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}}. Signing with the signature code ~~~(~) is not allowed due to technical issues.
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.
- 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: 23:50, 14 May 2024 (EDT)
New Features
None at the moment.
Removals
None at the moment.
Splits & Merges
Merge Mario's clothing
So I've been looking around the wiki, and I recently noticed that there are articles of each piece of Mario's clothing (excluding his overalls). I find this a bit odd. They aren't very notable in any way. So I think we should merge each piece into one article. It would be named something like "Mario's clothing" or "List of Mario's clothing" or something to that effect. Opinions?
Proposer:huntercrunch
Deadline: July 3, 2008, 17:00
Support
- huntercrunch (talk) - I am the proposer and I give my reasons above.
Oppose
- Time Q (talk): Per Stumpers in the comments. Mario's Hat should have its own article. His gloves and shoes also seem to play a more or less important role, according to the respective articles.
- Ninjayoshi - Per Stumpers and Time Q. Also, the hat has been in every single Mario game. Ex. his overalls were changed around in the beginning
- InfectedShroom (talk) - Per Time. The gloves and shoes are rather important in Luigi's Mansion.
- Glitchman (talk) - Mario's Hat, Shoes, and Glove all have an important role in Luigi's Mansion, plus the hat also has an important role in Super Mario 64. Keep them how they are.
- 1337Yoshi (talk) Mario's hat is the only one that really plays a significant role in multiple games (Super Mario 64, Super Mario Sunshine, Luigi's Mansion, etc.), so at least that deserves an article. The others seem to be more or less secondary, and could be merged into one article.
Just so that people can judge better, the articles are: Mario's Hat, Mario's Glove, Mario's Shoe, Mario's Shirt, Mario's Overalls, and, if you consider it, Mario's Star. I would agree with you on the glove, shoes, shirt, and overalls. We did the same with Pauline's Items. However, the hat is what's getting to me. That has played an important role in the series and is apparently the secret to Mario's power (see Super Mario 64). Stumpers (talk)
I think his shoes and gloves should be merged. -Ninjayoshi
- I agree with Stumpers. After this proposal dies we should have another one to merge everything but Mario's Hat (since it's too late to alter this one). - Walkazo (talk)
- Will do. Stumpers (talk)
Dom (talk) Insignificant items like his gloves and er, shoes, should be merged, but stuff like his hat and main clothes are quite deserving of their own articles. There are articles about MUCH less significant things on this Wiki...
Changes
None at the moment.
Miscellaneous
Allow cameo appearences to be documented in character articles
The Cameo page currently includes numerous examples of purposeful Mario appearences by Nintendo. These incude his appearences in those sports games )can't remember the names) Mike Tyson's Punch-Out Kirby Superstar, etc. I propose that we incorporate these "official" cameo's into the main characters article, as a way to include more info.
Proposer: Ultimatetoad
Deadline: July 1, 2008, 17:00
Support
- Ultimatetoadper above
- Blitzwing (talk) - Per Above (Ahahaha).
- Stumpers (talk) - We do the same for Nintendo cameos within Mario/Donkey Kong/Yoshi games (see Link or Sonic), so why not? Would this also include the official crossovers NBA Street V3, SSX on Tour, and Itadiki Street DS? I suppose it should since we already include Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games.
- Cobold (talk) per all of them.
- Ninjayoshi (talk) - Vote Change. Yeah, after reading Stumpers' vote, it makes sense. Per all, and I agree with Blitzwing in the comments.
- Dryest bowser (talk) - per all
- Glitchman (talk) - I think this would be a good idea for minor characters like Stanley the Bugman, Donkey Kong Jr., ect., but characters like Mario, Luigi, and Peach already have sooooo many appearances, why bother? So in short, no for major characters, yes for minor ones.
- MelissaMarioSister (talk) - Per Ultimatetoad and Stumpers. In response to Glitchman: yes, the main characters have many appearances, but this is a reference site. I think the goal here is to be as complete as possible.
- Iron Maiden (talk) - Great idea. Per all.
- P. Trainer (talk) Per all
- Tucayo (talk) Per all, its a great idea for having more information.
- Ambo100 (talk) I support, Infomation should be displayed like that.
- 1337Yoshi (talk) Per all.
Oppose
I dunno. If we listed every time Mario has been seen/mentioned in a tv show, the page would be (even more) horribly long. --Blitzwing 12:41, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
- I am not suggesting that we mention every Mention, or even every appearence. For instance several series feature characters who dress in a style similar to Mario: these can be left out of the article. However, when Mario (or any other character, for that matter) makes a full-fledged appearence and has an actual role in an episode, it should be mentioned. - Ultimatetoad
- Maybe we should cover official cameos on that page and leave unoffical ones out? It would keep it short. Stumpers (talk)
Hmmmmm..... what would classify as an official cameo? - Ultimatetoad
- Indeed, what's an official cameo? One put into a non-Mario game by Nintendo themselves? One Nintendo gave permission to? (those sports games for the GameCube with Mario, Luigi and Peach in it). - Cobold (talk) 13:31, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
- That was what I was thinking. Thanks for defining it! Stumpers (talk)
Ultimatetoad, please always add a reason to your votes, even if you're the proposer. Time Q (talk)
But I don't wanna - Ultimatetoad
- As much as I'm all in favor of forcing voters to give their reasons, this is ridiculous. Blitzwing (talk)
- Not really, it could prevent users from seeing the "unreasoned" vote and thinking "Oh hey, there's someone who doesn't give a reason, so I don't have to either". It's like the "Per [insert user]" thing, almost everyone uses it now, most of them just copying what other users do. Time Q (talk)
I was just joking. I dit put a reason, even if it is just : please refer above (ok, so maybe it's just "above, you know what it means.
I think that Stumpers had a good idea: non-mario games which Mario appears in (and games which are made by nintendo) should be incorporated into the character page. Everything else can stay on Cameo. I will change my proposal to reflect this. - Ultimatetoad
- Currently, NBA V3 and SSX on Tour (I believe those are the names) are both on the Game Sightings page. Stumpers! 09:22, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
erm, well, thos are "official" sightings too, so they should probably be moved.... I mean, we have articles for the games. don't we? - Ultimatetoad
- At one time we did, which is probably what you were remembering. With the introduction of the game sightings article, someone merged them. I'd be for separating them, though. Stumpers (talk)
- Since discerning official and unofficial cameos is gonna get hairy, why not just include a short, concise list of all the cameos on the page, minus generic allusions to the character by non-Nintendo/video game sources (as Ultimatetoad mentioned earlier). The list would be something like this:
- Tennis - Mario is the referee.
- Banjo-Kazooie - Mario is mentioned by someone (can't remembr who).
- Pokémon Red/Blue/Yellow/Fire Red/Leaf Green - Mario and Wario is depicted on a TV.
- Admittedly for Mario it's basically a streamlined version of Cameo, but for the other characters it'd be more original and usefull. - Walkazo (talk)
Well:
Any appearence/mention on a game for a NINTENDO CONSOLE will be in the main character article. These include everything Walkazo just said as well as the ones listed at the top and... some other ones.
Any appearence/mention on a non-nintendo console, show, movie, etc., will stay on the cameo page.
Obviously I'm excluding games or shows where Mario is a main character, like Hotel Mario & the SMBSS. - Ultimatetoad
