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 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) All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week.
 * 10) 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.
 * 11) 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.
 * 12) No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
 * 13) 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.
 * 14) 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.
 * 15) 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.
 * 16) Proposals can not be made about System Operator promotions and demotions. Sysops can only be promoted and demoted by the will of Bureaucrats.
 * 17) 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.
 * 18) No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters, and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.

The times are in EDT (UTC -4:00), 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 Saturday night at 11:59 PM EDT, the deadline is the next Saturday night at 8:00 PM. If it is a minute later, the deadline is a day plus 15 hours (Sunday), as opposed to a day minus 4 hours.

CURRENTLY: , 27 2024 (EDT)

User Game Reviews
Ahem, this is my first proposal so please go easy on me if I do something wrongI had an idea that users could review Mario games which they had played and recommend to other people. The link for them might be eg. "Super Mario 64/Review". I know we have a review corner in The Shroom but it's a nightmare looking through the archives to find the game you're looking for. The users could also use ratings such as "out-of-five-stars" or percentages. Of course the sysops could remove pointless negative reviews such as "this game sucked and I disliked it for no apparent reason".

Proposer:

Deadline: October 27th, 2009 17:00 pm

Removals
''None at the moment.

Platformer levels articles
Some platforming levels (like Super Mario World articles) has whole article. Some has section in world (like SMB3). These in articles aren't short, but they sound like walkthroughs (Donut Ghost House). Also they contain basic errors (for example in Iggy's Castle we hear "Hitting the Yellow P-Switch will cover up some of the holes in the ground."). Where is yellow P-Switch? SMW has only Blue and Gray P-Switches.

Propeser: Deadline: October 14th, 2009 17:00PM Extended: October 21st, 2009 17:00PM

Each world article contains all levels in world

 * 1) - Merging the levels into the worlds would streamline navigation and cut back on stubs and red links. Yes, there are many good level articles, and yes, with enough effort they can all be good, but that's a long way away, and in the meantime, the case-by-case policy isn't cutting it: it just looks sloppy. Merging would not remove any information from the Wiki or undo what hard work has been done - it would simply move the level pages in their entirety (templates and all) to sections of the world articles. There shouldn't be a stigma about whether or not something gets a page: the important thing is the information, not the presentation. Also, I personally disagree with the name-vs-number rationale: just because a level (or anything else, for that matter) has a name shouldn't mean it is any more pageworthy than one which happens to be identified with numbers instead of words: that merely reflects the arbitrary style the designers decided to go with for that particular title. In a perfect world everything (both named and numbered) would have an article, but we're not there yet, and merging would make that less apparent.
 * 2) Walkazo's sounds more reasonable. If we expand these sections, they can end up being split later.
 * 3) As Walkazo said it is about the information. If the levels have little information on them it's much easier to read a comprehensive list than to have to click on each one individually.
 * 4) - I'm going to have to agree that we are getting biased about articles with names vs. numbers.

Continue like is actually

 * Probably this isn't the best solution actually, but IMO it's the best we can do now. Even if I'd love to see in-depth articles on Mario levels, I guess it's okay to merge some of them in world articles (as we do with the Super Mario Bros. games and probably more). But levels in more recent games are often complex enough to give them separate articles (especially if they are named, not just "World 1-2", but actual names. Those in Super Mario World are actual names for me as well). To sum it up: I think "case by case" is the solution here, rather than a general decision.
 * 1) - Sorry but as another user said before me: If something 'aint broken, don't fix it! These articles just need some help.
 * 2) - Aside from the fact that I created about 60 articles for Wario Land 2 levels and worlds, and I would be really annoyed if they were all merged: I concur with Marioguy1. I am currently at it to revamp the articles for SMB3, and once I'm finished with that, I will take a look at SMW. These articles just need some maintenance/rewrites. Perhaps making a PipeProject would be meaningful, but don't make the situation more complicated with rashly decided merges/splits/etc.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) &mdash; I think the original reason we kept things this way is because those levels didn't have a 'name' per se, like Super Mario World's levels did. Either way, per all.
 * 5) – Per all.
 * 6) – It would be way too much work.  Plus, the system we currently have appears to be working.
 * 7) - Per Time Q. Also, I'd like the Yoshi's Island levels kept separate.

Comments
I abstain from voting on this proposal. I feel that we need a uniform way to have these articles, but we would end up with many more stubs, which would take up space on our server as well as make us look unorganized. I feel before any action is taken, we need to expand these little stub sections. After that, we can reconsider making it with each article.
 * I change my mind. I think Walkazo has a point.

Walkazo: "Merging would not remove any information from the Wiki" - Yes, it would. For example, we could not categorize the levels separately.
 * I concur here. I can tell that I constructed my Wario Land 2 level articles as independant articles. If they are simply tacked together, they will get stupid and repetative. And if they are rewritten to be less stupid and repetative, then it can no longer be said that my work wasn't reverted in any way. I can also see that parts of my articles get ripped apart and re-combined with other parts, and... I just don't think that's necessary :/ -
 * Time Q: Good point. The only solution I can think of is to include raw lists of applicable levels in the category summaries themselves; it might not be conventional categorization, but in the end, the readers will be presented with all the pages/sections that they're looking for, so it'll still get the job done - and it could even do it better than the straight categories, as we'll have more control on the organization of the data. Instead of having the levels all mixed up, as they are now, we could subdivide the list of levels into their parent games. See here for an example of what I mean and some more justification.
 * Edofenrir: it's more like it would be forcing you (or someone else) to rewrite all your hard work - but infoboxes and much of the text will stay, as will the information itself - which is the biggest part of anyone's contributions. Rewrites are a way of life on any database, as is trimming back on repetition; it's painful, but it's necessary if it'll present the info in an clearer, more concise way.
 * I also thought of two more arguments for merging. The first is minor: in plot-driven games, the story would flow much better if it were all on one page, whereas there has to be short recaps on the individual level pages (at times). The second is also about continuity between articles: none of the missions or episodes ("levels" by any other name) of the 3D titles (Super Mario 64 etc.) have individual pages - a point always seems to be ignored when these debates comes up. The only difference is that the 3D episodes take place in exactly the same area of a world (give or take enemies and interchangeably reachable/unreachable obstacle courses, platforms, planets - and other things like that), whereas the 2D games are spread out in different areas of a world. Is that enough of a difference to continue splitting one genre while merging the other? -
 * I actually think that 2D platformers and 3D platformaers are hard to compare. I disagree with the comparison "Course = World" and "Mission = Level" for different reasons.


 * The first one is the one you mentioned already: The setting in a course is always the same, while only the objectives differ. A level is an independant instance. You can f.e. not play two levels at once. In Super Mario 64 however, you enter a course and have access to the objectives of every mission from the start. If you compare missions with levels, that would mean you play six levels at once in that game.


 * The second reason is: Take a look at Super Mario World. The game is notable for it's branching level system, and many levels have more than one exit, hence you can complete them in more than one way, which gains you different results. If we regard your objection here (different missions throughout an instance equals different levels), that would mean we have to split many of the SMW level articles, just because you can complete them in two ways. I think that would not be meaningful. -

Bloc Partier: If you vote for the third option, all Wario Land world articles would be kept as well. May I ask why you prefer the first option?
 * Hmmm true. I just now thought about the Yoshi's Island levels. I would definitely like those separate. Thanks for the clearing up there. --

Ah, something that popped into my mind just now. Merging levels into the world article isn't always a warrant for good, non-gameguidish articles. Look at this one for example. It shows us the same flaws the proposal tries to attach with single articles. One of the main reasons for merging this articles, the improvement of quality, seems to be forfeit with this. Please take this into account before giving a final vote. -
 * That is a pretty heinous world article... While it's true that bad writing can crop up at every level, at least on world articles, the re-writers won't be as pressured to keep the sections as long as if an entire article depended on it (no matter how you justify it, halving an page is still halving a page, and a lot of people balk at that prospect). Like Bloc Partier, I'm basing my opinions mostly on what I've seen with Yoshi's Island: half five-page walkthroughs, half five-line stubs, both of which require hours of work to fix-up. Rewriting each and every YI page is even more daunting a task than fixing Pipe Land; the difference is, Pipe Land can be trimmed at first to make it less of an eyesore and re-expanded/expanded at a later date whereas the individual pages will not stand up on their own if they're stripped down to stubs and left for a few days. The obvious solution is to do your research before even trying to tackle the pages, but unfortunately, only the really dedicated writers will do that sort of thing (plus, doing things in steps is simply easier, no matter how good an editor you are). As for your earlier point about the SMW levels, you do have a point - I was just saying how, superficially, someone might think "mission = level" and wonder why only one gets pages; from that perspective, merging would seem more consistent. The question is, which way of thinking will be more prevalent. Our goal should be to make navigation as easy as possible for the largest number of people, and I feel that means merging certain groups of pages. -

Did You Know...
...that there are quite a lot of proposals here at the moment? This one's the seventh one, so lets hope that lucky 7 will guide this proposal on its way to a good decision.

Anyway, you all know the "Did You Know" section of the main page. This page is currently updated by me and it shows three more or less interesting facts from recently created articles. However, some voices have arisen, claiming that it might be better to change the sources of info for this section. That would mean that the trivia in there could be from every article that was ever created here, regardless of age. Using this policy would make room for witty, interesting trivia in that section, but it would also rob recently created articles of their base to be showcased.

This proposal's purpose is to give those arisen voices a chance to be heard, as well as potential opposing voices to arise as well.

Proposer: (Inspired by  and ) Deadline: October 17. 2009, 8:00 pm.

Put trivia from every article ever created in that section

 * 1) I think this is a good idea. Making the trivia section longer will help the main page to be less lopsided (Every time we switch featured articles, or get a new piece of recent news, it looks weird.) I'm all for beefing up the main page.
 * 2) - Per Funky.
 * 3) &mdash; As I said on this page, all articles (whether they're old or new) have interesting content that users may not even be aware of.
 * 4) - I'm trying to make a point against discrimination here. On the FI page with that SMB nom, in my above proposal with the allow non-mario characters thing and now here. I can not take some articles being singled out from other articles and I won't.
 * 5) - Ok, here goes my vote. I want the trivia in that template to be wittier, therefore a bigger source might be helpful.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) - As I said in the original discussion, old subjects still have lots of interesting trivia to offer. New subjects get enough press without Did You Know?, so using the template to unearth obscure facts would be more worthwhile an endeavour.
 * 8) - Per all.
 * 9) -Per all

Comments
I will leave this proposal here first and vote later on. -

FunkyK38: You know that this proposal just deals with where the trivia parts will be taken from, do you? The change will not affect how long the main page will be. Maybe I should rewrite that part. It's misleading... -

Well, that does help, but the main page does look a bit lopsided. Maybe you could make the trivia a bit longer, too? Just for when we are lacking in information on one side. To make it look better. I'm still behind you on this, though.
 * I could try to adjust it within my possibilities, but the mainpage's appearance also depends on the five other templates. If one of these template gets changed, the adjustment will be in vain again...
 * Well, if we need to fix it, we can. I'm only saying we put more trivia in to even things out.

I like the idea of using only the most recent articles as a source for the Did You Know section. However, I think that if there's really not enough notable facts in the most recent articles, we should take them from other articles as well. But the main focus should still lie on our new articles, in my opinion.

Edofenrir: If this proposal passes, could you (or whoever is going to update the section) still prefer more recent articles over older ones? That would be cool. But that's just my opinion and it's your job, so it's your decision of course.
 * I could of course check the newest articles for witty trivia, before checking older ones, if that is wished. -

FA Vote Margin and Requirements
Some of the FA rules seem like they need work. I think an article needs at least 25 total votes, and at least 60% of those votes need to be to feature the article. This way, not only does an article need a large number of votes to feature it, it also needs a large number of voters altogether.

Proposer: Deadline: Wednesday, 21 October 2009, 17:00

Add vote rules

 * 1) – Per above.

Keep as is

 * 1) - The system we have may have some flaws, but it is fine the way it is now. I think that new rule would invoke more chaos than it would get rid of. Also: Please change the oppose sections header; It is heavily biased!
 * Per Edo. The FA system works perfectly. If it ain't broke...
 * 1) - ...don't fix it. Per Edo
 * 2) Per Edo.
 * 3) - Per Edo.
 * 4) - Well, it seems we're keeping a trend here so...per Edo
 * 5) – Per all.

Comments
Uhm, there's no rule that says how many votes are required for an article to become FA? Sorry but... AFAIK yes, there is. An article becomes featured when five people give their support and noone opposes. -

I changed the oppose header to a non-biased one.
 * Good, thank you. -

Definition of "Administrators"
I feel this is an important matter, due to a recent debate that a few of our users are having, I feel it is time to redefine the term "administrators". Some are saying that Administrators are confined to Sysops, Bureaucrats, and Stewards. Others are saying that Patrollers should be included as well. I am in support of the latter, since our Patrollers help with the clean-up and organization of the wiki as well as helping the Sysops in decisions that we can only make. The Patrollers are given extra powers to help keep the wiki in order, they also have access to a "secret" board in the forum so that we can discuss issues among ourselves. I feel that we should redefine our official meaning of Administrators (Sysops, Bureaucrats, and Stewards) to a more moderate meaning to include the Patrollers (those who have the necessary powers to bring trolls to justice and enforce the rules). Proposer: Deadline: Tuesday, 20 October 2009, 17:00

Support

 * 1) Per me.
 * 2) That page is pretty outdated. Anyone committed to helping the wiki is an admin in my eyes. Patrollers are trusted users with the responsibility to protect the wiki from  vandalism. How can I not think of them as admins?
 * 3) - In my opinion, patrollers are semi-admins, which makes them basically admins too, even if just lower-ranked ones.
 * 4) - Lemme show you my views: Admin = Patroller, Sysop, Bureaucrat, Steward | Patroller = Patroller | Sysop = Sysop | Bureaucrat = Bureaucrat + Sysop | Steward = Interwiki, Steward, Widget Editor, Mayor. See how that works out?
 * 5) – Per all.
 * 6) &mdash; Per SMB. Patrollers are users that are trusted enough to block vandals on the wiki. I see no harm in allowing them free reign to remove unnecessary support votes. (Though, I still think removing support votes is rather silly.) If anything gets too out of hand, it can be taken care of.
 * 7) - Per all. "Sysop" can already be used to describe Sysops and up (since all the higher ranks keep their Sysop rank, they still count as Sysops), so "Administrator" is just a superfluous synonym as it is now.
 * 8) - Per all.

Comments
I would support that, but what I don't like about this proposal is that it has quite a huge impact on a previous one. It said that any admin is allowed to remove support votes from FA nominations they think are "invalid". In the comments section of said proposal, Marioguy1, Edofenrir and I agreed that admins are sysops and bureaucrats only, excluding patrollers. Who knows how many people who supported that proposal did so because they believed only sysops and bureaucrats would get the privilege? If the definition of "admin" is immediately changed now, that's hardly fair. I know it sounds like I'm just annoyed by the proposal's outcome, but I hope you see my point.
 * I see your point, indeed, but I doubt it would make any difference if only sysops could enforce that removals, or if patrollers could do that as well. If I recall correctly, Stooben Rooben said something about that even regular users should be allowed to do that, something I would encourage as long as someone looks over. As ordered by the page Knive posted, sysops are urged to not place themselves too high above regular users, so they shan't place themselves over patrollers as well. Therefore I see no problem in this proposal, even if it minorly affects a previous one. -
 * My philosophy has always been that users should have equal rights to that of the Administrators. (As long as it doesn't pertain to Administrative matters, of course.) --

The FA policy should actually be updated to reflect the new terminology if this passes: just say "Sysops" instead of "Administrators" and it'll mean the same thing. Personally, I'm neutral as to whether patrollers should or shouldn't be allowed to remove FA votes (though I am leaning towards Stooben's equal rights mantra), but I do feel that granting them that ability based on a terminology quibble is a tad slimy; the honest thing to do would be to decide "yes" or "no" in a discussion that is separate from any naming pretenses. -
 * This is actually based on a trivial argument that was between Time Q and Tucayo, whether Patrollers are considered Administrators and are allowed the same editing rights as Sysops. I meant no sliminess when I posted this proposal (I'm sure you don't think that I meant to), and I actually wanted a direct way to deal with the situation as I understood it.

This is an interesting topic, especially considering the fact that the term "Administrator" is used to describe Sysops on most other wikis that don't have the rank of Patroller. The latest MediaWiki version doesn't say "Sysop", it says "Administrator", and that can be an issue when we upgrade. I believe that patrollers should be allowed the same editing rights as sysops, but to avoid confusion, I think we should refer to them as "Junior Administrators" or something along those lines. Thoughts? --
 * Sounds good to me. It would clear up confusion, and Junior Administrator sounds more official than Patrollers in my opinion (Patroller is also a misnomer of sorts, we also have Blocking and Rollback). Also, an issue that I will bring up on the Talk:Main Page will need to be addressed as well (about a possible glitch with Patrolling).