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 with the signature code ~~~(~). How To Actions that users feel are appropriate to have community approval first can be added by anyone, but they must have a strong argument. Users then vote and discuss on the issue during that week. The "deadline" for the proposal is one week from posting at: Monday to Thursday: 17:00 (5pm) Friday and Saturday: 20:00 (8pm) Sunday: 15:00 (3pm) Every vote should have a reason accompanying it. At any time a vote may be rejected if at least three active users believe the vote truly has no merit or was cast in bad faith. However, there must be strong reasons supporting the invalidation. "# " should be added under the last vote of each support/oppose section to show another blank line. At the deadline, the validity of each vote and the discussion is reviewed by the community. Any proposal that has three votes or less at deadline will automatically be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion. All proposals are archived. The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of a sysop, the proposer can ask for that help. The times are in EDT, and are set so that the user is more likely to be online at those times (after school, weekend nights). So for example, if a proposal is added on Saturday night at 11:59 PM EDT, the deadline is the next Saturday night at 8:00 PM. If it is indeed a minute later, the deadline is a day plus 15 hours (Sunday), as opposed to a day minus 4 hours. Also, NO PROPOSALS ABOUT HAVING BANJO AND CONKER ARTICLES -The Management. CURRENTLY: 09:42, 1 May 2024 (EDT) New Features Normal Smash Movesets I have read the Player's Guide to Super Smash Bros Melee, and realized that every character's moves have a different name. I propose to add a list of their move names on each character's page. It would help complete the articles, plus I remember some advice on the talk page of Son of Suns:"If there is any information ina a manual that is not on the wiki, upload it". Guides help you just as much as manuals do, so that's why we should do this. Anyone with me?DarkMario Hamtaro PWNS| Proposer:DarkMario Hamtaro PWNS| Deadline: April 21, 2008, 17:00 Add DarkMario Hamtaro PWNS| Reasons above. Stumpers! As long as this is the Official Nintendo Power guide we're talking about. Palkia47 Per DarkMario. I have gotten the Brawl Guide. The articles really only mention the Final Smash. Do Not Add rend (talk) (edits) Per Arend. SJ derp :P Comments What exactly do you mean by "Normal Smash Movesets"? My Bloody Valentine Possibly Special. B button. Mario: Fireball, Cape, etc. Palkia47 I'd rather say he's talking about A button moves, thus "normal" and not "special". - Cobold (talk · contribs) 10:50, 15 April 2008 (EDT) Possibly, but Mario's is just punch, punch, kick, etc. Palkia47 And it wouldn't be Smash Attacks, not saying anybody said that. Well, isn't there already a spot for B moves in the template? And why can't we just add it if it wasn't there? Wouldn't that be logical? BLOC PARTIER. Sorry, the answer may be painfully obvious. :') He means all of the normal A moves and grabs are named in the guide, and yes, it's the official Nintendo Power guide. Pokemega32 17:35, 16 April 2008 (EDT) Removals Trivia Sections While I'm well aware we are not Wikipedia, I feel that trivia sections detract greatly from the quality of an article. Pieces of information pertaining to topics adressed previously are placed in an unsorted list at the end of the article. Now, I know that we already are against, "overly long" trivia sections, and that's a good thing, but if we allow trivia sections to exist, they'll grow into "overly long" sections. In other words, we can either stop them before they happen, or we can wait until a dedicated user comes along and puts the factoids where they belong in the article. UPDATE: I have clarified the support/oppose headers. Please make sure your vote still applies (they look like it to me). NOTE: There are a bunch of people doubting this. Give me an example we both know about in the comments section and I'll integrate the trivia for you. Proposer: Stumpers! Deadline: April 21, 2007, 17:00 Support (Remove Trivia Sections--Integrate Facts into Article) Stumpers! 23:12, 14 April 2008 (EDT) It takes 30 seconds in my experience to find an appropriate section and put a factoid at the end of it instead of making a trivia section. On the other hand, we risk readers not finding information about the subtopic they want to know about. They have to read the appropriate section AND the ENTIRE trivia section, full of unrelated information. Glitchman (talk · contribs) While some pieces of trivia information can be useful to the readers, most of what is under the trivia sections is just either an opinion (e.g. Toadsworth is about the same age as E. Gadd) or something found at an untrustworthy source. Better to prevent these sections from being made. Per all Grapes Oppose (Keep Trivia Sections--Keep Facts Separate) Fixitup Trivia sections exist for information that can't be placed WELL somewhere in another section of the article. Although some people overdo it, they still come of good use when there is such information. 3D, per above, plus the fact that there's no place else to PUT trivia. Time Questions: I have to agree with Fixitup here. I really don't see how those facts should be integrated into the article. For some it might work, but for most it won't, I believe. See below. Blitzwing (talk · gnome work) - Trivia section are exactly what the name implies: Trivial informations that can't be put anywhere in the article. Getting rid of those would just makes some of the Trivia-heavy articles messy. Palkia47 Per All. The Trivia section in almost each article is needed. Say for example Super Smash Bros. It has trivias. If it was put into the main part of the article, it'd be useless. BLOC PARTIER. Per all. I've tried to put some trivia in other parts of articles, and failed miserably. It is very difficult, as they are just random bits of information. Well, that and I've learned more from trivia sections from the articles themselves. :') MisterJaffffey G0 Proposals I always read the trivia sections and they give me fascinating information. — Stooben Rooben Per all. It would probably make us look stupid if we were the only wiki without trivia sections. Also, where would we put all this trivia. Take the cameo appearances of Mario characters in Kirby Super Star for example. What would we do, make a page about the game and say "Some Mario characters appear in this game as cameos"? SJ derp :P Walkazo - Per all. Sometimes you just can't work certain bits of info into the body of the article, see below for an example. User:Ghost Jam/sig - Per all. Comments Of course, there's the issue about things such as the "Nintendo Monopoly" characters. Where do you merge them? Into a cameo appearances section. Stumpers! 23:12, 14 April 2008 (EDT) It's not a good idea to merge such a thing into the cameos section when it would only be one sentence. When you qualify a separate paragraph as one sentence, or even two the page looks like someone's trying too hard. Like I said, sometimes there actually can be a lot of information that shouldn't be crammed somewhere in the article. I would be very disappointed to see such an option to leave my grasp, especially for smaller pages. Come on, people. Fixitup Do you have any examples for us? Stumpers! 23:49, 14 April 2008 (EDT) Where would the interesting facts go? What'd we do with the displaced trivia? 3D, III'MMM ACTING AS IF First of all, "interesting" is a subjective term, and so I really can't give you an answer. Like I said with Fixitup, do you have an example? Looking at your second sentence, I think you're asking what we'd do as soon as this proposal is passed. We'd integrate the trivia with like information. As a matter of fact, let me clarify that. It's in the proposal, but if you're not clear I'm sure many other people will, too. I'd argue against your point that there's nowhere else to put trivia. Just use your head and sort the points back into the article, or make a new section. You'll also remember that every other Wiki before us that has put its mind to it has been able to remove trivia. Stumpers! 00:50, 15 April 2008 (EDT) Well, a simple example for a piece of trivia of which I wouldn't know how to integrate it into the article is here. This fact should be mentioned imo, but how should we do that if not in a trivia section? Putting it into the article would clutter things up (no one who reads the plot synopsis wants to know in which other comic DK appeared). Making a new section would be possible, but 1) it is only one cameo (or however you want to call it) and 2) how would that be better than just leaving it called "Trivia"? Time Questions 02:16, 15 April 2008 (EDT) Well, first off you've lost some "trivial" (couldn't resist...) infromation by not telling us where DK can be seen--which part of the story? I'm not familiar with Cool Klange in the least, so all I know is that he was in there somewhere. You are assuming that no one would be interested in knowing where he appears because you don't care yourself. As you know, that's not true for everyone. Of course I'm not advocating making a new section for one piece of information like that. I don't care if you call it trivia, cameos, whatever. The problem is that you guys are looking for a one-size-fits-all approach to this, but the fact is there isn't because this is writing, not making a template. Putting information where it's actually applicible rather than off to the side where it is out of context and random is something that must be done differently in each scenario. Yes, I understand the three of you would rather make this easier on yourselves, but focus on the reader here: you want to make this accessable. The easier something is to read or do, you can be someone on the other end had to put in a greater amount of effort. Stumpers! 04:21, 15 April 2008 (EDT) No, you got me wrong with my example. Let me shortly explain: At some point in the comic Donkey Kong appears. He is wearing a suit, the same suit he has worn in a different comic. To me, this is worth pointing out, because as far as I know DK doesn't usually wear a suit, and it's also worth pointing out that it was the same one in two different comics. My point now is that this piece of - indeed - trivial information should not be moved to the plot synopsis, because the reader of the plot synopsis, well, wants to know the plot, and surely the fact which suit DK is wearing doesn't belong there. You also say I lost some information by not telling where DK appears, but it reads "in the club [...] at the table", so the reader of the plot synopsis should know what it's about. I absolutely agree with you that some trivia sections are too long or contain facts that should be integrated into the article. But most of them are best kept in a separate section, though the term "Trivia" might be a bit un-encyclopedic. Time Questions 07:34, 15 April 2008 (EDT) IMO, I think getting rid of the Trivia would create a glut of speculation in Trivia-heavy articles, since some writers would go all excited and try to justificate every bit of random trivia as something that is actually really important in the Marioverse. Look at the implied articles to see what I mean. --Blitzwing 07:58, 15 April 2008 (EDT) I'm sorry Blitz, but which "Implied" article has a trivia section? As you your concern regarding speculation, preventing speculation has always been part of the Wiki's history. I don't see why you'd want to lower the quality of an article just to prevent someone else from doing it. As to the DK thing, I really can't argue the point because I've never head of that subject before. I'd really like to have us look at a subject that more than, three or five users have personal experience, preferably a subject that I could actually discuss back... does anyone aside from Walkazo have an example we all know about? Stumpers! 00:02, 16 April 2008 (EDT) No Implied articles have a Trivia section, yesh. I took them as an example because they're the perfect example of trivial information. I mean, who knew Old Man Skoo existed 'till someone made an article on him? And why the hell do Trivia sections "lower the quality" of the article? If anything, randomly integrating the trivias in the Main article is what lower the quality! And as Toadette4evur said, it would be weird to be the only wiki without trivia. I mean, even Wikipedia have those. --Blitzwing 06:59, 16 April 2008 (EDT) Here's another example supporting the Triva section: Mr. Game & Watch (SSBM and SSBB) has a move called Oil Panic, which stems from the game of the same name. That information needed to be in the game's article, but since it wasn't part of the game itself nor any of it's ports, I couldn't fit it in without a Trivia section. If we get rid of the trivia sections we're getting rid of lots of valid information, not just speculations. - Walkazo I think what you're forgetting is that some article alteration may be needed. You guys are arguing as though you couldn't rearrange paragraphs and rewrite trivia into the article. Walkazo, in your example, I expanded on the trivia point, turning it into a full comparison of the attack to the game. See if you like it -- it's not my best work, but hopefully it shows you what I mean. The other trivia point which you didn't mention was easily integrated into the main part of the article. Check revision history. Stumpers! 00:02, 16 April 2008 (EDT) The Luigi's Mansion trivia section points out an allusion to Home Alone on the boxart. There's no "boxart" section in the article and thus no obvious place to put it. I also highly doubt that the article can be rewritten in the way that the fact is integrated into the article without annoying people who don't care about such trivial information, who don't want to read about allusions, but only about the game itself. Your accessibility argument can actually be used against your point. "Super Mario 64" states that in Donkey Kong Country 3, Wrinkly Kong is playing SM64. Valuable information, but certainly nothing to integrate into the main article. I mean, if there were several games which had such references to SM64, we could make an extra section, but that's not the case. Finally, the trivia section of Waluigi has the character's address, according to the Mario Power Tennis website. Again, such a section just seems to be the best place to put this info. Time Questions 04:19, 16 April 2008 (EDT) All this goes to show that a blanket proposal for the matter won't work. In my Oil Panic example, both triva points were easily moved into the body text (though I streamlined your work a bit, Stumpers), however the same cannot be said for Time Q's points. In Oil Panic, the bit about Mr. Game & Watch's Oil Panic move was turned into a full sections, which is okay for small artciles and big ideas, but a section about Waluigi's address wouldn't be feasible. If nothing else, we should do this case-by-case. - Walkazo Splits & Merges Mario Kart DS Karts So I've been reading through the after-mentioned articles, and I've noticed that they all read something like "The [insert name here] is [insert character here]'s [availability] kart in Mario Kart DS. [Describes appearance here]. [Describes stats here]." So I propose that we merge these into character aticles such as "Mario's Karts in Mario Kart DS" or something shorter to that effect. Opinions? Proposer: huntercrunch Deadline: April 20, 2008, 15:00 Merge Kart articles huntercrunch My reasons are given above. Incrobe The karts aren't a very important part of the game, and it would save having to add info to heaps of different articles if one needed to if the articles were merged. Keep articles seperate Time Questions: They're all officially named and major enough to have their own articles. Appearance, stats, and maybe some trivia make enough info for an article. RedFire Mario: They're different things so they have to be seperate Pikax: Per Time Q. Plus, there is a table in the Mario Kart DS article itself that contains the stats of each car. GreenKoopa - Comments or questions? · This is a MarioWiki, with information on EVERYTHING Mario related- This includes karts. Jdrowlands (talk) – Per all. Glitchman (talk · contribs) Per all. Palkia47 Though a lot of the karts have only made one appearance, they were big in the game. Tracks go for the same. Some items also. They should deserve TO BE SEPERATED! — Stooben Rooben Each kart is different; that's reason enough for them to stay separated. Even if they are short articles, they can't be classified as stubs because they are complete and contain of all the needed information. If we were to merge all of the karts, we would have to merge all of the courses as well. It's simply to much effort for something that will make very little difference. BLOC PARTIER. Per all. The karts are different, and as long as they're not stubs, they're fine. Walkazo - Per all. Per Roob Grapes I agree about what he wrote up there ↑. Stumpers! The merges of badges and such were only because so little information was available for them. MisterJaffffey G0 Proposals Per all. Comments Incrobe, it is highly unlikely that someone will have to add heaps of detail about the karts. --Pikax 13:46, 15 April 2008 (EDT) Super Mario Advance series It has recently come to my attention that there is a page for the original Super Mario Advance, but not for Super Mario Advance 4, which is just included as a remake of SMB3 on that game's page. There is also a separate page for the Super Mario Advance series, which includes information and the cover art of all four games. Having to try to find information about these games on different pages is a hassle, so I propose we delete the Super Mario Advance article and simply expand the page that has to do with the series itself. Proposer: Glitchman (talk · contribs) Deadline: April 21, 2008, 17:00 Merge articles to one page Glitchman (talk · contribs) My reasons given above. Blitzwing (talk · gnome work) - Per Glitchman. The Super Mario Advance series are simply a bunch of port with graphical enhancements, only the port of SM2 haves any real changes, and even with that, I don't think it deserves it's own article. Palkia47 Per all. Even though I don't own any Advance games except SMA, they should be merged. They're exactly the same game (with some changes). BLOC PARTIER. Per all. Uh, everyone else said everything else I was gonna say. — Stooben Rooben Per Glitchman. I own two in the series, but have played all, and they definitely aren't original enough to have their own articles...especially when SMA4 doesn't even have one. My Bloody Valentine Per all. Walkazo - Per all. I have all 4 SMA games and it's such a pain trying to research how they different from the originals as it is now. Keep the articles the same Comments Changes None at the moment. Miscellaneous None at the moment.