MarioWiki:Proposals

Proposals can be new features (such as an extension), removal of a previously added feature that has tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action(s) are done. Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so, not, e.g., "I like this idea!" "Vote" periods last for one week. Any past proposals are archived. A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed with the signature code ~~~(~). How To Actions that users feel are appropriate to have community approval first can be added by anyone, but they must have a strong argument. Users then vote and discuss on the issue during that week. The "deadline" for the proposal is one week from posting at: Monday to Thursday: 17:00 (5pm) Friday and Saturday: 20:00 (8pm) Sunday: 15:00 (3pm) At any time a vote may be rejected if at least three active users believe the vote truly has strong reasons supporting it. Every vote should have a reason accompanying it. "# " should be added under the last vote of each support/oppose section to show another blank line. At the deadline, the validity of each vote and the discussion is reviewed by the community. A sysop or user calls the result of the proposal and takes action(s) as decided if necessary, and archives the proposal. The times are in EDT, and are set so that the user is more likely to be online at those times (after school, weekend nights). So for example, if a proposal is added on Saturday night at 11:59 PM EDT, the deadline is the next Saturday night at 8:00 PM. If it is indeed a minute later, the deadline is a day plus 15 hours (Sunday), as opposed to a day minus 4 hours. CURRENTLY: 17:32, 23 May 2024 (EDT) New Features No current proposals. Removals No current proposals. Changes Super Mario Sunshine "Secret" Areas Pages such as The Shell have been created as pages in their own right. I don't think that they are special enough to be credited in their own right simply because they are "Secret" areas. Besides, you actually need them to finish the game. I'm a little put off by the existence of PipeProject: Levels, however, because they are technically levels. Proposer: Phoenix Rider Deadline: 15:00, 9 September Delete them Phoenix Rider - As above. XzelionETC Per Phoenix Rider Keep them Son of Suns - For now, I am saying keep, because these levels appear to be officially named (The Shell article does not have the conjecture tag). As an officially named sub-area, these should be given their own articles. Also, sub-levels such as the Princess' Secret Slide and the Secret Aquarium from Super Mario 64 have their own articles. Plumber Why would we delete stage articles? They have every right to deserve articles. Walkazo - I don't see why they should be deleted, they're actual levels after all, and the whole point of Super Mario Wiki is to get as much Mario information available to people as possible, including stuff on all the tiny little levels, sub-areas and worlds of the Mario series. Since it takes slightly more effort to get to Secret Areas, it makes sence to give them articles seperate from the main areas they're found in. For now, anyway. Luigibros2as per above Comments Walkazo - The Shell is a place, and while the corresponding mission is calles "The Shell's Secret", it's not actually a "Secret Level", which is what I think all the confusion is about here. And while we're on the subject of Super Mario Sunshine places, I think there should be a category for Super Mario Sunshine Places. That way the sub-areas and the normal areas can be viewed along side each other. Unused Image Deadline Recently, a user uploaded an image at 23:07, 29 August 2007. Said image was marked for deletion as an unused image at 23:13, 29 August 2007, six minutes later. While I believe the tag was placed there in good faith, it was still a case of jumping the gun. A while back, I made a note that an image should be used as soon as it is uploaded and was backed by Wayoshi. Now, however, I feel that I was a bit to hasty. I'm seeing more and more images that are being marked for deletion as unused images very shortly after said images where uploaded. I know from experience (as do a great many of you) that sometimes dropping images into articles doesn't always work out, for various reasons (a bit of wikicode is malformed, said images looks like crap in chosen placement, etc.). For these reasons, I'm thinking we should extend the limit a bit. Lets say one day for personal images and 12 hours for everything else. What say you all? Proposer: Chris Deadline: 17:00, 6 September Allow More Time Wa TC@Y – reasonable time limit, though I feel if a bit of investigation were done to the contribs of the uploader, less issues would come up, as we may discover errors in wikisyntax. Btw, I may be able to list all such images in DPL, not sure Max2 (talk) seems fair. Cobold (talk · contribs) - I argued on this already, it's needed especially when a used image gets removed from a page. We don't know who removed the image, and if everyone agreed to do so. My Bloody Valentine - I Agree with every single word being spoken on this. ~PY -They need more time. Besides, they might find a way to put it in. This has happened to me before. MisterJaffffey G0 Proposals - It should be left more time, he probally was starting to use it, then got sidetracked. Paper Jorge! I give paper cuts so stand back! Half-an-hour is fair. Six minutes is not. Phoenix Rider - It's rather unreasonable to delete an image right away if they see it hasn't been used for a couple hours, for example. I'd say give at least a day. Master Crash what pj said. Delete Right Away Comments Well, seeing as this is now a proposal, I'd like to note that this, as a guideline, would govern people who mark images more than the uploaders. -- Chris 20:35, 30 August 2007 (EDT) Merges and Splits Microgames We've had list of Microgame pages, like WarioWare, Inc.: Mega Microgame$! Introduction Microgames and individual Microgame articles. This proposal is to finally set whether we should go by list of Microgames or make an article for each Microgame. Proposer: Knife Deadline: 20:03, 1 September 2007 (EDT) Go by Lists Knife (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2007 (EDT) Since microgames tend to be 5 seconds long (unlike mini-games), I don't see why we should give each one of them an article. I think we should keep boss microgames though. Master Crash i've played a little micro-games before, and there really short, i go with knife here. ~PY Microgames don't have enough information to make it one article. Phoenix Rider - Per the three above. They're just way too insignificant. Make Articles for Every Single Microgame Full Metal Moogle I think they do deserve an article. Son of Suns - Every single microgame is officially named I believe, and it is my personal wiki philosophy to support an article for any officially named game element. Also, microgames change a lot based on the difficulty. New challenges are added, as well as new characters and backgrounds. One microgame soemtimes feels like three microgames in one with a common objective. There is a lot to be said about each microgame. Mr.Vruet info|talk|chat What Son of Suns said. ~Uniju(T-C-E) They should each get their own article... Plumber I must say that I have shared Mr. Anakin's thoughts on this subject. Max2 (talk) They all have enough info. The problem is no one will ever take the time writing them. RAP... Keep them as full articles. I believe they could be created in a infomative way since I started writing the microgames starting with the first WarioWare game. Here are some examples of microgame articles written by me: Crazy Cars, The Maze That Pays, and Super Wario Bros.. My Bloody Valentine Dude, if you are gonna put them on one big list, put all the Mario Party Mini-Games on one big list. Luigibros2I all ready started to make Micro game articles I don't my work to go to waste. Comments I just want to say that any micro-game article will probably have more information than many of our item articles, especially Paper Mario items (This item can be cooked with this item and another item. This item heals 25 HP. vs. This micro-game was developed by this character. To play the game, the player must do this. On higher difficulty levels, more enemies appear.) Some articles don't have a lot of information, but that does not mean they don't deserve to be articles. Also, I don't think we should split up any current lists of micro-games until the articles are created (and not be created as stubs). -- Son of Suns Everyone seems to think a microgame article would be like this: "(name) is a microgame where you must (whatever)" But they wouldn't. They could have info on all difficulties, levels, a few of them have cheats, and the like. Max2 (talk) Although (most) Microgames do have more to write about than their name and what you do (as Max2 pointed out), they still don't have enough to be full articles. It's a pain to have to go from tiny little article to tiny little article, it would be faster and easier for people to learn about the Microgames if they were all together in one big article instead of 1000s of little ones. And this same mantra should be applied to other stub-esque articles, like Paper Mario items (as cited by Son of Suns), glitches, and many, many more. - Walkazo I believe a "full article" is relative term. To me, I feel anything that is officially named is worthy of an article, regardless of size. Although the article may be small, it shows the world that we feel everything officially recognized by Nintendo should be recognized by us. Everything is important, and everything official deserves an article. Categories and list pages can organize this multitude of articles. If someone wants to read all the Microgame articles, they can go to the Microgame category. Although this takes a few extra clicks of the mouse, this tiny effort is symbolic of the effort Nintendo went through to create the subject. Now I am not going to start any flame wars over this, and I will agree to merges if the community does. But ultimately, the philosophy I just mentioned will be one I will always advocate and hold on to. -- Son of Suns I can respect that. - Walkazo My comment is directed toward Pokemon DP: The difference is that the Mario Party ones are mini-games, whereas the WarioWare ones are micro-games. The ones from the Mario Party series have much more bulk to them and therefore warrant their own articles. Microgames on the other hand, are small and rapid-fire, over in seconds. Not worthy of their own article if you ask me. Phoenix Rider Mini-games from Mario Party and microgames from WarioWare have the same amount of "bulk". The only difference is that mini-games last longer. Both have players repeating the same action over and over - mini-games just make you do the action over a longer period of time. -- Son of Suns Merge Zeus Guy (Snifit) with Zeus Guy (Bandit). Both species were once on the same page, however, Plumber splitted the page in two without asking anyone first. I say the twop page should be merged since the two species have the same name. Proposer Gofer Deadline September 1. Merge Gofer Keep it that way Mr.Vruet info|talk|chat They are different and deserve different arcticles. Plumber They are completely different species. 3D, totally different. I agree. YELLOWYOSHI398 – Per above; they're different species. ~Uniju(T-C-E) They are DIFFERENT... ~PY Yep, they are different enemies. You can't merge them just because they have the same name. Walkazo and PP Different enemies! One is a Bandit, the other is a snifit! Different species for crying out loud, mergeing them because they have the same name is crazy! My Bloody Valentine Keep, they are differant enemies. Although, Plumber should've asked someone before spliting them. Paper Jorge! I give paper cuts so stand back! They're two different species with the same name. Phoenix Rider - Separated like this, it's easy to avoid ambiguity and thus, confusion. Comments If then, I guess we should split the Merlee (aswell as the other shaman) article to the various PM incarnation, they are different. Gofer Gofers got a point, and they are both called zeus guy. but i'm staying neutral. Master Crash That is only assumed, not officially stated. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 14:52, 26 August 2007 (EDT) But then, so is the Zeus Guy thing. They act different, look different, but have the same name. Gofer Split Bowser and Bowser Bones I think Bowser Bones deserves his own article on the Wiki, seperate from Bowser. Now before anyone gives me that "but they da same person omgz" stuff, let me just say that Mario is also the same person as Raccoon Mario, Metal Mario, Superball Mario, and Fire Mario. But then again, they all managed to get their own articles. Oh, and don't tell me that he doesn't deserve an article because he was in one game only. That's Superball Mario's case as well, and, excluding remakes, Raccoon Mario's. Proposer: Dodoman Deadline: Sept. 6, 2007 Split the Articles Dodoman Mr. Guy the Guy Talk!E Per guys whose name are Dodo Max2 (talk) no reason not to, I agree with the claims above completly. Keep them Merged Son of Suns - They shouldn't be merged because Bowser Bones is an unofficial name. The skeletal Bowser is just named Bowser. It's the same character and the info seems more important in the Bowser article itself - I would rather read about Bowser's death and afterlife in the Bowser article than have to go to a entirely different article. Cobold (talk · contribs) - No need for an additional conjectural article. Gofer Per SOS. XzelionETC Per Son of Suns My Bloody Valentine Per Son of Suns. Walkazo - Per SOS. Besides, for all we know Bowser's been a skeleton plenty of times already (NSMB's not the only time he was dumped in lava, after all). His many deaths and afterlife experiences are better placed within his article, not a conjecturaly named one based on only one of those instances. Phoenix RiderPer Son of Suns and Walkazo. ~Uniju(T-C-E) Per all of the above :P. Comments I don't think you can argue that because forms of characters have their own articles, all different forms of characters should have their own articles. I don't think, for example, that we need an article for Mario's paper airplane form from PM2. If you want to argue for Bowser Bones having his own article, you have to point out that he is important enough to warrant it. (I don't know, haven't played the game.) Is the name even official? - Cobold (talk · contribs) 16:42, 30 August 2007 (EDT) Well... he's a boss, that seem notable for me. I don't think he has an official name, I have the official strategy guide, and he's only reffered as "The skeletal version of Bowser." Gofer Anyway, I find kind of funny that we have a proposal for splitting a conjectural minor form, but we don't do the same for the officialy named Super Show alter-Ego that cluter up the article. Gofer As Cobold said, just because some characters have artciles concerning different forms doesn't mean they all have to. I think it should be based on how much can be said abouit the different forms. In the case of Raccoon Mario (for example) you can talk about how Mario becomes a Raccoon and how that enhanses gameplay, as well as out-of-game stuff like how Raccoon Mario is practically the mascot for Super Mario Bros. 3, and how much the Raccoon suit was featured in the TV show based on the game. Meanwhile, for "Bowser Bones" all we can really say is that Bowser falls into the lava, becomes a pile of bones that behaves like a Dry Bones before getting smashed by Mario and dumped into a potion by Junior forming Bowser one again. That's not enough info for a whole article. - Walkazo Miscellaneous None currently