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 with the signature code (~).

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) At the deadline, the validity of each vote and the discussion is reviewed by the community.
 * 10) 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.
 * 11) 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.

The times are in EDT, and are set so that the user is more likely to be online at those times (after school, weekend nights).

So for example, 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 indeed a minute later, the deadline is a day plus 15 hours (Sunday), as opposed to a day minus 4 hours.

CURRENTLY: , 28 2024 (EDT)

New Features
None at the moment.

Poorly Written Articles
Now and then, certain users (usually noobs) will sit down and write up a poorly written article. Sometimes these articles aren't about valid subjects, and get deleted quickly, but what should we do if the subject is valid? Take the article In the Clouds for example. It's a level in Yoshi's Island DS, and qualifies for its own article, but the article itself, while not a stub, is atrocious. It makes the wiki look like a joke, and it amazes me that the author has the reading skills to even navigate the internet and come here (no offense). I can't bear to actually read it, and it's just gonna sit there and rot with a rewrite tag until someone comes along and does a proper write up.

What I'm wondering is if we should delete these poorly written articles. This sort of thing is different from stubs, which may actually contain decent grammar, and may just need expanding. Even if they do get a rewrite, poorly written articles will likely be started over from scratch, and the original context would be lost regardless.

Proposer: Booster Deadline: April 10, 2008, 19:14

Delete Poorly Written Articles

 * 1) Booster: Per my statement above.

Repeated Images
Me and Stumpers discussed about Repeating Images on articles. On the article R.O.B., at one point, there were two Brawl artworks on the same page. That was soon changed by a sysop. However, in picture galleries at the end of the article, as Stumpers said, "is really great for seeing how the character has evolved". I agree with that statement. Since there are yet no official rules about repeating images on a single article, this proposal will hopefully make it clear. However, this means two pictures on one article. Three or more is redundant, and makes the article quality go down.

Proposer: Deadline: April 3, 2008, 17:00

Repeated Images on Articles

 * 1)  Per what I said above. Sometimes you just need the same pic in two places.
 * I don't see a problem with it, and indeed, seeing how the character has evolved is good. And the same picture twice in one article doesn't even take twice the time to load, right?
 * 1) Per myself and Garlic Man.  That's my understanding, too, Time Q.  If this doesn't pass, though, we can alleviate this problem by replacing official art in the biography section with screenshots, moving the artwork to the bottom.  That would be more applicable IMO anyway, since the section is on the character's actions rather than his/her appearance.
 * 2) Princess Grapes Butterfly Per all I agree!
 * 3) Walkazo - I don't see a problem with reusing images as long as they're in large articles that have enough other images to offset the repetition (otherwise it might look a bit lazy on our part).
 * 4) No reason not to. It doesn't  waste that much space, only a little bit. Plus some images in the gallery also have a place on the page.
 * 5) Per all, and see my comments.
 * 1) Per all, and see my comments.

No Repeated Images

 * 1) - Meh, I see your point, but there are probably already too many images on the major pages as it is.
 * 2) Fixitup - It's a waste of space, and a waste of perfectly good and usable images otherwise.
 * 3) As long as I've been here, we've always gone by an image is in an article once and thats it. I also agree with Fixitup said, so per him (or her).

Comments
Wait wait wait... I don't seem to understand the proposal. Do you mean the same pic on, say, the top and then again on the bottom? Or something else...?


 * Well, anywhere. Including the gallery, the main image, and images throughout the article.
 * Hmm... Then I must disagree. See my reasons above.
 * I don't think we'd ever have an image up three times, though. 23:03, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
 * You say it'd be fine if an image was repeated twice at the most. By opposing, however, you say that an image must not appear more than once in an article. It seems to be a contradiction. If you support, you don't support the idea that an image may appear three times in one article, but only that it may be repeated. To make it clearer, perhaps Garlic Man can modify the proposal's description, in the way that even if the supporters' side wins, an image may only appear twice. 'cause three times would definitely be too much imho. 07:43, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
 * You have a point. I'll remove my vote for now, because there is no place for me to vote. If there ever is, I'll move it there. ;)
 * Sorry, Infected Shroom. You're right, my proposal was not very clear. Twice is the max, and only twice. Three times is over the limit. I have changed the proposal slightly as well. I hope this helped.
 * Alright. Thank you. ;)

Fixitup: please explain your vote. What do you mean "a waste of perfectly good and usable images otherwise"? It's not like an image has a limited number of uses allowed. And Toadette: what's so great about one of the image per page, even it's been that way since you came. 20:44, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Well, if we add images twice, the bandwith is slowly depleted away, and that is what keeps the site up.
 * Toadette, "As long as I've been here, we've always gone by an image is in an article once and thats it." is not a valid oppose; if it has been, that's what the proposal is trying to change. Also, it's not a waste of space. It's useful as a visual aid. It's not like we're putting a bunch of images on the page just to make it bigger.
 * I also put "Per Fixitup". =)
 * But Fixitup's vote doesn't make sense either. "A waste of perfectly good and usable images otherwise." That makes it sound like the images can only be used a limited number of times. You're not "wasting" the images in any way. They're still good and usable.

16:49, 31 March 2008 (EDT) Are we talking about screenshots or artwork?
 * Mainly Artwork, I think. Although screenshots could apply, I guess. Why?
 * Because reusing screenshots is overkill. Seeing the same artwork is bearable, but using the same 'shot twice is uncalled for, there's no good reason for it (whereas the "seeing how characters change over the years" example for repeated artwork is perfectly valid). One could argue that sprite evolution could serve a similar purpose, but that's as much a result of technological advancements than the creative process, and there are much better places on the Wiki to illustrate that then the character galleries. - Walkazo

Well, IMO, artwork should go on the top of the page (in the infobox) and in the gallery at the bottom, but not in the article. I believe screenshots should be spread throughout the article, not artwork. Just my opinion. I mean, Artwork merely shows what the character looked like in the game. The screenshots in the article should show what the character did in the game/show/comic/whatever.

I agree that artwork within the article should be used in the gallery again to show the character's development. But I think we should limit the number of artwork per game. For example, Princess Peach's gallery uses 11 (!) pictures from Super Pricess Peach, I don't think that this points the development up. --Grandy02 07:49, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
 * Whoa! Once again DP you put my thoughts into words.  I wasn't sure how to say that, but you hit it on the head.  The artwork doesn't always show the actions being described, right? Grandy02: The proposal won't change that there are still 11 artwork pieces from SPP on Peach's page, but you're absolutely correct.  In the future, we may want to limit massive amounts of images like that to the game page itself, but like I said, this proposal isn't going to affect that one way or the other.  14:38, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Great minds think alike, don't they, Stumpers? =P Its why I jokingly stated we were brothers on Userpedia. XP Anyway, I'd really like to see limitations on artwork from the same game. The amount of SPP artwork on Peach's article is... Its overkill, definitely. That artwork belongs on the Super Princess Peach article, IMO. Maybe we could make another Proposal about that...? Oh yeah, I forgot to vote on this one! XP Scratch that, my opinion doesn't fit into either of these choices, sorry...

Merge the Donkey Kongs
I think we should merge together Donkey Kong & Giant Donkey Kong. They have no difference. Just Giant Donkey Kong is giant. That's the only difference. Donkey Kong is a regular version of Donkey Kong. So, uh... DK is little, Giant DK is big. Merge them? Since they're the same characters?

Proposer: Deadline: April 9, 2008, 17:00

Merge Them

 * 1) I'm the editor, so I believe they should!

Do not Merge them

 * 1)  ...But my reasons were given here a while ago, before you made this proposal.

Comments
Uh... 8-Bit Donkey Kong currently redirects to Donkey Kong, ever since March 1. Does this proposal have some meaning?
 * Yeah, why the proposal?

Lemme change it to something they're DISCUSSING!

Do ya want ME TO DELETE IT? It seems pretty useless now...

Damsels
After making a template on the "damsels" in the Mario series, Coincollector brought up an interesting point to me. Why did I put males in the damsels template. I had always thought that damsel meant "someone in need of rescue", when in fact (I looked it up) it generally means a "female in need of rescue". I had then thought of the Damsel Category, and how a lot of male characters are listed in it. So, here's my proposal:

Because of vocabulary mix-up with the category, I believe that the category's name should be retitled to a more fitting phrase/word (such as, Category:Damsels). It isn't a huge change, but it is a confusing thing. Like Coincollector said: "Why do you put masculine characters in the 'damsels' template? Are they 'ladies'?".

Proposer: Deadline: April 6, 2008, 15:00

Name Change

 * 02:09, 30 March 2008 (EDT) Booster has been removing that category and replacing it with a template of "hostages." I think a category for that would be good, too.
 * 1) per Stooben Rooben.
 * 2) See comments below.
 * 3) Walkazo - A hostage is a person "held by another as a pledge for certain conditions to be fullfilled", criteria that does not apply to most of the characters currently in this category/listed in this template. "Characters in Need of Rescue" may be wordy, but at least it's accurate.
 * 4) Damsels... AWKWARD! But anyway, per all.
 * 5) Princess Grapes Butterfly Per all (Doesn't hostage mean captive?)
 * 6) Per all.
 * 1) Per all.

Comments
Uh, not sure whether I understand this proposal. Correct me if I'm wrong: There is no Damsels category anymore, only a Hostages category. Do you still want to rename it to "Characters in Need of Rescue"? 06:58, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

According to my dictionary, "damsel" just means a youg, unmarried woman. "Damsel in distress" means a woman in need of rescue. And plus some of the characters are male, which is against the definition. So the name should be changed, I'll vote. 08:44, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
 * But... the category isn't called "Damsels" anymore. Or am I wrong here? 08:50, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Somebody already renamed it. :P MarioGalaxy2433g5   {Talk/Contribs} 09:15, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Yeah, both the template and the category. So as Time Q said, by default this proposal is about changing the name "Hostages" to "Characters in Need of Rescue" (hopefully for both template and category, for consistancy's sake). - Walkazo
 * What's wrong with "hostages"? - 10:53, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Hostages doesn't really sound right. Hostages is more like by professional kidnappers or something. But it's fine. It's "damsels" that I voted against.

15:15, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
 * I agree, "hostages" doesn't sound right to me either (though perhaps only a native speaker of English can judge that). The term "hostage" implies that there are conditions to fulfill so that the captive will be released. Which isn't the case with every single "hostage" on that list, I think. 14:16, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Yes, per Time Q. That's what I meant.

15:15, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
 * I am not going to vote on this proposal, but rather I will sugget something else entirely. "Damsels" could be confusing to some people so no category should be named that, but "Characters in need of rescue" is far too long to be the name of a category.  There are already so many categoryies already, so I propose that we just get rid of the category altogether.  I know the category doesn't exist as of now, but why create it at
 * Category:Hostages does exist. What about calling it, uh, "Kidnapped Characters"? How does that sound to native speakers? 14:50, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Evidently a lot happened since I was gone. Okay, so let me try to get this sorted out. I didn't expect the Damsel Category to get changed while I was gone, (which is evidently why I made the proposal). The original "new" title I came up with is WAY too long, but it was all I could think of in the time I had to write it; that's why I changed that particular part of the proposal. So, Time Q: The category should not be retitled Category:Characters in Need of Rescue, because it is too long. Since Booster changed it to Hostages, that's an improvement. Although I have to say that that's still not quite right. Possibly, the category's name could be changed to Category:Captives; that term is more fitting. Definition: One that is held against his/her own will. I've spent all morning looking up synonyms and definitions for "Hostage", and "Captive" is the best one I can find. (Thanks to PGB for the idea.) And, as was discussed earlier, "Hostage": Definition: Victim of a kidnapper who will be returned via the payment of ransom. So, grammatically speaking, the best category name we probably have is Category:Captives.
 * The only problem with Kidnapped Characters, is that it conflicts with hostage. Kidnappers usually want a ransom, and (although I've never played all Mario games), I don't remember any of the captives being held for ransom. Bowser usually steals Princess Peach, because that's what he does, not because he wants one million coins in return.
 * Captives or kidnapped characters. Just not hostages. They're both good, kidnapped doesn't usually mean held for randsom. Nintendo even uses that word in game booklets and stuff. So either one's good.

16:54, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Once it pulls through, we should probably let a 'Crat decide which title would be more fitting.
 * Well, technically, Category:Characters in Need of Rescue isn't as long as some categories. Category:Characters who break the Fourth Wall, Category:Characters from other Nintendo games, Category:Characters who have kissed Mario, and many others are quite long. So maybe that would be the best term, since it is accurate.
 * The problem I see with "Captives" is that it would also include people put in prison. Don't know if there are any in Marioverse, but that's definitely something else than a character "taken away" by another character. "Kidnapped Characters" would limit the category to characters, so Subcon (species), which is currently listed as a "hostage", would not fit in anymore. If we went for this name, we should simply call it "Kidnapped". "Characters in Need of Rescue", well, aside from the "character" point I mentioned above, is long, but I don't think it's too long (see the examples Stooben pointed out). A shorter name, however, would be better imho. 07:18, 1 April 2008 (EDT) Have we ever thought such a long time about a category name? ;)
 * Mmm...good point. So, in that case, it should just be retitled Category:In Need Of Rescue, if I'm not mistaken.
 * For me, "in need of rescue" sounds like that they are still held captive, while "characters who have kissed Mario" uses past tense. - 15:22, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
 * How about "ones who have needed rescuing", or something similar to that?
 * Oh, well then you're thinking of just plain, "Rescued Characters" 19:08, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
 * Basically.
 * Well, I guess just "kidnapped" is good. But "captives" is better, I don't think being in jail means being held captive.
 * Actually, I like Stumpers' idea better. It's like Cobold said; if it's not in past tense, it means they still are.
 * I've got it. "Characters who have been held captive". Is that good?
 * Once again, it's a bit too wordy, and it basically means the same thing as Stmpers' idea anyway (unless there's a Mario game/TV episode/etc. that ends with someone in captivity who never appears again). - Walkazo
 * Yeah. So far, any character held captive has been returned. I'm good with Rescued Characters. Or Rescued Captives, because you don't have to be held captive to be rescued. Just my opinion.
 * Just the thing is "rescued characters" or whatever sounds like some captives were rescued and some weren't. Long category titles are fine. I think "Ones who have been held captive" is good. Like we've said, there are some other categories with slightly lengthly names.
 * Okay, after long pondering, I've got it figured out. We can't do "rescued characters" because things (like the Super Happy Tree) have needed rescuing, and they're not characters. And then, there are certain characters (like Koopley, who is not in the category), who haven't been held captive, but have needed rescuing; so "captives" doesn't work either; not all who have been rescued are captives. However, "rescued characters" can't mean that some were rescued and some weren't because there is no "characters that still need rescuing"! So, in turn, the best, or rather, most neutral way to name the category is "ones that have been rescued". "Ones" can be characters, and plants; "that have been rescued" is in past tense (also "that" instead of who fits the situation better). So, the name, no doubt about it, after pulling out all minute details, should be called Ones That Have Been Rescued!
 * To be honest, that sounds very artificial. Why not simply "hostages"? - 10:02, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
 * We already ruled that one out because people like Peach weren't kidnapped to trade for something, etc. A better word would be Imprisoned, which not only means someone/thing detaned in custody, but also one restrained or confined in any way. Koopley and the Super Happy Tree would fit into this category, it doesn't sound like a totally fabricated name, and it can mean both past or present captivity, so in the event someone is captured and not released, this category will still be valid. - Walkazo
 * But "Ones that have been rescued" doesn't work for the same reason we can't do "rescued characters". It sounds like at the beginning, everyone was being held captive, and some were rescued and some weren't. Can't we just do ones that have needed rescuing? I don't see a problem with it.

18:33, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.