MarioWiki:Proposals

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Revision as of 16:30, February 14, 2014 by Coooool123 (talk | contribs) (→‎Comments)
Jump to navigationJump to search
Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Friday, November 15th, 22:08 GMT
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • Voting periods last for two weeks.
  • Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so (not, e.g., "I like this idea!").
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

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}}.

How to

Rules

  1. If users have an idea about improving the wiki or managing its community, but feel that they need community approval before acting upon that idea, they may make a proposal about it. They must have a strong argument supporting their idea and be willing to discuss it in detail with the other users, who will then vote about whether or not they think the idea should be used. Proposals should include links to all relevant pages and writing guidelines. Proposals must include a link to the draft page. Any pages that would be largely affected by the proposal should be marked with {{proposal notice}}.
  2. Only autoconfirmed users may create or vote on proposals and talk page proposals. While only autoconfirmed users can comment on proposals, anyone is free to comment on talk page proposals.
  3. Proposals end at the end of the day (23:59) two weeks after voting starts (all times GMT).
    • For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, the voting starts immediately and the deadline is two weeks later on Monday, August 15, at 23:59 GMT.
  4. Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available.
  5. Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it. Agreeing with a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted (including "per" votes), but tangential comments, heavy sarcasm, and other misleading or irrelevant quips are just as invalid as providing no reason at all.
  6. Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may not remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. Voters can remove or rewrite their own vote(s) at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the wiki staff.
    • Users can also use the comments section to bring up any concerns or mistakes in regards to the proposal itself. In such cases, it's important the proposer addresses any concerns raised as soon as possible. Even if the supporting side might be winning by a wide margin, that should be no reason for such questions to be left unanswered. They may point out any missing details that might have been overlooked by the proposer, so it's a good idea as the proposer to check them frequently to achieve the most accurate outcome possible.
  7. If a user makes a vote and is subsequently blocked for any amount of time, their vote is removed. However, if the block ends before the proposal ends, then the user in question holds the right to re-cast their vote. If a proposer is blocked, their vote is removed and "(banned)" is added next to their name in the "Proposer:" line of the proposal, which runs until its deadline as normal. If the proposal passes, it falls to the supporters of the idea to enact any changes in a timely manner.
  8. No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
  9. Any proposal where none of the options have at least four votes will be extended for another week. If after three extensions, no options have at least four votes, the proposal will be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
  10. If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
  11. If a proposal reaches its deadline and the first place option is ahead of the second place option by three or more votes, then the first place option must have over 50% approval to win. If the margin is only one or two votes, then the first place option must have at least 60% approval to win. If the required approval threshold is not met, then the proposal is extended for another week.
    • Use the {{proposal check}} tool to automate this calculation; see the template page for usage instructions and examples.
  12. Proposals can be extended a maximum of three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, then the proposal fails and can only be re-proposed after four weeks (at the earliest).
  13. 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 an administrator, the proposer can ask for that help.
  14. If the wiki staff deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to remove it at any time.
  15. Proposals can only be rewritten or canceled by their proposer within the first six days of their creation. However, proposers can request that their proposal be canceled by a staff member at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived.
  16. Unless there is major disagreement about whether certain content should be included, there should not be proposals about creating, expanding, rewriting, or otherwise fixing up pages. To organize efforts about improving articles on neglected or completely missing subjects, try setting up a collaboration thread on the forums.
  17. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Staff changes are discussed internally and handled by the bureaucrats.
  18. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
  19. Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy.

Basic proposal and support/oppose format

This is an example of what your proposal must look like, if you want it to be acknowledged. If you are inexperienced or unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. Then replace the [subject] - variables with information to customize your proposal, so it says what you wish. If you insert the information, be sure to replace the whole variable including the squared brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information", not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but what each voting section is supporting must be clearly defined. Such options should also be kept to a minimum, and if something comes up in the comments, the proposal can be amended as necessary.

===[insert a title for your proposal here]===
[describe what issue this proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the wiki handles that issue]

'''Proposer''': {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 14 days after the proposal was created, at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "November 15, 2024, 23:59 GMT"]

====Support====
#{{User|[enter your username here]}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]

====Oppose====

====Comments====

Users will now be able to vote on your proposal, until the set deadline is reached. Remember, you are a user as well, so you can vote on your own proposal just like the others.

To support, or oppose, just insert "#{{User|[add your username here]}}" at the bottom of the section of your choice. Just don't forget to add a valid reason for your vote behind that tag if you are voting on another user's proposal. If you are voting on your own proposal, you can just say "Per my proposal".

Talk page proposals

Proposals concerning a single page or a limited group of pages are held on the most relevant talk page regarding the matter. Proposals dealing with a large amount of splits, merges, or deletions across the wiki should still be held on this page.

For a list of all settled talk page proposals, see MarioWiki:Proposals/TPP archive and Category:Settled talk page proposals.

Rules

  1. All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom) using {{TPP discuss}}. Include a brief description of the proposal while also mentioning any pages affected by it, a link to the talk page housing the discussion, and the deadline. If the proposal involves a page that is not yet made, use {{fake link}} to communicate its title in the description. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links. Place {{TPP}} under the section's header, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{settled TPP}}.
  2. All rules for talk page proposals are the same as for proposals (see the "How to" section above), with the exceptions made by the additional rules below:
  3. The talk page proposal must pertain to the subject page of the talk page it is posted on.
  4. When a talk page proposal passes, it should be removed from this list and included in the list under the "Unimplemented proposals" section until the proposed changes have been enacted.

List of ongoing talk page proposals

  • Merge Orbs that share names with pre-existing Mario Party series items with those items (discuss) Deadline: November 14, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Create a number of articles for special buildings in Super Mario Run (discuss) Deadline: November 15, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Consider Deep Cheeps' appearance in the Super Mario Maker series a design cameo rather than a full appearance (without Blurps being affected) (discuss) Deadline: November 15, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Merge Mushroom, Dash Mushroom, and most of Super Mushroom (discuss) Deadline: November 18, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Expand and rename List of characters by game (discuss) Deadline: November 20, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Decide whether to create articles for Ashita ni Nattara and Banana Tengoku and/or include them on List of Donkey Kong Country (television series) songs (discuss) Deadline: November 23, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)
Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles, Nintendo101 (ended July 3, 2024)
^ NOTE: Not yet integrated for the Super Mario Maker titles, Super Mario Run, and Super Mario Bros. Wonder.
Create new sections for gallery pages to cover "unused/pre-release/prototype/etc." graphics separate from the ones that appear in the finalized games, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 2, 2024)
Add film and television ratings to Template:Ratings, TheUndescribableGhost (ended October 1, 2024)
Use the classic and classic-link templates when discussing classic courses in Mario Kart Tour, YoYo (ended October 2, 2024)
Split articles for the alternate-named reskins from All Night Nippon: Super Mario Bros., Doc von Schmeltwick (ended October 3, 2024)
Clarify coverage of the Super Smash Bros. series, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended October 17, 2024)
Remove all subpage and redirect links from all navigational templates, JanMisali (ended October 31, 2024)
Prioritize MESEN/NEStopia palette for NES sprites and screenshots, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended November 3, 2024)
Stop considering reused voice clips as references (usually), Waluigi Time (ended November 8, 2024)
Allow English names from closed captions, Koopa con Carne (ended November 12, 2024)
^ NOTE: A number of names coming from closed captions are listed here.

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Allow separate articles for Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)'s subjects, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended August 3, 2024)
Split Banana Peel from Banana, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 18, 2024)
Merge Spiked Thwomp with Thwomp, Blinker (ended November 2, 2024)
Split Cursed Mushroom from Poison Mushroom, Pseudo (ended November 12, 2024)

List of Talk Page Proposals

Writing Guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

XX supports= Remove XX opposes freely

While I did my first Feature Nomination, I discovered that to remove opposes we need three users' votes and one from an admin. I think that this is an injustice. If an FA (or even a Proposal) have, for example, 10 supports, and only one oppose, then the rule should be different. Using the same sample: By each 10 supports, one ( or more,maybe) should be ignoted/ removed. I mind that, at least, by each 7 supports, we can remove one( the first) oppose freely.

Proposer: Ashley and Red (talk)
Deadline: February 15, 2014 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Ashley and Red (talk)

Oppose

  1. Time Turner (talk) Especially when it comes to articles featuring prominent characters, there are always quite a few users who flood a nomination with support votes simply due to the fact that they like the character while ignoring any flaws that the article actually has. If this proposal were to pass, this could, in turn, lead to featured articles being more of a popularity vote than anything else, which is completely against the spirit of featured articles. Though there certainly isn't a guarantee that this will occur, I do not want to take the chance of it happening.
  2. Pinkie Pie (talk) Only Featured Articles' votes can be removed, not the proposal. Proposals' votes can't be removed. Per Time Turner.
  3. Randombob-omb4761 (talk) Per Pinkie Pie
  4. Mario (talk) While the current system of requiring a patroller or higher to remove an oppose vote is flawed (often, they simply don't vote), this proposed rules will create much more problems than it solves. We do not feature on the quantity of votes, but rather, no oppose votes. If there is a single oppose vote that is isn't disputed, then it should remain.
  5. Yoshi876 (talk) Per TT and Mario.
  6. Mr. Guye (talk) My case is in the comments section of this proposal.
  7. KP (talk) Per all.
  8. ParaLemmy1234 (talk) Per all.

Comments

Shouldn't this be appeal? Pinkie Pie (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2014 (EST)

Ashley and Red, you should look how this proposal failed: http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_37#Allow_Removal_of_Support.2FOppose_in_Proposals Randombob-omb4761 (talk)


The MarioWiki:Featured Articles Section "How to Nominate" states:

If you object, please supply concrete reasons for doing so and how it can be improved [emphasis mine]. Please cite which rule your objection falls under. Failure to do so will result in your objection being considered invalid. Users may vote for the removal of an oppose vote if they feel it is invalid or not specific enough, but have to give reasons for their choice. Three users, including an administrator, are required for the removal of an oppose vote.

Objection cannot be 'valid' without reason and and a method of improvement. If nominators, supporters, administration, et cetera are unable to ameliorate whatever obstacle or flaw to satisfy the objector's demands then:

A) the article should not have been nominated in the first place because it does not meet the previously written standards, or
B) the objector's arguments are fallacious and the three user + one administrative vote will quickly dispatch of the objection.

In the case of scenario B, the voters + admin will be more than delighted to remove the objection. For these reasons, I oppose. Mr. Guye (talk)

Good oppose :) Ashley and Red (talk)

Create the Category:Files with broken Aboutfile template

Most new users break the Aboutfile template, The worst thing about it, that it cannot be easily detected. I propose the following code to be added to the template. Each line of the following add the category "Category:Files with broken Aboutfile template" (to be created) to the File page if the respective variable has the default value. (i.e, the variable {{{1}}} has a value of "Subject of the image"). 

{{#ifeq: {{{1}}}|Subject of the image|[[Category:Files with broken Aboutfile template]]}}
{{#ifeq: {{{2}}}|Where you found the image|[[Category:Files with Broken Aboutfile template]]}}
{{#ifeq: {{{3}}}|Artist|[[Category:Files with Broken Aboutfile template]]}}
{{#ifeq: {{{4}}}|Describe edits, if any|[[Category:Files with Broken Aboutfile template]]}}
{{#ifeq: {{{5}}}|Other versions (use file link)|[[Category:Files with Broken Aboutfile template]]}}

adding this in the template coding will activate it (may need a cache reset for files pages with already broken Aboutfile), so any page having a misformatted aboutfile template will be automatically added to the category, therefore making it easier to maintenance.

Proposer: Dashbot (talk)
Deadline: February 21, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Dashbot (talk) This issue has been annoying me forever, it has to go.

Oppose

Comments

I'm not an expert on coding, but wouldn't this code require that all five sections be filled with something? Time Turner (talk)

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Merge articles such as Orbs and Hexes into lists with the same information

Most notably, I've seen large amounts of very small pages about things such as orbs and hexes. I think it would be more useful to merge these pages together into one large, easy to read list, as opposed to having tons of smaller pages. I believe that this will create consistency and simplicity for those who wish to view an entire page of all the orbs/hexes, and their effects, as well as compare them depending on the game. The orb list would be found on the orb page, and the hex list would be found under the hex page, etc. I think it'll be less daunting and time consuming as well.

I propose the following format, though I'm open to adjustments. Please keep in mind that this is only the prototype format, and if someone would like to suggest changes, I'd love to hear them:

Picture of Orb/Hex Name(s) of Orb/Hex Game(s) Item appear(s) in Ability/Effect Cost (if available) Other information

Making separate lists for the separate Mario Party orbs/hexes under one page is also plausible. (Different pages for orbs and hexes, in case that wasn't clear.)

Now, while I've only mentioned these two things, if there's something you'd like to see merged as well, please add it in the comments section.

Proposer: Coooool123 (talk)
Deadline: February 17, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Coooool123 (talk) Per proposal
  2. Demonic KB (talk) That sounds like a good idea

Oppose

  1. Time Turner (talk) Doing this would be far from consistent, will be trimming far too much information, especially when considering that a lot of the orbs require extra explanations for their uses, and really, most of the orbs/hexes don't even have small articles, unless you wanna compare them to Bowser or something. Also, these are items. They have unique descriptions, and unique appearances, and unique uses, and everything that's needed for them to be considered items. What, exactly would be consistent about merging all of the orbs and not, say, all of the RPG items? Bottom line is, nothing good will come of this.
  2. SuperYoshiBros (talk) Per Time Turner.
  3. Pinkie Pie (talk) Dr. Whooves got it. Per all.
  4. Walkazo (talk) - Per Time Turner: this would be inconsistent and/or lead to more merges, but the philosophy these days is that more little pages are better than a few big lists (such as for search traffic and whatnot). Plus, lists with too much info aren't necessarily easy to use, and can be particularly troublesome for narrow screens.
  5. Randombob-omb4761 (talk) The orbs and hexes are from completeley different games.
  6. Baby Luigi (talk) I prefer if we have a little bit of both: for example, the GCN Mario Party articles list the orbs and whatnot into a list and has a short blurb of them. If you want full information on them, well, that's what the articles are for. These orbs also can work differently in each game: ie the Goomba Capsule in Mario Party 5 switches coins while the Goomba Orb in Mario Party 6 makes the victim give coins to the person who set the orb down. It's more convenient this way, and I think it works better.
  7. Marshal Dan Troop (talk) Per TT lord of time.
  8. Mario4Ever (talk) Per Time Turner.
  9. ParaLemmy1234 (talk) Per all.

Comments

@Time Turner - That's not necessarily true. It really depends on the layout of the page. Not to mention, we don't need as much information as we have. I've been told that conciseness is key on this wiki. If I may ask, which articles are you referring to? Most that I see are very short. It's a mess as it is, and more consistent than the method we have now. Coooool123 (talk)

Paper Mario items, for starters. It's inconsistent. We don't merge power shots from Mario Power Tennis nor Captain Abilities from Mario Strikers Charged either. Baby Luigi (talk)
Then don't merge those ones. This isn't about paper Mario items. this is about tons of tiny articles that will suffice under one page. Coooool123 (talk)
That's exactly what's wrong with your proposal: you're proposing something that will break consistency in this wiki. Another great example is Mario Kart Arcade GP items. Merge those too? No. Baby Luigi (talk)
But see, the problem with that, Baby Luigi, is that it's just going to get re-proposed later to delete it. I've seen this before, where people create lists in addition to the regular pages, and they just get deleted awhile later, then re-created. It's a vicious cycle. Whereas if we just have the one list page for orbs, they'll all be together and it'll be easier to go through them. Coooool123 (talk)
I have been here for nearly five years, and I can say that I honestly don't remember anything like that happening, especially in relation to orbs. Could you provide an example of this, preferably with a link? Time Turner (talk)
It's not the orbs. It's the lists that are the problem. People don't like having lists and individual pages. But, lists are easier to go through compared to 50 little pages with not much variation besides effect. Coooool123 (talk)
That doesn't address my question. Time Turner (talk)
Perhaps it would help if you named some of these 'people' in question. Lord Grammaticus (talk)
Here are some examples of what I'm talking about: http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_13#Merge_or_Delete_Demo_Articles http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_18#Categories:_List_of_Implied_... http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_4#Article_about_.22Implied.22_subject_.282nd_nomination..29 http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_2#Removal:_Glitch_Articles http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_2#Merging_Wario_Treasures
I just think that it'll cycle in and out of proposals for lists, not technically this in general, and that there will always be proposals about merging items into lists, then separating them, then merging again, then deleting lists, etc. Coooool123 (talk)
The most recent proposal that you linked to was from 2009, and even then, it really doesn't have anything to do with what you're talking about. It wanted to delete a set of categories because they literally served no purpose. The articles mentioned in the proposal talking about demo articles wanted to delete them because they were only tangentially related to the Mario series. I'll give you the other ones, sure, but those are from 2007, which really doesn't illustrate your point that this kind of thing is a constant cycle. Time Turner (talk)
I'm worried that it's going to come to that. Maybe I'm wrong. But I think that people will constantly do this. Coooool123 (talk)
...Even though you've demonstrated that people haven't done this since 2007, 2009 if I'm been generous? Time Turner (talk)
It's true I haven't seen much of it. But that doesn't mean it won't happen. Coooool123 (talk)
That's a fallacious argument. If I say that the wiki will be suddenly shut down in the next five minutes, I can't back it up with "Well, it could happen." That's not even close to actual proof. Time Turner (talk)
I suppose so. Still, I like my list idea, I think it'll be useful and leave less stubs behind, even if they aren't officially stubs. Coooool123 (talk)
Stubs are not short articles. Some stubs are short articles, but not all short articles are stubs. Stubs, by wiki definition, are articles that are lacking information, and that's the only definition that should be used here. If they aren't "officially" stubs, they are not stubs. Time Turner (talk)
I feel like the only reason this whole argument has started in the first place was lack of clarity on my part regarding what I'm proposing. Coooool123 (talk)
Hmm, I've created some of the orb lists in the Mario Party articles, like, since 2010 and it still stands to this day. So what's this deletion you speak of? Baby Luigi (talk)
Delete the orb pages, and merge all of the information under 'Orbs', making a sort of table for them. Coooool123 (talk)
That's where I disagree. Orbs are official, named items and get an article in the wiki. I oppose deleting them at all, and they also vary game from game. Baby Luigi (talk)
And I respect that, but they're so small that it's just more convenient for them to be together. Coooool123 (talk)
@Coooool, I was hoping you'd understand that was a very general statement, as opposed to a standard to enforce on articles (not that I could plausibly do such here anyway). Lord Grammaticus (talk)
Nope. Apparently not. But why shouldn't we be concise under such matters? We don't need all these pages when one will do. Coooool123 (talk)
I think Baby Luigi explained well enough to start. Lord Grammaticus (talk)
I don't agree. It'll just get deleted later. Coooool123 (talk)
The orb/capsule/item lists in the Mario Party articles have been there since nearly 2010 and are not going anywhere any time soon. Baby Luigi (talk)
http://www.mariowiki.com/Category:Orbs_and_Capsules I'm just saying we take this and make it into a page, and delete the useless information. Coooool123 (talk)
Why delete it? What's the point? The category does its job, the orb/capsules/item lists in the respective Mario Party articles do their job. Making a list like that would be redundant. Baby Luigi (talk)
It's only redundant if we keep them both. Coooool123 (talk)

@Randombob-omb4761- Apologies if I wasn't clear. but I said that they would have their own separate lists. I'm not proposing we merge these together. it's 'such as' Orbs and hexes. Both would have their own pages. Coooool123 (talk)

It's a bit too late to salvage this discussion, but please remember to out new comments at the bottom, rather than sticking them in the middle using indents. Without time stamps, it really muddles up the history of the discussion. Just use Name: or "@Name:" or whatever to link to a specific comment if there were other things said in the interim. This also potentially avoids having to indent by over a dozen colons, which is less than ideal. - Walkazo (talk)

Miscellaneous

Change the order of the NIWA Main template

Change Template:NIWA Main (which is the last block on the main page) so that it lists the wikis in alphabetical order. This would make it easier to find a certain wiki, it would be more organized, and it would not be "favoring" one wiki.

Old template:

NIWA is a group of open-content encyclopedias based on Nintendo franchises.

Proposed template:

NIWA is a group of open-content encyclopedias based on Nintendo franchises.

Proposer: Mario7 (talk)
Deadline: February 20 23:59 GMT.

Support

  1. Mario7 (talk) Per Proposal. It would be a lot easier to navigate.
  2. Demonic KB (talk) I pretty much would say the same thing as above.
  3. YoshiCookie (talk) Per all.

Oppose

  1. Pinkie Pie (talk) I properly oppose. Why? Because the admin made it that way. We don't want a ABC order on the template anyway, so this is a stronger oppose.

Comments

Maybe you should ask Steve about this since he mainly manages the template? Baby Luigi (talk)

I just want to see what everyone else thinks first, but thanks! Mario7 (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2014 (EST)

@Pinkie How do you know we don't want an ABC, most templates follow an ABC order on the wiki. Yoshi876 (talk)

At all cases, it is not that major.. just talk to the Minecraft man (a.k.a Porplemontage) and withdraw dis. :) --Megadardery (talk) 08:32, 14 February 2014 (EST)

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=1625885"