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: 02:59, 28 May 2024 (EDT)

New Features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Splits & Merges

Merge the Pipe Plaza with The 'Shroom

Okay, first off, I'd like for you to go see this. Doesn't look too well, right? Kind of... Outdated. Which is why I'm suggesting that we merge it with this. You see, my theory is that ever nobody has the time, or just can't/won't update the Pipe Plaza for whatever reason. It shouldn't ever get this outdated, and since it seems to be too much of a hassle, merging it with the 'Shroom could brighten the future of our community portal. You see, my other theory is that because one person doesn't want to update the Pipe Plaza, they feel somebody else will. It seems that mindframe has not worked.

Specifically, we should divide it into a team like Fake News, Fun Stuff, and Music & Artwork. There would be a director who coordinates what information is included, and tells the others when to send their sections in by. The section would be broken down into positions so that everybody knows what to update and the such, without getting confused. Now, to be more specific:

• Notices
  • News – This position would include any community-based, wiki-related events (such as promotions/demotions, a list of proposals that are going on and a list of what passed and failed and a brief description of how it will/would have affected the community, etc.)
  • Maintenance/Pages Seeking Contributors – This section would provide some maintenance tips (such as links to the maintenance pages and suggestions such as removing unnecessary spacing from articles, fixing links that lead to redirects, etc.); links to pages that need contributors or expansion.
  • Featured – Lists the Featured Articles/Images that were featured on the Main Page from one issue to another, as well as any nominations that passed (as well as any Featured Articles were unfeatured).
• Collaborations
  • Main Collaboration – Lists major collaborations that are going on, as well as list the articles that are nominated for Featured status and those that are nominated for unfeaturing.
  • Projects Seeking Contributors – Gives a link to the PipeProjects page and lists any new PipeProjects that need attention.
• Guidelines, help, and resources
  • Links – This position would provide a few links every month that lead to pages such as Help pages, policy pages, and other helpful goodies.
  • Tip of the Month – This person would give a good, helpful, and informative tip that can aid someone in their adventures in editing.

What I have done in that list is organize it based on the categories that it is organized in the Pipe Plaza, save for a bit of merging and removing some things. I completely removed the To Do List section in my suggestion because the maintenance sections and whatnot, as it would be more specific if moved to The 'Shroom, basically covers what there is to do. This is how it will be organized if it were put on The 'Shroom, with appropriate headings and such. I feel this would make the way it works much more organized and that it would benefit the wiki.

Proposer: The Core Staff Members of the 'Shroom
Deadline: Wednesday, 4 November 2009, 17:00

Support

1. Super Mario Bros. (talk) Per the Core 'Shroom Staff.
2. FunkyK38 (talk) I think this is a good idea. It will help get things done and it will pull the PipePlaza into the future and keep it looking good.
3. Tucayo (talk) - Per, but as i said uncountable times, this should be updated regularly, and not monthly.
4. Paper Pikachu (talk) - Per all. As the writer formerly known as P. Trainer, and a member of the Core 'Shroom Staff, I agree. It will not only organize the Pipe Plaza in a better form, but force it to be updated more regularly.
5. MC Hammer Bro. (talk) Per all above...but is Tucayo referring to the shroom being updated monthly or the pipe plaza?
6. T.c.w7468 (talk) Per all
7. Ralphfan (talk) - Per above.
8. Edofenrir (talk) - If the Shroom Staff agrees on this, then why should someone else interfere?
9. Baby Mario Bloops (talk) - Per Edofenrir. Also, this will surely help us users greatly!
10. Marioguy1 (talk) - I'll get more information on this later but right now - if so many of the smartest users (and Tucayo, jk) think it is a good idea then I approve. BTW, Tucayo is you want to remove that part about you I give you permission.
11. Stooben Rooben (talk) Per the 'Shroom staff.
12. I never knew there was a pipe plaza, so why not? Lu-igi board 07:20, 30 October 2009 (EDT)
13. Randoman123456789 (talk) - Same with Lu-igi board. I never knew of a Pipe Plaza until now. Per Core 'Shroom Staff.
14. Yoshario (talk) – Per all.
15. Frostyfireyoshi (talk) Per the Core 'Shroom Staff. No-one would dare oppose them. Probably. >_>

Oppose

1. Plumber (talk) Pipe Plaza is supposed to be a community hub and navigational map to the site. It should provide current news (maybe in the form of articles), a short list of PipeProjects, maybe some Troubles if the Trouble Center is ever revived, more maintenance, and some recent Proposals. The 'Shroom on the other hand is both a monthly newspaper and an online quasi-magazine. It's true that Pipe Plaza needs to be updated, but it needs to be given attention on its own, not folded into The 'Shroom, which will just busy the staff who will eventually abandon it since they need to maintain it all the time instead of it being directed by commmon users. Basically the Pipe Plaza is a (currently inactive) portal and to fold the whole community portal of this wiki into a monthly newspaper is absurd.

If anything, the Main Page should be folded into Pipe Plaza. The Main Page and the Pipe Plaza overlap in many areas, such as news, being a hub, etc. If someone decided to go to the Main Page and they were redirected to MarioWiki:Pipe Plaza and saw something incorrect, they would be quick to replace it, ensuring that Pipe Plaza, as the new Main Page, will be regularly updated. Because of this, there would be now need for The 'Shroom staff to busy themselves with maintaining Pipe Plaza since it would maintain itself on its own.

Comments

By the way, I'm just mentioning, all 7 of the 'Shroom's main directive staff supported the idea behind this proposal. super Mario Bros. (talk)

@MC Hammer Bro.: Im saying the Pipe Plaza shouldnt be updated monthly, as the Shroom, it should be updated like twice a week or so. We cant update news monthly........ Tucayo (talk)

Ok then. thanks for clearing that up. MC Hammer Bro. (talk)

You may want to note that SMB quit being the co-director of M&A so there are only 6 core members now Marioguy1 (talk)

Changes

Shorten Quotes

OK, I'm going to get the point across quickly, but I think we shouldn't have long quotes on articles. Instead, we should have them on the 'List Of Quotes' area. This is only because a while ago on the Fawful article, the main quote at the top of the page was AN ENTIRE SCENE of Fawful, not just a quote. I've removed it now, but even still on other articles there's like, 3 paragraphs for one quote. I think we should make it so a quote is something like the characters catchphrase (e.g., for Fawful "I HAVE FURY!"), or just a sentance. If we want long quotes, they should go on a 'List Of Quotes In (INSERT GAME NAME HERE)' page. Thank you, and goodnight.

Proposer: Hyper Guy (talk)
Deadline: November 2, 2009, 17:00

Shorten Quotes

1. Hyper Guy (talk) Per the fact I invented the proposal.
2. Fawfulfury65 (talk) That quote on the Fawful article was so long, I didn't even feel like reading it, and the same for every long quote.
3. Tucayo (talk) - Per HG
4. Zero777 (talk) I am Zero! Yea, we should have it like that, not the freakishly huge quotes, just a quote like "Your my knight in shinning armor." something like that short, but not exactly literally that short. Zero signing out.
5. Marioguy1 (talk) - A long quote does not belong in the top of a page. The quotes should not cause the writing at the top of the page to look weird and that is what they are doing in some articles. If a long quote describes the character however, I say we keep it.
6. wario quote is ridiculesly long. Lu-igi board
7. Runeon12 (talk) - Ya boy! Count me in! I couldn't stand the parts of Eyerok's quotes that sounded a little bit awkward when they could have just left it at "Now let's fight...Hand to Hand!" so pretty much per Fawfulfury65.
8. Gamefreak75 (talk) - As long as the quote expresses the personality of the character and is not something completely stupid.

Comments

I think a quote should mirror the personality of a character, while trying to be as short as possible. If a character has a catch phrase, this is easy, but sometimes slightly larger quotes are inevitable. However, a whole dialogue shouldn't be posted as a quote in any case. - Edofenrir (talk)

I'm on the fence with this one. Quotes should be A: Well known in fandom (IE fawfuls I HAVE FURY!) or B: Noteable. Quotes that show their personality are a bonus. If a line is long but meets A or B it should be left as long as it's left in the quote's section. Short famous quotes should go at the top. Only put a long quote up there if we can't find anything better. Dialoge should only be listed if it is noteable. What is noteable I'll leave others to decide <.<... Lego3400 03:00, 27 October 2009 (EDT)

Well I won't support before I know what maximum length for a quote you intent to establish. What about this one here for example? Too long? (I mean, this character has other much shorter catchphrases). - Edofenrir (talk)

Yeah, I think I need like a maximum length before I vote. T.c.w7468 (talk)

I don't understand why this is actually an issue. Isn't it obvious that if a quote is more of a paragraph than a sentence than it should be split into different quotes? Also, in a game such as the Mario rpgs, every little thing a character says is clearly not relevant. Yeah? FD09

Move Other Media Info. Out of Main Biographies of Characters

Okay, so the format for character articles has it so that for some reason, movies comics cartoons and so on, are included in the main biography along with actual game appearances. This seems wrong. These such topics should be included in "Appearances in Other Media". Appearances of a character in a cartoon, the live action movie, or even comics, do not match up with appearances in actual video games. Characters can have different names, personalities, and especially appearances. Different roles even, you name it. Such appearances do not match up with game appearances. And while characters do change over time in the games the case of these media is very different and should therefore not be included in the main biography. Also, this isn't removing them from the article, it's simply placing them in a more fitting section. It's really strange to be reading about a video game then all of the sudden you are reading about information from a cartoon episode.

• 1. There is no specified Mario canon.
• 2. Any Mario fan can easily assume the video-games are more important than something such as (comics, cartoons).
• 3. This proposal is to move information not about video games into their own sections under a specific section so that everything isn't incorrectly placed together.
• 4. The goal of this is so that users do not look at video-game and comic or even cartoon information together as if there was a canon where they all fit in.
• 5. This means that by splitting everything up it is clear there is no canon and that everything comes from a specific source(videogame, comic or cartoon all apart so that there is no overlapping)

Proposer: FD09
Deadline: November 8, 2009, 15:00

Move Other Media Information to an Other Media Section

1. FD09 I invented the proposal for this reason.
2. Marioguy1 (talk) - I was looking at this wrong before. This proposal is meant to promote organization in articles and show differences between sections. It will make articles look a lot more organized with all appearances organized under their own header.

Keep Other Media Information in the Main Biography

1. Time Q (talk): Per 2257 in the comments. There's no valid reason to prioritize the games over everything else, since there is no canon.
2. Gamefreak75 (talk) Per Time Q.

Comments

Are you sure that the media sections being in that spot couldn't serve some external purpose such as chronological order? Marioguy1 (talk)

They can serve chronological order in the other media sections. Chronological order of video game appearances hardly relates to other media. You are suggesting moving them would break some order when there is broken order by them being there. Appearances from video games to cartoons, etc have no chronological significance. FD09

Also, another problem with this is characters such as the koopalings. They have appeared in so many other things aside from video games that there is so much information on them that doesn't relate to video games that now that they are showing up again, everyone is running into confusion over names, age, and many other facts that have been revealed only in comics and the cartoons that clash with video game appearances leaving the pages needing order. FD09

To understand the reasoning behind the current policy, it may help to read over this, this, and this. Twentytwofiftyseven (talk)

Okay so this is part of what I read "Removes speculation: Organizing by media and series is an objective concept that Nintendo often uses itself. Compare this to our current method: trying to organize events in the order that WE believe them to have happened, something that Nintendo has never done.

Creates a standard: now that MarioWiki:Canonicity has been rewritten, we need a new standard. I also want us to have a standard that we all agree on, not one that a sysop back from the early days of the Wiki created before we had the proposals page. Frees us from having to connect storylines. If each appearance has a different section, we do not need to speculate and claim that "After doing this, the character did that," or worry about balancing the inconsistencies such as those between Yoshi's Island, The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! and the Nintendo Comics System. Allows for expansion of alternate media appearances, such as those from The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! It is very difficult to write about the entire series in a paragraph of a subsection in the alternate media sections as our current organization has us doing."

Basically the main problem these three links you provided went over is the problem of the subject of canon as well as the whole chronological order of things. I already stated why this has nothing to do with chronological order. If it did, comic book appearances and cartoons would be listed in appearances by date, they are not. It also has nothing to do with what game takes place from what as these such media have nothing to do with this as you can read in the canon issues there is no official canon. This proposal isn't about canon, it's about the fact it is general knowledge a Mario video game has little to do with the vastly different Cartoons and OTHER media. FD09

"Appearances of a character in a cartoon, the live action movie, or even comics, do not match up with appearances in actual video games. Characters can have different names, personalities, and especially appearances." If there is no canon, this isn't really relevant. Therefore, this is a discussion of canon. Twentytwofiftyseven (talk)

Incorrect. I wasn't referring to the canon of names, personalities, and so on. I was referring to the simple fact they are different. You are simply trying to find a way to make it sound like I was referring to the canon. I'm not, and I wasn't. I'm referring only to the fact that there is a difference, not a difference to the direct or set appearance or personality of a character but simply the personalities for the video games and the other media apart. I'm not saying that one thing or the other is canon. I'm saying that, as a fact, there is a difference between video games, comics, and cartoons. All of them. But the reason I'm grouping everything other than video games together is because that's what it is, the other. Doesn't mean it's all in a different canon. Just because the personality and character relations sections are not in the main biography doesn't mean they are not some canon. Stop trying to turn this into a discussion of canon. This proposal is not about stating what is or is not canon. FD09

So, you want to group everything into "video games" and "not video games", correct? This seems like an arbitrary distinction to me. If we give a devoted section of each article to video games, but have everything else lumped together, then we're showing a clear bias in favor of the games. If we're maintaining neutrality, then we shouldn't be doing that. twentytwofiftyseven (talk)

If you have ever seen a section on other media you would know that it's not just lumping everything together, everything that is different is under a different sub section. The main biography is literally what lumps everything together. It has no sub-sections that's the whole point of moving everything that isn't a video game into other media so that everything WONT be crammed together. FD09

This is to TimeQ's vote. There is reason to prioritize video games over everything else. Mario is a VIDEO GAME series. Mario is not comic book, cartoon, or anything else based. It is VIDEO GAME based. That's the whole point. That is why it has priority. Anyone who plays a mario game should understand that. The video games are more important than anything else Mario related. nothing else would exist if there were no video games. Just because there is no specified canon, doesn't mean anything. This isn't about the idea there is a specific canon to the video game sand they are therefore more important and deserve to be in the main biography by themselves, it's about the fact this wiki is based on the Mario video game series and anything relating to it such as other media. Relating to it because the video games HAVE PRIORITY. FD09

The fact that Mario started out as a video game doesn't necessarily imply that all video games are to be prioritized over anything else (in fact, it even seems kinda absurd to me). Mario started out as a Donkey Kong game, still we cover lots of stuff apart from Donkey Kong. We also don't call Mario "Jumpman" anymore, because things have changed. The only argument to separate games from "other media" I can see is that Mario originated in a video game. However, that's a weak argument IMO, because nowadays is what matters. Time Q (talk)

MarioGuy your reasoning is it could backfire as the other media used is there to describe a characters history. That reasoning is invalid because just because they information would be in a different spot doesn't mean that it would not explain the history. If you are mentioning something like a specific comic or cartoon they will still be listed in order and there is a reason everything has it's own page with release dates. FD09

I am pointing out that in, for example, the Mario article. See how it flows so smoothly from the Donkey Kong section to the Super Mario Bros. Super Show! section? That would have to go bye bye if this proposal passes. Marioguy1 (talk)

Could you specify? I don't know what you're trying to point out. Also, regardless of how it is currently written, it is only written this way because they are placed one after the other. It doesn't matter how it flows because anything will flow if it is from one to the next. However it will actually make sense if it's in a cartoon and not a video-game section, because you can guess that there is a difference between a cartoon and a video-game. FD09

Are you wanting to different articles like Mario (regular article) and Mario(Non-Canon Appearances). Because if that's the case, the plan will backfire fast.Gamefreak75 (talk)

Are you suggesting that I am saying I want to make a new article for things that seem non-canon? If so you VERY obviously have not understood anything I have been saying. Especially since I have stated numerous times here that I am not applying any canon rule. I am prioritizing video-games above other media because they ARE more important for many obvious reasons. Also, I have in no way suggested on making more articles for anything. I have suggested adding information that is non-video game related into other media sections but being in the exact same fashion they were in the main article. This way however they would actually be organized. Video games and cartoons or any other media should not be grouped together. The other media would not be grouped together in this sense you might automatically assume because they will still have their own sections. A much better way to organised than smashing everything together in one main section. FD09

FD09: Forgive me but I can't really see the point in this proposal...is there a problem that you are trying to fix or are you just proposing to change the placement? Could you simplify the proposal a bit? Marioguy1 (talk)

From what I understand, you want to move the sections because, forgive my insensitivity, you feel like it? Marioguy1 (talk)

The proposal had to be made more in-depth because users kept bringing up different points they didn't understand. Now I am having a user tell me that it is too complicated. You yourself just told me that this was for change, and guess what, it is under the CHANGE section of proposal, yet for some reason you do not understand what this proposal before even though you just told me yourself. Clearly you are pretty confused here. I will try to explain it to you as simply as possible:

The cartoons, comics, etc (other media not relating to video-games) are crammed into a section (main biography) with the video-games. While there is no canon this does not change the fact Mario video-games are clearly more important than any other media relating to them. NOW, this proposal is simply trying to organize the other media into it's own section(s) so that it will be less confusing about what happens in the video-games and what happens in the cartoons, or the comics. This way everything is in it's own special group so that they don't overlap with each other in a manner that makes readers think that the same thing that is happening in the video game sis happening in something like the comics. If you have information about comics and video-games together it implies there is a canon where everything Mario related is in the same universe. Splitting it does not mean the opposite(that each ha sit's own canon) but it does make it easier to understand where the information is coming from respectively.

Okay, now if you do not understand this I advise you to not vote for either moving or keeping as you clearly would not understand what you were voting for either way.

And MarioGuy, if that is honestly what you think I would suggest the same to you, especially if you just read the above information and still assume that. If you have read everything and think I am doing this because I "feel like it" you very much so know nothing about the proposal to vote either way as well. FD09

One more time I'll "ultra simplify" it: 1. There is no specified Mario canon. 2. Any Mario fan can easily assume the video-games are more important than something such as (comics, cartoons). 3. This proposal is to move information not about video games into their own sections under a specific section so that everything isn't incorrectly placed together. 4. The goal of this is so that users do not look at video-game and comic or even cartoon information together as if there was a canon where they all fit in. 5. This means that by splitting everything up it is clear there is no canon and that everything comes from a specific source(videogame, comic or cartoon all apart so that there is no overlapping) FD09

I'll try to counter all of those 1. Actually, there are minor sections on it 2. Well, there is no definite way to say if they are more important or not 3. I could actually go for that idea 4. OK, I see the point in that 5. I think I'll review my vote now Marioguy1 (talk)

1. What minor sections do you speak of, exactly? 2. That's why it depends on what a specific person feels. I was simply explaining my reasoning. FD09

1. The section for each show/comic/game and now I have to go to bed; I will pick up this discussion tomorrow Marioguy1 (talk)

@Marioguy1: Appearances are all organized under their own headers as per our current policy. The only thing this proposal would change (as far as I can see) is that video game appearances would be separated from all other appearances. And there's no reason to do so IMO. I absolutely like the way we're doing it. Plus we shouldn't adopt an entire new policy just because that might work better for some single articles (e.g. the Koopalings (I don't think it would even work better for those, but that's a different issue)). Our current policy is much more logical, fair and non-biased. Time Q (talk)

Miscellaneous

Surrogate Pages

A lot of users will create a page to include it in another page, like their sig or status. Some of The 'Shroom writers have begun doing this for lots of other things so that they don't have to constantly edit The 'Shroom pages. However, with the new userspace regulations, this is not allowed. I think it will make things a lot easier for 'Shroom writers.

Proposer: Ralphfan (talk)
Deadline: November 2, 2009, 17:00

Allow Surrogate Pages

1. Ralphfan (talk) - My thoughts are stated above.
2. Electrobomber (talk) - Makes quite a bit of sense, I'm sick of seeing someone making a sub-page for their userboxes, and then putting it on their page as well.

Don't Allow Surrogate Pages

1. Tucayo (talk) - I hope i understood this, I think users shouldnt have more pages than the main Userpage and the sig. I also discourage that for the Shroom, as it releases them before the issue date to the public.
2. P. Trainer (talk) - Per Tucayo
3. Yoshario (talk) - Per all. And these userspace rules aren't new, they were just never enforced.
4. Stooben Rooben (talk) - There's a difference between user sub-pages and MarioWiki sub-pages. The 'Shroom sub-pages are benefiting a large community project. What do user sub-pages benefit? The user whom that page belongs to.
5. Marioguy1 (talk) - From what I understand, this section is to not alow users to create more than one userpage just for the heck of using that page somewhere else. I do notice that maybe it could be really important for one of those pages to exist but I also realize that many of the users here will just make them for the fun of it so, I'll have to prioritize.
6. Walkazo (talk) - Per all.

Comments

I dont get it... Tucayo (talk)

Is this a proposal or a comment? Marioguy1 (talk)

Hubba-what? oO - Edofenrir (talk)

I'm confused, what are you proposing? FunkyK38 (talk)

He's saying that some people might make a page for their userboxes, possibly so they could edit them easier, and then just stick them back on their page. Like a sig, but not really necessary. - Electrobomber (talk)

Maybe they could put the userboxes on their page but put it under a new section so that there are edit links. Marioguy1 (talk)