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) Every vote should have a reason accompanying it.
 * 7) 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.
 * 8) " # " should be added under the last vote of each support/oppose section to show another blank line.
 * 9) At the deadline, the validity of each vote and the discussion is reviewed by the community.
 * 10) Any proposal that has three votes or less at deadline will automatically be listed as "NO QUORUM"
 * 11) All proposals are archived. The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of a sysop, the proposer can ask for that help.

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)

New Features
None at the moment.

Removals
None at the moment.

Merge Classic NES Series Articles
The other day I was reading through the list of stubs, and I noticed that all three Classic NES Series games, Donkey Kong, Dr. Mario, and Super Mario Bros. have their own articles and are all stubs. If we merge these articles, the series will be more organized, complete, and easier-to-read, plus you would not have to move from page to page to read them.

Proposer: Glitchman Deadline:: January 11th, 2008, 20:00

Merge them

 * 1) My Reasons above
 * 2) Kamicciolo, any changes or additions could just be noted in the main games page
 * 3) Better to create an article on Classic NES Series and list all that apply.
 * 4) Put it this way: These need to be here as much as the Bird articles. >_>
 * 5) Either this or make them sub-sections in their main game articles.  Which do you think is best?
 * 6) Same as anyone else
 * 7) - They may be different games, but all remakes, so we don't need to retell the story, controls etc., just state the differences from the original games, and they don't need have their own articles for just that.
 * 8) Walkazo - As long as the games are included in their parents articles too (see my comments below).
 * 9) InfectedShroom.[[Image:infectoicon.png]] Talk Per Walkazo. Absolutely everything she said. :P

Keep them separate

 * 1) True, but they're different games, which are more major then species and such.
 * 2) - Per the mini and the 'Shroom
 * 3) These should be part of the SMWikify PipeProject. It'd un-stubify them. Besides, they're separate games, so they should have separate articles. So, uhh...per all.
 * 4) HyperToad Per all
 * 1) HyperToad Per all

Comments
They may be different games from their originals, but aside from a few minor graphical improvements, they're complete and utter ports, nothing else. If we have articles on these, we may as well have articles on the Virtual Console versions of games.
 * The same thing applies to all ports, like Donkey Kong Jr. (Game & Watch). Instead of putting the Classic NES games into one article, we should merge them and all the other unneccesary ports with the articles for the original games. - Walkazo
 * But we should have a page for the Classic NES Series, just because it was a big thing back in the ol' GBA days. 20:12, 5 January 2008 (EST)
 * Actually, Stumpers has a point. Making sub-sections on the main game pages makes a lot of sense. My opposition to the total merging still stands, though... Sorry Glitchman! :( InfectedShroom.[[Image:infectoicon.png]] |Talk|Reviews|
 * I agree with Stumpers. There doesn't need to be an article with information about each classic NES series game. After all, it's just the same game, but for GBA. They can just be put into the game's main article, but there should probably be an article for the classic NES series, that maybe lists all the games. -Orangeyoshi

How about both? We can have a page about the Classic NES Series as a whole with the re-makes covered in each of their parent articles (the originals). - Walkazo
 * Very good Idea. I say we do that. InfectedShroom.[[Image:infectoicon.png]] |Talk|Reviews|
 * I agree with Walkazo's idea there. As such, which side do I choose for it? XP
 * Yeah, that's what I meant! What Walkazo said is what I was trying to say. -Orangeyoshi
 * Shorter is better; my Chemistry teacher even takes off marks for long-winded answers! Anyway, for voting for both we should just vote to merge but make a note of it that we want both, like I did. - Walkazo
 * I totally love Walkazo's idea. I was just thinking about it yesturday, yowza (small world, great minds... whatever)!  ...so I keep my vote on the merge side, right?  22:45, 7 January 2008 (EST)
 * Yep, but just make a note you want both. And InfectedShroom, just so you know I'm a girl. - Walkazo
 * Ah. My bad. Lemme change that. :( mixed with :P InfectedShroom.[[Image:infectoicon.png]] Talk

A Glitch Too Many
Whenever I go to the List of Glitches page, I see a mess. With all those glitches out there, I feel like the page needs help. The only way I can see helping the page out is by weeding out all of the glitches that either: A) Can't be proven or B) Aren't notable. If a glitch meets one of these two requirements, then it would be okay to mention in the article. Remember, we all can claim to have experienced a glitch, but proof is the thing that we need to make sure if the glitch is true. After all, not listing glitches is better than putting down glitches we think happened.

Proposer: 15:17, 7 January 2008 (EST) Deadline:: 15:17, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Glitches Must Be Notable or Proved

 * 17:00, 7 January 2008 (EST) My reasons are given above.

Leave Glitches As They Are

 * 1) Walkazo - See my comment below.
 * 2) Glitchman - If there's even a chance of a glitch existing, I want to know about it. Per Walkazo.
 * 3) per Walkazo and Glitchman.
 * 4) InfectedShroom.[[Image:infectoicon.png]] Talk Per the man that is glitchy and the... azo that is... uh... Walk? :P But seriously, I love that page. Keep it the same.

Comment
How are we supposed to prove the glitches exist? Photos? Acknowledgement from Nintendo? Also, aren't we supposed to have everything we can possibly find about Mario on here? If we strip off the minor glitches we'd be defeating the purpose of Super Mario Wiki. However the page does need to be cleaned up, something that can easily be accomplished in ways other than scrapping a handfull of glitches (i.e. combine the two SMS walking-under-water glitches and scrap the "Requirements"). - Walkazo

Generally blanket ideas like this look good in thoery, but you're looking at something as varied as glitches, and plus you have the problem of "notability" arguements. Maybe they're worth it for an article that could be featured, but an individual glitch? Plus, I don't want to see someone put hours of work into something just to have it removed. 19:19, 7 January 2008 (EST)

If we only kept the most famous and notable glitches, such as Minus World and Fireless Bowser, the wiki's original purpose would have been replaced to be a video game dictionary instead of a fun and interesting place to learn cheats, gameplay, and of course, glitches. Many people (such as myself) rely on the Wiki to find all of the glitches they can. And like Walkazo said, how would you go about proving their existance? - Glitchman 16:33, 7 January 2008 (PT)
 * Good point. I know I've found plenty of glitches on Animal Crossing: Wild World that I didn't take a photo of, even though I later joined an AC Wiki.  19:41, 7 January 2008 (EST)

Hmm... I just looked at the page, and yes, it does need cleaning up. My comment still stands, however. InfectedShroom. Talk
 * Just as an aside, and this isn't to be insulting, but why did we decide to do a list of glitches page instead of making it a list of links to glitches sections in the games? I didn't know how to phrase that to not sound insulting, so just know that I don't mean for it to be...  21:56, 7 January 2008 (EST)
 * How is that insulting? Anyway, as it is now it's like a one-stop-shopping page for the glitches. Its easier for people to read about them all on one page than having to flit from one to another to another, etc. Also, if we did make it simply a list of links, sooner or later someone's bound to propose we make it a proper page again... - Walkazo
 * Walkazo does have a point. - Glitchman
 * Well... can we still put some major glitches on the game pages? It kinda seems like making articles about game modes, and then refering users to them, which is something that Steve allegedly said we shouldn't do.  I dunno.  The list of glitches is cool.  23:23, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.