MarioWiki:Proposals

List of Talk Page Proposals

 * Merge Hootenanny with Wiggler. (Discuss) Deadline: September 26, 2014, 23:59 GMT
 * Merge the Mario Kart 8 DLC Pack articles with Mario Kart 8 (Discuss) Deadline: September 30, 2014, 23:59 GMT
 * Delete Gallery:Super Mario. (Discuss) Deadline: October 1, 2014, 23:59 GMT
 * Delete List of allies. (Discuss) Deadline: October 8, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Writing Guidelines
None at the moment.

Create Separate Articles for Smash Fighters
This is an idea I had, and it's to cut back on the more lengthy articles like Mario. The Smash section for him is cluttered with his moves, Solid Snake convo and Subscape Emissary role, and I feel like it's a little too much. The Smash Wiki has an article for Mario in each different Smash Bros., so I kind of had the idea we could create a Mario (SSB) article where we can go more in depth about just his Smash Bros. roles; moves, trophy, stickers etc.

This would apply to other Marioverse characters in Smash, and doing this would cut back on the length of these already massive articles. It also allows us to redirect the Smash Bros. section for the Koopalings to Main Article: Bowser Jr. (SSB) without having to go into depth about Ludwig's moveset on his own article.

I figure this would only apply to Marioverse characters, as it's not like Link's or Pikachu's article needs to be reduced in size.

Proposer: Deadline: September 24, 2014 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) It'd offer a much neater look to the Mario, Bowser, Peach articles. I'd say it's worth a try.
 * 2) It seems like a useful idea to save on space, and we already have things like gallery and quotes spun off into their own pages.
 * 3) that seems legit :/

Oppose

 * 1) Very pointless, they are the same thing.
 * 2) Most characters' sections aren't even that large, comparatively or otherwise. Besides, what about non-Marioverse characters who've appeared in other media, like Link or Kirby or Samus Aran? Where will you draw the line to say which articles deserves to be split and which don't?
 * 3) This sort of thing is best kept on Smashwiki, and by going into more smash related stuff some characters would have hardly any info on them because they only appear in a smash game. Creating one article for all four smash games also isn't that great of an idea, as all the different games would have their information cluttered and split, making it confusing for readers. Also, the name Mario (SSB) would be going against the rule of not using abbreviations.
 * 4) I don't understand why exactly the Smash Bros. series needs the split. The Codec part can probably be split from its main article, each special move can go further into detail in another article. There's no need to split off Smash Bros. Smash Wiki splits the articles because the wiki goes far into depth about character move properties, how effective the character is overall, and other technical stuff we don't cover. We cover the basic stuff, and that's not so much we need to split it.
 * 5) The Mario article is inevitably huge; but as Time Turner said, we have non-Mario articles like Link, R.O.B. and others that would be comparatively weird to have an unnecessary other article for SSB. But why does Ludwig (and the other Koopalings, I guess) have his own section? It is really Bowser Jr., right? Per all.
 * 6) I know Smash wiki does it, but hey, its still the same charecter and who cares if the article is huge!
 * 7) Per all. And I would like to remember we already have links to every SmashWiki page, so they can be checked. And why can't you go depth directly in the article?
 * 8) I agree that some of our more popular articles could stand a trim here or there, but I'm not sure splitting articles up into smaller articles is the way to go about it, especially considering the snowball effect it will create. If it's simply a matter of trying to shorten articles and save space, I would think cutting down the offending sections and truncating sentences when able (both of which are supposed to be standard editing practices) would be a more succinct way of doing that, and that's the method I favor.
 * 9) - The SSB clutter has always irked me to an extent, but it would be better to just move the Codec and Special Attacks sections to the "List of Profiles and Statistics" subpages that we've already created for the longer articles.
 * 10) Per all. Again.

Comments
@Tsunami We don't really cover the technical things as, for one, it would make the section really long, but most of the terms (such as "Edge-guarding") could be considered "fan-made names". Plus, we don't really cover things like Hitboxes largely because, well, we aren't Smashwiki, our policy is different to theirs. - 01:26, 18 September 2014 (EDT)
 * Okey dokey. Thanks a bunch for the clarement :) Since our policy is different, I then don't see the point of following their. Maybe, if ever Smash Bros. will become complex over years, I will support this.

@Randombob-omb4761: I take your point, but our inclusion policy has traditionally been interpreted as "more articles are better than less articles, if we can pull it off." -- Ghost Jam 22:05, 18 September 2014 (EDT)

About the special moves, couldn't we just go back to having separate articles for them? A lot of the reason behind the merge was to minimize Smash Bros. coverage, and there was also talk of stubs being created (which used to be a very scary word). The stub argument is tosh for a bunch of reasons, but the coverage of "minor" Smash Bros aspects is an interesting point that I've always wanted to discuss. We have several characters like stage-specific ones (Ultimate Chimera, Bulborb, the Great Bay turtle) merged, which is because of their small appearances. At the same time, we have SSB enemies like Mites and Like Likes that also have relatively small appearances but are still given articles because they act as full-fledged enemies. By that same token, the special moves are constantly used and being seen, and the wiki's certainly no stranger to giving articles to special moves. After all, giving them articles would clear up some of the section's clutter.

I've prattled on about a subject that I want to discuss with no real point other than that I want to discuss it. What exactly is and isn't "minor" to the point of not covering it is something that I always wanted to discuss. Anyone else wanna make sense of what I wrote and chime in with their own thoughts?


 * We used to have separate articles for every individual Smash Bros. move. Sometime during the release of Brawl, something happened that our policy changed, probably a proposal. I'm not exactly sure why though (guessing article lengths?) or if we could change our policy back. Thoughts?
 * We've overwritten larger polices that have lasted longer in the past. Besides, like Ghost Jam said, our policy has generally been in support of more articles if possible, and it's certainly possible in this case.
 * This, guys? 15:06, 20 September 2014 (EDT)
 * That's the same proposal I linked to in my second sentence.
 * I don't know, it looks like Paper Jorge overlooked your link. 15:18, 20 September 2014 (EDT)
 * Yeah, missed it.

New Article
I was reading New Super Mario Bros. Wii when it hit me. We should make an Article called New Super Mario Bros. (Series). I mean really, look how muuch installments we have in the series and new ones coming soon. Also, we have Mario & Luigi (series) article, a Mario Kart (series) article and a Mario Party (series) article. So why not we make one for the New Super Mario Bros. Series while it is a popular series. Also, it can provide editorial oppurtunities because millions play it.

Proposer: Deadline: September 30, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) I Support this Idea
 * 2) Per proposal. Why the heck not? I think it'd work pretty good.

Oppose

 * 1) - Pretty much agree with what Walkazo said below; the NSMB series is part of the main Super Mario series and should not be separated from the rest of the games just because the gameplay is different. With the sports series and the RPG series, they are separate from the main games, therefore being deserving of a separate article to list the games and details of the series. The main series page we have now is fine and works well.
 * 2) We're messing with the foundation of the organization of this wiki. This proposal opens up questions regarding other "subseries" as well, including Super Mario Land, Super Mario 3D "thing", Super Mario Galaxy, and other subseries like that. Your examples describe standalone series, and New Super Mario Bros. is NOT a standalone series; it's a subseries of the "mainstream" Mario platformers. If this proposal passes, we have to acknowledge the existence of this New Super Mario Bros. series, which means we have to reorganize the history sections of a whole lot of articles, reorganize the navigational templates, and other things. Consider, if the door to acknowledging Super Mario Land and Super Mario 3D "thing" is opened because of this proposal, that means further reorganization of the history sections. Call me a slippery-slope spouter, but the amount of supports already, I find kind of alarming, so I'm opposing immediately.
 * 3) The way our lists are currently set up (which, as Walkazo pointed out below, are a mess and in need of maintenance), this would require a little restructuring and will most definitely have a snowball effect on the rest of the series lists. There is also the matter of acknowledging NSMB as a serperat series, what a series is, does it mesh with our current archiving methods, what are the long term effects on the rest of the lists (the snowball effect I mentioned). As Mario put it above, we're messing with the foundation here and I'm not comfortable with messing with the ground we're standing on till I'm sure the house isn't going to fall down as a result. There are various things to consider here and I don't feel that a proposal is going to offer enough time or space to hash them all out. My recommendation is to identify the various issues people are going to have, discuss them with the community on the forums, then bring the agreed upon criteria back here.
 * 4) The New Super Mario Bros Series is a sub-series of a sub-series in a series, which the wiki currently doesn't find applicable of having a page. Changing this would, like the people above said, cause a chain reaction, and end up making a everyone confused as to what deserves a page or not. If you make a proposal on changing how the wiki deals with Sub-series of sub-series (such as Mario Kart Arcade) that sounds reasonable, then this would be a good idea. In other words, per all.
 * 5) - Per myself in the comments, and per above, and per past proposals and discussions on similar matters. The Super Mario subseries is best read about as a whole, rather than breaking it into chunks; keeping the overall subseries page but making a separate NSMB-only sub-sub-series page isn't a solution to that since it just creates redundant duplication of info. It could also have repercussions on how History sections and other aspects of the wiki are organized, but in these cases too, keeping Super Mario games together makes more sense than splitting them up or getting horribly nested sub-sub-sub-sections and whatnot. Plus, making one sub-sub-series page might lead to more and more getting made, when we should really be focusing on making the series pages we already have actually look good.
 * 6) Not that any of my votes matter anyway. What I would say has already been said. And in depth.
 * 7) Per all.

Comments
Haven't we been through this? - 22:22, 22 September 2014 (EDT)
 * Yeah, exactly, the problem is that NSMB isn't actually a standalone series like the examples listed - it's a sub-series of the overall Super Mario series, and thus, giving it a series page is actually something new and has implications for how we deal with the other sub-sets of Super Mario games. Will the original SMB games they get a series? What about how NSMB is basically just a modern continuation of the oldschool sidescrollers - is it really right to split them up? What about the 3D games, or will only the one with "3D" in the title get their own series page? And what are the implications for History section orders, templates and other wiki-wide organizational systems: right now, everything's pretty consistently going by the overall Super Mario series, and I'm leery of messing around with that. Plus, series pages are currently a mess anyway: I feel like it might be better to focus efforts on fixing up the existing Super Mario series page rather than making one or more new, smaller series pages that are basically just duplicated subsets of the overall series... - 22:46, 23 September 2014 (EDT)

Well, the Super Mario 3D series and the Super Mario Galaxy series are (currently!) just duos, but I'm curious about this; We don't have a page for this, and yet its amount of games are up to par with Super Mario Advance if New Super Luigi U isn't counted, and with the current number of Mario vs. Donkey Kong if it is. Is there areason for that? Especially because the SMA games are remakes with Mario Bros. stuck on. So basically, I can't vote yet.

Aside: Sorry for the premature deletion, everyone. Seemed like an open and shut violation to me and it probably would have been if a discussion hadn't broken out between us about this very subject at the same time. -- Ghost Jam 06:32, 24 September 2014 (EDT)

@Mario @GhostJam Erm... you two really have fear of changing some basics? I'm not blaming you at all, but I find it, like, a bit strange. Changing rules is a thing that sometimes in a project (MarioWiki, in this case) happens. By the by, I want to remember proposals can easily change from a win to a lose...
 * But wait, the Super Mario Advance series is just a remake collection. At this point, since NSMB series is, more than a remake, a (sub)series, what should we do? Delete that too? I don't understand the organization anymore. Please, explain it to me.
 * It has less to do with fear of change and more to do with apprehension over overhauling an already incomplete system. The fact that we only have one main-sub-series page is endemic of the problem and most of us just aren't comfortable letting it spread without having a discussion about the long reaching effects of such a change. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Ghost Jam[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 20:27, 24 September 2014 (EDT)

Look we made Subseries into pages such as Mario Kart, Mario Party, etc. and there is enough installments (5) so why oppose? And SMB, SMB2, SMB3 did not have the word "New" in their names so i am not saying "count them" i mean the 5 installments (NSMB, NSMBWii, NSMB2, NSMBU, NSLU) also this series is still pretty popular so let's do it when it is still popular.


 * @Tsunami Advance gets it own series page because it's just a remake series, not a new instalment in the Super Mario Bros. line like the NSMB games are.
 * @IggyKoopa777 Mario Kart and Mario Party are a completely separate and cut-off sub series from the Super Mario (Bros.) series, wheras the New Super Mario Bros series is a sub series of a sub series. Changing this would result in a lot of chages, and lots of them wouldn't make sense. If we take a while and work something out, then we can understand what would go where. - 08:49, 24 September 2014 (EDT)


 * @Ninelevendo What? Super Mario Bros. is a subseries? Of what? We don't have "Super Mario 2D (series)". Sorry, I don't get this at all. NSMB could also simply be a continuation of it. I recognize all pseudo-series as series, and the Super Mario series as a whole as a collection of them. I have confusion, so I will be neautral by not voting like BabyLuigi64 does.

@Iggy Koopa777 I should also add, Mario Kart and Mario Party are MUCH larger than NSMB, both have hit more than ten titles. The Mario Kart games reach a total of 11 games including arcade titles, meanwhile, Mario Party reaches 16, again including arcade games but discounting MP10. Therefore, the articles can be and are much more expansive. @Tsunami I think Ninelevendo is referring to how the Super Mario Bros. games are a subset of the Mario series as a whole.
 * And then, if the Super Mario 2D is ever recognized as a series (I know it isn't), where is it placed in the diagram I am starting figuring out? I'm thinking a diagram image should be uploaded to avoid confusion. Not the general one, we already have it. By the way, no, I won't vote again, but remain neautral.

Just a reminder that new comments always go on the bottom, lest this becomes a total mess. Anyway, as long as a set of games has three or more entries, it can get a series, that's not the problem here: the real question isn't "how much", it's "what". I.e. should a sub-sub-series of the Super Mario sub-series (of the overall Mario series) get a series article like its parent sub-series and other sub-series (like Mario Kart and whatnot), or is that going to cause organizational issues and inconsistencies between articles and series pages, duplication of information, and/or a snowball effect of sub-sub-series pages for increasingly blurry game groupings? I.e. should the original SMB games get a page too? Should SM64, SMS and the Galaxy games be grouped together as the more open-world platformers? Should the 3D games go with them because it's also 3D even if it's a bit more sidescrollery? If they make a third Galaxy game, will it get a separate series page? If they make a third 3D Land/World/etc. game, will it get a page? If they make a 3D Galaxy game then what do we do? And going outside the Super Mario games, should the three Mario Kart Arcade GP games get a page? Or the Super Mario Fushigi arcade party games? Do we really want to start prying open these cans of worms when the series pages we can agree on are already in rough shape? Anyway, the points about there already being a Super Mario Advance (series) are fair, and part of me feels like it'd be easier to just delete that page, but it's a bit different in that it's also got the Yoshi's Island remake in there, so it's not purely a subset of Super Mario-only games. It might be best to have a separate discussion/proposal about that series page... - 16:27, 24 September 2014 (EDT)

Removals
None at the moment.

Changes
None at the moment.

Active rewards
Well I was looking around the Pie for everyone joke proposal, and one of the comments said that a reward would be nice,just not pie.So it hit me why not have a rewards program. In witch active users get rewarded for being active, or editing the most or other things. The prizes witch would be given away buy the breuacrats and could be coustom userbok towers,a signiture makeover,and other little goodies.Some stuff would be easy while others chalanging tempting users to go above and beond. Proposer: (banned) Deadline: September 28, 2014, 23:59 GMT.

Oppose

 * 1) Systems like these, besides being annoyingly tedious to manage if not automated and very easy to abuse if automated, always encourage making minor edits across a large amount of articles, rather than putting time effort into a few. They tend to be counterproductive simply because people care more about the rewards than what they're actually doing to get those rewards. Simply put, it's not in our best interests.
 * 2) As some say, intrinsic motivation is a far more powerful indication you want to aid wikis than extrinsic. I can totally see people abusing this system just for the reward and never contribute to the site again. Furthermore, isn't SEEING a page look awesome already rewarding in itself? I certainly felt great when I fixed up Miracle Book and made it featured, as well as Super Duel Mode, shouldn't that be a reward in itself? In the same way modding the game doesn't get you any rewards other than people loving you for what you have done, same should apply to this wiki. We should edit and not expect a thanks in return (though it IS appreciated, I've felt great when other editors complimented my hard work). A simple compliment can make another user's day already.
 * 3) Not only would the prizes or requirements be hard to work out, but it would lower the quality of work in the long run. Instead of people putting their back into fixing articles or adding things, they'll only do whatever is needed in order for them to claim their reward, then leave the project afterwards.
 * 4) Per all. This means I got reward because I talk a lot and do some minor stuff. If the work is big, acomplishmemt is enough (so per Baby Luigi).
 * 5) Per Baby Luigi.
 * 6) - Per Baby Luigi and Tsunami. Edit wikis because you want to, not because you want to be rewarded.
 * 7) Per all. This could be used as incentive for people to work, but too much incentive in my opinion. Honestly, using this system, I should have a reward for finally making Iggy Koopa a featured article, or maybe my and Tsunami's hard work to get Lakitu featured, but I wouldn't care. Signature makeovers are something already doable on one's own time, and custom userboxes are (aside from friend userboxes) already done. Just look at Tsunami for a whole ensemble of 'em. :) Really, others may not care about the wiki and only want the rewards, which is not at all good when our goal is to be the best Mario series wiki there is. As that is the case, we can't be flooded with users who just want rewards.
 * 8) Per Baby Luigi. Editing a wiki is not something to get rewarded for. I'm sure most people who take the wiki seriously edit and help out because they just enjoy doing so.
 * 9) Per all. We've actually attempted this in the past (very early years of the wiki). What we found is that it breeds contempt between users, encourages shoddy editing and ends with us finding someone to babysit the system to avoid abuse. In the end, it was all way more trouble than it was worth. Further comments below.
 * 10) Per all.

Comments
Truth be told, we tried this more than twice and in various forms. First was an informal barnstar-type system where any users could award something of their choosing to another user they felt was deserving of a more robust thank you (some talk page archives for the oldest users still have a few of these left around, despite our deciding to mass delete them). This ended up creating arguments about who gave who what for what reason and then rivals handing out bad rewards ("You got the Garlic reward cause YOU STINK!" and other crap like that). This tried to evolve into a formal awards system that fell flat on it's face (partly due to left over hostility from the informal system, partly due to apprehension on part of most of the administrative team), which then became version one of the long removed Trouble Center (this one still bugs me, it had so much potential). Other methods have been discussed over the years, on all fronts. One might ask why these attempts keep falling through when larger wikis, such as and pretty much exclusively Wikipedia, don't seem to have this problem, or at least the problem is minor at best. I think it's because of the size of the communities in question. Wikipedia is pretty much a community of communities and, much like what happens in Vegas staying in Vegas, minor award based issues that pop up in various sub-communities are handled by those communities and maybe an ops if it's Friday and Jimbo has had a few. MarioWiki is a much smaller community and intensely more intimate when it comes to it's users. When Martha May Whovier next door gets a shinny new trinket fro her lawn, Betty Lou Who wants one too. But time has proven that we can't play nice about it, so let's just stick with what Walkazo and everyone else said above. -- Ghost Jam 14:46, 22 September 2014 (EDT)
 * Even when wikis like this become much bigger that its current state, I'd still be against a rewards system of any kind. You still shouldn't expect to edit wikis to get a reward other than just being a help. People who donate or people who volunteer don't do it for a reward, they do it because it's the morally right thing to do and the reward you get isn't material, it's an intrinsic happiness when you did help out. Feeling that the wiki needs you is certainly a rewarding feeling, and I don't want any sort of rewards. It WOULD be nice, I would admit, to have a virtual image of my star in my user page but I can most certainly live without one just as well. Reputation and this good feeling you get when you help out is more of a better reward than a material one. 23:46, 22 September 2014 (EDT)
 * If we could get people over the hump, so to speak, this all might have worked out better. There is a certain allure to having a system in place so we can send lighthearted gifts and heartfelt thankyous to different users for different reasons. It shouldn't be the only reason editors edit, but it's ok for a certain level of adulation to be a reason for doing something, so long as it doesn't become the reason and that's where our community issues started (or it all went ignored, such as with Trouble Center version 2). I'll be honest, if I could ACTUALLY give ever one of our major editors a piece of pie or a T-shirt, I'd do it. But all I can really give is my thanks and support. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Ghost Jam[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 01:05, 23 September 2014 (EDT)
 * Same here. I am doing a quite difficult and long thing because 1) It is important enough to be noted and 2) Since none did it, and I have some free time, why not? I also do thing for helping out and being rewarded by the nice look of the result, NOT for being recompensed (though Mario T-Shirts are always appreciated ;) . Why did I work to feature Lakitu? 1) It's my fav character, and I promised I would not let the nomination fail 2) Helping out to not make the nomination fail, since the article was in good shape. Aaaand... everything what I could say was already said by Baby Luigi. Speking of rewards, you can customize every template by copypasting and modifing the code. Points (just like reputation in some forums) could be an idea (and is the one that makes most sense), but this way the system would be too difficult to handle (still simpler of Pie for Everyone, how could one get pie if not American?). So, this is why the compliments are the best way to credit someone for their work, to feel like it's their own day (Baby Luigi's words). My day was Lakitu's Featuration.