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 using the code. Signing with the signature code (~) is not allowed due to technical issues.

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) 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.
 * 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 are two topics that cannot be decided on through a proposal: the first is sysop promotions and demotions, which are decided by Bureaucrats. Secondly, no proposals calling for the creation of Banjo, Conker or Sonic series articles are allowed (several proposals supporting them have failed in recent history).

The times are in EDT, 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 Saturday night at 11:59 PM EDT, the deadline is the next Saturday night at 8:00 PM. If it is a minute later, the deadline is a day plus 15 hours (Sunday), as opposed to a day minus 4 hours.

CURRENTLY: , 28 2024 (EDT)

Featured Lists
The discussion was going on over here about making a Featured List. The List over there is generally 100% complete, however since the lack of the text count and rules of our normal FA doesn't meet that standard, it cannot become featured. So, we were thinking of making a Featured List, which could make some lists such as Allies and what not to also become Featured. Some lists are well off completed, but haven't been recognised by users, such as Trophy Descriptions (SSBM) I still don't know what the standards of a Featured List would be, I want to hear other users opinions as well. So, with all that said, what do you guys think? Yes or no?

Proposer: Deadline: November 4th, 2008, 22:00

Create Featured Lists

 * 1) - Per myself.
 * 2) - As long as an organized standards system that works in accordance on some level with current featured article rules, I believe this could be a wonderful addition to the MarioWiki. So, per S-Y and my comment below.
 * 3) Per S-Y.
 * 4) - Per S-Y. However, there aren't that many Feature-worthy lists out there, so perhaps the FLs should be an occasional substitute for FAs (i.e. 4 FAs and then an FL).

Comments
Well, here's some standards you may like:
 * The lists must be 100% complete, containing all required descriptions and images in order to reach such a status.
 * The lists must be organized it a tidy manner, be it through a table, template, or any other means.
 * The lists must contain at least 1,000 bytes of information original to the MarioWiki, thus making the Super Mario Wiki seem more official. -- (In other words, so it doesn't look like we're just copying and pasting lists.)
 * The lists must be composed in a well-written manner. Grammar must be as correct as possible.
 * The lists must be of adequate size (10Kb?). In other words, a list pertaining to all the items in Paper Mario would be likely insufficient, but a list pertaining to all items in the Paper Mario series would be sufficient, as long as said list were to meet all of the aforementioned requirements.

Just a thought.
 * Sounds good. Just a little bit more, and this should be good to go.
 * Agreed.
 * Walkazo: That's actually a really good idea.
 * Yea, awesome idea.
 * Thanks! -

Removals
''None at the moment.

Kirby's forms
Compared to other SSB contestant pages, Kirby's article is too long because of his Forms list. I feel we should give his forms a separate page to equal it out. But i can't do it without your permission. So what do you guys think? New page or same page?

Proposer: Deadline: November 8th, 2008, 20:00

Create New page

 * 1) - Per myself.

Leave it as it is

 * 1) Its part of Kirby's page. His forms are apart of him so it belong in his page. Moving it is a big no no.
 * 2) - While Mario forms like Fire Mario are seperate from the main character articles, SSB info is secondary on this Wiki, so Kirby forms do not merit the same treatment.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) WTF! per all
 * 5) - 1. They would all be stubs. 2. That's unnecessary, especially when factoring in this Wiki's priority on Mario-stuff. 3. Kirby's page isn't too long. If you want to see long, go to Mario or SSBB - they're long.

Changes
None at the moment.

Article Organization Standard
For quite some time now, we have given guidelines as to article formatting, but we have not set a single standard. This has caused many problems for the Wiki, including the conflicts over the formatting of the Mario and Daisy articles. Our previous formatting ideas came from the idea that certain sources were of a higher canon than others and thus should be separated from lower canon sources in the articles. This was detailed in Canonicity prior to its recent rewrite which removed that speculation. Unfortunately, that means that our primary article organization is based off of fanon. For example, our section on video game appearances is called “Biography,” implying that none of the sports spin-offs and alternate media sources “happened” in a character's life. Whether we believe this to be true or not, it is not the Wiki's place to make such speculation.

This presents us with a unique opportunity to kill two birds with one stone: if we establish a standard for article organization that is not based on speculation, the speculation will be removed from our articles AND the argument as to how articles should be organized will be settled.

I propose that we give each individual source a section of its own. Then, each section would be placed within its respective medium. We would have a separate section for video games, television shows, comics, the movie, etc. Furthermore, each of these sections would have subsections for each series. The central Mario platforming series would have a section, as would Mario Kart, Paper Mario, etc. For titles that do not fall into a series, they would be placed in a section called "Individual Titles" or some equivalent. Each of these sections and sub-sections will be organized by release date. So, for Mario, you would first have the video game section, which starts with the Donkey Kong series, then moves to the Mario series, and so on and so forth. However, when the events of a title has explicitly occurred prior to those released earlier in its section, such as Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island in the Mario section, it can be listed earlier. Another example would be Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins, which can be listed just after Super Mario Land.

For those who are confused, I am willing to make a mock-up of this concept. For those who still want to see the video game sources lined up in the way they currently are, please remember that Chronology was designed just for you.

Why does this idea benefit the Wiki?
 * 1) Removes speculation: Organizing by media and series is an objective concept that Nintendo often uses itself. Compare this to our current method: trying to organize events in the order that WE believe them to have happened, something that Nintendo has never done.
 * 2) Creates a standard: now that MarioWiki:Canonicity has been rewritten, we need a new standard. I also want us to have a standard that we all agree on, not one that a sysop back from the early days of the Wiki created before we had the proposals page.
 * 3) Frees us from having to connect storylines. If each appearance has a different section, we do not need to speculate and claim that "After doing this, the character did that," or worry about balancing the inconsistencies such as those between Yoshi's Island, The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! and the Nintendo Comics System.
 * 4) Allows for expansion of alternate media appearances, such as those from The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! It is very difficult to write about the entire series in a paragraph of a subsection in the alternate media sections as our current organization has us doing.

Proposer: (with input from Cobold, Blitzwing, Ghost Jam, and Rooben Stooben among others.) Deadline: November 3rd, 17:00

Support

 * 1) - My reasons are detailed above.
 * 2) - I think that the current way the articles are structured is rather random and not really official. The change is necessary.
 * 3) - Per Stumpers, all the way. This should finally help get articles in order – the way they should always be.
 * 4) - Per Stumpers.
 * 5) - Per Stumpers, he got inspired
 * 6) - Per all. This seems like a really good idea.
 * 7) - Per Stumpers. Less arguements and stuff are going to happen this way, and our wiki will be much neater and organized.
 * 8) - Per all.
 * 9) - Per all, per all, per all. Period. The wiki will be greatly cleaned up with easy to access information when this proposal will be effect.
 * 10) Per Stumpers.
 * 11) Per Stumpers.

Comments
Thanks, Tucayo, but I gotta give credit to the other sysops as well - it was really a group effort. I just nailed down the specifics.

I still think dividing the video games by individual series is too much. Yes, those of us who do want to see the strictly chronological order can look on Chronology, but you could just as easily say the people who want to see the series' history can look on the Series' Pages (i.e. Mario & Luigi (series)). Plus, casual Users and Guests may not know enough to go searching the MarioWiki pages; whereas the Series Pages are mainspace and (should be) linked to on the articles themselves. Even then, all the Chronology page gives us is a list, and if we want to find out about what Mario does from game to game, we'd have to go from game to game; whereas the Series Pages offer a bit more up front. Plus, it's not rocket science to figure out Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door is the sequel to Paper Mario; so if someone did want to find out what Mario did in respects to the Paper Mario series only, they'd just have to scroll down the chronologically-organized biography looking for the "Paper Mario" titles. But it doesn't go both ways: as they are now, most biography sections don't include dates; and even if they do in the future, it's harder to look around for the first thing to come after "September 1993" than the next 3-D "Super Mario...". True, that's when you'd whip out MW:Chronology; but it seems like too much hassle for half of us just to spare the other half a fraction of the time and frustration. What I'm trying to say is that we already have the option to read history by series, and we always will, so what need is there for this extra step? I agree with the proposal otherwise, so I'm not voting against it - the Wiki needs change, just not that much. -
 * Something that I was considering while writing this proposal was that, even if this isn't the ultimate fix we find, it's a good one for right now. If you can think of a better way, please, PLEASE make a proposal.  We've been banging our heads trying to figure out how to not follow any fanon while still acknowledging the fact that the overall Mario series does appear to have a continuity within it, just not a very well defined one.
 * That's one thing that poses a big problem: Nintendo has confirmed absolutely no chronological order to their different types of media. This is one of the few tasks the MarioWiki that we have do to completely from scratch. I for one, think it's well worth it, despite any obstacles we may run across.
 * By organizing by series, we can free ourselves of any conjecture we previously had to make when we clumped all the video games together. Another method would be to list appearances by release date.  However, the downside of that is that you can't place past events from later released appearances earlier in the article.  For example, we know that Yoshi's Island came before Super Mario Bros., but we don't know how Yoshi's Island relates to Yoshi Touch & Go. Is it before, after, during, or an alternate timeline?  By dividing into Mario and Yoshi series, we free ourselves up from that.
 * MW:Chronology has already established that games explicitly set at certain points in time are exempt from the release-date-order (such as Super Mario Land 2: Six Golden Coins coming immediately after Super Mario Land; and Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island being set before all other games), so couldn't that be carried over to the articles? As for the muddled Yoshi series, I don't think organizing by series would make it any easier than by date (for example, SMW2: Yoshi's Island is as closely elated to Super Mario World as it is to the later Yoshi titles, which confuses things further: where does one series end and the next begin?). Yoshi Touch & Go has no plot, but what can be gleaned from the gameplay suggests it is a "retelling" of Yoshi's Island, and can therefore be listed alongside said game, like how Super Mario 64 DS is incorporated with Super Mario 64 in MW:Chronology. Lumping the games together by series is invoking as much conjecture as going by release dates; and considering all the cross-series references and carry-overs, it would seem more likely Nintendo did not mean to divide the games like this. For instance, Bowser's crush for Peach was introduced in Paper Mario and then incorporated into subsequent games such as Super Mario Sunshine, which is part of the 3-D series begun before Paper Mario was released. For this reason, listing SMS before PM would be confusing, but necessary according to ordering by series and their seniority. Super Paper Mario also references series that come after Paper Mario started (i.e. the Sammer Guy Mustard of Doom named after Fawful of Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga); though you could argue these are merely jokes for the player's amusement, and not as consequential as actual plot elements. -
 * Actually, Bowser's love for Peach was introduced in The Great Mission to Save Princess Peach and then in Super Mario Adventures (it could also be argued that The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! also used this concept when Bowser wanted to marry Peach, but it was largely for political reasons).  Examples of video games taking ideas from earlier alternate media are numerous, even when it comes to references and jokes for the player: the Pal Pills were a reference back to an item from Super Mario World television show episode "Rock TV" for example, and Nintendo of America openly embraced the idea of Mario coming from Brooklyn even after Yoshi's Island contradicted the Super Show's backstory.  However, since many users (including yourself) argued against the merging of video games and alternate media sources into one big appearances section, myself and the other sysops had to think of another solution.  You're arguing that video games should be blended together because each series is not presented as its own separate continuity with different characters, locations, and themes.  Yet, I can and have argued that video games and alternate media sources should be merged for the same reasons.  Remember when I implemented that idea into Mario and his parents' articles?  As you pointed out and I agreed, it was a mess of speculation.  You also forgot something about Chronology: it's designed for users to speculate on how the sources fit together.  So, here's my and the other sysops' logic: if placing sources together in a chronological order requires speculation (for example, can you cite me specific proof that says Paper Mario came after Super Mario 64?), then why should we do it?  We're here to write about official Nintendo material rather than to speculate about it, right?  So, how can we not speculate?  We must sort by an objective standard rather than a subjective one.  We must be able to clearly say, "This source fits this real world, non-fanon condition(s)."  Rather than, as you said, base our organization on what we "gleaned from gameplay suggests,"  One early idea of mine was to sort sources by date exclusively, and making the articles clearly historical from the point of the real world?  That was one of my first ideas, but it was denied.  What the sysops and I cooked up and I am now proposing is objective criteria, and it will organize those ridiculously long appearance pages.
 * I just wanted to apologize in case my above message seemed harsh or irksome. I reread it now, and it does seem a little arm-twisty.  So, anyone who read it, know that yes, I do believe what I said, but no, it wasn't fair to say it the way I did.  I'd like to give Walkazo credit for standing up for the removal of fanon with the Mario's parents article, and I'm very grateful for it.  Otherwise, I'd probably still be pounding away at articles, speculating like crazy trying to put all the pieces together.  So, thanks, Walkazo and I hope you weren't offended in any way!

This Proposal is like quantum physics - it's too confusing for me. If I understood it properly, I'd have my say in this. I am extremely dumb, but it's mainly because Stumpers is too smart...
 * You, good sir, are much too kind! But, if you can't understand it that means I wrote it badly.  Is there anything in particular you'd like me to clarify?  Is it just the reasoning for the change or would you like me to make a mock-up to show what the change will be?
 * Going back to the above conversation; to be honest, I did feel like I was being scolded for stubbornly arguing against your idea, Stumpers, but your apology was really nice - thank you! Anyway, I did find specific proof that there is some sort of inter-series continuum: FLUDD's video analysis of Mario at the beginning of Super Mario Sunshine. It first shows him jumping over Bowser in Super Mario Bros., then battling Iggy Koopa in Super Mario World, and finally him swinging Bowser around by his tail in Super Mario 64. I can't guarantee FLUDD showed the videos in the order that they occurred in the Marioverse, but it would make the most sense if it did, as computers use pretty standard organization principals (the other option would be alphabetical order, but in that case, SM64 would come before SM World); speculation aside, it still proves the three series coexist. And unlike most cross-series references, this is an actual plot device: it shows how FLUDD identifies Mario as a Koopa-fighting crusader worthy of its assistance. -
 * Aw... thanks for not being mad at me (I deserve it if you are). I've been pretty stressed out this week, so just know that I didn't mean to scold you, and that NO one, especially NOT you deserves that.  Again, I'm really sorry about that!  I'm nearly certain we can confirm that the main Mario series is definitely in a straight-shot continuity, with the two exceptions Yoshi's Island and Super Mario Land 2.  Reasons like the ones you mentioned and the continuity between the titles is pretty blatant.  Super Mario Bros. 2 (Japan) directly connected itself to be after Super Mario Bros. 1.  Super Mario Land would have taken place next by release date (and thus SML2 would come right after), which then explains Super Mario Bros. 3's storyline, stating that Bowser had been unactive for a very long time.  I'm not sure how official it is, but many users have told me that Super Mario World is apparently the bros. going on a vacation to celebrate the returned peace in the Mushroom World.  You can see, there's no down time in the story, really.  Then, after that they brought in the spin-off Super Mario Kart and the explanation of Mario's birth in Yoshi's Island.  A lot more spin-offs and real world time passed before we got our mitts on Super Mario 64.  It's between World and 64 we first start getting this messy video game continuity: the games with a storyline come out with much greater time between them and more spin-offs happen, none of which connect themselves directly with the plot of the others (but you should know, I totally think they are part of the continuity personally).  So, what I'm saying is this: the part of the continuity we KNOW is set in stone is the main series video games.  Their storylines always spell out the context, even if it's just connecting back in various ways (Sunshine showed that Mario remembered Luigi's Mansion and that F.L.U.D.D. knew of his past exploits.)  And, I would further argue that the RPG series is married at the hip as well, which itself is a straight shot continuity between SMRPG, Paper Mario, M&L, PM2, etc. as well.  Elements have spilled over greatly, and have established that they are part of the main series continuity (Kamek remembers Baby Mario and Luigi, Beanish characters in PM2, etc.).
 * So, what my message here is this: I myself am of the theory that MarioWiki:Chronology is the closest thing we can get to a continuity, and I stand by it. I would like to stress that article organization and continuity don't necessarily have to go together.  We may find it more advantageous to sort by series, we might not.  In any case, if this doesn't work out as well, rest assured the sysops and myself will keep trying to find a better way, and I'll be looking to you, Walkazo.  Thanks for all your help on the Wiki!

Response to Stumpers, from Dom: Well, one thing that makes it confusing is that this is the biggest, wordiest proposal I've ever seen - there's so much to try and take in. And the huge amount of comments here proves it must be pretty complicated. I think I would get this if you made a mock-up of what the changes would be - I am a visual learner so yeah. Although I'll admit that I still look at the Proposal and it goes over my head. It would be great if you could demonstrate the changes... Man, I feel really dumb.
 * Sure, I'll work on it. I'm not sure if I'll be able to get it to you before the weekend is over, though, because I'm super busy from the Saturday morning on. :O
 * In that case, I'm going to wait until I see the mock-up before I say anything else; a picture's worth a thousand words, after all. One thing is bugging me, though: italicization. So far, the game, show and movie titles are being italicized, but not the comics, which, according to this, is wrong. If we're already going to be reworking most articles for the new policy, I think it would be a good opportunity to address these sorts of trivialities as well. Anyway, pertaining to your earlier response, Stumpers, you're being far to kind; we all make mistakes and holding you to one slip-up you immediately apologized for would be wrong. -

Poll Requirements
Well, I love to see all the creativity with the polls, but what bothers me is how poor some can be. A lot have extremely poor grammar and too few of choices. Others are a bit innapropriate or don't involve complete Mario-related ideas. So what I'm saying here is to stengthen the rules for poll suggestions, to make sure pointless polls are prevented. I've come up with a few sample rules to start: .....And so on. So, who's with me on this?
 * 1) The poll must relate entirely to the Mario or other related series. (DK, Yoshi, SSB, etc.)
 * 2) Polls must have at least 3-10 choices.
 * 3) Nothing innapropriate or what others might consider offensive

Proposer:

Deadline: November 6th, 5:00 EST

Support

 * 1) My reasons above and below.
 * 2) - See my Comments below.
 * 3) - Per Luigi001 and Dom's comment below.
 * 4) Per all
 * 5) Per all.

Oppose

 * 1) - Per my comment below
 * 2) Per S-Y coment below.

Comments
Um I thought the Porplemontage controls the poll page and the rules.
 * Well, not exactly. I mean he has more control over everything, being the founder and all. But we as users get a say in what goes in and out, otherwise this wiki would be more like a dictatorship. There's been proposals on adding/changing rules before, so I don't see the difference.
 * Yea but Steve set it up, and nothing bad is going on with the polls rite now. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Once some polls tart becoming spammy, then we should have some rules, but everything's going fine right now.
 * That "If it's not broken" saying doesn't exactly apply to this. I'm not saying it's broken or what not. I've seen some polls that actually do seem a bit like just spam or such, or just a way to get noticed on the wiki. I don't mean rules, more so "Guidlines" to creating a poll. Just so that spam polls and pointless ones are prevented in the near future.

OK, I can see what Luigi001 is on about. Many of the poll suggestions are pathetic. The types of suggestion which should be banned are the recurring ones we've been seeing that go on the pattern of "Do you think there's gonna be...", as these sound very unprofessional, and what's the point of asking a bunch of people if they think something should or will happen? It makes no difference what people think will happen in the future, it's better to ask what they think of things that are confirmed or happening. Also the ones that go "Who's your favourite character in [insert game] ?" - They're much less beneficial than asking which character is most popular in general, as they are very restricted, and they should be replace with "Which character in [insert game] is the most useful?" or something. Also, polls with bad spelling/grammar should be deleted unless the idea behind them is worth considering.
 * Well L001, if a poll seems spammy or somewhat, then don't vote for it. That's why Steve put the voting thing on there, so favourite polls get selected. If something that you don't like is on there, but something I like is on there, it's kinda unfair rite? If the "spammy" poll doesn't get voted on, then there's no need to put rules on it. Just don't vote on it.
 * Well, I'm not saying bring one-sided rules to the poll selections, I want the users to agree on some guidlines to making an appropriate poll. Those were just some samples I thought, maybe, people would agree on. But I'm no expert rule maker, so all opinions should be included.
 * Perhaps with a little more clarification on the rules, you'd have more supporters. Would you like me to help create some more guidelines?
 * Oh, yes please, Stoobs! Those were just 3 I thought were good, but I thought that the comments would be used for edited/added rules.
 * Yea, that would help alot St00by.

Your three example rules are already covered, so this is currently a proposal for nothing. -- 20:36, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
 * Per this, Luigi001 please flesh out your proposal a bit. If after a day or so the proposal remains the same, I will invalidate it. --

I knew it!! (The rules are stated on the page -_-)