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.
 * 2) The voting period begins 24 hours after the proposal is posted (rounding up or down to the next or previous full hour, respectively, is allowed). Proposers are allowed to support their proposal immediately, but all other users may only edit the Comments section during that initial 24 hours. Each proposal ends at the end of the day one week after voting start. (All times GMT.)
 * 3) *For example, if a proposal is added on Monday, August 1, 2011, at 22:22 GMT, the voting starts at 22:22, 22:00 or 23:00 on Tuesday, August 2, and the deadline is one week later on Tuesday, August 9, at 23:59 GMT.
 * 4) Every vote should have a reason accompanying it. Agreeing with or seconding a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted.
 * 5) Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the Comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may not remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. Voters can remove or rewrite their own vote at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the Administrators.
 * 6) All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week.
 * 7) If a proposal has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail by a margin of three votes. If a proposal reaches the deadline and the total number of votes for each option differ by two or less votes, the deadline will be extended for another week.
 * 8) Any proposal that has three votes or less at deadline will automatically be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
 * 9) No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
 * 10) Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation. However, proposers can request that their proposal be deleted by an admin at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it.
 * 11) All proposals are archived. The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of an administrator, the proposer can ask for that help.
 * 12) There should not be proposals about creating articles on an underrepresented or completely absent subject, unless there is major disagreement about whether the content should be included. To organize efforts about completing articles on missing subjects, try creating a PipeProject.
 * 13) Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the Administration.
 * 14) If the admins deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to remove it at any time.
 * 15) No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters, and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.

Basic Proposal and Support/Oppose Format This is an example of what your proposal should look like, if you want it to be acknowledged. If you are inexperienced or unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. Then replace the [subject] - variables with information to customize your proposal, so it says what you wish. If you insert the information, be sure to replace the whole variable including the squared brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information", not "[This is the inserted information]". - ===[insert a title for your Proposal here]=== [describe what issue this Proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the Wiki handles that issue]

Proposer: Voting start: [insert a voting start time here, f.e. "January 1, 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.


 * 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. There is no 24 hour delay between the posting of a talk page proposal and the commencement of voting, so no "Voting Start" line is needed. (All times GMT.)
 * 4) *For example, if a proposal is added any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, voting starts immediately and ends two weeks later on Monday, August 15, 2011, at 23:59 GMT.
 * 5) Talk page proposals may be closed by the proposer at any time if both the support and the oppose sides each have fewer than five votes.
 * 6) The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.

List of Talk Page Proposals

 * Merge Payday Waystation to Shy Guy's Perplex Express (Discuss) Deadline: April 10, 2011, 23:59 GMT
 * Split Jungle Japes into Jungle Japes and . (Discuss) Deadline: April 12, 2011, 23:59 GMT
 * Merge Boomerang Bro. (Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga) with Boomerang Bro. (Discuss) Deadline: April 13, 2011, 23:59 GMT
 * Split Krochead into Red Krochead and Green Krochead. (Discuss) Deadline: April 8, 2011 24:00 GMT Extended: April 15, 2011, 24:00 GMT
 * Split Music Staff and Voice Cast from Super Smash Bros. Brawl into separate sub-article (Discuss) Deadline: April 17, 2011, 23:59 GMT
 * Merge Waluigi Pinball (court) with Waluigi Pinball (Discuss) Deadline: April 17, 2011, 23:59 GMT
 * Merge Parabuzzy with Para-Beetle (Discuss) Deadline: April 21, 2011, 23:59 GMT
 * Split Ashley and Red (Discuss) Passed Contested:
 * Leave Ashley and Red merged. (Discuss) Deadline: April 22, 2011, 23:59 GMT
 * Merge Dry Eye (WarioWare: D.I.Y.) with Dry Eye (Discuss) Deadline: April 24, 2011, 23:59 GMT
 * Split all enemies from Gnat Attack (Discuss) Deadline: April 24, 2011 (23:59 GMT)

New Features
None at the moment.

Remove certain entries in "References in Other Games" sections
On most of the articles about games, there is a "References in Other Games" section that lists games that reference that game. What's the problem? If an enemy is introduced in one game, and then that enemy is used in a future game, it is considered a reference to the former game. May I ask why? If an enemy appears in another game, that means it is a recurring enemy. The first game just introduced it.

Proposer: Voting start: 5 April, 2011, 10:15 Deadline: 12 April, 2011, 23:59 GMT.

Delete those entries

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) It should only have major referances
 * 3) Per proposal. If we were going to allow an enemy that debuts in a game to be considered referenced every time it appears in a game, then, for example, Super Mario Bros. could have a reference section listing every game Goombas appear in, and their role in those games, the same for Koopas, Piranha Plants, etc. It doesn't make any sense, and is not really a reference. If a spin-off series mentions something from a game (eg: a sticker in SSBB), then it could be considered a reference because that is (at least partially) intended to be a reference.
 * 4) Per all however i do feel that it is a reference when something like a Spike reappears or if say Phanto or the Goomba's Shoe ever came back
 * 5) Lose it! Per all if you please.
 * 6) Per Bop1996.
 * 7) Enemies returning aren't really a reference to any other game if they're in the same series. Keep the ACTUAL references.
 * 8) Per Bop1996 and Zero777.
 * 9) Per Zero.
 * 10) Per Bop1996.
 * 11) Per Bop and those who "per" him.
 * 12) I did remove this information before. Besides, this is inconsistent if we do have it. Why can't we put Goomba and Koopa Troopas as references to Super Mario Bros. in every darn game they appeared in? What makes other enemies, such as Freezies and Sidesteppers? If this warrants to enemies, I think this should be extended to items as well, such as the POW block.
 * 13) per Zero

Comments
But it technically could be a reference to the game since it debuted in an earlier game

Um, I don't think this warrants a proposal. I've seen people deleting those entries lately such as Marioguy1 in something about Freezies and stuff. I've deleted several of these myself.
 * Might as well make one in case someone disagrees.

@Reversinator: Which types of entries are you proposing to delete? You mentioned one example, and while it makes sense, you have not specified which sections specifically you want deleted.
 * This proposal is to remove certain entries in "References in other games" sections, not entire sections. I'm talking about removing any entires that say "This enemy reappeared in this game".
 * Only those or other entries?
 * Maybe if the enemy is minor enough, it can stay referenced. If the Stus from SMS return in another game, that references SMS and Gooper Blooper in Mario Power Tennis is a reference to SMS because he was new and therefore minor back then. Keep that in mind before this passes.
 * If it was clear that it was meant to be a reference, then I'll keep it.

References are not that simple; if they were, a concise rule set would be developed already. But as we do not know what Nintendo was thinking, we can't do this. I definitely don't think that every game with a Goomba in it is a reference to SMB, or that every game with Mario is a reference to the original DK. But sometimes when enemies appear, it is a reference (i.e. Dino Piranha in SMG is referenced by Peewee Piranha in SMG2 (sorry, couldn't think of anything better)). So it's complicated. And then, to make matters more complicated - music. Sometimes music is remixed music from another game, sometimes it's the same, sometimes it's different, but we can't be sure whether music that sounds like it's from SMB3 is actually a reference to SMB3 or they just ran out of sound files so they remixed something. Like I said, the references to other games sections are very complicated.
 * I agree with Marioguy. Nintendo seems to love including nostalgic references to other games, and then not specifying whether it is a reference or not. Where does that leave us? It seems that this is going to be a case-by-case situation. However, I feel that this discussion is clouding the issue a bit.

Apply new procedures for naming Starting Planets
I apologize in advance to those of you who disapprove of this proposal, but it's my humble opinion that the Starting Planets in all the galaxy articles need actual names besides, well, "Starting Planet." From my standpoint, giving them all the name of "Starting Planet" is needlessly pigeonholing 91 different planets for the galaxy articles, when they could all be named something much better. In fact, I have already been to several galaxy articles where I found that this trend wasn't being followed anyway, as some are completely lacking planets that are referred to as the "Starting Planet," and others simply refer to the first planet encountered as "________ Planet (Starting Planet)." In addition, on the Melty Molten Galaxy article, we've got the main planet marked as the Starting Planet, and then five lines down where the other areas embedded in the main planet are discussed, it is now referred to as the "Lava Planet!" Therefore (as somewhat of a remedy to such inconsistencies and confusion), I propose that we keep the planets labeled as Starting Planets, but do so in such a way that we also give them names as well; i.e., label them all as "_______ Planet (Starting Planet)" on every article. I mean, really, there's no reason why we can't do both, right? Thus, nothing important will actually be taken out of the article, and the only thing that should happen will be that the names of all the starting planets in each galaxy become clearer and easier to understand. If this proposal does pass, I will personally take it upon myself to go around to each of the Starting Planets and implement the necessary changes.

Proposer: Voting start: April 7, 2011, 06:00 GMT. Deadline: April 14, 2011, 23:59 GMT.

Support

 * 1) Per myself.
 * 2) Per Phoenix.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) Sure. Per all.
 * 5) Per all
 * 6) Per Phoenix.
 * 7) I like this Per all.
 * 8) - Per Phoenix!

Oppose

 * 1) - Per me in the comments section. This proposal will help a grand total of two galaxy articles; while it will hinder all the rest of them. I think that the bad outweighs the good in this situation.
 * 2) I don't see the need for this change
 * 3) After watching the back and forth in the comments section, I decided on which side was right. Per Marioguy. Whenever I read a galaxy article, as soon as I see the name "Starting Planet" I know exactly which planet it is, and where in the galaxy it appeared. Starting Planet is a perfectly good name, except in the Dreadnought and Space Junk Galaxies. Imagine, if this proposal passes, the starting planet for the Tall Trunk Galaxy could be named "Giant Tree Planet {Starting Planet}," and this name does a much worse job than just "Starting Planet." Also, just because you have conjectural names for eighty percent of the planets in each galaxy doesn't mean that removing the non-conjectural names is a good idea. To summarize, the name change is unnecessary, and would only help two articles, whereas we have a perfectly good name for the starting planet on 95% of the galaxy articles.

Comments
This will create conjectural titles for the planets, no?


 * Well yes, but we've already got conjectural names for all the other planets in every galaxy (which collectively greatly outnumber the total of Starting Planets for each galaxy), why should this be any different? That's what we've got for. Also, calling them "Starting Planet" is still technically giving them a conjectural name anyway. So, since all the planet names are already conjectural, we can do whatever we want with them, u know? It's not like the names of the planets in question have all been confirmed as "Starting Planet" and we're changing them just to change them...  18:59, 6 April 2011 (EDT)


 * Does it matter? Almost every planet mentioned in the articles on the various galaxies has a conjectural name.


 * The comment wasn't directed toward you or to the proposal. It's a reply to LGM's question, essentially stating that whether or not renaming the Starting Planets makes their names conjectural doesn't matter, since almost every other planet has a conjectural name. I've got no problems with this proposal.


 * No no no, you misunderstood me: I wasn't talking to you, I was replying to his comment as well, I actually started typing it in before ur comment was there, but that's just how it appeared when I saved the page... :) 19:24, 6 April 2011 (EDT)
 * Conjectural titles are...well, just that! Conjectural. Conjecture means that the title is not officially confirmed and is what we are using to help people identify the object/place/character/whatever. Which means that, naturally, we need to be as accurate as possible. What seems like a "cool name" or what is "consistent" doesn't really apply in this scenario as we are trying to be as descriptive as possible in as few words as possible. Naturally this applies to the term "Starting Planet" - it contains two words and if anyone could please show me one instance where it could possibly apply to more than one planet (AKA not be specific), then I would love to see it (aside from comets; which bend reality to make it more convenient for the challenge at hand). But since there is only one planet that you start on, I'd say that the term "starting planet" pretty much narrows it down perfectly...

@Phoenix I see. Sorry about the confusion.


 * @Marioguy1 - Well, actually, that happens in the second mission of the Honeyhop Galaxy ("The Chimp's Score Challenge"), in which the player begins the mission on the "Queen Bee Planet" as opposed to the so-called "Starting Planet." Although this level does involve The Chimp challenging the player, it is not a Prankster Comet mission. This is also true in the Space Junk Galaxy: the player starts the first mission on the "Starting Planet," and starts the next two missions on a yellow Starshroom. None of these missions involve Prankster Comets either. Lastly, there's the Dreadnought Galaxy, where the player actually starts on three different planets, one for each of the galaxy's three main missions. Only one planet in the article is marked as the starting planet, and it's none of these three...


 * Anyway, I'm not making this proposal just so that every planet will have a cool name just for the sake of having a cool name; I just think that we've become too wrapped up in our own policies and classifications. I mean, what about galaxies like the Flipswitch Galaxy, the Drip Drop Galaxy, the Bigmouth Galaxy, and the Stone Cyclone Galaxy, all of which only consist of one accessible planet? The accessible planets in these galaxies are all called the "Starting Planet," which is all well and good, until one considers the fact that it's the only planet in the entire galaxy, so though one starts there in the mission(s), there are no other planets to go to after it, so where does it lead? For all intents and purposes, one may now call it the "Ending Planet" instead.


 * Then there are galaxies like the Throwback Galaxy, that use "Starting Planet" to describe the first planet, when a perfectly acceptable name has already been given to it previously (Whomp's Fortress). In this case, we've actually got a conjectural name where a confirmed name could easily be implemented instead. If this proposal did pass, we could now get rid of at least one conjectural name in favor of one that we know for a fact is correct.


 * Then we've got galaxies like the Beat Block Galaxy and the Rolling Coaster Galaxy. The former deals with more of a starting path than a starting planet, and the latter is just one big long track leading to a very small separate planet at the end. Are we really going to classify something that comprises 99% of the entire galaxy as the "Starting Planet" just because the whole thing is connected? Normally, when Mario leaves the "Starting Planet" of a galaxy, he is at least relatively close to the beginning of a mission. When the player leaves the "Starting Planet" in this galaxy, they are essentially already at the end of the mission! Anyone else see a problem here?


 * This is why the amount of space in a galaxy that is implied by the term "Starting Planet" is far too narrow, and can be extremely misleading; the first planet or area encountered in a galaxy could be anything from the smallest possible planet you could think of to something that takes up almost the entire galaxy. It would therefore be inappropriate to describe the first planet or area encountered in every galaxy as the "Starting Planet" or "Starting Area." Normal planet names do not imply anything about the amount of space taken up in the area in which they are positioned, they simply state what is there. The passing of this proposal will prevent problems such as long paths or other areas with long expanses in certain galaxies being incorrectly labeled as the "Starting Planet." 02:34, 7 April 2011 (EDT)

Replying to his comment? Are you talking about me?

...uh...yes...you're not a boy, are you? 20:09, 7 April 2011 (EDT)


 * First off, I see what you mean in the cases of the Dreadnought and Space Junk Galaxies (however in the Honeyhop one, the Chimp's mission would fall under what I was implying by "prankster comet") and I think possible exceptions could be made for those galaxies. However what this proposal will do is (a) legitimize and (b) encourage users to change the names of the beginning planets on all other 40 or so galaxies which do no follow that standard. That will cause confusion as to which planet is which. Having a consistent, accurate, precedent will allow all people surfing the galaxy articles to identify the planets labeled "starting planet" with much less difficulty than if we were to use a randomized system of people selecting the most accurate name they can think of; an action that this proposal will inevitably cause.


 * Second, in the case of the Galaxies with only one planet, we could choose one of either two things. The common, aforementioned, precedent of "starting planet" would be most convenient due to the aforementioned points of consistency, accuracy, etc.. However if you really wish to press forward with the point that the only planet in the galaxy does not require any form of identification as it is one of a kind (which really only eliminates the point of accuracy, consistency and ease of location still remain), then I would consider supporting a proposal which is worded so that it achieves that purpose. However this proposal is generalizing all galaxies, not just the ones with one planet or multiple starting planets (of which, only the cases where there are multiple starting planets require a different name for planets where Mario begins).


 * Third, the meaning of "starting planet" is irrelevant to the percentage of the galaxy/mission that it comprises. If people wish to have a stereotypical mindset that the starting planet must be near the beginning of the level, then so be it. However that does not make it true; the starting planet could refer to any amount of space in a level - up to the end of the level in fact!


 * In conclusion, there are very few cases in which the term "starting planet" would actually fail to achieve the goals that a conjectural title should wish to achieve (accuracy in identification of the character, location or object). So far you have only presented two galaxies where this proposal would improve the quality of the articles, Space Junk Galaxy/Dreadnought Galaxy, and on the contrary, this proposal will decrease the quality of all other galaxy articles. If you can prove that there is any trouble identifying a "starting planet" in a majority of galaxies then I would support this proposal. As is, I will only support if this proposal is reworded to only refer to those galaxies where there are multiple starting planets OR, possibly, the galaxies where there is only one planet total.


 * tl;dr: You have only shown two examples of where this proposal will help us more accurately define a planet (the Dreadnought and Space Junk galaxies) and if you read the long post above, you will see the reasons why I say that it does the opposite to all other planets. So if you reword the proposal to only affect those two planets, I will support. I am also willing to negotiate the galaxies with only one planet in them.


 * Assuming that's not directed at me...
 * It isn't. Phoenix thought LGM was a boy.


 * @Marioguy1 (again) - Okay, I'll admit that you make a lot of valid points, but you also say that "this proposal will inevitably cause" people to "...use a randomized system of people selecting the most accurate name they can think of..." While this may partly be true, I'm also proposing that we leave (Starting Planet) next to the new names of the planets in addition to the name change. Also, I don't really think that anyone will have to go through too much trouble to "identify the planets labeled 'starting planet' with much less difficulty," as these planets are always the first planet that is seen in the list of planets for a galaxy, so it should be pretty easy to spot. This fact, together with the (Starting Planet) that I'm proposing we leave there, should make these planets relatively obvious.


 * In addition, you also say that the proposal will "encourage users to change the names of the beginning planets on all other 40 or so galaxies which do no follow that standard. That will cause confusion as to which planet is which." It seems to me that no greater confusion will arise as a result of the passing of this proposal than has already been caused by the continual name-changing of almost every planet on the majority of the galaxy articles by users. That is to say, users often take it upon themselves to randomly change the names of many of the other planets in galaxy articles without warning regardless. These sporadic decisions are often based, at least from my perspective, solely on the decision that a new name would better describe the planet than the previous one. Though this is seemingly helpful to the article in the long run, when the names of many planets on galaxy articles are constantly changing, it can be extremely confusing to readers. My point is that users are going to be constantly changing the names of planets or areas in galaxies regardless of whether this proposal passes or not, simply because one may invent a better or more-fitting title as time goes on. I'm sure that the passing (or lack thereof) of this proposal will not in any way encourage users to change the names of planets more frequently than they already have in the past, and are currently. 21:20, 7 April 2011 (EDT)
 * @Phoenix (encore): Adding the (Starting Planet) in brackets just seems like we are putting the other name of the planet there to make the planet's name sound cool - the "Starting Planet" is the only part that is necessary, and when writing conjectural titles, useless fluff that "sounds cool" is not included. And the list order helps, but sometimes editors to the article may become confused while editing when the planet is not clearly labeled.


 * As to your second point, maybe this proposal should be changed to reflect a solution to that problem. As what you are proposing will definitely not fix that problem - it might even do the opposite (in giving users another planet to enact their constant renaming of planets on). Maybe this proposal should be "lock all conjectural titles until an agreement is reached on the talk page" - I would support that. But as is, all your proposal does, which I repeat from above, is help identify the planets in the Space Junk and Dreadnought galaxies.


 * How come the other planets have "fluff" names then? Couldn't they just be called "second planet" and "third planet" and so on? Volatile Dweevil


 * That's exactly my point! If the other planets all have "actual" names, then why not the "Starting Planets" as well? But to maintain their given position as the first planets in a galaxy, we leave (Starting Planet) next to their new name...simple. 15:47, 8 April 2011 (EDT)

I'm wondering, but are there any levels that go in a slightly different sequence of planets? Then, the names for the planets (planet 1, planet 2, etc.) would get messed up.
 * @Volatile Dweevil: Because almost no galaxies actually have that linear format. Most galaxies begin on only one planet, there only being ~2/40 exceptions. However if we make it Planet 1, Planet 2, Planet 3, we will have the naming conflict problem with ~30/40 galaxies; which is a significantly greater percentage (5% < 75%). If it were possible to have Planet 1, Planet 2, Planet 3, etc. in a non-confusing way then I'd be all for it! Unfortunately here the con outweighs the pro (the opposite of the scenario with "starting planet").


 * @Phoenix: So you want us to go through all the galaxies in the entire two games and rename all of them, taking time and arguing choices for names, causing a loop of people changing the names to what they feel would be best (which you have already complained about) just because you want the names to sound cool? Is that really why you are causing such major changes? Because I see no other points to the positive.


 * @Marioguy (redux) - Well, no. If you review my prior arguments, I have never once actually used the word "cool." I am not proposing 91 name changes so that every planet will have a cool name as opposed to "Starting Planet." I'm doing this because I feel that we could maintain some semblance of order while simultaneously giving the planets names that will not completely ostracize them from the rest of the planets in the article. I mean, if all we're going to do here is name planets for where they are in the galaxy and what they do for the particular mission they are encountered in, we may as well count the number of planets in each mission, and then give the name "Middle Planet" to whatever planet happens to be in the middle, or give the name "Ending Planet" to the last planet encountered in the galaxies in which missions always end on the same planet.


 * Regarding the part about "causing a loop of people changing the names to what they feel would be best," what I was trying to say yesterday was that if this was to pass, we would not be creating a whole new set of problems; people are already erratically changing planet names as they see fit and would still be doing so daily even if this proposal had never existed. It would be a very different scenario if I had proposed, for instance, that the conjectural names of all the glitches for several games be immediately changed, which may cause users to flock to those articles and repeatedly change every name to what each one personally desired them to be, thereby creating a whole new cycle of name changes where there had been none before. I highly doubt that changing the name of one planet per each individual galaxy article will draw an overabundance of attention, let alone create a major disturbance across every article. The end justifies the means. 21:58, 8 April 2011 (EDT)
 * @Phoenix: OK, so if the "cool name" thing is false, then I see absolutely no points for enacting this change. And I would not have any problem with "Ending Planet" - however the "Middle Planet" would have to be the middle of the level which could be complicated to find.


 * And regarding the "loop" again, what I am trying to say is that this will cause a commotion while users are trying to find new names for the previously-named "Starting Planets". I think this will just be a useless change, will give no benefit and will just cause confusion in the one part of the galaxy articles that is actually static.


 * @Marioguy - Wait a minute though, why are you using the fact that I don't want every Starting Planet to have a "cool" name as the basis for your reasoning that the proposal is now invalid? I thought one of the biggest problems that you had with this proposal in the first place was that I was only renaming the planets to give them "cool" names. If that's the case (the second paragraph about name-changing commotion aside), why are you still saying that you "see absolutely no points for enacting this change" even after I've said otherwise? 23:01, 8 April 2011 (EDT)

@Phoenix: I'm not using that as my basis, my main point here is that this proposal will do absolutely nothing except remove the shred of consistency that remains in these galaxy articles. I have never had a problem with you renaming planets to give them "cool" names; I sure did say that that's horrible reasoning, but I've never said that's why I'm opposing. I'm opposing because this proposal will kill what consistency there is in the articles. And could you please tell me your points? I don't see a place where this proposal would be useful...


 * Okay, when you say "...tell me your points...", are you asking that I reiterate the ultimate goal of my proposal or that I tell you which areas of the galaxy articles I think this proposal would be useful in improving? 00:29, 9 April 2011 (EDT)
 * As long as you mention more than just the dreadnought and Space Junk galaxies, that may be the only way you can convince me.


 * @Bop1996 - Okay, but even if this proposal did pass, you'd still see the name "Starting Planet" when you went to a galaxy article, just in parentheses (not brackets) next to its new name. In response to "know[ing] exactly which planet it is, and where in the galaxy it appeared," I, personally, usually use the picture of the planet next to the name to identify it more than the conjectural name of the planet anyway, and in addition, the name "Starting Planet" really does not describe any particular unique features of the planets to which they apply, like every other planet name does (this is part of the reason why I made this proposal in the first place, because I felt that the "Starting Planets" are as such not easily identified by comparison), which actually makes it harder for readers to know exactly which planet it is, and giving them another name like the other planets helps to describe where it is and what it does, as such names are 1,000x more specific and descriptive than just "Starting Planet." For this reason, I would actually have no problem with the "Starting Planet" in the Tall Trunk Galaxy being named "Giant Tree Planet ( Starting Planet ) ," which actually suits it pretty well (unless someone could possibly think of a better name at some point in the future), and ultimately does a much better job of clarification than just "Starting Planet."


 * Like I was saying in a previous argument of mine (though I'm not really sure I made it that clear), just giving planets names like "Starting Planet," "Middle Planet," or "Ending Planet" does absolutely nothing but describe where it is encountered in a particular mission or galaxy, and at the end of the day just makes is that much harder for people to identify which planet in a galaxy it actually is. Finally, you say that "just because you have conjectural names for eighty percent of the planets in each galaxy doesn't mean that removing the non-conjectural names is a good idea." Well actually, "Starting Planet" is a conjectural name just like all the other planet names that we currently have; if you check, you'll see that the name of every "Starting Planet" is marked with just like every other planet name. So, by the passing of this proposal, we won't be removing any "non-conjectural names," because every planet name is conjectural. We also won't be adding any more conjectural names, and for that matter, we will not be subtracting any conjectural names either; ergo, the number of conjectural names will stay right where it is.  17:40, 10 April 2011 (EDT)


 * @Phoenix: Let me discriminate for a minute here. The term "Starting Planet" is a conjectural name. However, it, unlike at least one title of a planet out there, describes its respective planet perfectly, without any confusion, except in the aforementioned cases of the Dreadnought and Space Junk Galaxies. Relegating it to parentheses and placing a "more descriptive" name in front of it does not help the article in any way that I can see. As for my example, why change the title to "Giant Tree Planet (Starting Planet)," when the planet's section could mention that there is a giant tree on the planet, and the current title describes the planet without any ambiguity whatsoever. Please do not go to the "Well, if mentioning a planet's appearance in the planet's section, not title is fine for Starting Planets, why not do that for all the planets?" argument, as that is easily refuted: Starting Planet is the best conjectural title there is for the starting planet, but since you proved that adding such a title to the rest of the planets does not work, the adjective conjectural names do the best job describing the rest of the planets.

Split Category:Donkey Kong Levels into Separate Categories
This is my first proposal. There are many games in the Donkey Kong series. The category, Donkey Kong Levels, there is too much content. It has about 5 different games in one category. I think we should make categories for each game. For example,  Category:Donkey Kong Country Levels , etc. It would be easier to find levels and it wouldn't take up 2 pages! We should make one for every game such as Donkey Kong Country 2, Donkey Kong Country 3, DK: King of Swing, etc. It just seems easier to navigate levels. We should also delete the original one if we make other categories. I will add a section for making new categories and I will add one for keep the original one as is.

Proposer: Voting start: March 23, 2011 24:00 Deadline: March 31, 2011, 24:00 GMT Extended: April 7th, 2011, 24:00 GMT, April 14th, 2011, 24:00 GMT

Make a New Category

 * 1) - It is my proposal and I think it would help the wiki and other users by making it simple to navigate levels by games.
 * 2) - That sounds like a good idea.
 * 3) - Per M&SG.
 * 4) Per proposer.
 * 5) Love it! Per SW and Kaptain K. Rool!
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) That'd make it more simple. Per all.
 * 8) We don't have all the Mario games levels in one category.
 * 9) Per Magikrazy51.
 * 10) Per Magikrazy51 also.
 * 11) Per All
 * 12) Per All
 * 13) Per All.
 * 14) Per all.
 * 15) Why not? Per all
 * 16) Per all.
 * 17) Per all.
 * 18) Per all.
 * 19) Per all.
 * 20) Per DKPetey99.
 * 21) Per all

Keep Original Category

 * 1) - Just use the games' navigation templates: they're supposed to have all the levels listed, and generally they'll be arranged by world, which is a much better way to organize the levels than the alphabetical categories. It's better if all games, DK or otherwise, simply have general categories for all their subjects.
 * 2) Per Walkazo. I don't see why this is necessary.
 * 3) - Per Walkazo and Fawfulfury65's comment below (although FF65 hasn't voted yet).
 * 4) - Is this really necessary? It's sort of like going to the characters catagory and complaining about how they don't have a catagory for just characters from cirtian games. I mean, if you know your alphabet, it should be pretty easy.
 * 5) - per Walkazo and isnt Donkey Kong technically it's own franchise
 * 6) - per all.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) - Per Walkazo above and Fawfulfury65 below.
 * 9) - Per all.
 * 10) - Per Walkazo.
 * 11) Per my comments and everyone else.
 * 12) Per all.
 * 13) Per all.
 * 14) - Per Walkazo and FF65.
 * 15) - Per all.
 * 16) – Per all.
 * 17) - per all
 * 18) - I believe that we tried to get rid of categories that list things that should be in a navbox. That's my way of saying "per Walkazo".
 * 19) - Per Walkazo
 * 20) - per all
 * 21) - per Walkazo.
 * 22) - Per all

Comments
We shouldn't delete the Donkey Kong levels category because it can be useful in finding many DK levels. Also, if we really want to find information about a Donkey Kong Country 2 level or something, why can't we just look in Category:Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest, or the category for any other game? There's also templates that you can use to easily find levels in one of those games.

MS&G: You know your vote is invalid. You can't simply say, "Good idea" if you want to support.

BabyLuigionfire why can't you just because you have nothing new to add doesnt mean it isnt valid other wise like 20 votes from other propsals that say per all


 * If anyone has an idea about improving the wiki or managing its community, but feels 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. Simply saying "Good idea!" is NOT a strong argument. And please don't backsass me like that, it's very rude.


 * @Iggykoopa it doesn't matter that it has its own Franchise, the categories should be made into games

Baby luigi on fire the rules state that Every vote should have a reason accompanying it. Agreeing with or seconding a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted.
 * That is still not a strong reason. I suggest the very least was to "per" the user. And leaving a vote blank in the support section is still an agreement, but we still delete it anyway since the reason is not strong enough.

Like I, said in the opposing section, "WE DONT HAVE ALL THE MARIO GAMES LEVELS IN ONE CATEGORY!".
 * @Magikrazy this proposal is to split the enemies catagory of DKC, not the game catagories.
 * Actually, it's for the levels in the game. Read the proposal, we were both wrong.

@Babyluigionfire how is saying per all not the same as saying good idea #
 * Because saying "per all" is like repeating what the users said. Saying "good idea" is just as good as saying nothing when you support/oppose. However, I sometimes see "per all" votes with severe skepticism.

Babyluigionfire how is saying per all any different than saying good idea when your agreeing with a proposal
 * Per all means, "I would say the same thing as everyone else, but it would take up extra space and time." It takes up less time if you read through the votes and say, "Hmm, I agree with what (insert one to three users here) says, so I'll say per all and reference all those votes at once." However, sometimes per all votes are used lightly, which is what I think BLOF said, mostly in cases where there was no vote that had complete reasoning.

im confused are there votes invalid are not?
 * The ones that say "I like this idea" or "This sounds like a good idea" have no substance, so a sysop may decide to remove them. The votes that say "Per all" are perfectly valid, so long as someone out there said something valid.

Speaking of that... @Lucas777123: You vote is invalid. Please add a reason on why you think this is a good idea, or I'll remove your vote.
 * @YoshiGo99: Your vote is equivalent to Lucas777123's vote. Lucas has been warned already, so you should change your vote too.

I think to split the category, because to those who oppose, and this is soley my thought, but: It's like saying let's merge all of the Mario series levels into one category, and list all of them in one category. Then, we list all hte levels, under one category.
 * It took me a while to understand what you were saying. If you are saying what I think you are saying, which is that if we keep the levels from one series merged, we will eventually list all the levels on the wiki in one category, that is the wrong way to argue. It's known as "slippery slope", and it's when you extrapolate a disastrous outcome eventually based off one or two plausible extrapolations. If not, it's probably circular reasoning, which is self-explanatory.

And you gotta support me, too! It seems like some people are supporting this just because they were asked to. That's just what it looks like to me.
 * Asking people to vote is fine, and telling people that their objection to a proposal or FA suggestion has been fixed is fine, but I think I saw a sysop ask someone not to ask people to vote a specific side, and promising to do something in return is a little suspicious...
 * Which sysyop?
 * Not sure, I was looking through a bunch of talk pages this morning, but I think I saw it discouraged. Anyway, it's probably not a good idea to ask people to vote a certain side unless you direct them to a reason seen on the proposal. If you just say "vote support" or "please oppose" it could discourage people to read the proposal and see the arguments against... Not suggesting anything, but it doesn't seem like the greatest idea...

I greatly discourage anyone to tell another user to vote on a certain side. Supporting a proposal because someone told you to is a horrible idea, but I do feel that some users have been doing this, since a lot of the supporters have been asked to support it. I hope that all of the voters have read through the proposal, thought about it, and have read through the opinions of others, because if not, we may not have what's best for the Wiki. Asking them to vote for the proposal is OK, though, as they might not feel forced to vote on the side they were told.