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 with the signature code (~).

How To
 * 1) Actions that users feel are appropriate to have community approval first can be added by anyone, but they must have a strong argument.
 * 2) Users then vote and discuss on the issue during that week. The "deadline" for the proposal is one week from posting at:
 * 3) Monday to Thursday: 17:00 (5pm)
 * 4) Friday and Saturday: 20:00 (8pm)
 * 5) Sunday: 15:00 (3pm)
 * 6) At any time a vote may be rejected if at least three active users believe the vote truly has strong reasons supporting it. Every vote should have a reason accompanying it.
 * 7) " # " should be added under the last vote of each support/oppose section to show another blank line.
 * 8) At the deadline, the validity of each vote and the discussion is reviewed by the community.
 * 9) A sysop or user calls the result of the proposal and takes action(s) as decided if necessary, and archives the proposal.

The times are in EDT, and are set so that the user is more likely to be online at those times (after school, weekend nights).

So for example, if a proposal is added on Saturday night at 11:59 PM EDT, the deadline is the next Saturday night at 8:00 PM. If it is indeed a minute later, the deadline is a day plus 15 hours (Sunday), as opposed to a day minus 4 hours.

CURRENTLY: , 27 2024 (EDT)

Chronology
This is a proposal to impliment a new writing policy that would give order to writing about Mario's fictional universe. Chronology provides a framework for writing about Mario's "history", as well as settle disputes about where to place items in a "History" or "Biography" section. The intent is not to say what we are writing is the official chronology, only Nintendo can say that. The purpose of the chronology policy is to provide a guide for writers when trying to place the order of games in a history section.

Proposer: Son of Suns Deadline: 20:00, 31 August

Add

 * 1) Son of Suns I am the proposer and my reasons are given above.
 * 2) Mr. SoS has a point.
 * 3) - Very well written guideline, can create more consistency between articles around the wiki.
 * 21:34, 24 August 2007 (EDT) it would clear up a lot of confusion about the Marioverse.
 * 1) – A helpful guideline and good way to keep chronology consistent.
 * 2) Per the reasons given above.
 * 3) i agree with knife.
 * 4) Walkazo Right now many articles have history/biography sections with dissimilar ordering of the games. This proposed timeline will certainly put an end to that confusion (as others have stated above) and is an inspired idea.

Comments
To Plumber, we would simply be putting them in order of release unless it was obvious that it must be somewhere else. Luigi's Mansion is not speculation, it is in order of release. References are made to the game in titles released afterwards, so it cannot be at the end. We are not speculating on its placement, we are putting it where Nintendo gave it to us. -- Son of Suns
 * Ah, OK. 13:46, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

Glitch Articles
Glitch articles are a problem, as we could have thousands upon thousands of them, although none of them have been officially named. I am proposing that we eliminate all conjecturally named glitch articles and either merge them to a "List of Glitches" article (similar to the Beta Elements page) or just erase them completely. If this proposal goes through, someone can take action to create a List of Glitches page. If no one cares, the articles will simply be removed. Either way would be fine. However, the Minus World article should be kept, as it has been referenced in Mario games and has an official name. A list of glitch articles can be found here.

Proposer: Son of Suns Deadline: 20:00, 31 August

Delete or Merge Glitch Articles

 * 1) Son of Suns I am the proposer and my reasons are given above.
 * 2) Sir Grodus I had this idea a while back, but forgot about it. And yes, putting the glitch articles all in one place seems best; though I'm not opposed to just getting rid of them completely, since I see no real use in having them anyways.
 * 3) – 1000s of minor errors in programming are better put on 1 good-sized page
 * 4) I think they should be deleted, but also keep the Small Fire Mario page because it appears in a few more games.
 * 23:09, 24 August 2007 (EDT) glitches are unintended results of the developers, thus they are non-canon. I don't even think they should get a list page.
 * 1) – Most glitches aren't notable enough to merit their own articles, and, as Wayoshi said, there are just too many of them. A List of Glitches page is a good idea.
 * 2) - I agree with YY
 * 3) PP (chanting): merge! merge! list! list! merge! merge! list list! and I found lots of BLUE NOWHEREs in SMSunshine, mostly triple jumping into windows, but I found one in BH and 1 in PV... merge! merge!...
 * 4) Agree with YY, Knife, and Wayo.
 * 1) Agree with YY, Knife, and Wayo.

The Terrible Big Fandom
Ok people, I'm just sick and tired of even seeing the words "Big Eight". The article is totally nothing but fanon cruft. I think we should just get rid of the article and any mentioning of it within other articles. When you look at it this way all the article is saying is "Uh ok these eight characters appeared playable in early spin-offs before other people and a lot of them are used a lot in their own games or a mainstream game so they are the most important eight characters and since a lot of people think so it is a fact.". Maybe I'm exaggerating, but I don't think so. Oh and, no adding or removing of any characters could fix this thing. WE MUST DESTROY IT WITH FIRE (no not literally)

Proposer: Fixitup Deadline: 17:00, 24 August

Kill It

 * 1) I never thought much about it before, but now that you mention it, it sounds like a waste.-1337Yoshi
 * 2) - The Big Eight (and the Marioverse) have already been made writer guidelines. As such, the Big Eight references in articles should indeed be removed, and Marioverse should be replaces with Mario series.
 * 3) – Per Cobold.
 * 4) – Definitely. I was thinking the same thing, but Cobold worded it better.
 * 5) – Whoa, that much dirt on one part. And the references that contain "Big Eight", *makes a thumbs-down* DE-LATED!!!!!!!!
 * 6) I say we kick its big, eight butts out of the Wiki! Go, Fixitup!  (but you gotta admit, I helped weaken it earlier... :D)
 * 7) It is not official by Nintendo, only made up by fans. Get rid of it.
 * 8) its fanon info.

Comments
While some characters are obliviousy important than other, deciding who is a Big Eight and who is not is more of an opinion than anything. Per example, do Toad really qualify? Sure, he have his own game... but all he do nodaway is appearing in some spinoff. I don't see the point in it, anyway. Gofer
 * We would have to edit the writer guidelines as well, to say these are general terms used by fans, but are not actual canon and should not be mentioned in articles. 12:41, 17 August 2007 (EDT)
 * I agree, some people are obliviously more important than others, but yeah I couldn't agree more. I'm not sure how the writer guidelines work, but the point of this is to simply rid of any existence of the article.Fixitup

Reformat Featured Articles...again!
Featured Articles are an important part of any wiki, and I think it is about time we get users excited about featured articles again. I am propsing we do away with the new PAIR system, and institute a new, simpler system I developed (but heavily based on the successful Wookiepedia FA guidelines). By making the nomination process open to more users, and making it simpler, we will encourage people to get involved in the FA process. This new system will be like the original, but stagnant nominations will be removed after a month of inactivity. That way, we can avoid having huge lists of nominations if no one is working on the articles. All new featured article nominations would have to be recast. If we do not have a featured article by the time the new main page is up, we should invite users to help the Super Mario Wiki find its first featured article. Here is what the featured article nomination page will look like:

The featured articles of the wiki are articles that represent the best the Super Mario Wiki has to offer. This is not a way to showcase the articles of your favorite characters, items, or the like.

An article must…


 * …be well-written and detailed.
 * …be unbiased, non-point of view.
 * …be sourced with all available sources and appearances.
 * …follow the Manual of Style, and all other policies on the Super Mario Wiki.
 * …not be tagged with any sort of improvement tags (i.e. rewrite, expand, etc).
 * …have a proper lead that gives a good summary of the topic and can be used for the front page featured box.
 * …have a reasonable amount of redlinks.
 * …have significant information from all sources and appearances, especially a biography for character articles.
 * …not have been previously featured on the Main Page. Otherwise, it can only be restored to featured status.
 * …include a reasonable number of images of good quality if said images are available.
 * …be notable and have significant content – some complete articles like Spiny Shroopa do not have enough information to become FAs

First, nominate an article you find is worthy of featured status, putting it at the bottom of the list below; see criteria above. Note that a previously featured article cannot be featured on the Main Page again; however, it can be restored to featured status if there are no other featured articles in queue. Others will object to the nomination if they disagree that the article is good enough; they will then supply reasons for doing so, and ways to improve the article (errors, style, organization, images, notability, sources). Supporters adjust the article until the objectors (with reasonable objections) are satisfied. The article is placed on the featured article list and added to the front page queue. Also, if, at least a week after the article's nomination, that article has five supports and no objections, it will be added to the queue, and will be officially known as a "featured article".

How to vote:

Before doing anything, be sure to read the article completely, keeping a sharp eye out for mistakes. Afterwards, compare the article to the criteria listed above, and then either support or object the article's nomination. If you object, please supply concrete reasons for doing so, and how it can be improved. Please cite which rule your objection falls under. Failure to do so will result in your objection being considered invalid. As stated above, any objections will be looked upon by the nominator, supporters, and anyone willing to improve the article, and action will be taken to please the objectors. Once all objectors' complaints have been solved (or the article has five supports and no objections after at least a week), the article will be added to the queue and be officially known as a "featured article".

Also remember to add nominated at the top of the article you are nominating.

Every Sunday the next article in the queue will be highlighted on the Main Page as featured, marked with the featured template and removed from the list of nominations. The beginning of the article then appears on the Main Page via the featured articles template. Nominees that are inactive for a month will be eliminated from the nominations list.

Proposer: Son of Suns Deadline: 17:00 4 September 2007 (EDT)

Use this New System

 * 1) Son of Suns - I am the proposer and my reasons are given above.
 * 2) - PAIR was a flop.
 * 3) – I guess it's the old system with more checks for validity. Fine with me, it always seems templates like  are hours of work eventually wasted for me :P.
 * 4) - This is a good system for featured articles. However, the PAIR system helped me to improve the article a lot, helping me to get it into a status in which I can nominate it. I'd like it to stay as a non-compulsory feature, if it's okay.
 * 5) Yes, a simpler system would be used more often.
 * 6) I agree with SoS's reasons.
 * 7) I like it.

Comments
To Cobold: I can keep the templates in existence so people can review freelance. 13:11, 29 August 2007 (EDT)


 * PAIR reviews can still be used to help people improve articles, but they will have no effect on FAs. We can use any system that helps people get articles to the highest quality! =) -- Son of Suns

Microgames
We've had list of Microgame pages, like WarioWare, Inc.: Mega Microgame$! Introduction Microgames and individual Microgame articles. This proposal is to finally set whether we should go by list of Microgames or make an article for each Microgame.

Proposer: Knife Deadline: 20:03, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

Go by Lists

 * 20:08, 25 August 2007 (EDT) Since microgames tend to be 5 seconds long (unlike mini-games), I don't see why we should give each one of them an article. I think we should keep boss microgames though.
 * 1) i've played a little micro-games before, and there really short, i go with knife here.
 * 2) Microgames don't have enough information to make it one article.

Make Articles for Every Single Microgame

 * 1) I think they do deserve an article.
 * 2) Son of Suns - Every single microgame is officially named I believe, and it is my personal wiki philosophy to support an article for any officially named game element. Also, microgames change a lot based on the difficulty.  New challenges are added, as well as new characters and backgrounds.  One microgame soemtimes feels like three microgames in one with a common objective.  There is a lot to be said about each microgame.
 * 3) What Son of Suns said.
 * 4) They should each get their own article...
 * 5) I must say that I have shared Mr. Anakin's thoughts on this subject.
 * 6) They all have enough info. The problem is no one will ever take the time writing them.

Comments
I just want to say that any micro-game article will probably have more information than many of our item articles, especially Paper Mario items (This item can be cooked with this item and another item. This item heals 25 HP. vs.  This micro-game was developed by this character.  To play the game, the player must do this.  On higher difficulty levels, more enemies appear.) Some articles don't have a lot of information, but that does not mean they don't deserve to be articles. Also, I don't think we should split up any current lists of micro-games until the articles are created (and not be created as stubs). -- Son of Suns

Everyone seems to think a microgame article would be like this:

"(name) is a microgame where you must (whatever)"

But they wouldn't. They could have info on all difficulties, levels, a few of them have cheats, and the like.

Merge Zeus Guy (Snifit) with Zeus Guy (Bandit).
Both species were once on the same page, however, Plumber splitted the page in two without asking anyone first. I say the twop page should be merged since the two species have the same name.

Proposer Gofer

Deadline September 1.

Merge

 * 1) Gofer

Keep it that way

 * 1) They are different and deserve different arcticles.
 * 2) They are completely different species.
 * 3) – Per above; they're different species.
 * 4) They are DIFFERENT...
 * 5) Yep, they are different enemies. You can't merge them just because they have the same name.
 * 6) Walkazo and PP Different enemies! One is a Bandit, the other is a snifit! Different species for crying out loud, mergeing them because they have the same name is crazy!
 * 1) Walkazo and PP Different enemies! One is a Bandit, the other is a snifit! Different species for crying out loud, mergeing them because they have the same name is crazy!

Comments
If then, I guess we should split the Merlee (aswell as the other shaman) article to the various PM incarnation, they are different. Gofer

Gofers got a point, and they are both called zeus guy. but i'm staying neutral.


 * That is only assumed, not officially stated. - 14:52, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
 * But then, so is the Zeus Guy thing. They act different, look different, but have the same name.

Gofer

Split Bowser and Bowser Bones
I think Bowser Bones deserves his own article on the Wiki, seperate from Bowser.

Now before anyone gives me that "but they da same person omgz" stuff, let me just say that Mario is also the same person as Raccoon Mario, Metal Mario, Superball Mario, and Fire Mario. But then again, they all managed to get their own articles. Oh, and don't tell me that he doesn't deserve an article because he was in one game only. That's Superball Mario's case as well, and, excluding remakes, Raccoon Mario's.

Proposer: Dodoman Deadline: Sept. 6, 2007

Split the Articles

 * 1) Dodoman
 * 2) Per guys whose name are Dodo
 * 3) no reason not to, I agree with the claims above completly.

Keep them Merged

 * 1) Son of Suns - They shouldn't be merged because Bowser Bones is an unofficial name.  The skeletal Bowser is just named Bowser.  It's the same character and the info seems more important in the Bowser article itself - I would rather read about Bowser's death and afterlife in the Bowser article than have to go to a entirely different article.
 * 2)  - No need for an additional conjectural article.

Comments
I don't think you can argue that because forms of characters have their own articles, all different forms of characters should have their own articles. I don't think, for example, that we need an article for Mario's paper airplane form from PM2. If you want to argue for Bowser Bones having his own article, you have to point out that he is important enough to warrant it. (I don't know, haven't played the game.) Is the name even official? - 16:42, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
 * Well... he's a boss, that seem notable for me. I don't think he has an official name, I have the official strategy guide, and he's only reffered as "The skeletal version of Bowser."

Gofer

Wayoshi's Return
As you noticed, Wayoshi has made a huge improvement in attitude since he was demoted. Seeing this improvement, he could be promoted to at least Sysop, without any huge worries. He continues to do Bureaucrat work, even as a normal user, and it doesn't seem to make much sense. So, should we give him another chance at being a Bureaucrat, or at least make him an Admin, or should we forget it, and leave him as a normal User?

Proposer: Pokemon DP Deadline: 20:00, 1 September

Give him another Chance

 * 1) I think he deserves another chance.
 * 2) Yeah give him another chance, and no user is perfect.
 * 3) PP Im with Fg on this one.
 * 4) Give him another chance.
 * Ok, you were a bit Power Mad. But, I'm that kind of forgiving guy.
 * 1) – Wayoshi has indeed improved in attitude and has probably learned a lesson since the Willy incident, and he made such a good bureaucrat while was one. I'd say he deserves a second chance.
 * 14:25, 25 August 2007 (EDT) I kinda liked him better when he was a sysop. The good old days.... I just don't think he should be in a position above others (Bureaucrat).
 * 1) what knife said. Can't see him not being above us, though.
 * 2) He's a great beaurocat, and if not sysop at least patroller, he help me alot. another chance!
 * 1) He's a great beaurocat, and if not sysop at least patroller, he help me alot. another chance!

Don't

 * 1) No way, it will just happen all over again, and I still don't trust him...(And what he did was pretty bad...)
 * 2) Sorry, but no. I don't trust him in a position of power after what happened. -- 01:55, 25 August 2007 (EDT)
 * 3) It's not that I don't trust him, it's that his sysophood drained him of his life. 13:50, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
 * 4) Dont trust him, don't like him, its Steve's decision, DID YOU EVEN SEE WHAT HE DID? He demoted himself, ta da.

Comments
Before I get any flames, this was entirely DP's idea. Ask him yourself. I will do whatever the wiki decides to do, even if it's not exactly my best wishes. 01:39, 25 August 2007 (EDT)


 * If he messes up again, we demote him for good. C'mon, give him another chance here.

I'm not even sure if this is a legitimate proposal. 13:31, 25 August 2007 (EDT)

Not hating Wayoshi or anything, but having a vote to see who gets to be a sysop or not isn't right. Then again this is a special case... since Wayoshi is a former sysop. But just to establish this, let's not have any more sysop elections here. 14:25, 25 August 2007 (EDT)
 * If I were the site admin, I wouldn't like something like this either. It's the bureaucrat's right to nominate sysops, and noone else's. - 14:27, 25 August 2007 (EDT)


 * Ultimately, only Steve can decide anyways. I'm sure he will take all these comments and results into consideration, but he will have the final say, and we must respect his decision. -- Son of Suns

Yeah guys, this shouldn't be for us to decide. I think this proposal should be deleted


 * Agreed. Who or who does not become a sysop/bureaucrat is Steve's jurisdiction, not ours. -- 18:14, 25 August 2007 (EDT)
 * I only put this up, because Wayoshi was a former-Bureaucrat before, and I wanted to give him another shot at, at least being a Sysop. But, fine, if you want, get rid of this.


 * I don't think we should get rid of this proposal. I think Steve would like to hear what people have to say.  Just don't be angry if Steve makes a decision that is opposite of the final proposal result.  It's like when Congress votes to show approval or disapproval of an executive action.  Congress can not actually change the executive action, the vote is purely symbolic. -- Son of Suns

Plumber: I guess we should depromote every sysop, it's draining their life. Infact, why we shouldn't block everyone from the wiki? It's draining their life! Gofer

Why don't you go and say your idea to Porplemontage? I'm sure he would get a kick out of it. 14:02, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
 * I'm going to stay neutral however i have a few thoughts on this.


 * 1) He should be a patroller first
 * 2) He can be inappropriate in chat (however he can be controlled if I pay more attention and not play Vid games =P)
 * 3) He is helpful and he does perhaps deserve a second chance.