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}}.

This page observes the No-Signature Policy.

How To

1. Actions that users feel are appropriate to have community approval first can be added by anyone, but they must have a strong argument.
2. 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)
3. Every vote should have a reason accompanying it.
4. 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.
5. "# " should be added under the last vote of each support/oppose section to show another blank line.
6. All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. There shouldn't be proposals about creating articles on a 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.
13. Proposals can not be made about System Operator promotions and demotions. Sysops can only be promoted and demoted by the will of Bureaucrats.
14. 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.
15. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters, and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.

The times are in EDT (UTC -4:00), 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: 12:29, 11 May 2024 (EDT)

Removals

None at the moment.

Splits & Merges

Split "List of Glitches" into Sub-Articles

This article is almost like what the Beta Elements Article used to be. I think what is best for us is to separate it into sub articles just like what happened to Beta Elements. I consider Glitches to be just as informative as Beta Elements and should have their own sub article on the game. Besides, the list is huge, just like the Beta Elements, and I didn't even know about the glitches before typing "glitch" in the search box.

This is my first proposal, so if I did something wrong, feel free to correct me.

Proposer: BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)
Deadline: 28. November 2009, 20:00

Split Them

1. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk) per me
2. Edofenrir (talk) - Didn't I suggest that at the old Proposal already? Hm... Unfortunately it doesn't seem to have made it into said Proposal... Well then, from scratch. I support this idea because... well, duh, consistency.
3. Dry Paratroopa (talk) - I was about to make this myself, but then I realized that you had already done it. Plus, if we split the second longest page on the wiki, why can't we split the longest?
4. Marioguy1 (talk) - The Beta elements and list of glitches are practically the same - they can both be made into sub-articles. Just promise me that this one will be capitalized (not Beta elements).
5. Walkazo (talk) - Per BabyLuigiOnFire and Edofenrir.
6. LeftyGreenMario (talk) Per Baby Luigi
7. Vini64 (talk) I was going to make a proposal exactly like this one xD
8. Coincollector (talk) Agree with BLOF
9. Baby Mario Bloops (talk) We did this with Beta Elements, and it can out to be a big sucess! This and beta elements have many things in common, and spliting glitches with definitely work out (in my opinion). 100% on this side!!!
10. T.c.w7468 (talk) Per the proposal.
11. Zero777 (talk) I am Zero! Glitches appear more often then beta elements, so yes the list of glitches should be split into sub-articles. Zero signing out.
12. MATEOELBACAN (talk) Per All,they are they are the same imporatant as Beta Elements and Staffs.
13. Mario Galaxy97 (talk) Per All.
14. Mr.C (talk) Per all.

Keep as it is

1. Lu-igi board I enjoy reading through it finding random glitches from random games. it would ruin the experience to have to browse many pages for interesting glitches
2. Egg Yoshi (talk) Per Lu-igi board
3. King Bean (talk) - I agree with Lu-igi board.
4. Fawfulfury65 (talk) Making them into sub-articles will just add more stubs and per Lu-igi board.

Comments

Lu-igi board, I also enjoy reading through the beta elements page without clicking on those many links (and I also HATE the gallery), but sometimes, loading speed is important so I think this proposal is necessary. LeftyGreenMario (talk)

Shouldn't you support then? BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)

BLF, remember rule 11 "The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it." Tucayo (talk)

Yeah, I won't forget. Wait. Does it mean that I might need to split them right now? BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)

If you do, I'll help you. I jst need to know when you start so I'm not missing out/starting too early :p. Dry Paratroopa (talk)

Since the deadline is today, the proposal will pass tonight at 8:00PM EST. You cannot do anything earlier than that. Super Mario Bros. (talk)

Merge Traps and Obstacles pages to super-article

These pages are usually quite small and would be better suited if merged to a super-article. This would allow them to be better located as well as cut down on needless articles covering every minor aspect of the games.

Proposer: Redstar
Deadline: December 1, 2009, 17:00

Support

1. Redstar (talk) Proposer

Oppose

1. Coincollector (talk) - That's really unnecessary. Not ALL traps-and-obstacles articles are one-sentence long. If they had that size would be rapidly deleted cuz Mariowiki doesn't approve that. Second point, if we have short articles - more than one sentence long, sure, we just add they are stubs and soon these pages can receive more information by a good contributor.
2. Time Q (talk): Per Coincollector.
3. Edofenrir (talk) - Per the collector of shiny round metal pieces.
4. Fawfulfury65 (talk) Whoa no way! That would be too big of an article which = more time to load. Gee... that would be an ULTRA article and would be very cluttered too! And per Coincollector.

Comments

I fixed up the coding, remember to use the format ===<proposal=== when making a proposal. Marioguy1 (talk)

Yeah, I'm sure there's a lot of coding I need to learn. I joined up and made some edits over a year ago, so I'm trying to jump into it again now. Thanks for the advice. Redstar 17:35, 24 November 2009 (EST)

Let me get this straight: You want to merge all traps and obstacles articles from everywhere into one single article? - Edofenrir (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2009 (EST)

Yes. Why do we need an article explaining what a "spike" is and how it is bad for the player? This is repeated ad infinitum, ad nauseum with many other articles. A single article saying "Obstacles and traps are (or a separate article for the two mechanics) game mechanics that hinder the player, etc." then a list of the different traps. It's cleaner, more organized, and doesn't seem to be detrimental to anyone unless they like reading one sentence-articles on things that make much more sense in a general page. Redstar 18:07, 24 November 2009 (EST)

Considering how many obstacles there are in the Mario series, wouldn't it take forever for the page to load if we do that? Mario Wiki is slow enough the way it is. :/ ToadetteAnime4evur (talk)

There are currently 135 articles in the Traps and Obstacles category. Each article is as short as a single sentence to only a couple, few-sentence paragraphs. Combining all of them into a single super-article will amount to a page nowhere near as long as one the character pages, which are currently some of the largest on the wiki. With some re-writing and removal of pictures to form more of a general article featuring a list, this will drop to a more manageable page. (It should be noted that a cursory look at the category shows several articles that appear to be enemies, not traps or obstacles. This miscategorization will also cut down the article's size when cleared up) If this is still too long for you or others, I have no qualms with two super-articles, one for "obstacles" and one for "traps". This will cut down the pages even further. Redstar 21:12, 24 November 2009 (EST)

"Coincollector (Talk) - That's really unnecessary. Not ALL traps-and-obstacles articles are one-sentence long. If they had that size would be rapidly deleted cuz Mariowiki doesn't approve that. Second point, if we have short articles - more than one sentence long, sure, we just add they are stubs and soon these pages can receive more information by a good contributor. "

How much information can feasibly be added to an article on spikes? A stub sometimes will remain a stub, since the information related to an article's subject can be limited. While it may be true that not all of the trap and obstacle articles are so short, they are still too short to constitute a true article. It's simply trivial. A general article groups all the information together in a much more appropriate environment. Redstar 21:59, 24 November 2009 (EST)

Despite for being a short article, that doesn't mean it will remain short forever. Anybody can add more info to these articles if they know more of them. Furthermore, we have the pipeproject Unstubify where many users want to remove that (annoying) stub tag to make short articles longer and informative. Coincollector (talk)

Yes, but how much information can be added to an article on a trap. "This game mechanic kills Mario. It kills him by doing this." I'm perfectly willing to expand on these articles, and am currently doing so to many other stub articles, but in the long-run it's simply not something that can be expanded. Get me a book where Miyamoto discusses the artistic direction that went into creating spikes, as well as the aesthetic team that decided where to put it and how many, and the programming niceties involved in putting it there, and so on, and we can expand it. Redstar 22:22, 24 November 2009 (EST)

Sorry, but your latest comment is forcing to go beyond of a topic that I ain't concerned by now. How can I find more info for a single short article since personally I'm busy for other objectives of my life? I don't know but sometime... Coincollector (talk)

I was speaking in generalities. I don't suppose anyone can find that kind of information, and that's my point. I have the time and the interest, but I can't find such information. It simply can't be done. These articles are trivial and would be better suited for a general super-article that covers the general topic. The information will remain the same, but is in a quick-and-easy place for viewing similar game mechanics. Redstar 22:37, 24 November 2009 (EST)

Then if you couldn't find more info, too bad, but even so that doesn't mean the article is and will be stub. I think this proposal something unnecessary just because you think all the obstacles are short, contain the same info (it kills the character and nothing else) and THEY'RE NOT articles - then what they are?. And if you are still thinking so, then think about the one-time appearance characters. Coincollector (talk)

I'm not adverse to some of these articles remaining that have sufficient information. The Fire Shooter and Fire Spitter articles, for example, have some information that serves for an expanded reading-experience (design failure and development throughout the series), but many other articles are simply unnecessary or permanently stubs. Look at this, for example:

"A platform is an obstacle in almost every adventure video game, and the Super Smash Bros. series. In sidescrollers, the player can jump through platforms (and in Smash Bros' case, drop through as well), but in 3D games, the player would need to get on them as if the game were real life. Some platforms cannot be jumped through in sidescrollers (Mario Bros. for example), but most can. "

Really? An article on platforms? I honestly cannot see how that could be expanded into a significant article. This is the kind of thing that simply begs to be grouped. As for your "one-time appearance characters" example, I must say that there are several pages that group characters together that lack insufficient information. Try any of the "List of Implied X" categories. Redstar

Category Split

OK, this proposal is to propose that we split Category:Featured Articles into Category:Featured Articles and Category:Featured Images. I have no idea why featured images are categorized as featured articles but I just have this feeling that they should both get their own individual categories. The only change that would be needed to do this would be a little edit to {{FI}}. This is an easy thing to do and will stop images from being categorized as articles.
Proposer: Marioguy1 (talk)
Deadline: Friday December 4th, 2009 (8:00 EST)

Split

1. Marioguy1 (talk) - Per above.
2. Coincollector (talk) - Agree with Marioguy1. Period.
3. FunkyK38 (talk) - Umm.... yeah. Why are Featured Images counted as Featured Articles? Makes sense. Per Marioguy1.
4. Vini64 (talk) Wow... Per Marioguy1.
5. Edofenrir (talk) - Per Em Gee Won.
6. Fawfulfury65 (talk) Per all.
7. Super Mario Bros. (talk) Huh? Darn, that is my mistake. When I was creating that template, I copied the coding from {{FA}} so that I could have a reference. I forgot to change the category. Anyway, obviously, Images aren't even articles, so this makes sense.

Changes

Different Version Characters

In the Mario film and also in the Mario cartoons, there are versions of characters that are not necessarily the same characters from the character's real media. Such as:

• The princess in the Mario film basically has all of the qualities Peach would have with a few exceptions including her name.
• Same goes with the koopa cousins in the film, neither are actually their corresponding counterparts.
• The infant form of the princess in the film is hardly BABY Daisy in video games.
• The infant forms of Mario, Luigi, Peach, Toad, and Bowser are not the same as the Baby characters from video-games.

This proposal is to make it so that in the case of characters from the film, we create separate articles for the character that explains them for the film but also makes note of the connections to video game characters.

It is also to make it so that just because in some previous media there has been an infant form of a character, does not mean that it is the Baby form of the character from video-games. Infant Princess Daisy from film =/= Baby Daisy from videogames.

If there's any confusion, ask. This proposal was made from ides of numerous users on the comments of previous confusion from the original proposal made by Redstar.

Proposer: FD09
Deadline: 1 December 2009, 17:00

Support

1. FD09 - Per other users suggestions and ideas. above
2. Redstar (talk) - Results in article clean-up by creating more specialized articles. The better organization sounds good to me.
3. Edofenrir (talk) - Per what is proposed there.
4. Toadette 4evur (talk) - Per FD09.
5. Coincollector (talk) I've thought a lot about this and as we have a proven example that supports greatly the issue, I consider that would work.
6. Walkazo (talk) - Per all (including me, since, for the record, I was one of the users who contributed the helpful ideas in the first proposal's comments, which were based on the example Coincollector mentioned). Speculation is bad, so when in doubt, split 'em out.
7. MeritC (talk) - Defininte yes. Split them. The majority "main characters" from videogame installments should have articles all to themselves. This needs to get done, fast.
8. Vini64 (talk) Per all.
9. Arend (talk) Per all. Who says the film King Koopa and the game Bowser are the same person? Respectively, the one is a human and the other a Koopa. The Goomba's are in that film big, broad human-like monsters, while the original Goomba is a tiny living brown mushroom, which is generally weaker than the film Goomba's. And the film Toad is also human, while the game Toad represents his own species with the same name. And so on.
10. Gamefreak75 (talk) Per all.
11. MATEOELBACAN (talk) Per All,Excellent Proposal,I was thinking in that.
12. Zero777 (talk) I am Zero! Yes it's a good idea to split the articles, plus the Bowser article looks out of place with his alternate human version. Zero signing out.
13. Baby Mario Bloops (talk) - Per all!!!

Comments

This is the result I originally had in mind, but failed to voice that proposal in a clear way. Under this new proposal I think special attention can be paid to both the film characters and their video game-counterparts in an equal way, satisfying all parties and make for a much more informative encyclopedia. Redstar 17:39, 24 November 2009 (EST)

Good to hear it. Now don't forget to add some reasoning next to your vote. If you don't explain your vote or say something like per (another username who voted) your vote is liable to be removed by a sysop that deems it incomplete. FD09

I neither support nor oppose. I simply think we shouldn't really consider that film as canon, but anyway, I dont want a canonincity discussion. Tucayo (talk)

When it comes to the Mario series, there's no canon at all. (or if you must have one, it's very loose and filled with lots of parallels and alternates) This proposed change won't in any way cause the film's interpretations of the game to infringe on the articles there already are, but help specialize them into distinct articles that stand more productive on their own. Currently, there's difficulty in knowing where and how to define the film characters to their (speculative) video game counterparts. This side-steps most or all of the issue entirely. Redstar 21:05, 24 November 2009 (EST)

I'm pretty sure Shigeru Miyamoto said there is no Mario canon, but even if he didn't, it's not our place to decide what's true and what isn't. We merely provide as many facts as we can with as little speculation as possible, which is why this proposal is good: in a way, it's wrong to assume things like Koopa's cousin Iggy and Bowser's son Iggy are the same person because of their shared name and status as members of the Koopa family, given how different they are in so many other ways. It's better to state both possibilities: that they're the same, but also that they could be different. - Walkazo (talk)

My comment explicitly said there's no canon and pointed out the speculative nature of assuming which video game character may or may not be a counterpart to the film characters... So are you "correcting" me, or expanding on what I already said? Redstar 22:24, 24 November 2009 (EST)

Expanding on what you said. Canonicity gets so muddled, I've found it's better to be really windy about it right off the bat before confusion and arguments can sprout up. - Walkazo (talk)

FD09: Where do you plan to put the info about the infant characters from the cartoons? Time Q (talk)

Where it belongs. On the episode page, the cartoons page, the characters page. Just where it fits the most. FD09

Do you mean on the pages of the "adult" characters or the respective Baby pages? Grandy02 (talk)

Well I'm pretty sure it was covered that the info would be getting removed from the actual babie's pages so if it fit, the actual adults pages, but of course just because the information exists doesn't make it necessary to put on the character page in the case of a cartoon episode. I believe it would more than likely already be covered on the episode page so..FD09

The issue at hand is that many media counterparts are assumed to be the same character, when this is oftentimes a stretch. While Bowser has often always been Bowser throughout various media, despite his divergant appearance, other characters, such as the film counterparts, are composite of several video-game characters or are completely new and only share a name. This makes it difficult to know where exactly to put the information. New, specialized articles, would resolve this confusion while the main character articles would benefit more easily by having "Spike (enemy) ... Trivia: A character appears in the film sharing the same name, though the two aren't necessarily meant to be the same."

By the same token, some characters are often assumed to be counterparts without confusion, but this leap is based on false logic. The infants of Mario, Luigi, and Daisy (film) aren't the same as the Baby characters because those characters were introduced much later, have distinct personalities, and distinct roles. While a separate article could be made, for example, baby Rugrats and teen Rugrats (since they're distinct characters), the Star Wars wiki doesn't make a separate article for Anakin compared to Darth Vader. It's simply a difference in age, not character. These examples are best suited for the respective media pages. Redstar 20:47, 26 November 2009 (EST)

If I understand what you are saying here (and please correct me if I am wrong) in "The infants of Mario, Luigi, and Daisy (film) aren't the same as the Baby characters because those characters were introduced much later, have distinct personalities, and distinct roles" is that they are not the same because of the time and media of their appearance. Since Mario and Luigi appeared in the movie (and there can obviously be no arguement about that), and their baby forms appear, it is safe to say that they are the same character, no? And what are we going to do about the Super Mario Bros. Super Show! appearances for Baby Mario? Our coverage policy clearly states that there is no distinct seperation of media: Even if these characters appeared in the media before a video game, we still have that content in the article. Super Mario Bros. (talk)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.