MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
m (Forgot to read comments first...)
Line 150: Line 150:
#{{User|Edofenrir}} - Now, I think that's uncalled for. They don't need separate articles, and it was good that they were merged. If this is a consistency issue, then we should take this on the other way around, since many move articles are stubs.
#{{User|Edofenrir}} - Now, I think that's uncalled for. They don't need separate articles, and it was good that they were merged. If this is a consistency issue, then we should take this on the other way around, since many move articles are stubs.
#{{user|Tucayo}} - Per all.
#{{user|Tucayo}} - Per all.
#{{User|Fawfulfury65}} Per all.


====Comments====
====Comments====

Revision as of 17:14, March 21, 2010

dessert1.jpg


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 start to discuss on the issue. 24 hours after posting the proposal (rounding up or down to the next or previous full hour, respectively, is allowed), the voting period begins. (The proposer is allowed to support their proposal right after posting.) Each proposal ends at the end of the day one week after voting start. (All times GMT).
  3. Every vote should have a reason accompanying it.
  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. "# " 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 cannot 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 GMT, 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 Monday night at 23:59 GMT, the deadline is the night of the Tuesday of the next week at 23:59 PM. If it is posted a minute later, the deadline is 23:59 PM of the Wednesday of the next week, since midnight is considered to be part of the next day, as 00:00 AM.

Basic Proposal and Support/Oppose Format

This is an example how 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 you want this Proposal to be like, what changes you would suggest and what this is about]

'''Proposer''': {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br>
'''Voting start''': [insert a voting start time here, f.e. "2 January, 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====

====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 anoother 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 effected 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, 4 and 5, 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 closed by the proposer if both the support and the oppose sides each have fewer than five votes.
  5. After two weeks, a clear majority of three votes is required. Without the majority, the talk page proposal will be listed as "NO QUORUM".
  6. The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.

List of Talk Page Proposals

New Features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Create Separate Articles for Super Mario Advance Remakes

Ok, we seriously need to unmerge the "Super Mario Advance 2: Super Mario World" and "Super Mario World" articles, as well as the "Super Mario Advance 4: Super Mario Bros. 3" articles. First of all, there is plenty of room on this wiki to create a couple new articles to accommodate these SEPARATE games. Second of all, it creates the illusion (or disillusion) to Mario Wiki readers that these are the same games, just different ports. They are NOT the same game! Let's take the former, for instance. The GBA ramake has more levels, updated graphics, play as Luigi, et cetera the list goes on and any honest person knows what it is. The latter, among the updated graphics, how about all those new E-Reader levels? They are not the same game and should not be merged together like that. Why not merge "Super Mario 64" and "Super Mario 64 DS" together then? The status quo with the GBA and NES/SNES games is just as stupid, if not more stupid. A remake isn't the same game. "Super Mario Bros. Deluxe" is NOT "Super Mario Bros.", people! It's NOT the real game! Third of all, tons of younger gamers who were were either pooping themselves or not ever born yet when the original games came out were introduced to the games through these remakes and they deserve articles to read about the games that they were introduced to. I'm not saying the GBA games were bad. I think they were brilliant. Putting nostalgia aside, in all honesty I think they are BETTER than the originals. But they are not the same games! They're different! They need their own articles!

Proposer: [[User:Marwikedor|]] (talk)
Voting start: March 20, 2010, 4:26
Deadline: March 27, 2010, 23:59

Create separate articles for these separate games

  1. [[User:Marwikedor|]] (talk)- Per above
  2. KS3 (talk) per proposal. If this stays merged, then Super Mario 64 DS should be merged into Super Mario 64.

Leave as is

  1. Fawfulfury65 (talk) I have played three of the SMA games, and they are almost exactly the same as the originals, besides the fact that some things were added. Since they are very similar to the originals, they do not deserve their own article, and would be better off merged with the SMB2, SMW, SMW2, or SMB3 articles (depending on which Super Mario Advance it is).
  2. Baby Mario Bloops (talk) - Per FF65 with the facts of that their is not enough differences for them to be their own articles. You will be pretty much copying the original articles themselves, just with the differences added in. It would be more consistant to have them together, since they are big enough to be separate articles.

Comments

The Super Mario Advance games already have a seperate article (for the whole series, since there's not that much to say about the games that isn't already said in the original game's article): Here. I looked at the Super Mario World article though and it indeed has a "changes in the GBA version" section; how is that necessary with the GBA remake being covered in the other article? Also, some variations of the SMA games' titles still aren't redirecting to the correct article (though I already fixed some of them); I'm guessing that's where the proposer got the idea that they didn't have their own article. I guess it's redirect fixing time again.--Vellidragon (talk)

Well, each and every SERIES has its own article encompassing the whole series (Such as "Mario Party"). But I still think each GBA game is good enough, unique enough, and different enough to enjoy the benefits of its own article. Think of all the younger gamers introuduced to these games through the GBA. They may want to look up an article for any said individual game. A unique article for, say, "Super Mario Advance 4: Super Mario Bros. 3". The status quo is all just really, really confusing for such people. There is plenty different in the different games, plenty plenty plenty. Enough to say that they are not the same games at all. Each of said GBA games should have their own unique article as if the original (S)NES game never existed. I'm not saying don't mention they are remakes in the articles, but you get what I mean. --Marwikedor (talk)
I would like to point out that the articles were once separate. A proposal decided to make the one page and mention each remake in the NES articles. I would find the proposal, but I'm too lazy at the moment. If you mentioned the other proposal in yours, please excuse my comment. Also, please use ":" when indenting; It makes the page look much cleaner. Thanks. ;) Bloc Partier (talk)
Where does it say there is a rule against overturning a previously passed proposal? I just want to say that I find it so daft to include blurbs about the GBA remakes in the articles (I do think they should be mentioned and linked to in the NES articles, but they should both have their own articles) for wonderful classics like Super Mario Bros. 3 that essentially made the world love Mario in the first place way back when, and simultaneously neglect to give the awesome GBA remakes their own articles under the pretension that they are the same games when they are different in so many ways. As I mentioned, the graphics are improved in the GBA remakes, among many other things. If, say, Super Mario Advance 2: Super Mario World had its own article, it would be filled with screen shots unique to that game. That's just one of endless examples and reasons that Mario wiki users should not stand for the status quo. If I mentioned all the reasons it would fill the entire page. --Marwikedor (talk)
Since the previous proposal was long enough ago, you may now post this proposal to overturn the previous decision. Yes that is correct.
We would still like to hear all those reasons. I see no problem in having two kinds of screenshots that are of different kind of graphical quality coexisting within the same article - the game Donkey Kong (Game Boy) has two kinds of screenshots, one when played on the Game Boy, the other in color when played on the Super Game Boy. There is no problem with the screenshots there. You shouldn't worry about the length, it's your proposal and you may support it with as many words as you want to.
What do you think makes the GBA remakes more worthy of an article than New Play Control: Mario Power Tennis? - Cobold (talk) 08:55, 20 March 2010 (EDT)
Cobold, I know you did not just compare my proposal to that piece of crap "New Play Control: Mario Power Tennis". The quick answer is that MPT and NPC: MPT and the exact same games, except the latter has crappy controls. MPT was a solid title for the Nintendo GC, and I think Nintendo was just being greedy releasing the so called title which you speak of. The release of the inferior version a short time ago did not just occur by happenstance; it is a clear cut case of avarice. It was a case where the Wii controls just did not work. Other than a new epic phail control scheme, it was the same game etirely. Not a darn thing different about it. Super Mario 64 DS is its own article. Why is that? Because it would be absurd to combine the DS remake with Super Mario 64. And combining the NES and GBA versions of the aforementioned games is every bit as absurd in my humble opinion. Almost every single argument for allowing the DS version of SM64 to have its own article can be made for the NES/SNES games (the GBA/NES games might be even more disparate! The original SNES/NES games didn't have any voice overs! Charles Martinet's voice was added to the characters in the GBA versions) like more playable characters(Luigi in the GBA games), more levels, updated graphics (more so in the GBA games to its NESSNES counterparts, although the DS graphics were slightly better than the 64's in SM64DS), more Dragon coins (and more Stars in 64DS, 150 to the original's 120. and SMA:SMB3 had even more added levels than SMA:SMW with the E-Reader! and they were remarkable levels! Unique levels!). So as you see, the argument for allowing said games to have their own articles is even GREATER than SM64DS having its own article (which it does). CASE CLOSED. --Marwikedor (talk)
Ah, my apologies. I didn't mean to imply that you couldn't continue this proposal. Go right ahead! Bloc Partier (talk)

KS3, the second part of your support vote doesn't seem to make much sense. Why would Super Mario 64 DS need to be merged into Super Mario 64 if these stay merged? The Super Mario Advance games are only merged with one another, not with the games they are remakes of. Super Mario 64 DS can keep its own article as long as the Super Mario Advance games aren't part of the articles on the original games, which they currently are not. Stating the Super Mario Advance (series) article should be split because of Super Mario 64 DS not being part of Super Mario 64 makes no sense to me.--Vellidragon (talk)

Change Featured Images Archive Formatting

Yesterday, I checked the archive for the Featured Images, (as a guest), and the page was like huge, probably bigger than the Princess Daisy page. We already did it to the MarioWiki:Proposals/archive, why can't we do it with the FI archive page??? It would be similar to the test4 that RAP is creating.

Proposer: KS3 (talk)
Voting start: 21 March 2010, 13:00
Deadline: 28 March 2010, 23:59

Support

  1. KS3 (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

Comments

I don't think this needs a proposal. Yes, we should split the archives, that's common sense. It's just that nobody has done it yet. Time Q (talk)

Yes, per Time Q. I can get to this tomorrow. Tucayo (talk)

Split all Super Smash Bros. moves into separate articles

Before I start, let me say that I am aware of the proposal that merged them. With that said let me continue.

For about two years now, all the moves that belong to a character in the Super Smash Bros. franchise (such as Rollout, Flare Blade and Final Cutter) have been merged to their respective characters. But now I ask this one simple question: Why do we have an article for every single other move and the SSB moves are all merged? All moves aer just an major and important as the other, so I don't see why SSB moves have to be merged. The SSB franchise should be treated exactly like the Mario franchise, so I'm proposing to split all the SSB moves into their own articles.

Proposer: Reversinator (talk)
Voting start: 21 March 2010, 14:00
Deadline: 28 March 2010, 24:00

Split Moves

  1. Reversinator (talk) Per proposal.
  2. KS3 (talk) Per proposal.

Do not Split Moves

  1. Bloc Partier (talk) -- Please view my first comment below.
  2. Edofenrir (talk) - Now, I think that's uncalled for. They don't need separate articles, and it was good that they were merged. If this is a consistency issue, then we should take this on the other way around, since many move articles are stubs.
  3. Tucayo (talk) - Per all.
  4. Fawfulfury65 (talk) Per all.

Comments

And there was a failed attempt here KS3 (talk)

That wasn't a failed attempt, he just deleted it. Reversinator (talk)
Well, for at least three of your examples (Twist Dunk, Water Bomb, Splash Bros), I would recommend making a single page for all moves from the same game. Ultra Hammer would be kept separate because it's an item, but having a single page for the other three examples would certainly be better. However, keeping Smash moves on each person's page would be far more efficient since the moves are unique to each character and having one page for all the moves would be just giant. Bloc Partier (talk)
Wait wait wait! I thought that it says into separte articles! It wouldn't be one page, it would simply be into separate pages. And if you still mean what I just said, they would merely be bigger than most small pages that aren't stubs. That is all I have to say. Baby Mario Bloops (talk)
Calm down. I know what the proposal is for. I'm saying that I do not support because it's more efficient to have them on the character articles, and that my suggestion about his three examples would not work for the Smash moves. It's highly inefficient to have to keep clicking back and forth just to see individual moves. So... I shall continue to oppose. Bloc Partier (talk)

Change the structure of the main character articles

As many of us are aware, the Super Mario Wiki has joined forces with Template:BP and Template:ZW and created the Nintendo Independent Wiki Alliance. As an active user of both Bulbapedia and the SMW, it has come to my attention that the quality of Bulbapedia's Pokémon articles (eg. Template:BP, Template:BP, Template:BP etc) are of much higher quality (in terms of structure) than the Super Mario Wiki's main character articles (eg. Mario, Luigi, Princess Peach, Yoshi etc.).

The structure of Bulbapedia's Pokémon articles can be found Template:BP. I propose that, now that the Super Mario Wiki has allied with Bulbapedia, we should raise the standard of our articles to a similar standard to that of Bulbapedia, starting with the main characters.

Proposer: Silver Eevee (talk)
Voting start: 22 March 2010, 06:50
Deadline: 29 March 2010, 23:59

Support

  1. Silver Eevee (talk) per what I wrote above.

Oppose

Comments

Hmmm..... remember that we can't use thing as "Gender differences", "habitat", "diet" and those things :/ Tucayo (talk)

Yes, the BP article structure is tailored for Pokémon information. - Edofenrir (talk)

@Silver Eevee: Perhaps you could show us an example of what an article might look like in the new format. This will allow us to see exactly the format you're proposing. Just a suggestion. Bloc Partier (talk)

Miscellaneous

Characters' Order

I notice when I read a bunch of articles on different characters they have a section on their friendship or relation with other characters, and the order of each character on every different article is different and disorginized, so I came up with an idea.... well three ideas of how to orginized these characters on every article: (I will use characters from Super Mario Galaxy as an example on all ideas)

  • Chronological Order: In this one, the first character to appear in gameplay will be first, then the next character will be second, then the third one, and so on. Example: Mario, Peach, Bowser, Rosalina, Bowser Jr., and Luigi
  • Importance: This one will make the order out of the character's overall importance in all Mario games. Example: Mario, Luigi, Peach, Bowser, Bowser Jr., and Rosalina
  • ABC: In this one all the characters will be organized alphabetically. Example: Bowser Jr., Bowser, Luigi, Mario, Peach, and Rosalina

Proposer: Zero777 (talk)
Voting start: 22 March, 2010 12:00
Deadline: 29 March, 2010 12:00

Chronological

  • Zero777 (talk) I am Zero! Well Chronological and importance sort of tie in since the first character to be seen is the main character unless there was a prologue then that's when it doesn't tie in. Zero signing out.

Importance

ABC

Leave The Characters' Order As Is

Comments

I'm not sure if I understand the "chronological" thing. The character to appear in gameplay first? Do you mean arranging them by when they debuted, and then by when they appear in that game if several debut in the same one (e.g. Mario and Donkey Kong)? Even then, several may appear at the same moment. A chronological order of sorts would make sense though seeing how that is how the games are arranged. I'm tied between that and alphabetical order at the moment. Maybe a combination of both even; by date of debut, and then alphabetical if muliple characters debuted at the same time? May be too needlessly complicated that way though. "Importance" I am against, since deciding which character is more "important" is an extremely subjective matter, and subjectivity doesn't belong here.--Vellidragon (talk)  

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=732808"