MarioWiki:Proposals

 http://img33.picoodle.com/img/img33/9/9/17/f_propcopym_9045f2d.png A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed with the signature code (~).

How To
 * 1) Actions that users feel are appropriate to have community approval first can be added by anyone, but they must have a strong argument.
 * 2) Users then vote and discuss on the issue during that week. The "deadline" for the proposal is one week from posting at:
 * 3) Monday to Thursday: 17:00 (5pm)
 * 4) Friday and Saturday: 20:00 (8pm)
 * 5) Sunday: 15:00 (3pm)
 * 6) Every vote should have a reason accompanying it.
 * 7) At any time a vote may be rejected if at least three active users believe the vote truly has no merit or was cast in bad faith. However, there must be strong reasons supporting the invalidation.
 * 8) " # " should be added under the last vote of each support/oppose section to show another blank line.
 * 9) At the deadline, the validity of each vote and the discussion is reviewed by the community.
 * 10) Any proposal that has three votes or less at deadline will automatically be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
 * 11) All proposals are archived. The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of a sysop, the proposer can ask for that help.

The times are in EDT, and are set so that the user is more likely to be online at those times (after school, weekend nights).

So for example, if a proposal is added on Saturday night at 11:59 PM EDT, the deadline is the next Saturday night at 8:00 PM. If it is indeed a minute later, the deadline is a day plus 15 hours (Sunday), as opposed to a day minus 4 hours.

CURRENTLY: , 28 2024 (EDT)

New Features
None at the moment.

Repeated Images
Me and Stumpers discussed about Repeating Images on articles. On the article R.O.B., at one point, there were two Brawl artworks on the same page. That was soon changed by a sysop. However, in picture galleries at the end of the article, as Stumpers said, "is really great for seeing how the character has evolved". I agree with that statement. Since there are yet no official rules about repeating images on a single article, this proposal will hopefully make it clear. However, this means two pictures on one article. Three or more is redundant, and makes the article quality go down.

Proposer: Deadline: April 3, 2008, 17:00

Repeated Images on Articles

 * 1)  Per what I said above. Sometimes you just need the same pic in two places.
 * I don't see a problem with it, and indeed, seeing how the character has evolved is good. And the same picture twice in one article doesn't even take twice the time to load, right?
 * 1) Per myself and Garlic Man.  That's my understanding, too, Time Q.  If this doesn't pass, though, we can alleviate this problem by replacing official art in the biography section with screenshots, moving the artwork to the bottom.  That would be more applicable IMO anyway, since the section is on the character's actions rather than his/her appearance.
 * 2) Princess Grapes Butterfly Per all I agree!
 * 3) Walkazo - I don't see a problem with reusing images as long as they're in large articles that have enough other images to offset the repetition (otherwise it might look a bit lazy on our part).
 * 4) No reason not to. It doesn't  waste that much space, only a little bit. Plus some images in the gallery also have a place on the page.
 * 5) Per all, and see my comments.
 * 1) Per all, and see my comments.

No Repeated Images

 * 1) - Meh, I see your point, but there are probably already too many images on the major pages as it is.
 * 2) Fixitup - It's a waste of space, and a waste of perfectly good and usable images otherwise.
 * 3) As long as I've been here, we've always gone by an image is in an article once and thats it. I also agree with Fixitup said, so per him (or her).

Comments
Wait wait wait... I don't seem to understand the proposal. Do you mean the same pic on, say, the top and then again on the bottom? Or something else...?


 * Well, anywhere. Including the gallery, the main image, and images throughout the article.
 * Hmm... Then I must disagree. See my reasons above.
 * I don't think we'd ever have an image up three times, though. 23:03, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
 * You say it'd be fine if an image was repeated twice at the most. By opposing, however, you say that an image must not appear more than once in an article. It seems to be a contradiction. If you support, you don't support the idea that an image may appear three times in one article, but only that it may be repeated. To make it clearer, perhaps Garlic Man can modify the proposal's description, in the way that even if the supporters' side wins, an image may only appear twice. 'cause three times would definitely be too much imho. 07:43, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
 * You have a point. I'll remove my vote for now, because there is no place for me to vote. If there ever is, I'll move it there. ;)
 * Sorry, Infected Shroom. You're right, my proposal was not very clear. Twice is the max, and only twice. Three times is over the limit. I have changed the proposal slightly as well. I hope this helped.
 * Alright. Thank you. ;)

Fixitup: please explain your vote. What do you mean "a waste of perfectly good and usable images otherwise"? It's not like an image has a limited number of uses allowed. And Toadette: what's so great about one of the image per page, even it's been that way since you came. 20:44, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Well, if we add images twice, the bandwith is slowly depleted away, and that is what keeps the site up.
 * Toadette, "As long as I've been here, we've always gone by an image is in an article once and thats it." is not a valid oppose; if it has been, that's what the proposal is trying to change. Also, it's not a waste of space. It's useful as a visual aid. It's not like we're putting a bunch of images on the page just to make it bigger.
 * I also put "Per Fixitup". =)
 * But Fixitup's vote doesn't make sense either. "A waste of perfectly good and usable images otherwise." That makes it sound like the images can only be used a limited number of times. You're not "wasting" the images in any way. They're still good and usable.

16:49, 31 March 2008 (EDT) Are we talking about screenshots or artwork?
 * Mainly Artwork, I think. Although screenshots could apply, I guess. Why?

Damsels
After making a template on the "damsels" in the Mario series, Coincollector brought up an interesting point to me. Why did I put males in the damsels template. I had always thought that damsel meant "someone in need of rescue", when in fact (I looked it up) it generally means a "female in need of rescue". I had then thought of the Damsel Category, and how a lot of male characters are listed in it. So, here's my proposal:

Because of vocabulary mix-up with the category, I believe that the category's name should be retitled to a more fitting phrase/word (such as, Category:Damsels). It isn't a huge change, but it is a confusing thing. Like Coincollector said: "Why do you put masculine characters in the 'damsels' template? Are they 'ladies'?".

Proposer: Deadline: April 6, 2008, 15:00

Name Change

 * 02:09, 30 March 2008 (EDT) Booster has been removing that category and replacing it with a template of "hostages." I think a category for that would be good, too.
 * 1) per Stooben Rooben.
 * 2) See comment below.
 * 3) Walkazo - A hostage is a person "held by another as a pledge for certain conditions to be fullfilled", criteria that does not apply to most of the characters currently in this category/listed in this template. "Characters in Need of Rescue" may be wordy, but at least it's accurate.
 * 4) Damsels... AWKWARD! But anyway, per all.
 * 5) Princess Grapes Butterfly Per all (Doesn't hostage mean captive?)
 * 6) Per all.
 * 1) Per all.

Comments
Uh, not sure whether I understand this proposal. Correct me if I'm wrong: There is no Damsels category anymore, only a Hostages category. Do you still want to rename it to "Characters in Need of Rescue"? 06:58, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

According to my dictionary, "damsel" just means a youg, unmarried woman. "Damsel in distress" means a woman in need of rescue. And plus some of the characters are male, which is against the definition. So the name should be changed, I'll vote. 08:44, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
 * But... the category isn't called "Damsels" anymore. Or am I wrong here? 08:50, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Somebody already renamed it. :P MarioGalaxy2433g5   {Talk/Contribs} 09:15, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Yeah, both the template and the category. So as Time Q said, by default this proposal is about changing the name "Hostages" to "Characters in Need of Rescue" (hopefully for both template and category, for consistancy's sake). - Walkazo
 * What's wrong with "hostages"? - 10:53, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Hostages doesn't really sound right. Hostages is more like by professional kidnappers or something. But it's fine. It's "damsels" that I voted against.

15:15, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
 * I agree, "hostages" doesn't sound right to me either (though perhaps only a native speaker of English can judge that). The term "hostage" implies that there are conditions to fulfill so that the captive will be released. Which isn't the case with every single "hostage" on that list, I think. 14:16, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Yes, per Time Q. That's what I meant.

15:15, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
 * I am not going to vote on this proposal, but rather I will sugget something else entirely. "Damsels" could be confusing to some people so no category should be named that, but "Characters in need of rescue" is far too long to be the name of a category.  There are already so many categoryies already, so I propose that we just get rid of the category altogether.  I know the category doesn't exist as of now, but why create it at
 * Category:Hostages does exist. What about calling it, uh, "Kidnapped Characters"? How does that sound to native speakers? 14:50, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Evidently a lot happened since I was gone. Okay, so let me try to get this sorted out. I didn't expect the Damsel Category to get changed while I was gone, (which is evidently why I made the proposal). The original "new" title I came up with is WAY too long, but it was all I could think of in the time I had to write it; that's why I changed that particular part of the proposal. So, Time Q: The category should not be retitled Category:Characters in Need of Rescue, because it is too long. Since Booster changed it to Hostages, that's an improvement. Although I have to say that that's still not quite right. Possibly, the category's name could be changed to Category:Captives; that term is more fitting. Definition: One that is held against his/her own will. I've spent all morning looking up synonyms and definitions for "Hostage", and "Captive" is the best one I can find. (Thanks to PGB for the idea.) And, as was discussed earlier, "Hostage": Definition: Victim of a kidnapper who will be returned via the payment of ransom. So, grammatically speaking, the best category name we probably have is Category:Captives.
 * The only problem with Kidnapped Characters, is that it conflicts with hostage. Kidnappers usually want a ransom, and (although I've never played all Mario games), I don't remember any of the captives being held for ransom. Bowser usually steals Princess Peach, because that's what he does, not because he wants one million coins in return.
 * Captives or kidnapped characters. Just not hostages. They're both good, kidnapped doesn't usually mean held for randsom. Nintendo even uses that word in game booklets and stuff. So either one's good.

16:54, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Once it pulls through, we should probably let a 'Crat decide which title would be more fitting.

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.