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. 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. Proposals can not be made about System Operator promotions and demotions. Sysops can only be promoted and demoted by the will of Bureaucrats. The times are in EDT, and are set so that the user is more likely to be online at those times (after work/school, weekend nights). 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 a minute later, the deadline is a day plus 15 hours (Sunday), as opposed to a day minus 4 hours. CURRENTLY: 09:40, 3 June 2024 (EST) New Features None at the moment. Removals None at the moment. Splits & Merges Codec Conversations Ok, as you may have noticed, we have each of Snake's codec conversations three times, in the character's page, in Mei Ling, Otacon or Colonel Roy Campbell's and in the List, so I say we erase the ones in the character and talker's pages (leaving a link to the list, of course) and only leave the List one. Proposer:Tucayo (talk) Deadline: Wednesday, January 13th, 17:00 Support Tucayo (talk) - Per me Master Hand (talk) - Per ^that guy up there^ Stumpers (talk) - This idea was brought up before and received well if memory serves. Per Tucayo. Bloc Partier (talk) - Per all. Dom (talk) - Reducing unnecessary data from the server sounds logical. Per Tucayo. Oppose Shrikeswind (talk) - Opposing on the grounds that, while I find that these codecs should only be on one page, this proposal is all or nothing to the wrong page. Comments So, wait, it's either leave them in all three or only have them on the list? Forgive me for not seeing the logic behind that. From my perspective codec conversations are like a character bio, so should be on the character's page only. So how do I vote? Shrikeswind (talk) If you "Support," you are saying delete the conversation content from the three character pages and only keep the list. If you "Oppose," everything will stay as is, meaning the conversations will be on all three character pages AND the list of conversations page. -- Son of Suns (talk) So, basically, my opinion that, say, Mario's codec conversation should only stay on Mario's page is unrepresented. That's seriously weak. Shrikeswind (talk) Correct. That is not an option. However, if this proposal passes, the Mario conversation content would be deleted from his page. -- Son of Suns (talk) So let me get this straight. In order to keep the codec on Mario on Mario's page, I need to down-vote this, but that also means that I'm voting against an opinion that, aside from the major detail of WHERE the codec goes, I agree with. One question remains unanswered: Where is the logic behind that? Shrikeswind (talk) That's democracy in action. Anyways, depending on the results of this proposal, you can always introduce a new proposal with different options about this subject. -- Son of Suns (talk) Fine, but it's still stupid. :P Shrikeswind (talk) Merge Axem Rangers I propose we merge the individual Axem Ranger articles (e.g. Axem Red, Axem Black, Axem Green) with the main Axem Rangers article. My reasoning being that most of these articles are rather short, and that they include no information that could not added to the main article. So... who's with me? Alright, I suppose I should have gone into a little more (okay, a lot more) detail in this proposal. For one, these articles are a bit repetitive. Besides a section about their personalities and the stat boxes, there's nothing more to add besides what's already in the Axem Rangers article. Sure, they have different personalities, but in that case, you could point out that Kat and Ana, the Koopa Bros., Dribble and Spitz, and even Exor's various part have varying personalities, and yet they all share their articles. Also, these characters aren't even that major, appearing as a boss battle in one game. Proposer: The Gravitator (talk) Deadline: January 13, 2009, 17:00 Merge 'Em The Gravitator (talk) Per my comments above ^ Keep 'Em Seperate Son of Suns (talk) - They are individual characters with different characteristics, special attacks, and battle behaviors. Just because they are short now doesn't mean they couldn't become much larger in the future, perhaps even longer than the Axem Rangers article as it stands right now. Bloc Partier (talk) - Per SoS. Z3r0 Tw0 (talk) This proposal isn't specific enough with details other than length. Just because an a few related articles are short, does not mean that they need to be merged. Now if these articles were basically repetive info, then why not merge them? But the Axem Rangers, as SoS has said, each differ greatly in personality and characteristics that they are worthy of separate articles. Master Hand (talk) - Per SoS Grapes (talk) Per all. One they are all different characters with different persona, different colours, and different appearances okay etc. Like SoS said they're short but in the future, users might expand the page and added more info and other stuff. Stooben Rooben (talk) - Per all. There's no point behind merging perfectly valid articles into one. We'll just have to wait for someone to expand them. Super-Yoshi (talk) Per all, they we're all different, like SoS mentioned. And they won't be very big articles, since they only make one appearance. ToadetteAnime4evur (talk)-Per all. 1337Yoshi (talk) - Per all. The Axem Rangers, like SoS said, differ from one another. And, although you claim the articles are short, they're not. Axem Red is 2000 bytes, and the others are close to 1500. Comments I'm sorry, but even with your revisions, my opinion is still the same. Bloc Partier (talk) Just because the articles are currently repetitive doesn't mean they can't be rewritten to be more original in the future. Just because other articles are merged doesn't mean these articles should be merged. And just because they appear as a boss in one game doesn't make them "minor" subjects. What is a "major" subject is POV. Personally I find these characters to be very important. -- Son of Suns (talk) Changes Revise Article Organization Standard This proposal would slightly revise the previous article organization standard. Instead of organizing appearances in the "History" section of an article based on the "type" of media, this standard would eliminate that criteria and simply list appearances according to the release date of the various series. Part of the problem with the previous standard was while the intent was to eliminate speculation and conform to MarioWiki: Canonicity, it instead reinforced subjective separation of content into unrelated and unhelpful sections. Not all media of the same "type" are actually the same. For example, under the previous standard, appearances in the Nintendo Comics System and Club Nintendo would appear in the same section, although the two comic series are completely unrelated to each other. Additionally, what constitutes a "type" of medium is very subjective. Some articles have sections about "Film Appearances," "TV Appearances," "Cartoon Appearances," "Anime Appearances" or "Appearances in Visual Media." The Super Mario Bros. Super Show may be in the Cartoons section but not the Anime section, but in other articles the anime and the Super Mario Bros. Super Show are all in one section. Furthermore, the Great Mission to Save Princess Peach could be placed in a Film section alongside the Super Mario Bros. movie, but if the article was divided into Anime and Film sections, where would this anime film fall? There is no standard on what constitutes a medium, and the media can be generalized to the point where information not from the games is basically placed in an "Alternative Media" section like it was before the previous proposal. Instead we should organize articles according to the release dates of clearly defined series, sub-series and independent titles, regardless of supposed "media." Series would be arranged by the first appearance of the subject in the series. We would go by the date of the appearance, not the date founding the series (unless, of course, they appeared in the first game of the series). So in the Mario article, the Mario Kart series section would appear after The Super Mario Bros Super Show series section, as Mario's first appearance in the Kart series was after his first appearance in the show. This would allow us to avoid speculative grouping according to media, as well as reduce the number of section and sub-section headers. With this standard, only two section/sub-section headers would be needed. One for the series, and then a sub-section header for individual games (if mentioned - for certain articles we may only want to summarize appearances in an entire series, such as Mario Kart, instead of having a sub-section for every game in the series). Episodes of a television or comic series would be organized as sub-sections of the series section, as if they were a game in a video game series (again, if mentioned). Completely independent titles not part of an established series or sub-franchise, such as Luigi's Mansion, the Super Mario Bros. movie, and Super Princess Peach, would be placed as regular section headers (akin to a series section), instead of being placed in an "other titles section" (which is not very helpful, as the games are not related in the slightest). With a standard like this, we could effectively organize articles while keeping section headers to only two degrees. It also keeps content from different series from "leaking" into each other. So you wouldn't go from a Super Show episode to a video game to a Super Show episode to a comic episode to a Super Show episode. All episode or game entries would be placed in their respective series. This proposal would also mandate that the section headers state the name of the series and games, instead of "imaginative" titles describing the events of the game. That way people can easily find info from the source they are looking for, instead of trying to figure out what game the section titles refer to. Furthermore, this proposal would eliminate organizing information in the History section according to the in-universe "chronology," simply because it gets way too confusing and complicated. For example, both Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island and Super Mario Momotaro feature the "birth" of Mario, so they would have to be placed earlier in the article. Instead, I think we should simply organize appearances by release date. Chronological references between different games, sources, etc. can still be made in the article, they just wouldn't be organized according to the complicated fictional chronology. So Yoshi series information may appear later in some articles, although you can say that the events depicted in SMW2 and Yoshi's Island DS occur before the events of most other sources. However, to provide a lead-in to the rest of the History section, as well as summarize chronological events before the actual appearances, we could add a "Background" section to some articles under the History section, but before moving on to the actual appearances. In the Background section, we could summarize events in the "past" or other references about the character to help readers contextualize the rest of the information. So information about Baby Mario, which is simultaneously the same as but different from Mario, would be placed in the Background section of the Mario article. The rest of the article would focus on adult Mario appearances. This could also be used for articles which feature back-stories not actually depicted or interacted with in the game. So the Star Spirits article could feature a Background section explaining they have existed since the beginning of time, and the Shadow Queen article could have a section about her war against the world before being sealed away for a thousand years (leading to the events of the game). Lastly, these guidelines would be added to the MarioWiki: Manual of Style for future reference. Proposer: Son of Suns (talk) Deadline: 17:00 January 13 Support Son of Suns (talk) - Per above. I feel this revision will be easier to follow than the previous standard. Wayoshi (talk) – Release date may be the only certain thing to rely on. :D ToadetteAnime4evur (talk) - Per SoS. Bloc Partier (talk) I feel like this'll make pretty crazy and drastic changes, but it looks OK to me. Per all. Super-Yoshi (talk) - Per all. Ralphfan (talk) - I like how it would put things in chronological order. Anyone else think this is really complicated? Also, per Tucayo's comment below. Dom (talk) - *Finally finishes reading the whole thing* ... Per SoS; it seems more logical to do it this way. White Knight (talk) - Per Wayoshi. Stooben Rooben (talk) - Whoa, this definitely required quite a bit of effort to put together. Either way, per SoS. Walkazo (talk) - Per SoS. Stumpers (talk) - I support for several reasons (1) Showing information in both chronological order and historical order is something that we should have been doing from day one. This standard allows for that to a much greater extent than our old one OR my new one. (2) Organizing by media is, as SoS pointed out, sketchy and more subjective than we'd like. It also doesn't allow for historical presentation, ie showing that Toad appeared in the Super Show after appearing in SMB2 (3) We've seen how my organization standard works (Mama Mario) and SoS did a test edit to see how it would look with the new organization - it looked fine. Oppose Comments Well, I am fine with the current standard, but this may help. I say the games should be organized by release date, but something like a timeline must be created, it just creating a list of the games, without information Tucayo (talk) Miscellaneous None at the moment.