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 start to discuss on the issue. 24 hours after posting the proposal (rounding up or down to the next or previous full hour, respectively, is allowed), the voting period begins. (The proposer is allowed to support their proposal right after posting.) Each proposal ends at the end of the day one week after voting start. (All times GMT).
 * 3) Every vote should have a reason accompanying it. Agreeing or seconding a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted.
 * 4) Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the Comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may not remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. The voter can remove or rewrite his/her own vote at any time, but the final decision to remove another User's vote lies solely with the Administrators.
 * 5) All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week.
 * 6) 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.
 * 7) 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.
 * 8) No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
 * 9) 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.
 * 10) 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.
 * 11) 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.
 * 12) Proposals cannot be made about System Operator promotions and demotions. Sysops can only be promoted and demoted by the will of Bureaucrats.
 * 13) 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.
 * 14) No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters, and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.

The times are in GMT, 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 Monday night at 23:59 GMT, the deadline is the night of the Tuesday of the next week at 23:59 PM. If it is posted a minute later, the deadline is 23:59 PM of the Wednesday of the next week, since midnight is considered to be part of the next day, as 00:00 AM.

Basic Proposal and Support/Oppose Format
This is an example how your proposal should look like, if you want it to be acknowledged. If you are inexperienced or unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. Then replace the [subject] - variables with information to customize your proposal, so it says what you wish. If you insert the information, be sure to replace the whole variable including the squared brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information", not "[This is the inserted information]". - ===[insert a title for your Proposal here]=== [describe what issue this Proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the Wiki handles that issue]

Proposer: Voting start: [insert a voting start time here, f.e. "2 January, 2010, 14:00". Voting start times are 24 hours after the time at which the proposal was posted, as described in Rule 2 above.] Deadline: [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the voting start, at 23:59 GMT.]

====Support====
 * 1) [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]

====Oppose====

====Comments==== - Users will now be able to vote on your Proposal, until the set deadline is reached. Remember, you are a user as well, so you can vote on your own Proposal just like the others.

To support, or oppose, just insert " # at the bottom of the section of your choice. Just don't forget to add a valid reason for your vote behind that tag if you are voting on another user's Proposal. If you are voting on your own Proposal, you can just say "Per my Proposal".

Talk Page Proposals
All proposals dealing with a single article or a specific group of articles are held on the talk page of one of the articles in question. Proposals dealing with massive amounts of splits, merges or deletions across the Wiki should still be held on this page.

How To

 * 1) All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom). All pages effected must be mentioned in the brief description, with the talk page housing the discussion linked to directly via "". If the proposal involved a page that is not yet made, use to communicate its title. The Deadline must also be included in the entry. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links. Place  under the heading.
 * 2) All rules for talk page proposals are the same as mainspace proposals (see the "How To" section above), with the exceptions made by Rules 3 and 4 as follows:
 * 3) Voting in talk page proposals will be open for two weeks, not one. There is no 24 hour delay between the posting of a talk page proposal and the commencement of voting.
 * 4) Talk page proposals may be closed by the proposer if both the support and the oppose sides each have fewer than five votes.
 * 5) The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.

List of Talk Page Proposals

 * Split Tinga and Inga (Discuss) Deadline: October 14th, 2010, 23:59 GMT.
 * Use DPL Table for failed Featured Article Nominations (Discuss) Deadline: October 13th, 2010, 3:00 UCT
 * Give Nintendo DSi its own page (Discuss) Deadline: October 20th, 23:45 UCT

New Features
None at the moment

Removals
''None at the moment.

Showing only passed proposals on the Main Page
I've sometimes gone to the wiki and looked at the proposal and seen that the idea looks really weird. I then go onto the Proposals page and find that the proposal only has about 3 supporters and maybe 10 opposers. Seeing something that won't be taken action about on the Main Page seems to make the wiki look bad.

I am proposing that only proposals that have successfully passed be Featured on the Main Page, so that people can log in on the wiki. See what the proposal is and possibly start helping out with it

Proposer: Voting start: 5:17, Tuesday 5 October 2010 Deadline: October 12, 23:59 GMT

Only Feature passed Proposals on the main page

 * 1) Per my proposal

Keep on showing Proposals that are still in voting time

 * 1) I am Zero! Per Reversinator's comment. Zero signing out.
 * 2) Per Reversinator's comment.
 * 3) Per Revesinator's comment.
 * 4) Per all comments.
 * 5) Showing active proposals on the main page draws attention to the current changes that are suggested to be made. It convinces people to see what changes are going to be made and what side they should take. Featuring passed proposals seems like a waste of space. There are no functions to a passed proposal and it doesn't look too glamorous, after all. Passed proposals belong in the archive, not in the front page.
 * 6) I think that the proposal on the front page is supposed to stir up attention, not say, "Hey look, it passed! Make these changes!"
 * 7) Per LeftyGreenMario.
 * 8) Per LGM and Reversinator. Also showing only passed proposals doesn't motivate anyone to try getting involved and they will likely assume that the proposal is already being taken care of.
 * 9) - Per all, including Reversinator.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) - Active proposals draw more attention to current changes.  If only the winning proposals are displayed, that won't give the active proposals a good look.
 * 13) Well, if passed proposals are shown on the main page, it would draw attention away from current proposals, and also make us look unprofessional, also the people that come after something like this proposal were to pass would think that the proposal shown was still active, and they would vote on that proposal, and would mostly stay clear of the other ones.

Comments
The main page shows the most recent proposal. It doesn't matter if the proposal in question is failing. And besides, someone could make a vote-shattering comment that causes everyone to support.

I don't really know what's the point in this. I thought the proposal on the main page is there to attract attention to the proposal.
 * I think Commander Code-8's point is that passed proposal frequently require a lot of work to actually realise after they have passed, and that this may get people to help with that. Personally though, I sort of doubt anyone is going to help with these things just because they saw that a proposal passed on the main page. The way it's currently handled, the main page directs attention to proposals still in the voting phase, and people are a lot more likely to participate in a proposal by voting than by adjusting articles after it has passed simply because takes much less time and effort.--

Wow, a proposal about proposals. Per all commenting.

The Lists on the Left Side Below Mario Knowledge
Pretty simple proposal. You know those lists about Characters, Places, Items, etc.? These lists are split into two: game stuff and non-game stuff. Why are they separate? Due to those canon proposals, shouldn't they be one list? I'm proposing that we merge the non-game stuff with the game stuff in those lists.

Proposer: Voting start: Wednesday 21:23, 6 October 2010(UTC) Deadline: Wednesday 23:59 13 October 2010 (UTC)

DO MERGE

 * 1) If you say, "That's gonna be disorganized", then maybe you should consider the canon debate we have in games vs. everything else.
 * 2) - Per LeftyGreenMario: it's policy to list games and alternate media side-by-side, and anything that doesn't do this is merely outdated, with the exception of certain Navigation Templates (i.e. ), which need the differentiate between series and whatnot. The lists don't need to be separated to show what media they are from, however, because the sources are listed right there on the pages.

DON'T MERGE

 * 1) - I am a firm supporter of separating games and non-games as much as possible, so, naturally, I oppose this proposal. Why? Well, they are different media, and that is enough reason for me. But if it isn't for you, well, then, most of the other media is not even fully made by Nintendo, and most of the characters have completely different roles, appearances, etc.
 * 2) I am Zero! It will be easier and more organized if we didn't merge them. Zero signing out.
 * 3) I'm not sure that merging them would help. Per all.
 * 4) Lu-igi board the top two proposals raise great points.
 * 5) - Parsing out stuff into divisions is the best organization.

Important Neutral Stuff
I'll say something that is on everybody's mind right now. Huh?!?!?

Well, if you see here, the characters are divided to two groups: game and nongame. I want to merge the two since, well, because of one question: canon or not? Sorry for presenting an opinion unclearly; I'm notorious for doing that '-_-

Otherwise, tell me, why are they separate? Shouldn't the list be one big list?


 * Ah, now I see :) In my personal opinion, the current format is horrible. They should either be split into two lists or merged into one, not semi-merged, semi-split as they currently are.


 * Yes, these lists should be one, according to this proposal. Remember those canon debates? I think these lists haven't been modified yet.


 * Yeah, a lot of things regrettably fall through the cracks each time we change the organization standards... -

Tucayo: Well, they are different media, but I don't see why the two lists are split, yet the Manual of Style wants articles to include both game information and other media information in the same section.

Zero777: The list is organized well enough. What, alphabetically isn't enough? It's slightly harder to navigate because the list is split. Again, this proposal deals mostly with the grouping of game and non-game stuff. The lists are outdated, and we need to change it to the standards.

Luigi-board: Your vote is invalid.

I'm neutral for this. This proposal is balanced in advantages (organization) and disadvantages (tons of moved internal links).


 * It shouldn't be that hard to move the links. It might be tedious, but it isn't hard.

Image Gallery or Gallery
On some articles, the header that leads to the article subject's gallery either says Image Gallery or Gallery. This doesn't look professional to have one header on one page that says Image Gallery and another header on another page that says Gallery. We need to fix this.

Proposer: Voting start: Wednesday 8:08, 6 October 2010(UTC) Deadline: Wednesday 23:59 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Put Gallery on articles

 * 1) I think it should just be Gallery. Image Gallery just sounds too... i don't know. Doesn't sound right.
 * 2) Gallery, Image Gallery? Let's just leave it at gallery, short and to the point of where it links to.
 * 3) I don't really think it matters too much, but it should stick to one thing. Gallery is short and simple and hits the nail on the head in terms of what to put.
 * 4) The "Image" part is pointless and a waste of space. Gallery is best.
 * 5) - It would be like saying large big, they literally mean the same thing here. Don't go be like Mario Mario, as we only need 1. Also, it is already Gallery, so lets keep it from being POINTLESS.
 * 6) Same thing as the term "the reason why...is because...". Too much unnecessary words.
 * 7) I am Zero! What else will you be thinking on a website that says "gallery". Zero signing out.
 * 8) "Image" is kind of obvious. Just "gallery" is good, in this case "Image Gallery" is rather redundant. Per all.
 * 9) - Per all.
 * 10) Per all.

Comments
Per all those with the word "pointless" on their minds...

Guys just a reminder, i'm talking about the headers on articles that link to the subject's gallery, not the actual gallery itself.

Character Pages Extras
Alright, you can even look at the articles of Mario, Luigi, Peach, and so on, to see that the pages are HUGE! In all, that is a very good thing that should be with all the info they have, but then you see the small sections known as the cartoons and comics area. Do we really need them to be on the main characters pages? I mean, we can't just toss it aside, but really...

My proposal is not entirely deleting that info about the comics, cartoons, stories, and that stuff, but to move it to a different page. To show an example, for the comics that Mario has been in, we could make a page and be able to view all the comics Mario has been in and what his comic-counterpart is like. That will help with all the information from the animated stuff that differs greatly from the character's video game background.

It might sound troubling at first, but think of it as just making another page for the character. We have Baby Mario, Baby Luigi, Baby Peach, and so on, and they are just a younger form of the adult counterparts we have known for awhile. And on that topic, we even had a proposal before that wanted to separate some of the baby info from the video game since the cartoon made it seem like they appeared a lot earlier.

Alright, I think I talked quite enough for the proposal statement, so just vote on what you think would be best for this wiki. I'm just saying though, that the pros are more pleasant and outnumbering than the cons for the benefits to the wiki.

Proposer: Voting start: 3 October, 2010, 0:43 GMT Deadline: 9 October, 2010, 23:59 GMT.

Support

 * 1) - Per all the statements I have written above and below. :D
 * 2) Per proposal, I think that the comics, etc. are too off of the actual games (especially the movie) to be included in the same article.
 * 3) There are very big differences between the comics, cartoons and video games. They should be seperate.

Oppose

 * 1) It's easier for them to all be together. If someone doesn't want to see them, they can easily skip those parts. We'd, as a result, have many useless stubs and also less FAs.
 * 2) per MrConcreteDonkey
 * 3) I am Zero! There will come a limit where it needs to split into separate sub-articles, but I don't think we reached that point yet. Zero signing out.
 * 4) Hey Baby Mario Bloops, there's this thing called the content box. I suggest that you use it. Per MrCD.
 * 5) - This is like saying the dictionary is to wordy and then proposing they put all the nouns, verbs, adverbs and adjectives into separate books. Sure, the individual volumes may be smaller, but you still need all four to get around, and between them, there'd be even more pages when you take into account the quadrupled set of introductory and explanatory sections, publishing info, cover pages, and whatnot (one per "dictionary"). Granted, a lot of the larger pages do need work, but rather than hacking away at them with quick-fix solutions like this, we should shorten them by streamlining the text and cutting out little snippets of superfluous writing here and there (like how they shorten the definitions and remove the most obscure words to make pocket dictionaries), while at the same time developing the sections that need more info. Rewrites may take a lot of time and effort, but they make the wiki look much better and are well worth the work. Plus, as Glowsquid alluded to in the comments, the whole "canon" debate has become nothing more than a recurring little migraine for our wiki and the less we go poking at it, the better. Long story short, until Nintendo says the games, cartoons, comics, movies and books (and anything else they have or will throw at us) are all separate timelines or whatever, we have no choice but to treat them as one big mess of equal and truthful continuity, lest we delve into the realm of slippery-sloped speculation, which has no place on our (ideally) hard-facts-only database. It's not an ideal way to organize all our content, but it's the best we can do with what we've been given to work with.
 * 6) Per Walkazo's really long comment right above. Of course they have to be on the same page as the characters! Why would you need to make a completely different link? It'll just create more stubs, and that's boring. Other than that, it's still information about the character.
 * 7) Per Walkazo.
 * 8) per Walkazo
 * 9) Per Walkazo.
 * 10) Per Walkazo.
 * 11) Per Walkazo.
 * 12) I've put a buttload of cartoon information in the Mario article since there is none. I thought it would be nice to have information for all episodes since we are supposed to cover everything. Anyway, this proposal might be a good idea since the Mario page takes forever to load. However, we do not know if the cartoons are canon. Why can't we place the games in a separate article? What if the cartoons are what the Mario story is really about? No. The Mario movie thing is a different story, but I'm not willing to separate the Mario comics and cartoons just because they are not Nintendo games. Per all.
 * 13) While I do think games and other medias shouldn't be considered the same, they shouldn't be on different pages. However, I think informations from games and informations from animations and comics shouldn't be mixed - at least the elements regarding the games should be put prior to anything else.

Comments
Has anyone else here seen the DC wiki? They have a similar thing that this proposal's talking about. There's one article for the mainstream comics character, and another for that character in a TV Show, Parallel universe etc. and it works pretty well. It wouldn't hurt to have the same thng happen here, Especially since we don't have much on the comics/cartoons.

One other thing is that we might have to create some disambiguation pages so that these new articles can actually be found. Eg: The Mario disambiguation might have about 5, which could include the Cartoon, the comics and a seperate one for each film. My point is that we need to be able to make disambiguation pages. But it shouldn't be to much of a problem.

The DC Wiki may do this, but at the same time, DC comics are much heavier on continuity than Mario, and some "alternate universe" versions are considered characters in their own right. It's not rare for Superman to meet one of his alternate-univere self, for one. And the reason we have separate pages for the babies is that they're often seen at the same time as their adult counterparts (ex: The sport games, M&L: Pit) and thus are different characters.

The proposer says the character pages are huge, and while our amount of content certainly plays a part in that, the main reason is that they're honestly terribly written, filled to the brim with wordcruft, tangents about the IRL impact of the games and summarising entire plot including the parts that aren't relevant to the character. Even the cartoon sections have that problem, describing damn near every episodes Mario appeared in, even though most of it is not relevant.

And though that's a silly reason, I'd like to avoid the inevitable headache if either Stumpers or Son of Suns come back, both of which were senior sysops really, really opposed to separating the cartoons and comics from the games. --Glowsquid 12:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, my point sort of came from looking at all the pages that Bulbapedia has. View it from that, as they have many characters their comics and cartoon counterparts. You could reason with them also about they could be the same person and so on and so forth. But see how sucessful that is with theirs, and we could do the same thing. We have a lot of agruements with the comics/cartoon and it deals greatly on this wiki, and this proposal is meant to be an alternative that will solve that problem.
 * I think the Mario article is too long but I don't think this is the way to go...we want our viewers to be able to find information on Mario by typing "Mario" into the search box. We don't want them to go looking through a whole bunch of Marios to find the Mario they want. It is our job to give them what they want with the least amount of work on their part, no matter how much work it is on ours.
 * Hey superboo! That's called the table of contents, I suggest you get your facts straight next time you try to make someone feel bad or it'll jump back at you :)

Geez, Superboo. You don't have to be so harsh about Baby Mario Bloops' proposal. At least he tried.

MarioGuy1:You're acting as though we would have about 25 Mario articles if this proposal passes. All you need is a disambiguation page and it shouldn't be too hard finding them all.
 * Alright, just to clear up some confusion if any, it will not be like Mario (Character), Mario (SMBSS), Mario (ASMB3), Mario (comic #1)... but like Mario, Mario (cartoon), Mario (comics). And probably add the Mario Movie into the cartoon page (which would then be changed to Mario (anime)). Here and here will show you an example, and some changes that would be made. I got a little lazy with Test 2, so I didn't feel like adding a made-up intro, description, or personality as of this moment. I hope that will help show you a better idea of my proposal.
 * I still disagree with this proposal but I think you may be on to something BMB, maybe if we made a sub-page of the Mario article (i.e. Mario/Episodes) we could have a description of Mario's role in the (i.e.) Super Mario Bros. Super Show! and then we'd have a link leading to "a complete list of the episodes Mario has appeared in". It would definitely allow us to have more information and it wouldn't treat it as different timelines or different Marios which seems to be a main reason for opposing. I support my idea and when I feel like it, I'll get around to proposing it if nobody (*wink wink*) else (*wink*) does (*wink wink wink*) ;)
 * That sounds like a good idea. I was even considering putting all the episodes Mario appeared in somewhere else and put a main summary on another page. There are plentiful episodes, so I don't know why we have to give details on the games, but not on the cartoon episodes. (*blinks*) agghhh too much winking (*explodes*)
 * @MG1: I think I understand what you are saying. So it is to have sub-articles of Mario - which was the main goal of the proposal - to put the comics/movie/cartoons on. Then, on the Mario Page, we could just summarize the series into a well-written paragraph, deleting both the stubby sections, yet not making an entire new Mario Page. I like you're thinking btw. It is beyond 3 days, so I can't change it now, but I think I might (*wink*) follow your advice and see if another proposal later will deal with that.
 * OK, I have filled User:Marioguy1/Test with all the examples you need. I suggest you just get on with the second proposal and ask an admin to delete this one but if you want to see how this one ends off and then propose the second one, I'm fine with that too. In your proposal, you can use my test page as an example (unless that's not what you want). Make sure to stress that this will apply to all characters at the user's judgement (i.e. if the character makes a cameo in one episode, we don't need to split it off but if they appear in several, well, the user editing the article sets the limit. As long as people use common sense, they won't get it wrong).