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) Proposals can not be made about System Operator promotions and demotions. Sysops can only be promoted and demoted by the will of Bureaucrats.

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: , 27 2024 (EST)

New Features
''None at the moment.

Removals
''None at the moment.

Splits & Merges
''None at the moment.

A little out of control
I'm pretty sure it was stated that rules for a signature image requested that they be easy on the eyes (nothing particularly distracting) and be within a certain size, correct? Well, I'm not pointing fingers at anyone directly but a lot of users actually have either large signature images that break up text lines or distracting gifs. It hasn't been a major problem for me, but it might become one in the future. In short; I think that if gifs are to be allowed in a signature, the rules should be reinforced and the gif should not be especially distracting.

Proposer: Deadline: December 24, 2008, 17:00

Support

 * 1) - Per my reasons above.

Oppose

 * 1) Sorry to inject some reality into this proposal, but who is to decide what is distracting and what is not? Sorry, I mean it was a good idea and all because some sigs can be annoying, but what rule could be made to prevent "distracting sigs"? I think you need to make this proposal a lot more specific.
 * 2) Per Glitchman.
 * 3) - Per Glitchman.
 * 4) - Per Glitchman and my comment below of it being too much effort for too little of a benefit.
 * 5) - Per all, if you were a bit more specific, then maybe I would reconsider my vote.

Comments
I'm sorry, but this proposal needs to be rewritten to be much more specific. Please give us some objective qualities to vote on, please: just saying we need to enforce rules more will not do anything, pass or fail.
 * To Leirin: The fact that a lot of users have "distracting gifs" or "overlarge images", whatever in they're sigs is not something that needs a proposal solely as a way to tell the Sysops to enforce the rules. We try to handle as many problems as we can, and frankly, breaking signature rules minimally doesn't reach the top of our list of problems. Just remember that you too can tell people that their sig is violating the PI policy. If they give you any problems or refuse to fix their sig, report the problem to a Sysop. We're doing the best we can to keep things in check, and a big movement we made was allowing only the use of on this page, and not sigs. If a signature has broken coding, violates policy, just let us know. There are around 4,000 sigs on this site, and for the Sysops to ensure that every one of them is in check is asking a bit much of us. We have a lot of encyclopedic and administrative duties to take care of, so what we can do with our free time is very limited.
 * I've never heard of a bigger hyperbole on this site – the correct number of signatures is approximately 400. 23:55, 21 December 2008 (EST)
 * IT'S OVER 9,000! But seriously, in defense of Stoobs, it would be rather difficult. Oh, and one question (completely unrelated to this proposal...): can we use our sigs on FA nomination pages? Or not?
 * There may be over 9,000 Users, but most of them don't have sigs. In response to your question, from what I've seen, everyone who has them's been signing the FA and Poll nomination pages with their sigs; I'm pretty sure the rule's only for this page, though that does beg the question, "why?" Like the Proposals, the Poll page might benefit from -only signing; also, having the rule on one voting page and not the other seems a little strange. However, it'd be too hard to enforce the rule if it were applied to FA nominations, because there's so many seperate pages, whereas here the rules and the content are all together. Time stamps also might be beneficial on the FA pages when it comes to removing outdated votes, so disallowing ~ might be a bad idea. Same with Talk:Main Page - it may get onerous after a while, but regulating the sigs there would not work out. -
 * Ah. Thanks. :D

Replace the current Importance Policy
This proposal would replace the current Importance Policy with a less hierarchical, more inclusive policy based on Canonicity. The proposed new policy can be found here: New Importance Policy. This would serve as the basis for the new policy and could be revised as necessary.

As you can tell, the current Importance Policy is extremely convoluted, as we are trying to base our wiki on levels of connections between series, which itself is a highly speculative act. Based on the chart, series such as Mario Kart may actually be of "secondary" importance, as it is a spin-off of the main Mario series, while WarioWare would be of "tertiary" importance, as it is a spin-off of a spin-off (Mario series to Wario Land series to WarioWare series), and the new Pyoro series would be of "quaternary" importance, as it would be a spin-off of a spin-off of a spin-off. As you can tell, this gets extremely subjective based on your own personal point of view. We should have a more flexible policy that does not establish superficial "levels" or "ranks" of importance. Just as there is no recognized canon, we should not have a hierarchy of supposed importance. Instead this new policy establishes what is and what is not allowed based on all official sources approved by Nintendo, and also allows for "less connected" subjects to be merged, organized, etc. as deemed necessary by the community. Ultimately I feel this new policy makes more logical sense than our old policy.

Proposer: Deadline: December 30, 2008, 17:00

Support

 * 1) -- Per my reasons stated above.
 * 2) - Per SoS (now I wish I hadn't revised that Importance Policy image since it's outdated, but oh well).
 * 3) Per SoS
 * 4) - should remove more speculation on "canon"

Comments
Perhaps I am mistaken, but I believe that this proposal breaks one of the rules for proposals. Your New Importance Policy says "...we cover all franchises, series, games, etc. that have emerged from or spun-off from the original Donkey Kong arcade game, Mario's first appearance in any media. This includes all Nintendo-authorized video games about Mario, Donkey Kong, Wario, Yoshi, Banjo, Conker...." The last rule for proposals says "...no proposals calling for the creation of Banjo, Conker, or Sonic series articles are allowed..." So, doesn't this need to be changed?


 * This proposal is not calling for the creation of Banjo or Conker content, as such content is already allowed under Canonicity and is available on the wiki.  This proposal would only clarify the rules regarding such content. Personally I feel that rule should be eliminated, but this proposal is not calling for the mass creation of Banjo and Conker articles, which is banned by the rule based on previous failed proposals. --

Ah, thanks for clearing that up for me. I will still have to think my vote over for a bit though.

I would like suggest that the Importance Policy should be moved to MarioWiki:Coverage if this passes since the phrase "Importance Policy" seems to call upon classes and rankings, and coverage implies more of classless, equal information (which is what we're going for here). 12:40, 23 December 2008 (EST)
 * Soooo.... Please excuse my stupidity; would this proposal allow the "...mass creation of Banjo and Conker articles..." on the wiki? It seems to me that it would. Canonicity says nothing particular about Banjo and Conker. Or maybe I'm completely missing the point, which is entirely possible.
 * It would allow individual articles on the Mario, Donkey Kong, Yoshi, Wario, Banjo, Conker, and Pyoro series equally, so, yes it would. However, the Banjo and Conker articles can only be ones that Nintendo authorized, so Conker: Live and Reloaded and Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts and Bolts would have no place here other than some mentions in other articles. 13:26, 23 December 2008 (EST)
 * Got it. So, just trying to clarify here, but we would include information on Banjo-Kazooie, Banjo-Tooie, and Conker: Bad Fur Day, among others. Is this correct?

Actually we already have articles about the Banjo (series) and the Conker (series), which is the minimum requirement that can be allowed under the new Canonicity (which was re-written after the former proposals passed). Any content from an officially licensed Nintendo game (Banjo-Kazooie, Banjo-Tooie, Banjo-Pilot, Banjo-Kazooie: Grunty's Revenge, Conker's Pocket Tales, and Conker's Bad Fur Day) is allowed, but not content from Conker: Live & Reloaded and Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts - those would count as unofficial appearances, but would be notable enough for some mention in a trivia section or a summary at the end of the series articles or something like that. And this proposal would not explicitly allow the mass creation of Banjo and Conker articles. We can add as much official content to the wiki, but that does not mean the creation of articles. So if this passes, separating the merged Banjo series and Conker series may require a seperate proposal, or a discussion on their respective talk pages. This proposal only reinforces that such content is allowed, but not the form it takes (i.e. merged series article vs. individual articles), as the last section in the new policy discusses. Basically, content is okay, but whether everything in the series gets individual articles, categories and templates is a matter that will have to be resolved later. At the very minimum we would have the general series page with individual entries on characters, items, etc. -- P.S. And yes, "Coverage" is a better term than "Importance Policy."
 * Alright. It's clear now. Thank you.

Son of Suns: there's a couple holes in your argument against the Importance Policy Chart. As explained in the text of the Importance Policy Page, "Mario" meant everything that had "Mario" in the title (including Mario Kart, etc.,) not just the mainstream Mario titles; it also infers WarioWare is covered under Wario, so in that case, Pyoro would still be a tertiary game. I'd also like to point out something that no one (to my knowledge) has addressed: Banjo and Conker aren't from a "Donkey Kong" title, but from Diddy Kong Racing; so by your argument, they'd be quaternary, just like Pyoro (though I'm still siding with the Importance Page and saying they're tertiary, and Diddy Kong Racing secondary). However, I totally agree that the "Importance Levels" are a bad way to try and organize the Wiki (I especially don't like how the crossovers are quaternary, as they are at least as important at the spin-spin-offs (Banjo, et al.), in my opinion). I think this would be a better way to go about things, but I also think the Banjo, Conker and Pyoro aspect should be clarified a bit more. The aforementioned chart had much to be desired, but the nebulous nature of this new policy means it is wide open to interpretation, which we do not want; if we're going to enact a new policy, we should know exactly what will happen and what will or will not be created. I'm all for series pages and Banjo, Conker and Pyoro content therein, but this opens a back-door to creating individual articles down the road - something I'm against. My reasoning, and my own suggested "Coverage Chart" can be seen here. There are no levels of importance, but Banjo, Conker and Pyoro are allotted less coverage on the grounds that they aren't as interconnected with the other Mario series. I also discuss an enhanced coverage of crossovers, but I am fine with your own suggested method - my only beef is with the uncertain future of Banjo, Conker and Pyoro content. -
 * OK, just a small interjection here: why are we thinking so much into the Pyoro "series?" The so called series is simply a recurring minigame of the WarioWare series. Yes, I do know that it will soon have it's own game in the DSi Ware thing (for, what, 300 points?), but I still don't think that it will ever become it's own freely standing series. We are thinking way too far into the future, if you ask me. Also, I think that, as a recurring minigame and not a series, we should include as much information on it as we can. I mean, what other wiki will have information on it? Just my thoughts.


 * Also, I removed my vote because I'm having trouble deciding. I actually like the "...extremely convoluted...superficial "levels" or "ranks" of importance..." and the "...hierarchy of supposed importance..." Call me an idiot or whatever, but I'll decide later.
 * I think the real issue is about (as always) Banjo and Conker, but this whole thing was brought up again when an issue about the Pyoro game was brought-up, here. Since they're all in the same boat as far as spin-spin-offs go, we're now including Pyoro when we discuss Banjo and Conker. - 19:36, 23 December 2008 (EST)

I feel we (or at least I) do want interpretation. I do want flexibility. I do want the ability to change the wiki as needed by the community without recreating policies every couple months. The problem with a few past proposals and policies is that they dictate a certain way articles must be created/organized based on random criteria. This proposal is more flexible in order to accomodate the needs of the changing community. This proposal would only reinforce the Banjo and Conker series pages - if a majority of users would later want to create individual articles, so be it. That should not be denied because you personally feel they should not be created. The matter should be subject to a democratic vote, not a dictatorial policy. As we have not had any proposals on Pyoro, as many articles about that mini-series can be created, unless the communty decides otherwise. Perhaps they will be merged on day. Perhaps not. Perhaps Banjo will be unmerged and Conker will stay merged. I feel it should be for the wiki to decide on an individual basis, not based on a strict policy, which leads to assuming certain series are more important than others (which your Coverage Chart does on some level by placing series under other series and thus should not have more artcles - it is very similar to the current speculative Importance Policy). The decision for article creation should not be part of an official policy, but community decision (based on proposals, talk pages, etc.). Personally I feel Banjo and Conker should have more articles than WarioWare, because there are clear geographic and historical links between Donkey Kong, Banjo, Conker, Diddy Kong, Squawks, and Mario; the same can not be said for WarioWare (besides Wario). Banjo and Conker are more interconnected with the greater Mario franchise than WarioWare, and thus should have as many articles or more than the WarioWare series. But that's my personal opinion, and should not be reflected in an official policy, just as your opinion about them having less importance should not be used to justify less articles for Banjo and Conker content. By offering flexibility, we can change the wiki based on new circumstances, instead of being stuck in stasis. -- P.S. To Bloc Partier, we'll still have hierarchies of sorts, but they will be established by the community, not by a subjective overarching policy in place for all time. I added a section about our current regulations to the new policy. This policy will not destroy barriers between Mario and other series - it only removes the speculation of what is more canonical. The wiki can still decide what the wiki's focus is collectively while keeping official information.

To Walkazo, perhaps that was too harsh wording. Your essay seems open to change as well, which is why I feel we should just keep the policy open. Perhaps at the bottom of the policy we could list major proposals that have passed to provide the specifics regarding each series, but also note these rules is subject to change (but must be obeyed until they are changed). In regards to Banjo and Conker content, they are to remain on their individual series pages unless the wiki decides otherwise at a later date. Again, Pyoro is up in the air, as there has been no proposal about it. A section keeping track of proposals regarding article creation would give explicit instructions without affecting the main policy. --

Also, this policy would not mean we couldn't create series articles based on other franchises. Again, as long as the content is retained, it can be organized any way we agree upon. So your Star Fox and Sonic series articles are a definite possibility, although I think the main series of Itadaki Street is actually Dragon Warrior. =D --
 * Yeah, of course we'll decide how much coverage Banjo and Conker get democratically (and if we were a dictatorship, I ' d hardly be the one making the rules); I was merely voicing my concerns, just as this proposal is you voicing your ideas. Personal pronouns have a nasty habit of making one seem like an egomaniac who only cares about what they themselves want, but it's hard to not use them in response to certain types of proposals - I don't know if people share my view: I can only speak for myself. Now, about my Coverage Chart: it's based on a web I drew (on a piece of paper) showing how the series branch off from each other. Wiki syntax makes 2D representations kinda hard, so I compromised with the indenting on the chart - it's meant to represent a family tree, not a hierarchy. Moving on... You raise a good point about WarioWare being less connected to the other games as Banjo and Conker as far as in-game aspects go (if you ignore all the Mario-themed microgames), however WarioWare is trademarked by Nintendo, whereas Banjo and Conker were never directly owned by Nintendo - they were, and still are, Rare's creations. That's why they went with Rare when it was bought-out by Microsoft (whereas things like Donkey Kong remained with Nintendo), which is another source of problems surrounding the inclusion of Banjo and Conker material. You say Conker: Live & Reloaded and Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts aren't "official" because they were made during Microsoft's ownership of Rare, but I ask you, why? They aren't fangames or black-market swag, they're legal, valid aspects of the Banjo and Kazooie series. My opinion on this matter is solely a result of reading this article, so I could be way-off, but as I see it now, whether it's Nintendo's fish by way or Rare, or Microsoft's fish by way of Rare doesn't matter, it's still a fish, and it's still Rare's catch. The whole thing confuses the issue of what is and isn't official (one of the reasons I'd just as soon stay away from Banjo and Conker for now), but most people don't actually care about who owns what, and would just notice the lack of recent Banjo and Conker information... -

I'm currently neutral on this proposal, but are the Banjo and Kazooie series really spin-offs of Diddy Kong Racing? As far as I know, the Banjo and Conker games were already in development before Diddy Kong Racing's release, and the two characters were put in for advertising the future games. Would anyone call Fire Emblem: Fūin no Tsurugi a spin-off of Super Smash Bros. Melee because Roy appeared first in the latter game? Banjo's article also tells that he starred in Diddy Kong Racing for advertising Banjo-Kazooie. The user KingMario pointed that out. Not that this would change something to this proposal, just wanted to tell, since the series articles say they are spin-offs which might be incorrect. --Grandy02 07:16, 24 December 2008 (EST)

Who knows if someone from Warioware isn't going to appear in the DSI Pyoro game?

And as Bloc Partier pointed out above, Pyoro was alway a recuring character in Warioware (Storyline-wise, he's even the reason the series exist), meanwhile, Banjo and Conker were only two guys put in a spin-off of a spin-off to advertise their own games and who were taken out of the remake. The Pyoro\BanjoConker comparison is full of holes. --Blitzwing 07:55, 24 December 2008 (EST)

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.