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) 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

 * Merge Wooden Trapdoor and Steel Trapdoor into (Discuss) Deadline: 8 January, 2011 23:59 GMT

New Features
None at the moment.

Removals
None at the moment

Bowser's Castle Article Name
Since, in Mario Kart series, they're all called "Bowser's Castle" and not "Bowser Castle". I think we should change the name of the article from Bowser Castle, to Bowser's Castle (course). I've not been on Mario Wiki long, but I know a lot of stuff about games, I just don't know how to make major changes like this. If this is voted for, I ask that someone tell me how to do it, or that someone else do it. Thank you.

Proposer: Voting start: January 2, 2011 00:00 Deadline: January 9, 2011 00:00

Support

 * 1) &mdash; Why give a page a different name than the subject, itself? A lot of other courses have the parenthesis after its title, rather than a different name. I hope you also support me on this.
 * 2) I have to agree with Brittanic124. There are 2 courses that say Bowser's Castle, and one that is Bowser Castle 3. That's more than half of them that say Bowser's. It even has a disambiguation on both pages.
 * 3) Per… uhm… proposal maybe?
 * 4) Per Britannic124, UltimatePetey and SWFlash.
 * 5) Per all. As my mom says, you have to spell and pronounce it correctly, so other people can understand you.
 * 6) - Per Coincollector and myself in the comments: the courses have been called both "Bowser Castle" and "Bowser's Castle", but the latter is the most recently-used term, and so we should go with that.

Oppose

 * 1) I am Zero! It will be too confusing to the visitor to have them in separate articles. I think just making that slight edit on their section is all we can do. Zero signing out.
 * 2) I am not Zero, but I am still opposing. Per Zero. It is fine as it is. It can be known under two names, and one is already the name of a very different article. If I remember correctly, it uses that name in most of the games, so it would be better as the name of the majority.
 * 3) No no no! Per me & Coincollector. Bowser Castle is the main article for all the Mario Kart racecourses, whereas Bowser's Castle is the main article for the actual castles location/level-wise. A similar idea to this has already been resolved, just follow the link in my comment.

Comments
Voting start...January 5th?! It's supposed to be around 24 hours after you first make it, not...3 extra days. I was just leaving space for the voting on the proposal below!
 * That's kind of not how it works. The rules state it has to be, so I will alter the voting start. People have enough time to vote on each.

I dunno, I've seen that the racecourses appear under the name Bowser Castle (like in Mario Kart DS) and others Bowser's Castle (like in MK Double Dash). I suggest you to use the latest name used for the course in a similar way that was done for the Octoomba's article.

Hey zero, did you see the article itself? There's Bowser Castle and Bowser's Castle (and no redirects!). That's why I'm supporting it.
 * Fools. Take a look at the bottom of Talk:Bowser's Castle. It should clear this up.
 * Okay, I'm crazy. I thought you were going to merge them. x_X But still, per Coincollector.
 * Calling people "fools" is rude: drop the attitude, please. The discussion you linked to doesn't clear anything up; the only bit applicable here is what MG1 said about proper names/nouns, but that logic is actually faulty seeing as "Bowser's Castle" is now used to refer to the tracks as well as the general castles that belong to Bowser. The entire thing feels like speculation to me: I doubt Nintendo ever meant for the names to be that subject-specific, especially since they've started using the same term for both uses of the castle. We're not supposed to make conclusions: we're supposed to name articles based on what the most recent game calls the subject in question (which is what Coincollector was talking about); in this case, the course set in the Koopa King's castle was called "Bowser's Castle" in the most recent game, Mario Kart Wii (I just played it myself to make sure of that). -

The TPP Effect
Third times the charm I hope, but let's not focus on what proposal number this is that I've made. Lately there has been many talk page proposals by the same user that conflict with each or they conflict with past tpps that have already passed. It is quite confusing on how unorderly and how inconsistent it is starting to become.

What I propose is that we have some changes to the Talk Page Proposal rules shown far above this. I say that if a tpp is being runned that conflicts and disagrees with another tpp that one of them has to change in order for consistency to be played out. Now of course some circumstances should be made about that, depending on what it is and the reasons, but if it is for the same reasoning as another, then that rule should change. But it is hard if it conflicts with other proposals from the past. What I say we should do about it is to have that ttp turn into a proposal that will go into misc and deal with all that it effects. Then, depending on whether the proposal passes or fails, shall the pages be changed depending on the outcome.

I believe that all I have said above is very logical, and will solve many issues that we have had here on the MarioWiki with the tpp's going on lately. If you don't quite fully understand my proposal, comment in the comments section.

Proposer: Voting start: December 29, 2010 5:16 Deadline: January 4, 2011 23:59

Support

 * 1) - Probably should have done this when I made the proposal, but wanted to see some opinions first. Since this seems to be looking like a good proposal, I support it 100%! Per me!
 * 2) Per guy above
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) Per Proposal.
 * 5) Per all.

Oppose

 * 1) - I'm sorry, but this is way too vague to be incorporated in our policies. Maybe if you flesh it out and formulate it into clear, precise paragraphs, we can think about adding something like that. But in this form: Just no.
 * 2) Per Edofenrir. I think it would turn out as a confusing policy.
 * 3) - I like the idea, but I have to agree with Edo, this is vague.
 * 4) Well, I agree with all that oppose this, it's main idea is good, but BMB, you need to make your description less vague. I can personally not see the specifics to this idea, thus, I simply have to oppose this for the time being.
 * 5) - Per Edofenrir: I don't see how we could possibly turn this proposal into some clear, concise rules. Besides, we already aim for consistency and if things really do get out of whack, Rule 13 gives the admins the means to set things straight. The problem is that a lot of the time, comparing TPPs is like comparing apples and oranges, and the whole thing is rather subjective: what's inconsistent for one person might be perfectly fine for another. No rule or policy will ever change that, and trying to shoehorn the TPPs into a strict guideline could actually backfire and make it much more difficult to run and regulate them; having wiggle-room is very useful sometimes.
 * 6) - Per Fawfulfury65. It could get confusing.
 * 7) - Per all, mostly Walkazo and Emperor Yoshi. I don't understand what you want to change, or do differently.
 * 8) I am Zero! Per Edo, way too vague. Zero signing out.
 * 9) - i would support...if i knew what ur talking about here. sorry.
 * 10) - Per Edofenrir, Emperor Yoshi, Tucayo, and Fawfulfury65.
 * 11) Per Edofenrir. Way too much vague.
 * 12) Per all.

Comments
I like your idea, we do need that. Consistency above all.

Can you clarify what you're saying please?


 * @Bowser's luma: Pretty much I am just solidifing the rules since a lot of agruements and conflicts have been going off in some TPP's. I am just saying to add/change a rule or two in the TPPs so that we can have consistency and to have a more understanding structure. That is about it.
 * Ok. Consistency is good.
 * This seems a little vague, could you be a little more in-depth?
 * Let's see if I can make it fit your idea of "clear". Hmmm...Pretty much if this proposal passes, we will be adding some more rules to TPP's. If a TPP conflicts with another (let's say one is to merge Goomba and Paragoomba, but another at the same time that has Goomba be split to Goomba (species) and Goomba (character)) then one of them has to be deleted or changed so that it doesn't happen like that. But if they interfere with each other, and one is running and another is passing (Example, split M&L series mushrooms apart, and a proposal that passed a few months ago merged them to the Mushroom article), then the current one either has to change the proposal, delete it, or bring it on this page as a main proposal and if passes, then the TPP would say something like "this TPP has changed via ". Its to help put consistency into the TPP's as we have struggled ever since they have been made with what is right and wrong and if this or that conflicts with that or this.

Agree! But that is not consistency, that is preventing conflict.

WAIT! This proposal has already been passed! See the "How to" section above, it has this rule: 8. No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old. So that means that the proposal made second would have to be deleted to follow this rule so this proposal is unnecessary.
 * Not exactly, it is actually to expand that rule. Because the rule refers to proposals dealing with the same subject, while this proposal talks about proposals that deal with similar circumstances.
 * Well if the circumstances are conflicting, such as in the case of his Goomba/Paragoomba example, one of them would be deleted so either his proposal is unnecessary or his example is faulty.

New Time Trial Article
I noticed that if you search "Time Trial" right now, you are brought to a redirect that takes you to a small section of the Mario Kart (series) article. I think this mode should be given its own article.

The biggest reason I think this is because there are full articles existing about similar modes, such as Diddy's Dash and Time Attack (Donkey Kong). It makes no sense for these to have their own articles and not Time Trial. Additionally, if a Time Trial article is made, it should have the similar Time Trail modes that I mentioned merged into it since they are near identical. The article could be used to list times that need to be completed in some Time Trials, since some games give you certain times to beat. It can also describe how the Time Trial mode can be unlocked (I know a few games don't let you play the mode right away), how it can be unlocked, and a little about how it may work.

Well, those are all the reasons I can think of.

Proposer: Voting start: 3 January, 2011, 1:47 Deadline: 9 January, 2011, 23:59

Support

 * 1) Per my proposal

Oppose

 * 1) – If anything, those other articles need to be merged to their respective games, not the other way around. Modes shouldn't get separate articles as they detract from the game articles. Will we put a  template on each respective section in the game articles? Not to mention that this proposal is inconsistent. What makes the Time Trial modes more deserving of an article than other modes like Grand Prix, Battle Mode, Versus, Mission Mode, etc.?
 * 2) -Per Knife. Game modes should make up the game's article in question.
 * 3) - Per all. Now I can see the cons of this, and they overpower the pros, to be honest.
 * 4) - I agree with Knife.
 * 5) - Making a Time Trials article is pointless if you asked me.  Refer to Knife's statement.
 * 6) - Per Knife.
 * 7) I am Zero! Per all. Zero signing out.
 * 8) Per Knife, Coincollector, MrConctreteDonkey and M&SG.

Comments
We could also list the staff ghosts in Mario Kart Wii into the Time Trial page.
 * Yeah, that's what I want in them along with the times for some of those Donkey Kong Time Attacks and stuff.

Change to
First proposal, I'm sorry if it's n00by. So recently, I found out that the template that has all the courses in the Mario Kart Series is. I think it is a little childish to put in the Race in Racecourses. I can understand if you disagree, but sounds better. Once again, sorry if it's n00by.

Proposer: Voting Start: December 30 2010 22:56 Deadline: January 5, 2010 17:56

Oppose

 * 1) There are 2 types of courses,race courses, and battle courses.
 * 2) Per BLOF.
 * 3) Per Nicke8.
 * 4) Per Nicke8.
 * 5) - Per all (including BLOF and what I said about semantics in the comments).
 * 6) I am Zero! Per Nicke8 and BLOF. Zero signing out.
 * 7) Per Nicke8 and BLOF.
 * 8) Per Nicke8

Comments
I disagree with you. I think the prefix adjective, "race" specifies "course". There are many types of courses out there, such as an obstacle course or battle course (it could even mean a school course), so changing it to "course" would be simply too vague. I don't understand what makes putting in the word "race" makes things childish. It describes the places perfectly, since you definitely (most of the time) are racing in there.
 * I agree. Also, would have to be switched to the new template name on over 60 pages, which seems like a lot of work for mere semantics. -
 * Well if he agrees to do it all himself...
 * I was planning on it. I was also thinking we could put EVERY courseof every kind into one template.
 * Having both types of courses in one navigation template might work, but they're too different to share one style of infobox, so while and  would be merged, you'd still have  on the articles. The infobox doesn't actually say "racecourse" outside of the coding, but neither does the navigation template: it says "Race Courses", like how the other one says "Battle Courses", and even if you merged them, they'd still have to us those terms to differentiate between the two types of courses within the template. The term is not childish or superfluous, it's functional. -