MarioWiki:Proposals

 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 sysops or 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 sysop or 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)

Featured Images
There is already the, we should use it. The system will be exactly like the original FA system.

Proposer: 14:19, 12 August 2007 (EDT) Due Date: 17:00, August 19

Support

 * 14:19, 12 August 2007 (EDT) It's about time we got a new project and put that template to use.
 * 1) Seems Like an excellent Idea too me, unlike those anger management classes I got twice Walkazo (and Pantaro Paratroopa) This message was PP's.
 * 2) Compitition is fine.  I mean... we got rid of the FA already, and everyone's just sitting around sorta and being confused at the new system.  Ugh... it's so... EXTENSIVE!!! Agh!

Oppose

 * 1) "Could create Competition" ~Wayoshi Like, everywhere ---
 * 2)  – no need to assess images. The template is used to give a current FA an illustration on the Main Page, that's all. Max2: I'm not so worried about competition for people finding better images, I just think we're not big enough to sustain a steady supply of spectacular images. Many that are uploaded are quite small.
 * 3) Per Wayoshi

The Terrible Big Fandom
Ok people, I'm just sick and tired of even seeing the words "Big Eight". The article is totally nothing but fanon cruft. I think we should just get rid of the article and any mentioning of it within other articles. When you look at it this way all the article is saying is "Uh ok these eight characters appeared playable in early spin-offs before other people and a lot of them are used a lot in their own games or a mainstream game so they are the most important eight characters and since a lot of people think so it is a fact.". Maybe I'm exaggerating, but I don't think so. Oh and, no adding or removing of any characters could fix this thing. WE MUST DESTROY IT WITH FIRE (no not literally)

Proposer: Fixitup Deadline: 17:00, 24 August

Kill It

 * 1) I never thought much about it before, but now that you mention it, it sounds like a waste.-1337Yoshi
 * 2) Gofer
 * 3) - The Big Eight (and the Marioverse) have already been made writer guidelines. As such, the Big Eight references in articles should indeed be removed, and Marioverse should be replaces with Mario series.
 * 4) – Per Cobold.
 * 5) – Definitely. I was thinking the same thing, but Cobold worded it better.
 * 6) – Whoa, that much dirt on one part. And the references that contain "Big Eight", *makes a thumbs-down* DE-LATED!!!!!!!!

Comments
While some characters are obliviousy important than other, deciding who is a Big Eight and who is not is more of an opinion than anything. Per example, do Toad really qualify? Sure, he have his own game... but all he do nodaway is appearing in some spinoff. I don't see the point in it, anyway. Gofer
 * We would have to edit the writer guidelines as well, to say these are general terms used by fans, but are not actual canon and should not be mentioned in articles. 12:41, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

Trouble Center
Face it, folks. The Trouble Center has been rarely used in 2007 after an initial burst, I don't think at all this summer. It's meant for newbies or the experienced to get article help where they cannot, such as knowledge of classic or obscure games. But, both of these kinds of members have fallen through: very few newbs become full members here and usually ask a veteran instead or don't have any questions for article content; veterans work at what they are strongest OR are more involved in sub-communities such as Fantendo or Userpedia instead.

Our community is just not big enough to sustain the ideal function that was set last year. Oh well, but we would survive.

Proposer: Deadline: 17:00, 23 August

Drop It

 * 1) – community size too small to reach ideal goal, thus it has fallen through like a dead weight.
 * 2) It was a good idea, but right now I think it's function would be better served through main page postings, rather than a complex array of pages that only will confuse newbies.  Oh, that brings up another question: what's going on with the featured articles?  Could the new system just be too complex or am I just confused?
 * 3) The multiple sub-pages of the Trouble Center would confuse many newbies, especially considering 99% of them have trouble with the simplest syntax. They can always just ask more experienced members.

Try a Comeback

 * 1) - it has potential to become very useful again, maybe just a team needs to fire it up again. All it needs is maybe sometime on the sitenotice...
 * 2) - It will always be used people will always need help not everyone is good at this and not everyone can get certain pictures for arcticles.
 * 3) – It seems like a useful feature, even if it is used sparingly. We could try to revive it, and it would be worthwhile if these efforts were successful.

Comments
--Fixitup 20:44, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

Moving Koopa Paratroopa
The flying Koopas are currently under the article name of "Koopa Paratroopa", their official name from Super Mario Bros. However, I believe that we should use a name from more recent games, such as Paratroopa or Parakoopa as the article name.

Proposer: 09:16, 10 August 2007 (EDT) Due Date: August 17th, 20:00 EDT

Move to Paratroopa

 * 1) - It's their most-commonly used name.
 * 2) - Per Cobold

Leave at Koopa Paratroopa

 * 1) User: Walkazo Changing it to Parakoopa could be just as silly as changing Pink boo, the name used in several games, to Red Boo, the name used in Mario Party 8.
 * 2) It sounds more official this way.
 * 3) It's the full name.  The fact that the abbreviation has been used in its place in later games really doesn't mean that the name has been changed.  I would say that something like this would only be applicable in the case of Bloober's name change to Blooper.
 * 4) per Stumpers

Comments
Parakoopa should still be a redirect, at least.
 * Of course. Just like Peach should redirect to Princess Peach, etc.
 * And Mario should redirect to "Mario Mario"?
 * I don't think so: that was his name only in other media. Rather, I would put Mario Mario as a redirect to Mario.  Here's the thing: they're called the Mario Bros., but that doesn't mean their last names are Mario.  It's just an assumption we've made based off of information from the Real World.  Who knows how it works in the Mushroom Kingdom?  Besides, remember how Wario and Waluigi are called Wicked Bros.?  Perhaps the ___ Bros. thing doesn't even signify brotherhood.
 * In Yoshi Island they are brothers as they were delivered to the SAME Parents User:Walkazo
 * I wasn't saying they aren't brothers. Simply that relying on the whole ___ Bros. concept to work as it would in our world isn't trustworthy, though, you see?  All I'm saying is that we don't know their last names.  13:42, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

Splits
One of the most common proposals, related to splitting one article into multiple ones.

Merging Wario Treasures

 * From with Grodus said on the template talk page, I'd like to add a bit more. First off all the articles state are:


 * Number of the Treasure
 * Description
 * Retail Value
 * Episode
 * All which would be covered in the table, this would very much be like the Badges page. Any thoughts comments?

Proposer:  (started by ) Due Date: August 17th, 20:00 EDT

Merge

 * 1) - Per Above
 * 2) Gofer Theyy are too minor to warrant an article.
 * 3) – there's 130, right? And they each have the same info? Sounds like a job for a table page.
 * 4) - Too minor objects, and too many of them.
 * 16:40, 10 August 2007 (EDT) too many orphaned pages appearing.
 * 1) Per Cobold.
 * 2) I find it ironic that my support was deemed "unsupported" by someone who writes "per so-and-so" after all of his posts.  Please don't get rid of my vote.  All I said was that we should do this only if we have a way to link readers to the part of the page where the item is, and not just to the top of the page.  Here, I'll through in some good, hard boiled support. "Too many pages is nasty." Yay... it's been said before!

Comments
Also all of these show up on the Orphan Pages.
 * Because of a bug. 14:21, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
 * No actually I linked them to the MOD article and they're all gone :P

Miscellaneous
None currently