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 issue this Proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the Wiki handles that issue]

Proposer: Voting start: [insert a voting start time here, f.e. "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====
 * 1) [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]

====Oppose====

====Comments==== - Users will now be able to vote on your Proposal, until the set deadline is reached. Remember, you are a user as well, so you can vote on your own Proposal just like the others.

To support, or oppose, just insert " # at the bottom of the section of your choice. Just don't forget to add a valid reason for your vote behind that tag if you are voting on 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

 * Split from Star Hill. (Discuss) Passed
 * Split 1-Up Super from 1-Up Mushroom. (Discuss). Deadline: July 10 2010, 24:00
 * Merge Giant Spiked Ball into Spiked Ball. (Discuss). Deadline: July 19, 2010, 23:59
 * Merge Mad Big Boo into Mad Boo. (Discuss). Deadline: July 19, 2010, 23:59
 * Split / from Goomba. (Discuss). Deadline: July 24, 2010, 03:09
 * Merge Congazuma's Castle into Congazuma. (Discuss). Deadline: July 27, 2010, 9:30
 * Delete Template:Wikipedia. (Discuss). Deadline: July 29 2010, 16:25
 * Change Sunglasses Salesman into Acsessory Pianta (Discuss). Deadline: July 30 2010, 18:01

Wiki welcome template
I noticed some users (including me) having welcome templates with links to the help section, rules, etc... New users are supposed to get those. However, only some of them do. You see, some new users get reminders for not reading the rules. But if they're new, how are they supposed to know where the rules are without a welcome template. I don't know if this is possible, but I propose we make a wiki welcome template, that will be automatically on the new user's talk page. Like the one in zeldawiki, just with more details. This may reduce the reminders and all the misunderstandings.

Proposer: Voting Start: 08:58, 10 July 2010 Deadline: 23:59, 16 July 2010

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) This seems a much better idea than having a bunch of users going round and only welcoming certain users, as this will make sure every new user knows the rules and has useful links for whenever they may become confused.
 * 3) Per all. I didn't get one - :'(
 * 4) Everyone should get these. I mean, I'm in the same boat as MrConcreteDonkey! One downside might be the lack of unique welcome templates created by users, though.
 * 5) I got one only because I'd done something wrong and needed a reminder. Per all.
 * 6) Now everyone can get a welcome message whether they like it or not. Per all.
 * 7) There are absolutly no downsides to this (at least not that I can think of at the moment. I never really saw the point of user made welcomes anyways since they practically say the same thing except for different colored templates and a different image.
 * 8) per all.
 * 9) Per all. I got one, but another friend of mine gave me a second one because he couldn't be sure if I'd gotten one or not. This way, we can be sure.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Per all. I don't see anything wrong with this.
 * 12) Per all. I did not recieve a welcome from anyone until about a week after I joined.
 * 13) I am Zero! I would miss doing it the old fashoin way, but it's for the better. Zero signing out.
 * 14) A very good proposal! I liked it!
 * 15) Per all, per proposal.
 * 16) Per all. We don't want any confused wiki members who don't know what they're doing.

Comments
That would probably work if new users were actually reading their welcome templates. Practice has shown that most of them just skip and delete them. Doing this will just result in additional work for almost no gain at all. -
 * If a welcome template appears on new users' talkpages automatically, wouldn't that mean user-made welcome templates like User:Fawfulfury65/Welcome would have to be deleted?

@Edofenrir You're right, some users don't read their welcome templates, and they face the consequences. However, some other users do not have a welcome template, so they can't read one.

@FF65 Yes, they'll be deleted, however, like FFY said, this is the only way to make sure every user has his/her welcome template. We can use some examples like your editing tips though.

I didn't have a welcome template and yet, my sister had one. :( Had to resort to the Help page.

Will this be like how Wikia welomes everyone after they make one edit?

Nipe, if you were on zeldawiki. You should've noticed a user named TheStoneWatcher. However, it is not a real user, but some sort of a...I can't find the right word to describe him. However, I think it's this that we need. I am not good at those...

Mmmmmm, we don't even know if its possible or not. We'll have to ask Steve.

@Mr bones: Yeah, I also suggest we add some editing tips to the welcome messages like on my welcome message. I actually got the idea from User:YellowYoshi398/w, which probably has some better tips.

Steve won't allow a bot.

@Tucayo Heu...What is a bot? Also, since it's possible on zeldawiki and wikirby, I'm pretty sure it'll fit here...I think...

Okay, then check this out! Steve made the bot...before the proposal passes...
 * Yes, and the bot seems to already be working. A new user just got a welcome template automatically. But yeah, we should put editing tips into the message, I'm sure it could help a lot of users.

@FF65 You're right, this way, they'll learn basic editing rules. We're gonna discuss about what we're gonna put later.

Ok, is this on yet? Since I just found about 3 new users who didn't have the template.

No, it does work actually.--Mr bones 18:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thats good.

Remove the fake "New Messages" boxes.
Yes, I know this was said before, but it was never inforced. You know how sometimes onuserpages there are fake "new messages" boxes? Well, they annoy me, and ot just me. Like once, we had to babysit our neighbor, and, when i clicked on the link on 's page, a loud, annoying video popped up, resulting in the baby crying from its nap, and having a fit. Another one had a disturbing picture of a camel that was innapropriatte for little kids. Since nobody did anything about, and for the other stuff I said, i think we should take some action.

Proposer: Voting Start: 21:11, 10 July 2010 Deadline: 23:59, 16 July 2010

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) - I think the proposal description explains perfectly why this is not just a stupid joke. It tricks users by messing with basic wiki mechanics. These pranks can break people's trust in the page mechanics, and this is where it stops being funny, and just becoes a nuisance. Per the proposal.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) - Per all. Per the old proposal.
 * 5) Althrough I don't get angry when I get tricked and rick rolled, if this makes most users angry, then it's a wise thing to support. Also, per Edo, using the wiki tools for pranks is kinda destrubing.
 * 6) Per all. It's very annoying. If they want to include them, then they should put it somewhere else on the page.
 * 7) Fake messages are easy to identify (never got tricked), but it's annoying. If someone must have a fake message box, at least he/she should alter it so people can easily distinguish it. (I.e. You DO NOT have a new message) or something like that.
 * 8) Per LeftyGreenMario.
 * 9) - Per LGM with the differences. I mean, some people might be awaiting a message, and they are searching through user's pages, and they find the fake message box. They click it not realizing it is fake as it is worded the same as a message box, and they are rick-rolled. They are annoying, immature, stupid, a waste of a user's time..............
 * 10) I know some users who have them, and it's pretty annoying. (I used to have one, but someone made me delete it.) Per all.
 * 11) This rule should be enforced. I HATE those boxes. I get excited when I see them, but then, I just realize, oh my god, it's just another of those fake boxes. Rawr. You can't fool me. It's just ANNOYING. So I say we KILL, EXPLODE, and EAT those boxes. Every one of them. No survivors.
 * 12) At first I thought this wasn't necessary but after another look I see how annoying it is. Per all
 * 13) Per all.
 * 14) Per all.
 * 15) Per all. And, um, Tucayo, it might be true that WE could recognize them, but a completely new user NOT.
 * 16) If your like me you'll click on it anyway. Curiosity killed the user... Per all.
 * 17) Per all. Yes, all. Every single one of them. ALL of them! PER ALL!!!
 * 18) - Per all.
 * 19) Per all.
 * 20) Per all.
 * 21) - Never used that, but this would justify the odd purpose for those boxes. Per All.
 * 22) - There is no reason for this template to exist. Per all.

Oppose

 * 1) - Stupid, annoying, pointless. But that's never been a great reason to remove something.
 * 2) - Your case is one in a million. If you are smart enough you can see they are fake. They are a joke, have some sense of humor.

Comments
I just went under the the tedious procedure of digging through all our proposal archives to find the proposal that addressed this issue earlier. It can be found here. This new proposal might be a good way to double-check if the points made in the past still are valid in the eyes of today's userbase. -

It should be called "Enforce the Rule" proposal, like how there is the "Enforce the No-Sig policy" proposal. Anyway, it's easy to tell between a fake message box and real ones, but fake message boxes are annoying still.

I saw a TON of sysops with them though. Tucayo for one, but there was alot more "contributive" people who had them.


 * @Booderdash: Sorry to say this, but try to get your facts straight before saying that. First of all, Tucayo is not a Sysop anymore. Second, not a single Sysop or Patroller has that up on their User Page, as I just went through the list. And, I mean, the more contributive people that have it, it goes to like "Special:Mypage" to where it is not as bad as other things it could be. BTW: My opinions are made clear in the proposal before that Edo linked.


 * Baby Mario Bloops, he had it when he was STILL a sysop though. ANd I remember some other people who had it.
 * @Booderdash: Yeah, I realized that. Also, I made it clear that you point out had. Many users have removed it after the first proposal, and yet some still keep theirs. This proposal is a enforcement to make sure that all those fake message boxes get removed.
 * Most of the users didn't hear about the proposal, especially the new ones. I was inactive during the time. Also Ks3, how could Blof make you remove it? You didn't have to, at least yet, but she asked you to.
 * Meh, I kinda liked those boxes. Its mostly just a rickroll but much more harmless. Its a sophisticated kind of humor.
 * You have a rather uncommon definition of "sophisticated humor". -
 * Probably, yet then why is rickrolling such a popular fad on most websites?
 * @Booderdash: I remembered she gave me a reminder or warning of some sort.
 * Nooope. I just told you to remove it.

Sophistication is in no way proportional to popularity. Those two things are entirely different values. On the contrary, actually; Sophisticated humor tends to reject the majority of people. Therefore, most popular jokes are those that are more rudimentary. But this isn't subject of this proposal. -
 * I still don't see whats so bad about it. I mean especially if you just changed it to Special:Random or something like that. I would get how getting transferred to another website might irritate you, but if you just stay on this site, I would think its ok. Besides some of you guys are taking it way too seriously. Its just a harmless joke especially if it doesn't lead you away from this site. The deleted page archive in MY opinion is much more unfunny than the fake message box.

Many people have even said my fake template is really funny. And it is unoffensive. One link leads to a funny, UNOFFENSIVE page, and the ptehr one to Game Over. I don't see any harm in that.

Exactly what Tucayo said. There is absolutly no harm in this. Plus, it teaches a valuable lesson:Don't get too excited and click random things. That can get you viruses. Also, if you're running away from a giant boulder and you see a wallet on the floor, are you going to get it? besides if you were already on someones USERPAGE, you would probably be in a very social mood, which I would think tolerate fake message boxes.

Those fake messages do not cause harm, just some people can't take a joke. However, if the link leads to a screamer or a scary picture, or some meture contents, or something that harms your computer. It'll be a good thing to remove those. I only supported becuse it's a wiki tool.

It's a joke all right. It's funny the first time you see it. But once it starts pooping (haha) up everywhere, it starts getting terribly UNFUNNY and UNCOOL. And it NEVER makes me laugh or tricks me. I came to people's userpages to learn about the user, not to get "tricked". And "many people" is not "all people." If the message leads to somewhere funny, so be it. I don't care. I just hate to see that stupid, fake, orange box when I expect a new message.

Well, its ok if it doesn't make you laugh, its just a thing. You don't have to think its funny. You just have to leave it. Like your pooping joke wasn't funny, but I can still take it. The message can just lead to Special:Random for all I care. I just think its a bit childish to have a proposal to remove fake message boxes just because they annoy a few people. And i still can't get how its annoying. Is it like some people think babies are annoying? Anyways, I don't see how anyone could fall for it. Its just interesting to see whats on the other side of the link.


 * A few people? A lot of people get annoyed by it. And I intentionally meant "popping", but I had a typo and decided to leave it like that. And, like Edofenrir said, it's a way to mess with the wiki mechanisms, which makes us lose trust. And who doesn't like new messages? A lot don't like seeing the link go to another place when they expect a new message.
 * As I said, it is REALLY EASY to find out fake boxes.
 * True, but it still annoys me.
 * I know you did, but it was kind of a joke right? Anyways, i doubt anyone will lose their interest over wiki mechanisms from fake message boxes. besides if there is a real message, there would be two boxes on the screen and that is hysterical.
 * Oh yes, two boxes. So hysterical. Maybe later there will be three.
 * I doubt it. What person would be dumb enough to put 2 fake messages on their page?
 * Sarcasm, Booderdash.

If the links are so bad, well, I saw this thing called a fake-link, and if you just put a fake link, would that be as bad? That way, when you click it, nothing happens, which wouldn't lead you to another page or anything, because it does nothing! Am I right? :)

Well, that would piss people off, becuse they'd get all excited and go and click it... but nothing happens! Some people might think they're computers are malfunctioning and take it to the repairs and lose money.
 * Seriously, who would do that? To think their computer is malfunctioning because they cannot click on a link?
 * Proves my point, who would get angry at a fake message box that apparently doesn't even work?

Does this affect any other templates which are tampered with (Other then the character infoboxes), like the fake stub templates and the fake rewrite templates?

Change categories such as "Category:Beta elements" to "".
From what I hear, the beta elements pages were created because it was too difficult for the reader to find beta elements unless they were split out. This way, articles can be meatier and less forked, and readers can still find the relevant content. This proposal would affect all related categories and articles related to those categories such as Category:Glitches, and would result in the subpages being merged, such as Mario's Tennis/Beta elements.

Proposer: Voting start: 12 July, 2010 21:16 Deadline: 19 July, 2010 21:16

Support

 * 1) As the proposal creator.

Oppose

 * 1) Useless. How can an article have beta elements?
 * 2) Well, there is no point in changing the name by two letters, and merging the "subpages" would cause some pages to double in length with information that works well in separate articles. Also, it would take a good amount of time to move the information, the current setup has worked with new and old users, that is why this proposal lacks a point.
 * 3) - Pointless.
 * 4) - Per all. The current set-up works just fine.
 * 5) It'll just make it longer to tye in. Basically useless
 * 6) Per Baby Mario Bloops' comment.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) - This would be completely pointless. Per all.
 * 9) I am Zero! Very pointless and per all. Zero signing out.
 * 10) - Per all.
 * 11) - We decided in an earlier proposal that they would have their own pages.
 * 12) Per all.
 * 13) -Merging the pages is useless. The way the pages are now makes everything more organized and easy to browse through. Per all.
 * 14) - If this had been here when I first got my account, i would support. Now i know more, i've learned enough to know the answer should be no,it works fine. Per Pseudo-Dino, Not Bugsy, and 4DJONG.
 * 15) - Per all. If we made that it would be just history of pages we made.

Comments
Why?
 * This is one of the times I can easily say "Good Point" to you, KS3. We don't need the Articles with part as it is just extra and we don't need the extra.

Well, I concur with you both because the first two words in the proposed name are pointless.
 * Looking at Mario, size doesn't seem to be a problem with MarioWiki articles. To say that there is no point in creating a more concise article is absurd - it would factually improve them, and whatever ones aren't improved by the measure can easily remain split out on a case-by-case basis. The whole reason the split-off sections exist was to more easily categorize them. This, factually, solves the problem of categorization. Is it a problem if a category doesn't sport some amaazingly flashy name? - NARCE 04:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have made your assertion invalid.
 * Actually, it didn't, at all. The assertion was that we had to split these articles out because it was difficult to find such beta content/glitches/etc. This is an acceptable, logical fix to that problem. The proposal is to make articles like Yoshi's Island into a little more than a bunch of lists, which it currently is. Beta elements and glitches are two of the things that, if added, could make that article WAY more interesting. But as it stands, people have to navigate away from the page constantly in order to get a full experience. Splitting these articles out in the first place was pointless - changing categories and merging articles doesn't have to be done overnight, and can be done by multiple people. To the person who said that it would take longer to type in, that's simply not true. As it stands, if one searches for Glitches, they go to Category:Glitches. If one searches for Beta elements, they go to Category:Beta elements. Why would it have to change? If someone searches for Glitches, they can still go to the category. It would be no more difficult than if it stayed at the current title. Basically, the proposal seeks to have more concise articles, rather than have all of the sections forked off. And again, to the point that it would make them too big: I've never seen anywhere where someone would suggest forking an article off because of size. Mario is incredibly large, but no one has said anything. SMW2 is surprisingly small, and could be made larger if relevant content were moved back. However, there is no way to move it back, because of a proposal that argues that because the category is worded that way, content related to glitches or beta elements may not be in the main articles. As opposed to having a strong article, we have a weak article with two subarticles. It's silly. If the amount of effort required is a problem, I can do it all myself. It shouldn't matter if it's pointless if it doesn't affect anyone else, and the amount of time doesn't matter because I'm fine doing it over time. It is not as if the new proposal would confuse readers - they would surely adapt immediately. The only contention is the page length problem, and again, such a thing may be handled on a case-by-case basis. If it does indeed make the article too long, agreed, it should be split out. But for some content where it is just a few sentences, especially when the main article is small, then we ought to definitely merge it back in. As it stands, opposing the measure feels like opposition for the sake of opposition. - NARCE 20:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait a second. That doesn't sound right at all... Seriously, ARTICLES can't have beta elements. Name one that does.
 * Mario's Tennis/Beta elements

Well NARCE, there are no short game articles, and the situation with SMG2 could be fixed with adding more content, doesn't have to be Beta elements. Also, this would affect all game pages and glitches, if you merge the beta elements of one game with the games page, you have to do it with all game pages, some of which are rather long pages, and merging long pages with long pages makes monitoring the article a nightmare for Patrollers and Admins. Plus you say "it shouldn't matter if its pointless" but, it does, if you make a moderate article long through pointless measures, it is not necessary. If something is pointless it is not logical.
 * No, we don't HAVE to do it with ALL of them. That is broken logic that has NO place in an argument. If it negatively affects the quality of an article, then it can be avoided. Do you people not have guidelines? Policies and guidelines are two different things. Policies are to be enforced at all times, while guidelines are to be enforced when the situation calls for it. If a guideline would be detrimental to the quality of an article, it is to be ignored. But your stance is that because of the exception of articles, not the majority of them, that it should not be enforced on any articles. Mario's Tennis can use as much content as it gets, and yet we're forking the information off for no reason. And as for your argument that SMW2 [not G2] is not small, yes, it's not small by stub standards. But why is it shorter than the Wikipedia article? Logically, Wikipedia should have less content for its articles than a website that is focused on the related subject, true? - NARCE 02:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Well NARCE, we have to do it with all articles because it is one of our policies, ask Steve, and it would be very hard for anyone check for vandalism. Also, we do have guidelines but they are different from what you seem to think they are, I advise you to check over our policies. We can not simply ignore our policies, we have to follow them, and you say that it is "broken logic," then why is it a policy. I can not make this clearer, check over our policies again.

Stricter featured article standards.
From looking through some of the FACs, as well as some of the articles already featured, I've seen that not one article actually passes the criteria presented in MarioWiki's FA standards. Let's examine them, and let's use the most recent article - Mario Power Tennis - as an example.

  1. …be well-written and detailed. - Not the worst writing, but it could be improved significantly in both flow and how it presents itself. But the problem with this point is that it is not detailed. Gameplay and plot-wise? Yes. But it does not educate the reader of how it came into being, nor does it tell readers how much it sold, or how the critics received it.

  2. …be unbiased, non-point of view. - Not a major problem, but I did notice some instances where the writer[s] give their own POV, such as suggesting that Wario and Waluigi being injured in the commission of their evil scheme was unfortunate [whereas someone may object and say that because they only got injured by their own evil design, they got what they deserved].

  3. …be sourced with all available sources and Mario-related appearances. - And here's the kicker. Some may argue that it is sourced in that it has A source, but that's not acceptable. This criteria clearly expects an article to be fully referenced. As it is, almost every article fails this standard, save for some like the "list of Zess T. recipes", whose source is obviously the game.

  6. …have a proper lead that gives a good summary of the topic and can be used for the front page featured box. - The lead does not mention who created the game [the person, not the company], how well it was received, and mentions the Wii version as an important aspect, when the Wii version should be mentioned at the end, as this article is about the GameCube version.

  8. …have significant information from all sources and appearances, especially a biography for character articles. - Aside from development and reception info, it is fairly significant, but it fails this criteria in that it doesn't take from any sources.

Without any criticism of what is there - such as the bloopers, which, as a Wikipedian, I'm not a fan of them being there, but I do understand that this is supposed to be a "complete Wiki", and as such, they should be there - I can say that what isn't there absolutely guarantees that is is not ready for featured status. I think people take it too seriously - first and foremost, writing a quality article is priority over being praised for it. There are rules put in place to prevent people from successfully featuring more than three articles. Seriously - take pride in your work, not the award you get for it.

Proposer: Voting start: 12 July, 2010 22:42 Deadline: 19 July, 2010 22:42

Support

 * 1) As the proposal creator.

Oppose

 * 1) Useless, and thats way too strict. That would make us have to unfeature alot of our previous featured articles.
 * 2) - Everything you have proposed just now is basically already in the FA rules. The "problem" here is that FA nominations contain a voting process, and as such, they are subjective. The reason why these articles get featured despite their flaws is because there were, are, and always will be people who just aren't so strict with rules, and as such, are more indulgent with the nominated articles. Your proposal will not change the people's hearts, and therefore, it is pointless.
 * 3) - Nothing is ever perfect to everyone. That is why we have the voting system. If you do this, then it is like impossible for an FA to become a FA.
 * 4) What they're standards are fine.
 * 5) Per all
 * 6) Per Booderdash.
 * 7) Well, all of it is already in the the FA rules, and there are many people who are not as strict with the rules as you. Also, the rules are subjective with every article in the Wiki, every article has different problems and strengths, some are minor some major, there is a difference between what really needs to be fixed and what you can fix on your own. If there were only strict people running the process, there would be no featured articles, that is why this proposal is useless.
 * 8) The standards are perfectly fine...
 * 9) Per Edofenrir and Gamefreak75.
 * 10) - No featured article is perfect, and just apply these rules only lead that all our articles are horribly made.
 * 11) Per all.

Comments
Man, you make too many proposals x.x
 * You can never have too many legitimate proposals. - NARCE 16:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Legitimate"? What's wrong with the FA standards now? Have you really seen FA's that actually do not follow at least one rule? And of those articles, which of them are currently or have been nominated for unfeaturing? We don't need to expand the rules, we understand the rules, and we have a excellent rule system for FA's.
 * The problem with the FA standards is that people use a case-by-case standard that they wish to apply whenever a favourite game or character or element is up for FA. The FA standards are almost never enforced in any meaningful way. And it's "like impossible"? Why is it impossible, when it frequently works on Wikipedia? The nomination process is basically "do you like this character? y/n" for a lot of people who will vote the worst article FA if they like the subject. And to the notion that there is any problem with the defeaturing of the articles... how are articles helped by keeping them featured? Having such a mediocre standard for featuring encourages mediocrity. The voting system is easily fixed by removing it as an outright vote. I see peoples' opinions being removed by opposition because they argue that it has been already addressed or that their point does not matter. The whole process is ruthlessly stacked in favour of featuring an article. - NARCE 04:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed that NARCE has been making a lot of proposals and hasn't actually formatted them right.

I concur, and NARCE some votes are like that but, not all of the votes are like that. Most of the time I see a FA nomination it is full of meaningful votes.
 * Why shouldn't all votes be like that? This isn't a popular vote, it's based on the quality of the article. If we had 100 people vote and say "I sure do like Birdo, she's neat", by the current rules, it would pass, even if the article didn't fulfill any of the criteria once it was examined. The featuring feature will eventually be reformed. Would you rather it happen after we feature many more articles, or would you rather fix it as soon as possible? - NARCE 20:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, we have one support reason and a group of people who agree with it, and there are no votes against it saying that they hate the object in question, so this proposal is pointless.
 * Yeah. Good point. If more people are against it, then it cannot be enacted into rules. Because if we let the people vote on interracial marriage, I'm sure that the fact that the popular vote was against it wouldn't prevent it from being legalized. Correct?
 * You have a reason - doesn't mean it's a good one. Why don't I go down the list of what people say and I will gladly explain why they do not work in this.


 * "Useless, and thats way too strict. That would make us have to unfeature alot of our previous featured articles." - An emotional response, not a logical one. It is not too strict. It's adhering to the rules of the MarioWiki. This doesn't even need a proposal - it's already how the Wiki is supposed to work. However, because popularity determines quality nowadays, people ignore the rules to see that their favourite article gets featured. As it stands, it's not too strict because the way things are, it's WAY too lenient. To enforce these rules would make the situation exactly how it should be.
 * "Everything you have proposed just now is basically already in the FA rules. The "problem" here is that FA nominations contain a voting process, and as such, they are subjective. The reason why these articles get featured despite their flaws is because there were, are, and always will be people who just aren't so strict with rules, and as such, are more indulgent with the nominated articles. Your proposal will not change the people's hearts, and therefore, it is pointless." - Basically agreeing that the policies are taken into account. The proposal is not pointless, as clearly, if the rules aren't enforced, they aren't rules. All that would have to be done is for the people in charge to say "Hey, this article fails [so and so] rule, it cannot be featured despite votes." In doing so, the proposal is given point.
 * "Nothing is ever perfect to everyone. That is why we have the voting system. If you do this, then it is like impossible for an FA to become a FA." - This is clearly not true. There needs to be more effort in featuring articles. Heck, in looking at the lead for Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story, I notice some immediate flaws with the lead. And it's clearly not impossible by the fact that the MUCH stricter Wikipedia has thousands of featured articles.
 * "What they're standards are fine." - I'm not sure what this means, but I assume it means "What? Their standards are fine." To which I respond with no. I've done a bevy of examining, and I frequently see people defend themselves from criticisms of grammar. People get far too sensitive to criticism, and really should be tougher.
 * "Well, all of it is already in the the FA rules, and there are many people who are not as strict with the rules as you. Also, the rules are subjective with every article in the Wiki, every article has different problems and strengths, some are minor some major, there is a difference between what really needs to be fixed and what you can fix on your own. If there were only strict people running the process, there would be no featured articles, that is why this proposal is useless." - Perhaps there would be some awkwardness in the changeover, but your acts attempt to keep the quality of the articles down. With such low standards for quality - frequently I will see a vast majority of support from people based on the sheer size or number of images, and I will go through and notice typos, grammatical errors, etc. I understand that the editors are young - not to sound critical, as when I used to edit here I remembered there being a lot of people in their tweens/early teens. If we keep with lenient rules, without being more strict about quality, we encourage mediocrity. The harder we are on editors to provide quality in order to achieve something - especially something considered a high honour - the more people will work to improve. Really, in the end, it's the person expecting hard work and not the person protecting them from it that is helping. Improvement can only come from effort. - NARCE 02:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Narce, once again, you're mixing Wikipedia up with Mariowiki. The standards are fine for MARIOWIKI. The standards on wikipedia has to be higher because more people edit it so of course its going to need alot stricter standards. Not Mariowiki, and we don't even have 1/1000th of Wikipedia articles anyways. Our pages are usually shorter. Its like the Kirby wikia. They're featured article standard are MUCH smaller than even ours. Its relative
 * Our standards our excellent here. The problem is that we don't enforce them, at all. In allowing a system that focuses on votes, not actual statements, as well as the popular vote being able to oust the opposition if they so choose, it denies the ability to make a quality article. There is no encouragement to be found for people to improve themselves, merely celebrating mediocrity. Not to suggest that the articles are mediocre, but the fact of the matter is that they are far weaker than they can and should be. - NARCE 06:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

"sigh" The popular vote thing. Yeah, thats life. You think I don't know about it? But the good think is that it rarely happens here. Yes it DOES happen but rarely.

I concur, and NARCE, give me an example of a bad FA nomination that didn't take place years ago.
 * Half of the FAs that are going on? I went through the M&LBiS article, and found numerous errors in the first two paragraphs. - NARCE 21:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You edited the part that came directly from the instruction book, that's why.
 * And there was even a typo in that content.
 * Oh, thank you for reminding me. In the first two paragraphs of an article that was very likely to become featured was a copyright violation. - NARCE 21:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually Booderdash, the Kirby Wikia is going to have much higher standards, but probably a little looser than those of the MarioWiki since we are a smaller wiki.

Really you mean this?: this? That is WAY smaller than the Mariowiki! Or this- wikirby which is SMALLER than the wikia version!


 * Yup, there haven't been many Kirby games, so it's definitely smaller in size. And the first one. --

" And it's clearly not impossible by the fact that the MUCH stricter Wikipedia has thousands of featured articles."

It also is way older, has a much broader scope, is read by about 180+ millions people daily, and has about a million of users. Not exactly the best comparison. --Glowsquid 21:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Set limit of proposals by a certain user
Well, first of all, we have this for FA's, so why don't have it here? I now that will not convince you all, so I will detail it even more. Please, take this in count, this is nothing personal against anyone.

So, many of the proposals made are rather pointless, impossible, unprobable, or simply useless, so why not set a 2 proposal per person limit in order to avoid this? When one proposal passes/fails, then the proposer can propose another one. Simple.

Proposer: Voting start: 14 July, 2010 18:00 GMT Deadline: 21 July, 2010 18:00 GMT

Set proposal limit

 * 1) - Per me

Allow infinite number of proposals by a certain proposer

 * 1) Sorry Tucky, but this really doesn't seem necessary. Users may have a few good ideas at a time that they wish to propose. They could be restricted by the limit. I understand that they could wait, but limiting proposals wouldn't stop people from making fake/pointless ones. Also, if it is fake/pointless, it should be removed, and if a user continually makes bad proposals, they can be warned or banned or something. From what I see here, you are just fed up with a certain user who made a few "bad" proposals above. Also whether or not a proposal is bad depends on the opinion of the person viewing/making it. Sorry, no way.
 * 2) Thats not really fair or nesccary.
 * 3) Please don't compare proposals to Featured Articles. Proposals are an idea. Just because you think it's terrible doesn't mean that others think the same (such as the proposer of those). Besides, what's the point in setting the limit? It's bound to fail anyway. Besides, several people can think up of several well-thought out proposals that they don't want to forget and so they state that idea and see the opinions of the others.
 * 4) Proposals and Featured Articles are two different things, sorry. Per all.
 * 5) Sorry, but I have to admit you're overreacting. Per all.
 * 6) And I feel it's just a horrible idea. It won't solve any problem. Your comparison of Featured Articles to Proposals, first off, is a mistake in itself– "Featured Article" is pretty much just a status for an article that is well-written (it's also technically a sort of "Cheers!" to the users who helped the article rise up to F.A. status). Proposals are not some sort of status thing, and directly comparing it to FAs makes it seem like a status thing. What if a user comes up with an outburst of revolutionary, wonderful, magnificent, overbearingly awesome, spectacular ideas that they just to get out there? FAs serve for recognition. Proposals serve to make the general community come to make decisions in a more organized manner. If there are any bad proposals that are coming in, well, they'll probably fail. If not, then the Administrators can have one good look at it and make a decision. Seeing as we deal with quality of proposals already, there is no need to limit the quantity.

Comments
Using the FA rule as an example is terrible because the FA rule reinforces the notion that it is important to be acknowledged for your work with a gold star. - NARCE 17:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...shorten the proposals per user? Do you mean, when his/her proposal passes/fails, he/she can add a new one right? In that case, I'm with this. Some proposals are pointless. But FAs aren't the good thing to compare with this. Cause' there are millions of articles!
 * Exactly :) Also, NARCE, your comment makes no sense.
 * Good then, I'll wait til' tomorrow to vote!--Mr bones 18:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It makes no sense? Well, here's a q - what good reason exists to limit the number of FAs a person may have under their belt to three? - NARCE 18:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, here is the answer. There are so many articles here. If a user creates 10 articles a day. Wouldn't that be a disaster?

YOu don't understand, is the number of FA's you can nominate. Not "have under your belt", as they are not yours.

Do TPPs count?
 * Nope.

Whose Point of View is it Anyway?
It caught my attention that some level walkthroughs, bosses, etc. articles have it said in the players point of view (Then the player will need to.....), but on the Congazuma article it has it in the character's point of view (.....then Donkey Kong has to hit him in the head). So it comes down to this issue should we have all the articles at the character's or the player's point of view, or should we leave them alone, or do we do both?

Proposer: Voting start: 15 July, 2010, 14:00 Deadline: 22 July, 2010, 14:00

Leave them alone

 * 1) Per Walkazo's comment.

Keep Using Both

 * 1) I am Zero! Per Walkazo's comment, if you don't get "Keep Using Both" term then look at Walkazo's comment. And do you like my reference on the title! Zero signing out.
 * 2) Walkazo makes a great point. We only can use the character's name for articles such as any levels on Donkey Kong, But in articles on multiplayer games such as Mario Kart, we can use "the player"
 * 3) Either way works fine. Per all.
 * 4) - If it's an action the player is doing (pressing buttons, deciding to go somewhere, etc.) you use "player". If it's something the controlled character is doing (hitting an enemy in the head, climbing up somewhere, getting hit, etc.) you use the character's name.
 * 5) - Per Edo.
 * 6) Let's say you have the option to be either Mario or Luigi. You say "the player" which is easier than saying "Mario or Luigi." If there is no option (such as if you must play as Donkey Kong) use the player's specific name.

Comments
I think the games where there ARE alot of ranged gender character we can use "the player" but when its solely male or female we use the character.

I think a mix of the two is fine: multiplayer games need the option to talk about the player. For example, when you've got something like Mario Kart or Mario Party, you can't list off all the playable characters the text could apply to, and simply saying "the character" all the time would sound really bad. However, when you're talking about more conventional games like Yoshi's Island or Super Mario Galaxy, always saying "the player has to do this, and that, and then they face Bowser" starts sounding a bit too walkthrough-ish, whereas talking about it all using "Mario" as the vehicle sounds more like an in-game perspective, like the character articles (you definitely can't say "the player" when you're talking about what happened to Mario during Super Paper Mario, for example). So, by necessity the wiki will always have some articles saying "Mario/whoever" and others saying "the player", so for the pages where either would work, I think having the option to use both would be the best course of action. For one thing, it'll add variety to the writing: I've always found the presence of both "Mario" and "the player" in the same paragraphs much less repetitive, and therefore easier to read, than passages with only one or the other. And even if some people do find the duality distracting, as I said before, the wiki needs both styles, so really, having common ground utilizing both of them isn't inconsistent, but merely knitting the two halves of the wiki together. A voting option to keep using both should be added. -

If we use "the player", then we have this pronoun problem of he/she. Case right here: "The player has to do this and that, and then they face Bowser." If we use Mario, we can always use he.

Zero: Anyways is not a word. Change it to anyway.

That's why I use "players" on Wikipedia. ie: "Players have to do this and that, and then they face Bowser." - NARCE 03:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I am Zero! @LGM oh whoops, I tried to make a reference to Whose Line is it Anyway? and probably thought it said "Anyways". Zero signing out.

One thing we'll have to be careful about is that some mainstream games such as Super Mario Bros. have different characters the player can choose.

LeftyGreenMario: It actually is acceptable to use "they" when talking about a singular player (or another gender indeterminate title). There was a discussion about it last year when we decided to stop using "he/she", after a sockpuppeting troll suggested we simply use "he" to refer to players (but obviously, that didn't go over well). You can see the cancellation of the proposal here, but the idea to use "they" did become policy. (However, I'm not sure if we unofficially decided to do that as a result of what the proposal brought to light, or if there was another proposal about it at a later date - it was too long ago...) -
 * I know "they" is becoming more acceptable in everyday writing and speech, but I feel that we should steer clear of the word when it refers to one unspecified person. It's not correct in everyone's eyes. My teachers don't accept it and I don't accept it.

Wait, this brings up something. If we do The Player, shouldn't that be consistent throughout it? Not saying He/She unless its a ranged gender game? Since both Mario and Luigi are male it should just be The Player the entire time through. Same with Princess Peach, shes only female.

Case in point sometimes things will look like this:BJAODN/Other

My opinion would be to use neither. The walkthroughts are just that -walkthrought, trying to peper them with this kind of faux-narrative is cheesy and unnecessarily wordy.... but I'm sure not many will agree with me. --Glowsquid 12:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

?So then what do we write if we use neither?

Err, now that I reread the proposal, I'd say the character pov should be used for Boss articles. Buuuut, levels which have walkthrough in them (ex Hooktail Castle) should just state the action directly ("Hit the switch, then enter the room"). Things like "From X character point of view" are just baddly-writen word cruft. --Glowsquid 16:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Wrong. That's an imperative sentence. We can't use imperative sentences. Imperative sentences have the hidden "you".
 * And you say you're bad at english. I don't even know what imperative MEANS!
 * I didn't say I was bad at English. I just said that I don't know how to write the language. Imperative sentences are orders, such as "make Wario lose!" or "destroy Wario!" They have a hidden you. The actual sentence is supposed to be "You make Wario lose!" but we can omit it in English.

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.