MarioWiki:Proposals

http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r149/Deadringerforlove/dessert1.jpg 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.

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 his/her 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 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.
 * 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 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 issue this Proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the Wiki handles that issue]

Proposer: 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.] Deadline: [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the voting start, at 23:59 GMT.]

====Support====
 * 1) [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 " # 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 effected must be mentioned in the brief description, with the talk page housing the discussion linked to directly via "". If the proposal involved a page that is not yet made, use 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  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

 * Give Nintendo DSi its own page (Discuss) Deadline: October 20th, 23:45 UCT
 * Make Articles for the Instruments in the Conservatory (Discuss) Deadline: October 23rd, 23:59 GMT

New Features
None at the moment.

Move Episodes from Article to Subpage
This proposal is kind of like BMB's last proposal, except it is proposing to move the episodes of appearance of a character, as long as the character has many of these appearances, into a subpage of the article. I'm not going to go in depth in the description but this will save loading time on longer articles for those people who don't want to see every appearance of Character X in Series Y. For the people who do, there will be a link :)

If you don't get it, User:Marioguy1/Test is my awesome example page :P

Proposer: Voting Start: October 12, 2010, 22:00 EST Deadline: October 18, 2010, 23:59

Seperate

 * 1) - This can reduce loading time on many articles without making too many subpages like BMB's former proposal would have.
 * 2) - per BMB's old proposal and this one. i dont care about... episodes or whatever?
 * 3) - Well, same as before, yet his is more logical I guess. Also, do realize that the Gallery Proposal is much like this, as it is a sub-page of the character, and we do have to best guess whether it should be a sub-page for some characters.
 * 4) Per proposal.
 * 5) -Per all.
 * 6) I was thinking about this when I typed up the Mario episodes. I thought we have to cover every single appearance of Mario, so there, a billion episode descriptions. The making of the subpages will help the loading time greatly.
 * 7) Per proposal
 * 8) I am Zero! There are high chances that they're not going to make a new Mario cartoon so putting it in a sub-page will'nt be a bad idea. It can give more room to upcoming game info. Zero signing out.

Remain in Articles

 * 1)  If we were to do that, why not make a subpage for game appearances as well? The point of an article is to have a lot of info in one place, not to be a map of subpages. I can understand a subpage for the likes of images, but written information belongs in the article.
 * 2) Do we need of every page a subpage? Galleries were enough for me. Besides, some featured articles have much info because of the length and inclusion of important sections - Game appearances, personality etc, relations, other info, misc. I bet that those might be unfeatured after this proposal passes. Also, per Bowser's luma.
 * 3) You've got to think of things from a reader's viewpoint. This ruins a reader's ease in reading pages. Let's say they want to read the whole Mario article. Now, they'd have to go to a separate page to see his episode appearances? Not to mention the test page basically shows episode summaries.
 * 4) Per all

Comments
Well, if we did something like this to Mario, wouldn't it be consistent to do it with every other character from the cartoons?
 * Yes, pretty much. As long as they appear in multiple episodes, or something like that. It's basically up to the user's best judgement to determine whether or not a sub-page is required.
 * @Bowser's luma: Did I ever say anything about a subpage for games? This proposal is an alternative to the recently failed proposal about making subpages to games. Please don't extend the content of my proposal beyong what I put there, I am opposed and always will be opposed to subpages for games. Yes, articles are meant to cover the content of a character, but we do not need a complete listing of the episodes that the character appeared in, rather a general statement of their overall role in the episodes will suffice and if anyone cares to delve deeper, we have a link for them. It shortens the page for all those who don't want to see every single time Mario has appeared in a series entitled the Super Mario Bros. Super Show. Chances are that he appeared in more than a lot of episodes. For those who want to read the article as a whole, we have a paragraph describing how he was the hero in the shows and he fought against Bowser and yadayadayada, we list the abnormal episodes and say how they were abnormal and then the reader moves on, knowing what Mario did in that series. If they want to read about his appearances there and they specifically target that section, we have a link for the odd reader who does want that kind of thing. But for the other two types or readers, who are much more common, we have a general overview.
 * @Arend: Fed up with subpages? Why? Do you just find them annoying? Personally, I find that subpages help move some of the content that people may not want to see which will take up a very extensive portion of the article, away so that only those who want to see it will see it. And if any FAs were featured because of any good qualities, I would like a list of them so I can create unfeature noms for them all. Perfection is not a representation of how many good things an article has, perfection is a representation of how many bad things it does not. If any articles were featured because they have a "long, descriptive section in the middle" then they should be unfeatured. They are not perfect (or as close to perfect as possible) if they have a big section in the middle and many errors everywhere else. If they have no errors anywhere and a big section in the middle, taking away the section won't do anything bad to them.

I don't like the idea of only doing this to the main characters' articles. It's much more consistent to do this with all character articles from the cartoons, no matter how minor. Deciding what characters are main and what characters are minor is mostly based on opinions if you ask me. I always thought of Oogtar as an important and major character, but I'm sure not everyone can agree on that because he doesn't appear in many episodes as far as I know.
 * What I mean by that is for characters like Mario, Luigi, etc. there would be a subpage. Maybe for characters with multiple appearances like Mouser but for a character like Pine, there is no need to split it into a subpage so it won't be split. Whether there is need or not is up to the user editing the article but I would personally never do it for someone who appeared in only one episode and never anything else.
 * @The guy with the long name: I am thinking from the typical reader's viewpoint. What you just described was an atypical and less common type of reader. Someone who wants to read the entire Mario article will have to click one link, and all the others who don't won't have to scroll through 11 paragraphs of text just to skip one section. And if someone wants to know what Mario's appearance in that series is, there is a paragraph describing what he does.

The Lists on the Left Side Below Mario Knowledge
Pretty simple proposal. You know those lists about Characters, Places, Items, etc.? These lists are split into two: game stuff and non-game stuff. Why are they separate? Due to those canon proposals, shouldn't they be one list? I'm proposing that we merge the non-game stuff with the game stuff in those lists.

Proposer: Voting start: Wednesday 21:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Deadline: Wednesday 23:59 13 October 2010 (UTC) Extended: Wednesday 23:59 20 October 2010 (UTC)

DO MERGE

 * 1)  This isn't a matter of organization. We're supposed to update the list according to the previous proposal of merging game with non-game stuff. Besides, A-Z is enough organization we need. If you want to separate things as much as possible, fine, split the character articles into more articles.
 * 2)  - Per LeftyGreenMario: it's policy to list games and alternate media side-by-side, and anything that doesn't do this is merely outdated, with the exception of certain Navigation Templates (i.e. ), which need the differentiate between series and whatnot. The lists don't need to be separated to show what media they are from, however, because the sources are listed right there on the pages.
 * 3)  - I usually refrain from voting but here I must vote as it seems my cause will lose (plus Walkazo made me rebuke my idea of "not being able to make a difference"). Per me in the comments I guess but to sum it up, there is no reason for characters, all confirmed as Mario characters, to be seperate on a list of Mario characters.
 * 4)  Per all.
 * 5)  Per all.
 * 6)  Per all.

DON'T MERGE

 * 1)  - I am a firm supporter of separating games and non-games as much as possible, so, naturally, I oppose this proposal. Why? Well, they are different media, and that is enough reason for me. But if it isn't for you, well, then, most of the other media is not even fully made by Nintendo, and most of the characters have completely different roles, appearances, etc.
 * 2)  I am Zero! It will be easier and more organized if we didn't merge them. Zero signing out.
 * 3)  I'm not sure that merging them would help. Per all.
 * 4)  - Parsing out stuff into divisions is the best organization.
 * 5)  - Per all.
 * 6)  In my mind I try to keep things as seperate as possible, and for some things I do, that would impose a major hassle for myself, and others as well. Per all.
 * 7)  Per all.
 * 8)  – Per all.
 * 9)  Per all. It's just more work for people to find something in the list
 * 10)  Per Tucayo.
 * 11) Per Tucayo

Important Neutral Stuff
I'll say something that is on everybody's mind right now. Huh?!?!?

Well, if you see here, the characters are divided to two groups: game and nongame. I want to merge the two since, well, because of one question: canon or not? Sorry for presenting an opinion unclearly; I'm notorious for doing that '-_-

Otherwise, tell me, why are they separate? Shouldn't the list be one big list?


 * Ah, now I see :) In my personal opinion, the current format is horrible. They should either be split into two lists or merged into one, not semi-merged, semi-split as they currently are.


 * Yes, these lists should be one, according to this proposal. Remember those canon debates? I think these lists haven't been modified yet.


 * Yeah, a lot of things regrettably fall through the cracks each time we change the organization standards... -

Tucayo: Well, they are different media, but I don't see why the two lists are split, yet the Manual of Style wants articles to include both game information and other media information in the same section.

Zero777: The list is organized well enough. What, alphabetically isn't enough? It's slightly harder to navigate because the list is split. Again, this proposal deals mostly with the grouping of game and non-game stuff. The lists are outdated, and we need to change it to the standards.

Luigi-board: Your vote is invalid.

I'm neutral for this. This proposal is balanced in advantages (organization) and disadvantages (tons of moved internal links).


 * It shouldn't be that hard to move the links. It might be tedious, but it isn't hard.


 * I really hope nobody opposes anything because it is too "hard", obviously the creator is volunteering to do the work themselves so it won't be hard at all for the person opposing.

Again, it's not like alphabetized isn't organized enough. I can live with only 1 list.

I don't understand why we should merge the game and non-game things TBH.


 * Previous proposals. We are supposed to place game and non-game things in the same spot so we don't go in this canon debate. I thought we agreed to place non-game things and game things in the same spot, so I don't know why people oppose. This seems logical to me.


 * Can you at least provide a link for evidence of such?

Check the coverage policy and canon policy. The split of the lists seems like the games are "more" canon than the nongames.

Make a Gallery Template
I just thought how easy it would be to have a Gallery template so new users could easily find more galleries when they access one and even editors could easily access their favorite galleries without having to go through the trouble. We could make a template for Character galleries and a template for Game galleries. Anyone think this is a good idea? I am thinking about making sections for Characters, Species, Bosses, and Games.

Proposer: Voting start: Monday 7:54, 11 October 2010(UTC) Deadline: Monday 23:59 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Make a Gallery Template

 * 1) Per myself. If this proposal passes, then I will truly make a gallery template.
 * 2) Hey! Here's a good idea! Per Mileycyrussoulja.

Comments
Although we already have links to Galleries within most articles, I notice a few have galleries but don't link to them such as Waluigi and a few other characters that appear to have no link to their galleries. Although while back on subject, a gallery template on gallery pages would be nice. A segment of the template, for humans, species, bosses.
 * Do you have any example of this? Examples are commonly needed on this proposals.
 * This could be difficult...I'll work on something :)

Is this proposing to make something like a navigation template for galleries?
 * From what I understand, yes. Like a big list of galleries.
 * OK. I'd really like to see an example of this, though it sounds pretty good.

Remember, supporters, saying any variation of "I like this idea!" is not a valid reason to support.
 * I really want to see an example of this, I don't feel comfortable allowing something this difficult to pass. This is something that could actually be pretty hard...
 * OK, is this what you're thinking of? I think it looks good...granted it's not in a template but if you want it in a template, I could try that.
 * I think what he means is one of those little boxes at the bottom of the page. It could group galleries of characters like Bowser, Bowser Jr., etc. or Mario, Luigi, etc.
 * yes, i do, Bowser's luma.

Categories on Boss Articles
OK, this proposal, obviously, has to do with the categories on the boss articles, something like this was recently stated on the talk of the main page however I think that to be an official policy, it must be proposed and passed by the community. So, currently, ~all (or so I am told) boss articles have three categories in them, Enemies, Bosses and Characters. I propose that we use those categories much more strictly, AKA for the following reasons:
 * Enemies - This category will only be used on characters that are unnamed individually and are simply known as members of a certain species. Like Goombas, not Goomboss, not Red and Blue Goomba, just the members of the species that are generic and anonymous. Examples include Goomba, Koopa Troopa, Spiny and Nitpicker.
 * Bosses - This category would only contain enemies with different variants, like different music, different size, solo text where they state they are "superior" or "notable", different coloration, etc. Examples include Goomboss, Baron Brrr, Lakilester and Bowser.
 * Characters - This category will only contain named characters. If the being in question is named and not just a generic member of a species then it would be considered a character. Examples include Mario, Yoshi, Bowser and Goompapa.

Proposer: Voting Starts: October 12, 21:00 EST Deadline: October 18, 23:59

Use this Category System

 * 1) - When looking for enemies, people want to see enemies, i.e. the different species that bosses fall into, not bosses in general.
 * 2) - I completly agree. What's the point of having a bosses category if they are all found in other categories. However, you suggest that Bowser would be in the Bosses category, when he is a character as well. I mean, if someone was asked to name some major Mario characters, I'm sure they would mention Bowser. So, if they then came here, and wanted to see some Mario characters, they would think that there would be a mistake in the category if they didn't find Bowser there. For most of the other bosses, like those who have been seen once, would be fine in their own Bosses Category. On the other hand, some people might lke to see a page with all the named characters (the lazy blobs could jus click links to other pages though), so this might be why there is so much disagreement about this topic. Oh and what Marioguy1 says. I only really disagree about Bowser, and other important characters like the Koopalings and Kamek (and so on and so forth) only being in the bosses category, when they are charcters too. Take Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story, for example. You fight Bowser (three times, if you count Bowser X as the third), which makes him a boss, yet you also play as him, mking him a character. I could go on for ages, (I aready have XD) but I can't be bothered to type any more. I broke my finger a few days ago, and I think I'm making it worse. Finally, per proposal.
 * 3) – Per all.
 * 4) – Per proposal and myself in the comments.
 * 5) - Bosses are not enemies, and to be honest I expected that common sense would make that obvious. Both of these terms are distinct roles in video game jargon, and in the usual case they are exclusive to one another. These two categories should never appear on the same article, except in the very specific case that something is encountered as a boss AND a regular enemy. Do not mix this up.
 * 6) I agree with Edo's comment.
 * 7) Finally, a comment that helped me decide my vote. Thanks, Edo! Per Edo.
 * 8) Took me a while to decide, but per all.

Continue Using Current One

 * 1) Bosses are characters as well as enemies. All current categories apply, some of which are just more specific than others. It is like so: Characters>Enemies>Bosses. Bowser is a boss, but that doesn't remove him from the categories of "Enemies" or "Characters."
 * 2) Per Bowsers Luma
 * 3) Per Bowser's Luma.

Comments
So you are saying Bosses =/= Characters? I would think that characters may be like a "mother category", with many other ones branching out, like Bosses, Enemies, Allies, etc.
 * Actually, I think most (if not all) boss articles would also be character articles. What I'm saying is that not all character articles would also be boss articles. I'm just trying to set category standards in this small area of the category tree.
 * The boss category is a specific sub-category of "enemies". It applies to those enemies that are fought in a "boss battle", bosses are defined as enemies but you don't meet up with a Bowser on the road and (forgive the Pokemon reference) have "A wild Bowser appeared!" flash onto the screen. He's slightly more sinister than a casual, oh look, it's another one of those things. And if Bowser is a character AND a boss, he will be categorized as a character AND a boss, I don't see the dilemma with having two categories.

Look, the branch of "being" categories are kinda like this in my eyes: A little complicated, and maybe a little hard to understand.
 * Species - Races of different beings. Some are usually nice (Allies), some are usually evil (Enemies).
 * Characters - (Important) members of different species, which usually have a name.
 * Heroes - The good guys, who usually save worlds, characters and important items. Mario (a Character) is a Hero, Yoshis (a species) are too.
 * Allies - Nice characters or species which help heroes on their way, and are against enemies. The character Toad is an ally, and so are his species. Mario is sometimes an ally too.
 * Villains - Usually the bad guys. They usually kidnap certain characters, steal important items and take over worlds. Villains are usually characters, not species. Bowser is a villain
 * Bosses - The term "Boss" is used on characters who are need to be fought, or are leaded by a villain, or eventually ARE the leaders of a branch of enemies. Villains can be bosses as well. Bowser is not only a villain, but also a boss. Hammer Bros. (a species) are (mini)bosses too.
 * Enemies - This could be anything that is bad. Evil species, villains AND bosses. So Hammer Bros. are also enemies, and Bowser thus too. And so are Goombas.


 * Well, I think of them like this:


 * Species - All different races, good or evil (such as Goombas, Bub-ulbs, Lakitus,and Yoshis)
 * Enemies - Evil or mean species that can usually be fought (such as Koopas, Bombshell Bills, Magikoopas, and Mawful Moles)
 * Allies - Good, supporting, or helpful species or minor characters that usually assist you or you need to rescue (such as Toad, Toads, Lumas, and Luma)
 * Characters - Anyone, good or bad, who has been specifically named (such as Fawful, Toadette, Bowser, and Waluigi)
 * Bosses - Evil characters who you fight in a boss battle (such as Red Ninjakoopa, Bowser Jr., Dark Fawful, and Tatanga)
 * Heroes - Good, major characters, not allies, who usually do their best to help save the day (such as Mario, Yoshi, Lakilester, and Rosalina)
 * Villains - Major bosses, usually the final bosses, which the entire game leads to their defeat (such as Dark Fawful Bug/Dark Bowser, The Shadow Queen, Smithy, and Bowser

Recap: Species:All races, good or evil (Dryites) Enemies:Evil species that can be fought (Octoombas) Allies:Good species or characters that assist you or you rescue (Tayce T.) Characters:Anyone specifically named, good or bad (Starlow) Bosses:Evil characters you fight in a boss battle (Kammy Koopa) Heroes:Good characters who help save the day (Luigi) Villains:Major bosses, usually the final boss (Super Dimentio)

Well, that's what I think.

A boss is an opponent, usually one of a kind, who is fought under special conditions. In action games a boss is usually introduced somehow, commonly with a cutscene, and you fight it in an arena of some sorts. In an RPG those often have their own separate battle theme or something else that sets them appart from the enemies. An enemy on the other hand is one of the many common nuisances you encounter in a level. They are usually not unique or specially introduced, and you often encounter more than one of them in one level. These are set roles in video game jargon, keep that in mind.

So apparently there are people saying the Bowser article should have the Enemy category on it. Now let me ask you a question: Where, even in one single game, has Bowser ever been encountered as a common enemy? In which game did he roam a level like a Goomba, or Koopa, or any other enemy? That's right, never! This is why the Enemy category has no place on the Bowser article, and neither does it have one on any other boss article.

This whole Enemies-Bosses constellation has been formed because of the assumption that most bosses hold a grudge against Mario (read: They are his enemies). However, this is not what the Enemy category is for. It is for common enemies only! We can't just stretch the scope of a category because of semantics like "You can use the word 'enemy' in a sentence with them, so they have to be enemies". We don't put Category:Bosses on Princess Peach because she is the ruler (read: the boss) of the Toads. The example sounds ridiculous? Well, the whole argument is the same if you think about it long enough.

The scope of a category needs to be clear and precise. Don't dilute it with semantics that contradict logic and the fundaments of video game principles. -

Merge Mario Tennis Characters
I've been checking the Project Unstubify page and quite a few of the character pages and notice that almost all of them have only one or two setences and a stub template put onto them. I think that they should all be merged as one page since there is literally no one to expand those stubs at all.

Proposer: Voting start: October 13, 9:15 EST Deadline: October 20, 23:59

Support

 * 1) - Per proposal.
 * 2) - You know, this could be the start of something new.  Not only could we merge the Mario Tennis character articles, but merge articles about other really minor elements, too (such as the Mario & Sonic Olympic events, sure they're not as short as the Mario Tennis characters, but they're stubs, nonetheless).  I pity the foos who think that idea is a bad one.

Oppose

 * 1) I oppose because this is the MARIOWIKI and each character is supposed to have their own article.
 * 2) I have both Mario Tennis games for the Game Boy systems and each of those character have a slightly different role and personality (from what I remember). Per all.
 * 3) – Per all.
 * 4) - We are the mariowiki, we do not limit our content based on our writing capabilities, we wait for someone with better experience with the game and character to come along and do it. We do our best, even if that's not the best. We cannot give up because of a minor impass, take te easy road and limit our content. We must challenge ourselves to make it better and only then can we call ourselves an encyclopedia. For the wiki!
 * 5) This is a foo who thinks this idea is a bad idea. Pity her. Per all.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all. Even if an article is a stub, it still has the potential to grow. Mario and Luigi each have their own articles, so same thing here.
 * 8) I am Zero! Specify on who do you mean by "Mario Tennis characters" and I might change my mind. Zero signing out.
 * 9) - Per all.
 * 10) Well, we should not limit our content on our experience with the game, it would make us look like a amateur encyclopedia, thus, we should wait until someone with more experience with the games to add to the pages.
 * 11) Per all. I pity the foos who think that idea is a good one.

Comments
If you don't like the fact that they are stub articles, why not write more?
 * To be honest I've played the games a couple of times, really isn't much more you can write about them to be honest. =[

How about we just don't have those articles at all? No one cares about those characters anyway.
 * We are the MarioWiki, we have articles on all characters, major or minor from the Mario series. ESPECIALLY if they are playable.

Beecanoe: Please don't call other people "foos" just because they have a different opinion than you.
 * Yea, even though I can't expand and I support my own idea, don't call people "foos", kind of demeaning.
 * Foos. Is that like foosball?

Grammar Team
Many people have different ways of typing things, most of the time mixing up grammar. I propose that we have a team who will check and edit any grammar mistakes. This may be changing words, adding letters, etc.

Example:

THIS is A ExAMpLE LINE oF TexT Four thiS.

Edit -: This is a example line of text for this.

Propser: Voting Start 12:00, October 18th Deadline 12:00, October 25th

Make a Grammar Group

 * Per my idea.

Don't make it.

 * 1) Per comments below. I think that such a group is unnecessary for grammar errors.
 * 2) - Per comments below.
 * 3) Per comments below.
 * 4) Not a good idea to make a group about something users correct anyways.
 * 5) Per all. We don't need a group for something as simple as that.

Comments
While this seems to be a great policy to have, I have a slight feeling that there may be arguements caused by this over Americanized spellings and non-Americanised spellings. For example, one of my earliest edits was edited, without my knowledge, shortly afterwards to change my English spellings to Americanized spellings: "colour" to "color". And that, frankly, is pointless. 13:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of many ways, such as form and forme, colour and color, and so on and so forth. But the proposal is stating that we have just one group of users do all the grammar issues. I don't approve of this idea as there are over 3,000 users that have the job of editing and improving the page, and just limiting the grammar stuff is like taking away nearly all the work needed on this wiki. We can't just have a group of people be in charge of it, as it is too much for just that. If you really want this, I say you should make this a Pipeproject (if there isn't one about this kind of issue).
 * I see your point BMB, and I agree with it; however my point was about the possibility of disagreements and edit wars(maybe) over what spelling scheme ought to be used. Because if this proposal did pass, then wouldn't every article have to adhere to one uniform spelling and grammar scheme?
 * I agree with BMB, we don't need to limit this to certain users, all users should be allowed, and encouraged, to fix grammar mistakes. If you wish to change a policy, do that, but making a specific team won't stop bickering throughout the team. If this proposal does pass, it won't make anything in addition to what we currently have.
 * Per. This is pointless. Anyone is welcome to fix the grammar mistakes they find. We don't need a team for it.

People who care about grammar will fix it on their own accord. Creating a silly group monicker that has no pratical tool for the job won't do snuff. --Glowsquid 11:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

For the record, anyone changing a British spelling to American or vice-versa is in the wrong, as both are allowed on the wiki to reflect the international nature of the wiki. (In fact, if I catch someone changing a word, I revert it, even if they were changing it to my country's spelling; if the change was part of an overall rewrite, it's fine, imho.) -

This could make a good BJAODN bad proposal section, aside from that this is probably one of the worst and poorly done proposals so far. Also per all above and what they have said.