MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/30

Navigation Templates
SUPPORT 13-0
 * ''Draft: User:Walkazo/Essays

This proposal is aiming to do for navigation templates, what this proposal did for categories. As seen in the draft, this will expand and update Navigation Templates, and while this will not overhaul the system like the categories proposal, there are a few changes, which I'll briefly go over here.

First of all, the policy includes a big chart of colours that should be used for all game- and series-based templates; I also have examples of recoloured templates further down my page. (There was already a proposal about this, but that user didn't create an actual code, so no actual changes could/should have come as a result of its passing.) Non-series-based templates (i.e. stuff like or ) can be given unique colours that pertain to their subject matter, rather than using the same colours as their parent series.

Secondly, the order in which templates should be placed on articles is outlined in the policy: namely, any random templates (i.e. species-based templates) should come first, followed by all the game/series-based templates, which should go in pure chronological order. So, unlike History sections, which clump series together, different games would simply be arranged according to the year they came out, with no regard for when the rest of the series' installations were released. Instead, the templates' colour-coding can be used to pick out all the members of a given series.

Finally, the policy outlines what types of templates can be made. Basically, there are three types of templates, each with slightly different content structure and criteria:
 * Game-specific templates will ideally contain everything about a game, like or, whereas separate templates about certain specific aspects of a game should hereon in be avoided. However, if a subject is very numerous, such as minigames, levels or RPG items, it can keep its own separate template, since merging it might make the main template too bulky. For example,  (bonus challenges) should be folded into , but  can stay separate. Both the main template and the separate level/whatever template should go on the level articles, but obviously, the level template wouldn't need to go on non-level pages (except the game's page itself, which should have all the relevant game-specific templates).
 * Series-wide templates should almost always be templates that list the games in a series, rather than templates for subjects that are found all throughout a series. These should only be made for things like that have lots of overlap or parallels between games best served by back-to-back comparisons, or things like, where a centralized list of far-reaching subjects is likely to be organizationally useful in a manner similar to species templates (see next entry), but limited to a single series and organized by game. In most cases, however, game-specific templates are a better way to organize things than templates like  or , both of which will be scrapped should this policy pass.
 * Everything else are species templates, which groups things based on what they are, rather than where they come from. Most of these templates will be species-based, like or, but important items like , and even a few miscellaneous subjects like  or  are given this sort of template too. The only stipulation is that they all have to be decently important, numerous and/or complicated: really minor and small, or overly large, vaguely defined groups of species (i.e. anything smaller than , or things like Category:Fish) don't need templates, and items and miscellanea are under even stricter scrutiny, so users will have to think long and hard before making templates like these.

The policy also has a big section on how to set up templates (i.e. what headers to use, how to arrange the lists of links, etc.), but that's a lot of nitty-gritty details, and it's mostly explaining what we already do, so I won't go over that here. If you have any questions about details on the draft or aspects that I could only briefly touch upon in the proposal, definitely post them in the comments, but overall, I hope this and the draft are enough to convince you that this will be a vast improvement to the small, outdated policy we have today.

Proposer: Deadline: March 30, 2012, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) - Per my proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) - Per proposal.
 * 5) This is a great idea. Per Proposal.
 * 6) Per proposal.
 * 7) - Per all.
 * 8) - Per proposal.
 * 9) Per proposal. Little bit complicated, but good idea.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Per all
 * 12) Per proposal.
 * 13) Per proposal. We badly need this.

Comments
I know you're trying to be clear, but can you please clarify further/sum it up what the changes are? I can't really comprehend what's going to happen, it seems too complex.
 * I don't understand this proposal either. All I know is that it is supposed to improve organization or something in templates. The rest, I had trouble comprehending.
 * The first section (of this proposal) covers the various template colors that are to be used (the color depends on the template). The second section determines template priority (so at the bottom of an article, you'd have species templates, followed by game/series templates (in order of release date by game)). The third section details what information goes into each template. The rest is about making templates in general.
 * Ah, thanks for clearing that up
 * No problem.

Mario4Ever's summary was bang on. And to clarify, this proposal isn't so much about making a few specific changes, but rather, getting a bigger, better policy approved. A lot of the drafted update to Navigation Templates is just explaining unwritten conventions that are already more-or-less followed, but from this point onwards, there will be something concrete to refer back to. It's also regulating a few things that are inconsistent now, or at the very least, making recommendations based on the various ways users are already setting up their templates. There are too many details to list, but there are a few notable features that I can further boil down if you guys do want the specific changes: The template classification and the terminology is also new (under the old system, there's four template types, whereas there's three types in the draft), but that's more of an internal change: it's important from a policy standpoint, but only the above list will really be affecting the wiki at large. A couple of the finer details (which I didn't talk about in the proposal to save space) that will also affect folks are: And that's all I can recall for now; I can't simplify the proposal any more than that without getting rid of the details, but like I said at the beginning of this post, when it comes to an in-the-nutshell description, M4E's post already has it covered. -
 * New colour-coding system (different series get different colours; random stuff gets personalized colours).
 * New order on templates (random stuff first, followed by games in chronological order).
 * Templates about subjects across a series (i.e. ) are now discouraged.
 * Everything about a game should be in one template, rather than multiple smaller ones, which used to be done periodically. The exception to this is when there's a really big subject like SMG galaxies, which can be left separate just to keep the templates from getting unmanageably large.
 * In the cases where there is a separate template for an aspect of a game, both that template and the main template would go on the page (i.e. a SMG galaxy would have both and, but an SMG enemy would only get ), whereas currently, the main template is often omitted.
 * Templates must be 100% wide (most of them already are, but there are a couple that run afoul of this, however a lot of them are already in trouble with the fourth bullet point).
 * If a page has 10 or more templates, they should be collapsed using ; the original threshold is 7. As always, the templates themselves should all be collapsible.
 * Templates should not have categories in them (this is already on the categories policy, but this emphasizes it).
 * Nav templates are for mainspace only (same as the current policy), with galleries and game subpages (/beta, /staff, etc.) getting their own special templates.
 * Really minor or vaguely defined subjects shouldn't get templates (i.e. yes to and, no to  or  , same as always.

Would Template:GPteams be merged to Template:PM2 as a result of this proposal?

I have a question about the templates: would it be a good idea if we add pictures to some templates? Or do all of them have to be a solid color?


 * Reversinator: No, GPteams is large and complex enough to remain separate: it's a good idea to sort the teams, but it would take up too much room and draw too much focus to a relatively minor aspect of the game to do so in the main PM2 template. LeftyGreenMario: Solid colour; templates don't need flashy pictures, and most won't get them anyway, which will just make things inconsistent and draw extra attention to a few select templates, wrecking the uniformity of the colour-coded blocks. However, I do think the image-background currently used on would be a neat addition to, seeing as that template is unique, and appears on a special group of articles (which are all about images).  and other templates like  or  might also work with that image setup, but with different background colours (i.e. dark blue from the water levels, and black for castles/underground; after that we'd have to get creative), or possibly different games' sprites, although that would be a lot more complex to make and set up. I didn't include that idea in the policy draft right off the bat, since I'm still mulling over the details, and seeing as it's a very specialized idea, I'd rather get specific approval for it with a subsequent Proposal. -
 * Also, it would be nice to see what the templates will look like when it's finished. Considering the support in this proposal, maybe you can work on the future templates as soon as possible. That way, I can have a better understanding what the result will be. Also, it is possible to make templates always expanded when only a few of them are present, like in the minigame articles?
 * The future templates are currently here
 * Hm, my CSS makes all those templates the same color. :P
 * You can see how it looks like when you log out.
 * Odd - I copied all the actual template codes directly and then swapped the colours, nothing more: no idea why there'd be a problem seeing them. (Also, this is actually a more direct link to the test templates.) Anyway, I don't know if there's any way to make templates automatically expanded on short pages, but I wouldn't recommend it anyway: it'd be inconsistent with long pages, pushing the [show] button isn't exactly arduous, and personally, I think it looks better when they're automatically collapsed anyway - it makes the pages less bottom-heavy. -

Radio Conversation Characters
MERGE TO AN ARTICLE SPECIFICALLY FOR THEM 5-0-0-0

Peppy Hare, Slippy Toad, Krystal, Panther Caroso, Leon Powalski, Colonel Roy Campbell, Otacon, Mei Ling. All of these characters appear in codec conversations, either with Fox, Falco, Wolf, or Solid Snake. Panther, Krystal, and Leon have articles that redirect to the list of trophies, while the rest of them don't. I really can't see why they don't have articles. I mean, they all have the same role, and it's a minor one. Do the Metal Gear characters have articles because they have more dialogue? More dialogue doesn't change their minor role. Do Slippy and Peppy have articles because they appear in Arwings on Corneria to shoot people? We don't have articles on Tingle or Ultimate Chimera, even though they are also stage characters. There are quite a few options we could take: merging all of them to the stages they appear in (Lylat Cruise and Shadow Moses Island), merging all of them into one article specifically for them, making articles for Krystal, Leon, and Panther, or doing nothing.

Proposer: Deadline: March 31, 2012, 23:59 GMT

Merge to an article specifically for them

 * 1) Seems like the best way.
 * 2) Per GreenDisaster
 * 3) Per other two
 * 4) I don't think they all warrant a seperate but they should get an article that lists all of them.
 * 5) Sure. Per all

Comments
Peppy and Slippy were both in Meelee and brawl so that's why they have an article much like how Whispy Woods has an article but aside from that I pretty much agree with this proposal
 * Whispy Woods has an article because of its appearance in a Club Nintendo comic, I believe. We have a precedent of merging SSB-only stage hazards to stage articles, but not when they have other Mario-related appearances.
 * Would Peppy count? I mean, he did appear in a comic, but it was a really minor role.

Creating Separate Level Pages in Super Mario Platformers, and Reworking Use of World Pages
FAILED 4-8
 * ''Draft: User:Bwf8398/Draft

Since the creation of this site, users have been told that if a level has a name, such as Awesome, it gets its own article, but if the level is a number, such as World 2-4, then it does not. Currently, World articles are being used to house information about 6 or 7 different levels, in places such as World 3 (New Super Mario Bros. Wii). If the levels had names, they would most certainly be given separate articles, and the idea that the entire position and most of the writing quality of a level article is based on its name is absurd. People say that it is because it can be hard to find a specific level, such as world 2-4, when there are multiple levels under that name, but the current system is no better! Users have to find World Articles instead, and there are even more articles about World 2 than there would be about something like World 2-4. It is much better to have many short to medium length articles that use infoboxes to be easier to understand than to create long, useless world articles, where information about the levels are basically non-existent.

People say that inconsistency is a bad thing, and this is another case of it. The fact that some games have their own level articles, while others are instead lumped together in world articles is very confusing to someone not familiar with the site. I remember spending a long time trying to find an article for World 9-6 in NSMBW before I was on the site, because I thought that the description on the world page was just an overview, and that the actual article was elsewhere.

Though in theory, it is true that articles will be the same length regardless of if they're in a World Article or a Level Article, this is not true in practice. The truth is that there are several paragraphs in a well-written level article at least, and writing quality suffers severely in the level articles. The reason is that the page is already so long, and seems to have so much information that users do not feel it necessary to add more. However, it becomes a problem when articles turn out to be this short: ''This is the only level that features Huckit Crabs. There are also a lot of Urchins and Mega Urchins.'' From World 4-3 (NSMBW) This gives no information about the level, just that three enemies appear in it. Compare that to articles such as this, from Super Mario World, or Bramble Scramble, which attained FA status, and you realize how much having its own article affects if people actually work on it.

Naming
Articles should be named as "Level name (game it's from)". For example, names should be like World 2-4 (New Super Mario Bros. Wii) or World 1-3 (Super Mario Bros. 2), and redirect for all abbreviations (e.g. World 2-4 (NSMBW)). For levels where the second number is a picture, name them as World 3-Fort or World 6-Airship. Disambiguation pages will also have to be created, but there are so many of these already for world articles that it won't increase the total that much.

Components of an Article
Many users oppose this, claiming that this would just create stubs. However, these articles will certainly be longer than things like the minigame articles, such as this, if written correctly. In each platformer article, there should be:
 * An infobox, containing a picture sized at 260 px. There is already an infobox available for New Super Mario Bros. Wii, which could probably be recycled for other games, such as Super Mario 3-D Land.
 * A short introduction, describing the setting of the level, any unique characteristics the level has, etc.
 * One section for each room in the level. A room is defined as a continuous sections of a level, such as the beginning of a level to the first Warp Pipe. If the screen has to redraw, then the player has entered a different room. Rooms which must be gone through in order to complete the level should be called "Main Room (Number)", and optional rooms, such as those that only contain 1-Up Mushrooms or Star Coins, should be labeled as "Secret Room (Number)", where the numbering is based on how early on they appear in the level.
 * One section containing a list of all enemies in the level, such as in the Super Mario Galaxy 2 levels.
 * One section briefly describing position in world; what levels it unlocks, and what levels are prerequisites to play this.
 * One section describing any Hint Movies for the level, if applicable
 * One section for trivia
 * If available, a level map, such as what is currently featured here.
 * Description of Boss Battle (Fort and Castle levels only)

Components of a Room Section

 * Brief description of setting, if changed (e.g. grassland to underground)
 * Any Star Coins or 1-Up Mushrooms in it
 * Hazards: Enemies, Pits, Scrolling Camera
 * For main rooms, any rooms it leads to.
 * For secret rooms, what room leads to them.

Using Template:Main
The other main complaint users have as that this would require a lot of extra clicking, and navigation. To counter-act this, I propose that we write brief descriptions of each level in the world article, and then link these to the main article. That way, the world articles could focus more on the world itself, rather than merely being a collection of disjointed information about different levels. This could be used to give a short summary of the level, so that readers can distinguish and select the level they want, without going to over-the-top detail.

Navigation Template
To make navigation even easier, I propose creating a navigation template for the levels in each game. Similar ones exist for things like "Levels in DKC", and it would make navigation between levels and worlds even easier, as well as streamline it.

Though this will require a lot of work, it will make the information many times easier to understand, and improve the quality of writing on all Super Mario Platformer levels greatly. Please consider carefully, and post any questions in the comments. Example articles are included in the draft.

Proposer: Deadline: April 12, 2012, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) - Per the proposal.
 * 2) - What is special about level names? I consider each level equally important, as all of them are necessary to complete the game. There is next to no information about the "non-named" levels, even though technically they do have names, (1-1, 2-8, ect.) and there is a lot of information on the "named" levels.
 * 3) We need to have consistency. Levels with names shouldn't be given different treatment
 * 4) - Per Arceus79

Oppose

 * 1) Per the arguments in ever other proposal that deals with this matter
 * 2) From a navigational standpoint, it makes more sense to have all of the levels in one article (e.g. by world) rather than separate articles on the levels.
 * 3) Proposal passes = possible load of new stubs. No.
 * 4) – Per Raven Effect.
 * 5) - I stand by what I said on all those Proposals that Raven Effect linked to: everything should be in world pages, regardless of whether they have names or not. Having all the info on world pages rather than separate level pages streamlines navigation, and just because the descriptions are all in one central place doesn't mean they have to be short - on the contrary, long world levels should be striven for. And, at the same time, not feeling pressured to write an entire article will help avoid unnecessary fluff from being added to the level coverage: rambling walkthroughs are for FAQs, not us, and "padding" sections should be avoided too (Each room getting its own speculatively-named section? An entire section devoted to where a level occurs when one line in the intro could cover it? Officially-discouraged Trivia sections? Sorry, but none of these are a good idea). Not everything needs separate pages: what matters is using the best method to deal with a given subject. For example, Rainbow Road contains plenty of individual courses, yet they all have infoboxes, galleries and nice big descriptions, and if we could treat levels the same way, that would be ideal as far as I'm concerned.
 * 6) - Per all.
 * 7) - Per Walkazo. Also, I don't really think that any levels, even ones with names, should get their own articles.
 * 8) - Per Super Famicom 64, As somebody who does wiki maintenance I think That Extra Stubs are Not Needed.

Comments
Please be more specific Raven Effect. You are not giving a reason as much as a redirection to proposals on different issues, and this explains nothing to people who haven't extensively read other proposals that may be similar.

Thank you for the links, but please point out one thing in there that isn't covered here. I have studied them carefully and taken measures to counteract such problems. This won't create inconsistency, which was the main point in number 5, because it will be for all platforming game. Proposal 4 merged them because they were stubs that were badly written, which I have explained how to avoid in the proposal. Proposal 3 is similar to what Mario4ever said- it would be combatted by leaving enough info on the page so that users can distinguish between levels, and if a user wanted to read a level more extensively, it's just one click. Proposal 2 was similar to point 3- users said the info would be harder to reach, which is combatted by main article template. And Proposal 1 was incoherent, since the user seemed to want to merge every World 1-1 into one article, which is irrelevant to my proposal. None of the points in those aren't covered in the proposal

@Mario4ever: That's what the use of Template:Main is all about- there will still be info, but much more will be presented in the actual article. They will all still be in one place, and it will be easy to access.


 * We do have articles for galaxies for SMG 'n' SMG2, but they don't count as levels, and if users search for example World 3 (Super Mario Bros. 3) in search for level information, they won't find it.

@Super Famicom 64 This would not mean that we would have stub articles if they are written correctly

Sorry if I'm going to go mad but MOST OF THE SMW LEVEL ARTICLES ARE NOT STUBS AND THEY ARE THE SAME LEGTH AS NSMBW. Everything needs an article.
 * Wow, stay easy, stay easy. @Raven Effect – I did not mean all articles that are small and have all possible information are instantly marked as new stubs.
 * @New Super Yoshi: Why don't you help out and support the proposal then?

I still have not seen one thing in the links that is not covered in the proposal. @Super Famicom 64, did you not read my entire 'What goes in an article' guideline? I even created a sample article of a level with only one room, which is the shortest level there will be. People are ignoring all of my work in creating guidelines to prevent the problems that they are pointing out. The only opposing argument with merit is that of Mario4ever. I call for the removal of the inaccurate arguments made by Super Famicom 64, Raven Effect, and those who referenced their reasoning. I mean no disrespect to any user in this, but I am merely utilizing rule 4. And even if there is one flaw, which I would be willing to concede to, the articles right now are completely useless! Though my system may not be completely perfect, surely it is much better than the current one! Bwf8398
 * Why would you remove valid votes just because you call for a guideline doesn't mean people will follow it. Also my vote is completely valid because I pered 5 proposals which all shot down this idea

And as I pointed out in my previous comment, none of the previous proposals you 'pered' are relevant to the current proposal or are fixed under the guidelines. I mean no disrespect to any user whose vote I call for a removal of, I just do not think that there vote is fair. When I said that, I was mostly speaking to the stub person. I apologize for any offense taken. Bwf8398
 * Well IMO Super Famicom 64 is invalid he sites the misinformed opinion that this will make loads of stubs which doesn't make any sense that level articles can be very well written but every other vote is invalid
 * I didn't mean every level article being marked instantly as new stub. Now, "Proposal passes = possible load of new stubs."
 * If people follow the guidelines, there will be no new stubs. Bwf8398
 * Now it's you that you have misunderstood: I said "possible", not "guaranteed".

I'm sorry, but could you give me two reasons from the link that are against the proposal? I could make changes to adhere to something I had overlooked because it has been fewer than three days if you just tell me how. Bwf8398

@Walkazo, I think you misunderstood some things. The description of a setting will be one line because that is a component of what goes in the introduction. It will be only one line. And in my opinion, naming them after numbers is better than what they do for the SMG and SMG 2 planets, where they're all subjectively named. How is this any different than those? They would not be padding sections, they would be a better organization method than a long clump of text, which most users generally avoid. I only included a trivia section so that people wouldn't put the wrong thing in there, such as where it is in the world. If you're against splitting, fine, but we desperately need new guidelines, so vote for the third section. Bwf8398

Per requests, I have included a section on Navigation Templates. I would be perfectly willing to make them. Bwf8398

@ Walkazo - Rainbow Road all share a name, and are not levels, they are courses. World 1-1 doesn't share a name with World 1-2 or World 1-Castle.

Important: If you agree with the guidelines, but want to keep the articles merged in world articles, vote for the third category. Bwf8398


 * I figured those sections would be paltry, and the fact that they're supposed to be one-liners just emphasizes that it's not a good idea. One-liner sections are almost always completely unnecessary: they make the page look fragmented and skeletal, and it'd be better to keep that info in the intro (or even put it in an infobox). I think the SMG galaxies are handled poorly too: I'd rather get rid of all the "planet" sections altogether and only have the missions (and I've said as much in past proposals). Long clumps of text are bad, but level overviews can be broken down into a manageable number of reasonably-sized paragraphs without needing sections: here's an example (done as an example for this discussion). Furthermore, merging the levels will create an even greater impetus to avoid long walkthroughs like that page's original incarnation (single pages being swollen like that is tolerable to some, but an entire world's worth of walkthroughs would be much harder to ignore). And while I do agree that new guidelines are needed, I don't agree with the ones in this proposal, and they'd work even worse for merged levels (the extra sections would clutter up the merged worlds way too much), so I'm afraid I can't use the third option. (Plus, the third option sorta waters down the opposition to splitting, so those that do want things to stay merged would be wiser to keep their votes pooled...) I am fully aware that levels =/= courses, and "same name" =/= "same world", but pages merging courses together is still comparable to pages merging levels together, and I stand by my use of Rainbow Road as an example of how merging multiple things into one overarching page can be done well. -


 * We are somewhat in agreement then. Just to clarify, the one-liner you were referring to is just one line in the section before the table of contents, not a section designed to have one line. The problem is, there need to be some sort of guidelines to clarify which section is which. I suppose that we could take out the title components (e.g. Main Room 2) and simply divide into paragraphs. The problem is that my solution really does require worlds being split, like you said, or else the world pages would be cluttered. I'm still not convinced that using Template:Main wouldn't fix that, but the thing I fear is what you said. Users, afraid of making stubs, post as much information as they can, lots of it irrelevant or repeated. I agree that the way BLIZZARD!!! is used is good, but as a community, it's too inconsistent to have some articles in world pages and some in separate articles. We need it one way or the other, and these guidelines fit with articles being split. If someone wants to counter-propose a way for merged articles, then both ways could be used, but again, this creates further inconsistency if the level articles follow different guidelines based on their name. However, once you get that far, you could argue that minigame and microgame articles of the same type should be merged, because it doesn't make sense to have longer level articles merged and keep these semi-stubs split. What I'm trying to say is that, one way or another, the level articles need to be uniform, and it just comes down to personal preference, as to if you prefer them merged or split. These guidelines would only work if articles were split. Bwf8398
 * Ah okay, but my vote was talking about the "section briefly describing position in world; what levels it unlocks, and what levels are prerequisites to play this" (and then I thought you were using "description of the setting" as another way to say "description of the position within the world"). That may not be a one-liner, but I still feel like it'd a be pointlessly short section. Short articles are not "semi-stubs": "stubs" are articles missing info, and short yet complete articles aren't "stubs" in any way. Minigames all have unique controls, gameplay, flavour text, ending and opening sequences and non-English names, but I'll admit that microgames have far less going for them and probably could be merged quite handily. -
 * I agree with you two with a new way of organization. I think that by working together we might be able to create another guidelines that fit if the articles are split. The current format that we have could probably be altered to allow us to use it on merged articles. However, as previously stated, this would create inconsistency between level articles. I am also afraid of users adding a lot of pointless information and having the article required to be cleaned up. There isn't any way that we could stop this as far as I know. I see your point of your comparison to Rainbow Road, and I agree with your point there as well, now that I understand your thinking.

@ Hippihippi and Super Famicom 64 - Even named levels are stubs. Look at Piranha Grove and Lots O'Fish from Yoshi's Story. These are both stubs, and yet have names.
 * Not all levels. These yet have a length reaching other levels.

Proposals Must Pass By A Majority Rule
FAILED 3-6

I would like to propose that in all proposals, an option is considered to win only if it obtains a majority of the votes (as well as having to adhere to Proposals Rule # 9: 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.). Should this proposal pass, it will not effect any two-option proposals whatsoever. However, it will greatly effect proposals with three or more options.

What we currently observe is that in order for a decision to be reached, an option must have at least a plurality of the votes. For example, let us consider a proposal with options Option One, Option Two, and Option Three. It could have a tally of three people supporting Option One, two people supporting Option Two, and five people supporting Option Three (for a total of ten people voting, which allows us to not consider Proposals Rule # 9). Under our current system, Option Three is accepted as the outcome because it has the most votes of support (a plurality); however, it does not have more than half of the amount of voters supporting it (a majority). Under my proposed system, the example proposal will not conclude at that point.

What I am proposing, in an instance like this, is that the option with the least amount of votes is eliminated (with the option and votes recorded not being erased, but being struck out like this using tags) and that voting be extended for a one-week period (in order for a "Run-Off Voting" period to occur). I also propose that proposals that are extended as per this rule are not effected by Proposals Rule # 10 (Proposals can only be extended up to three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, the proposal fails and can only be re-proposed after four weeks, at the earliest.) until the proposal in question narrows down to two options.

My aim is for this change to allow for the most preferred choice to be enacted, rather than a choice that may not be preferred by a majority of the voting individuals.

Proposer: Deadline: April 20, 2012, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) – Per my proposal.
 * 2) – Per SMB.
 * 3) Per proposer

Oppose

 * 1) - I agree that it'd be bad if we ever do get a circumstance where something passes without a majority, but I'd rather just extend the deadline like we would for a large/tied two-option vote: it's a lot simpler and it doesn't devalue anyone's votes, thus forcing them to vote for something they merely oppose less. Making a chunk of the voters choose the lesser of two evils is a horrible way to force a change through, and it doesn't accurately reflect a majority preference any more than the split votes would anyway. Also, see my comment below.
 * 2) Per Walkazo. Its also complicated.
 * 3) Per Walkazo
 * 4) Per Walkazo.
 * 5) Per Walkazo's comment and reasoning.
 * 6) Per all

Comments
I suppose it's a way to guard against votes being diluted by similar choices, and to give voters a chance to vote for the lesser of two evils should their first choice get struck out? In sounds good on the surface, but it's a pretty complicated procedure for an issue that's come up all of three times (assuming it hasn't happened in any TPPs too), all of which were 4+ years ago and involved majorities, just not clear majorities (the votes were 7/12, 7-4-1; 9/16, 9-5-2; and 12/22, 12-6-4)). Besides, people can always vote strategically without us forcing them to recast their votes. On the other hand, some folks may not want to have to vote for their second choice at all, and not appreciate their original vote being slashed out. Plus, as I said in my vote, choosing the lesser of two evils isn't even a good way to approach these problems: forcing the Option Two people to change their vote to Option Three wouldn't mean that the majority want Option Three, just that the majority don't want Option One, and that's a rather backwards way of deciding something. It'd be better if the proposal was simply extended with all the options still on the table, giving more people a chance to come in and vote for what they really want - or giving the proposer more time to figure out a compromise and ask for the proposal to be deleted so that they can make a new suggestion that really would reflect what the majority wants. In other words, simply state that all proposals need a majority of the voters to support any one option before a decision is made, regardless of whether the choice is pass-fail, or something more complicated. Rule 9 already says this for 10+ two-option votes, but it could easily be modified to say that you need 3 more than 50% of all votes cast, (and also simply state that two-option votes therefore need a 3-vote lead, since that'll come up most and being straightforward as much as possible is a good idea). The overall gist could even be explained in the top box, rather than the rules - i.e. with a bullet point, instead of somewhat-vaguely saying we need a "consensus" and linking to a dense Wikipedia policy page. -

Remove Stagnant FA Nominations
PASSED 5-0

It has come to my attention recently that a rule that was added a long time ago (A nomination may fail if it has been there for 4 months and the opposers to supporters ratio is 5:1.) that was supposed to delete stagnant FA nominations is ineffective. I remember this rule being created in response to the extremely old Luigi nomination that had a ton of opposes. However, the ratio of 5:1 opposers to supporters is very unrealistic because fan votes supporting the nomination tends to add up very quickly.

For instance, in the Koopa Troopa nomination page, opposers like me had mentioned a plethora of problems that needed to be fixed. They were apparently never fixed. This nomination is a very stagnant FA nomination (it was nominated in May 2, 2011), which means that it is going nowhere. However, the fan votes keep bumping the nomination, which means that this nomination will stay forever despite the valid reasons the opposers gave.

I'm not proposing to discourage fan voting, by the way. However, I think it's a bad thing to leave FA nominations in queue for so long. There is just... nothing happening in those pages except for more support/oppose votes. While I'm aware that some long-lasting FA nominations became successful later on (like Bowser's Inside Story), we can always monitor how active the nomination was. While the Bowser's Inside Story one was full of people trying to improve the article, the Koopa Troopa one isn't going anywhere. Also, nominations like the Bowser article is also long-lasting, but I've seen improvement on the Bowser article.

I'm proposing that we remove stagnant FA nominations just clear up space for newer nominations; also, removing old, stale FA nominations indicates us that this FA isn't going anywhere, so we'll just set it aside. Then, when the article is improved, the newer FA nomination will be easier to manage.

This rule I'm proposing also has some degree of flexibility, so trustworthy people like administrators have to judge how active the FA nomination is before deleting it. However, the basic rule is that if an FA is going on for a very long time with no progress or activity, it should fail. Again, the standards for a "long time" isn't quite defined, but by seeing nominations like the Koopa Troopa one, administrators should know if they think the FA will go anywhere.

So, simply, if there are nominations like the Koopa Troopa one, delete it. If others such as King Boo and Bowser are making progress, then don't delete it. I cannot really summarize this in words, but you should know what I mean.

Proposer: Deadline: 23, April 2012 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) We need to know if an FA nomination isn't going anywhere, and it's better if we clean the FA nomination page a bit.
 * 2) Per proposer
 * 3) – What's the point in having FA nominations if the article doesn't get improved? There just isn't any, so per LGM.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) I do agree with what you have said and this proposal would be effective in perhaps a better choice (or improvement) of FA nomination articles in the future.

Comments
Actually there is another way one can fail and that's to be inactive for 30 days Once this limit is reached, the only way to newly nominate a different article is for one of the active ones to fail (be inactive for 30 days)
 * I am aware of this; however, I stated previously that  fan votes keep bumping the nomination, which means that this nomination will stay forever despite the valid reasons the opposers gave.
 * I'd rather see a set amount of time before they fail say 6 months because I feel that 6 months is plenty of time to fix an article
 * I don't want to see a set amount of time. You weren't there at the time, but the Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story nomination went for quite a while, but I see that people are working hard on it; if the nomination failed after 6 months, that would be very discouraging. I can't find the archive for the nomination, though, unfortunately.
 * So what stops people from just renominating it when it's ready (which fun fact is what they should do in the first place :p)


 * Here's the page for the nomination. I think it would be just a waste of time to fail the article and renominate it. I'm talking about article nominations with no progress that last for a year. This nomination went for a year with massive improvements and people trying to improve the article. I don't see why this nomination should fail if people are willing to improve it. It's not logical. That's why I want some flexibility in the rule.

Change FA Nominations
DON'T CHANGE 2-11

A recent proposal by addressed the problem of stagnant Featured Article nominations. I supported that proposal (although I didn't vote), and this proposal is related to that. I'd like nominations to act more like proposals. This is what that would work like: If an FA nomination has more support votes than opposes six weeks after nomination, it is sent to the administrators, who evaluate it, a process which I think would take about a week. If they decide the article is worthy to be a featured article, they feature it. The same process would also be used for unfeaturing nominations.

Proposer: Deadline: May 5, 2012, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) I support my proposal.
 * 2) I think this is a good idea.

Oppose

 * 1) - I don't see how this would act like the proposal system at all: Proposals don't require backroom admin discussions to pass, and neither should FAs. Let the users who care about the pages make the call, rather than forcing all that extra work on the admins, most of whom would have had nothing to do with the pages' nominations until that point anyway.
 * 2) - Per Walkazo.
 * 3) I don't see much of a similarity to proposals nor do I think this will improve FA nominations
 * 4) I like the way it is, even though there is barely any activity in the nomination pages. Besides, not only the administrators get more work, they get "authority" over the users. In this wiki, administrators are basically "trusted" users with limits lifted, not users granted with privileges and power.
 * 5) Per Walkazo.
 * 6) This makes little sense an article can't be featured if someone opposes it because that oppose vote has to be valid otherwise it would be removed so basically doing this could allow articles that don't meet the FA standards to be featured.
 * 7) Per all
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Per Walkazo and Raven :)
 * 10) – Per all.
 * 11) Per Walkazo.

Comments
Although I like the idea of administrators having to see the merits of an article about to be featured so we know that they are aware of the process (I can't tell if they are aware if they don't vote), I don't like how administrators seem to get more authority in determining the status of an article. Hmm, I'm mixed on this.
 * I don't think you should force them to decide some of them probably don't care (plus it forces them to go through the process for articles that clearly aren't ready but have a lot of fan votes)

Make articles for all the sports in the Mario series
OPPOSE 1-6

The Mario series has a huge variety of sports games, but what I don't understand is why we don't have articles for all the various sports that feature in mario games aside from the events in the Mario & Sonic series. These sports are the entire plotline of some games so I think they warrant articles. Some users may think that sports games don't warrant articles and fall under Generic subjects but the sports meet several of the exceptions to this rule. The sports games have significant differences to their Real World subjects (such as power-ups etc.) and are significant to the game's gameplay and storyline. (I know one of those says it doesn't apply to sports games but I think that should be removed. Proposer: Deadline: May 11, 2012 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per my proposal

Oppose

 * 1) Can't we have the sports mentioned in the game where it appeared itself? After all, games such as Mario Strikers Charged or Mario Super Sluggers focus only on one sport. I think rules of sports such as baseball or football should be explained in their respective articles where they are focused in.
 * 2) Per BabyLuigiOnFire
 * 3) Per BabyLuigiOnFire
 * 4) Per BLOF.
 * 5) Per Humbug

Comments
@MarioSmasher "ugh" is not a valid reason and is subject to being striked out.
 * I think he may have been "per"ing us.
 * Why didn't he just per someone then?
 * …happy now?
 * You need to have a reason for supporting/opposing. Pering someone is counted as a reason.

The Redirects to Trophy and its subpages
NO QUORUM 3-0

While searching for redirects, I found one that linked to Trophy. It was a redirect for one of the Super Smash Bros. trophies. I checked to see how many of these redirects currently existed. I ended up finding twenty of these redirects for Trophy, one redirect for Trophy Descriptions (Super Smash Bros. Melee), and four redirects for Trophy Descriptions (Super Smash Bros. Brawl). I'll create a full list in the comments section. In my opinion, these redirects are pretty much unnecessary. I mean, anyone that's looking for information on these trophies will get, word for word, the same information they could of gotten in the games themselves. Also, as of now, it's inconcistent. There are 293 trophies for Super Smash Bros. Melee and 544 trophies for Super Smash Bros. Brawl, while there are currently only 25 redirects. Even if we take away the trophies that we already have articles on, there's still quite a few more creatable redirects, and some redirects, like the Pokémon trophies, could potentially redirect to somewhere else. I'll make three options: delete the current redirects, create new redirects for the other trophies, or do nothing.

Proposer: Deadline: May 12, 2012, 23:59 GMT

Delete Redirects

 * 1) I support my proposal.
 * 2) These redirects are redundant. Items such as Badges and Gear are understandable because they are their own separate entity with mainly unique benefits. Trophies are collectibles in Super Smash Bros. Collectibles like these do not get redirects and I doubt anyone will use these current redirects to search for trophies they are looking for. Delete them.
 * 3) I doubt anyone will think that we have articles for characters only featured in trophies anyway,

Comments
And here is the list of redirects that this proposal could affect:

* These three are supposed to be merged into a bigger article, along with Colonel Roy Campbell, Mei Ling, and Otacon, but I didn't know how to make this article.
 * To Trophy
 * Ayumi Tachibana
 * Donbe & Hikari
 * Donbe and Hikari
 * Ducks
 * Diskun
 * K.K. Slider
 * Totakeke
 * Annie
 * Ray MK II
 * Bayonette
 * Hate Giant
 * Love Giant
 * Herinin
 * Balloon Fighter
 * Kensuke Kimachi
 * Ryota Hayami
 * Maruo Maruhige
 * Misty
 * Professor Oak
 * K.K
 * To Trophy Descriptions (Super Smash Bros. Melee)
 * Turtle (Super Smash Bros.)
 * To Trophy Descriptions (Super Smash Bros. Brawl)
 * Tom Nook
 * Leon Powalski*
 * Krystal*
 * Panther Caroso*

The Redirects to Trophy and its subpages
DELETE REDIRECTS 8-0

While searching for redirects, I found one that linked to Trophy. It was a redirect for one of the Super Smash Bros. trophies. I checked to see how many of these redirects currently existed. I ended up finding twenty of these redirects for Trophy, one redirect for Trophy Descriptions (Super Smash Bros. Melee), four redirects for Trophy Descriptions (Super Smash Bros. Brawl), and one redirect for Sticker. I'll create a full list in the comments section. In my opinion, these redirects are pretty much unnecessary. I mean, anyone that's looking for information on these trophies will get, word for word, the same information they could of gotten in the games themselves. Also, as of now, it's inconcistent. There are 293 trophies for Super Smash Bros. Melee, 544 trophies for Super Smash Bros. Brawl, and 700 stickers, while there are currently only 26 redirects. Even if we take away the trophies/stickers that we already have articles on, there's still quite a few more creatable redirects, and some redirects, like the Pokémon trophies, could potentially redirect to somewhere else. I'll make three options: delete the current redirects, create new redirects for the other trophies, or do nothing.

Proposer: Deadline: May 20, 2012, 23:59 GMT

Delete Redirects

 * 1) I support my proposal.
 * 2) I would say add redirects, but that would create a metric bleepton of useless filler. I'll say delete the ones we have.
 * 3) These redirects are not necessary, and I doubt that people would like to create redirects to fill in the remaining space. Besides, people can find the information by looking at the relevant results if the page for their character doesn't show up.
 * 4) I support deleting the redirects.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per all. I don't feel like retyping what I said before
 * 7) Per what I said when this was up last time.
 * 8) Essentially per all. There really is little to no need for these redirects.

Comments
And here is the list of redirects that this proposal could affect:

* These three are supposed to be merged into a bigger article, along with Colonel Roy Campbell, Mei Ling, and Otacon, but I didn't know how to make this article.
 * To Trophy
 * Ayumi Tachibana
 * Donbe & Hikari
 * Donbe and Hikari
 * Ducks
 * Diskun
 * K.K. Slider
 * Totakeke
 * Annie
 * Ray MK II
 * Bayonette
 * Hate Giant
 * Love Giant
 * Herinin
 * Balloon Fighter
 * Kensuke Kimachi
 * Ryota Hayami
 * Maruo Maruhige
 * Misty
 * Professor Oak
 * K.K
 * To Trophy Descriptions (Super Smash Bros. Melee)
 * Turtle (Super Smash Bros.)
 * To Trophy Descriptions (Super Smash Bros. Brawl)
 * Tom Nook
 * Leon Powalski*
 * Krystal*
 * Panther Caroso*
 * To Sticker
 * Paula Polestar

How come this has been extended and the votes removed? Is that what happens when not that many people vote?
 * Yep. Three votes or less equals a proposal that doesn't do anything. GreenDisaster 07:06, 16 May 2012 (EDT)

Delete most of the orb pages
DO NOT DELETE PAGES 2-10

This proposal has been edited and reset due to unknown information. It has come to my attention that there are alot of tiny orb pages all over the site. I propose that we delete this orb pages since all the information about them on their respective Mario Party games is repeated in their individual wiki pages.

Proposer: Deadline: May 20, 2012, 23:59 GMT

Support to delete

 * 1) I'm for my proposal.
 * 2) Per Coooool123. We don't need both a list of every orb and what they do on the main game page, such as here and then have no additional information in articles. There already is information in the game articles; we don't need to have it twice. This proposal should also apply to items, since those are double-listed as well

Opposers to delete

 * 1) Merging all the orbs into one article will do nothing but create a huge and unnecessary list. Besides, what is the difference between these items and all the other items in the other Mario Party games?
 * 2) All of the orbs have unique effects so they shouldn't be merged.
 * 3) Delete the orb pages? What? Per Shoey.
 * 4) Per every guy in the opposers section.
 * 5) Now that I know what these are I think they should be kept
 * 6) – I was the one who added that table to the Mario Party 5 article. When making it, I only intended to tell about what the capsules did to the player when they used it, not what they are or anything like that. What am I trying to say here? I am trying to say that the tables in the articles should just tell about what happens to the player in the game they appear, not how they look like, for that can be easily displayed with a picture.
 * 7) Per Raven Effect
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Per all
 * 10) The articles about the orb it's self could have pictures of the orb that someone could have worked hard to get. Plus, there could be imprtant information in it.

Comments
Can you be clearer on what exactly you're talking about. I have no idea what these orbs are or what game they're from.
 * He wants to delete all Orb articles from Mario Party 5, 6, and 7. GreenDisaster 07:19, 14 May 2012 (EDT)

I'M A GIRL. And I want to get ride of most of the orb pages since they are all explained on their respective mario party wiki pages and it's word for word in the wiki.
 * First off, DON'T point you are a girl in caps, everyone can do a mistake and no one has to be perfect.

@GreenDisaster, the list you refer to is already on every game's main page. There would be no additional work in creating lists.
 * Sorry about that. I suppose I should expect it with my username and all! XD again sorry! Coooool123
 * Hm, are all the orbs and their effects already listed in the main Mario Party articles?
 * Yes they are.

The Identifiers of Articles
CHANGE THE IDENTIFIERS TO MATCH THE GAME 10-0

Whenever a name is shared by two subjects (like Mario Tennis), it is given an identifier in its title (like Mario Tennis (Nintendo 64) and Mario Tennis (Game Boy Color)) to distinguish itself from the other articles. Most of these identifiers uses the game that the subject appeared in to identify it. However, there are certain identifiers that use a certain quality of the subject, or simply what the subject actually is. I understand that certain ones can't be limited to a single game (like Fly (move)) or share a name with someone in the same game (like Chap (blue) and Chap (green)), but what's the excuse for something like Spiny (hedgehog)? How come Spiny isn't called Spiny (Mario Kart 64)? Spiny (Mario Kart) is already a redirect, though it's missing the "64" bit. There's also ones like The Legend of Zelda (microgame). How come the microgame from WarioWare, Inc.: Minigame Mania gets "microgame" as its identifier and not "WarioWare, Inc.: Minigame Mania", especially when considering there are other microgames with that name, like The Legend of Zelda (WarioWare: Touched!) and The Legend of Zelda (WarioWare: Twisted!)? It implies that the Minigame Mania one is the only microgame with that title. This example also lets me go to my other gripe: How come The Legend of Zelda, a 13 episode, 3 month-long series that barely qualifies for an article, doesn't get an identifier? Shouldn't The Legend of Zelda be a disambiguation page while the cartoon is named "The Legend of Zelda (DiC Entertainment)" or "The Legend of Zelda (cartoon)" or something similar? I know that some of these need to be done in a case-by-case basis, but the vast majority of these are quite simple: add the game that it appeared in as its identifier, or leave it as it is.

Proposer: Deadline: May 28, 2012, 23:59 GMT

Change the identifiers of articles to match the games they appear in

 * 1) Per my possibly unnecessarily long proposal.
 * 2) Per proposer
 * 3) Per GD.
 * 4) Per proposal.
 * 5) Per proposal
 * 6) Per proposal
 * 7) - Per GreenDisaster.
 * 8) Per GreenDisaster.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) Per proposal.

Comments
If this proposal passes, is there anyone that would like to help me with moving the articles?
 * I'll be happy to.

I wonder, why do we have the Legend of Zelda cartoon on our wiki?
 * It is a sub-series of and was referenced by the live-action cast of The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!
 * I recently tried to get rid of it but was marginally outvoted.

Combine Meadow Road, Dark Path, and Magma Flow to the Mario Party 6 Mic game Star Sprint
DO NOT MERGE 2-5

Not only are these articles small, but they belong together. The star sprint article is a stub, and the other three are only slightly larger. By combining these into one page, it would be easier to make edits and for people to read. Also, it makes sense, since these three courses are IN the game! Proposer: Deadline: June 9, 2012, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per my proposal
 * 2) I makes sense since we are merging/deleting parts of party boards into their respective board.

Oppose

 * 1) Even if they are short, they could become the same size as other minigame pages with a little work.
 * 2) Firstly They all have uniuqe diffrent names, Secondly we can still expand onto the star sprint article with these merged,
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) Per Vommack.
 * 5) Per all.

Comments
Meadow Road definitely isn't short.

Shouldn't this be a TPP?
 * Maybe.

@Vommack: This proposal isn't to merge four minigames, it's a proposal to merge three areas that appear in a minigame into said minigame. With that said, the areas are named, so I do think they should be separate.
 * That makes slightly more sense, but still, if there's enough info to make the Meadow Road article about as long as a good deal of minigame articles, then there should be enough info to make the others the same size...
 * Actually, meadow road has a lot of information that should be in the original Star Sprint article. It talks alot about gameplay and repeats some of what is said in the Star Sprint article, and if it was moved/erase it would only be slightly larger than the other two.

Interaction Pages
DO NOT CREATE 1-10

Should there be interaction pages for the characters? e.g. Mario and Luigi, Mario and Peach, Mario and Bowser

Proposer: Deadline: June 18, 2012, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) There should be some! There are a lot of interactions that some need their own pages!

Oppose

 * 1) Proposal are meant to convince people about a certain subject. You have not given any reasons as to why we should have interaction pages, or what these pages are. If you were simply asking a question, this is not the place to do it.
 * 2) - Most interactions aren't complex enough to warrant entries in the "Relationships with Other Characters" sections, much less entire pages dedicated to them. Even the major ones like Mario-Peach are only a couple paragraphs at most, and they fit quite comfortably in the actual character pages. Splitting them out would only encourage people to add speculation and other such padding in order to build length articles, whereas we should be focusing on keeping the "Relationship" sections free of the two-dimensional interactions that always seem to build up.
 * 3) The proposer has given no reason why interaction pages are good. Basically per all
 * 4) They would be too big to fit on an article, so that's that.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) To start off with, you offer absolutely NOTHING to support your proposal and make it more of a question then putting an idea forth. (One of those moments where I wish I had an underline feature...) To add to it, the amount of evidence against you is staggering. We already have sections to describe interactions and relationships on character pages, and most interactions aren't worth so much as a sentence anyways, so the subject itself is already covered anyways. Besides, this proposal would probably produce a massive influx of rather useless pages-I dread the thought of someone combining the sentences "Mario can defeat Goombas in many different ways" and "Goombas will hurt Mario if he touches him" into a "Mario and Goomba" page.
 * 7) They're too simple to have their own articles and fit just fine in character articles.
 * 8) Per all
 * 9) Per GreenDisaster, Walkazo, Vommack, and Fawfulfury65.
 * 10) Per Blue CosmicToad.

Comments
We already have "Relationships with other characters" sections, if that's what you mean by interactions.


 * That's the point!
 * What? Also, you can't use signatures here.
 * The "Relationships with other characters" section. It shows interaction images, too!

I think this proposal should be deleted, because he doesn't really specify on what he wants.
 * My guess is he wants something along the lines of our "Relationships" sections, but in article form - or something like Bulbapedia's shipping pages, only with non-shipping relationships. Sure the proposal's a little unclear, but the gist of it (to give interactions/relationships more coverage) is clear enough to at least vote on principle. Besides, deleting proposals is far less useful in the long run than letting them pass or fail: next time a "relationships" content discussion comes up, having a definite "no" to separate pages is a stronger reference than an outcomeless proposal that was simply scuppered because it was written poorly. -

Guys the point is that we can't just fit all of their interactions on a character page because then the whole article would have too much so I was thinking about interaction pages but only for big ones not minor ones!
 * We already have interaction sections for all the major subject articles. Creating articles for not only major characters, but for minor characters would kind of be pointless. GreenDisaster 19:58, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

Also we shouldn't make any pages with minor enemies like Mario and Goomba or something like that! We should not do it for interactions with little interaction.
 * Yes?And obviously "little interaction" is going to have different meanings for different people. Every major interaction is already covered somewhere or another on the wiki, so we really don't need this.

Require Support Reasoning for FA Nomination
DO NOT REQUIRE REASONS 4-5

This is an issue that's sort of been bugging me lately. I've been worried about this kind of vote on supports, especially after I noticed supports on the Thwomp page, which could use plenty of work, absolutely skyrocketed after Supremo put in a comment saying "FINALLY FINISHED!". Ok, so he says it's finished. Was the article finished? Long story short, no. I'm well open to the idea that the supporters didn't read the comment and gave a support through their own reasoning, but that trend worried me. I'd been thinking about this particular idea for a while, but what pushed me over the edge was a particular vote on the Toad nomination page by Fire Burnin'. What was nice was that he gave me a lil support reason that I took a look at on the history of the page. Direct quote of his reasoning:"Toad is so awesome!"

Was the reasoning deleted? Yes, yes it was. Was a meaningless vote deleted in tow? Nope. The fact that a vote for a character and not for content went under the radar in a fashion like that is, well, kind of ridiculous(If anyone out there feels offense, please don't. It's not anything personal, I'm just annoyed...) Anyways, if this proposal were to pass, then support reasons would be required, like support reasons on any random proposal you might see looking through the archives. That way, undeserved featured article supports could be easily filtered out and deleted. Said deletion of vote would require reasoning for it in the edit summary. If the deletion caused a major disagreement, then it would be discussed and decided upon in the comments.

Proposer: Deadline: June 25, 2012, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) I support my proposal.
 * 2) At first I was thinking no because I was thinking: "What reasons should be given besides someone's personal preference on a article whether they like it or not?" But then I remember: the quality of an article. I like this proposal now because it can possibly filter out any bad-quality articles and force the community to work on making better quality on the said article.
 * 3) There are times where I actually want to write a support vote but I can't because of the old rules. Support votes are something that we should already have on the wiki.
 * 4) Per Zero777.

Oppose

 * 1) Sorry but this idea is fairly useless it wont stop fan votes from happening it will just increase the amount of people saying Per all, it's also redundant because as Son of Suns always said it doesn't matter how many fan votes an FA has it will never pass unless if there is just one opposition vote. This makes it impossible for a bad article to be featured because the only way to remove an opposition vote is to have 3 users (including one admin) vote in favor of removing said vote. Also I have a problem with the way votes are to be removed because I don't think regular users should be allowed to remove votes nor and they certainly shouldn't be allowed to remove them with something as simple as "fan vote." Also per the following proposals, , ,  and
 * 2) Per Raven Effect. Our opinions on why we do not require a reason for support in FA nominations are still strong. I still do not see the need to require support again. Opposition, on the other hand, can list reasons on what the article needs improvement and therefore is constructive compared to support.
 * 3) Per Raven Effect.
 * 4) Per Raven Effect.
 * 5) – Per Raven Effect.

Comments
I'd rather have a lot of "Per all"s then fan votes slipping through. As for your argument against removal of votes, I suppose you're right. What I'd suggest is that we have a "REmoval of Supports" section which acted like the Removal of Opposes section. As for the three people part, I think a couple of exceptions would be acceptable, considering the sheer amount of fan votes we've seen on former nominations(Lookin' at you, Koopa Troopa.)
 * The problem is that it wont help I mean think about it you're basically talking about having people saying per all instead of nothing which doesn't take out fan votes nor does it make the process go faster.
 * And the opposes say "Per all" all the time, but no one complains that it doesn't help anything. Like I said, I'd rather at least have a chance at taking out fan votes than just have all blanks.

This is not the first time the issue of fan votes on FA nominations has been debated here (though I can't give a precise link atm), and each times, it was rejected for pretty much the reasons Raven Effect gave. Though really, I wouldn't mind simply scrapping the "support" header in FA nominations and just let the nominator and anyone else who support the nomination duke it out in the comments, as support votes have absolutely no weight in the current system and rarely provide any commentary of value. --Glowsquid 22:23, 19 June 2012 (EDT)
 * Interesting thought. I'm hoping that it wouldn't work like the page nominations on Wikipedia though, I've seen those and they're a bit too unorganized for my taste...

How are articles featured, exactly? If I recall, an Article is Featured when the nomination page has no oppose votes and a certain number of support votes; is this correct?