MarioWiki:Proposals

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Image used as a banner for the Proposals page


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}}.

This page observes the No-Signature Policy.

How To

  1. If anyone has an idea about improving the wiki or managing its community, but feels 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.
  2. The voting period begins 24 hours after the proposal is posted (rounding up or down to the next or previous full hour, respectively, is allowed). The proposer is allowed to support their proposal immediately, but all other users may only edit the Comments section during that initial 24 hours. Each proposal ends at the end of the day one week after voting start. (All times GMT).
    • For example, if a proposal is added on Monday night at 22:22 GMT, the voting starts at 22:22, 22:00 or 23:00 on Tuesday and the deadline is the night of the Tuesday of the next week at 23:59 PM.
  3. Every vote should have a reason accompanying it. Agreeing with or seconding a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted.
  4. 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. The voter 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.
  5. All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week.
  6. If a proposal has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail by a margin of three votes. If a proposal reaches the deadline and the total number of votes for each option differ by two or less votes, the deadline will be extended for another week.
  7. 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.
  8. No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
  9. Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation. However, the proposer can request that their proposal be deleted by a sysop at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it.
  10. 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.
  11. There shouldn't be proposals about creating articles on an underrepresented or completely absent subject, unless there is major disagreement about whether the content should be included. To organize efforts about completing articles on missing subjects, try creating a PipeProject.
  12. Proposals cannot be made about sysop promotions and demotions. Sysops can only be promoted and demoted by the will of bureaucrats.
  13. If the sysops 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. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters, and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.

Basic Proposal and Support/Oppose Format

This is an example of what your proposal should 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]".

===[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>
'''Voting start''': [insert a voting start time here, f.e. "January 1, 2010, 14:00". Voting start times are 24 hours after the time at which the proposal was posted, as described in Rule 2 above.]<br>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the voting start, at 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.

How To

  1. All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom). All pages affected must be mentioned in the brief description, with the talk page housing the discussion linked to directly via "(Template:Fakelink)". If the proposal involved a page that is not yet made, use {{fakelink}} to communicate its title. The Deadline must also be included in the entry. 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 heading.
  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. There is no 24 hour delay between the posting of a talk page proposal and the commencement of voting.
  4. Talk page proposals may be closed by the proposer if both the support and the oppose sides each have fewer than five votes.
  5. The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.

List of Talk Page Proposals

For a list of all settled Talk Page Proposals, see here.

New Features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

None at the moment.

Miscellaneous

Merge all of King Koopa's alter egos into one article

On The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! King Koopa has many alter egos. These alter egos are just him in a different costume. The costumes don't give him any extra abilities, they are only seen for one episode, and while wearing the costumes, King Koopa is no different from when he's not wearing the costumes. Thus, I propose to merge the alter-egos of King Koopa that currently have an article (Al Koopone, Captain Koopa, Emperor Augustus Septemberus Octoberus Koopa,Kid Koopa, Koopa Khan, Koopa Klaus (alter ego), Moon Man Koopa, and Robo Koopa (alter ego)) into a single article. I'd prefer merging them to King Koopa's alter egos, but I'll also add a section to merge them to Bowser.

Proposer: Reversinator (talk)
Voting start: March 20, 2011, 15:50
Deadline: March 27, 2011, 23:59 GMT

Merge to King Koopa's alter egos

  1. Reversinator (talk) Per my proposal.
  2. Walkazo (talk) - Per Reversinator.
  3. Bloc Partier (talk) - Per above.
  4. Reddragon19k (talk) - Per all!
  5. SWFlash (talk) Per Bloc Partier.
  6. Bop1996 (talk) Per all.
  7. Mariomario64 (talk) If they give no special powers and only appear in one episode, then why have separate articles in the first place?
  8. New Super Mario (talk) Per Reversinator
  9. M&SG (talk) - Alter egos really don't need their own articles.
  10. DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr. (talk) Per Mariomario64.
  11. Luigi is OSAM (talk) PER ALL
  12. Magikrazy51 (talk) MergemergemergemergemergemergeMERGE! Per all (merge).
  13. Paper Yoshi (talk) - Per Reversinator's comment below (the one after mine).
  14. Geniusguy445 (talk) good idea. per all. Because they were a separate article to begin with. We can do this now, and then allow another proposal if people really want the page to be part of Bowser.
  15. Mpeng (talk) D'accordo
  16. Iggykoopa (talk) per all
  17. TheBreakshift (talk) Per all.
  18. Zero777 (talk) I am Zero! what the heck happen to my original vote Per all. Zero signing out.
  19. DKPetey99 (talk) Per all except M&SG
  20. Lu-igi board (talk) per all

Merge to Bowser

  1. Pokémon Trainer Mario (talk) I honestly think this idea is better. Per a- There's no one above me!
  2. DKPetey99 (talk) Bowser is no different than the alter egos, thus, it should merge to Bowser.
  3. Akfamilyhome (talk) Per all? Yeah... but even better you can just add a link that redirects to the alter ego page.

Leave them split

Comments

I agree. Just as how the Super Strikes and Mega Strikes were merged together, these alter egos should be merged together. DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr. (talk)

How are you planning on merging? Are you going to add a new column to the table, or do something altogether different. Bop1996 (talk)

I was planning on adding a new column and giving a short description of the alter-ego's role. Reversinator (talk)

Before merging King Koopa, I suggest that you merge Robo Koopa to Robo Suit, because I feel that information belongs there rather than being deleted. Also, what are we going to do with the Featured Article status on Robo Koopa if this proposal passes? BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)

The powers of the suit should go there, and like I said before, I'll give a brief summary on King Koopa's alter egos. And if it's merged, there's no point in keeping the FA status. Reversinator (talk)

Although I believe the pages have enough information to stand by themselves, I'll stay open to any opinions before voting, as I never watched The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!. Paper Yoshi (talk)

Most of the info is basically the plot of the episode. Reversinator (talk)
Will this proposal unfeature Robo Koopa? I'm not sure the articles that will be merged will be the same quality. LeftyGreenMario (talk)

While this is going on, how about merging all of the pages on the (sort of borrowing my brother's idea here, please don't add a megabyte of protests to my userpage, again) Super Paper Mario people, and other single-appearance things? Mpeng (talk)

@Mpeng What the heck are you even talking about? King Koopa (Or just Bowser) has nothing to do with Super Paper Mario.UltraMario3000 (talk)
@UltraMario3000 - Didn't say he was. I guess this isn't the time or place. Mpeng (talk)

I think Robo Koopa should keep its own article, and FA status - if it's long enough and good enough, what's the point of merging and losing a great article. Instead, we can just use {{main}}. If we merge it, we're bound to lose some information and that's not good for the Wiki. MrConcreteDonkey (talk)

But that would be inconsistent. Besides, all the information can easily be saved. Robo Koopa (episode) already has a complete record of events, so shortening the alter ego's History into a summary isn't an issue. The Trivia about the RoboCop and Terminator reference can also go into the episode page, and the Powers and Abilities chart can go into Robo Suit (along with the other Trivia point about the "destroy you miserable little meddlers" button). So the only thing we'd be losing is an entry in out list of FAs, but that's a small price to pay for a much more efficient and consistent organization of Koopa's 30+ alter egos. - Walkazo (talk)

Split Category:Donkey Kong Levels into Separate Categories

This is my first proposal. There are many games in the Donkey Kong series. The category, Donkey Kong Levels, there is too much content. It has about 5 different games in one category. I think we should make categories for each game. For example, Category:Donkey Kong Country Levels, etc. It would be easier to find levels and it wouldn't take up 2 pages! We should make one for every game such as Donkey Kong Country 2, DKC3, DK: King of Swing, etc. It just seems easier to navigate levels. We should also delete the original one if we make other categories. I will add a section for making new categories and I will add one for keep the original one as is.

Proposer: DKPetey99 (talk)
Voting start: March 23, 2011 24:00
Deadline: March 31, 2011, 24:00 GMT

Make a New Category

  1. DKPetey99 (talk) - It is my proposal and I think it would help the wiki and other users by making it simple to navigate levels by games.
  2. M&SG (talk) - That sounds like a good idea.
  3. Kaptain K. Rool (talk) - Per M&SG.
  4. SWFlash (talk) Per Kaptain K. Rool.
  5. Reddragon19k (talk) Love it! Per SW and Kaptain K. Rool!
  6. Bowser's luma (talk) Per all.
  7. Akfamilyhome (talk) That'd make it more simple. Per all.
  8. Magikrazy51 (talk) We don't have all the Mario games levels in one category.
  9. DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr. (talk) Per all.
  10. Yoshidude99 (talk) Per Magikrazy51.

Keep Original Category

  1. Walkazo (talk) - Just use the games' navigation templates: they're supposed to have all the levels listed, and generally they'll be arranged by world, which is a much better way to organize the levels than the alphabetical categories. It's better if all games, DK or otherwise, simply have general categories for all their subjects.
  2. Bop1996 (talk) Per Walkazo. I don't see why this is necessary.
  3. Paper Yoshi (talk) - Per Walkazo and Fawfulfury65's comment below (although FF65 hasn't voted yet).
  4. Luigi is OSAM (talk)- Is this really necessary? It's sort of like going to the characters catagory and complaining about how they don't have a catagory for just characters from cirtian games. I mean, if you know your alphabet, it should be pretty easy.
  5. Iggykoopa (talk)- per Walkazo and isnt Donkey Kong technically it's own franchise
  6. Yoshiwaker (talk) - per all.
  7. Reversinator (talk) Per all.
  8. Baby Mario Bloops (talk) - Per Walkazo above and Fawfulfury65 below.
  9. MrConcreteDonkey (talk) - Per all.
  10. Bloc Partier (talk) - Per Walkazo.

Comments

We shouldn't delete the Donkey Kong levels category because it can be useful in finding many DK levels. Also, if we really want to find information about a Donkey Kong Country 2 level or something, why can't we just look in Category:Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest, or the category for any other game? There's also templates that you can use to easily find levels in one of those games. Fawfulfury65 (talk)

MS&G: You know your vote is invalid. You can't simply say, "Good idea" if you want to support. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)

BabyLuigionfire why can't you just because you have nothing new to add doesnt mean it isnt valid other wise like 20 votes from other propsals that say per all Iggykoopa (talk)

If anyone has an idea about improving the wiki or managing its community, but feels 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. Simply saying "Good idea!" is NOT a strong argument. And please don't backsass me like that, it's very rude. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)
@Iggykoopa it doesn't matter that it has its own Franchise, the categories should be made into games DKPetey99 (talk)

Baby luigi on fire the rules state that Every vote should have a reason accompanying it. Agreeing with or seconding a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted.Iggykoopa (talk)

That is still not a strong reason. I suggest the very least was to "per" the user. And leaving a vote blank in the support section is still an agreement, but we still delete it anyway since the reason is not strong enough. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)

Like I, Magikrazy51 (talk) said in the opposing section, "WE DONT HAVE ALL THE MARIO GAMES LEVELS IN ONE CATEGORY!".

@Magikrazy this proposal is to split the enemies catagory of DKC, not the game catagories. Yoshiwaker (talk)
Actually, it's for the levels in the game. Read the proposal, we were both wrong. Magikrazy51 (talk)

@Babyluigionfire how is saying per all not the same as saying good idea #Iggykoopa (talk)

Because saying "per all" is like repeating what the users said. Saying "good idea" is just as good as saying nothing when you support/oppose. However, I sometimes see "per all" votes with severe skepticism. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)

Merge Minor NPCs with their location

There are a lot of articles for minor NPCs in RPGs that are too minor to be their own article. I believe we should merge them with the location where they are, so they can be found easily. Also, many of these articles are stubs anyway, so it would also get rid of some stubs.

Proposer: Yoshiwaker (talk)
Voting start: March 27, 1:00 GMT
Deadline: April 3, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Yoshiwaker (talk) - Per my proposal.

Oppose

  1. Zero777 (talk) Per opposing comments.
  2. Reversinator (talk) Per Zero.
  3. New Super Mario (talk) Per Zero
  4. Edofenrir (talk) - It might get rid of a few stubs, but it would also get rid of some pretty decent articles. I also think the location articles wouldn't really benefit from having those NPCs slapped on them.
  5. Reddragon19k (talk) No way! Per all!
  6. SWFlash (talk) Per Zero.
  7. Iggykoopa (talk) per zero
  8. Magikrazy51 (talk) What's your definition of minor NPC? If it's "a character that has little to nothing to do with the main plot", that would include Culex, Jinx, and etc. I don't want any of these merged! If not, let me know in the comments and I'll change my vote.
  9. Walkazo (talk) - Per all, including the anti-merging stuff being said in the comments.

Comments

I hate the trigger-happy people on this wiki that shout "MERGE!" to all stubs. First of all, at least three hundred articles on this wiki, if not more, are minor characters. That's a lot of articles. Second, while they are minor, they are still characters, and they are officially named, and thus, they deserve an article. Third, how would this be better? I mean, a lot of the minor character articles are actually decently sized, and merging them would require some trimming, thus reducing quality. Fourth, why their location? Considering the amount of minor NPCs in a town, the articles would look cluttered. Reversinator (talk)

Also, small articles are not automatically bad: they might not even be stubs if all the information we could possibly find has been added (stubs are pages lacking info). It makes sense to merge characters who are attached at the hip (it cuts down on repetition and may boost comprehensiveness if all the info is together), and sometimes it is done for the sake of organization and consistency (like King Koopa's alter egos), but none of that is applicable to minor NPCs. - Walkazo (talk)
I agree with you 100%, though I do find it funny that you made a proposal to merge all the minor Mario Golf characters into one article and now you're against merging minor characters. --Reversinator 22:32, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
Really? That must've been a while ago, because I can't remember doing that at all... - Walkazo (talk)
Archive 18. I made a mistake though, you only supported it. You were the only one though, aside from Zero. --Reversinator 22:42, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
Ah, that makes more sense; I was a big supporter of making big lists of stuff back them, but I was pretty sure I hadn't made any proposals about it (the closest I came to one had something to do with Keys, iirc). Anyway, 2009's ancient history now: I'm not nearly as zealous about merging these days (well, depending on the situation, at least). - Walkazo (talk)

@Reversinator: It's not just because they're stubs, but also that they are EXTREMELY minor. Most of them just say a couple of lines and do nothing else. Yoshiwaker (talk)

Walkazo: Didn't you co-write that with SMB? Anyways, to all users, if you see an article marked as a stub and it's off a (as this guy puts it) "minor NPC" then, unless the article has like two sentences or something like that, remove the template. It is the easiest way to get rid of stubs. When I'm bored and looking for something to do, I go to this page and just click random things on the list and get rid of any unnecessary stub templates. Marioguy1 (talk)
Yeah, we were working together on it together, but I didn't think we ever came forward with a proposal, in the end: I got swamped by RL stuff, or something. Anyway, like you said, Stub templates are definitely put on things that aren't stubs all the time and fixing that is a very good thing to do, but I'd like to emphasize that people should look at them on a case-by-case basis (like most things on the wiki, really). One paragraph is probably fine for a lot of NPCs (or whatever), but some "minor" characters could have a lot of random info attached to them, and in those cases, a paragraph might indeed be short-changing the readers, in which case it would be a legitimate stub. Or at least, that's how I look at it. (Also, "minor NPC" has been a term around the wiki for years: this guy didn't come up with it.) - Walkazo (talk)
"working together on it together"? Aaanyways, do you think we could make a list of Minor NPCs? It wouldn't (necessarily) have to be in a mainspace article, but I think I'd like a list telling me what is and what isn't a minor NPC. Marioguy1 (talk)
You mean make a category for Minor NPCs? Bop1996 (talk)

@MG1: I considor "Minor NPC"s to be characters who do not help you in any way and have no relevance to the plot. Yoshiwaker (talk)

@Yoshiwaker: That definition is incredibly vague. What about a character who contributes to a minor side quest only taken upon by completionists, but if you complete that side quest, you can get a hint as to the main plot? That type of character is not uncommon in RPGs, so if I were to support this, I would want to have a clear, concise definition. Bop1996 (talk)

At least my proposal to merge all generic humans into one article had more good reasons then just they're all small/stubs and it will look good. Merging them all into a location article is as random as that TPP that wanted to merge Bozzo with Watchitt and NO it will not make the articles nicer, it will make it look cluttered-up, unorganized, and unprofessional. And plus, WE ARE USERS, NOT AMERICANS, what do we do when we notice a list of related articles are stubs, we either add information to expand it or do something to them (like merging) with very good logic and support, we don't lazily decide let's merge them all because I don't know a thing about about the article or I'm too lazy so I'll do the easiest thing that comes to mind without thinking over it. (P.s. No offense, and this wasn't directed only towards the proposer.) Zero777 (talk)

"working together on it together"... yeaaah, I was really tired when I wrote that last comment: I'm just glad that was the only mistake ^_^; Anyway, in its strictest sense, I'd say a minor NPC is a character who you don't ever need to interact with in order to complete a game, including side-quests. For example, almost everyone in Category:Flip-Flop_Folk is a "minor NPC", with exceptions like Red and Green (Super Paper Mario), Saffron, Old Man Watchitt, Pook, etc. However, this is just a very basic definition: there's probably lots of exceptions, and any single blanket statement probably isn't the way to go about this; a list in MarioWiki namespace might be a more solid approach, but I don't really see any benefits of it: so we'd know they're "minor NPCs", so what? A basic knowledge of the games should tell people whether or not the pages are lacking info or not and should or shouldn't be labeled as Stubs, so a list isn't needed for that (for example); if we were going to delete all the pages and wanted to show people what not to write about, an inventory would make sense, but if the proposal fails, that's obviously not a factor. A category would not be a good idea, since labeling things as "minor NPCs" is a value judgement; that's okay for deciding what we do behind-the-scenes, but that sorta thing shouldn't go into mainspace: it's akin to speculation. - Walkazo (talk)
That was the point I was trying to make. The term "Minor NPCs" is so subjective, there would have to be one concise definition used if we pass this proposal. Bop1996 (talk)
I think my definition was quite concise. I also clarified/changed the proposal to make it easier to show that the main purpose isn't because of them being stubs.Yoshiwaker (talk)
You might want to put your definition right in the proposal itself (so readers don't have to comb through the comments to figure out what exactly will be merged). You should also explain why you think they're too minor for articles: simply saying "There are a lot of articles for minor NPCs in RPGs that are too minor to be their own article[s]." is rather tautological, leaving the "they're stubs" argument as the only thing to go on (the bit about finding things more easily doesn't relate to the "they're too minor for pages" aspect). - Walkazo (talk)
Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=982684"