shells) and Fishin' Lakitus (lakitus with Fishing Poles). I never did quite understand why these articles were needed. My proposal is that we merge all of these "form" articles with their respective power-up/character. Please note that full-fledged alter-egos (like Dr. Mario) should certainly stay, as should "forms" that are treated like seperate characters (Dry Bowser and Giga Bowser); but there are limits, people. Proposer: Ultimatetoad Deadline: Next Thursday, 11:54 A.M. Support Ultimatetoadper proposal Oppose MegaMario9910 (talk) The forms are different from what the main character is. Each form has played a role in a game(s), so its not much minor. InfectedShroom (talk) - Per myself in the comments. Stumpers (talk) - I could see this maybe for minor transformations, but something like Fire Mario? That's come up in a huge number of games in a huge number of forms... for instance the revival in SMG. Per the smart people above me. Toadette 4evur (talk) Ninjayoshi - Per all, especially InfectedShroom. Goomb-omb (talk) if we can provide separate articles for each, each one providing encyclopedic information, why shouldn't we? Comments OK, I have two reasons for opposing this proposal. 1) They (they being the other forms) have official names, have long enough articles to be stubs, and are a different part of the Mario Universe. For example, Fishin' Lakitus are more different than one would think. They will not attack Mario unless he grabs the Mushrooom, making them harmless until the player takes action. Also, take the Mario forms thing as an example. Statue Mario would not fit under the Tanooki suit article. This is because the Tanooki Suit article explains what the Tanooki Suit does, while the Statue Mario article explains what Statue Mario is. 2) This proposal is too vague. You did not specify which articles would need this, as some people may agree on some articles but not on others. This must be a long, article by article process if everyone is to agree. Sorry to bore you with such a long explanation, but there's my opinion. InfectedShroom (talk) Um.... the Statue Mario page is already merged with Tanooki suit. I will reply to both of you'r opposals in order: 1. Statue Mario is.... Mario turned into a statue. If that info does not belong on the Tanooki suit page then at least it can be merged into the Mario page. 2. Which articles am i talking about? well, for a beggining, we could do all of the articles in the Mario Forms template. Those are the ones that this proposal is mainly about. The Beach Koopa and Fishing Lakitu thing is debatable: I might remove them from the proposal, especially after that little tidbit you gace me just now. My real problem with these articles is that, when you get right down to it, whther it behaves differently or not, it is still just a lakitu with a fishing pole. Maybe it does'nt attack Mario because it's hands are full.... - Ultimatetoad Ah. Shoulda checked my sources on the Statue Mario thing. My bad. But the point still stands. The "Mario" article tells what it is, and the power-up article tells what it does. And I still don't think that the enemies should be merged simply because they do behave differently... InfectedShroom (talk) Prevent loss of information (Recipes) A previously passed proposal (which can be found here) called for the merging of the Recipes articles into one long page. While I'm not particularly bothered about this, I fear the possibility of information (such as notable trivia or complete lists of combinations) being removed so as to avoid an overly long page. (The second sentence of what appears to be Xzelion's page for working on the merge suggests an intention to not include every combination, for instance.) I propose that it be set down that if any merge of the Recipes pages does eventually take place, all possible recipe combinations and all pieces of important trivia must remain somewhere easily accessible on the wiki, such as a separate page for combinations. (The combinations page is only a suggestion and not part of the proposal.) My reasoning is that useful information should not be removed from this wiki for the sake of convenience, that the wiki should be a compendium of all things Mario-related, and that one should not have to visit another fansite to find out recipe combinations. Proposer: Soler Deadline: 20:00, Friday June 20, 2008 A.D. (EDT) Rule that a merge cannot lead to loss of information (Support) Soler (talk) (I am the proposer: my reasons are above.) Super-Yoshi (talk) Per Soler. Bob-omb buddy (talk)-If it is on one page then it should be good enough for the next one. Ninjayoshi- Per my comments below. Allow loss of information (Oppose) Comments I think that we should have two pages for the Recipes: Recipes and Recipes (Trivia). Recipes (Trivia) will list the Recipe, then game, and finally the trivia. No descriptions on the Trivia page. Ninjayoshi Changes Last names from Super Mario Movie For some time now, I've seen last names for Mario and Luigi to be Mario Mario, or Luigi Mario, taken from the movie. I don't really consider the movie canon, because they were never proven in games. So I am proposing that we take away the last names from the movie. Proposer: Clay Mario Deadline: June 14, 2008, 20:00 Take away the last names from the movie Clay Mario (talk) - Per my proposal KP Shadow (talk) - Per Clay Mario. Glitchman (talk) - Per Clay Mario. Yoshitheawesome (talk) - Per all. Dryest bowser-per CM Bob-omb buddy (talk)-Per Clay mario. They may only call them mario bros. because mario is more recognised, and usally the main one. Starry Parakarry (talk)- Per Clay Mario. Keep the last names from the movie Tucayo (talk) Well, actually the last names are Mario, because when they say Mario Bros., they are saying that they are the Mario brothers, that makes them Mario Mario and Luigi Mario. Toadette 4evur (talk) Per Tucayo. MegaMario9910 (talk) Per Tucayo. All the info has to come from something Mario related, and which the movie is related. Booster -- Their last name isn't from the truest canon, but they are the Mario Bros. TSMBSS also used Mario as their last name. Also, nothing seems to dispove this theory, aside from the fact that their last name is never mentioned in any game. Cobold (talk) - content from the movie is alternate canon, and we already have rules how to deal with it. When the last name is mentioned somewhere, there should be a note that it is indeed from the movie and not from the games. It also should only appear in the initial section and in the movie section, perhaps in the personal description section, but not anywhere else. Pikax (talk)Per Tucayo - that Mario bros. point is impossible to object to. InfectedShroom (talk) - per all. As a very small side note, Nintendo Power also said the last names are "Mario." MelissaMarioSister (talk) - per all. And InfectedShroom is right; Nintendo Power did say their surname was "Mario." Although... I just found a video from 1988 where Inside Edition does a segment on SMB, and they interviewed NOA's head of advertising at the time. He said Mario and Luigi didn't have a last name. I found the video at DevilDucky.com. Still, it could have been retconned since then. Ultimatetoad (see comment below) Stumpers (talk) - The movie is as "official" as any game. That means, regardless of it being canon or not to the games, it still has a place on this Wiki. That includes names. However, I would support a proposal that would make separate articles for the movie incarnations of the characters, because they are so different and deserve individual personality and history sections. But this proposal? No way. The Wiki should preserve all of Mario's history, not just video games. MC Hammer Bro. Per Stumpers (and see comment below) DragonFeather (talk) Per Tucayo. Ninjayoshi - Per all. Also, InfectedShroom is right. Shroobario (talk) It's the Mario Bros. what makes Mario be Mario Mario and Luigi be Luigi Mario, They didn't invent that in the movie. Paper Jorge (talk) Per all, mostly Stumpers. The Mario Movie may not have been canon but it exists so we have to mention that it at least exists. Dzamper (talk) Actually, they're Mario Brothers. So, e.g. if I'm called Bimmy Nerd and my brother name's Jimmy Nerd, we're Nerd brothers. ;) Rouge2 (talk) They are the Mario Bros. The first game was titled Mario Bros. and the series is the Super Mario Bros. which means Mario and Luigi's last names is Mario. The.Real.Izkat (talk) No way! The movie may not be canon but it's part of the legacy that is Mario! You can't take that away! A mario fan should know not even to bring upsomething so ridiculous! plus its the only thing we have towards their names so lets keep that way! Laebear12 (talk) i agree they are known as the mario bros. so the name should stay the same. unless the nitendo company gives them a last name it should stay as mario Toadster_04 It is Mario. Confirmed by Nintendo on the old Nsider forums, if that counts for anything. Their house in Paper Mario/TTYD also has their last name (MARIO) on it. LBD Nytetrayn (talk) I vote to keep it, as there seems to be more argument that it would be Mario, and nothing really disproving it, other than a 20-year old Inside Edition newscast that's likely been overruled. And why is it always the movie given precedence on this? The Super Show did it first. Lavender (talk)Why would they be called "Mario bros" if it wasn't there last name? Almost everything in these games are never directly pointed out, but the hints make it pretty obvious. Walkazo (talk) - Per all the points listed above by variuous users using slightly different wording. Goomb-omb (talk) Aren't Mario and Luigi's parents called Mr.Mario and Mrs.Mario in Yoshi's Island? I know that their mom is at least Mama Mario. Wouldn't that make Mario their last name? Make a seperate Section/Article for Non-game info Garlic Man (talk) - Per comments below. Comments Uh... KP, you can't do that. MegaMario9910 (talk) Double votes I'm sure is against MarioWiki Policy. Clay Mario (talk) Plus you probably used ~~~~, which can't be used. MegaMario9910 (talk) actually, I use ~~~ because I don't have time to make a sig subpage. So, I just use the user template. Clay Mario (talk) ~~~ is fine when you don't have a personalized sig in it. - Cobold (talk) I didn't notice, but I put you... sorry... I mean KP. He used his sig. MegaMario9910 (talk) I think that even if if was in the tsmbss it still may not be true. because the show was not made directly by nintendo. Dryest_bowser (talk) All Sports games except for Mario Kart, all Mario RPGs and Mario Party, all Donkey Kong games before Jungle Beat, and the Yoshi games were also not directly made by Nintendo. Not to mention the crossover titles. That's not really an argument. - Cobold (talk) 11:31, 7 June 2008 (EDT) Well, is there any proof from the games that the last name is Mario? If there isn't, I'd support. Sure, they are the Mario Bros., but maybe they're just called that since Mario's the leader. If we put "Mario" for Mario's name in the infobox, it's not saying his last name definitely isn't Mario, it's just saying that his first name is all we're sure of. And that seems true now, with this controversy. The question is, why would parents name their kid Mario Mario? Well, things in Mario don't have to make sense, actually. CrystalYoshi (talk) I guess there is slight evidence because, in Dr. Mario, his name is Dr. Mario. Usually the last name would follow the title. But then again, things in mario don't have to make sense, it could be his first name. Clay Mario (talk) The Dr. title preceds both the given name and the family name, so it can be both. - Cobold (talk) 11:33, 7 June 2008 (EDT) However,in Dr. Mario, Princess Peach goes by her last name (family name) (nurse Toadstool and not "nurse Peach"). MC Hammer Bro. (talk) Even Mario calls her "Toadstool" sometimes, and you wouldn't expect him to call her by her last name, so that argument doesn't really count. Time Q (talk) 08:30, 8 June 2008 (EDT) Cobold has a point, sometimes Mario games are made by third-party developers. But when its made by third-party developers, usually, there are no significant changes. For example, Mario Superstar Basbeball, developed by Namco doesn't feature new enemies or characters. Clay Mario (talk) Almost. These are what you call second-party developers. They create games (/TV shows) using Nintendo's property. What would be the use of the term "third party" if there wasn't a second? - Cobold (talk) In the SMA comic, Bowser calls Mario & Luigi "The Mario's" keep-em. - Ultimatetoad Well if you look at many websites and other media (mario fan based or not) the last name of "Mario" has been used. Plus why would nintendo call the game " Mario Bros. " if Luigi had just been introduced (without knowing wheather or not he'd be the "side kick" and or "the new leader")? One more question: what is the way the Japanease would call to brothers in this manner? Would they use the older brother's first name? Beats me. Ok I'm done!- MC Hammer Bro. Considering Mario Party team names such as "Green Bros." for Luigi & Yoshi, I think that "Mario Bros." actually isn't meant to say that Mario is their last name, but Mario is the main guy. See "Baby Mario Bros." etc. - Cobold (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2008 (EDT) But Luigi and Yoshi aren't really brothers, either.- LBD_Nytetrayn (talk) I'd like to challenge this proposal's validity to a certain extent, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. It was my impression that proposals were here so that we could discuss the way information is presented (merges, splits, features, placing spin-off information in separate sections, etc.), right? Another area we could vote on is how in depth to go. (include Banjo articles, include cries and other noises in the quote section, Snufit Ball, etc.) Originally I just assumed that this proposal was one of the latter, but what I'm thinking now is that this proposal really isn't fair. It would be fair to vote for movie information to be separated from main character pages (after all, the storyline is different, personalities are different, backstories, even species... the list goes on.) say onto a different page like "Mario Mario (film character)" or something. However, this article is saying that we would be allowed to mention all movie information in a character's article except for their full names according to the movie. Not only would this confuse readers and new editors, it's a little flawed. We shouldn't be selectively chosing what points of information are included and are not. Either all official video games should be here or they shouldn't be. Either the movie should be here or it shouldn't be. Not mentioning "Mario Mario" as a full name would only be acceptable if the movie was not covered by this Wiki. Otherwise it's confusing. We'd need to change our policy to say, "We cover the Mario video games, comics, and TV shows completly. We also cover the movie, except for Mario and Luigi's names in the film." To wrap this up: we can limit the number and type of pictures or quotes we post. We can chose not to cover the strategy of each level. All this is because of our job as a Wiki: to create an easy-access method for Mario fans to immerse themselves into the complete series. However, failing to mention a key fact, such as Mario's full name in the movie, is big. What if we didn't mention the history behind Princess Peach's name change? How about the change in Yoshi's voice? It's about time that we on this Wiki acknowledged a key fact: There is canon and there is nonfictional history. Who completely different things that the Wiki must cover, lest we be forced to call ourselves a "guide to what, as established throuh proposals, our users feel is canon to the Mario storyline" instead of a "Complete guide to the complete Mario series". Which would you rather read? Stumpers (talk) 03:15, 8 June 2008 (EDT) Well then, why not have a section about the two possibilities? Even though we cover the movie, that doesn't mean we consider the movie to be part of the continuity. CrystalYoshi (talk) 07:56, 8 June 2008 (EDT) I haven't voted yet, because this proposal needs another section; I agree with Crystal Yoshi here. I think the article should have a sepreate section, with everything non-gamical in there; comics, cartoons, Movie, etc. But the main infobox at the top of the article should stay Mario. The diferrent non-game section could perhaps have Mario Mario. Or, as suggested somewhere else, we could make a seperate article. Template:Fakelink or something, I guess. EDIT: A new section following CrystalYoshi's comment has been created.Garlic Man (talk) If it was JUST the movie, sure, but it seems to have become far more widespread than that.LBD_Nytetrayn (talk) I strongly disagree with making a new section for every different incarnation of Mario. They're doing that right now on Wikipedia with Sonic the Hedgehog characters, and it's an extremly stupid process. They are the SAME person. - Ultimatetoad The reason I would support splitting articles up into Mario and Mario (film character) would be if the situation would be like on the Daisy article: the movie section is huge, and splitting would be a way of shortening the article. We would need to include a blurb on the main article including the main article template with a link to the movie article, though. This whole thing about different incarnations of Mario appearing in different mediums is all fanon, which is not allowed on the Wiki. Seriously, just expand those sections you want off the article to a crazy extent and then it will make sense from a Wiki standpoint to split them. Canon doesn't have to come into play at all. Stumpers (talk) Actually, I agree with Ultimatoad. They represent the same person (even though they might be in different continuities). I didn't really realize what I was voting for. Here's what I think would be the best solution: in the infobox we should just put "Mario" (I think someone said that Nintendo stated that Mario and Luigi don't have last names, anyway). And, we should have a section on the page that talks about Mario's last name being "Mario" as a possibility (and maybe other non-game possibilities as well). It's just that MarioWiki:Canonicity says that the movie is alternate-canon, so we should try to have Mario's information from games be the one we use for stuff like this. CrystalYoshi (talk) Well, at the same time, I don't think that movie & game info should be mixed. They should each have their own seperate section, just in the same article (see Princess Daisy). Maybe we should just make the intro to the Mario article look like this "Mario (Mario Mario in some Media...." I should mention that I also oppose the recent mixing of cartoon show & game info in the Mario article. They should be discussed seperately, just in the same article. - Ultimatetoad I'd like to hear your reasoning for that last point. Stumpers (talk) 11:01, 11 June 2008 (EDT) Well, lets see if I can do that without babbling or confusing myself: 1. The Mario from the Super Mario Bros. series, the Mario from the Super Mario Bros. Super Show! Series, and the Mario from the Super Mario Bros. Movie are all the same character, just put into different situations. 2. Mario does not have a real "backstory" inside the games, any more than Mickey Mouse or Kermit the Frog has one in their respective shows. Notice how each game can easily stand by itself: You don't need to have played Super Mario 64 to understand Sunshine. There is no real "Mario Continunuity" or timeline (no official one, at any rate). 3. Thus, every appearence Mario makes should looked at as a "canonical" appearence. 4. So, the Mario article should not be grouped according to appearence, but Media type: Appearences in: Games Televsion Theater Movies etc. - Ultimatetoad Thanks for explaining! I would support you in this except that the biography section for Mario is in chronological and release date order (Yoshi's Island first, and so on). Many (not all) of the alternate media sources have their own place in respect to certain games. Just as Yoshi's Island comes before Super Mario Bros., The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3 occurs just after Super Mario Bros. 3. So, either we just list by release date and medium, or we attempt to keep chronological order and then we have to include all sources in one section. Stumpers (talk) Can we just say "Mario (Mario Mario in some sources)" in the infobox? That would make things a lot easier than having this long, complicated discussion. But honestly, Nintendo created Mario, and has Nintendo ever said that his last name is Mario? If not, I'm voting support. CrystalYoshi (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2008 (EDT) Well, I'm not sure what you mean by, "Nintendo," since Nintendo is a huge company incapable of speach, but an "Official Nintendo Source" (I'm assuming that's what you mean, right?) has. It happened in Nintendo Power. The reason I'm being a stickler is because the movie is one of the official Nintendo-affiliated creations, so one could see the movie the movie as "Nintendo" saying that the last name is Mario. Stumpers (talk) 10:17, 13 June 2008 (EDT) I mean has an official Nintendo source, or has someone who's part of Nintendo, ever said that their last names are Mario? Think about it this way: Toad's article doesn't say, "Toad is a human who plays guitar and turned into a Goomba" in the main section. It does in the movie section, only. So we can say "In the movie, Mario's last name is Mario", but we shouldn't consider that to be the case except in the movie section. Unless, of course, this has been confirmed by Nintendo. CrystalYoshi (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2008 (EDT) Okay, I got ya. All I have for you is the Nintendo Power thing, then. I think your solution is fine. This whole proposal is going craaaaazy! Stumpers (talk) Nintendo Power is not the most fantastic source, BTW. I think that they even said that "Mario Mario" was just an assumed surname. Just thought I'd point that out... InfectedShroom (talk) I read=lly don't see what's wrong with "Mario (Mario Mario in some sources)". But I'll let the others decide for this one. CrystalYoshi (talk) 08:59, 14 June 2008 (EDT) Miscellaneous Insert info from Games Alright. I was happening to look through Shadow the Hedgehog's article, and had edited something that was info from the games. I thought maybe, why not put info from the games into the articles (i e. Like add Sonic Rush info in Sonic, Tails, Blaze, Amy, Eggman, Cream, and Knuckles articles). This will also help some stub articles. This is overview, not in-depth. Add information from games, or don't add information from games? Proposer: MegaMario9910 (talk) Deadline: June 19, 2008; 15:00 Add Information from Games MegaMario9910 (talk) I'm the proposer, so per me. Don't Add Information from Games Purple Yoshi (talk) - Um, no. This isn't a Sonic wiki, or even a third-party wiki. The games have NOTHING to do with Mario. Pokemon DP (talk) - No, just no. BRIEF, I repeat, BRIEF descriptions about the characters personality and debut appearance from his/her original series are fine, but no way in HELL should we allow large amounts of outside information. It's just not right. And there are other Wiki's to link to about this stuff, ya know. Blitzwing (talk) - This rpoposal has been brought up at least twice before. Per DP. Per DP version of Pokemon (heh heh). Toadette 4evur (talk) Ninjayoshi - Per Pokemon DP. HyperToad (talk) Per DP and PY. Bob-omb buddy (talk)-I think peapole are clever enough to search for the games. Clay Mario (talk) - Per my comment below. Comments This will be my first successful proposal. MegaMario9910 (talk) I would agree like this if we're talking about generalities, so like, for Sonic, it would read: Sonic the Hedgehog is the main character of the Sonic the Hedgehog series of video games. Since the beginning of the series, Sonic has been the champion of peace, risking his life to stop the plots of a variety of violent foes, particularly Dr. Eggman, in order to establish worldwide peace. Along the way, he has been aided by many characters, including his friends Miles "Tails" Prower,Knuckles the Echidna, Amy Rose, and occassionally Shadow the Hedgehog. Sonic's greatest asset is his ability to run at supersonic speeds. However, he is Sonic's fame rivals that of Mario, and like Mario, Sonic the Hedgehog's series has also spawned television shows, comic series, and even original video animations. I think any more than that make us unfocused the Mario series. However, I've always been one to think that this Wiki should at least provide some background (not a lot) for the chrossover characters. If you could edit your proposal to say that this would be an overview thing rather than an in-depth (ala Sonic News Network) then you'd have my support and doubtless the support of many others. Even if this doesn't go through, you are currently allowed to use information from Mario and Super Smash Bros. games, including trophy information in Brawl, to write about crossover characters. A significant portion of the above example could be compiled based on those. Stumpers (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2008 (EDT) Done. MegaMario9910 (talk) At least according to DP, brief information is ok... I think maybe your proposal, with your change, may already be acceptable! Time to get to work, both of us. Stumpers (talk) 11:39, 11 June 2008 (EDT) Hmm... I'm kind of agreeing with the supporters here. But the opposers have a point, as too much info would suck. What would be an example of what you would put in, say, the Sonic article under this new system? InfectedShroom (talk) Err... wait, whatta mean, Stumpers? And... maybe some info about his history through the games, and a bit of info about those games, IS. MegaMario9910 (talk) I mean that the example I gave is already approved for use in the articles. Stumpers (talk) Yay. Now, let's go this work done. MegaMario9910 (talk) Oh. Duh. I guess I didn't really read your example. My bad. And yeah, it's a great idea. InfectedShroom (talk) Uh... not really has there been two proposals brought up before. One was to make articles for the crossovers, and the other one was to make a list. Care to explain why you said that, Blitz? MegaMario9910 (talk) Because both were about to add unrelated info to a specific group of article, duh. Blitzwing (talk) Yeesh! Why do proposals always get people riled up? Stumpers (talk) If voting to support this proposal will be result in general series/character summaries like your example then you're right, people are getting way too distraught. It's not gonna turn us into Sonic Wiki or whatever, it'll just add to general knowledge of gaming and save our readers the trouble of going elsewhere for the bare basics (and who knows, maybe they'll get preoccupiued wherever they went for further reading and we lose our audience). Being elitist never helped anyone. - Walkazo (talk) Thanks, Walkazo. Stumpers (talk) "NO PROPOSALS ABOUT HAVING BANJO AND CONKER ARTICLES-- The Management" Hmm... I wonder if this also applies to sonic. There is a sonic wiki. We only have a sonic article because hes included in brawl and Olympic Games. For non-mario brawl characters, don't go to much in-depth. Just give information about them in brawl and Olympic games. Clay Mario (talk) That message means that we will not cover all topics in Banjo or Conker games, only those whom have appeared in Mario media. Likewise, we won't be covering Princess Elise or the SatAM TV show from the Sonic series, but we will cover Sonic, Tails, Knuckles, etc. Don't forget: Brawl gives information from the series' too, so that would work as well. Stumpers (talk)