MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
Line 106: Line 106:
#{{User|MushroomMadness1221}} I still need a page for Mario Baseball Association.
#{{User|MushroomMadness1221}} I still need a page for Mario Baseball Association.
#{{User|Mariomario64}} I'm with MushroomMadness1221. He hired me to work on the MBA.
#{{User|Mariomario64}} I'm with MushroomMadness1221. He hired me to work on the MBA.
#{{User|Dry Paratroopa}} Per my overly long comment.


====Oppose====
====Oppose====
Line 168: Line 169:


Even though I made the proposal, I think the Oposers actuly have better resons :P  {{User|Luigi is OSAM}}
Even though I made the proposal, I think the Oposers actuly have better resons :P  {{User|Luigi is OSAM}}
I'm undecided. A lot of people won't know that in order to create a page you have to search for it, but if they're smart they'd check to see that a page exists before trying to create it. Also, the Make New Page button probably couldn't be able to check this for you... and it'd be hard to title it. But, I can easily imagine it doing that, first bringing you to a make title page, and if the page already exists it will tell you that. I know nothing of programming but it sounds achievable. I just... I don't know. Let me argue with myself some more and I'm sure we'll reach a verdict soon. Wait, according to the above, we have an available coder and implementer, so it should be fine. I'll go ahead and support this. {{User|Dry Paratroopa}}


==Removals==
==Removals==

Revision as of 01:14, March 2, 2011

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page


Proposals can be new features (such as an extension), removal of a previously added feature that has tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action(s) are done.
  • Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so, not, e.g., "I like this idea!"
  • "Vote" periods last for one week.
  • All past proposals are archived.

A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed using the code {{User|User name}}.

This page observes the No-Signature Policy.

How To

  1. 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. Agreeing or seconding a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted.
  4. Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the Comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may not remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. The voter can remove or rewrite their own vote at any time, but the final decision to remove another User's vote lies solely with the Administrators.
  5. All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week.
  6. If a proposal has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail by a margin of three votes. If a proposal reaches the deadline and the total number of votes for each option differ by two or less votes, the deadline will be extended for another week.
  7. Any proposal that has three votes or less at deadline will automatically be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
  8. No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
  9. Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation. However, the proposer can request that their proposal be deleted by a Sysop at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it.
  10. All proposals are archived. The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of a Sysop, the proposer can ask for that help.
  11. There shouldn't be proposals about creating articles on an underrepresented or completely absent subject, unless there is major disagreement about whether the content should be included. To organize efforts about completing articles on missing subjects, try creating a PipeProject.
  12. Proposals cannot be made about System Operator promotions and demotions. Sysops can only be promoted and demoted by the will of Bureaucrats.
  13. If the Sysops deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to remove it at any time.
  14. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters, and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.

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 of what your proposal should look like, if you want it to be acknowledged. If you are inexperienced or unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. Then replace the [subject] - variables with information to customize your proposal, so it says what you wish. If you insert the information, be sure to replace the whole variable including the squared brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information", not "[This is the inserted information]".

===[insert a title for your Proposal here]===
[describe what issue this Proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the Wiki handles that issue]

'''Proposer''': {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br>
'''Voting start''': [insert a voting start time here, f.e. "January 1, 2010, 14:00". Voting start times are 24 hours after the time at which the proposal was posted, as described in Rule 2 above.]<br>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the voting start, at 23:59 GMT.]

====Support====
#{{User|[enter your username here]}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]

====Oppose====

====Comments====

Users will now be able to vote on your Proposal, until the set deadline is reached. Remember, you are a user as well, so you can vote on your own Proposal just like the others.

To support, or oppose, just insert "#{{User|[add your username here]}} at the bottom of the section of your choice. Just don't forget to add a valid reason for your vote behind that tag if you are voting on another user's Proposal. If you are voting on your own Proposal, you can just say "Per my Proposal".

Talk Page Proposals

All proposals dealing with a single article or a specific group of articles are held on the talk page of one of the articles in question. Proposals dealing with massive amounts of splits, merges or deletions across the Wiki should still be held on this page.

How To

  1. All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom). All pages affected must be mentioned in the brief description, with the talk page housing the discussion linked to directly via "(Template:Fakelink)". If the proposal involved a page that is not yet made, use {{fakelink}} to communicate its title. The Deadline must also be included in the entry. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links. Place {{TPP}} under the heading.
  2. All rules for talk page proposals are the same as mainspace proposals (see the "How To" section above), with the exceptions made by Rules 3 and 4 as follows:
  3. Voting in talk page proposals will be open for two weeks, not one. There is no 24 hour delay between the posting of a talk page proposal and the commencement of voting.
  4. Talk page proposals may be closed by the proposer if both the support and the oppose sides each have fewer than five votes.
  5. The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.

List of Talk Page Proposals

New Features

Adding A "Make New Page" Button

Sorry if this is a bad proposal, Its my first time.

Okay, yesterday I made a Mario Wiki and kept looking for how to make a page. I even looked at the help page! I think it would be easier to add a "Make new page" button. It would just bring you to the screen of the new page.

Proposer: Luigi is OSAM (talk)
Voting start: February 22, 2011 14:45 GMT
Deadline: March 1, 2011 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Luigi is OSAM (talk): I made the proposal!
  2. SWFlash (talk) Per proposal (as input on the main page)
  3. WigglerWhoopin'Warrior135 (talk) Per proposal.
  4. DKC2 King Liam (talk) Another MarioWiki button. YES!!
  5. Yoshidude99 (talk) Would make creating pages easier.
  6. HenryClaylogan (talk) I would like new features. Put it under the search box and the Main Page.
  7. Pseudo-dino (talk) Per all.
  8. Lu-igi board (talk) can only be a good thing. per all
  9. Phoenix (talk) Why not? Per all.
  10. PoisonMushroom (talk) It'd be convenient.
  11. MushroomMadness1221 (talk) I still need a page for Mario Baseball Association.
  12. Mariomario64 (talk) I'm with MushroomMadness1221. He hired me to work on the MBA.
  13. Dry Paratroopa (talk) Per my overly long comment.

Oppose

  1. Pokémon Trainer Mario (talk) I'm not sure how this could be possible.
  2. AmazingFlyingYoshi (talk) Unnecessary.
  3. Walkazo (talk) - Per all, including Zero and FF65 in the comments. All anyone ever has to do is click on a redlink or search for their title and click on the redlink that the wiki gives them in the "Create the page "_____" on this wiki!" line that immediately comes up: how is that inconvenient or difficult? Besides, people should search to make sure pages aren't created before trying to make new ones, anyway. Don't fix what isn't broken.
  4. Edofenrir (talk) - Per Walkazo.
  5. Mpeng (talk) Per all. It's already easy enough.
  6. Rise Up Above It (talk) Per Walkazo and the comments.
  7. Fawfulfury65 (talk) Per Walkazo.
  8. Reversinator (talk) Per all.
  9. Bowser's luma (talk) Making a page should not be that quick and easy as it would be easier for spammers and such to create new pages.
  10. Baby Mario Bloops (talk) - Per Walkazo and Bowser's luma.
  11. MrConcreteDonkey (talk) - Per all.
  12. Bop1996 (talk) Per all, but especially Walkazo and Bowser's Luma.
  13. Zero777 (talk) I am Zero! Per my comments below, there's a point when too much luxury is bad or unnecessary. Zero signing out.
  14. qrs22 (talk) Per Bowser's Luma.
  15. Coincollector (talk) Ditto. Also, this makes even less useful for newcomers with the autoconfirm (you can't create any page of you aren't autoconfirmed) included in the wiki...
  16. Smileymiley5001 (talk) Per Bowser's Luma
  17. DKPetey99 (talk) Per all above and you know how hard it is to make a new button like that?
  18. Geniusguy445 (talk)Per all. But this proposal shows that we should make the answers to this question easily available. Either that, or make sure that people who make these proposals actually read the instructions on how to use and edit the wiki.
  19. Magikrazy51 (talk) I am not Zero! However, I per him. Yeah, I steal catchphrases, jealous?
  20. Fuzzipede27 (talk) Per all.
  21. Ralphfan (talk) – Per all.
  22. T.c.w7468 (talk) Though it is possible to do that [1], I do not think it is necessary and someone who is really rushed can misconstrue that for a search box.

Comments

You know, you can only make new pages if you're an autoconfirmed user, when you've been here for a week. If you're autoconfirmed, you can search for a term, and if there isn't a page with the name of a term, you can choose to make a page of it, or something.
Otherwise, it might be a handy idea. There's no "create a new page" thing on the main page. For ease, it could be on the sidebar (like the search thing. You type something, click "create", and begins at the editing screen). I won't vote yet, since I don't know what the others think of this. Arend (talk)

Thank you so much for tellinng me that! I also belong to Adventure Time Wiki and they have a "Create New Page" button right next to the search. Both of the things you said were great points. Luigi is OSAM (talk)

I am Zero! I think it's very unnecessary, just search the new page you want to make and click on the red link and make the page, that simple. Zero signing out. Zero777 (talk)

Yeah, but I think this is just more convenient. Anyway, how are we going to implement this? I remember we have this similar issue dealt with creating the tables with just a click of a button. Will this be as difficult to implement as that? BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)

Well, I own another Wiki and it just has a button that says "Create New Page" I think we could just add a button like that below the search. I just think it would be easier Luigi is OSAM (talk)

I am Zero! But really, what's so hard of doing what I just say above, unnecessary. Zero signing out. Zero777 (talk)
It's not hard, but adding a button saves time. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)

For creating an article we need to search, and, if it doesn't exist, we can create it. If this button existed, we'll had to search for the article anyways. It is unnecessary. AmazingFlyingYoshi (talk)

Wouldn't it be possible for there to be more unnecessary articles if people used a button instead of redlinks to create articles? There would be more orphaned pages too if many weren't created from redlinks. Fawfulfury65 (talk)

Yeah. Personally, I prefer to create the redlink then create the page. It makes more sense to me. Rise Up Above It (talk)

I don't find it uneccesarry, I think it would be easier Luigi is OSAM (talk)

I am Zero! @Pokemon Trainer Mario It's simple for a programmer to put that under the search, it is just us opposers find it unnecessary. Your vote is invalid. Zero signing out. Zero777 (talk)

I thought a proposer like this got archived before it's deadline because it was immpossible to do. Pokémon Trainer Mario (talk)

For those who thinks it's impossible/hard - leave it to me. SWFlash (talk)

You aren't even a patroler. Sure, you may be able to create it, but only Porple can actually implement it, I think. Reversinator (talk)
I can do the code, porple'll do the rest. SWFlash (talk)
That depends if the proposal passes, which, let's face it, is very unlikely. MrConcreteDonkey (talk)

@ Geniusguy445: Well I DID LOOK, AND I DIDN'T know how to get autoconfermed. SO YEAH, PEOPLE MAKE MISTAKES!!!! Luigi is OSAM (talk)--LUIGI SAYS BYE!¡! 16:28, 25 February 2011 (EST)

Calm down. MrConcreteDonkey (talk)

...sorry..got a *little* out of control Luigi is OSAM (talk)

11. MushroomMadness1221 (Talk) I still need a page for Mario Baseball Association. 12. Mariomario64 (Talk) I'm with MushroomMadness1221. He hired me to work on the MBA.

These votes are really invalid. We don't have pages for those sort of things. MrConcreteDonkey (talk)

Even though I made the proposal, I think the Oposers actuly have better resons :P Luigi is OSAM (talk)

I'm undecided. A lot of people won't know that in order to create a page you have to search for it, but if they're smart they'd check to see that a page exists before trying to create it. Also, the Make New Page button probably couldn't be able to check this for you... and it'd be hard to title it. But, I can easily imagine it doing that, first bringing you to a make title page, and if the page already exists it will tell you that. I know nothing of programming but it sounds achievable. I just... I don't know. Let me argue with myself some more and I'm sure we'll reach a verdict soon. Wait, according to the above, we have an available coder and implementer, so it should be fine. I'll go ahead and support this. Dry Paratroopa (talk)

Removals

None at the moment

Changes

Merge Planets and Missions/Levels sections (On every Galaxy article,from Gateway to Grandmaster)

Why is there a need to individually describe each planet? Can't we just do that in the Missions section? Also why are the planets named, Nintendo didn't ONCE give a planet a name, they probably don't even have names. They are just adding more conjectural information to the wiki which we don't need or want.

Proposer: IGGY7735
Deadline: March 5, 2011 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. IGGY7735 I made It!

Oppose

  1. MrConcreteDonkey (talk) - Where do I begin? Many planets appear in more than one mission, the planets are barely related to the mission otherwise, it will get very confusing, planet info will be hard to find...etc. Conjectural information is fine, as long as it describes what it's supposed to describe well.
  2. Phoenix (talk) - Absolutely not!!! What you're talking about doing here is merging two completely different pieces of information across 91 separate articles...I'm sorry, but that cannot be allowed to happen...
  3. Smileymiley5001 (talk)Per all
  4. Bowser's luma (talk) Proposals involving the change of 91 perfectly good pages are totally unnecessary. I think our limit is at most 74.
  5. SWFlash (talk) Per Bowser's luma.
  6. Ultrahammer5365 (talk) Per all.
  7. Kaptain K. Rool (talk) Per MrConcreteDonkey.
  8. Bop1996 (talk) Per MCD.
  9. Fuzzipede27 (talk) Per MCD, Phoenix, and BL.
  10. Ralphfan (talk) – Per all.
  11. Loxo (talk) Per all.
  12. T.c.w7468 (talk)Per all.
  13. Luigi is OSAM (talk) Per all, mostly MrConcreteDonkey, Phoenix and Bowser's Luma

Comments

Look, the very least someone could have done was to add this to the list of talk page proposals so this doesn't go unnoticed, like it did right now. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)
I can understand where you're coming from in your argument, but the truth is that giving the planets names helps to identify them when talking about them in the Missions / Levels for a particular galaxy. If none of the planets had names, the mission descriptions would all have to say "the large blue planet" or "the small red planet," etc. for every planet that is discussed in the description, which would make things extremely confusing. Naming the planets and giving them their own descriptions independent of the level descriptions completely circumvents this problem. Also, merging these two bodies of information would create more problems than it prevents. Adding the descriptions of planets to the level descriptions would just create larger bodies of information rife with excess information which, as a result, leans neither one way nor the other in relation to the newly-created paragraph. Therefore, the planet descriptions and the mission descriptions need to remain separated. Phoenix 23:13, 24 February 2011 (EST)
I have not once seen a galaxy page (of course this is when the article is up to the standard of all the others) where when I looked at a mission section and was confused because of ambiguity in planet names. There's usually only seven planets at the most in the galaxy, and most of them have clear, concise descriptions that aid in the mission section. In short, I found the planet names helped me understand the rest of the article more. Bop1996 (talk)

This should actually be a mainspace proposal: TPPs are only supposed to be for minor changes, not massive overhauls of dozens of articles. - Walkazo (talk) 00:08, 25 February 2011 (EST)

Shall we move this to the proposal page or shall we have to close it? If we can move this, I'll do it. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)
Give the proposer a chance to move it himself. If he takes too long, a Sysop should do it. - Walkazo (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2011 (EST)
Moved it. - Walkazo (talk)

Split Buckbomb, Skullyrex, Mole Guard, etc. from their respective articles

Why are all of these enemies merged? For the most part, all of them have different looks, different attacks, different names, and, the most important thing, they are different species. Not much more I can say.

Proposer: Reversinator (talk)
Voting start: February 28, 2011, 20:20
Deadline: March 13, 2011, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Reversinator (talk) Per my proposal.
  2. Arend (talk) Yes, yes, YES! I agree with this. We haven't all the other DKC enemies merged to each other for having just the same look with a different shade.
  3. Zero777 (talk) I am Zero! Per Walkazo's reasoning of the Hopgoon and Frogoon Proposal. Zero signing out.
  4. Luigi is OSAM (talk) Per ALL and the proposal is well written
  5. Magikrazy51 (talk) We have different articles for all the forms of the Strollin' Stus (you know, those SMS Goomba knockoffs). As long as the enemies aren't stub-worthy, I say go!
  6. Bowser's luma (talk) I haven't even taken the time to look through all of them but I trust your judgement Reversinator and the Buckbomb example is pretty good and a split is necessary.
  7. SWFlash (talk) YES! Another splitting proposal which is good. Per proposer.
  8. Phoenix (talk) Absolutely, we've got sixteen different sub-species for Thwomp, Koopa, and Bullet Bill, but these are merged?
  9. Walkazo (talk) - Per all, especially Zero.
  10. Baby Mario Bloops (talk) - If they aren't the same, then split them. I know that we could add enough information to make them not stubs.

Oppose

Comments

Here's what I think is a full list of the merged articles I'm talking about.

How did we get away with all these merged articles? Reversinator (talk)

I'm not sure. But what about the Skellirex and the Skullirex? If you jump on a Skellirex, it loses its body and therefore becomes a Skullirex. So they both seem to be the same enemies, should they stay merged? Fawfulfury65 (talk)

Think of Skellyrexes and Skullyrexes as Koopa Paratroopas and Koopa Troopas, respectively. Once Koopa Paratroopas lose their wings, they become Koopa Troopas, similar to when Skellyrexes lose their bodies, they become Skullyrexes. Admittedly, I've never actually played or seen a video of Donkey Kong Country Returns and I'm going by the article, but what I said seems to be about right. Reversinator (talk)

Y'know, should we also split Template:Fakelink from the Mole Train and Template:Fakelink from the Stompybot 3000? Yes, they're bosses, but I never got it why they are merged anyway, besides they're related. Max is a mole, not an extra carriage for a train, which is a vehicle, an object. And Pluck is a chicken, not a robot or a robot part. Arend (talk)

Yeah, they deserve to be split. It's not like Magnus von Grapple and Lord Crump are merged. I'll add those to the list of articles that will be affected. Reversinator (talk)

See, this is exactly the point I'm trying to make with the Ridley / Meta Ridley Proposal! If you view them in this context, there is no difference between the two of them and any two enemies off the above list of merged enemies; they each need their own article... Phoenix (talk) 10:21, 1 March 2011 (EST)

I see where you are coming from, Phoenix, but the splits requested here and the Ridley/Meta Ridley proposal differ in at least one very important way: Ridley is a Metroid character, and the same creature as Meta Ridley, while these enemies are different creatures, and from a series we cover in depth, namely the Donkey Kong Country series. Whether I think the splits here need to be made or not, I have not decided yet, but it seems to me that if we do split them, at least for most of the enemies, it would be a good idea to have a list of levels the enemies appear in and more details on each enemy. Hope this helped. Bop1996 (talk) 10:41, 1 March 2011 (EST)
Phoenix, I made this proposal because different species are merged. With Meta Ridley and Ridley, they're both the same person. And Bop, just because a character appears in a separate series doesn't mean we can't cover them. I just supported and opposed the separation of Meta Ridley. Reversinator (talk)

Okay, fine, you guys win...I admit defeat... :( Phoenix (talk) 10:55, 1 March 2011 (EST)

Reversinator, I didn't make this point again here, because it seemed not to make much difference, but the difference between Ridley and Meta Ridley is really only used for continuity purposes within the Metroid series. As far as Mario games go, the difference is negligible. That is why this character from another series doesn't need two articles for two different forms. I don't really even know why we are arguing about this on the Proposal Page instead of the talk page anyway. I guess I don't want people looking at this and going and voting to split without looking at the arguments against. Bop1996 (talk) 11:19 1 March 2011 (EST)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=959920"