MarioWiki:Proposals

 http://img33.picoodle.com/img/img33/9/9/17/f_propcopym_9045f2d.png 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
 * 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:
 * 3) Monday to Thursday: 17:00 (5pm)
 * 4) Friday and Saturday: 20:00 (8pm)
 * 5) Sunday: 15:00 (3pm)
 * 6) At any time a vote may be rejected if at least three active users believe the vote truly has strong reasons supporting it. Every vote should have a reason accompanying it.
 * 7) " # " should be added under the last vote of each support/oppose section to show another blank line.
 * 8) At the deadline, the validity of each vote and the discussion is reviewed by the community.
 * 9) A user calls the result of the proposal and takes action(s) as decided if necessary, and archives the proposal.

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.

CURRENTLY: , 27 2024 (EDT)

Gaming Ranks
I have seen users with "promotions" of themselves, giving them "ranks." Although I have no idea what these faetures are for (knowing I haven't have one), but I was thinking about something else like this. It is a point-rank system for the user gamers. Anyone who has played (and kept) at least one game will get points. 1 for each game finished, 3 for games completed, and 1 to 5 for other gameing acheivements (high scores, or something really imprassive I suppose).

As of October 10: I have just thought of the ranks and the points to earn them. If they are not sufficient enough, I will try to fix them.


 * 0 points: Not Participating
 * 1-39: Novice Gamer
 * 40-79: Average Gamer
 * 80-119: Above-Average Gamer
 * 120-159: Super Gamer
 * 160-199: Ultra Gamer
 * 200-239: Elite Gamer
 * 240-299: Superstar Gamer
 * 300-399: Master Gamer
 * 400+: God-Given Gamer

Again, if these ranks are too high or too low, I will try to fix them.

Propposer: Deadline: Sunday, October 14, 20:00 (EDT)

Oppose
You guys are right. It would be a waste of time. Sorry about this.

Comments
They could of course, just lie.

Is this even proposal worthy? Just do whatever you want on your user page. -- Son of Suns

Hmm...maybe you're right...

13:47, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

Articles on Websites
A while ago, the Smash Bros. DOJO!! article was created. It's, up to now, undecided whether we should create articles on websites.

Proposer: Deadline: Saturday, October 13, 20:00 (EDT)

Delete articles on Websites

 * 08:32, 6 October 2007 (EDT) - It's useless, the websites are self-explanatory, and we have the Links page.
 * 1) Walkazo - Per Cobald, the information on the Links page is all anyone would need to know until they actually go to the site (however the page could be cleaned up a bit).
 * 2) Per Cobold, and these sites are not part of the Marioverse.
 * 3)  Per Cobold.
 * 4) Per Cobold.
 * 5) We have Links...
 * 6) -Per Cobold, you explained it all.

Create articles on Websites

 * 1) Websites give info about games, and are about a certain game, that gives them enough right to have an article. Also, some websites give additional info not found in games, such as Wario's Warehouse.

Comments
To Uniju: Websites are not part of the Marioverse, but neither are most of the games themselves. Mario and Luigi don't have a copy of Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga at their house. Should we get rid of video game articles then? Websites are sources of canonical information, just like video games are. -- Son of Suns
 * Only some websites are official. For instance, Lemmy Land does have lots of info on some games, but most of it is fanon (fanfiction, fan-made biographies, fan-art, etc.). As for the games themselves not being part of the Marioverse, that's kinda correct, but they do cover Mario and the others' escapdes during a certain period of time. The subject matter of the games is part of the Marioverse, and it's easier to just include them within an article about the game itself (or within an article about a game's level). If we did it otherwise it'd be hard enouph for us to navigate the Wiki, much less newcomers or visitors. -Walkazo

I was only referring to official sites of course. You should know me by now. =P

All I am saying is that we have articles about the official "sources" of the fictional universe, such as games, comics, and movies. Why should that be different for websites? -- Son of Suns


 * I figured you only meant official sites, but I just wanted to make my point about unofficial sites for the sake of clarity (and for everyone who doesn't know you yet). - Walkazo

Okay, what are we? We're a Wiki about the Super Mario Bros. series that goes very in depth. Sources that are not from video games are considered non-canon. No other specifications given that will say anything about websites. So, we're not going to find our answer in that definition. Let's look further: definition of Mario video games -- labors of the developers that provide us with in-universe information. Other mediums, such as TV, are considered non-canon. BINGO! Check it: other mediums -- TV, movies, comics, toys, commercials, magazine articles regarding game storylines, conclusions made and names given in unofficial strategy guides. Wouldn't websites be considered another medium? OH, SNAP! That brings in lots of gray area, don't it? What I would do if I were you is to look at each website and consider: can this be put as a section on a game article (like the zillion websites from Nintendo.com)? Should it be placed as a secondary source on the links page (ie IGN, etc)? Should it get it's own article? Anyway, my opinion about DOJO is that it should be put under the game's article. But I don't favor making a policy for everything! 12:07, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
 * And what would be, according to you, a website worthy of its own article? - 12:12, 8 October 2007 (EDT)


 * I don't think we should put website articles under the games' articles. For DOJO it sounds like it might work since it's only about Super Smash Bros. Brawl, but what about all the other sites which are about many games? Or what about the un-official sites that only include canocal information like The Mushroom Kingdom.net, would we have to leave them out? I feel we should keep all the info on the websites together, like on the Links page. We could always expand the link page to include more info than it already does (though I personally don't feel this is neccesary). In theory it is reasonable to include websites just as we include comics, movies and TV shows; but if we start making articles about Mario websites I'm worried that things are just going to get muddled. - Walkazo
 * Yeah, that's what I'm worried about, too. Too much emphasis on sites would be kind of messy.  And, Cobold, I purposefully didn't mention a site that deserved an article because I don't know of any that do currently.  Anyway, sorry if I offended you, Cobold.  I was in a hurry when I wrote that.  As far as the Dojo article, I would merge it with SSBB, but as far as the Mushroom Kingdom.net, I would put it on the links page with a paragraph blurb, sort of like the article for Dojo is currently.  Then again, I've been on hiatus for some time, so I don't really have much information about the other issues surrounding the Wiki.  17:10, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
 * I don't see from what I should have been offended, so you don't have to worry... ;) - 08:31, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
 * That's good! You know, all this website info could be posted in the game articles under a "Marketing and Promotions" header or something like that.  22:22, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
 * That could work. The information concerning other forms of marketing could be included there too, like all the stuff surrounding Super Mario Bros. 3. ButI still think the majority of the information about all websites should be kept on the Links page. - Walkazo
 * If this is passed, then all the information should at least be on a list, I mean Wario's Warehouse has a trove of information not found elsewhere as the site itself was taken down. 20:21, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
 * As I see it, a "website article" is like the Smash Bros. DOJO!! article, with the statistics and informatipn about the website. Wario's Warehouse is about information released on a website about Wario and Waluigi, so I don't think it really counts as a "website article" and therefore wouldn't be deleted. - Walkazo

"Creative" header
Some lenghty article are broke up in section, each section having it own header. Some article, such as Yoshi have section-header that differ from the plain (Insert name of the game here.) formula. The problem is, those header make the wiki look informal and amateurish ("Humble Beginnings " is not something that I would qualify as profesionnal, really.), also, the fact than there is two style of headers might confuse the new users. This can really get confusing if the section don't mention the name of the game (Which is quite often.), the proposal is to get rid of all these "creative" header and replace them with more professional-sounding one.

Proposer: Glowsquid Deadline: October 6 15:00 EDT

Crush 'em

 * 1) Glowsquid I am the proposer and my reasons are given above.
 * 2) Mr.Vruet That's a good idea accually.
 * 3) Walkazo - I find some of these creative headlines way to cutesy for an encyclopedia, and sometimes the actual game isn't even mentioned in the section. While we don't necessarily have to label each sub-section as the game it concerns, we should make sure it is totally clear what game we're talking about.
 * 4) I agree, they are not very encyclopedia-like.
 * 17:17, 8 October 2007 (EDT) I'm supporting this view simply based on this: we sould be naming our headers in character/location articles based on the events in the games. For example, in the Isle Delfino article, one could head up the section for Super Mario Sunshine as "Shadow Mario's Vandalism" or "Shadow Mario's Attack" or separate it into one of those and "Mario's Arrest".  I'm actually against separating an article into sections based on the subject's appearances in games.  It should be more flexible, but that's another argument entirely.  In short, I think things like "Daisy DS" are not sutible as a replacement for "Role in the DS Tourament" or "Mario Kart DS" Apparance, even though some of the headings we've seen are cute and fun.  It's an encyclopedia, you know?  We don't have room for creativity except where tying story threads together is concerned.

Let them be

 * 1) Son of Suns - I think I started this trend. I got the idea from Wookiepedia.  Events are described in-universe, so I tried to create headers that described the events in the game.  I think sub-headers can be "creative", but should sound more encyclopedic.  Headers should describe a character's role in a game or the general events of the game.  However, I don't think all articles need to be written in this style.  Unlike Wikipedia, it's okay to have different style articles here, and users can decide how they want to order an article.  King K. Rool might work better listing events game by game by release date, but Yoshi might work better with "creative headers", as some games take place in the past.  I think a lot of sub-headers need to be written better, or changed (which you are free to do Glowsquid) but I think the style is just fine.  And I don't think it's confusing - it just shows the variety of writing styles on the wiki.
 * 2) - per SoS.
 * 3) Per Cobold
 * 4) -We should be DIFFERENT. We don't have to be like the other "I have to be orgainised" wikis.
 * 5) Fixitup- They provide a nice way to catch interest and even combine certain sections that would otherwise look odd. (Would you rather have something that says 'Prince On the Rise' to say 'Mario Superstar Baseball & Mario Golf Toadstool Tour'???)

Comments
SOS: By "confusing", I meant it might confuse the new user on hwo to write those headers, what to do, a creative header or a plain one? Glowsquid


 * Oh I understand, and I think new users will either pick a style or just ask someone for help, or even pick a different style based on the article they are writing. -- Son of Suns

One of the problems with this proposal is that some articles, such as Goomba, group many games under one header. It would be foolish to split the header into multiple headers listing each game, especially when there is not a lot of information. Also, a long header listing every game in that section would not make sense. And, according to Chronology, headers should be listed in a relative chronological order. If we just stick to game names as headers, we would have two Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time sections in certain articles.

I guess I am confused what a "creative" header is or not. That is a very relative term. What would this proposal do exactly? What is a "professional" header? I do believe the header needs to give reference to the events of the game and the name of the game needs to be mentioned in the section, but I don't believe a header needs to simply say the name of the game. Sections are supposed to name the game they are talking about - that's the source of the information. It's wiki policy, but some users may have forgot to put the name of the game in. We simply need to correct those errors. So.....what would this proposal change? -- Son of Suns
 * Errmm.. By "Profesional", I mean that the header left no doubt about what it's talking about without reading lile something out of a fanfiction or an a promotional ad. Header like "Bowser Strike Again!" doesn't tell the reader what it's talking about, and sound like something out of an ad. However, header like "Mario third adventure" is already a little better, since the reader have an hint on what it's talking about and it doesn't sound too POV-ish.

I don't think splitting up an header in each is "foolish, like you say. They appear in a game, it's notable. There's not a lot of information? Add some more! As for the Goomba appeatring in both past and presents in PIT... well, I can't say anything about that.


 * So as long as the header refers to the events of the game (such as "The Invasion of Dinosaur Land" or something), the header is fine? And I think it is important to have some games under one header, as long as the paragraph(s) state what games are being talked about.  For example, in the Goomba article, I combined games that take place in the past to show that Goombas had a small role in games that take place in the past.  This section also combines info from other titles that refer to past events (such as Super Mario Bros. and Mario Superstar Baseball).  I also combined the events of Super Mario Bros. and Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels in another section, as the second game does not add much info to the first - not everything can just magically have more info added to it.  Additionally, there is a section that descibes the events of Super Mario Land, Super Mario Land 2, and the Wario Land series.  The paragraphs are written to make sense of all the information as a whole, not divided into sections.  By forcing a section title into the article, the entire flow can be disrupted.  I think writers should be given more freedom.  I can't stand articles that have tons of section titles but one sentence per section.  It is okay to consolidate information if it makes sense.  Each article will have its own unique circumstances, so how the article is divided into sections should have its own unique rules.  I do agree a lot of titles are silly - but you can change them.  Be bold and active.  It's not a big deal to make them more professional looking.  "Bowser Strikes Back" can easily become "Conquering Mushroom World" or something like that.  -- Son of Suns

Anyway, I don't even think we can't make sure of which game we are talking about. For example, "Bowser Third Strike" might refer to Super Mario Bros. 3 but it may also refer to an obscure game that was released before, like Super Mario Bros. Special. "Mario First Aventure" might confuse those that don't know Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island exist and think Donkey Kong is Mario first game -Glowsquid
 * Well, looking at SMB3, you could talk about "The Koopa Troop Strikes the Mushroom World" for example. First, second, third and all that jazz is just confusing, you know?  17:23, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

Deleting stubs
It seems we have a rule that any new Stub articles are to be deleted. However I think that instead the rewrite template should be placed on the article, and if it isn't rewritten in a certain amount of time, it will be deleted, as simply deleting new Stub articles may discourage some newer users, also having SOME info should be better then having NONE, right?
 * Proposer: Uniju :D
 * Deadline: 20:00, Oct. 15

Support

 * 1) I am the proposer, and my reasons are given above.
 * 2) Glowsquid Stub may eb created because the editor don't have much time or there isn't much to say to begin with, I saw perfectly sized and well written articles deleted because of that retarded rule, I still say that one-liner (X is a character in a game, Pirate Goomba is a Pirate Goomba.) should be deleted, thought.
 * 3) Walkazo - Per Uniju and most of what Glowsquid said.
 * 4) Some info is better than none.
 * 5) Deleting stubs should not be brought up because it makes it unfair to other people who can't find information and need more time to do this. Also people can't think of anything to do and my conclusion is in one word which some people would agree to me, time, it is not enough and therefore stubs should not be deleted because of this. This is per to Glowsquid. "Some info is better than none." Peachycakes 3.14 is quite correct. Info is valuable and should not be judged on how little it is. If there is some information, as long as it is worthy information, as long as it is true, it is information and should not be deleted. Therefore, stubs should not be deleted because of the reasons above.
 * 6) Caith_Sith - Per Peachycakes
 * 7) -Per Uniju. We can expand on it anyway. What is maintenance for?

Oppose

 * 1) Stub articles should not be made, full stop. We need a lot of information on the subject, not one or two sentences.
 * 2) You can always find at least five things to say about something, what game it is, what it looks like, etc.
 * 3) Per Plumber
 * 4) Wario Land 3 is labled as an stub, should it get delelted?
 * 5) Per all

Comments
DP, what if its something small that doesn't have a lot of info to put? Should we make some kind of list, "Articles that aren't big enough to be articles"?
 * I am highly against all Stub articles, articles that don't have much information should NOT get their own articles. Unless it is from an unreleased game.
 * Having SOME info is much better then having NONE. Without these articles our encyclopedia is incomplete, who cares if there isn't much info, it still exists, and deserves an encyclopedia entry.
 * I'm not saying they shouldn't be in the Wiki, I'm just saying they should NOT get their own article. Articles that have very little information to offer should not be made into an article, but rather be merged into something that is very closely related.
 * Say its a Mini-Game article, all other mini-games get articles, so why not? Should we have some big list "All mini-game articles that where too small", "All item articles that where too small"? Thats not what encyclopedias should do, we should simply have an entry for everything, no matter how little info there is.
 * The Mini-Game articles are of decent size. And, remember, we said to delete NEW Stubs, not the Stubs already made! Also, those list names are pathetic.
 * They may be pathetic, but their what we would wind up needing. "NEW Stubs" we should be able to make them, as many Mini-Games or Micro-Games would wind up having stub articles. We are an encyclopedia, and should have an entry for everything, no matter how little info there is.


 * However, this also encourages laziness. People can just increase the number of articles they make without putting any actual content in.  And then other users are less likely to put that information in, as the article is already created.  The problem is not that articles don't have enough information, it's that users are too lazy too research the subject in question, thus producing tiny, informationless articles.  Anyone can say a mini-game is from a certain game.  But should that article be allowed, when someone later might actually write everything about the subject?  -- Son of Suns


 * Like I said, IF the article doesn't contain enough information, then a rewrite template should be placed on it, not a deletion tag.


 * That doesn't solve the problem. Users are more likely to create a new article than expand an old one.  So it may be better to allow someone to create an already expanded new article than create one with no information that no one will expand in the future. -- Son of Suns


 * We are a wiki, there shouldn't be such thing as an article no one will expand, theres a lot more editing then creating new articles going on, or will your idea change that eventually?

I'm just pointing out what I have observed after over a year at this wiki. For example, a lot of Super Paper Mario article stubs are still stubs. No one has expanded them. And I do know a lot of users feel special when they create an article. It becomes like a child. You made that before anyone else could! All this shouldn't be the case on the wiki. It's sad that is how people act - any article should be expanded because of an expand tag. But I think a lot of users are attracted to the prospect of creating an article without actually putting the effort into expanding it. Therefore, by deleting new stubs, users will be forced to actually put effort into creating a new article and find a new appreciation for the research needed to create a new article, not the opiate of simply creating a new article. -- Son of Suns


 * Or it could discourage a newer user from creating new articles, this idea can, and often WILL back fire.


 * I think that's the point. Discourage bad new articles.  If new users know they cannot create high quality articles, they can work on other things, not the creation of articles.  That's not a bad thing.  Discouraging users from doing things they are not ready for is not wrong, but forces them in the long run to improve the quality of their edits or work in other spheres.  -- Son of Suns
 * SoS has a very good point. If we do NOT delete New Stub articles, it WILL promote laziness, and encourage others to make incredibly crummy articles. If we delete the New stub articles, then Users will know they CANNOT make crummy articles, and thus, will work hard to make a GOOD article with a lot of information. Uniju, is it also possible that you, and all the people who voted to keep New Stub articles, are also lazy and don't want to make good quality articles?

For me, the problem is not the concept of delleting the stub itself, but rather the "standart" for a stub size. For example, Do-Drop describe the appearance of the creature, it's behavior and where it's found, and yet, it's tagged as a stub. I saw quite a few good article delleted because they were shorter than the average size. However, I agree that one-liner like "Pirate Goomba is a pirate Goomba" or "Elder is a character in Super Mario Rpg: Legend of the Sevens Stars" should be delleted. Glowsquid
 * I agree that Stub Articles shouldn't be deleted just because they don't have as much information pertaining to their subject matter as most articles. As many other users have said before, some info's better than none. However, I don't feel simple one-liners should be deleted. The "Pirate Goomba" artcile can easily be expanded to include what games the character was found in, a picture and/or a description of a Pirate Goomba, etc. Many people oppose letting these one-liners be created because it will supposedly stop other users creating bigger articles, but I doubt this is the case for all users. I.e. before I joined up it'd always drive me crazy to come across stub articles on stuff I knew about and could expand upon. However, when I discovered there was no article on another subject I knew, it didn't get me as riled up: I just figured all the info was part of already-existing articles and didn't warrant getting its own article, and left it at that (though I know better now). I don't know if anyone else shares my (old) way of thinking, but I just thought I'd put it out there. - Walkazo
 * ...Like Glowsquid said, everyone is thinking of stubs as "One-liners" when almost all stubs have a lot more info then that, if an article does not state what game its from, it means that the user who made it most likely never played the game, and only made the article because he/she was browsing the "Wanted Articles List", and say it on there, which almost no one will do.

Shrowser
We all know the game MLPIT and we all know Elder Princess Shroob and that she is the supposed final boss of the game but she's not no the real one is Shrowser the shoobified Bowser who is merged with the Elder Shroob. But I think that Shrowser is worthy enough to be it's on article and not be merged with the elder princess shroob so I say we need to split these into two separate articles.

Proposer Deadline Oct 7 21:00 EDT

Split

 * 1) My reasons above
 * 2) I definately agree, if we have an article on Macho Grubba (Who si the same person as plain Grubba is.), Shrowser deffinately deserve an article.- Glowsquid
 * 3) Son of Suns - It is an officially named alternate form - Shrowser deserves an article.
 * 4) - per SoS. Also, I rather thought this is a form of Bowser than E.P.S. (, though I haven't played the game).
 * 5) Walkazo - "Shrowser" is different from Bowser and Elder Princess Shroob and it would make sence for the information on "it" to be included in a seperate article instead of under Bowser or EPS or both.
 * 6) Shrowser is, indeed, a differant character. We have an article on Bowletta, so Shrowser deserves an article.
 * Per, all the other guys.
 * 1) Unlike Mr. L and Rookie, Shrowser has different powers, such as Macho Grubba and Bowletta. 23:36, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
 * 2)  Per All
 * 22:26, 9 October 2007 (EDT) Sounds like a plan. We should still hit up one of those: "Main Article: Shrowser" things on the page for Elder Princess Shroob under a section about her "last stand" or whatnot, though.

Keep The Same

 * 1) its still the same person.
 * 2) Per Master Crash lolz.

Comments
Unlike Bowletta, where Cackletta is cleary in charge of Bowser's body, who exactly controls Shrowser is questionable (and makes for interesting content in the Shrowser article). Bowser keeps his physical appearance and speech mannerisms - the Elder Princess Shroob mushroom seems to merely power him up. However, the Elder Princess Shroob clearly directs Bowser's attacks. As such, both Bowser and the Elder Princess Shroob are in control of the body. Just something I wanted to point out. -- Son of Suns

As I see it, EPS was a mushroom, then Bowser ate the mushroom, releasing her spirit (hense it was floating above Shrowser's head) but absorbing her power (that's why "he" was invincible and kept commenting on how great "he" felt, etc.). Since Bowser had EPS's power she had some comtrol over his attacks, but as SOS said, Bowser was ultimately incharge of his mind and body. Anyway, the point I really want to make is the fact that in the game "Shrowser" isn't actually named (you can't target them and they're never really addressed in the dialogue). What I'd like to know is where the name "Shrowser" came from and if it is actually canocal. - Walkazo


 * I believe the name is stated in the official player's guide, thus having canonical value. -- Son of Suns


 * Oh, okay. Thanks for clearing that up for me. - Walkazo

Split
They are two seperate enemies and thus desrve seperate articles.

Keep the same

 * 1) Dimenzio They are the same so let's merge the informations. But which name shall we take and which name shall we redirect?

Comments
Whoever proposed this really needs to include some information and proper formatting. There wasn't even a "Comment" section for crying out loud! - Walkazo

Move Chat Exclusively to Forum
The Super Mario Wiki has two primary functions: one – create the greatest database of Mario knowledge in the world, and two – unite a community of Mario fans to a common place. The wiki has been successful in both areas, although at times these two areas interfere with each other. Users interested in the community have used the encyclopedia as a playground for fun. Issues in the chat have flamed wars in the wiki, etc. This could turn off potential new users, users who could be great writers and know a lot about the Mario series. I think we need to make the distinction between the two functions clearer. Therefore, I am proposing that we move the Chat exclusively to the forum. Since the forum is a seperate website from the main wiki, new users will not encounter all the fighting in the chat, which is easily accessible from the wiki right now. As such, most community related content will be located off the main wiki. The wiki is first and foremost an encyclopedia, and should be treated professionally (but with fun). However, this would not deny community-focused members a forum and chat for their ideas and randomness. The areas will just be more distinct. User sub-pages will still be allowed, so users can still collaborate on comics and stories. I am just tired of problems in the chat affecting the main wiki, when I feel they should be dealt with on the forum where more community related content is located. Sysops can work on the encyclopedia, while moderators can monitor the forum and chat. As such, sysops can hopefully work on the wiki without having to manage community-related problems. Don't get me wrong. Both parts of the wiki are important - but they should not interfere with each other. Right now, I think the chat is one of the main interferences that can be remedied by moving it to the community-based forum.

Proposer: Son of Suns Deadline: 15:00, October 7

Move Chat to Forum

 * 1) User: Son of Suns - I am the proposer and my reasons are given above.
 * 2) Glowsquid Per SOS.
 * 3) Chat=Much less edits, and per SoS
 * 4) Per Son of Suns

Leave Chat on Wiki

 * 1) No. I personally think it belongs on the Wiki. If I recall, someone has proposed this before, and the outcome ended up keeping it on the Wiki. Also, what Xzelion said makes sense. What you said makes sense as well, but keeping it on the Wiki will attract more members. ~Huntercrunch
 * 2) – the chat will retreat to inactiveness again, which will defeat the secondary purpose of this wiki, partially. Also, who says an upset user is suddenly going to complain in a forum thread instead of user talk by instinct? Most likely, they will think user talk will get an offending user's attention faster than a forum thread – the new messages box is more noticeable than the PM text, thus chat issues and therefore flames will still be brought up. Thus, the overall reason for my oppose is that the move will not correct the current issue.
 * 3) Per Wayoshi.
 * 4) -I don't think moving it will be a difference. There will still be people. Besides, think of the innocent people who will miss out as well.
 * 5) Per Wayoshi.
 * 6) Wht force people to go to the forum when they could do it here?
 * 7) All the reasons above for the chat to stay on MarioWiki.
 * 8) --Zach121 22:17, 5 October 2007 (EDT) Agreed with above the chat should stay

Comments
Only problem about this, is not everyone has an email address (needed to access chat on the forums) and wish to chat are at a crossroads.

wel, it'll prevent spam, and also silver mario! :P


 * I don't see how it would prevent spam.


 * If you need an e-mail to use the forum, it would at least prevent anonymous users from accessing the chat. And by going from the wiki to the forum to the chat, there would be more levels between spammers and the chat. -- Son of Suns
 * Before it was moved to the wiki (though it was only about a day), guests were able to open the chatroom. 23:44, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
 * You needed to be a registered forum member to access the chat.

It might create a bad impression, the forum is a sub-section of the wiki. And if you have to register to do it it might put off those who just want to see what the place is like.
 * Guys, Steve changed it to anyone, logged in or not, could access the chat on the forum. Here is proof. 20:48, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

Community related issue on Main Page:Talk
After talking a bit with Son of Suns, I think that community-related issue should'nt be brought up on the Main page talk.

Why?

First, the constant drama make us look like a bunch of idiots, remmember when Max2 threatened to leave for the first time, or when Wayoshi was revealed to be a spammer on the chat? Those ridiculous events very likely turned a lot of potential users off. You hate a guy and want to ramble on how much of a waste of carbon he is? Fine, but do it on the forum, geez.

Second: This site is an encyclopedia, something most seem to forgot. You can chat with anyone at any time via the chat or the User talkpage, you can create sub-page that are not even related to editing such as sprite comic or fan-fiction archive, you can upload fours personnal image of your and waste our precious image space, this is being very generous. Some may being more inclinated toward the community side, I understand this choice. But please, don't mess with the editing space! This can be very annoying for users that don't want to be involved in more social-activities.

Proposer: Glowsquid Deadline: October 6 21:00 EDT

Prevent community-stuff from being brought up on the Main Page Talk.

 * 1) Glowsquid I am the proposer and my reasons are given above.
 * 2) Per Glowsquid
 * 3) Per Glowsquid
 * 4) Per the other guys, who per Glosquid. :P
 * 5) I agree. Per Glowsquid.
 * 6) Glowsquid has got his reasons and are well stated and have brought my attention to say that community-stuff from being brought up on the Main Page Talk should not be put up.

No, let it stay the same.

 * 1) The Main Page talk is a community portal, as well as being a place of minor topics of discussion for those who cannot use the forum
 * 2) My reasons are given in the comemnts.

Comments
Wayoshi's event had significant effect on the wiki itself, as he resigned from his administrative rights. It's a somehow bad example. - 12:37, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
 * And..? It still very likely turned off a lot of potential users and may also have annoyed a few veterans, while the event did affect the wiki overall, it was started out of something community based that wasn't related to the editing aspect and should have been brought up on the forum. Glowsquid
 * I don't think so. Also, the "turning off of potential users" is a very weak argument. It is a place for the Main Page talk to announce one's resignation as a sysop/bureaucrat/whatever. - 15:38, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Ahem, I agree that the Main Page should annouce the resignation of someeoen since it affect the editing side of the wiki (Less prevention of vandalism, ect.), however, the original "ZOMG! Wayoshi is Willy!" thing should have been brought up on the forum since it didn't have much to do with the editing aspect. Glowsquid
 * As long as it only concerned the Willy on the Chat, of course. I can never tell them apart, all of those Willys. - 15:43, 1 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Willy = Wayoshi trolling on the chat.

Willy on Wheel = The guy who made an enormemous amount of sockpuppet and vandalised the wiki.

Hope to have helped. Glowsquid

Wayoshi/Willy also hacked into Hk's account and vandalized the main page. 23:44, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

First: When you came to the wiki, was the main page talk the first place you went to? Didn't think so. And second: User talk disscusions are hard to follow, as they cover multiple pages and if you don't know exactly what your looking for, you'll never come accross it randomly. Third: Suppose you are a guest visiting the forums and here about march of the Willys, you've got no clue what it is and it dousn't tell you anywhere, you don't wan't to register just to ask the question, so would probobly you try the main page. Fourth: Please don't say things like; "this probobly stoped a lot of users from registering" you need proof before you say thing like that, and I'm sick of it. And don't bash the comunity side of the wiki, it's rude, and just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's harming the wiki.
 * A reason why I don't comment on the community in any way. You can easily get into flaming. Cobold - the unpleasant welcomer... 14:40, 3 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Oh my gosh Cobold! You do this all the time!  What is wrong with you?  Why can't you just make a comment on the Mario Wiki community?  You are such a jerk and I hate you. -- Son of Suns  And of course I'm kidding - c'mon guys.

Peachy:


 * 1, While it has no 1000% chance of happening, it's till very likely.


 * 2: Belh I guess you are right on that.


 * 3: Duh, it's not my fault if the topic creator isn't clear.


 * 4: Duh, there's no sure way of proving this. But I don't think that seing user flaming the hell out of each-other for thing such as stolen sprite and some guy doing supposely bad thing on the chat is very invitating.


 * 5: I just think that there should be a clear distinction between the community and the editing, the former is slowy taking over the latter.

Glowsquid

Glowsquid has a point, Peachy...

About what?
 * 1: Still, that's not very many people. And I havn't seen much of a problem with this.
 * 2: Yes I am right on that.
 * 3: I still don't know what March of the Willys is.
 * 4: This isn't as big a problem as you make it out to be.
 * 5: No comment.

Glowsquid
 * 1: How can you be sure, if you dismiss my "People may turn back" point by saying we can't be sure, why are you doing the EXACT SAME THING with this point?
 * 3: It was sone guy named "Whilly on Wheel" who made alot of sockpuppet in a very short spase of time and spammed the wiki, clear?
 * 4: Even if it don't mess with the number of users, it still hurt our image as an encyclopedia badly, do you see scientists stopping their research to quarrel about thing like "You stole my pencil!"?


 * 1: It's because I'm a hypocrite.
 * 4: Yes, that is true.

I think you two (Glowsquid and Peachycakes 3.14) are handling this pretty well so far. It's nice to debate. However, I do want to say that I don't think Glowsquid is "bashing" the Mario Wiki community by creating this proposal. Sure he has different values when it comes to the wiki (as do I), but I don't think he hates the community. The fact that he created a proposal to let the community decide shows he values what the community as a whole has to say. If this proposal does not go through, I'm sure Glowsquid will be content knowing the community decided what should happen. And that's all I have to say about that. -- Son of Suns

Please don't mention what happened about me earlier. It still bothers me. Also, I think we should just monitor worthless sections about comics & user stuff and leave it to wiki issues. 20:33, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Ahem, sorry, It's just that the whole event may be perhap the ur-example of unneeded drama into the wiki.

Glowsquid

We shouldn't limmit stuff we can talk about. Sure, things like "Super mario world is the ROXORZ" shouldn't be written, but we shouldn't outright ban all stuff to do with the comunity on the main page.

Ermmm... at the limit, thing involving both the community AND the encyclopedia could be accepted (Such as someone hacking into another user account and messing with it.), however thing like "That guy said something mean on the chat and he hate us all!" shouldn't be brought up on the Main Page talk, we have a forum for this kind of thing. Glowsquid