MarioWiki:Proposals

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) If users have an idea about improving the wiki or managing its community, but feel that they need community approval before acting upon that idea, they may make a proposal about it. They must have a strong argument supporting their idea and be willing to discuss it in detail with the other users, who will then vote about whether or not they think the idea should be used. Proposals should include links to all relevant pages and Writing Guideline proposals must include a link to the draft page.
 * 2) Proposals end at the end of the day (23:59) one week after voting starts, except for Writing Guidelines and Talk Page Proposals, which run for two weeks. (All times GMT.)
 * 3) *For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, the voting starts immediately and the deadline is one week later on Monday, August 8, at 23:59 GMT.
 * 4) Every vote should have a reason accompanying it. Agreeing with or seconding a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted.
 * 5) 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. Voters can remove or rewrite their own vote at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the administrators.
 * 6) All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week.
 * 7) 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.
 * 8) 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.
 * 9) No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
 * 10) Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation. However, proposers can request that their proposal be deleted by an administrator at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it.
 * 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 an administrator, the proposer can ask for that help.
 * 12) There should not be proposals about creating articles on an 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.
 * 13) Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the administration.
 * 14) If the administrators 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.
 * 15) No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.

Basic Proposal and Support/Oppose Format This is an example of what 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: Deadline: [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the proposal was created, 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.


 * For a list of all settled Talk Page Proposals, see here.

How To
 * 1) All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom). All pages affected 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. (All times GMT.)
 * 4) *For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, it ends two weeks later on Monday, August 15, 2011, at 23:59 GMT.
 * 5) Talk page proposals may be closed by the proposer at any time if both the support and the oppose sides each have fewer than five votes.
 * 6) The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.

List of Talk Page Proposals

 * Merge Floodgate Handle with Gate Handle (Discuss) Deadline: June 14, 2011, 23:59 GMT
 * Merge Round Goomba with Goomba (Discuss) Deadline: June 19, 2011, 23:59 GMT
 * Merge Goomba (Super Mario World) with Goomba (Discuss) Deadline:June 19, 2011, 23:59 GMT
 * Delete Panel de Pon (Discuss) Deadline: June 20, 2011, 23:59 GMT
 * Merge Fresh Pasta Bunch with Fresh Pasta (Discuss) Deadline: June 20, 2011, 23:59 GMT
 * Split Koopasta from Koopasta Dish (Discuss) Deadline: June 23, 2011, 23:59 GMT
 * Merge Shell Dash with Shell Mario (Discuss) Deadline: June 23, 2011, 23:59 GMT
 * Split both Chaps from each other (Discuss) Deadline: June 26, 2011, 23:59
 * Split Banana Bunch from Banana (Discuss) Deadline: June 26, 2011 23:59 GMT

Writing Guidelines
None at the moment.

New Features
None at the moment.

Removals
None at the moment.

No Starting Planet Left Behind!
Well, here we are again. It's always such a pleasure. It's been over a month, and my viewpoints in regards to this matter still have not changed. Now, I'll say this yet again: the "Starting Planets" need better names! I don't know how many times I need to say it, but this is not a race; we would not name a planet "Pit Stop Planet" or "Finish Line Planet," so what's the deal with "Starting Planet?" To reiterate what I said a month ago, renaming the "Starting Planets" would prevent a lot of issues, and is overall a much better decision in terms of consistency and accuracy than the way in which they are named currently. Again, I'm proposing that the name of each "Starting Planet" in every galaxy article be changed to "_______ Planet (Starting Planet)." This way, the affected planets are given actual names which coincide with the rest of the planet names in the article as being generally far less confusing and more understandable, though their position as the first planets encountered in a galaxy is simultaneously maintained. As for the galaxies in which there is only one planet to be visited, I'm now proposing that we drop the "Starting Planet" extention altogether, and simply give it a new name in accordance with the aforementioned guidelines (unless people have a drastic problem with that, in which case I could be persuaded to propose otherwise), given that it is, after all, the only planet encountered in the galaxy, and therefore leads absolutely nowhere after Mario lands on it. So, in these situations at least, the name "Starting Planet" is rendered fairly pointless. Because the name "Starting Planet" is already conjectural, nothing will be lost or compromised by renaming them as detailed above. Should anyone wish to view the previous proposal and its respective arguments, etc., please look here. And like I said before, I would be more than happy to make the majority of the resulting changes myself.

Proposer: Deadline: June 5, 2011 June 12, 2011 June 19, 2011, 23:59 GMT.

Support

 * 1) I definitely support this.
 * 2) Take 2...per proposal.
 * 3) Per proposal
 * 4) Per Phoenix
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per Phoenix
 * 7) Per all six!
 * 8) Per Phoenix proposal!
 * 9) Per Phoenix.
 * 10) – I don't agree with adding "(Starting Planet)" to each section: rather, it can be mentioned that the planet is the first planet that Mario visits when he goes to the galaxy. Otherwise, I feel that this is an improvement from the current way we do each galaxy article now and I'll support. However, I do feel the need to state that Walkazo's and her supporters' opinions on removing planet sections altogether would probably be the overall best thing to do (I feel that we simply differ on what we feel is the better option in this proposal specifically).
 * 11) Per them all!
 * 12) Per Super Mario Bros.
 * 13) Per All. I could help name the planets!
 * 14) Per All.
 * 15) Per All!
 * 16) Per All.
 * 17) Per all.
 * 18) This will only help two galaxies, you say? Well, for many galaxies between the two games, the Prankster Comet missions have different starting planets. This would actually help about 70 galaxies, maybe 80. Per all.
 * 19) per proposal
 * 20) Per All.

Oppose

 * 1) Per the reasons I opposed the previous proposal. This proposal makes no new arguments to convince me to support it this time.
 * 2) Per Bop1996
 * 3) "_______ Planet (Starting Planet)" just looks unprofessional, in my opinion. I see nothing wrong with keeping the name "Starting Planet". Per Bop as well.
 * 4) Per all, although, to me, this is still the lesser of two evils: I stand by my opinion that removing the planet sections altogether and putting all the info in the missions would be the best course of action (in other words, per what I said on the last proposal).
 * 5) - If you want it to work the second time around, provide a new reason. Per me in the first proposal's comments, and the summary of it in this comments section.
 * 6) - Per all, including all who opposed the last proposal.
 * 7) - per all
 * 8) One of your reasons for changing the names is that "'Starting Planet' is already conjectural". The names you would change "Starting Planet" to would be conjectural, too! Also, labeling a planet as "Starting Planet" is a great way to help people in recognizing which planet it is. Also, per everyone before me.
 * 9) I don't think it's a good idea, per all.
 * 10) I'm back from my abscence. Anyway, we already discussed this. Per all.
 * 11) - Per all.
 * 12) - Per Gamefreak.
 * 13) - Per Walkazo. The planets should have never had a section. IIRC, we simply put planets on the pages because, when SMG1 was first announced, all we had to go on was the planets. Not that that's terribly important to my vote, but still. I don't think that we ever had to have specific descriptions of the planets.
 * 14) - The first planet is called a starting planet because it is the opening to the galaxy. A galaxy would be plain random if it didn't have an introduction planet.
 * 15) - Per Bloc Partier. While the wiki may be used by some people as kind of  a walkthrough, this isn't our goal. Therefore, as stated by Bloc Partier, we don't need to thoroughly describe each planet from SMG and SMG2.
 * 16) Per all.
 * 17) It's obvious that we need to tell readers where's the starting planet. Per all.
 * 18) - Per all.
 * 19) - Per all.
 * 20) - Per all :)
 * 21) - Per Gamefreak75 and Walkazo.
 * 22) - Per all.
 * 23) Gamefreak just convinced me to take a side. Per my comment and all these guys.

Comments
First off, your argument of the term "starting planet" being just as effective as any other planet is invalid, as having set names for the planets you begin on in every galaxy will set a precedent, which readers browsing our articles will be able to recognize, and use to find the planet where Mario starts. And I agree with Gamefreak when he says that adding (Starting Planet) in brackets looks unprofessional; you still have yet to provide a reason why the creative name is better than "starting planet".

Secondly, adding in random names to articles without the names being fully decided on will cause dispute among users. For example, the galaxy where Megaleg is battled. The first planet (with the bullet bills). What would it be called? User1 might say it should be the Bullet Bill Planet, but then User2 decides that it would be more accurate to describe it as the Cage Planet. Then while those two are arguing, User3 changes it to the Black Hole Planet. What I'm trying to point out is that there is only one name that perfectly describes the starting planet - "Starting Planet".

Thirdly, while you may have opted to do most of the work yourself, this definitely does not remove the point of the matter; it is a whole lot of work (for everyone, including you) for absolutely no benefit. In fact, as I stated in the first paragraph, it is a whole lot of work by everyone to hinder the articles. Which is definitely not the way to go.

Finally, I expect you to oppose this by bringing forth the examples of the Space Junk Galaxy (and the one other galaxy like it) where there is more than one starting planet. But, as I made a strong point of bringing across the last time this was opposed, there are two galaxies like that and I admit, those two galaxies would benefit. However, there are over a hundred galaxies in total and for those other 100+ galaxies, this change would not benefit them at all, and even go so far as to harm them (see above). In short, this proposal fails to provide any reasons in support of the change. All of the reasoning explains why it is not a bad idea, but none of it explains why it is a good idea.


 * I think removing all the planets' section as Walkazo says is bad idea as it would result impossible to define what places the player will go specially in a mission of the galaxy - You know you don't visit the same places on every mission. On the other hand, I believe that the planets should be called according to a feature that the planet has in special. Well that's my opinion.
 * Well Coincollector, what could be a more specific thing - and special thing specific to a single planet - than "Starting Planet" in all but two galaxies, only one planet is ever started on. And if Phoenix would just stop proposing this, I would be able to run a TPP through on those galaxies to get them exemption to this rule. So like I said, what is more special than "Starting Planet"? The answer is nothing, Starting Planet is the ultimate description of the planet that is started on.


 * @Marioguy1: You should know better than to think that I would use the same argument twice :)


 * Well, first of all, what in the world are you talking about? There aren't over 100 galaxies total, there are only 91 between the two games. That aside, it seems to me that you're saying that the rest of the planet names that we have now are fully decided on, which of course is not the case. As you frequently pointed out last time, many of the planet names that we currently use still have not been decided on 100%, and are often changed accordingly. In my view though, this is fairly irrelevant in the long run. I'm certainly not saying that the constant name changing is a good thing for anyone, but it's going to keep happening regardless of what we may try to do to stop it. For the umpteenth time, the overall effect that this proposal will have on the repeated name changes will likely be a minimal one. As I type this, we currently have 11,480 articles. I highly doubt that 91 of them will dominate the majority of edits in the near future. As for the part about using definite names to set a precedent, perhaps it's time to set a new precedent. People will still be able to locate which planet Mario starts on both quickly and easily; that's the whole point of leaving (Starting Planet) next to the new name of the planets. So "Starting Planet" is ultimately still going to be kept intact, just in a slightly different format.


 * And besides, given that every single planet name is conjectural (including the "Starting Planets"), who's to say that naming them one way or the other is the correct way anyway? I mean, who decided on naming them all "Starting Planet" in the first place? I'm simply offering a naming method that will ultimately provide a much clearer picture of the "Starting Planets" in the mind's eye of our readers, and perhaps our contributors as well. Like I've already said countless times, there is a huge difference between planet names that are descriptive, and planet names that seem descriptive. Regular planet names are descriptive, while "Starting Planet" names seem descriptive, yet in reality embody everything but description. The name "Starting Planet" does not help anyone do anything besides indicate to readers that a planet is the first in its respective galaxy. If such a system was beneficial, we would have undoubtedly already replaced every planet name with "Second Planet," "Third Planet," etc. Why do we not do this? Because it would be unbelievably foolhardy and incredibly shortsighted of us to do so. No one in their right mind would be able to discern one planet from another if we were to do something like this. Readers may very well be forced to rely on pictures as a result of taking such action, something which no one should ever have to resort to, especially when one considers the fact that not every galaxy article even contains pictures of every planet that it features.


 * Not only is naming the "Starting Planets" definitely more effective, but it is also much more sensible in the long run. It's not about the new name being creative or cool, it's about it getting the job done correctly and competently, something which "Starting Planet" does not do a very good job of at all. I do see where you're coming from, but I honestly fail to see how the resulting actions of this proposal will cause so-called dispute among users. Like I said, how is it any different from what we have going on now? Names that have not fully been decided on are constantly being changed or reworded, and still I have yet to see a recent dispute between users over a planet name being changed. Why should I believe that this proposal will cause an overabundance of users to act any differently than they have been lately? Also, you say "there is only one name that perfectly describes the starting planet - "Starting Planet"." Well, I definitely agree that there is only one name that perfectly describes each planet (I'm talking about every planet, not just the "Starting Planets"), but "Starting Planet" is certainly not it. Each planet requires a unique name, because every planet is different in size, shape, color, texture, what have you, so how can one name that is the same for 91 separate planets possibly be the best name to be using? Obviously, not every "Starting Planet" is exactly the same as the one before or after it, so why name them all as such? It just doesn't make any logical sense. 04:51, 1 June 2011 (EDT)


 * @Coincollector: That's the exact same thing that I said the last time, it's an interesting idea, but I don't think it would work out very well. It would simply be too difficult to determine what we're talking about and where we're talking about it. Personally, I feel that the planet sections are fine as long as there is some definite semblance of consistency among them. 05:04, 1 June 2011 (EDT)

Sorry, about the 100 galaxies thing, I misread some comments from earlier and basically rounded off; either way, 91 and 100 are both gigantic numbers compared to 2.

Now, first off, I'd like to point out that I have never said anything about the changes to the names dominating the recent changes, or implied in any way that this proposal will affect the rate of change in the other planets in any way. I am saying that if we change the title, that will be one more planet name to change and that will affect the rate of change of the starting planet (prior to this, it would never have been changed, after this, it will be lumped into the same category as all the rest). And about the precedent, I believe I noted that "(Starting Planet)" looks sloppy; it seems like we are going along trying to decide names (which provide no benefit to the overall article) and then, as an afterthought, adding in "(Starting Planet)", "Starting Planet" improves organization and should not be overshadowed by a name that does not properly specify the planet.

Secondly, "Starting Planet" does not just "seem" descriptive, it is descriptive. There is only one planet started on in each galaxy. This planet is the "starting planet". If one is going to try to get a picture in their mind's eye, they could get confused between "Lava Planet", "Rock Planet", "Volcano Planet" or any number of planets whose names apply to multiple planets. There is always the possibility that, unless we have an explicit symbol of the starting planet (that does not appear on any other planets in the galaxy; which are usually shaped so that they look alike), people will get confused and mix up planets. Nobody will ever mix up "Magma Planet" with "Starting Planet" as "Magma Planet" is not started on. And the reason we do not used "Second Planet", "Third Planet", etc. is that there are multiple second planets, third planets, fourth planets, etc. for the missions in each galaxy. Unlike with starting planets, where 2/91 have similar names, that scenario would apply to ~40/91 which is a slightly higher number.

Finally, when I said this would cause dispute, maybe I wasn't clear. What I meant is that, for the time when we are changing the planet names, the users will see the edit, think the name isn't descriptive and then that will cause a dispute. I realize there are already disputes about the planets, but this would be like throwing another fish into a tank full of sharks. On the matter of whether "starting planet" is a descriptive name or not, it seems we have reached an impasse and it's your word against mine (or rather, your opinion against mine) so I don't think we can go forward there. I believe that "starting planet" is a perfect description for the planet started on, and you believe that to create a better picture, we need to be more descriptive. And your argument about starting planets being unique between the galaxies is an improper comparison; the starting planet in Galaxy A is not the same starting planet as in Galaxy B so the comparison does not work.

* Hrm* Portal 2 reference spotted.


 * @Marioguy1 (sequel) – "I'd like to point out that I have never said anything about the changes to the names dominating the recent changes, or implied in any way that this proposal will affect the rate of change in the other planets in any way." Truthfully, I was never trying to say that either, I was merely trying to express that out of the 11,000+ articles that we currently have here, I'm almost certain that the majority of users have more to do with the time available to them than continually switch the names of the "Starting Planets" back and forth to what each one personally desires them to be called, especially those users who could care less about Super Mario Galaxy or Super Mario Galaxy 2, which collectively comprise about 0.02 percent of the total number of Mario games that have been released to date.


 * I mean, if I asked ten random users at this moment what they thought about the goals of this proposal, I bet at least half of them would say something to the effect of "I've never even played either of those games, so I could honestly care less." And again, we continue to discuss this as if it is guaranteed that it will happen. Like I said before, there's no proof that every user is going to dislike names which haven't even been created yet. Sure, some may have a problem with them, but for all we know, 99.9% of users could not only really love the new names, but also like them a lot better than what we have now. I'm certainly not trying to put words in the mouth of every user who's ever edited this wiki, but we can't throw this out the window because of the possibility of an unfavorable outcome, which may, in fact, never occur, especially given the fact that there's no hard proof that such an outcome will even happen in the first place.


 * And as for the part about having the "Starting Planets" become part of "the same category as all the rest," that's exactly what I want to happen! There is no logical reason whatsoever to have any planet physically separated (whether purposely or otherwise) from the remainder of the planets in any given galaxy article, especially not when said planet is the first planet that we're going to be talking about in an article. Again, I'm not saying this was done intentionally, but you can't just name 91 planets one way, and then name the rest of the planets in every article in a different way. If you truly want to improve organization, then we need to pick either one option or the other, and since I've already proven that one option is extremely inappropriate, this proposal favors the more sensible of the two.


 * Now, I know you keep saying that the name "Starting Planet" is descriptive, but in reality, it only gives the illusion of description. Ignoring the obviously distinct differences among 91 independent "Starting Planets" and naming them all "Starting Planet" simply for the sake of people being able to recognize what planet they start on when they enter a galaxy circumvents talking about the actual visible characteristics of the planet, and seems quite lazy to me. Naming every "Starting Planet" as such does little in the way of recognizing the specific attributes that each planet has, which just isn't right. You can't just name 91 planets the exact same thing and cover up how the planet looks and what it does, even if it does accurately describe where it is in relation to the rest of the planets in a galaxy. That's precisely why I want to give it another name, so that we don't have this problem. But that doesn't mean that I haven't fully taken the opposers into account either. If I hadn't, I would've simply proposed that we just give every "Starting Planet" a new name, instead of giving it a new name and leaving (Starting Planet) next to the new name. Long story short, people will only start to "get confused and mix up planets" when 91 planets that are obviously different in size, shape, function, etc. are all named the exact same thing, like they are now.


 * Finally, I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say at the end of the third paragraph; the fact that "the starting planet in Galaxy A is not the same starting planet as in Galaxy B" is exactly what I was trying to communicate when I said "Each planet requires a unique name, because every planet is different in size, shape, color, texture..." Let's compare, for example, the "Starting Planet" in the Good Egg Galaxy and the "Starting Planet" in the Honeyhive Galaxy. In the former, the "Starting Planet" is fairly small and dual-sided, with a bright garden-like area on the top, and a dark castle-like structure on the bottom. In the latter, the "Starting Planet" is considerably larger, and has trees, water, Bees, fountains, rolling Boulders, Sproutle Vines...the list goes on. And this is just the case for the "Starting Planets" in two galaxies out of a total 91 galaxies! You're telling me that the numerous, obviously incontrovertible differences between every single "Starting Planet" in all 91 galaxies ultimately amount to nothing more than naming all of them the exact same thing? I realize that they're all the first planets encountered in their respective galaxy (with the exception of two), but come on. We cannot, and we should not, sacrifice quality for consistency. It's as simple as that. 17:35, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

@Usernamer2"Go Galaxies!" isn't a valid reason to support.--

Whoah. Stuff is happening while I'm on hiatus. Anyway, this seems to be a big deal, so I should vote. But I won't because I agree and disagree with points on both sides, so neither outcome seems more favourable imo. I know that a lot of users, myself included, have put a lot of effort into improving the quality of each Galaxy article, especially the Planets sections on some articles. Just haphazardly placing all the Planet section info into the Missions section of the article seems like it would reduce the overall quality of the article by creating a massive wall of text that users and guests probably won't want to read in one sitting. As for Phoenix's idea, it doesn't seem too great. You're basically taking a conjectural name and replacing it with a longer conjectural name. Which is highly screwy logic even by my weirdly high standards of screwy logic. Kudos if that made any sense to you, readers. I'd simply prefer to keep the current format of these Galaxy articles, if that's okay with all you good people who actually placed votes here on this proposal. I shall now resume the last few weeks of my hiatus. 07:20, 13 June 2011 (EDT)

Revisit Blocked Users' Votes policy
Originally, when I had read this proposal, I did not know which choice to support. Here is what the choices in the original proposal were, just to make sure we have something to reference on this page:


 * 1) All blocked users' votes are removed; no matter the length of the block.
 * 2) All permanently blocked users' votes are removed, but if a user's block expires before the end of the proposal, their vote remains.
 * 3) All permanently blocked users' votes are removed, but if a user's block expires two or more days before the end of the proposal, then their vote remains.

Obviously, if you look at the original proposal, you can see that Option 2 garnered the most support out of the three proposed changes. However, I am asking that we reconsider the first two options:
 * 1) Option One: If a user makes a vote, and they are subsequently blocked, then their vote is removed regardless of whether their block expires before or after the proposal.
 * 2) Option Two: If a user makes a vote, and they are subsequently blocked, then there are two things that can happen. If the user's block ends before the end of the proposal, then their vote stays. If the user's block ends after the end of the proposal, then their vote is removed.

I would like to have everybody consider Option One for several reasons. Think about it, why does a user get blocked? Assuming good faith in our administration, it is because the user clearly shows that they do not understand, or outright choose to ignore, Super Mario Wiki policy. Why do we want somebody that lacks understanding (or just outright breaks) our wiki policies influencing wiki policy?

Now, think this even further. Whether a proposal ends before or after a user's block is irrelevant when considering the above point I made. If the user's block ends before the proposal ends, and the user in question decides to return to the wiki, then they will be able to add their vote again. The chances of the formerly blocked user not understanding our policies (or their willingness to purposefully break our policies) after experiencing being blocked is much lower. They served their time for the crime, therefore, they have earned their right to vote on a proposal again. But a vote cast in ignorance of the rules should not be considered acceptable under any circumstances, which is also why an argument based on the user hypothetically not returning is also not really justified: if the user simply doesn't want to participate in this system after being blocked, that is their choice. But their vote was made back at a period of time when they couldn't understand our policies, so it should not be allowed to stay.

So that is why I feel we should change our policy to Option One. Option Two simply rewards and babies users that have no regard for the rules of this site. Option One promotes personal responsibility and promotes a logic that will, perhaps, convince more users not to get themselves blocked.

Proposer: Deadline: June 19, 2011 (23:59 GMT)

Option One

 * 1) – Per my reasons in the proposal.
 * 2) – per proposal
 * 3) – Instead of saying what I told SMB, I'm just going to say that this is the more justified option.
 * 4) – per proposal, mainly the point of blocked users being blocked for a reason
 * 5) Per everyone! Thanks!
 * 6) Per all
 * 7) This option is the one I supported in the first place. Per proposal.
 * 8) – Per all.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) They chose to act innapropriate and get themselves blocked so why should we treat them any better?

Option Two

 * 1) per proposal

Comments
I'm going to quote what I told SMB (mostly) word for word, so it is going to see a little detached: "I just think that if they are blocked, their votes are out. If their block is over before the proposal is over, then they can just revote. What's so hard about that? But yes, they didn't follow the rules, so they shouldn't be treated with caviar. caviar being the current system. Being blocked is like jail. You are sealed in from the world. And you have no rights at all (because you broke the rules). Understood that many blocks that MG1 are talking about are the 3 day ones, which are pretty much time-outs. But still, when they are blocked, they shouldn't have any right, especially in keeping their vote. shows that they are still in involved with the proposal, showing that their decision still matters (giving them rights)."

That is why I'm supporting changing the current role to be more justified and more reasonable and not so giving as the new one. Also, no offense to you MG1.
 * Huh? I don't believe I was ever for any side in this matter. I'm just against the "Do Nothing" option.

Articles regarding levels
Being new here, Im not sure if this should be a TPP, but whatever. Anyway, I noticed we have articles on Mario worlds (ex. World 1, World 2, World 6), but not individual levels (World 6-4, World 3-1). However, for Donkey Kong levels, we have articles on worlds(Cliff, Jungle, Volcano) but in addition we have articles on individual levels (Prehistoric Path, Jungle Hijinx, Hot Rocket, King of Cling, Weighty way, Cramped Cavern, etc.) I say for consitency we do one or the other. I think Mario levels, especially NSMB and NSMBW levels, have enough contents and secrets to be individual articles. I am simply proposing we either add Articles for Mario levels or delete the articles for DK levels, for consistency.

Proposer: Deadline: June 13, 2011, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) - I would vote my own proposal
 * 2) Per proposal
 * 3) per proposal. I all ready made one like this.

Oppose

 * 1) I don't think we should because all the levels in Donkey Kong games have names. Most of the levels in NSMBW do not just numbers like 1-1, 1-2 and so on. Also in the World articles we don't have long descriptions of the levels.
 * 2) He stole the words right outta my mouth! I don't wanna go to the south! (I'm in a rhymey mode)
 * 3) I wrote this before and now it is gone. I'll just type it again - Per FF65's comment below and YoshiGo.
 * 4) Per Mario4Ever's comments.
 * 5) Per my comment below.
 * 6) Per Mario4Ever and FF65 in the comments.
 * 7) - Per all.
 * 8) Good enough for a per all!
 * 9) There was already a proposal similar to this that failed. Per all.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) - Per all. I'd rather go the other way and see existing level pages put into world articles. The 3D missions are already in single world pages, and I think SPM would be much better off if the chunks of its chapters were all in one place too. As for 2D sidescroller levels, many are stubs while others are excessively long walkthroughs disguised as articles - they need work done, and the pages that are fine need not lose any content if merged properly.
 * 12) Per All.
 * 13) Per my comments, FF65's comments, and YoshiGo99.

Comments
I don't even remember why the SMB levels were all merged but I think it has to do with the fact that they don't all have specific names (they all have names like world 1 - 1 and world 1 - 2). The Donkey Kong levels do have separate articles because they have specific names (such as Jungle Hijinx and King of Cling).
 * But i believe the levels do have semi-specific names ya know 1-1 and so one
 * Uh, Goomba's Shoe15, 1-1 is not a name. Besides, the designation 1-1 (without a name) is found in Super Mario Bros., Super Mario Bros. 2, Super Mario Bros. 3, SMB: The Lost Levels, New Super Mario Bros., and NSMB Wii (if I'm missing any, let me know). I think having the levels of each of these games organized by world is much more efficient than making articles for separate levels and then creating a disambiguation page for every instance of the level 1-1.

@YoshiGo99: Why should that make a difference?

@Nicke8: You know that you can just say "Per YoshiGo99"?


 * Yeah, but read what is in the brackets.

Didn't Superfiremario make this proposal awhile ago? And didn't it fail?
 * Yeah, and your point is...?
 * No, I just wanted to make sure because this does seem familiar.

Why should it matter that the levels must have names? I do get what you're coming from but really, if a human doesn't have a name then is he not a human, NO he is still human.
 * @Zero we aren't saying these aren't levels.
 * I never said they weren't.

I think the difference between this and SFM's proposal is that SFM just wanted to make level articles, but this proposal gives a vaid reson as to why we should do it. Ratfink43

I know I'm a bit late to the party, but I've noticed a huge flaw in how this proposal has been set up. The exact thing that's been proposed is: "I am simply proposing we either add Articles for Mario levels or delete the articles for DK levels, for consistency.". There are actually three possible ways to deal with the pages being discussed here (delete, create, do nothing), but there is only two voting options - it's too late to change it now, but in the future, never set a proposal up this way. What's being voted on has to be specific: an "either/or" choice cannot simply be "supported". -

Like Fawfulfury said. The SMW levels have specifyed names, but NSMB, NSMBW, etc. do not. This would also lead to a ton more disambiguation pages.

Create an article for Reggie Fils-Aime
We have articles on many Nintendo employees, including but not limited to Satoru Iwata, Hiroshi Yamauchi, Shigeru Miyamoto, Takashi Tezuka, and Koji Kondo. I think it only fitting for Reggie Fils-Aime, president of Nintendo of America, to have an article as well. I realize that he hasn't been as involved in Nintendo software as other employees, but he is one of the primary sources of information concerning the goings-on at Nintendo during every E3 since E3 2004, his public debut. A user informed me that the wiki has had an article on Reggie in the past on three separate occasions, and it was deleted on those occasions. However, I find the risk worth taking. The wiki just seems incomplete without information on him.

Proposer: Deadline: June 20, 2011, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per my proposal.
 * 2) He seems pretty notable what with America being the biggest game market its only natural we have an article on it's president
 * 3) Why don't we have an article for Reggie? Per proposal.
 * 4) First Koji, then Shigeru, now Reggie? Per all!
 * 5) he is rather important for the Nintendo of America.
 * 6) - Per Goomba's Shoe15, although I don't think we even need a proposal to OK this: as long as the page isn't a stub, it'd totally be allowed.
 * 7) Per all.