MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/1

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
< MarioWiki:Proposals‎ | Archive
Revision as of 15:30, May 31, 2024 by PorpleBot (talk | contribs) (Text replacement - "([Pp]roposal|[Ss]ettled)(Outcome|TPP)" to "$1 $2")
Jump to navigationJump to search
All past proposals are archived here. This page is protected to preserve the discussions as they were.
Previous proposals

User Fairness

accepted 10-3
We keep a strict line on user behavior here, but should we set it in stone as a policy? Would contain:

  • No personal attacks: punishable by ban
  • No edit warring: punishable by warning if excessive
  • "Assume good faith" – already on Wikipedia, assume a user is here to help the project unless (s)he shows malicious behavior

Proposer: Wayoshi (talk)
Deadline: June 5, 2007, 17:00 EDT

Set in Stone

  1. Wayoshi (talk) – couldn't hurt.
  2. Plumber (talk) Yeah, Hk, but Link kept bugging us about it.
  3. Dinosaur bob (talk) – I think it's better that way- it gives more incentive to play nice.
  4. YellowYoshi398 (talk) – I doubt these are reeeeally necessary, but, as Wayoshi said, they wouldn't hurt.
  5. Hisak Why not? No harm can come from it.
  6. Monty Mole (talk) See comment
  7. Confused (talk)Gives them no excuse to do it. Heh, I recommended Good Faith here.
  8. Eggbert Rules are rules, and they're usually for the betterment of all.
  9. Aipom (talk) can't harm, just a reminder
  10. Great Gonzo (talk) Won't do any harm.

Leave it Unsaid

  1. Hk-We aren't idiots. No need to set it in stone. The policy was suggested by someone who uses condescending statements and insults every other line.
  2. Cobold (talk) - no need for a guidline for everything. I'm with unwritten rules.
  3. Gofer No need to make a rule for what is essentially common sence.

Comments

All I'm saying is that we aren't stupid, people should have enough common sense to understand that if they are rude, they have to go home.HK-47 (talk)

Can we define "personal attacks" before implementing the policy? In any case, I wasn't aware that this wasn't written down... I guess it's really an extension of the "final judgment" of moderators... or whatever we refer to it as here. Anyway, on absolutely every online community I've ever been to, moderators are allowed to do whatever they feel necessary to keep the peace, but maybe this will help community newbies understand better. I'm in favor of the edit wars thing, but I have my own ideas for how it should be settled. I think if an edit war arises, however, we need to move right to the talk page of that particular article and vote on the edits, returning the next day. If we say, "No edit wars," I feel it is too open ended and may lead to people backing down on issues that are important to them for fear that it may be considered a war. I'm not saying an edit war is acceptable in some cases, I just feel that we need to define it more. --Stumpers (EDITED by Stumpers)

This might sound cruel, but if you don't have enough common sense, you deserve to be banned. I have yet to see how this would affect anything for the better not making it a rule. Monty Mole (talk)

Patrollers

kept 8-5
I have heard this issue in chat. We have ended up battling vandalism very well after a bad rash, so patrollers have become obsolete. The only patroller who has used his powers actively was Great Gonzo, who I promoted to sysophood two days ago.

So is it time to remove the patroller group? Currently Confused (talk) and Aipom (talk) are patrollers.

Proposer: Wayoshi (talk)
Deadline: June 5, 2007, 17:00 EDT

Keep

  1. Wayoshi (talk) – Never know when another bad rash will come along. I'll find more active users to replace the original four if necessary.
  2. Great Gonzo (talk) Ya can never be too safe.
  3. Confused (talk) Maybe we just need more patrollers...
  4. Beanbean (talk) Yep, never know...
  5. Monty Mole (talk) Never know.
  6. Aipom (talk) never know
  7. Purple Yoshi (talk)Everyone is right. You never know...
  8. Plumber (talk) Never know....whoever keeps removing my vote, stop.

Get Rid Of

  1. KPH2293 (talk) I really don't think they're needed. Even with patrollers, the administrators are still doing most of the anti-vandal work. No offense to the current patrollers, but they haven't done much vandal fighting since their promotion. I feel we have enough admins at the moment to withstand another vandal attack even without patrollers, anyway. (that's just my opinion, though).
  2. Super Luigi 821 (talk) Really I mean, instead of being patrollers isn't it easier to make them sysop or something?
  3. Gofer (talk) Agree, we have than enough sysop, and there hasn't been a big vandal attack for long. Sorry, dudes.
  4. YellowYoshi398 (talk) Our current patrollers haven't been doing much, and I actually think we'd be in good condition if we abolished the patroller status and kept our current system operators unchanged.
  5. Eggbert There are thirteen sysops, about 10 of those are on some type of active basis. I think that's more than adequate to counter spam attacks.

Comments

What does it mean to "use patrolling powers properly"? Plumber (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Don't abuse them. Also: "We should always have 4 Patrollers." – Why, exactly? " Ya never know when an Early Saturday mornin' and sysops are sleeping in..." – What exactly makes you think patrollers would be up at that time, yet not sysops? --KPH2293 (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
They might be up, they might not, but it's better to have extra hands around. Why decline some willing to help you with your work? I think there's more to it than "Don't abuse them." since I was demoted for not using my powers when I never abused them. Plumber (talk)
True, but why patrollers? Why couldn't we just make active and trustworthy users sysops if we need more guards against vandalism? They can fight vandalism more efficiently, since they can delete pages that are created by vandals, protect frequently vandalized pages, and permanently hide obscene revisions. --KPH2293 (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
I don't think Wayoshi wants too many sysops here. I would change my votes if there was a higher chance of more users becoming sysops, but that doesn't look like it's gonna happen. Plumber (talk)
When I originally suggested a new group, I thought it was going to be more inclusive than sysops. The reason why Patrollers aren't that effective is because I am only active at night and as for Aipom, I haven't seen him around that much. Patrollers aren't that effective because there are only two semi-active ones. Of course we're useless. But maybe if Patrollers were better utilized and more active users were chosen, then it could definately work. Give it a chance, that's all I got to say. Confused (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm on around 6 AM and 3PM on weekdays. On Saturday, I'm pretty much on all the time.--Aipom (talk)--

You know, I was up and on at 6 AM today, and saw not one patroller for hours and hours. No trolls either. Trolls are sad, sad things, but I doubt even they can afford to get up at 6 AM to terrorize us.HK-47 (talk)

Peer Reviews

delete 5-7
So far, they aren't working out well and people are ignoring them.

Proposer: Plumber (talk)
Deadline: June 5, 2007, 17:00 EDT

Keep

  1. Cobold (talk) - I'd say, better less feature articles than many bad ones.
  2. Gofer (talk) The old system sucked, people were voting for theirs favorite characters rather than for the qulality of the article itself.
  3. Dinosaur bob (talk) -I've done a few edits to Yoshi already. Just point me towards the other articles and I'll see what I and my meager talents can do.
  4. Hk-Even if it was ALttP's idea, it still might help. I'll review article everyday if it helps.
  5. Stumpers - Well... He really has a lot of good ideas. This is one of his best ideas, IMO. I think we need to create an article on the front page that asks for input on the articles, though. That would be sweet.

Get rid of

  1. Plumber (talk) 00:21, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
  2. Aipom (talk) No one is really reviewing the articles
  3. Beanbean (talk) I don't really like this proposal thing, and not many users rate the articles.
  4. Monty Mole (talk) I don't think it's really working out.
  5. Confused (talk) I agree. Peer Reviews aren't working out so well, our old system was more effective. I don't see any supporters reviewing either.
  6. YellowYoshi398 (talk) Not many people are reviewing articles; I liked it better with our old FAs.
  7. Purple Yoshi (talk)- I prefer nominating FA's, like YY398 said.

Comments

It's a good idea, but no one is using it. Therefore, it is pointless. Plumber (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Confused: If you do not see any supporters reviewing, I cannot help you. I reviewed two articles yesterday. - Cobold (talk) 04:57, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
How about this instead: Review Board. It could be a 3 user board, made up of famous Wiki-ers (like Monty, or Waysohi, but I think Wayoshi probably too busy running the rest of the Wiki, but you get picture) They come together and discuss, and then post on the talk page yay or nay. Then, *boom* pop it up on the main page as featured article. --Stumpers
That's actually a good idea.HK-47 (talk)
I'm not familiar with this new system... so if you want to propose it before I do, go ahead. It might take me a while ;) We could also rotate the reviewers so the work load doesn't land on the same people all the time, and then everyone could have their voices heard. Stumpers (talk) 16:38, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

Mario Awards: Wiki or Forum

forum 0-8
The very exciting Mario Awards (Saturday August 11th), an all-day event, will cap off with a 4-hour ceremony (7-11p EDT), presenting the results of the 30 awards to be voted on starting Sunday June 10. However, should this excellent event be

  • on the wiki, with more members, or
  • on the forum, with a select but likely active group of members?

Here I list some facts (not pros/cons) for both. Look carefully.

Proposer: Wayoshi (talk)
Deadline: June 5, 2007, 17:00 EDT

Wiki
  • More users can participate
  • Open page: One long page shows it all
  • Templates can be used to block off presentations from comments, or sections prepared ahead of time
  • Edit conflicts can be severe problem if there are no premade sections
  • Official record is where it all started
Forum
  • Less but maybe the most active users can participate
  • Multiple pages: hard to navigate, 20 posts won't take long to fill up
  • Flood control: have to wait 20 seconds between editing a post, which can be annoying
  • Double/triple posting and beyond instead of editing original post may be common in excitement
  • No edit conflicts
  • Official record is on a sub-site, not the main site

Wiki

Forum

  1. Hk
  2. Super Luigi 821 (talk)
  3. Confused (talk) I agree. Forum should be used more. Plus there are a lot of wiki glitches.
  4. Monty Mole (talk) Original plan, and how it's going to stay.
  5. Dry Bones (talk) I can't get in the chatroom so as long as it's not there I'M COMING!
  6. YellowYoshi398 (talk) This plan seems better... Think of all the annoying edit conflicts that could happen on the wiki.
  7. Great Gonzo (talk) Edit conflicts would be overwelming
  8. Aipom (talk) Edit conflicts made me choose this.

Comments

Move Chat

tie 4-4
Troll mentioned has died down, thus result is keep on wiki
In order to deter trollers and protect this silly little anniversary thing, it has come to the attention of many that the chat should be moved back to the forums. This move has not previously been opposed, it has merely been put off.

  • Unfortunately, this might lower the number of users in chat. If enough users support with strong supporting arguments, we may get this through the system at a higher speed.
  • This would deter trolls in the future.
  • No real troll attack on the anniversary thing.

Proposer: Hk
Deadline: June 6, 2007, 17:00 EDT

Let it lie where it is

  1. Wayoshi (talk) – The chat needs to be open to everyone – compromise could be for Steve to unlock the restriction on the forum.
  2. Stumpers It's much more appealing where it is... I mean you just click. Boom.
  3. Bottle Wizzerd - Nobody can troll forever. :/
  4. Shyster -I think willy is gone for good. Bottle Wizzerd is right too.

Move Chat to Forum

  1. Hk-As is said, many users are for this change, and this will definitely deter trolls.
  2. Beanbeang (talk) Keeps trollers away from forum, some might not even know where the forum is
  3. Confused (talk) While it is more convenient to use the Wiki Chat, the Forum Chat is less suceptible to hacking and random IP chatting
  4. Eggbert Forums, without a doubt. It'd prevent spammers and the like. If one is too lazy to simply go to the forums and access the chat, then they shouldn't be on it.

Comments

People seem to believe this Willy guy is going away soon. Take a look-- he's been here forever. One of the first big things I did on this wiki a year ago was move pages back to their rightful name after Willy had his first bout of fun. He ISN'T going anywhere.HK-47 (talk)

This is what it says in the block log about Willy: 07:55, 18 June 2006 Porplemontage (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Willy on Wheels (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (troll), and that was about a year ago. He's struck several more times, and keeps coming back.HK-47 (talk)
This Willy is another Willy who idolizes the first one. Plumber (talk) 20:32, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
There have also been several other past Willy attacks that follow the same same pattern, plus Silly Dan, plus StarNeptune, equals Willy won't quit. Besides, Plumber, think of the horrible nasty things hes said about YOUR sister. Although, the entire thing could be WarioLoaf.HK-47 (talk)
Personally, Willy and all who worship him will never calm down. There is no educating the unreasonable. Monty Mole (talk)
Exactly. How many of us have tried to reason with ALttP and failed? The unreasonable are, and I tried hard to figure out how to phrase this, but there really isn't a word, un-educatable.HK-47 (talk)
We have successfully reasoned with Willy already, and he wants to be a good user. I stopped him, also by reacting normally and continuing his remarks like he was starting a conversation. Plumber (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
Supposedly, in chat, he said that he wanted to become a good user, but can't control himself. Then he said something about p***s and p**p, so we don't believe him that much. >_< you're right. No rest for the wicked. And no education too. 3dejong (talk)
You reasoned with him? I doubt it.HK-47 (talk)
We talked to him, but I doubt he'll do anything to reform. Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Not. 3dejong (talk)
I wonder why nobody trusts anybody? Plumber (talk) 20:57, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
Its tough to trust someone who acts like Willy. Savvy?HK-47 (talk)
He's had a lot of chances, and blew them all. I savvy. 3dejong (talk)
3D, vote for the change.HK-47 (talk)
Maxlover2 had a lot of chances and blew them all but one. Plumber (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
OK, we know. But this guy, I beleive, will never change. And I think the chat should stay where it is. We can just kick Willy when we comes. don't knock me. 3dejong (talk)
Maxlover2 isn't a troll. HK-47 (talk)
When he first cmae here, he knew none of the rules. Like me. I blew all my chances but one! Look at me! 3dejong (talk)
And me. Maxlover2 was a troll, on Wikipedia. He came here to spam, but 3D was nice to him, so he stopped. Plumber (talk) 21:11, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Seriously? Wow. Anyway, I personally beleive he is a spammer, and a spammer he will stay. Sorry. Look at Peachycakes! you can debate now. 3dejong (talk)

Look, Willy is a buffoon, and he won't stop. Look at what he said to your sister, he's a sick freak, how can you forgive him?HK-47 (talk)
And all that stuff about "My p3|\|15 grows like ice cream" and "I like to eat creamy p**p".... AAAH! IT'S SICK! you, sir, ROFL my WFLEs. 3dejong (talk)
Personally, I never had a problem before on the forum. Plus, on the forum, it is required to give out e-mail confirmation. I don't think Willy is dumb enough to give out his e-mail just to harrass us. Confused (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Is there any need to still have this proposal? Willy was unmasked and is gone for good, so there's no need to move the chat anywhere now... o.o ~ Bottle Wizzerd

Is he really gone for good this time?HK-47 (talk)
You must really tell me all about it, but not now, for it grows late.HK-47 (talk)
And yes, Wizzerd, the proposal stays open anyway so we can find out what the people want.HK-47 (talk)
He IS gone for good, it was WL the whole time, seemingly. And the opinions now are flawed, since the main problem was Willy. He's gone now, so I don't think all opinions are accurate now. ~ Bottle Wizzerd
WL was NEVER Willy. The addreses never matched.

PAIR

accepted 8-0
Panel for Article Improvement and Recognition
This acronym has nothing to do with the purpose of this feature, it's just something easy to remember. Credit to Hk for name :D

PAIR is the new [proposed] system to replace Peer Reviews, which were scrapped after no edits. Credit to Stumpers for inspiration/beginnings of the idea behind the system. It partially would use the "FlaggedRevs" extension on MediaWiki, which will work when MediaWiki version 1.11 will come out (we are on 1.10 right now). That is, if this is voted in, we can wait for 1.11 to come out (it can come out at any time), or start ahead of time, doing things manually. Let me explain the basis for how this will work:

  • Any user who has been on the wiki for a certain amount of time (3 months?) and who has at least a certain amount of edits (500?) will be able to "review" a revision of an article for accuracy (all facts are true), depth (details, everything needed present), and readability (grammar/spelling, flow of sentences) on a scale of either 1-4 or Low, Medium, High, and Exceptional. This user right is called "editor".
  • A user assigned by bureaucrats [me] the "reviewer" user right will be able to validate these reviews and make it official. The revision is now called "stable", and in the article a link to the last stable version is provided in a tab. Additionally, reviewers will be able to review articles the highest rates possible (4/Exceptional), while editors are limited up to 3/High. These users would be chosen for activeness and major contributions to articles, showing their writing prowess here and can be trusted with properly reviewing an article.
  • A combination of 3-6 editors and/or reviewers should work on an article, with at least 2 reviewers. Enough so that there's input, but not too much or it becomes a vote like previously.
  • Any comments should go in a section of the talk page – a template would signify this.
  • When two reviewers finds that the accuracy, depth and readability are all at 4/Exceptional, the article can be nominated for FA status.

By manually, reviews would be temporarily done on the talk page until 1.11 comes out.

Proposer: Wayoshi (talk) (started by Stumpers (talk))
Deadline: June 13, 2007, 17:00 EDT

Use the System

  1. Wayoshi (talk) – everyone is laid out fairly, efficient, plenty of capable users to make the system work consistently
  2. Great Gonzo (talk) Ditto.
  3. Stumpers (talk) Well, I'm a little confused on the specifics, and it might be too complex, but y'know what? We won't know until we try, so full steam ahead IMO. Heh, heh... I'm voting for an idea I started... I feel kinda cheat-ish. Thanks for working out the details Wayoshi!
  4. Cobold (talk) - Sounds fair. But we'll have to see if we can concentrate on the same article long enough to have a proper result.
  5. Aipom (talk) This may just be perfect.
  6. HK-47 (talk) I helped design the system, actually. Wayoshi modified my details.
  7. Knife (talk) – If this doesn't work out, we can alway go back to the old way.
  8. Plumber (talk) What about the old FAs?

Not Effective

Comments

This is probably too early to tell, but here's what I'm worried about, and it's inspired by Cobold's point. For this to be effective, we're going to have to make this system as fast as possible so people don't get bored. Are there any ways that we could trim down on the system? It might work as is, but I just don't want to have it go for a bad run and then have everyone abandon it like the Peer Reviews. It also might help if we could see this visually, like with a diagram. Who knows, though. Maybe all this needs is just a chance to see the system in motion. In any case, I think this is our best bet to keep the FAs. Stumpers (talk) 12:59, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

What we need is for everyone to make an effort and get involved. There's nothing we can do if no one tries. Reviewers especially should watch pages they review (I may force is as a default) and continually look at their watch pages for updates. The editors/users may be responsible for contacting a reviewer to review/validate an article for FA nomination. Wayoshi (talk) 16:18, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
How about we stick a section on the main page that features the current under-review articles? That might get people's attention, especially if it's one they worked on ;) Stumpers (talk) 21:49, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
This proposal has reached its deadline. What now? - Cobold (talk) 09:15, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
Well its 8-0 in favor of having it, so it get accepted. But from what I heard we need a mediawiki extension. Great Gonzo (talk) 10:28, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
Sweet... well, as usual, if you need any help, please let me know. :) Stumpers (talk) 14:59, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Monitor Cursing

monitor 12-2
Cursing is a nasty thing, and there are children on this site. Should it be banned officially?

Proposer: HK-47 (talk)
Deadline: June 16, 2007, 20:00 EDT

Ban it hard

  1. HK-47 (talk)-Its a nasty thing.
  2. Great Gonzo (talk) Seven year old kids are on this site!
  3. Pokemon DP - Yes, I say definitely get rid of it.
  4. Eggbert Agreed, last thing you'll need is some parent griping about what their kid learned here.
  5. Hisak Maybe for the wiki and discussion, but I think that some (as long as it's not too bad) should be allowed on the forums and chat.
  6. YellowYoshi398 (talk) I'd like to see curse words totally purged from this wiki, whether it be in userspace, chat, the forum, or anything.
  7. Stumpers It should only be permitted when in a quote from the Marioverse or when referring to the location hell, or as the description "hellish" etc. Also, people should be allowed to use ****, *bleep*, etc. on userpages for humorous reasons only, but never like, "You are a ****" because we're smart enough to fill in the blanks. lol, I'm kinda moderate on this... maybe I should be in a third category.
  8. Dry Bones (talk) I'm only eleven, I don't want to hear thta stuff.
  9. Minus World (talk) There are young children here!
  10. RickyMario: Cursing? Get rid of it! I am only 12 and I hate cursing!
  11. Beanbean (talk) Get rid of it.
  12. isyou (talk) Words liek Hell seem to be ok... I swear a lot, but swearing on a Mario wiki? COME ON!

What'd be the point?

  1. Waluigi Freak 99 I don't cuss, but I don't see the point of banning it, either. Why is it that a person can say "idiot" but not "asshole"? What makes the latter word more offensive than the first? They both mean the same thing!
  2. Ultimatetoad

Comments

This is really just to get some use out of the system, as we all have enough foresight to determine the results on this one.HK-47 (talk)

It depends on how extreme some of the words are. Maybe only if the word is actually used in the Marioverse ("Hell" in the DK Rap), but that's the only exception. Actually, "Hell" isn't too bad, since The Underwhere is modelled after it. But again, only when necessary, if ever. Booster

Boosty, it should never be necessary.HK-47 (talk)
I agree, but what should we do in the rare case where it's actually appropriate (DK Rap)? Booster
Heck, I dunno. Use that word there. Heck.HK-47 (talk)

There's no word censor in MediaWiki. I'm not sure if there is an extension for one. Wayoshi (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

This would be a personal challenge for users, and the entire community would need to make a conscious effort on each and everyone's own part. Plug-ins don't solve everything, and really shouldn't.HK-47 (talk)
Take that back. Wayoshi (talk) 14:36, 3 June 2007 (EDT)
Lol. No. :P HK-47 (talk)
This isn't a laughing matter. You're criticizing the reliability of an extension, a piece of coding. Wayoshi (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2007 (EDT)
If coding is so powerful, why can't it do all the work? I wasn't insulting it or its reliability. Just citing the fact that they can't do EVERYTHING, and probably shouldn't.HK-47 (talk)
WF99, please take away the offensive comment. The second is traditionally considered vulgar and unnacceptable in modern society.HK-47 (talk)
But we can't say that the rap's line was "He's one heck of a guy!" That would be a lie. Something like writing "scared the h*** out of him" shouldn't be permitted of course, but as a referrence to the location, I think that's fine. However, before using it, we should consider comparisons to the Netherworld, which is a place in the Marioverse (see Shadow Queen). --Stumpers
HK, why is it traditionally considered vulgar? It means the same thing as "idiot", which is not traditionally considered vulgar. Who decided that it is unacceptable? Some guy somewhere? As I said, I don't cuss, but I don't see anything wrong with it, and I don't allow my activities to fringe upon the decisions of some guy somewhere.Waluigi Freak 99 13:08, 4 June 2007 (EDT)
I absoulutely understand where you are coming from Mr. Freak (Can I call you that?). All I'm saying is that in today's society, idiot is considered a milder version.HK-47 (talk)
The thing is, neither word belongs on the writing portion of this Wiki except in quotes from characters, people, etc. However, if you guys wanted to use it on your talk pages (not to each other, I would hope) I don't know why we would have a problem. Perhaps what we need is a note on the main page that warns users about the content on user talk pages? I mean... if the word idiot offends people... it's not like I think the user pages should turn into full blown R-rated content. Stumpers (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

Oh, what the hell? I'm sorry, but this is the stupidest thing I've seen you people argue about. If a curse word is needed as part of a quote/script/site name/game name/whatever, so be it. This is an encyclopedia, not My First Dictionary First Grade Edition. Actually, that would be better. Most of those dictionaries list curses too. Only a few instances of blatant profanity being a problem can be sited. Don't make a problem out of nothing. -- Chris 23:48, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

I think we're talking about user fairness, especially in chat. Any Mario quotes with profanity, if it ever comes up, will be shown in full here, or nearly in full, here. If this is accepted, when I create the policy I'll mention that is applies to the community, not the encyclopedia aspect. Wayoshi (talk) 23:41, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Ummmm...... EVERYONE curses, me, you, and ... well..... a greayt proportion of all humanity. Personal Attacks are already banned, I don't see the need of banning the occasional vulgar phrase. And what, may I ask, describes a "curse word"? Is there a specific requirment? I think this is dumb.... - Ultimatetoad

We want this site to appear professional. How about we just not use these (censored for the sake of kids but you know what they are): fu**, co**, sh**, bi***, as*, cu**, fa*, ect. There should already be rules against racist slurs and insults against groups of certain people, re***d, ni**a, ch**k, ect. If it's used in certain context like location or not as an insult, it can be acceptable, queer, hell, gay, ect.
As for the childish ones like dork, idiot, loser, I would be surprised if any of you actually use those in insults.
PLUS THIS IS A MARIO SITE. THERE'S NO SWEARING IN ANY OF THE GAMES, CHILDREN COME HERE.
Just use symbols, it's not that hard.
- Yoshi Mastar

The one instance in Donkey Kong and any other "in game instances" will be allowed as exceptions. Elsewise, avoid it as much as possible. This will be said in the policy I'll draw up if the proposal is passed.HK-47 (talk)
FYI DB you have "Im just some idiot that does cra**." Great Gonzo (talk)

It definately should be allowed in the encyclopedia if it ever comes up. If somone is can read they have most likely heard every swear word, and if they havn't they will not be scared for life. They are part of the english language and if there is a purpose for on of them to be used in the database they should not be censored. It not this websites job to babysit children. p.s. asshole and idiot do not mean the same thing in any context. several of you seem ot be confused about this. Threegee

I changed it... Thanks for pointing that out GG! Dry Bones (talk)

No Prob...Great Gonzo (talk)

Alright, there are only two times when I could see it, because there are two "swears" in the whole of the "Marioverse" thing. The first is obviously the DK64 rap, and the second is a NPC in Mario Tennis: Power Tour, who says, "We suck!" referring to a school that lost a championship. That's it. Finito. End of story. Why is this being such an issue? :) Stumpers (talk) 01:23, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

What about the obvious Underwhgere=Hell thing? As Threegee said, it is not our job babysit kids on this site. It should be used when it is needed, and Suck is NOT a cuss word. - Ultimatetoad

Look: THe few times its necessary in an article, sure, fine, go ahead. But the Ban is affecting OUTSIDE of articles.HK-47 (talk)

So why shouldnt we use it when talking among ourselves? If it is appropriate, like saying "Damn it!" when something bad happens, and not doing it excessivly..... - Ultimatetoad

But, even right there, when you said "not doing it excessivly" that's still a sort of ban... I don't know. Maybe we should just put a message on the front page that notes that talk pages are fair game. Oh, and btw, suck isn't a cuss, I know. It is rude, though, and you wouldn't find it on an encyclopedia page ;) Stumpers (talk) 00:30, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

Welcoming Committee

accepted 7-1
I propose a Welcoming Committee that will be run by yours truly. The welcoming comtiee will make sure Every User gets a welcome, welcoming will not be restricted to just Committee members everyone can help. The Committee will also help users with user stuff and mariowiki stuff, a Committee member will have had to be aroud for a while, be able to handle stress, and great knowledge of WikiSyntax. I see how this Committee will do no harm, besides all it will do is help.

Proposer: Great Gonzo (talk)
Deadline: June 24, 2007, 15:00 EDT

Support

  1. Great Gonzo (talk)
  2. Beanbean (talk) Let's help them!
  3. Hk -- Erm... Yeah. Newbies are important. We all go through that stage.
  4. 3dejong (talk) newbies need help. Let's help them!
  5. Wayoshi (talk) – wasn't sure at first, but the continual help afterwards convinced me.
  6. YellowYoshi398 (talk) – Although a lot of the committee goals seem like simple user duties, newbies do indeed need help and a team dedicated to answering their questions seems like a pretty good idea.
  7. Super paper luigi (talk)n00bs are the future of our wiki! with SOS gone we need more users contributing.

Oppose

  1. Plumber (talk) I do not think a committee should be run by one person.

Comments

Bean, you need a better reason than that, and I already said we could help newbies without a committee, Hk. Plumber (talk)

I end up helping everyone, it'd be nice to have some guys that can help too, and if we have an "unofficail Comitee" why not make it offical, this will end up helping the wiki and making it better. Great Gonzo (talk)
Well, I don't think it should be run by anyone. A committee is usually run by everyone. And if everyone can participate, it isn't really a commitee. I would help people if they asked me Plumber (talk)
But they don't, and now they'll ask the people in the Committee. Like the user fairness, it will do no harmGreat Gonzo (talk)
Why do you need to be in charge? Something like this won't benifit from having a ruler. Plumber (talk)
Everyone comes to me anyways >_>, and besides there has to be someone in charge. Great Gonzo (talk)
Why does there need to be someone in charge? I offer people help, they don't accept it usually. Plumber (talk)

So I can add comittee members, cause you don't want a new user showing up and asking someone for help but they don't know what to do. all I'm saying is I want people who know what their doing to be the comitttee. And the leader (Me) make sures that they know what their doing...You don't members who can barely help themselves on it. Great Gonzo (talk)

But you said anyone can be on the commitee. Plumber (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2007 (EDT)
No I believe I said anyone can welcome ;)...Great Gonzo (talk)
PLUMs, when I first got here, I was really confused. Help pages? Didn't know where they are and I still have to request help because there are still so many topics not covered by those pages, but are instead on Wikipedia in "wikispeak". I dunno. Basically, if I had gotton one of those nice templates when I came, it would have helped somewhat. But, yeah. Stumpers (talk) 23:10, 17 June 2007 (EDT)
Oh. Well, I still don't see a reason why the commitee can't vote on new members and needs a leader. Plumber (talk)

Well if this get added, I'd certainly consult the other guys before adding new members...Great Gonzo (talk)

Oop. I was assuming the idea would get fleshed out as it was implimented. Maybe what we should do is have a trial period? Stumpers (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

5 Links

kept 4-6
I propose to remove the Only 5 links in sig rule. It doesn't seem to make any sense.

Proposer: Plumber (talk)
Deadline: June 25, 2007, 17:00 EDT

Support

  1. Plumber (talk) Read my story.
  2. Max2 (talk) Strong Support Wayoshi, just because you only need 5 doesn't mean everyone else only needs 5. I, for example, need 6 really.
  3. HK-47 (talk)--This is a silly rule.
  4. Super paper luigi (talk) come on! i mean you should be able to have more than that!

Oppose

  1. Wayoshi (talk) – User, user talk, and any 3 out of the following: user comic, user story, contribs, email, external link. 5 is a perfect amount.
  2. Great Gonzo (talk)
  3. Gofer
  4. YellowYoshi398 (talk) – Five links is enough, if not too much; any more is just annoying.
  5. Cobold (talk) – It is quite hard to click on the links which are only a single character wide. Pretty pointless if you ask me.
  6. Knife (talk) – sorry guys, but the other users are right, it does get confusing. Sigh, this means I'll have to remove one of me links.

Comments

Most people don't look at all five links so they're useless, and its annoying when i try to respond to someone and I have to llok through all the links. Great Gonzo (talk)

It should be no more than 10, but 5 is too little. I look through the links. Plumber (talk)

And ten is too much. Great Gonzo (talk)
Yeah, 9 seems about right. Plumber (talk)

7 is OK, right?

  • 1 for userpage
  • 1 for talk
  • 3 for subpages (these 3 are wayoshi's plan)
  • 2 links to other pages (these are what most people want/need)

Max2 (talk) That's fair, right?

Maybe 8 to play it safe. Actually, just leave the links alone if you don't want to click them. And just click their userpage one, and go to the talk tab, Gonzo.Plumber (talk)

2 "Other" pages usually = other userpages or articles, which are either banned or useless. Wayoshi (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

again. Just because you think they're useless doesn't mean they are. Max2 (talk)

Yeah. Max's plan seems good, but he left out contribs. Plumber (talk)

Take SLS for example i have to hover over all his links to reply to him, and even his userpage is annoying to find. Great Gonzo (talk)

well, that's a different story. How about at least 6 links? Max2 (talk)

The userpage is almost always the first one. And SLS's one is the first one. Plumber (talk)

Why do you need more than five links anyway, 1 for userpage, 1 for talk, one for contribs(maybe) and then three(or two) for subpages. Great Gonzo (talk)

For Fantendo. Plumber (talk)

What he said. and article links. and about... 2 users actually have 3 or more subpages. Max2 (talk)

why exactly do we need article links? and if only a few users have 3 Subpages then there really is no need to have more than 5. Great Gonzo (talk)

because, it's convinient... and it's helpful... and just because You and washi don't need them doesn't mean we don't. Max2 (talk)

and cause you and pumber need them doesn't mean everyone else does. How is having an article link Helpful? Great Gonzo (talk)

Well, we'll see how many do at the end of the week. Plumber (talk)

I feel very strongly that is a silly rule. Just because one or two people find something useless doesn't mean it is.HK-47 (talk)

alright after looknig over all the sigs Heres the stats: 51 Sigs = Less than 4 links, only 19 = have More or around that number. Great Gonzo (talk)

I think 5 is a perfect number. Userpage, talkpage and subpage, nothing more, nothing less. I hardly see the point in linking wiki articles, I can see why people link them, but geez, why adding even more slot for something tottaly pointless? And that signature check was a godsend for me, when you fear that Plumber send you a message because his sig will lag your computer, you know there's something wrong. Gofer

lol, I'm sorry... I use a pretty good computer. But, I will admit that Banana-Plumber is a little annoying to see 10 times on a talk page... but it is cute. If this is a lag problem I would say that you should be the deciding factor.Stumpers (talk) 00:23, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Writer Guidelines

accepted 7-0

Added by Wayoshi, from Talk:Main Page#Big Eight

Recently, a discussion has arrisen in regards to the future of the Big Eight page. Several users, including myself, see an issue with the amount of fanon in the category. Please view the talk page for individual ideas. Main concerns include the lack of any such category in the Marioverse and the level of favoritism involved in choosing characters. Another idea is that the Big Eight page would do better under the title MarioWiki:Big Eight as it is more of a guide for writers on the Wiki than an actual Mario element. Please post ideas for change or support for the page as is! Thank you! Stumpers (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

If we make this a guideline, we'll have to make the other pages guidelines (i.e. Marioverse).

Proposers: Stumpers (talk) and Knife (talk)
Deadline: June 29, 2007, 20:00 EDT

Keep as Articles

Make them Writer Guidelines

  1. Max2 (talk)
  2. Cobold (talk) - AAAHHH!!! - Seriously, they're better as guidelines.
  3. YellowYoshi398 (talk) – Although I'm not 100% sure about Marioverse, most of these seem like they'd be better off/less fanon-ish as writer guidelines.
  4. Stumpers (talk)While the Marioverse is a little sketchy, the Big Eight and Filler Characters appear to be simply determined by us. This means that it would do better as a MarioWiki category article in my opinion.
  5. Plumber (talk) The Marioverse could be debated, but the Big Eight is definately a guideline.
  6. User:FixitupSigh, this isn't what this article particularly needed yet. Oh well, patience.
  7. Sir Grodus (note: Sir Grodus commented below. Please do not delete this comment! --Stumpers)

Comments

What exactly would it mean to make them writer guidelines? Want to know quick. User:Fixitup

We mean make them helper articles. Remember the importance policy? Didn't have much impact on which articles you could write for, right? This would be the same way. Stumpers (talk) 19:02, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

I fail to see how making an article like this a guideline will fix anything. What we need to do is decide who should really be a part of the big eight or decide to take down the article! I see no improvement right now and find it unfair. Am I understanding this correctly? User:Fixitup

Making it a guideline removes the implication that it is an official concept. However, it is not. By making it a guideline, we are left with a list of major articles on dynamic subjects that are frequently accessed to constantly update when needed. Stumpers (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

Ok that makes that better, but I still don't see how this solves who should be a part of the big eight and who shouldn't. This just doesn't provide me the options I was hoping for. User:Fixitup

Sorry to step in, but if you oppose, you should vote, not just comment.Knife (talk) 22:22, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, the problem is I'm not sure how to resolve the selection thing.  :( Oh, well. Baby steps I guess. Stumpers (talk) 01:13, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Um..well if you were reading carefully I ended up supporting making it a guideline I'm just upset that the only thing being done is that so whatever, time to vote. User:Fixitup

They're basicly fan conceptions, same with Filler Characters. -- Sir Grodus

Maintenance Committee

accepted 5-0
I propose a Maintenance Committee that will be run by democracy. The committee will ensure that Orphaned pages will be linked, unused files will be tagged for deletion or used, unlabeled PIs will be deleted, and other maintenance work will be done. Anyone who is up for it can join the committee.

Proposer: Plumber (talk)
Deadline: June 30, 2007, 15:00 EDT

Support

  1. Plumber (talk) C'mon! Let's do dirty chores that no one else wants to do! Hmmm, is that discouraging?
  2. Xzelion (talk) This is a good idea, and it won't hurt
  3. Knife (talk) – it hurts.... me?
  4. HK-47 (talk) I ended up doing some the other. I love the name PLUMs made for it too.
  5. MarioBros777 (talk) I think this is a great idea it gives people a chance, should have joined earlier GO DEMOCRACY!!!!

Oppose

Comments

I'm putting all new committees on the Wiki Maintenance page (to expand it). I might rename this the Technical Committee. Wayoshi (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

FAs Beback

accepted 4-0
I propose that the FAs, old rating system, old FAs, old FA noms, all of that, be undeleted and restored. The PAIR extension may take a year or more to update, and this way is simpler.

Proposer: Knife (talk) and Plumber (talk)
Deadline: July 3, 2007, 20:00 EDT

Start Using Them Already

  1. Knife (talk) I'm a little impatient so let's go!
  2. Pokemon DP (talk) I want to see them soon, so let's start them up now
  3. Plumber (talk) This will bring back the old FAs and noms, also, just to let you guys know. - see below.
  4. Cobold (talk) 04:31, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

Wait Until The Extension For PAIR Comes Out

Comments

I already started a poll here, so I pushed back the deadline and transferred votes. Hope you don't mind.Knife (talk) 02:25, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

Well, it's a big of a problem with the voting system that everyone votes for his favourite articles, not for the best ones. But one year? That's just too much. - Cobold (talk) 04:31, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

Userbox System

declined 1-4
I propose we split the userboxes up into subpages and have a new page. Before adding a new userbox the user puts the userbox on the "Userbox Voting" page, then e vote if it should be kept or not added in. This will cut off not so great userboxes and crashing my CP when trying to add new ones XP. Also another reason for this is people are flying sloppy userboxes in to prevent the picture from being their PIs, thus filling the page will odd userboxes.

Proposer: Xzelion (talk)
Deadline: July 20, 2007, 17:00 EDT

Support

  1. Xzelion (talk) Of course 8D

Oppose

  1. Plumber (talk) I think it will be too messy split up. And userboxes can be about anything, so a vote would be a bit odd.
  2. HK-47 (talk)-per PLUMs
  3. Wayoshi (talk) – what is this? Having to approve and/or restrict userboxes – which is supposed to express the user and help get their userpage going with info about themselves relating to Mario – feels like we're unwelcoming users right from the start.
  4. Stumpers (talk) Very true. It's complex enough as it is. If there's an issue with people expanding their personal image count through userboxes, it should be brought up with a proposal for images used in userboxes to only be very small, so that they would only be useful in said boxes. Whoa... can you say run-on?

Comments

Well I'll keep it clean and voting wouldn't be odd...Xzelion (talk)

Could you explain the new system a little more? It's still kind of confusing... Stumpers (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
It'd work like proposals pretty much, also userboxes can't be about anything. Also i got the idea from wookiepedia [1][2]Xzelion (talk)

Monobook Reskin

rejected 3-7
This may sound VERY insane to all of you, but I would like the wiki reskinned to black? This is not because it looks slicker (though I think it does :P ), it is because it saves power. Just use www.blackle.com as an example (Currently 112,468.241 Watt hours saved). If this is accepted, anyone who likes the white can just ask me to make the wiki look how it used to again.

Proposer: Plumber (talk) and HK-47 (talk)
Deadline: July 31, 2007, 17:00 EDT

Support

  1. Plumber (talk) 23:49, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
  2. HK-47 (talk) I was with PLUMs while he decided to make this a proposal, and I would like to reiterate the environmentally friendliness of MY OWN skin. Check it out, it looks slick, too.
  3. Beanbean (talk) Saves energy.

Oppose

  1. Wayoshi (talk) – Our default skin is a fair one that works for our plentiful guests. If you are concerned with energy, do you part by making your skin dark. We're not changing the appearance of what's now a high-frequency site for activists. Secondly, this shouldn't be a proposal, this is Steve's decision.
  2. Xzelion (talk)-What Wayoshi said.
  3. Cobold (talk) - In my opinion, a black page looks unusual especially in the MediaWiki software, and might more scare away new visitors than attracting them. You can still, like the others said, use your own monobook skin.
  4. Max2 (talk) It could scare away young and new users, it looks freaky, and you have to ask Steve anyway.
  5. YellowYoshi398 (talk) – Black and other dark colors don't seem to fit the theme of a Mario wiki well. Like everyone else said, you can change your own monobooks if you want.
  6. isyou (talk) - It would hurt eyes, and it would also be (As Max2 said,) scary for the children.
  7. Paper Luigi DS (talk) its too dark, have you seen boo mansion? it make mario look evil.

Comments

You can change the text color you know. Plumber (talk)

We'd have light blue text, it looks nice.HK-47 (talk)

Should we perhaps take it up with Porplemontage? He did create the default monobook and you can't do anything without his permission regardless of whether this proposal is won. Ask him first.Knife (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

And slick or nice in whos opinion, most users aren't fans of dark colors. If you wanna save energy you should probably change your monobooks. Xzelion (talk)
And most users aren't fans of dark colors isn't an opinion? I just wanna save more energy than I already am. Plumber (talk) 11:19, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
Tch. I'll just make a note on the main page for all environmentally concerned users. And stop telling us to change our own, mine is ALREADY more friendly to the environment than you can imagine. The Blued doesn't look creepy, it looks very nice, I use it everyday. Xzelion shouldn't have a say in this, considering the MWUserpedia incident...HK-47 (talk)

Don't do it. Hk, it's dark and creepy. I'm not trying to insult, but make your own Emo monobook, don't change bright colors most of us enjoy. Max2 (talk) Either way, Steve will say no.

Take back that Emo comment if you know what's good for you.HK-47 (talk)

All I'm saying is, go be dark and creepy somewhere else. There are a lot of people here who hate black. Max2 (talk) More than you 3 who like it.

Max2, this has NOTHING to do with black or how it's cool. It's about the fact that it consume less power. Gofer

It'll consume less power because NO BODY WILL JOIN WHEN THEY THINK WERE ALL GOTHS OR SOMETHING. And then we'd have to change the logo, which teve would like never say yes to, I've heard. Max2 (talk)

The power play is that black costs less energy to power up.HK-47 (talk)

and then there would be a huge decrease in new guests. Face it, Mario is for kids. Kids like bright. Not dark. Max2 (talk)

If it costs less energy to run, that means it also costs less MONEY....HK-47 (talk)

but at the cost of less users. Max2 (talk) Don't we want more users?

Isn't Steve on a frugal streak as of now? I mean, look at the ads!HK-47 (talk)

Why is black instantly associated with evil, creepy, Goth, and Emo? That's actually a bad stereotype, you guys. Jeez. Because something is dark, that doesn't mean its diseased or something.HK-47 (talk)

It doesn't cost me anything more or less. The "causing less energy to run" argument takes place on the user's side because their monitor will use less energy to display the site. --Porplemontage (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

That's how i thought it would work. Too bad for me!HK-47 (talk)

why can't you think of like blue or something? Paper Luigi DS (talk)

Splitting the Jump page

accepted 6-0
The Jump page has many officially named jumps with enough content for an article on the page. Should they all be split?

Proposer: Cobold (talk) (started by Plumber (talk))
Due Date: Thursday, August 2, 2007, 17:00 EDT

Support Split

  1. Cobold (talk) - The Super Mario Wiki has its own section for special moves, so it is pointless to put masses of them on the same page.
  2. Plumber (talk) They all have sufficent content.
  3. Xzelion (talk) theres enough info for them to merit there own articles.
  4. YellowYoshi398 (talk) – Most of the jumps seem worthy of articles and have enough information.
  5. Knife (talk) they do have enough content, thank me for that :). I propose we at least keep a short list of Jump related moves however.
  6. Max2 (talk) Read Plumber's comment below (the first one)

Oppose Split

Comments

We'll just use {{main}} Plumber (talk) 14:45, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Merging Paper Mario (Chapters) with Paper Mario

merge 5-0
The PMTTYD chapters article was merged with the game's article, so should we merge these articles for consistency as well?

Proposer: Knife (talk) (started by Plumber (talk))
Due Date: Thursday, August 2, 2007, 17:00 EDT

Support Merge

  1. Knife (talk) – we did this for PMTTYD, so what makes Paper Mario's chapters any more special enough to remain separate?
  2. Plumber (talk) same as Knife
  3. Cobold (talk) - The storyline is the main part of a game. It's unreasonable to split exactly that from the article.
  4. Max2 (talk) I agree with Knife.
  5. Beanbean (talk) I agree with Max and Knife.

Oppose Merge

Comments

You are offering Support Split and Oppose Merge. That's not fair. :P - Cobold (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Hmm, what a weird mistake I made.Knife (talk) 15:02, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Merging Macho Grubba

keep seperate 2-5
We have a separate articles for many forms, but should Macho Grubba get to keep his article? We have articles on simple forms like Fire Mario or Cape Mario, but we do not have articles on Mr. L and Rookie (Bowser's alternate alias in MLSS). Does Macho Grubba deserve the same fate?

Proposer: Knife (talk)
Due Date: Thursday, August 2, 2007, 17:00 EDT

Support Merge

  1. Knife (talk) – Macho Grubba is only a form encountered in a boss battle once. I'd say Mr. L deserves an article more Macho Grubba since he antagonized Mario's crew almost half of the game (though I'm not saying we should split Mr. L either).
  2. Xzelion (talk) - What Knife said.

Oppose Merge

  1. Max2 (talk) Macho Grubba is a boss with a unique moveset, as well as being a tranformation of Grubba.
  2. Plumber (talk) We can't be inconsistent. Rookie and Mr. L are merged because they have no different powers from their normal forms. But Macho Grubba has different powers than Grubba, warranting an article. Plus, we must be consistent, as you don't see Fire Mario merged with Mario, do you?
  3. isyou (talk)Macho Grubba is a boss, and also progres's the story line. Macho Grubba should deserve his own article.
  4. Pokemon DP (talk) He is a seperate form. If you merge this with Grubba, then just merge Sheik with Zelda, or Zero Suit Samus with Samus.
  5. Paper Luigi DS (talk) as fire mario has its own, macho needs its own, fire mario is a level up, while rookie is just a different identity.

Comments

Merging Conjectural Minor NPC articles

merge 2-1
Do each of the conjecturally named Minor NPCs deserve an article? Are the NPCs in the Paper Mario series more special than other NPCs in the other RPGs just cause they have tattles? You decide.

Proposer: Knife (talk)
Due Date: Thursday, August 2, 2007, 17:00 EDT

Support Merge

  1. Gofer Having article on Unnamed, unimportant character is rediculous.
  2. Pokemon DP (talk) Merge them into one page. It is pointless to have articles with such low information.

Oppose Merge

  1. Max2 (talk) It was already decided, Knifey Needle.

Comments

Wasn't this decided long ago? Plumber (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Merging Luigispaperpartners template with Partners template

keep separate 0-4
Are Luigi's NPC Partners in PM2 considered important enough to be added with the playable partners of Mario's Partners?

Proposer: Knife (talk)
Due Date: Thursday, August 2, 2007, 17:00 EDT

Support Merge

Oppose Merge

  1. Knife (talk) this doesn't make much sense since they are more like NPC than partners and have never helped Mario.
  2. Plumber (talk) Even the person who put the template on (me) agrees with Knife.
  3. Cobold (talk) What Knife said.
  4. YellowYoshi398 (talk) – Like Knife said, these are only partners in the loosest sense. They don't fit in with the partners on {{partners}}.

Comments

Merging Piranha Plant in the Generator with Goop Generator

keep separate 0-3
Essentially, the Piranha Plant in Generator is part of the Goop Generator, so does that mean they have to be on the same article?

Proposer: Knife (talk) (started by Stumpers (talk))
Due Date: Thursday, August 2, 2007, 17:00 EDT

Support Merge

Oppose Merge

  1. Max2 (talk) They are only inside the generator. If we kept that tradition, we might as well merge everything into the Earth article, which would be merged into Outer Space, which would be merged into the Marioverse.
  2. Plumber (talk) It is not the Generator, it lives in the Generator. Should Earth be merged with everything?
  3. Cobold (talk) - Species do have a high ranking. Objects like the generator do not. If anything, Goop Generator should me merged with Piranha Plant in the Generator. But I doubt it's necessary.

Comments

Species do have a high ranking. Objects like the generator do not. If anything, Goop Generator should me merged with Piranha Plant in the Generator. But I doubt it's necessary.

Why did the above vote by me get removed? What's wrong with it? I have a reason. Please explain yourself. - Cobold (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Mario is a part of the Mario Bros, shall I merge them? And shall we merge the Koopalings into Koopaling? Max2 (talk)

Ummm... sure? I didn't even vote and I'm being attacked...Knife (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

You're the one that proposed it. Max2 (talk) not me.

He didn't propose it, he just moved it. There was an ongoing discussion on the talk pages of the related articles. Also, you cannot compare things like that. - Cobold (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Proposing it doesn't mean I support... sheesh.Knife (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Sorry. And, the plant is part of the generator. Not THE generator. Max2 (talk)

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/1&oldid=4236852"