MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Replying to Mario)
m (Ugh... I forgot to sign it!)
Line 66: Line 66:
@Supporters: Thank you so much for the help I'm getting on the proposal! I wasn't expecting this one to get a lot of support. Special thanks to Doc von Schmeltwick, SolemnStormcloud and Koopa con Carne for helping me here. And yes arend, I would totally love a section like that. [[User:TheUndescribableGhost|TheUndescribableGhost]] ([[User talk:TheUndescribableGhost|talk]]) 12:29, December 1, 2023 (EST)
@Supporters: Thank you so much for the help I'm getting on the proposal! I wasn't expecting this one to get a lot of support. Special thanks to Doc von Schmeltwick, SolemnStormcloud and Koopa con Carne for helping me here. And yes arend, I would totally love a section like that. [[User:TheUndescribableGhost|TheUndescribableGhost]] ([[User talk:TheUndescribableGhost|talk]]) 12:29, December 1, 2023 (EST)


@Mario: Thanks for mentioning this as I may have not made it that clear. My intent is to enforce a policy that states that if a incidental character in question doesn't have enough traits to be notable on having a wiki article, they'll be merged elsewhere. Currently, there isn't a policy on this aside from a similar one regarding [[MarioWiki:Minor NPCs|Minor NPCs]] which judging by its description, would pretty much allow instances ''if'' that character has a name. The examples I provided where characters who don't have that many traits as of now to make an article actually useful.
@Mario: Thanks for mentioning this as I may have not made it that clear. My intent is to enforce a policy that states that if a incidental character in question doesn't have enough traits to be notable on having a wiki article, they'll be merged elsewhere. Currently, there isn't a policy on this aside from a similar one regarding [[MarioWiki:Minor NPCs|Minor NPCs]] which judging by its description, would pretty much allow instances ''if'' that character has a name. The examples I provided where characters who don't have that many traits as of now to make an article actually useful. [[User:TheUndescribableGhost|TheUndescribableGhost]] ([[User talk:TheUndescribableGhost|talk]]) 13:34, December 1, 2023 (EST)


==Miscellaneous==
==Miscellaneous==
''None at the moment.''
''None at the moment.''

Revision as of 14:34, December 1, 2023

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page

Current time:
Thursday, May 23rd, 18:12 GMT

Proposals can be new features (such as an extension), the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • "Vote" periods last for one week.
  • Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so (not, e.g., "I like this idea!").
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed using the code {{User|User name}}.

How to

Rules

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

Basic proposal and support/oppose format

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


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

'''Proposer''': {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the proposal was created (14 for writing guidelines and talk page proposals), at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "May 23, 2024, 23:59 GMT"]

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

====Oppose====

====Comments====


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

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

Talk page proposals

All proposals dealing with a single article or a specific group of articles are held on the talk page of one of the articles in question. Proposals dealing with massive amounts of splits, merges or deletions across the wiki should still be held on this page.

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

Rules

  1. All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom) using {{TPPDiscuss}}. Include a brief description of the proposal while also mentioning any pages affected by it, a link to the talk page housing the discussion, and the deadline. If the proposal involves a page that is not yet made, use {{fake link}} to communicate its title in the description. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links. Place {{TPP}} under the section's header, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{SettledTPP}}.
  2. All rules for talk page proposals are the same as mainspace proposals (see the "How to" section above), with the exceptions made by Rules 3 and 4 as follows:
  3. Voting in talk page proposals will be open for two weeks, not one (all times GMT).
    • For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, it ends two weeks later on Monday, August 15, 2011, at 23:59 GMT.
  4. The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.
  5. When a talk page proposal passes, it should be removed from this list and included in the list under the "Unimplemented proposals" section until the proposed changes have been enacted.

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Merge the Wrecking Crew and VS. Wrecking Crew phases into list articles, Axis (ended February 24, 2022)
Do not consider usage of classic recurring themes as references to the game of origin, Swallow (ended March 9, 2022)
Split Mario Kart Tour character variants into list articles, Tails777 (ended May 4, 2022)
Enforce WCAG Level AA standards to mainspace and template content, PanchamBro (ended May 29, 2022)
Change how RPG enemy infoboxes classify role, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 18, 2022)
Trim away detailed special move information for all non-Mario fighters, Koopa con Carne (ended January 30, 2023)
Classify the Just Dance series as a guest appearance, Spectrogram (ended April 27, 2023)
Establish a standard for long course listings in articles for characters/enemies/items/etc., Koopa con Carne (ended June 8, 2023)
Consider filenames as sources and create redirects, Axis (ended August 24, 2023)
Add tabbers to race/battle course articles, GuntherBB (ended November 18, 2023)
Remove elemental creatures categories from various Super Mario RPG enemies, Swallow (ended January 11, 2024)
Standardize the formatting of foreign and explanatory words and phrases in "Names in other languages" tables, Annalisa10 (ended February 7, 2024)
Merge Super Mario Bros. (film) subjects with their game counterparts, JanMisali (ended April 18, 2024)
Remove profiles and certain other content related to the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia from the wiki, Koopa con Carne (ended April 30, 2024)
Trim Mario Kart course galleries of excess Tour stuff, Shadow2 (ended May 18, 2024)
Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
Split the various reissues of Mario Bros., Doc von Schmeltwick (ended April 22, 2022)
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
Expand source priority exception to include regional English differences, LinkTheLefty (ended January 14, 2023)
Add product IDs in game infoboxes, Windy (ended March 18, 2023)
Remove the list of Super Smash Bros. series objects, Axis (ended May 10, 2023)
Split Special Shot into separate articles by game, Technetium (ended September 30, 2023)
Convert the lists of episode appearances for television series characters into categories, Camwoodstock (ended November 22, 2023)
Change the Super Mario 64 DS level section to include more specific character requirements, Altendo (ended December 20, 2023)
Split the Jungle Buddies from Animal Friends, DrippingYellow (ended December 22, 2023)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Merge the ghost Bats and Mice from Luigi's Mansion to their respective organic counterparts from the later games, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 20, 2024)
Split Strobomb from Robomb, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 20, 2024)
Split the NES and SNES releases of Wario's Woods, SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (ended March 27, 2024)
Merge Mii Brawler, Mii Swordfighter, and Mii Gunner to Mii, TheUndescribableGhost (ended March 28, 2024)
Split Mario's Time Machine (Nintendo Entertainment System), or the Super Nintendo Entertainment version along with both console versions of Mario is Missing!, LinkTheLefty (ended April 11, 2024)
Remove non-Super Mario content from Super Smash Bros. series challenges articles, BMfan08 (ended May 3, 2024)
Merge Stompybot 3000 with Colonel Pluck, DrippingYellow (ended May 4, 2024)
Split "Team Dinosaur" from The Dinosaurs, Blinker (ended May 15, 2024)
Rename Moneybags to Moneybag (enemy), Hewer (ended May 20, 2024)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Have stricter policies for one-off generic species characters

Chanterelle in The Super Mario Bros. Movie
We have an article for this one Toad with very little information. Why? Because he has a name. Yep.

What a mouthful of a title, but I don't know what to call this. This proposal concerns the articles Flaky, Jerry, and Chanterelle. I'll add more if users keep bringing in more. The gist is that these are minor characters based on their respective species, which doesn't sound like a bad idea initially. Still, their articles aren't that useful. Flaky is a terrible article that is horribly padded on a minor Flurry and even explains things not relevant to them (I'm not even sure if the character has official pronouns). It also speculates that they appear in certain scenes, which is a bad sign. Jerry's article is three sentences long and could see a merge with the regular Magikoopa article. And Chanterelle is a briefly seen Toad who appears for a few seconds. The justification for these articles is that they are named characters and should get articles unless you're Johnson.

This proposal isn't concerned about merging all these characters at this very moment; that can come in many different proposals. Instead, I suggest a policy to prevent these articles from coming into play here. With this policy, some articles that feature a rather generic representative of a species with very few character traits that would instead get a merge with their species articles or at least in a list. However, their redirects will still have categories so that users can know the different members of their species when browsing them. In a perfect world, Flaky would get a mention in Flurry's article, we put Jerry in Magikoopa, and we would merge Chanterelle with Toad (species). It's worth noting that we have recently been creating history articles so that they can go there instead. An argument users may use is that they are named characters and, therefore, must get articles no matter what. So what I want to tell you is this: How helpful are these articles? Sure, they are pretty interesting one-off characters, but are people dying to see a whole article on them?

Imagine if one Goomba was named Bob in one cutscene and had no other traits in some random Super Mario game. Then, one day, we made an article describing him and mentioning his bare-bones character traits. I don't know about you, but I learned nothing from it. We even merged Koopaphobia, a fictional phobia, with Indiana Joe because he's the kingpin for that phobia, the entire thing is played as a joke, and nothing is getting lost by integrating it with him. Our lord and savior, Pink Donkey Kong Jr., is now merged with who his counterpart was, and not everything was lost through the merge. Cowboy Jed has a son who does not get a separate article, but we mention it in his article. And all three Luigi's Mansion games have lists for each of the named Boos. We aren't missing much by merging these fellas; no offense to them, especially the pink little guy.

Note that we aren't merging these articles right now but rather coming up with a policy that allows us to integrate some generic representatives of a species with their species articles. That way, we don't have to create concise articles that say nothing. After this, we can create proposals to merge certain articles that feature a named character with very little traits that make them unique from their species. It is worth noting that if they do return in a later work and have tons of new character traits, they can finally get their articles. It's the curse that set Ashley and Red free.

EDIT 12/1/23: I have some new clarifications, as well as some new additions as well. Firstly, Tuxie is yet another case of us merging a rather minor character. So there is that for you. Lastly, some new additions people have suggested:

The only one I did not include was Red Shy Guy and that's mainly because of his unique history section. Therefore, I don't think it's that big of a deal. That being said, the name is quite generic, so there's that. I admit I haven't played the RPG games, so there's that. I'm also not putting Izzy on here because he's connected to some event. Sure, his article is pretty short but to claim he's an incidental character is incorrect. At the very most, he could be merged with The Play Nintendo Show and at the very least, he could stay.

Proposer: TheUndescribableGhost (talk)
Deadline: December 7, 2023, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. TheUndescribableGhost (talk) Per proposal
  2. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per proposal.
  3. Sparks (talk) These characters, especially Jerry are just articles of very short information because they are "unique" compared to their species. Per all.
  4. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per all.
  5. Arend (talk) Per all; I've been wondering for a while why Gary from Super Paper Mario gets to stay when he's even less of a character than his unnamed Goomba friend that got merged with the prime Goomba article a while ago, also due to proposal.
  6. Super Game Gear (talk) Per Sparks and others.
  7. Camwoodstock (talk) Per proposal, but especially Arend--why Gary (Super Paper Mario) keeps his article but we have long since merged his unnamed partner that was more substantial than him is beyond us. It just seems kinda silly to have all these full articles for one-off characters with absolutely zero distinctions to them beyond their name, and while there's a few notable exceptions that hold key relevancy to part of a game's plot (such as, say, Bob-omb (Paper Mario: The Origami King), a character where a lot of the point is that he is entirely indistinguishable but trying to be unique through his actions), they are absolutely few and far between and you can count them on basically one hand.
  8. FanOfYoshi (talk) I've adressed Koopa Captain not so long ago, and this proposal pretty much sums it up, so definitely up for it. Per proposed.

Oppose

  1. Mario (talk) Oppose mostly on technicality: there are too vague of provisions on this proposal. This proposal identifies an issue which I agree with. But it doesn't outline a clear method of action to take besides "delete articles of subjects that are too minor to justify a page". I believe deleting one-liner tiny pages of non-notable members clearly meant as a throwaway name to establish a world is already fairly standard wiki practice, but admittedly inefficient (you either hope your talk page comment gets enough replies to swiftly delete or you run a proposal that runs for two weeks that gets a pretty good consensus in like, under 24 hours). Also as this proposal mentions, several of these pages are being dealt with in talk pages more than a few times, such as named Scarescraper ghosts, "Koopaphobia", Pink Donkey Kong Jr., and whatnot. Enacting this proposal due to its vague provisions is going to be a challenge, and while the current examples are obvious, we may run into some articles that might bring up disagreements (Will the minor friendly NPCs in the Paper Mario games be affected? All? A few? Most? One example. People are already bringing up other examples in the comment section that just seems better off on case-by-case discussions) and we already have a bit of a backlog of these kinds of proposals. The proposal ends with "but rather coming up with a policy that allows us to integrate some generic representatives of a species with their species articles." What policy? Can we see a draft of it? Where will it go? I'd like to see what this policy entails in before the proposal is made.

Comments

BIS also has Kuribo, instead of logically redirecting to Goomba. In my opinion, it is hands-down the worst offender of this. Another thing all have in common is being throwaway names in group scenes, so no individual plot importance. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:20, November 30, 2023 (EST)

Would Gary (Super Paper Mario) also fit? His unnamed partner with about as little story relevance was merged into Goomba (now History of Goomba) a while back. We'd barely even have to change the Super Paper Mario entry in question — just replace the link on Gary's name with bold markup. SolemnStormcloud (talk) 15:48, November 30, 2023 (EST)

@TheUndescribableGhost: I guess you could include Socially Awkward Piranha Plant too lol. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 15:53, November 30, 2023 (EST)

Oh my gosh, that one NEEDS to be on BJAODN! The title alone is already hilarious. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 15:58, November 30, 2023 (EST)
The Characters page on BJAODN is getting quite long as-is, so I'm thinking about creating a "Minor/incidental characters" page for BJAODN with every character that ends up getting merged through this proposal as well as Goomba (Super Paper Mario character) and Koopa (Mario Party DS). SolemnStormcloud (talk) 16:06, November 30, 2023 (EST)
Eh, I'd say that one's as valid as Izzy. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:03, November 30, 2023 (EST)
Izzy actually co-hosted an official Nintendo show with a series of episodes, though. Socially Awkward Piranha Plant is just an obscure meme only posted on Nintendo's social media once. I'm for merging Socially Awkward Piranha Plant, but Izzy can stay. Super Game Gear (talk) 16:41, November 30, 2023 (EST)
^I agree with you on merging Socially Awkward Piranha Plant. SolemnStormcloud (talk) 17:40, November 30, 2023 (EST)

Maybe also Johnson (Super Paper Mario) who was only named to be part of a running gag of the series. Bowser Nightwicked Bowser Bowser emblem from Mario Kart 8 15:58, November 30, 2023 (EST)

On that note, the Hammer Bro captain (whose name is conjectural) and Private Koopa could be included as well. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 09:25, December 1, 2023 (EST)

Maybe Sunset Express Shy Guy too? His article is definitely more detailed than the others mentioned, so maybe he won't be affected by this proposal. He doesn't offer much to the story though unlike Bob-omb (Paper Mario: The Origami King), so who knows? link:User:Sparks Sparks (talk) link:User:Sparks December 1, 2023, 09:37 (EDT)

@Supporters: Thank you so much for the help I'm getting on the proposal! I wasn't expecting this one to get a lot of support. Special thanks to Doc von Schmeltwick, SolemnStormcloud and Koopa con Carne for helping me here. And yes arend, I would totally love a section like that. TheUndescribableGhost (talk) 12:29, December 1, 2023 (EST)

@Mario: Thanks for mentioning this as I may have not made it that clear. My intent is to enforce a policy that states that if a incidental character in question doesn't have enough traits to be notable on having a wiki article, they'll be merged elsewhere. Currently, there isn't a policy on this aside from a similar one regarding Minor NPCs which judging by its description, would pretty much allow instances if that character has a name. The examples I provided where characters who don't have that many traits as of now to make an article actually useful. TheUndescribableGhost (talk) 13:34, December 1, 2023 (EST)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.