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.

Also,

NO PROPOSALS ABOUT HAVING BANJO AND CONKER ARTICLES -The Management.

CURRENTLY: , 28 2024 (EDT)

Poorly Written Articles
Now and then, certain users (usually noobs) will sit down and write up a poorly written article. Sometimes these articles aren't about valid subjects, and get deleted quickly, but what should we do if the subject is valid? Take the article In the Clouds for example. It's a level in Yoshi's Island DS, and qualifies for its own article, but the article itself, while not a stub, is atrocious. It makes the wiki look like a joke, and it amazes me that the author has the reading skills to even navigate the internet and come here (no offense). I can't bear to actually read it, and it's just gonna sit there and rot with a rewrite tag until someone comes along and does a proper write up.

What I'm wondering is if we should delete these poorly written articles. This sort of thing is different from stubs, which may actually contain decent grammar, and may just need expanding. Even if they do get a rewrite, poorly written articles will likely be started over from scratch, and the original context would be lost regardless.

Proposer: Booster Deadline: April 10, 2008, 17:00

Delete Poorly Written Articles

 * 1) Booster: Per my statement above.
 * 2) Huntercrunch Per Booster. The articles tagged for a rewrite always rot and no-one ever checks them out/ attempts to make the article look better.
 * 3) -Per all. No one looks at rewrite pages!
 * 4) Per Booster. I've always wanted these kinds of articles deleted. About time someone stepped up and said something. No one ever, EVER checks the Rewrite pages, and never even bothers to try and rewrite them... As the above three have already said...
 * 5) HemuI Agree someone better should write those articles.
 * 1) HemuI Agree someone better should write those articles.

Keep Them

 * 1) People DO check the rewrite pages, and improve them greatly. Look at edits on Donkey Kong, for crying out loud!  11:46, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
 * 2) Way to generic of a proposal for my taste.  The point of a proposal is to create a guideline to prevent the problem from coming up again in the future, but this will just lead to more discussion and individual proposals regarding specific arguements, which will happen anyway.  This would be much more efficient if you'd had made a series of proposals, each about one article individually.  Please give us a list and we can look at each of them.
 * 3) Per Stumpers and Plums. This proposal has too wide of a range. There are a lot of poorly written articles tha are also very long. Do we want those deleted? And I agree, someting that's only one line sucks. But this proposal is including the long articles as well. And anyone can edit those articles if they just get up off their lazy butts and do it. (No offense to anyone in particular. Really.)
 * 4) per my statement below.
 * Per Ghost Jam. Who decides what is poorly written? And if we're talking about specific articles, we don't need a proposal.
 * 1) Every article has poor grammar or punctuation at some point which could be considered "poorly written" to some. People (like Stumpers) visit the rewrite categories quite often; a lot of times the articles get awesome rewrites too. There's a reason we have the categories rewrite, rewrite-expand, rewrite-you, rewrite-wikidump, rewrite-biased...do I really need to go on? THEY CAN BE REWRITTEN CORRECTLY!
 * 2) Per all. We don't want to lose good articles. -Canama
 * 3) Then be a big boy and re-write 'em if you don't like 'em. -Girrrtacos
 * 4) - I didn't have an opinion up until I saw that ginornomously  stupid "IF YOU OPPOSE THIS PROPOSAL, YOU NEED TO REWRITE THOSE ARTICLES OR ELSE YOUR VOTE IS VOID" comment. I do look at the Rewrite page - Infact, I rewrite quite a few articles in need. Anything is salvageable, provided you know the subject.
 * 5) Walkazo - Per all, especially Girrtacos.
 * 6) Per all
 * 7) Per all Green Guy
 * 8) - The person who wrote In the Clouds probably spent an hour or two writing it. We don't want to put possible new users off the wiki. Also, Per All.
 * 9) Per all.There's actually some articles that are good "poorly written".You're being alittle harsh.[[Image:redflyingyoshi.png]]Goldguy
 * 10) Per All HyperToad

Comments
I feel that it would be better to delete articles like these on a case by case basis. Many could be saved and many shouldn't be saved.

If there is an issue with the article improvement categories, it might be worth trying to bring more attention to them. -- Chris 01:21, 4 April 2008 (EDT)


 * I agree. If this proposal passes, we'd still have to decide for every article individually whether it is "poor enough" to be deleted or not. Plus, some might be poorly written but could contain information which would be missing when the article is deleted and later re-created by someone else. 07:09, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Hmm... I'll have to wait and see where this proposal is going, and I would like to see both sides' main points before I vote. My question is this: How do we decide if an article is "poorly written?" Because Spiny used to be terrible, before I started editing it. But it was big. Would we have deleted it?

No. I think only small ones, like stubs with bad grammar or that are obviously idiotic, like "world 2-1" which was coposed of simpy "world 2-1".
 * Plumber: The Donkey Kong article isn't exactly a candidate for deletion because it's poor. - 15:01, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, it would have to be a case-by-case basis for this sort of thing. If anyone's unsure about the quality of an article they can always ask. I also think we should also do something about one-sentence stubs, but that's another issue at the moment. -- Booster
 * I think there's already an (unwritten) rules for deleting one-liner. Heck, I think there was even a proposal about it. -
 * I remember something like this as well, but the only thing I could find in the archives is this one - not about deleting one-liners, but against the deletion of new stub articles. 16:27, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Hey, Plumber! I appreciate the support! Cobold: while I'm on the topic he was discussing how it was a long time ago... go check out the history. It was long, but poorly written. Of course, now that the proposer's specified that he only meant short articles I'm not sure if it's a good example, but whatever. Instead of having this generic proposal, I'd rather the proposer come forth with a list of pages he's talking about, and then we can take care of the stinkers one by one. (seriously, who wouldn't vote yes to, "Fix Something Bad" proposals? Only people who don't like the vagueness...)  17:13, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Here's some of the really bad articles (not so much stubs) that I'm referring to. -- Booster


 * Island of Peril
 * Tap-Tap's Sunken Cave
 * Number Ball Special
 * Hunky Chunky Barrel
 * 4-Castle (NSMB)
 * Astro Goomba
 * World 7 Mini-fortress 1
 * Parachute

Um, guys, look above... Those are the kinds of articles Booster meant, he didn't mean poorly written articles (like Donkey Kong was) in general. :\

I don't think I get this proposal. Pages with only "World 2-1" or "Pirate goombas are pirate goombas" should definitely be deleted. Badly written stubs can be deleted. But non-stub articles that are badly written are fine, as long as there's a rewrite tag. What side should I vote on? 08:28, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Everyone who is opposing, you need to rewrite all these type of articles, or there's no point putting your name here. And if no one does this, I'm going to bring this up again.

PY has a point. Everyone who is opposing this Proposal automatically has the responsibility of rewriting those poorly written articles.
 * What? No. Everyone who is opposing doesn't agree with Booster's proposal. The proposal says to delete poorly written articles. Now my question is what is poorly written. Because if we don't have a clear definition (e.g. a rewrite tag plus bad formatting), this proposal makes no sense imo. Sorry. 13:10, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
 * Opposing the deletion of the articles doesn't mean we're gonna rewrite them; it merely means that we think they should stay. Users come across these articles and fix them. I'm sure a lot of articles started out like crap and turned out pretty good after a while.
 * Woah now, calm down... I see a flame war in the near future if you don't. Anyway, why are we fighting about this? Everyone has the responsibility to rewrite crappy articles. But most of us (me included) are usually just too lazy to do it. So please, stop fighting about something we should all do. :|
 * Yeah, you're right IS. Didn't mean to get so worked up.

Well, the articles we are talking about are articles that hardly make any sense whatsoever. Articles that look like they were written by a two-year old. The articles Booster showed as an example. Not articles like Spiny or Donkey Kong before their rewrite, those were at least written in a way that could be understood, it was just the way the article was organized that was the problem.
 * And how do you define "articles that look like they were written by a two-year old"? That's my problem with this proposal, basically. 06:24, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

For the last freakin' time, look at Booster's examples!
 * I can't derive a definition of "poorly written" from the examples. The proposal says to delete "poorly written" articles. It does not say to remove the articles Booster listed, which would indeed make sense as a proposal. But automatically deleting articles through a rule does not make sense if there is no definitions we can use for deciding whether an article is poorly written or not. 06:34, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
 * Uh, the "Hunky Chunky Barrel" article in Booster example doesn't appear to be "written by a 2-years old". Sure, it's full of unnecessary details and the past tense is quite annoying, but it's still perfectly understandable. --Blitzwing 06:42, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

Changes
None at the moment.

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.