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. All past proposals are archived. A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed using the code {{user|User name}}. Signing with the signature code ~~~(~) is not allowed due to technical issues. 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) Every vote should have a reason accompanying it. At any time a vote may be rejected if at least three active users believe the vote truly has no merit or was cast in bad faith. However, there must be strong reasons supporting the invalidation. "# " 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. Any proposal that has three votes or less at deadline will automatically be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion. All proposals are archived. The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of a sysop, the proposer can ask for that help. The times are in EDT, and are set so that the user is more likely to be online at those times (after school, weekend nights). So for example, if a proposal is added on Saturday night at 11:59 PM EDT, the deadline is the next Saturday night at 8:00 PM. If it is indeed a minute later, the deadline is a day plus 15 hours (Sunday), as opposed to a day minus 4 hours. Also, NO PROPOSALS ABOUT HAVING BANJO AND CONKER ARTICLES -The Management. CURRENTLY: 02:28, 31 May 2024 (EDT) New Features NWFC Chat add to sidebar It's a pain to type "/j mwikionline" all the time when you enter chat. Why not have a seperate thing on the sidebar that says "Wifi Chat" or something which is a direct link to "/j mwikionline"? We could get some more users who dont know the room by name into the room and we can get more wifi competitors! i mean is it just me or are the same users in that room every time we go check? i mean i only go in when someone tells me to go in and i bet alot of people do that too.i feel it should be publicized to our community .Wonder how many users new this room existed before i made this Proposal. Just my point. i mean image average guests coming in and wants to Brawl, Race, or what not? We could get a whole new breed of online social mobility! Any Goers? Proposer: -- WarioLoaf (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2008 (EDT) Deadline: May 17, 2008, 20:00 YAY WarioLoaf (talk) - I'm the one who proposed it , if i said NAY i'd be the wiki idiot wouldn't i be? Knife (talk) 12:02, 11 May 2008 (EDT) - Maybe not on the sidebar, but I do consider it the most important sub-chat of #mariowiki. Of course, its not as important as the main channel, but there should be a link to it in the intro message of the chat saying "please do not organize online matches here, do so in #mwikionline", or something like that. Master Crash (talk) - I for one didn't even know this place existed! Makes me wonder what else i didn't know :o NAY Wayoshi (talk) – no no no. #mwikionline is a sub-chatroom of #mariowiki, not equally separate from it. It's easy enough to tell users what to do to get there from #mariowiki. Purple Yoshi (talk) - Per Wayo. It would be really annoying for people who didn't want to go on the chat. If you want more people there, ask them to come. Per Purple Yoshi. For people like me who don't go on the chat, that would jus be extremely annoying. Toadette 4evur (talk) Stooben Rooben (talk) Per all. It just seems like it would be kind of annoying. Super-Yoshi (talk) - Come on , dont be THAT lazy. It takes like 2 seconds. Pokemon DP (talk) - Yeah... Uh, WarioLoaf, you must be REALLY lazy to make a Proposal asking to make something that takes, like, 2 seconds easier for you. XD Per all. Comments I have redirected Mario Wiki Chat to the chat room so you can just type that into the search bar, easier and simpler (if i wasnt aloud to do this just let me know...:/) ~~theused (talk) Badges I was looking at "Unused Badges" and I found alot of "Unknowns" and what not. So I was asking, if that info is not filled in, why is it part of the page? I also looked at the little green badge with a sun in the middle of it, and someone wrote down " It's possible to make the sun in Flower Fields shine more with this badge" or something along the lines of it. But there are no sources for that line. So if we dont have any information or any sources and other stuff like that, why not make a seperate new section for it? It would go well and when we find the information we an merge it in the Unused Badge's page again, so it will look more neater and proffesional. I propose that we should make a new page for these unknown badges, and when information is found, put them in the unused badges again. EDIT: I am trying to say that the "Unused Badges" page is too informal, it needs some fixing up to do. So for now, why dont we put the Incomplete page template or either make a new page for the badges that have no info on them. Now anyone see what Im sayin? Anyone with me? Proposer: Super-Yoshi (talk) Deadline: May 19, 2008, 17:00 Make New Page Super-Yoshi (talk) I am the proposer, so I say yes Don't Make New Page Stumpers (talk) This proposal could use examples and specific references. It is far to general and confusing to me right know. Page and section were used interchangably above, for example. Please clarify and repost. Stooben Rooben (talk) Per Stumpers. This proposal is too vague for my liking. Cobold (talk) - Any unused sprites should be at the Beta Elements page. Unless we're planning to split that, I don't see a need for an Unused Badges page. InfectedShroom (talk) Per Stoobs. Plus, why would we need a new page? We already have a seperate section for them. :S Comments It seems to me like you want to remove the parts of the article that are incomplete. that defeats the point of the Wiki, which is for people to both consume information and add what isn't there. You'd be hiding the incomplete information from users who might be able to make it complete. Stumpers (talk) 23:33, 13 May 2008 (EDT) Create Smash Bros costumes page I was just thinking about how we could have a page where users could look at the costumes and see descriptions of their appearance. How this could be done, you ask? A contributer(s) with an SD card could take small resolution pics of each costume and fit them into one image. Since each character has a unique set of costumes, with some even resembling other characters, I thought this would be a good idea. The table would look something like this: Mario (insert pic of all costumes) Costume 1: Mario's basic outfit. Costume 2: Fire Mario. Costume 3: Mario's normal outfit with red and blue switched. Costume 4: Wario's color scheme. Costume 5: Brown hat, overalls and gray sleeves. Costume 6: Green hat, sleeves and tan overalls. So, opinions? Proposer: huntercrunch (talk) Deadline: May 19, 2008, 10:00 Make New Page huntercrunch (talk) My reasons are given above Don't Make New Page Ninjayoshi (talk)- Per stumpers with his idea on no individual articles, but sections on each character. HyperToad (talk) Per Ninjayoshi Glitchman (talk) This is a bad idea, we already have too much info on the SSB games as it is, a new page for each costume would result to hundreds of pages and, added to the pre-existing SSB pages, thousands. Stooben Rooben (talk) Per Stumpers and Glitchman. Cobold (talk) - Per Stumpers' comment below and per Glitchman. Comments Wouldn't this be better on the Smash Bros. section in each character article? Stumpers (talk) 00:34, 13 May 2008 (EDT) Agreed. Pokemon DP (talk) I'm not suggesting a page for each costume, that's just silly. I'm proposing a SINGLE PAGE. Just to clarify. huntercrunch (talk) Removals None at the moment. Splits & Merges Split Para-Beetle from Parabuzzy I was looking around the wiki one day and I saw that Para-Beetle is a redirect to Parabuzzy. I checked the talk page, and saw that users had said the name was changed. Now, this did not make sense to me, simply because I had not heard from anywhere official that Para-Beetles got a name change. So I say we split the two pages, as they are a separate species. And also... I do not believe that, when split, the two pages will become stubs. This is because once they have all the information possible on their topic, they won't be a stub. Proposer: InfectedShroom (talk) Deadline: Tuesday, May 15, 2008, at 17:00 Split It InfectedShroom (talk) I'm the proposer. :O Stooben Rooben (talk) Per InfectedShroom. Glitchman (talk) Per IS, as long as we're not dealing with stubs here. Walkazo (talk) - If you look at the pictures, Para Beetles don't have legs and Parabuzzies do. Plus, they behave differenty: if you jump on a Beetle it supports you, but if you jump on a Buzzy it's wings fall off. It's not just the name that seperates them, so they should be split. Toadette 4evur (talk) Well, duh. Why shouldn't we split them. Like Walkazo said, they behave to differently, so per her. Toadster_04 (talk) They are separate enemies that do different things as said previously by Walkazo. Stumpers (talk) Different enemies that have spanned multiple games... well the Buzzies have... anyway, definately for splitting them since there's enough info. Upon closer inspection, it turns out that the two are different species and I had never heard of Parabeetle being called Parabuzzy until now. --Pikax (talk) 13:30, 13 May 2008 (EDT) Storm Yoshi (talk)Per the Shroom that is Infected No Split CrystalYoshi (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2008 (EDT) Sorry to disagree with you IS, but I think they are supposed to be same species. Comments It doesn't even have holes that allow legs to come out of the body. Yeah, Walkazo makes the point I was gonna say if I was put in a corner: they are biologically different. Also, remember this proposal and it's outcome? The winning side argued that Sufits are a separate species because of their biological makeup. And, more specifically, that they have legs. InfectedShroom (talk) You're right, but I need one more piece of evidence that they're different, and then I'll take my opposition away. The addition of legs is probably just character development. After all, their names are both supposed to be Para mixed with Buzzy Beetle, so I think that means they're the same. If you have evidence that they're different, tell me. CrystalYoshi (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2008 (EDT) Parabeetles have different-colored shells. They would have different wings, as Buzzies have a bigger sprite than the Beetles(:P). Images: Parabeetle: Parabuzzy: Notice the size difference? The smaller wings would look bad on the Buzzy. Not exactly decisive evidence, but great evidence nonetheless. Also, I'll have more evidence soon. InfectedShroom (talk) Image explains it all. also, look at the image above and its caption. InfectedShroom (talk) But I don't think all of those sprites are real. What are the two small sprites from? I know the red one is from SMB3, but what's the other one from? And the comparison image, I think the red one is just an edited image of the blue one. The red legless one and the blue one with legs never appeared in a game together, I think. CrystalYoshi (talk) Pikax, that example is bad. Kuribo is Goomba's Japanese name. It's the same thing. CrystalYoshi, that sprite isn't doctored from anything. They appear in Mario 3 as 2 different enemies.Toadette 4evur (talk) Parabuzzies are in SMB2? No, the article says they first appeared in SMB3. And I'm also talking about the comparison image: the images in them are from a Paper Mario game, right? But there were no red, legless parabuzzies in that game, only blue ones with legs. CrystalYoshi (talk) You didn't read what I said very well, did you. I said they appeared in Mario 3. Also, IS was just saying a buzzy shell would make a parabeetle look bad. Toadette 4evur (talk) Yes. I created those images. I'm saying that if there were Parabuzzies in SMB3, they would be unable to use the Parabeetle's wings, as their sprite is larger. And the PM sprite was an example that if Parabeetles were in PM, they would look considerably different, as they wouldn't have the bottom half of the shell. InfectedShroom (talk) Sorry, T4E. I read it wrong and thought you said "They appear in Mario 3 and 2 as different enemies. InfectedShroom, what you're saying is that the small Parabuzzy sprite is a SMB3 Buzzy Beetle that you added wings to? And the Paper Mario-ish Parabeetle is a Paper Mario Parabuzzy that you edited? And also, you might have convinced me. CrystalYoshi (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2008 (EDT) More or less. Also, the above image shows what I used to make the PM image. It has all of the part, and I pieced them together. I'm sure you can tell what I mean now. ;) InfectedShroom (talk) Changes None at the moment. Miscellaneous Trouble Center On this wiki, there have been many Not Taken spots in the trouble center. Sometimes, this spot can go for a long time, basically never getting it done. I propose we should make automatic match-ups for troubles. (Meaning, a user posts up a trouble, and one random user gets to do that trouble.) But of course, the user does not have to do it. If he/she refuses another user gets it. If this was done, much more troubles would get completed.What do you think? Proposer: Goldguy (talk) Deadline: May 16, 2008, 20:00 Agree Reason stated above.Goldguy (talk) Oppose Lakitu bros (talk)The User could be inactive.So the trouble could take a very long time to/never get completed. Stumpers (talk) Something inherent to any Wiki is that a user cannot be forced to do anything. So, the chance that the user decided would be one who had it in there ability to fill the trouble and was also willing is very low, even when you cycle through multiple users. You'll need to get a technical mastermind to confirm this, but I believe the only way we could do this would be through a committee of users doing this by hand. Pokemon DP (talk) You can't force Users to do something. It's cruel! I actually think the Trouble Center should be removed... Stooben Rooben (talk) Per all. The trouble center is redundant. 99% of the time, users just ask other users (or Sysops) for help on their talk pages. Time Q (talk): Per Stumpers and DP, forcing users to do things is bad. Besides, I also agree that the Trouble Center should get removed. InfectedShroom (talk) Oh. Now I understand what this proposal is about. :P Per Stoobs. And yeah, the trouble center is no longer used. X_X Glitchman (talk) I don't think the Trouble Center should be removed, it is useful, but per Stumpers and Lakitu Bros. Cobold (talk) - The wiki is and stays voluntary work. Nobody is forced to do anything. Comments Hey, Goldguy: You might want to support your own proposal. ;) Stooben Rooben (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2008 (EDT) Honestly, I agree with DP. This mess has been around long enough. I've had two proposals about this already. I still think they way we did it before the Trouble Center was better. For those who don't remember those days, we just created a challenges page for each user and other users randomly added sets of challenges for the user to complete. We got a lot more done then than we do now. -- Ghost Jam (talk) 02:11, 10 May 2008 (EDT) Yeah. The old way is normally the right way. Pokemon DP (talk) NO!That's not what I meant.Any user can refuse until one user takes it.Goldguy (talk) But do you think any user is really gonna want to do that? Everyone will refuse. Having users get to choose things is the way to go. I don't think I'll vote, though, because I don't really know anything about the trouble center. CrystalYoshi (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2008 (EDT) Mario Kart Wii Karts and Bikes Mario Kart Wii Karts and Bikes have different names in the North American and the PAL versions of the game. Currently, the pages are called like e.g. Sugarscoot (Bon Bon), the first being the NA name and the second the PAL one. I am under the impression that we never used both names in one article name, and it also isn't needed. I think it is enough to simply state the PAL name in the article itself, and leave the NA name in the article title. Proposer: Cobold (talk) Deadline: May 18th, 15:00 Use North American name in the article title only Cobold (talk) - The article names should not be cluttered up, the added note is unnecessary when using redirects. InfectedShroom (talk) Per Cobold. The North American Name is what we use for everything else, so we should not create confusion. Stooben Rooben (talk) Per Cobold. I was going to move those articles to just their NA name, but I didn't know if some new rule had been passed where there had to be 2 names. Time Q (talk): Per Cobold, plus with the PAL name in brackets, it looks as if it was used to distinguish the article from another one with the same name, such as Mario Tennis (N64) and Mario Tennis (GBC)... Princess Grapes Butterfly (talk) Per all. This sound like a great ideas so wikiers can know both Pal and American names. Glitchman (talk) Per all, as long as the European names redirect to the page. Stumpers (talk) For consistency's sake. Plus, if you did that to all the articles, you'd end up with a Wiki full of links to redirect pages rather than articles themselves. EnPeached (talk) - Per all, expecially Glitchman. Master Crash (talk) - Per All Keep as currently Comments I would like to add that having PAL names in the article name only is against the Importance Policy as it is currently. - Cobold (talk) 12:08, 11 May 2008 (EDT) Princess Grapes Butterfly: Er, are you sure you know what the proposal is about? You're voting against keeping both NA and PAL names in the article title. Time Q (talk) 18:48, 11 May 2008 (EDT) ...Lol, I already moved all the pages back, Cobold. XP Pokemon DP (talk) That's the easy way. But it is always helpful to have a proposal backing yourself up. :P - Cobold (talk) 11:46, 14 May 2008 (EDT) Someone changed them back to Sugarscoot (Bon Bon). We REALLY need to enforce what we have decided. There's really a HUGE fight between NTSC and PAL people. What can we do to make sure everything doesn't keep on changing? It seems like NTSC won, but everything's still changing. Any ideas? EnPeached (talk) 15:32, 14 May 2008 (EDT) We wait until the deadline is over. - Cobold (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2008 (EDT) American Spellings This proposal wasn't inspired by the above one or anything, but kind of coincedential, lol. Anyway, I've noticed for a long time now about the inconsistent American and English spellings for certain words in articles. Some examples would include Colour, Favourite, Centre, and some others; although it may not seem important(and it probably isn't all that much). I'm not saying one is better than the other, I'm just saying we should stay consistent. Proposer: Garlic Man (talk) Deadline: May 19th, 15:00 American Spellings Garlic Man (talk) - This wiki was made in America, and is based primarily on Americans. I think we should stay consistent.(As said in the proposal itself) British Spellings Oppose (use either) Storm Yoshi (talk)Its whoever spells it first. Not to an Americans Enjoyment >_> Blitzwing (talk) - Using exclusively American spelling simply because a lot of our contributers are American is complete BS. Nowhere does the rules says that the wiki is American, and that's being disrespectful to editors that comes from other part of the word. Cobold (talk) - There is no need to create any consistency in spellings that are so minor as to whether there is a u in favourite or not. Per Blitzwing. Stooben Rooben (talk) - Per the comments below, but especially per Blitzwing. EnPeached (talk) - There words are somewhat universal. People on both sides understand what they mean. Unless there's paticular confusion, nothing needs to be changed. Per all. Toadette 4evur (talk) Stumpers (talk) - Beggars can't be choosers as they say. If a UK speller wants to contribute, let him/her use his/her favorite spellings. Comments I'm not sure I completely understand; is this just moving articles to their NA name? Or, is it fixing the British spelling to be American? I've been doing the latter since I came here, and if that's what the proposal's about, I don't see its point. It's kind of hard to tell English citizens to spell like Americans; they grow up spelling how they do. Stooben Rooben (talk) Sorry if that sounds blunt. Slightly confusing. I use a spell check, so I don't know what it would pick up differently, but I don't think we really need a proposal for this. ForeverDaisy09 (talk) I have to agree with FD09 here. Stooben Rooben (talk) 11:46, 13 May 2008 (EDT) The oppose should be to turn down the proposal and continue with the old way of dealing with the problem. As it stands, you're asking us to either go with the US or the UK spellings, you don't leave an option for leaving it as it is. Stumpers (talk) 23:35, 13 May 2008 (EDT) That's why I haven't voted. :| Stooben Rooben (talk) 23:37, 13 May 2008 (EDT) I'll just add that, then. :P Stumpers (talk) 23:39, 13 May 2008 (EDT)