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) If a user makes a vote and is subsequently blocked for any amount of time, their vote is removed. However, if the block ends before the proposal ends, then the user in question holds the right to re-cast their vote.
 * 7) No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
 * 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) All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week.
 * 10) 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.
 * 11) Proposals can only be extended up to three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, the proposal fails and can only be re-proposed after four weeks, at the earliest.
 * 12) 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.
 * 13) 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.
 * 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) 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.
 * 16) Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the administration.
 * 17) 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

 * 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
 * Split DKC and Mario Kart Bananas (Discuss) Deadline: June 27, 2011, 23:59 GMT
 * Split Ashley's song from Ashley and Red (Discuss) Deadline: June 29, 2011, 23:59 GMT
 * Move Cyclops to Kazoomba (Discuss) Deadline: July 1, 2011, 23:59 GMT
 * Split Giant Banana from Banana (Discuss) Deadline: July 3, 2011 23:59 GMT
 * Merge Koopa Bun with Koopa Dumpling (Discuss) Deadline: July 4, 2011, 23:59 GMT
 * Move Grey Brick Block to Concrete Brick Block or Concrete Block (Discuss) Deadline: July 6, 2011, 23:59 GMT
 * Merge Turtley Leaf with Koopa Leaf (Discuss) Deadline: July 6, 2011, 23:59 GMT
 * Split Yoshi's Super Star from Mario Party's Super Star (Discuss) Deadline: July 7, 2011, 23:59 GMT
 * Split Young Elvin Gadd from Professor Elvin Gadd (Discuss) Deadline: July 7, 2011, 23:59 GMT
 * Split Mega Goomba (Species) from Mega Goomba (Discuss) Deadline: July 7, 2011, 23:59 GMT
 * Move List of Mario bosses to (Discuss) Deadline: July 9, 2011, 23:59 GMT
 * Split Mole Train from Mole Miner Max (Discuss) Deadline: July 9, 2011, 23:59 GMT
 * Merge Expresso II with Expresso (Discuss) Deadline: July 9, 2011, 23:59 GMT

Writing Guidelines
None at the moment.

New Features
None at the moment.

Remove categories describing or referencing non-Mario-related content from articles
This mainly deals with characters that have made appearances in Mario series games who also appear in series that are outside of our coverage. These characters are then placed in categories based upon what happens in their respective series. For example, Bottles the Mole is placed in the Undead category because he dies in Banjo-Tooie. Since we cover Mario-related content, what does it matter what happens in an external series that is outside of our jurisdiction?

Proposer: Deadline: June 23, 2011, 23:59 GMT June 30, 2011, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per my proposal.
 * 2) Per M4E! I like this proposal! Believe me, it's true!
 * 3) Per proposal and my comment below.
 * 4) - It took me a second to understand what you guys were saying. Although we do have categories, and though they might be that in their series, it doesn't mean that they belong in this category. We take care of Mario, DK, Yoshi, Wario, and some crossovers. If they want to be in those kind of categories, then their individual wikis can do it for them. It's not our responsibility to do it when it doesn't even fit in our genre. Whatever happens in their games stays in their games, and it is not for us to do.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) - Per Mario4Ever's proposal and the comments made by Bop1996 and Phoenix. We don't write about aspects of characters that only occur outside their Mario appearance, so why would we categorize them? If they're not "undead"/whatever in their Mario appearance, it's misleading to include them in a category of undead Mario characters. It's also confusing for folks with no knowledge of the parent series: all they will see is the disagreement between the undead categorization and the exposition of the article (which will have no mention of the character's undeathliness).
 * 8) Per all I guess.

Oppose

 * 1) theres a difference between jurisdiction and confirmed fact and if the categories fit they should be in there since its a confirmed fact theres no reason to remove them unless there false
 * 2) If a mole died in a Non-Mario game, then that should be included, as that is info on the mole. How about the Sonic and Pokemon characters? Pokemon could be placed in Category:Pokemon Characters and the Sonic characters could be placed in Category:Sonic Characters. So yes, we should keep non-Mario categories as there is content for them.
 * 3) Per Bjatta.
 * 4) You don't completely specify the categories and per all.
 * 5) I don't understand what categories relate to Mario and what articles do not. Birds are not Mario-related, but some Mario characters are birds, for instance.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) per all
 * 9) Per all.

Comments
@Goomba's Shoe15 So you'd be ok with putting Conker the Squirrel in categories such as Drunkard, Hungover, Profanity User, Murderer, Sex Addict, and Pill Popper? You know, as he's confirmed to be all of those things in Conker's Bad Fur Day.
 * Yes but those would be pretty limited categories considering he'd be the only one also mario would go under the kidnapper category, /luigi would be in the drug user category, and Bowser well yeah... my point is we have these categories we can confirm that these characters fit the category so theres no reason they cant be in ther
 * We don't have Link and Zelda in a "Heroes of Hyrule" category.
 * We also don't have a Hereos of Hyrule category but we do have a married cateory and Olimar is married so he should go in that category
 * Why don't we have a "Heroes of Hyrule" category? Could it be that these are designed to be applied to characters and events relevant to the Mario series?
 * That and it would be two short side note link is in the heroes category, but more to the point you have yet two give a reason why we should not include these characters in the categories when we know they fit in there
 * I did. Since we cover Mario-related content, what does it matter what happens in an external series that is outside of our jurisdiction? The point of this proposal is that this wiki does not need to concern itself with content outside of its jurisdiction; therefore, a marriage in the Pikmin series or a death in Banjo-Tooie is irrelevant.
 * But it's part of the characters biography and it's a known fact that they are married so theres no reason for it to be removed
 * We'll see how things turn out on the 23rd, monsieur.

Here's my take: Yes, the categories exist for a good reason, and they are used to, well, categorize characters so that they may be grouped according to how they are similar. That's all well and good. Now, we cover other Nintendo series (as well as some elements from Sonic, Metal Gear, Banjo, and Conker) for one reason: they appear in Mario-related media. While I believe that we should be accurate in-universe for those other series (eg, I don't want false info about the LoZ series on Link), that doesn't mean that we should categorize them in categories only fulfilled outside of the Mario series (inclusive). For example, if Mario were for some weird reason to gain the Triforce and we created a category for that, it wouldn't make sense to place Ganondorf, Zelda, and Link in that category since that fact only matters in LoZ games.


 * You all make good points, but here's the deal: as established by Coverage, we only accommodate information from outside series when that information is related to the Mario series in some way. This is the reason why (I believe a few months ago) almost the entirety of the Banjo article was removed; because nearly everything in the article did not pertain to the Mario series in any way. What information remained in the article after this was kept only because it was relevant to the Mario series. Because Olimar's marital status, as well as the specifics of Bottles' death and resurrection, is not relevant to the Mario series at all, we should therefore not concern ourselves with mentioning such information, despite the fact that it may be correct. Long story short; it really doesn't matter what happens with any particular character or characters outside of a strictly Mario game, the only thing that matters is what happens to them in relation to a Mario series game / character / item, etc., ergo, if it doesn't have anything to do with the Mario series, we do not have any business covering it here. 14:18, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

@Zero777: The reason I don't specify the categories is because they vary among the articles in question. For example, Bottles the Mole is placed in the Undead category because he dies in Banjo-Tooie. Olimar is placed in the Married category because he gets married in the Pikmin series. Pac-Man is placed in the Parents category because he and Ms. Pac-Man have Pac-Man Jr. The problem with all of these is that they occur in the characters' respective series and are not related to the Mario series in any way, shape, or form. Therefore, these articles need to be removed from categories that describe non-Mario-related events, and the way to do that is to remove those categories from the articles in question. @Bowser Jr And Tom The Atum: I'm not trying to get rid of categories. I'm trying to stop their misuse. Categories such as Pokemon characters and Sonic characters exist because representatives from those series appear in Mario-related content. The whole point of this proposal is that categories, when used, describe events concerned only with Mario-related content in some way.

@LeftyGreenMario He's not saying we should remove any categories he's saying we should remove characters with info that only happens in there series from those categories
 * @All Opposers: Let's look at it this way. Characters in categories via their own game -> Didn't appear in the MarioWiki, so makes people confused -> Many users will then look it up, and find out about it -> Users will add that information randomly to each article - which will ultimately lead to -> Articles have useless information that pertains to nothing dealing with the article. Tell me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure that if I'm able to predict that far ahead that it won't be bound to happen any time sooner. That is why we need to let this pass, because I rather have a separated article not including what happens in its other appearances outside of the Mario series then having major headaches of reverting many edits because they were just trying to help out.

Merge the Croacus family (excluding King Croacus IV) to List of Implied Characters
Currently, our definition of implied is "something that is mentioned but is not shown". If it is implied, it goes to one of the various list of implied articles. Now, I haven't played Super Paper Mario in a while, but the articles say that King Croacus I, Prince Croacus, Queen Croacus II, and King Croacus III are all implied, so since the wiki needs to stick with concistency, I propose to merge the articles I just mentioned to List of Implied Characters.

Proposer: Deadline: June 30, 2011, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) I per my proposal.
 * 2) Per
 * 3) - Like I said in the Rosalina's Mother TPP, in-game pictures shouldn't count as physical appearances any more than textual mentions. Merge 'em.
 * 4) The List of Implied Characters is a list of characters that have not physically appeared in any form of media up to this point in time. These members of the Croacus monarchy have not physically appeared in the series. Therefore, they are implied and should be merged.
 * 5) Per all and Reversinator's comment.
 * 6) Per all of them and I love it!
 * 7) Per Walky and 4Ever.
 * 8) 5 Volt is there, and she actually talks (correct me if I'm wring)
 * 9) Per all.

Comments
I seriously don't know about merging them. I mean they do have their own pictures with a significant amount of information for each Croacus and I think that is enough for an article, despite them never appearing in the game.
 * Nevertheless, they never actually appear in the game aside from a painting, but that doesn't count, so per our current definition of implied. Yes, they do have info on all of them, but it could of been faked. With no actual proof, we consider them implied.
 * It's like the Rosalina's Mother TPP, only without the "but is the story really about Rosalina?" kerfuffle. These pictures and text were explicitly about these characters, so it's much more straightforward question: do pictures count as "physical appearance"s or not? -
 * Photos should, but drawings, paintings, sketches, etc., shouldn't count.

@Walkazo: In Luigi's Mansion, all of the ghosts who appear in the pictures aren't implied characters, right? If so, we should conform to that or change it to keep consistancy.
 * Remember, though, that before they become pictures, they are captured by Luigi.
 * Um, what? E. Gadd put the ghosts in paintings after capturing them, then they escaped, then Luigi captured them again and turned them into paintings again. What's this about them being implied?
 * Apparently, Bowser's luma is saying that because the painting ghosts aren't implied, the Croacus monarchs shouldn't be considered implied on the basis of being in paintings.
 * Would it kill to know something before using it as a reason? Especially when it's false?

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 June 26, 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.
 * 21) Yeah, just seeing starting planet there all the time makes it kinda annoying. Some starting planets are big and deserve to be called something else other than starting planet. Say for instance, the starting planet on the Supermassive Galaxy. It could have some cool, catchy name like 'Mario Bros. Planet' or something like that! Per all
 * 22) Per All.
 * 23) Per all.
 * 24) Per all.
 * 25) Per all. was the beginning a portal 2 reference?
 * 26) Of course! I'll be willing to help.
 * 27) Per all.
 * 28) Per all.
 * 29) Starting planet shmarting planet. I can change that!!

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.
 * 24) Per Gamefreak.
 * 25) Per Walkazo.
 * 26) - I sort of like the idea, but I feel like we either leave it starting planet or change it completely, and not at an "impass". Per Gamefreak and Walkazo.
 * 27) Per Gamefreak75 and Walkazo.
 * 28) - Per Holyromanemperortatan. "Starting Planet" is actually quite a helpful name.
 * 29) Per all. I'm completely fine with "Starting Planet".

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)

I dunno, but I think the proposal is going too far from the suggested time (it has been held back four times...). I suggest to finish the proposal for this last time if there is at least one vote that makes the difference to carry out this proposal. Another suggestion I would make for the proposal is to not give conjectural names and remove also the name starting planet, and instead use only area (or planet) with a number (like area 1, area 2, planet 1, planet 2, etc). Maybe is not the most creative and sounds awful as to match them with the planets, but would serve to avoid the conjectural names and specify easily the planets or areas in a galaxy.

Um... why the heck do planets need their own articles? Each galaxy should have its own comprehensive article, separated into missions maybe, which then go into planets. This would save TONS of stubs, too. 19:02, 24 June 2011 (EDT)
 * Per Wayoshi. HK-47
 * The planets don't have their own articles; they have individual sections in the articles for each galaxy.
 * OK, I misunderstood a bit. REGARDLESS, I think using the concrete names of the mission names would be better than trying to come up with what ultimately is conjecture for planet names. ("Starting Planet" sounds pretty wrong, too, by the way.)
 * As per Wayo again.

Categories for Redirects
I've noticed an inconcistentcy with redirects. Specifically, that some of them have categories, but most of them don't. On one hand, it helps to easily organize them, but on the other those implied redirects are the only ones that have categories. I'll stay neutral on this, but something should be done.

Proposer: Deadline: June 30, 2011, 23:59 GMT

Remove some, but not all categories

 * 1) - Per my comment.
 * 2) Per Walkazo.
 * 3) Per Walkazo.
 * 4) Per everyone please!
 * 5) per all.

Comments
Most of the time it's pointless to categorize redirects, but it makes sense on some occasions, like redirects to list pages: it's the only way you can categorize implied characters, for example. The baseball teams having categories also makes sense, since three quarters of them don't have actual articles. So, most of the redirects need to be cleaned up and have the categories stripped, but not all of them - but there's currently no voting option for that. I think a fourth "remove some, but not all categories" option should be made; if one isn't made, however, I'll just vote to "leave it as is", since maintaining our policy-less, "sometimes they have them" status quo give us more flexibility to take this on case-by-case than simply saying "yes" or "no" to all of them would. -
 * Well, I can still edit my proposal. Adding your option.
 * Awesome, thanks. -

Artwork Transparency Issues
During the past set of months, I've been noticing that a good number of JPEG artworks were being replaced by PNG artworks with transparent backgrounds. However, a lot of those images look quite ugly when they're viewed in backgrounds that aren't colored white. I've mentioned this dilemma at the admins boards, and some of the Sysops there do agree with my statement. I propose that any artworks with ugly-looking transparency has to lose the transparency. After all, we shouldn't be modifying the artworks by any means; if the artworks are JPEGs, upload them as JPEGs; if the PNG artworks don't have anything transparent, upload them that way.

Proposer: Deadline: June 30, 2011 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) - Per my proposal.
 * 2) - As I hear a lot, we strive to make this wiki better and better, and if images that don't make the wiki look well, it brings down the wiki's quality. Sometimes it's just better to leave small things alone to make bigger things better.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) Per all!
 * 5) - I recall some images, such as the Black Mage artwork, looking better without transparency. Per all.
 * 6) Adding transparency ruins the image. Per proposal.
 * 7) "If the artworks are JPEGs, upload them as JPEGs." PNG. Even if not transparent, always upload PNG.
 * 8) - Per proposer. Actually I don't see the necessity to converse JPEG files into PNG: there is no real difference in a picture when converting a JPEG into PNG, and the transparency thing is more of an excuse to say that the PNG is better than JPEG, never noticing the size of the picture wich is a lot heavier in PNG files. This is one of the various causes that retouching official artworks really bothers me. That and the user's less knowledge about a in-game model and a (very bad) cropped screenshot.

Oppose

 * 1) I disagree with this proposal as PNGs are usually better then JPGs and the conversion from JPG to PNG is rather good because the images that I did in that way always looked more clear quality-wise.
 * 2) Per UM3000 and comment below. Just let users have the freedom to do whatever they want with the image as long it will look good on and make the article better in quality.
 * 3) Per UltraMario3000.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Isn't Transpaprancy good?

Comments
Recently I've been working with PNG sprite images with white backgrounds that are unnecessary and removing them and reuploading it. I haven't done anything with JPEGs. That's ok, right?
 * I think the proposal is saying that we should stop making non-transparent images transparent because if you put them behind a background that is a color other than white, you can still see some of the white around the picture.
 * I don't understand the difference between a JPEG a PNG or transparency all i ever see are pictures
 * JPEG and PNG are popular image file formats. PNGs are more easily modifiable than JPEGs in a software such as Fireworks or Photoshop. Most images have backgrounds (generally white), and people can use software to remove them (an image without a background is considered transparent). It can be useful at times, but it is not always done perfectly. Usually, the software will remove most of a background using a tool, leaving the user to remove the rest manually, sometimes pixel-by-pixel depending on the quality wanted. The problem is that it can be a tedious process depending on the size of the image and the quantity of background to be removed, so some of it is likely to remain either unnoticed or unattended. On a white background (or one colored identically to the image background), there's no problem, but other backgrounds reveal these unnoticed or unattended portions and make the image, and by extension, the wiki, look unprofessional.
 * I'm really confused on this still. Can you give a few examples to really clear this up?
 * This image TrSuper mushroom.jpg has a background (all of the space surrounding the trophy), while this image MarioNSMBWii.PNG is transparent (all transparent images have that checkered "background" you see when clicking on it).

UM: No, the proposer is talking about the bad quality transparent images, not all of the transparent images.

I can see where some people are going by replacing JPEG artworks with PNG artworks. However, if the PNG artworks do not have a transparent background, you should upload them just like that. If a PNG artwork has transparency already when you download it, odds are, it'll probably look good on any kind of background. If that truly is the case, that kind of artwork image can be uploaded; Ex.: ; when I found that image, it already had an Alpha Layer, and it looked good on a black background. Basically, by normal standards, quality > transparency, and transparency should only be implemented if it looks good. -
 * I have noticed that some users don't know how to keep the quality when changing it to a transparent image. When they upload the image it is smaller than the JPEG file was and so some users who know how to keep the quality and have it transparent have to fix the image. Also JPEG files has little dots that are hard to see that surround the image and they blend in with the white. We don't want to see that because it makes the image look like it has bad quality and that is probably why we make images transparent. -
 * Regardless, if the original artwork doesn't have transparency, do not alter it. At times, adding transparency to artwork will make it look much worse, due to the pixelated edges that can be seen.  I learned that the hard way when I modified some Mario Super Sluggers artworks. -

@UltraMario3000: He's not saying that we shouldn't convert from JPG to PNG, but that if someone does that, they shouldn't make it transparent.

@Yoshiwaker: I don't see what's wrong with making it transparent though.:/--
 * Take an image and put it behind a black background. You'll see.
 * I don't get what you're trying to say Xze.--
 * Look here.

Miscellaneous
None at the moment