MarioWiki:Proposals

http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r149/Deadringerforlove/dessert1.jpg 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) 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 start to discuss on the issue. 24 hours after posting the proposal (rounding up or down to the next or previous full hour, respectively, is allowed), the voting period begins. (The proposer is allowed to support their proposal right after posting.) Each proposal ends at the end of the day one week after voting start. (All times GMT).
 * 3) Every vote should have a reason accompanying it. Agreeing or seconding a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted.
 * 4) 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. The voter 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.
 * 5) All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week.
 * 6) 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.
 * 7) 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.
 * 8) No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
 * 9) Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation. However, the proposer can request that their proposal be deleted by a Sysop at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it.
 * 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 shouldn't be proposals about creating articles on a 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.
 * 12) Proposals cannot be made about System Operator promotions and demotions. Sysops can only be promoted and demoted by the will of Bureaucrats.
 * 13) If the Sysops 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.
 * 14) No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters, and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.

The times are in GMT, 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 Monday night at 23:59 GMT, the deadline is the night of the Tuesday of the next week at 23:59 PM. If it is posted a minute later, the deadline is 23:59 PM of the Wednesday of the next week, since midnight is considered to be part of the next day, as 00:00 AM.

Basic Proposal and Support/Oppose Format
This is an example how 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 you want this Proposal to be like, what changes you would suggest and what this is about]

Proposer: Voting start: [insert a voting start time here, f.e. "2 January, 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====

====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 anoother 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.

How To

 * 1) All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom). All pages effected 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.
 * 4) Talk page proposals may closed by the proposer if both the support and the oppose sides each have fewer than five votes.
 * 5) The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.

List of Talk Page Proposals

 * Merge Vs. Wrecking Crew into Wrecking Crew. (Discuss) Passed
 * Merge Shooting Star Summit into Star Hill. (Discuss) Passed
 * Split the weekly microgames from NinSoft and contests in WarioWare: D.I.Y. into separate pages. (Discuss) Deadline: May 7 2010, 24:00 May 14 2010, 23:59
 * Split from Sherbet Land. (Discuss) Deadline: May 2 2010, 23:59  May 9 2010, 23:59 May 16 2010, 23:59
 * Delete the "Golden Banana Table" in the Donkey Kong 64 article. (Discuss) Deadline: May 18, 2010, 23:59
 * Split from Star Hill. (Discuss) Deadline: May 27 2010, 23:59
 * Merge 1-Up Super into 1-Up Mushroom. (Discuss) Deadline: May 28 2010, 23:59
 * Split and Merge the the Mario and Luigi series part of 1-Up Mushroom into Mushroom. (Discuss) Deadline: May 28 2010, 24:00

Beta/Proto
I've noticed a few beta pages/ references around but I was always fasinated by the developement of games and im sure other people are to so I was hoping that a page could be created organizing all the information from all the beta games

Proposer: Voting start: 14 May, 2010, 06:36 Deadline: 21 May, 2010, 23:59

Comments
How do you mean? We already have a page that shows shows a list of all the beta elements pages we have? .
 * Yeah. We also used to have exactly such a page you're proposing, but we split it.

Removals
''None at the moment.

Splitting Final Smashes
Yes, i know very recently we tried to split ALL the SSB moves, but i am proposing we split ONLY the SSBB Final Smashes to separate pages. They wont be stubs, since they have a trophy, foriegn name, and a large description. Does anyone agree?

Proposer: Voting start: 18:23, May 6 2010 Deadline: 23:59, May 13 2010

Split

 * 1) Per me.
 * 2) I will have to say that all the rest of the moves from all the rest of the games are split; we should split this. If this fails, we will have to merge all the rest of the moves from all the rest of the games into their respective articles.

No Split

 * 1) Why split the page? It's nice to look at all in one page without having to constantly click on the links. Besides, Super Smash Bros. Brawl's Final Smashes are technically moves too. It makes no sense to split a move from a move article.
 * 2) I am Zero! Per LGM (that doesn't stand for Little Green Men). Zero signing out.
 * 3) - We dedicate enough space to SSB information; separate pages for each Final Smash is excessive, and as LeftyGreenMario pointed out, navigation is easier using the current setup.
 * 4) - I agree with Walkazo.
 * 5) Per LGM.

Comments
Urk, wrong section? This should be in a talk page proposal.
 * It is not in the wrong section. It is proposing the final smashes to be split from the character articles into separate articles.

Btw, i am not going to vote on it because if we split the final smashes, we'll have to split all the rest of the moves, which would result in a lot of stubs, and if we don't, then we'll have to merge all the rest of the moves into the articles.


 * "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." This is dealing with a specific group of articles.
 * There are a lot of recent proposals which deal with a specific group of articles that are still on here (the FI ones, the one on the Catch Cards, the Super Mario Advance one, the Main Page ones, etc.)
 * Those proposals all deal(t) with "massive amounts" of changes, as does this one, so this is/was the most appropriate location for them. -

Critical Reception
I noticed something when I was browsing some articles about games. Some articles have a "critical reception" section while others do not. These sections do not describe the content about the game, but they do include how well the game did. My question is, what should we do with this section? It breaks the consistency of the game articles, and it is not a requirement on the articles. Should we remove this section, add this section to all game articles, or should we do nothing?

Proposer: Voting starts at: 1:00, May 7 2010 Deadline: 23:59, May 14 2010

Add them!

 * 1) I am Zero! Doesn't sound like a bad idea, in fact, we need those. Zero signing out.
 * 2) - Per Grandy02's comment too, I think that this could be good for the wiki.

Do nothing!

 * 1) - If a game garnished some sort of noteworthy reception, odds are it already has a Critical Reception section, or will eventually be given one. Not all games merit one of these sections, however, so adding them to all the pages wouldn't really accomplish anything; meanwhile, removing them from the articles that do need them would be stripping the wiki of valuable information. Therefore, it would be best to do nothing as far as a blanket policy goes: instead, take the middle-road and deal with the sections on a case-by-case basis.
 * Per Walkazo.
 * Per Walkazo; Was originally going to vote this way. If there's something special to say about the critic's reception, then someone will think to add it. Wikipedia already has sections (and charts) on this for many (if not all) games.
 * 1) - Per Walkazo.
 * 2) Per Walkazo and Grandy02's comment.

Comments
I don't know. Though we are supposed to list information concerning game, we aren't a gaming site either that lists what other people think. Sure, I asked that question before in Mario Party 8 and the guys said it was fine, but the other articles don't use it either, and I'm not 100%. I'll wait and see what these administrators will say.
 * When an article doesn't have a reception section, it's just because nobody has added it yet. That something is not in all articles doesn't mean that it should be removed. It's not just what "other people" think - we don't cover fan opinions, but how people of professional media saw the game - media that have connections to the gaming industry and are officially given copies by the companies to review them prior to the release. --
 * Absolutely. Per Grandy02.

I really think we should only have them where there is something noteworthy to say about it. Most games eventually turn into a mixed bag. Some people like it, some don't. More often now people are reviewing classic / retro / older games. Sometimes they do better later, as the player did not expect anything from the hype. Sometimes they do worse. I think we would need to have a strict definition of "critic". I dislike Super Mario 64, I could go post a video on YouTube right now about everything I dislike about it, use my own video as a source and then post that it became one of the games future games were compared to despite being unoriginal, uninspired dreck. I think it would become too difficult to police.
 * Also I would like to add that The Sims 2: Pets got a horrible critic reception because it was difficult to actually kill your pets, which really just shows critics kinda missed the whole point (although I would give it a bad review for other reasons...)
 * Using your video as a source wouldn't work. As said, things that were simply brought up by fans aren't covered. And many games I know of haven't turned into a "mixed bag." For example, most games of the Super Mario Bros. series, the 3D Mario platfomers, the Wario Land and WarioWare series have almost only received favourable reviews by the major (English-language) sites and magazines (of course, there will always be some critics who disagree). I think the list at Wikipedia is a good reference on what can get in and what not. If there is a lack of the sources mentioned there, most notably for classic games, it can always be decided on a case-by-case basis. --
 * Well it isn't part of the proposal itslef, and for some reason I keep reading proposals as though they are what we should do and how we should do it (which most aren't). Anyway, I guess if someone feels and article would be improved by having this section, there's no reason not to have it. I am against adding it just because it's on a template though. I'm not really sure this would need a proposal, anyway.

A lot of reviews from the "professional media" people are (very) flawed and maybe even biased (according to a lot of people).
 * That's not ours to judge. Reviews from official sources sort of belong to a game's history, and it doesn't matter how such a review is written (If I could just go around and strike subjects I don't like here because I deem them unprofessional, there wouldn't be much left of this wiki). Also "a lot of people" doesn't sound like a very objective source to me either. -

List of Appearances
Several articles such as Princess Daisy, Dixie Kong and Bowser Jr. have a list of Appearances. These should be in all character articles (except characters who only appear once) or not there at all.

Proposer: Voting starts at: May 8, 2010, 22:35 Deadline: May 15, 2010, 23:59 2010

Add Lists In

 * 1) Per my Proposal.
 * 2) Per Commander-Code 8.

Comments
Once again, just like Critical Reception, nobody has bothered to add the sections to the article. It isn't inconsistency, it's laziness or just that people don't know every appearance.


 * I read the manual of style and I've seen no critical reception section listed there. Well, it doesn't matter, there are a lot of other common sections not listed there. The more, the merrier! (I guess :P)

Don't worry guys, I'll be more than happy to add the lists in.
 * Then do so, I don't think you need a proposal to do something that is already being done...
 * I just wanted to see how many people agreed.

Limit Number of Articles Any Given User Can Nominate for FA Status
I propose we limit the number of articles that a user can nominate at one time. When a user is able to nominate as many articles as he or she wishes, the articles often end up neglected and contain many opposes that never end up being fixed. The newly added feature to quickly delete nominations is helpful, but we have far too many nominations from the same users that end up never being featured because the user gives up on the article they nominated. I propose that this limit be three (3) articles at one time. As soon as an article passes or fails, the user can nominate another article.

Some examples of these nominations are: Featured Articles/N/World 5 (New Super Mario Bros.), Featured Articles/N/Princess Peach, Featured Articles/N/Donkey Kong Country.

Nominator: Voting Start: May 9, 2010, 00:29 Deadline: May 16, 2010, 23:59

Support

 * 1) - I am the proposer. As such, my reasons are above.
 * 2) Per BP. This makes the system a lot less cluttered.
 * 3) - Per BP
 * Per BP's reasons.
 * 1) Per BP.
 * 2) Per all. (I'm fine as long as it doesn't affect past nominations.)
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) - I'd even go as far as saying that one nominated article per person is sufficient, but well... I'm satisfied with this, because it is a step in the right direction.
 * 5) Per all.

Comments
@KS3: When you read this, please don't take it personally. There have been plenty of instances in the past where people nominated a ton of articles and then failed to support them. It was just now that I decided to make a proposal about it. I'm so sorry if I offend you, but I really feel that a limit should be created.

@Everyone: I feel that you might not like the low limit of three articles. I'll be willing to negotiate something else if you would like, but act fast. I only have about a day to change the proposal.

Bloc Partier, I think you should change the proposal. Maybe you should make it so when a nominated article is opposed a lot more than supported by a variable amount and if it never gets bumped again (unless it's for more opposing) for a variable amount of days, the nomination should get archived. Maybe I should explain it in fewer words? I put a variable because I'm not sure what's the correct amount.
 * Well, that doesn't even pertain to anything I'm already trying to do here. There already is the two-month deletion rule. I'm trying to get rid of the frustration that occurs when a user nominates a ton of articles and then never sees them through to their featured status. The nominator should be responsible for getting the article featured, and if they are unable to see it through, then they shouldn't be able to nominate so many articles.

Does it affect previous nominations or from this point on??
 * From this point on.

Let's say I make three nominations. How long will I have to wait?
 * "As soon as an article passes or fails, the user can nominate another article." – On a different note, I just thought about making exactly such a proposal. We so need it.

Another question. This doesn't affect Unfeature nominations in any way, right? (In my opinion it shouldn't, since you can't just nominate tons of articles to be unfeatured, because you need valid reasons.)
 * I agree with Time Q.
 * Yeah, it won't affect Unfeaturing. If we need a rule to affect it, we can do it later.

@KS3: I feel like I should mention that if this passes, you won't be able to nominate anything until you only have two active pending nominations... Only until the rest are gone will you be able to nominate once again.

Make Main page's changes in one day
I'll explain clearly: We know we change the information shown in the Main Page periodically (specially for the featured article, image and DYK), but I see a small problem in that we make this in different days (FA for saturdays, FI for thursdays and DYK for - what day?) and sometimes we ignore the time for the change. In this proposal I want to Make the habit to change some things in the Main page on the same day. Considering that...


 * 1) All the rutinary changes should be applied on the same day, preferably, starting on saturday, where we make the changes for the Featured Article, Image and DYK zones.
 * 2) Changing in this way would give an advantage for a more reliable habit, and also make an active contribution for the so-questioned "Did You Know..." box.

Sure, this won't apply for the other boxes of the page (Pipe Plaza, Proposals and News) since those changes depend on what's going from the sources.

Proposer: Voting start: May 9, 2010, 18:12 Deadline: May 16, 2010, 23:59

Change Routine

 * 1) - Per my prop.
 * 2) Per all.
 * 3) Per all, what else to say? Uhhhh...
 * 4) - I need to support because Coin' is right, per all.

Keep Old Routine

 * As commented below, I don't think this is necessary. I like the fact that the Main Page is updated at least twice a week rather than just once, and there have never really been any problems with this.
 * 1) - Per Time Q.
 * 2) Luigi=awesome - Per users above.
 * 3) - Basically per Time Q, but there's another thing: Updating those sections on a more or less regular basis is far more stressful than someone who never did it can imagine. If you now force a tight schedule on these persons, this will mean even more stress and, as a result of this, a much higher quit rate. Risky proposal is risky, so no.
 * 4) It would be very stressful to the people who edit it plus it would dramatically increase the quit rates, so this proposal is very illogical.
 * 5) Per all.

Comments?
I don't think this is necessary. We have never "ignored" the time for updating the templates (well, never for FIs, and once for FAs in... how many years?).


 * Neither me (well, just I can't make the updates regularly cuz my connection is down or I have another important bussiness). I think that was from my thoughts. Just look my two considerations and think is this could work or not.

Limit the number of times a talk page proposal can be extended
Currently, the rules state that a talk page proposal can be extended by it's proposer at the end of it's deadline if neither sides exceed the other in three votes. This mean, though, that the proposal can be extended an infinite number of times, so long the proposer is attentive. I propose that a talk page proposal can only be extended two times before it's archived as No Quorum.

Proposer: Voting start: May 9, 2010, 21:00 Deadline: May 16, 2010, 23:59 GMT.

Support

 * 1) Per myself.
 * 2) Per Reversinator.

Oppose

 * 1) – I disagree with your proposal. Did you even stop to think why we extend proposals and talk page proposals if they tie or there is no majority? We extend them so a solution can be found. The proposer should have the choice to keep the proposal up. Some proposals actually bring up good arguments or cover highly debated issues. If a solution cannot be come to via the voting part of the proposal, then the comments section can be used as a structured and organized way to state opinions or attempting to reach a compromise; which the talk page proposal could be archived then or be rewritten to reflect the changes to reach a solution/compromise. Putting a limit on how long it can stay will not help with anything.
 * 2) - Per SMB. Removing the TPPs won't remove the problem they were trying to solve.
 * 3) - Agreeing with SMB here. This procedere would only lock out the people who see a problem and doesn't affect the problem itself other than blocking it from view. Shoving a smelly pile of dirt under a carpet won't make it any less smelly.
 * 4) Sure, the TPP section is getting kinda cluttered, but that's the (rather small) price to pay for a better wiki.
 * 5) ––  Per all.
 * 6) - Per SMB.

Comments
Does it affect past TPPs?
 * It is just about TPPs --

Can't they just re-propose it later then? I think the idea was to keep one copy until it was finally eventually entirely resolved.
 * But technically, the proposal could stay on the wiki indefinitely, meaning that the Proposals page will look pretty stretched.


 * SMB: How about the Shooting Star Summit, Sherbet Land, and WarioWare:D.I.Y. proposals that have been up forever and are reaching another extension?
 * Those need to be dealt with... There is obviously a disagreement about the article/talk page proposals, so a compromise needs to be reached, as opposed to jusat killing whatever discussion has already gone on.

Main Page Overhaul
Hm... How many "Main Page" proposals have we had? Tongue Although this proposal could technically be categorized under Changes, I put it under New Features because it will bring back and reform a process that was discarded last year, as well as making a new template to go on the Main Page (although it was already approved by Porple, I'd still like to see the user's opinions on this).

First off, I say that we rid the Main Page of the (actually heavily debated) Featured Image process and replace it with the Polls again (the system of selection was the reason it was removed; however, I think that a solution has been created).

Also, I feel that we should replace the Community template with a 'Shroom template. I am proposing this because, although Porplemontage already approved of this change, no action has been taken and no design for the new template has been come up with. I have a design I'd like to propose, and I will show that later on.

 Featured Images v. Polls  There are many problems with the Featured Images selection process. There have been a ton of proposals made to create rules, amend current policies, and how to fix the process. I find it funny... nay, ironic, how the same people who say that the system works and that we should not make changes to it are the ones making proposals to fix the system so that it can survive another week so that their favorite little character can star on the Main Page!

There are, from what I've seen from a recent proposal, many repeat nominations. There are also problems with some users about "fan votes"– that is, people who go voting on an image not for the quality of the image or because they feel it would do the Main Page some justice, but rather because their favorite character is in the image. There are also quite a few users that feel the system itself does not work at all (such as me).

Some feel that we should not feature images because they are not our creations, while others say that it brightens up the Main Page and makes it better. Overall, these are contested issues that are really never resolved; a proposal to fix it up is made, results in a tie for a week or two, and then no change is made when the proposal passes because one person felt that we should stick with the status quo.

This enough is proof to me that the F.I. system does not work. I know many will say that the Poll selection system never worked when it was around, but I would like to propose a new selection system for Polls:

We should create a special committee called the "Poll Selection Committee," with seven members; one of them being a chairman/chairwoman. Why seven? Well, it has enough people so that different opinions can be registered, yet there will almost never be a tie when all the selectors vote. Polls would be selected every two weeks, giving enough time for everybody to make decisions for the next poll.

The Chairperson would be almost like a regular committee member, except that in the case that if one of the committee members resigns or is fired, the chairperson gets to choose the leaving member's replacement. If a chairperson resigns, he or she can choose his or her replacement.

In order to fire a committee member (perhaps for disorderly conduct on the wiki or inactivity), a vote must take place among the other committee members (which should mean that there are six people involved in the vote). Four out of six of the committee members in the firing nomination have to agree in order to fire that member.

Chairperson elections would take place in the community after 26 bi-weekly polls are released (which should be the equivalent of about a year, when bi-weekly is interpreted as one poll every two weeks), to ensure that the Chairperson does not hold that position as long as they want to hold it against the will of the community. The incumbent Chairperson at that time can seek reelection, and can run as many times in the future as they want, though.

The committee would also have their own private forum board to discuss the polls, so that all discussions and decisions can be recorded in it for organized discussion and future reference.

Here is a summary of the things this proposal will change:


 * Replace Featured Images with Polls
 * Establish a committee in charge of the poll selection (explained in detail above)
 * Replace Community template with The Shroom template

A link to a test page for how the Main Page would look after these changes are made can be found here.

Proposer: Wiki Administrative Staff Voting Start: Sunday, 16 May 2010, 2:50 GMT Deadline: Sunday, 23 May 2010, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) – I think this will improve the wiki.
 * 2) - Per the proposal.
 * Per SMB
 * 1) -- Per SMB.
 * 2) &mdash; Per SMB.
 * 3) Everything seems fine by me. I'm a bit sick of FIs now too.
 * 4) - Per proposal.
 * 5) - Per us =D

Comments
I kind of missed out on the whole discussion about this, but why are we bringing back polls? Wasn't there a proposal before to get rid of them?
 * Did you read the proposal thoroughly? The poll system was ridden of by the Admins a while ago because it was horrible. One proposal to bring back the polls recently was shot down because it didn't suggest any changes or improvements from the old system. However, we suggest a completely new version of the poll selection process.

Time Q would be very pleased with this proposal.
 * I hope he is. By the way, I had to remove your vote, KS3. It isn't past the first 24 hours, so only the proposer(s) (the Admins, in this case) can vote until tomorrow (unless I am mistaken). Of course, you are invited to add your vote back tomorrow at or after the voting start time.
 * I live in Central Standard Time, and it's Friday at 22:17 at CST. Add 6 hours to that and you get Saturday at 4:17 at GMT. So, technically, I can vote, unless they made a mistake in the proposal.
 * Hm... I think I made a mistake. I'll have to double check.

By the way, why 24. 26 bi-weekly polls is much closer to one year than 24.
 * My math was off, I guess. Also, you were right about the mistake in the proposal... I forgot that it was already the 15th in GMT. My apologies.
 * No problem.