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"
 * 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: , 27 2024 (EDT)

New Features
None at the moment.

Backup Ops
I do not believe many of you are aware, but there has been a practice of "backup-oping" in the chatroom. When it is crowded and people are spamming, or if the only op in the room has to go for awhile, they op their friends or anyone who claims that they will use their power responsibly. I consider this abuse of power & incapability on part of the current ops. If there really is trouble in the chatroom that often, we need more patrollers (at the time of this posting there was 10 users but 0 ops), and the current ops need to take action and not cower in fear! But one of these days chaos will wreak havoc at the hands of one of these "backups". I'm not saying anyone is not trustworthy, this just isn't smart and things need to return to normal.

Proposer: Deadline: 15:00, Dec 2

Only Current Ops

 * 1) – one of these days a proclaimed backup will disrupt the chat, I guarantee it. We need more capable ops, that's the problem!
 * 2) Glowsquid Even thought I am one of those back-up operators, I agree with what Wayoshi said. I am too not against the idea of having more pattrolers, I mean, currenlty, we have at least 10 sysops and one pattroller... what the heck?
 * 3) ChaosNinji I agree wholeheartedly that we need more patrollers and less Back-up ops. At the time of my writing this, the chatroom is being flooded and spammed, as it has been all day, and not a one op has appeared throught the day to stop it!
 * 4) Dannyboy: Agreeing with the person with the title of Wayoshi.
 * 5) Per Wayo
 * 6) With the current inconsistencies with the rules, it's hard enough for the official ops team. I can't imagine it being any better for someone else.

Allow Backups

 * 1) Even as I write this, Wayoshi is spamming the Chat. Do you see why he wants to get rid of Back-up Ops?
 * 21:37, 25 November 2007 (EST) I would remain neutral on this, but I don't think people will be promoted solely to watch over a chatroom, so there would be even less of a solution than there is now.
 * 1) Per all
 * 2) I thought Wayoshi was being reasonable, until I read Pokemon DP's vote.
 * 3) Changed from support, Per Dodoman.
 * 4) Per DP
 * 5) Per DP
 * 6) – There has to be a few backup OPs when NO op is on. Which Steve can do. I vote no backup Ops if this won't happen.

Comments
If this proposal fails, I would like a list of official backups current ops can look towards, maybe in Help:Chat, at the very least. 12:30, 25 November 2007 (EST)

There needs to be more active ops.
 * One thing you guys are forgetting, is that most of the current Sysops are trapped in their personal lives at the moment and, I don't know if school is on in America, but, if it is, that is a distraction as well. And, the reason I'm not on all the time, is because I have a life to live, as well as sleep I need! And, are you sure we should be listening to Wayoshi? He spams the most in the Chat when there are no Ops. Additionally, we should not make Patrollers just to save the Chat. Patrollers have to fight off vandalism on the Wiki, not JUST protect the Chat. If this is such a big deal, why don't you just remove the Chat for good?

Pokemon DP: While Wayoshi motives are indeed dubious, he's right. This whole back-up up thing may make soem of those back-uo operators that they could get promoted to Pattroler status, plus, a back-up operator can only be opped when an actual operator is on the chat, which make the point of their existence kind of moot. Glowsquid

I'm going to remain neutral on this, as both sides have a fair point. 21:05, 25 November 2007 (EST)

Since I don't use the chat I don't think it's my place to go sticking my nose into issues involving it, however I do think we should have more than one Patroller (for the Wiki in general). - Walkazo

To Dodoman: Don't pay attention to what DP said, he's just a bit upset he won't be able to op Uniju, LB2, etc. 18:51, 26 November 2007 (EST)
 * Can we get a solid definition of spam up in here? I know DP is more strict about it than some other moderators, for example.  That might help clear up some of the bad feelings that are going around right here.  18:54, 26 November 2007 (EST)
 * Most of the spam happening is indeed spam, not DP over-reacting. 20:35, 26 November 2007 (EST)

Sorry for asking, but who exactly are currently ops in the chat? - 11:07, 27 November 2007 (EST)
 * DP, Phoenix Rider, RAP, Porplemontage, KPH2293, YellowYoshi398, Ghost Jam, and Myself. However only RAP, DP, and I are on everyday.
 * And how do you decide who becomes Op? All you listed are also Sysops on the wiki. - 15:01, 27 November 2007 (EST)

Wayoshi: In response to the list of official back-up Ops, I've decided to agree on that. For example, after discussing it with Plumber, Luigibros will NOT be a back-up Op anymore. I'm still thinking about Uniju... Blitzwing seems trustworthy enough. Plumber can act a bit spammy at times, but, I'm sure he wouldn't do anything like what HK did. =| I'll still watch him, just in case. Also, with Ghost Jam on the Chat, I will lower the amount of Back-up Ops in Chat.

I've only been using the chat extensively for the last two and a half days. Honestly, I don't see what all the fuss is about. Things has been rather silent, with some little discussion here and there, with only a few people who had to be kicked. -- Chris 20:22, 27 November 2007 (EST)
 * And now I do see what all the fuss is about. -_- -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Chris[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 21:27, 27 November 2007 (EST)

Alpha, if a back-up tells Steve they're a back-up, he'll add them, like he did with me. 22:30, 27 November 2007 (EST)

Improvement Drive
The improvement drive was created a few time ago, even thought simmilar ideas have been tried and all failed miserably, it seemed like a good idea at time. But now, it's barely edited and the creator (Max2) is blocked from editing forever. As of now, the Improvement drive seem like a waste of database space more than anything, I propose we delete it and state somewhere than project like it were tried and failed, so we won't end up with the idea being brought up again, accpeted, and turn out to be a similar fiasco.

Proposer: Glowsquid Deadline: 15:00, Dec 2

Get rid of it

 * 1) Glowsquid
 * 2) – I knew this wouldn't work. We are a big community, yes, but it seems mainspace contributors don't work together, as our knowledge is spread out, not concentrated on a particular area (I myself have never played the original SMB). This just won't work consistently.
 * 3) It's a trainwreck, and a waste of our Wiki's space.
 * 12:58, 27 November 2007 (EST) Per All
 * 1) Walkazo - I think we should still have a plain old list of bad articles, that way any old user can see what they can do, and then do it without having all the hooplah about a "weekly collaboration drive" wasting their time along the way.
 * 22:25, 27 November 2007 (EST) Per my original opposition of the project in the first place

Comments
Walkazo: We have that list, it's called Category:Rewrite and Expansion Requested.

Glowsquid

Oh, okay. Thanks! - Walkazo

Ashley & Red (Revisit)
As per this proposal, the article Ashley and Red must be split into to separate articles.

Aside from not a single person who voted on the proposal taking steps to follow through, read the article. There just isn't enough information on the character Red to create anything substantial. It would result in two articles being created, one being virtually unchanged, the other being little more than a stub, resulting in a deletion or a proposal for merging. -OR- Two articles being created, both nearly identically in content, resulting in a redirect or proposal for merging.

Until the character of Red starts to play a bigger role, I say we leave well enough alone.

Proposer: Ghost Jam Deadline: 17:00 Nov. 29

Overturn Previous Proposal

 * 1) I am the proposer and my reasons are listed above.
 * 2) Per Ghostly Jam
 * 3) Per Traffic Jam. I mean, Ghost Jam. =P
 * 4) Per the Jam of Ghosts.
 * 5) Red's as worthy of an article as "Gullible Soup". >_>
 * 6) Glitchman - Per Ghost Jam.
 * 7) Walkazo - Yeah, I voted to split the articles last time but Ghost Jam has a point about there not being enough information to make it worth while...

Continue with the split

 * 1) Glowsquid Yeah.... No one took the time to split thee page, but ti still say it should be split. Red have different abbilities, a different personnality (He have more speaking lines than Ashley, infact.) presently, the Ashley page doesn't disccus this, but this could be changed with the split. Sorry for my lazyness...
 * 2)  You want someone to split it?  Fine.  No promises, as today is Thanksgiving.  I probably only have five minutes, but I'll do what I can... ASAP. After trying to write the Red article, I changed my mind.

Comments
Glowsquid: Is there enough unposted information to make a Red article at least a full fourth of the size of the current article (not including templates)? If yes, and it can be proven, I'll pull this proposal. Stumpers: My issue isn't with the the article not being split (in fact, that's a whole 'nother matter). My issue is with a split just not being practical based on the information we have. -- Chris 13:47, 22 November 2007 (EST)
 * Ah, but you yourself said that we don't yet have enough information. Wouldn't you rather have a good, established platform now when that infromation does come?  Having a platform let's people feel like they can easily edit.  Just gimme some time to show you.  I've already started, but Christmas decorating pulled me away! :)  19:53, 23 November 2007 (EST)
 * Now you're just splitting hairs. We don't yet have enough information on Wario's mother. Shouldn't be have a good, established platform for when the information becomes available? This line of thinking will leave us with a never ending ocean of stubs. If there is sufficient information to create an article about Red, that isn't a stub, then you have an argument. At the moment, however, I don't see how it's possible. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Chris[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 21:30, 23 November 2007 (EST)
 * Well, I didn't mention Wario's Mother and I don't see how I'm splitting hairs. You'll remember one of the points you made in your proposal was that no one actually made the article, but then said "that's a whole 'nother matter." Long story short, I'm very confused about what's going on.  You want something saying that the article that would make "Ashley and Red" a complete article that doesn't need to be split?  Fair enough, but I don't understand why you wanted it.  I wouldn't have written the Red article (it's not posted yet) if you hadn't put this up... gah!  You guys just do whatever you want.  I'm done.  I only like to write anyway. :)  15:54, 25 November 2007 (EST)  Mmm... and just cause it will bug me if I don't say this... an implied character is not the same as a defined, major character, obviously.  I know, it was just an example.
 * My issue is with the split, which I fell is unnecessary, to be a requirement. The fact that the people who should have done it didn't is a completely different matter for a completely different proposal (I believe there is currently a discussion about it on Talk:Main_Page).
 * As for the split, you know how things work around here. When a proposal is passed, it essentially becomes a rule that must be followed. By that rule, Ashley and Red still needs to be split. I feel that there is no point given that there isn't enough information on Red to warrant two articles. So, following the trend, I created this proposal to overturn the previous one, making the previous proposal null.
 * I say that you're splitting hairs because you're using the 'other stuff exists' argument. Bridges aren't built without a foundation, societies aren't formed without an economic base, water isn't hydrated with a missing oxygen molecule and wiki articles aren't posted without proper information. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Chris[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 20:17, 27 November 2007 (EST)
 * I'm going to have to drop my point just because that was so outrageously amazing. Also, I tried writing the Red article, and gave up for that reason.  You'll note that I recently did up the Mario and Luigi's Parents article... and didn't split it.  CHANGE OF HEART!  W00T!  22:51, 27 November 2007 (EST)

Minor NPC's
A while back, I remember some users that created a "Minor NPC" Template. I don't know if it's still active, but I don't think it should be. Articles about extremly minor NPC's, with conjecture names like Suscpicious Doogan, do not deserve articles. However, we need a way to mention them. What I am proposing is an article describing, in as much detail as possible, the unnamed minor NPC from various mario games (The RPG's mainly, but Super Mario Sunshine had a lot too). This could be one huge archive, or it could be seperated into different sections. Any oppositions?

Proposer Ultimatetoad Deadline November 30th, 20:00

Support

 * 1) Ultimatetoad(oops)
 * 2) Walkazo - Sounds good, though you might wanna mention NPC stands for Non-Playable Characters for those us who aren't slang-savvy.
 * 3) I was just thinking we needed something like this.  I can't help you with it, but I'll support you in this way.

Oppose

 * 1) - Too short articles are banned by current rules already. I do not think it will do much good merging guys from different games in a single article. How do you define a minor character? Is Goomther one? Larson, who appears in a Trouble Center quest? Charlieton, who's optional to talk to, but is major in the Pit of 100 Trials? You cannot decide really. Only conjeturally named articles should be limited to the most important ones.
 * 2) Per Cobold--Caith Sith 12:13, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Comments
You are not supporting yourself, Ultimatetoad? - 07:55, 24 November 2007 (EST)
 * Once again, the question arises: Who do you count as too minor? Everyone with a conjectural name? I do not think so. I also don't think we should mix up characters from different games into the same article list. - 11:09, 27 November 2007 (EST)
 * Good point. If this passes the "Minor Conjecturally-Named Non-Playable Character" article will have to be split up into sections for each RPG. - Walkazo
 * That was what I was thinking of when I voted for this. Either that or separate articles.  In responce to your question, Cobold, I would say that each "potentially minor" character like Goomther or Charliaton should get an entry, and a template:main placed in the entry, but to delete the old article?  I wouldn't advise it.  Ultimatetoad, if you want to do that count me out.  I'm hoping just for a list of those characters, with links where available.  So... for example someone like Peach would be in the M&L:SS section in my perfect list here, but I wouldn't want her article deleted, obviously.  22:49, 27 November 2007 (EST)

Wario Man (character) and Wario Man (Final Smash)
Um, what can I say? If WarioWare, Inc. and WarioWare (stage) are seperate, why not this? It's not like there's a reason not to split them (to my knowledge >_>).

Proposer Dodoman Deadline December 5, 17:00

Split 'em!

 * 1)  I am the proposer and I like pie.
 * 2) -One's a move, one's a character. Merging them is unnessesary

Keep 'em merged.

 * 1)  - See my comment below.
 * 2)  per Cobold
 * 3) Walkazo - Per Cobold.
 * 4) Per Cobold;
 * 5) Per The Bold Company

Comments
WarioWare the company and WarioWare the stage are something entirely different. Wario Man is not, he's a form of Wario in both meanings, just the fact that it's classified as a Special Move in Brawl does not change that. As such, F.L.U.D.D. (SSB attack) got merged with the F.L.U.D.D. article because of redundancy. - 09:08, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Poll of the week
At first I found the Quote of the moment interesting but now it's boring, rarely you find a cool quote. I asked Steve to add, with that we could make a poll for each week and put in the place of quote of the moment! The results could be archived.

Proposer: Deadline: 20:00, 2 Dec

Oppose

 * 1) Those belong on the forums
 * 2) - Per Mr. Guy.
 * 3) – per all. Remember we have several guests everyday each of whom are probably intrigued by the randomquote generator, as a member you must live with it. In fact usually I go straight to RC...
 * 4) Walkazo - Per all. If you don't like the quotes, don't read 'em.
 * 5) Per All, except Cobold, who already Per'd someone. =P

Comments
When first I saw Random Quote I also liked but it get boring after a time... It would better something like featured Quote.

I am not sure what you mean, but we should have a poll like favorite mario character Mario, Luigi, Yoshi, Peach. Like on nintendo's site.

Redirects
Recently, I've seen that some articles have been turned into redirects because their too short(Like all of the Prankster Comets), however, I believe that as a Mario Encyclopedia, we should have a full article on every object, place, and character in the Marioverse, not clutter things into lists to save space. Lists usually tend to compress the information as much as they can, and not include smaller pieces of Information. They also tend to lack an image of each thing in the list, while full articles usually do not. Thus, I propose that any Object, Place, or character in the Marioverse is major enough to have its own article, not simply a redirect to a list.

Proposer: Uniju :D Deadline: 22:30 12 dec

Support

 * 1) I agree with myself.
 * 22:36, 30 November 2007 (EST) I agree with myself, who is agreeing with you.
 * 1) Snack 22:59, 30 November 2007 (EST) See comments below.

Oppose

 * 1) - See Comments below

Comments
While I do see your reasoning behind the "every aspect deserves an article" approach, the truth is, some articles have very little to say about them. In these cases, it is better to have one page that can give all the information in a group rather than forcing people to go back and forth between bite-sized pages. Simply put, it makes navigation a mite easier. 23:02, 30 November 2007 (EST)
 * Almost any article can have more information than you seem to think. Also, I don't see how going between articles is hard or annoying in any way.

Although I support this proposal, I think it might be better to do it on a case by case basis. For example, I don't think much more information could be given on each individual Prankster Comet then is given on the current Prankster Comet page, although having each comet have a seperate page would make things cleaner and make the images (if any ever get added) fit better... Maybe I should have just opposed the proposal :P Snack 23:03, 30 November 2007 (EST)

Uniju, if you think more information can be put on the page, then you do that. But as it stands, in this case, there's not much to be said. Like Snack said, it should be a case by case basis, and in this case its hard to get enough information short of totally wringing it dry. And that doesn't make for good material. You can tell when articles that have little to say about them are stretched for the point of making them longer. Also, what about users who have slower computers? Wouldn't it be more convenient to have more little sections of information on one page rather than having those same little sections on separate pages, where they would have to wait for each individual page to load? 23:13, 30 November 2007 (EST)

Miscellaneous
None currently