MarioWiki:Proposals

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Revision as of 07:45, April 28, 2008 by Byfordej (talk | contribs) (→‎Oppose)
Jump to navigationJump to search
f_propcopym_9045f2d.png


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

  1. Actions that users feel are appropriate to have community approval first can be added by anyone, but they must have a strong argument.
  2. Users then vote and discuss on the issue during that week. The "deadline" for the proposal is one week from posting at:
    1. Monday to Thursday: 17:00 (5pm)
    2. Friday and Saturday: 20:00 (8pm)
    3. Sunday: 15:00 (3pm)
  3. Every vote should have a reason accompanying it.
  4. 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.
  5. "# " should be added under the last vote of each support/oppose section to show another blank line.
  6. At the deadline, the validity of each vote and the discussion is reviewed by the community.
  7. 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.
  8. 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: 12:06, 31 October 2024 (EDT)

New Features

Beta Elements

I say we put a beta section on each page, so we won't have to go to the beta elements page. Here would be an examlpe for Mario Kart Double Dash!! "This was supposed to be a stage (blahblahblah)"

Proposer Blue KoopC

Deadline: May 1, 2008, 17:00

support

  1. Stumpers! What I often find is that by not mentioning beta elements on a game's page, we lose the ability to see how the the game developed and so on. Besides, this proposal doesn't mean the end of the Beta Elements page. I could really see the BE page being a collection of "cream of the crop" Beta Elements while the game articles show all the nitty gritty little details. Or vice versa.
  2. Blue KoopC I say we do this, and for those who oppose saying were going to get rid of the beta elements page if we do do this, were not.
  3. :| I never liked the beta element page.
  4. BLOC PARTIER. I vote here as long as this means that we do not delete the BE page and simply add sections on other pages.
  5. My Bloody Valentine This Proposal is NOT asking to remove the Beta Elements page, people. It is merely asking to add Beta information to the articles they belong on. So quit saying "The Beta Elements page is good, so I'll oppose.", because it is NOT valid, since we are NOT removing the Beta Elements page. Wow, long pointless rant in my vote, eh? =P

oppose

  1. Walkazo - I bearily remember the proposal going the other way on this issue a few months back... Anyway, see below for my real resoning.
  2. GrapesGrapes Grapes Per all to me just leave the bete element where it belongs in a nice neat page.
  3. Ninja.pngNinja YoshiNinja.png-Think about it.You can just go to one page to find all the wierd and cool stuff Nintendo has left out of games.
  4. Mario riding YoshiXzelionETC Per All
  5. — Stooben Rooben Like IS said, I'm not against your idea, but I always like the Beta Elements page. You can have a link to the section of the Beta Elements page that deals with the said article on the article itself – people could still easily access the Beta Elements to that game in particular.
  6. Green GuyPickle.png Talk!E Per all
  7. Giratinabylydarioss8.jpgPalkia47Palkia.png Dialga.png Also like SR & IS said. I'm not against your idea, but I always like the Beta Elements page, also. But if we did add beta elements to the pages, it would be in the trivia section. And you know how much Beta Elements are in each game.
  8. Knife (talk) 11:42, 26 April 2008 (EDT) I think it is okay to use both ideas.
  9. Glitchmansig.PNG Glitchman (talk · contribs) Glitchmansig.PNG No, because some games have only maybe an enemy or a level that are BETA and that's it, so most games don't have enough Beta elements to have its own section on the games page. Better to keep them all on one.

comments

Hey, Blue Koop, you gonna vote for your own proposal? ;) BLOC PARTIER.

It all comes down to a question of whether more people will want to read about Beta Elements all together or while they read the specific game articles. The real problem is how much variance there is in the amount of beta elements between games: some have enought for a nice big section, others have a line or two of iffy info. For the latter, it would make more sence to give a link to the section of the Beta Elements page, because there, the information scraps fit in. Plus, it makes writing and editing info on beta elements easier doiwn the road, since they're all in one place and you don't have to go hunting around the various port and remake articles of a game to find the differneces, etc. - Walkazo
Walkazo -- the ports of games have all been combined, with the exception of recreations, such as Super Mario 64 DS and Diddy Kong Racing DS. In the case of recreations, a game had to be remade from scratch to fit a completely different control scheme, so it's not really the same game in terms of the actual programing, as far as my understanding goes. What I'm saying is: with very few exceptions the ports and remakes are on the same pages now. That should ease your trouble a bit. :) Stumpers! 23:33, 24 April 2008 (EDT)
Eh, I don't quite understand what you are trying to get to. You are lecturing Walkazo about game ports... on a proposal about having Beta Elements information on game articles?

Also, the Yoshi's Story page do have a section about Beta Elements. Just want to point that out. Blitzwing (talk · gnome work)

Yeah, I don't get what you're trying to say about ports and remakes either... anyway, I'm not sure where to vote. I'm leaning toward "oppose" since I don't see a reason for it not to be in one page. Sprite of the Ruby Star in Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door CrystalYoshi Yoshi Egg Sprite.png 10:28, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
He was talking about the trouble it would be for a reader/editor to track down all of the changes and beta elements made in ports. With recent changes made to the SMA series (merges), I'm pretty sure that problem has been fixed. All the remakes I know of with the exception of two significant ones mentioned in my previous comment are merged. I don't know why I'm summarizing the comments for you, but maybe that makes it easier to understand. Stumpers! 16:50, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

I don't think this Proposal is asking to remove the Beta Elements page. I think its merely asking to just add Beta Element information to the articles they belong on. My Bloody Valentine

Yeah, there are a lot of votes that are inappricable in light of that. But, then again, the proposal is asking for permission to do something that I don't think is banned (see Blitzwing's example). Stumpers! 16:50, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
Okay, there are 6 oppose votes there that are inapplicable because they either defend the Beta Elements page or per someone who did so. Knife's oppose vote asks for both Beta Elements page and sections on game pages to be present, so it's really a support vote.
People with opposes that are invalid because the beta elements page is not being deleted:
  • Infected Shroom
  • Princess Grapes
  • Goldguy
  • Xzelion (a per all, potentially valid b/c that includes Walkazo's reason)
  • StoobenRooben
  • Green Guy (a per all, potentially valid b/c that includes Walkazo's reason)
  • MegaMario9910
  • Knife (supports both, so is in support of the proposal)
That leaves Walkazo and Glitchman as the only definately solid opposers. Xzelion and Green Guy are also potentially valid, although the question is whether or not they looked at Walkazo's reasoning below or not. Stumpers! 17:48, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Oh. But is that really necessary? I'm not sure, actually, so I just won't vote. I'll see what the majority thinks. Sprite of the Ruby Star in Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door CrystalYoshi Yoshi Egg Sprite.png 16:46, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Ah, now I see what you're saying. I'll move my vote. ;) BLOC PARTIER.


Removals

Speculative Relationships

OK, so, I've gone through many articles and noticed a lot of speculative relationships in the Relationships section. Baby Daisy and Princess Daisy are HUGE offenders. While some relationships, like Mario's relationship with Luigi, are fine, others, like Princess Daisy's relationship with Waluigi, are overly speculative, and have no place on this Wiki. I propose to remove any relationship that has no real proof and is merely complete speculation. I mean, c'mon, Diddy Kong was on Mario's relationships list at one point! DIDDY KONG!!!

Proposer: My Bloody Valentine
Deadline: May 5, 2008, 17:00

Remove overly speculative relationships

  1. My Bloody Valentine I am the proposer, and my reasons are given above. Or possibly below, assuming some Users decide to argue. =|
  2. Time Questions: Per DP, the relationships section is not the right place for speculation. Uncertain relationships could be mentioned in the trivia section though.

Keep the baseless speculation

Comments

I agree to remove those relationships from the section. However, I think putting them as Trivia items would be okay (that is, if it's not complete speculation, but if there is some indication that it might be true (as seems to be the case with Babies Daisy and Luigi)). Anyway. When you say "remove any relationship [...]", do you mean from the relationships section or altogether? Time Questions 05:30, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

That Trivia idea is kinda good... I'm on board with that. And, when I say "remove any relationship", I mean to remove the certain character relationship section, not the whole Relationships section as a whole. My Bloody Valentine

Yup, I got that, what I meant was whether you only want to remove the "possible relation" from the relationships section or not mention it in the article at all. But if you say you're on board with the trivia section, I think I can support :P Time Questions 06:36, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

First of all, this was unneeded as we already had solved this issue. Nice job, hur. Secondly, this is worded in a way that is completely wrong. You're making it sound like all relationship sections on the Daisy and Baby Daisy pages have no meaning and as you said are "baseless", That's your opinion, and saying that misleads any users into thinking there really is something bad about the sections. There's nothing more "baseless" about these sections than there are to any other pages. This was solved, you're bringing it back up, and you're not doing so correctly. Fixitup

Splits & Merges

Courses and Stages with the Same Name

In many games there are courses that appear multiple times, but have a different layout each time. Take for instance Luigi's Mansion (place). While it's good to have an article about the mansion itself, it also talks about how it appears as a basketball court, a tennis court and a SSBB stage, all of which have different layouts, and are crammed down at the bottom of the page. Meanwhile, something like Mushroomy Kingdom gets its own article, instead of being merged with say Mushroom Kingdom or World 1 (SMB), just because it has an extra letter in its name. Another example is the many Bowser Castle courses. The SMK ones have their own articles just because they're numbered in-game, while the rest all are lumped together, despite not being the same actual course.

What I'm asking is that we split all these courses, stages and such into their own, seperate articles. Recurring courses that don't actually change appearance much or at all, like Final Destination should stay the way they are, since it isn't necessary for that.

Proposer: Booster April 27, 2008, 12:00
Deadline: May 4, 2008, 15:00

Split

  1. Booster Per above.
  2. BLOC PARTIER. Per Booster. I've thought about doing this once or twice, especially for Bowser's Castle.
  3. Stumpers! Per Booster. Can you give us a full list of articles this would apply to?

Don't Split

Comments

Hmmm, I don't think I quite understand what this is for. If this passes, will Bowser's Castle become Bowser's Castle and Bowser's Castle (stage)? Or will it be Bowser's Castle, Bowser's Castle (MK64), Bowser's Castle (MK:DD), etc.? What I'm asking is, will the pages be split into individual pages for each game, or will they be split into a general article and a course article? Sprite of the Ruby Star in Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door CrystalYoshi Yoshi Egg Sprite.png 16:33, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

  • It'd be split so that we have a seperate page for each track/course/stage with a shared name. So yes, we'd have Bowser's Castle (MK64), Bowser's Castle (MK:DD), etc. This would include, at the very least:

Princess Peach's Castle
Yoshi's Island (place)
Luigi's Mansion (place)
Bowser Castle includes the numbered ones as well
Rainbow Road
Luigi Circuit
Mario Circuit
Wario Stadium
Rumble Falls
Rainbow Ride (I mean, Cruise)
Kongo Jungle
Jungle Japes
Mushroom Kingdom (stage)
Roof (perhaps just delete the SM64 stuff) -- Booster

Sweet. I completely approve of everything with a possible exception of Peach's Castle. What do you intend to do with it? Stumpers! 19:02, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

There are two different Smash Bros. stages named Peach's Castle. One from the N64 game, and one from Melee. -- Booster

I'm gonna remain neutral on this. You bring up a very good point, but at the same time, I feel its better to keep all of it merged. I tried to make Mushroomy Kingdom and Mushroom Kingdom one article, but Cobold split them. So, well... I dunno what to vote for. My Bloody Valentine

Look at the Luigi's Mansion (place) article. The stage you fight on in Brawl is not the actual mansion itself, since it's much smaller than before, is missing rooms, and is now on a floating platform. It's not the same mansion IMO, and if it is, they did a lot of renovating. I'm not saying we should make an article for, say every castle Bowser has in each game, but for stages with their own features and layouts, then perhaps yes. -- Booster

Its still the same mansion... Even if it does look different, the overall design is still Luigi's Mansion. But, like I said before, I will remain neutral on this. My Bloody Valentine

Recipes

Ok, here we go. I've been looking through some pages and I saw that there is a different page for each of Saffron, Zess T., and Tayce T.'s recipes, even though the grand majority of them are stubs. I propose that we merge them all into a table on the Recipes page for easier access to them, sort of like the Badges page. So it's up you know. Tell me what you think.

Proposer: SJ derp :P April 24, 2008, 20:54
Deadline: May 1, 2008, 17:00

Merge recipes

  1. SJ derp :P What I stated above.
  2. BLOC PARTIER. Per T4E. I have done the same thing. We need just one page for all the recipes.
  3. Blitzwing (talk · gnome work) There was a proposal about this (Which failed). I agree that the Recipes article are rather short and minor.
  4. GrapesGrapes Grapes Sound great merging a the stub into one great stub free page in a neat order. Also we'll have less recipes page.
  5. Mario riding YoshiXzelionETC Per All; I had this proposal going before, had tons of supporters, than SoS opposed it, then everyone opposed it. ;-;
  6. — Stooben Rooben Per all. I like GJ's idea; neat and compact...it sounds good.
  7. Walkazo - Per all.
  8. Green GuyPickle.png Talk!E Per all is all I can say
  9. Knife (talk) 11:44, 26 April 2008 (EDT) I originally suggested this, but the vote was to keep it separate. I have an idea for a template.
  10. User:Byfordej per all.
  11. Ghost JamShyghost.PNG per my comments below.
  12. Glitchmansig.PNG Glitchman (talk · contribs) Glitchmansig.PNG Per all.

Leave them the way they are

  1. YELLOWYOSHI398 They're officially named items; I think they're worthy of articles. Some even have backstories, like Cake and Couple's Cake. They also have other notability (like maybe TTYD recipes needed for troubles, or even physical descriptions) that could give them longer articles with some work, and it seems like a lot of them could at least have the bare bones "____ is an item in Super Paper Mario that restores 398 HP and is made by having Dyliss cook a ___ and a ___"; maybe the articles that just CAN'T have any more info than that can be, like, exempt from being stubs or something. (That could even be a proposal...)
  2. Wikiguest - Per YellowYoshi398.
  3. Marcelagus (T • C • E) - Per YY398
  4. Stumpers! Very good point, YellowYoshi. Although I'm not against a big list, I am against a merge because of the exceptions mentioned. How is this list going to tell the story of how the Paper Mario cake lead to Tayce T.'s marriage?

Comments

This is a good proposal; I can tell, because I'm having a hard time deciding what side to vote on. So, good work on that, T4e! ;) While I do agree that a good portion of the recipe articles are stubs, merging all 174 of them into one article...I think that the one big article would be very large and take a while to load. And, each recipe has a different effect...what to vote... — Stooben Rooben

Hmmm, maybe we could have 2 pages. SJ derp :P
No, that would just make navigation confusing. Besides, what about the Recipes page? Or do you want something more? Also, we already had a proposal about this a few weeks ago, so I'll reiterate my point form then: the recepies aren't substantial enough for their own articles, the existing Recepies Page is perfectly fine for that; however, the ingrediant/product pages should all list the recepies they are involved with to make it easier to research things concerning them. - Walkazo
Walkazo: We don't want 100-some stub pages. It would be easier to merge them all. SJ derp :P
Oh, I get what you're saying now, yeah, totally we don't need the individual recepis pages, I wa salways againt that. But I still think the big list of recepies is enough: it indicates the game the recipe comes from and it has the ingrediants and products; if you want to find out what they do, just use the link. What more is there to write about? - Walkazo
We can merge the info onto the page. SJ derp :P
Uh oh, a no solution problem. The articles themselves are too small. But a page with all of them would be too big. And two pages would be weird. I thought about "list of recipes in Paper Mario", "list of recipes in PM:TTYD", etc. But that wouldn't work since some recipes are in both. Sprite of the Ruby Star in Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door CrystalYoshi Yoshi Egg Sprite.png 10:35, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
Everything could merged onto a table on the Recipes page. We don't need to go into super detail over what an item is, how it works and where to get it. Just how to make it, a note about what it does...maybe how much it sells for. -- Shyghost.PNGChrisShyghost.PNG 12:06, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
You mean sort of like the Badges page? — Stooben Rooben
Hmmm... when you put it that way, it doesn't sound bad. Maybe I'll vote support when I've thought about it more. Sprite of the Ruby Star in Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door CrystalYoshi Yoshi Egg Sprite.png 17:13, 25 April 2008 (EDT) And when I'm feeling a bit less lazy.
Great idea, Ghost Jam! I changed the proposal so that we can do that. SJ derp :P
Neatness and compactness, all in one page; this is what is needed. — Stooben Rooben

YellowYoshi398: Even if they're officially named, do you want 174 2-4 sentence articles? The badges were officially named, and they are all on one page. SJ derp :P

I do feel like they're worthy of articles... And I guess my real point was that there's more to be said about them. I kinda feel the same about Badges, though... YELLOWYOSHI398
About 130 of them are stubs, though. We can get rid of all of them by making this one page. SJ derp :P
That is a good point... Sprite of the Ruby Star in Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door CrystalYoshi Yoshi Egg Sprite.png 11:17, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Stumpers: Put that on the Tayce T. article. SJ derp :P

Toads

Hiya. With the recently release of Sper Smash Bros. Brawl and Super Mario Galaxy, I would like to make a shocking proposal: merge Toad with Toads. Though it makes me ache to say it, Toad is no longer a valid character. Yoshi still has enough separateness to have his own article, in fact I think the "Yoshi-Yoshi's" conundrum has actually ben mentioned by Yoshi once or twice, but look at the Toad trophy in SSBB! It makes no attempt to divide the character from the species. The biggest problem is that the articles will suffer from us not being sure whether a certain red spotted mushroom man was THE Toad or A Toad.... I know this is not a very well written proposal, but you get what I'm trying to say right?

Proposer: Ultimatetoad April 27, 2008, 11:45
Deadline May 4, 2008, 15:00

Merge Toad with Toads

  1. Ultimatetoad

Keep as is

  1. Merging is only for articles that don't have enough info to have it's own article. Toad has enough info to stay separate, plus, he is a major Toad like Toadette and Toadsworth. SJ derp :P
  2. BLOC PARTIER. The two pages are much different, and Toad used to be a major character in and of himself, before there were the other ones.
  3. Toad is still a unique character, despite getting fewer and fewer roles over the years. Even if he were forgotten entirely doesn't mean we should drop his article. And he did make an appearance at the start of Super Paper Mario, for what that's worth. Booster
  4. Sprite of the Ruby Star in Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door CrystalYoshi Yoshi Egg Sprite.pngCome on, Toad is a character! There's a species just like him, but there's still one with a red cap in a blue vest who's Princess Peach's main attendant and has helped Mario out since Super Mario Bros. 2. And plus both articles have a lot of info.
  5. — Stooben Rooben All the other characters/species are separate, thus, Toad should be too.
  6. Giratinabylydarioss8.jpgPalkia47Palkia.png Dialga.pngIf we do this, we'll have an article too big. Toad has a whole page to himself, and the speceis have their own. If the speceis was merged, then we'd have no clue which was the actual Toad.

Comments

Infected, You realize that I'm not actually saying we should merge Toad just with Toads, but that they both be deleted and a combination page of both be written, a page that has info on the species and the (questionable) character. Frankly, I don't think there is a character anymore, thats why I made this proposal. - Ultimatetoad

Ultimatetoad, don't forget to add a reason for your vote, even if you're the proposer. Toadette, I think you got the proposal wrong; what Ultimatetoad is trying to say is that there's no difference between the character Toad and the species Toad. Thus your reason "the Toad (Species) article is only for generic Toads" doesn't make much sense. Time Questions 15:11, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Ultimatetoad: Yes, I realize that. You just made it sound like you wanted to merge one with the other. I'll change my oppose. BLOC PARTIER.

Why to merge Toad and Toads? If there was a person named human, you wouldn't merge him with Human (species) because they have the same way. Think of it that way. And Toad's a valid character, although he doesn't play many roles now. Sprite of the Ruby Star in Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door CrystalYoshi Yoshi Egg Sprite.png 18:23, 27 April 2008 (EDT) He's still referred to "Toad", not just "A Toad"...

Paper Mario

Is Paper Mario a seperate character from Mario? If so should we make a seperate article for Paper Mario Just asking.

Proposer:Dragonson 16:39, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Deadline: May 4, 2008, 15:00

Suport

Oppose

  1. Blitzwing (talk · gnome work) He's Mario, nuff said. If we makes a separate article for Paper Mario, we should do the same for 3D Mario, Super Smash Bros. Mario, Godawful Movie Mario, Hotel Mario Mario, Mama Luigi... Ect.
  2. Glitchmansig.PNG Glitchman (talk · contribs) Glitchmansig.PNG Per the Winging-Blitz :P
  3. Sprite of the Ruby Star in Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door CrystalYoshi Yoshi Egg Sprite.png He's just Mario, after getting a magic spell making him 2D... just kidding. Per Blitzwing. Besides, what is there to say about Paper Mario? People expect the information about him in Paper Mario games to be in his own article.
  4. BLOC PARTIER. Per the lighning wing.
  5. Stumpers! It's just an art style change. On a related note, Blitzwing's comment about separating SSB Mario isn't a good oppose: according to Sakurai, it's trophies fighting in Brawl. The Mario of the main series isn't a trophy, so technically they are two different people... but a separate character doesn't always mean a separate article (Ashley and Red), so that's why they're still together in one article.
  6. Girrrtacos The Mario from SMB2 is the same Mario as SM64, just as Paper Mario.
  7. My Bloody Valentine Even if its alternate canon (I still think the RPG's is official canon, but others disagree), Paper Mario is still Mario. This isn't Legend of Zelda, ya know.
  8. — Stooben Rooben A person is a person, no matter how small. Mario is Mario, no matter what form.
  9. Paper Mario doesn't qualify as a form or seperate character IMO. Just keep it as is -- Booster
  10. User:Byfordej Per All

Comments

Stumper: Eh, never heard of a wonderful thing called "No taking things literally"? I was taking SSB Mario as an example, no needs to lecture me about him being a different character blablablablab but that he is merged because blablabla. That's really annoying. --Blitzwing 06:51, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Changes

What's-a-Gibberish?

Hey-hey, come on! Ok users, pay attention, and read carefully. As some of you may know, there was a proposal that said, "Lately i've been searching around the wikis quotes, and have seen quotes like "whupee heeheeheehee!" when thats just a bunch of giberious and also something like AHHH!!! thats just someone yelling! should we get rid of these?". Now, the problem some users (including me, of course) have encountered is what to actually consider a "gibberish" quote. Now look at the quotes that have been recently removed from the Baby Daisy article:

  • "Baby Daisy!" – Mario Kart Wii
  • "Ha-ha! YAY!" – Mario Kart Wii
  • "Go-go!" – Mario Kart Wii
  • "GO!" – Mario Kart Wii
  • "NO!" – Mario Kart Wii
  • "NOoooo.." – Mario Kart Wii
  • "Heh-heh!" – Mario Kart Wii
  • "Okey-dokey. Yeah!" – Mario Kart Wii
  • "Yaaaay! Whoo-hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo." – Mario Kart Wii
  • "Yipee. Yipee. Yi-hee-hee-hm-hm.." – Mario Kart Wii

Okay,just so you know, a current issue trying to be settled is, which of these quotes actually count as gibberish, and which should actually be allowed to stay. Now, as of the current point in time, and according to the outcome of the proposal linked above, gibberish quotes count as anything that is random babbling or plain screaming. So, Which of these quotes qualifies in those groups? Well, as the quotes that contain nothing but yelling qualify as gibberish, you COULD mark out these:

  • "Baby Daisy!" – Mario Kart Wii
  • "Ha-ha! YAY!" – Mario Kart Wii
  • "Go-go!" – Mario Kart Wii
  • "GO!" – Mario Kart Wii
  • "NO!" – Mario Kart Wii
  • "NOoooo.." – Mario Kart Wii
  • "Heh-heh!" – Mario Kart Wii
  • "Okey-dokey. Yeah!" – Mario Kart Wii
  • "Yaaaay! Whoo-hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo." – Mario Kart Wii

Oh, but wait! All of these quotes contain yelling! There's the first problem. Just because quotes contain a character showing excitement, in any odd manner of saying it, does that mean we should count it as actual gibberish? Last time I checked, gibberish was random babbling, not yelling because of excitement or anything otherwise. Also, just because a character is exclaiming something like Yay, No, or laughter, doesn't mean their mindlessly speaking in tongue, does it? So, what it comes down to is, do we remove all quotes that are to a short point, and that are exclaiming remarks? As I gave examples on the Baby Daisy talk page, many characters plenty good quotes would qualify for this, thus leaving certain pages to the point of "quote-less". Now, I know most people know what a quality quote is, but I also know that a quote shouldn't have to be entertaining or a long sentence in order to define characteristics of said character. Please take in to account the outcome of your vote, and also take into account that gibberish is quite literally random babbling and not actual wording. P.S: Choosing support doesn't mean quotes considered gibberish will stay, it means quotes not to be confused with gibberish cannot be removed for that reason. Therefore, certain quotes would stay, while certain quotes would be removed. According to ACTUAL consideration.

Proposer: Fixitup April 22, 2008, 23:01
Deadline: April 29, 2008, 17:00

Support (Keep Certain Quotes Considerably Acceptable, Regardless Of Length Or What's Being Said)

  1. Fixitup Per above, lol.

Oppose (Remove All Quotes Containing Those Of Examples Listed, And Any More Found Throughout Other Pages)

  1. My Bloody Valentine The official definition of "gibberish" may be random babbling, but this Wiki has a different definition. Its any quote that is just a simple stupid expression that says nothing about the character. "NO!" is NOT a valid quote. Why? Its just someone saying "No". Its not unique AT ALL. It says nothing about the character's personality. Any simple quote like this, or any compilation of things like "WHOO-HOO-HOO-HOO! WHEE!", should not be considered a REAL quote. Its not professional, AT ALL. That's my two cents.
  2. Wa Yoshihead.png TC@Y – per DP. A quote should be revelant and not be a restatement.
  3. Blitzwing (talk · gnome work) - What's the point of knowing that some guy said random nonsense like "AAHAHAHAH" or "NO"? Those kinds of quotes are a waste.
  4. Mario riding YoshiXzelionETC Perl All.
  5. — Stooben Rooben Per all. Anybody can scream or cry. Specified quotes like "Only cheaters mess up", make Waluigi different from Peach. Waluigi and Peach have both screamed and cried before, so it's pointless.
  6. GrapesGrapes Grapes Per all.
  7. Marcelagus (T • C • E) - Per DP. Whether they are real words or not, they make no sense at all, and are thus "gibberish".
  8. Anyone can say "woo hoo!". Only quotes like "Toadette's the winner!" should be kept, because it is unique, unlike "woo hoo!". SJ derp :P
  9. BLOC PARTIER. Per all.

Comments

Well you know, DP, when I gave examples of other quotes, that have been here for quite a long time, someone said to me something like, well although this quote is almost the EXACT same line, this one is more humorous, therefore is fine. Does that make sense? I didn't think so. Also, like I said, not all of these quotes are just, "NO". Fixitup

Also, I don't no if I said this incorrectly above, but I know quotes should be relevant, but I know that not all of these quotes are at all irrelevant. Fixitup

First of all, I didn't understand what you said. You are treating this like "Since its on other pages, it should be on every page.". That's not the case. The case here should be that ALL quotes like this should be removed from ALL pages, not added to others just cos' other people decided to add them to other articles. And no one is saying they are all just "NO!". SOME of the quotes you gave are fine, most of them are just... No, sorry. My Bloody Valentine

I'm not saying that, I'm saying that's how it was, and I don't see why we are just now getting to that. Naw mean? Well the thing is, on the Baby Daisy talk page, that IS what they were telling me, that all are not allowed. Listen, the accept choice is not to allow quotes that count as gibberish, it's to allow quotes that may be confused because of how they are worded. Fixitup

I tend to agree with the second option, but wouldn't that also include quotes like "It's-a-me, Mario!", which Mario is famous for? It's an exclamation, yes, and in most cases such quotes should be removed, but I feel we need to make exceptions to this rule. Saying "It's-a-me, Mario!" is very characteristic of Mario, while Baby Daisy saying "Baby Daisy!" is just random. Maybe one day, when she has appeared in more games than Mario Kart Wii, it turns out that she actually commonly uses this phrase as her "identifying feature", but until this point we shouldn't allow that (and the other) quote(s). Time Questions 04:33, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Somebody give Time Q the "Most logical User of the Year" award! My Bloody Valentine

Yeah... Baby Daisy won't have many good quotes until she's in a game that's not a spin-off. Sprite of the Ruby Star in Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door CrystalYoshi Yoshi Egg Sprite.png 08:30, 23 April 2008 (EDT) I don't think I'll vote just yet, though.

Hmmm... I'm preferring the second option. But the word "all" in it's title is a little ominous. We shouldn't need to delete all the quotes from a page, just most of them. Leaving a page with no quotes is... Not preferable. BLOC PARTIER. Sorry if that didn't make much sense, I couldn't find a way to say it perfectly...

DP, you just said that only certain quotes listed from the Baby Daisy page should be removed. Then you agreed with TimeQ that none of the quotes were relelvant. I don't know if anyone has noticed, but Mario hardly even says "It's-a-me. Mario!" anymore. Aside from that, some of you are ignoring the fact that I stated that supporting this isn't to support quotes like, "No!"/"Wahaha!". It's to allow certain quotes, like SOME of the quotes from the Baby Daisy page. If you are against keeping any of the quotes on the Baby Daisy page, then you are against most of the other quotes used as examples, which I know for a fact hardly anyone disagrees with. As I expected, everyone is misinterpreting the outcome of this proposal. Fixitup

Then make the meaning clearer. Short and concise is a much better way to go then long, rambling and sarcastic. Anyway, the only quote I think is relevant up in your example is "Okey-dokey, yeah!", since "okey-dokey" is something usually uttered by Mario, making it strange coming from Baby Daisy (though the "yeah!" part was in character with her older self). - Walkazo

I think it is safe to say how this proposal will turn out, therefore the only type of "work" I will be doing around this type of situation will be resolving it on the Baby Daisy talk page. I know how votes go sometimes, regardless of what I would've liked, it is obvious most of you have a mind set. Fixitup

While we're on the subject of removing quotes, can someone please put Bowser's Quotes back on his page? I tried to undo the edit that scrapped them myself, but my ancient computer couldn't handle the amount of coding. Also, what's the status about the pages devoted entiurely to quotes? Are they still being constructed or have those projects been abandoned & forgotten? Sorry if this is a bit off-topic, but it's not quite enough for a stand-alone proposal, and nobody's done anything about the issues when they're brought up on the individual talk pages. - Walkazo

Ah! About quote pages... I am still making them. I did kinda abandon them for a bit there, but I am working on it again. :') And also, where is that edit that deleted his quotes? I can't find it in the history. BLOC PARTIER. Note: Go here for a category of the quote pages.

Format of Quotes

Next up, I have noticed articles such as Wario and Princess Rosalina have a different format for quotes compared to many other pages. For example, the Rosalina page quotes appear as this: Template:Llquote While a format of quotes used on other pages look like this:

You'll notice the first style is obviously "neater" and more formal than the second, but takes up much more space. Sooo, we should decide on one quoting system in order to make sure pages follow a specific guideline. One, the first style, or the other, the second style. Obviously this isn't a big deal, but should be addressed. I actually have a hard time choosing myself.

Proposer: Fixitup April 22, 2008, 23:01
Deadline: April 29, 2008, 17:00

Support (Star Using First Format)

  1. Fixitup Per above again, lol.
  2. Sprite of a Bob-omb from Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars Bob-omb buddy Sprite of a Bob-omb from Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars The first one may be longer but it is much neater.

Oppose (Keep Using second Format)

  1. Wa Yoshihead.png TC@Y – This meaning both formats are kept, right? The standard one works well with top of pages, this bullet-formatted one works well for multiple little quotes related to each other. I can incorporate all of these into RandomQuote if I had some time over the weekend...
  2. BLOC PARTIER. Per Wayoshi. Multiple quotes look a bit better when they're in a list, and the {{quote}} looks great on the top of the page. IMO.
  3. Walkazo - Per Wayoshi.
  4. Per Wayoshi. SJ derp :P
  5. — Stooben Rooben Per Wayoshi.
  6. My Bloody Valentine Per Wayoshi.
  7. Time Questions: The "neater" layout takes too much space when there are many quotes.
  8. GrapesGrapes Grapes Per Time Q More space more KB. (Another pointless proposal.)
  9. Sprite of the Ruby Star in Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door CrystalYoshi Yoshi Egg Sprite.pngHow is the first "neater"? It's just longer and more annoying, not neater. In fact, I think the second one is neater. It's bulletpointed, and plus it only takes up one line. And the quote doesn't need to tell who's saying it, we already know from who the article is about.

Comments

Um, I think there was a reason the {{quote}} template wasn't used like that. I think it was that ALL the quotes on the page would end up on the Random Quote of the Day Template, instead of just one. At least, I THINK this was the reason. I don't remember. My Bloody Valentine

Yes, second choice is for both being kept, as in first format at top only, and second used in quotes section. First choice is for first format in both quotes section, and at top of page. Fixitup

Yeah, the first format is for the quote at the top of the page, and the second is better for quote lists. It takes up less space, and you don't need to tell who says it; everyone already knows. Is the oppose side for keeping two types in quote lists, or for having only the second in quote lists? Sprite of the Ruby Star in Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door CrystalYoshi Yoshi Egg Sprite.png 08:34, 23 April 2008 (EDT) I don't see how the first is more formal.

Princess Grapes Butterfly, this one definitely isn't pointless. There are obviously different layouts of quotes on this wiki, but we should use a consistent way, so this proposal helps us deciding which way to choose. Time Questions 15:52, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

Miscellaneous

Japanese Names

I've been going through character articles and I saw that some for articles, they have Japanese names while for them while others don't. This makes the wiki look unprofessional. So propose we keep them for the characters, or get rid of them all. If we keep them, the readers can see what characters are called in other countries. It's all up to you now.

Proposer SJ derp :P April 26, 2008, 11:03

Deadline May 3, 2008, 20:00

Keep Them

  1. SJ derp :P Per my comment about the keeping the Japanese names above.
  2. Blue KoopC i 'gree, totaly it will help a ton
  3. Ghost JamShyghost.PNG Would push towards better, more complete articles.
  4. — Stooben Rooben Per T4E and GJ.
  5. User:Meat Knight I think we should keep the Japanese names, because it's fun and cool to look at what their names are, in Japanese
  6. Time Questions: Of course keep 'em, because removing would mean getting rid of good information, we even have a template for this.
  7. User:Wowzer I agree that there should be as many original names as poossible.
  8. My Bloody Valentine I've suggested adding Japanese Redirects and other such information before via Chat, but I never had the drive to continue my idea on the Wiki. I'm glad you stepped up and said soemthing, Toadette 4evur. =)
  9. BLOC PARTIER. Per all.

Delete Them

Comments

Well, sometimes it's hard to find the Japanese names for everybody; that's why they're not on all articles. — Stooben Rooben

Wikipedia has 'em. SJ derp :P
I know, for the characters and some species; but you're making it sound like it should be all articles. I know what you mean, but others can use that wording against you. ;) — Stooben Rooben Be a little more specific, and I'll vote. ;)
Done. SJ derp :P
Just for the sake of argument, I'll note that it IS possible to have the Japanese name listed for just about every article (with a few obvious or otherwise impossible exceptions). -- Shyghost.PNGChrisShyghost.PNG 23:58, 26 April 2008 (EDT)
Wait, Supertroopa lives in Japan, right? Why don't we ask him to add the Japanese names for the characters?-KP Blue 17:25, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

That's a lot of work to put on Supertroopa. But, I guess we could ask him for some help. We can't rely on him alone, however. Especially since he probably hasn't played all the Mario games in existance. =| My Bloody Valentine

Eh, there's no rule against adding foreign names (Infact, there's quite a lot of Japanese names redirects and Japanese names noted in article), so why makes a proposal allowing foreign name =|? Blitzwing (talk · gnome work)

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=367346"