MarioWiki:Proposals

 http://img33.picoodle.com/img/img33/9/9/17/f_propcopym_9045f2d.png A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed using the code. Signing with the signature code (~) is not allowed due to technical issues.

How To
 * 1) Actions that users feel are appropriate to have community approval first can be added by anyone, but they must have a strong argument.
 * 2) Users then vote and discuss on the issue during that week. The "deadline" for the proposal is one week from posting at:
 * 3) Monday to Thursday: 17:00 (5pm)
 * 4) Friday and Saturday: 20:00 (8pm)
 * 5) Sunday: 15:00 (3pm)
 * 6) Every vote should have a reason accompanying it.
 * 7) At any time a vote may be rejected if at least three active users believe the vote truly has no merit or was cast in bad faith. However, there must be strong reasons supporting the invalidation.
 * 8) " # " should be added under the last vote of each support/oppose section to show another blank line.
 * 9) Any proposal that has three votes or less at deadline will automatically be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
 * 10) All proposals are archived. The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of a sysop, the proposer can ask for that help.
 * 11) There are two topics that cannot be decided on through a proposal: the first is sysop promotions and demotions, which are decided by Bureaucrats. Secondly, no proposals calling for the creation of Banjo, Conker or Sonic series articles are allowed (several proposals supporting them have failed in recent history).

The times are in EDT, and are set so that the user is more likely to be online at those times (after work/school, weekend nights). If a proposal is added on Saturday night at 11:59 PM EDT, the deadline is the next Saturday night at 8:00 PM. If it is a minute later, the deadline is a day plus 15 hours (Sunday), as opposed to a day minus 4 hours.

CURRENTLY: , 28 2024 (EDT)

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

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

Create Featured Lists

 * 1) - Per myself.
 * 2) - As long as an organized standards system that works in accordance on some level with current featured article rules, I believe this could be a wonderful addition to the MarioWiki. So, per S-Y and my comment below.
 * 3) Per Y_s.

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

Just a thought.
 * Sounds good. Just a little bit more, and this should be good to go.
 * Agreed.

Removals
''None at the moment.

PM: Minor Items
I've been looking at the Paper Mario series articles lately and found that due to the massive amount of recovery and side-quest items there are a LOT of tiny stublets related to these items. I think that all these pages should be merged and all the links go to their spot in that page. To merge or not to merge?

Proposer: Deadline: October 29, 2008, 17:00

Merge

 * 1) To merge, its horrible to have to look on thousands of stubs

No Merge

 * 1) - While it is true that there are many stubs, the more major subjects still deserve articles.  For example, Yakkey is a character, Peach Doll has since appeared in multiple sources, Sneaky Parasol plays a very major role in the story... etc. etc. etc.  This proposal isn't even fleshed out enough to define which Paper Mario special items we'd be merging.
 * 2) - Stumpers, stop stealing my words! You always make excellent points, as you do here.
 * 3) - Per Stumpers.
 * 4) Per Stumpers
 * 5) - Per Stumpers.
 * 6) - Per all.

Comments
You're going to be a little more specific on which items you want to merge. I believe you're referring to those in categories such as Category:Paper Mario Special Items correct? I think you may need to make your proposal more specific... what would be the name of the new article, would we have one for each game, etc.
 * And if you'd like, I can make an example of what it would look like, if you were to be more specific.

Would you be merging Yakkey?
 * Thanks, Dom. :D


 * This proposal needs to be more specific. While it is annoying to load up about a hundred three lined pages, there are some that are important and need to stay. Some articles should should definite by merged, while some need to stay separate. 20:14, 25 October 2008 (EDT)


 * I was actually talking about all the recipes and recovery items and whatnot, not key items. I think Yakkey counts as a key item. :P
 * Tell you what - why don't you rewrite this proposal and be very specific about which pages you want to merge. Then, you can retry this proposal, since many users were against this proposal because it had too much gray area, perhaps you'll have better luck.  If you want, you can take down this proposal before it passes and start fresh right now.

Rating Companies
The rating companies doesn't really have have a effect on any video games left alone Mario games.The only time we need to keep it in as it's own article if it's a item,place,game,Characters,Enemy,kart,block.The rating companies doesn't fit any of them.The only effect it has is which people play the game and the front of the box =P.So I think we should merge it.

Proposer: Deadline: October 29, 2008, 17:00

Merge

 * 1) Per myself above
 * 2) -- They're pretty pointless here.
 * 3) -- Per Booster.

Don't Merge

 * 1) - Merges should occur when (1) We are trying to decrease our emphasis on a subject, ie Super Smash Bros. and/or (2) When an article has been expanded completely and it is still short.  Neither of these conditions are true.  This Wiki is just as much about the real history of the Mario series as it is the in-universe content, and as I noted below, two of the articles are definitely not stubs and the others have yet to be expanded completely.
 * 2) - Per Stumpers. Also, the rating companies are what deem Mario and all related games 'kid-friendly', so they do have an actual effect on the Mario series, despite the fact that they make no in-game appearances.
 * 3) Per Stumpers. (BTW would the page look messy?)
 * 4) Per all. expicely Stooben Rooben.
 * 5) - Per Stumpers.
 * 6) - Per Stumpers.

Comments
Why don't people bother using links and proper grammar in their proposals anymore? Anyway, to save everyone else the hassle of tracking down the articles themselves, I'm assuming "Rating Companies" refers to Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB), Pan-European Game Information (PEGI), Computer Entertainment Rating Organization (CERO), and Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC). -


 * I don't get it... some of those are pretty good, and only PEGI and CERO are currently stubs. What's being lost because the articles are separate?
 * I don't see a point in targeting only one group of companies either. (Not that I'm dismissing the validity of your proposal.)
 * Did you know that I created the OFLC article!? Pretty impressive, huh? I hope Stumpers was referring to my article when he said 'pretty good'! BTW, I've noticed everything minor seems to be getting merged these days - isn't there a point of having individual articles?
 * I was referring to that, actually. :) Yes, there is a point to individual articles: it increases the emphasis on the subject and allows us to completely expand on the topic more easily.  It's like when Wikipedia splits... say banana into "banana" and "history of banana".  They do that because they feel the subject is so important that it deserves more than one article.  Merging means that the subject is so unimportant that it doesn't even deserve one whole article.  It's all about the amount of info we can say on the subject without overstepping the boundaries of what we cover.

Changes
No proposals at the moment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support

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

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

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