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) At any time a vote may be rejected if at least three active users believe the vote truly has strong reasons supporting it. Every vote should have a reason accompanying it.
 * 7) " # " should be added under the last vote of each support/oppose section to show another blank line.
 * 8) At the deadline, the validity of each vote and the discussion is reviewed by the community.
 * 9) A user calls the result of the proposal and takes action(s) as decided if necessary, and archives the proposal.

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: , 27 2024 (EDT)

Re-Add Banjo and Conker Articles
I've been thinking about this for a long time, and this proposal is to gauge how users would react to the re-inclusion of Banjo and Conker info into the wiki. Banjo and Conker first appeared in Diddy Kong Racing, and their series developed out of that game. As such, Donkey Kong, Banjo, and Conker are believed to exist in a greater DK Universe (and an extension of the Marioverse). As we have been redefining our view of remakes, that they are not replacements but supplements to the originals, I feel Banjo and Conker should have a place here. Just because Diddy Kong Racing DS is a remake that removed these two characters does not mean Banjo and Conker don't have their origins in the Donkey Kong series. Ultimately, there are many reasons for their inclusion in this wiki, and many reasons for their exclusion. All are valid. I don't want to start any flame wars, and I do not want make this a big deal. Please keep all discussions about this respectful. I just want to see if a majority of users would like Banjo and Conker content reintegrated at this time, or if they do not. Somehow I feel this info will eventually become a part of the wiki, as they are part of the greater world Nintendo and Rare created out of the Donkey Kong series, but this may not happen for a long time.

Here are the details of the proposal that would go into effect:


 * Banjo and Conker related articles can be recreated on the wiki. First we should go through deleted edits to restore as much as we can, then start editing and creating articles like normal.
 * Banjo and Conker series would be added as Tertiary Importance to the Importance Policy.
 * Additionally, this proposal would also move all crossovers (including Super Smash Bros.) to Secondary Importance.
 * This proposal would also prohibit articles about the Star Fox series and Grabbed by the Ghoulies. Tricky from Diddy Kong Racing exists in a separate continuity from Tricky EarthWalker from the Star Fox series, although the latter is a out-of-universe reference to the former.  In Grabbed by the Ghoulies, no major characters return in a major role (there are some minor cameos, just as major Jet Force Gemini characters appear as cameos in Banjo-Kazooie, and Jet Force Gemini is not a part of the Banjo-Kazooie continuity).  This differs from Diddy Kong Racing, where Banjo and Conker were major characters who spun off into their franchises.

Proposer: Son of Suns Deadline: 20:00, 21 September 2007

Recreate Banjo and Conker Articles

 * 1) Son of Suns - I am the proposer and I have included some of my reasons above.
 * 2) Never thought they should have gone in the first place.
 * 3) User: Ultimatetoad (nope tiptup wasnt in pilot, but still....I agree with SOS)
 * 4) – Even if it is somewhat far-fetched, Banjo and Conker are part of the Marioverse and therefore deserve inclusions here.
 * 5) Per YY398. -- 14:59, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
 * 6) Per all of the above...
 * 7) -- Sir Grodus – Per SoS.
 * 8) Glowsquid While I don't belive Conker has enough tie to the Marioverse, I believe Banjo is related to the marioverse, see my comments below.

Leave Banjo and Conker Articles Out of the Wiki

 * 1) If we do that we would have arcticles on everything in the zelda series the metroid series and you get the idea....as they were all in Super Smash bros which is a crossover.
 * 2) per cobold
 * 3) Walkazo - As I see it, the Donkey Kong Series is a spin-off of Mario and therefore the Banjo and Conker series are spin-spin-offs. They're just to far removed from Mario to be included in Super Mario Wiki (in my opinion).
 * 4)  Per Cobold
 * 5) – most of both of these series is out of Marioverse.
 * 6) MarioWiki. Mario. Not Donkey Kong. Not Conker. Personally, I feel that extended universes should be limited to a single article per. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Chris[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 02:25, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
 * 7) After hearing that thing about Tiptup, I believe Banjo could make it in. Conker, however, has no relations to the series other than Diddy Kong Racing, and he was even taken out in the remake, meaning he has no real relations to the DK series, thus, no relations to the Mario series.
 * 8) - Conker's Bad Fur Day isn't a game that can be featured on a children's wiki, it has too many adult themes.
 * 9) per walkazo!

Cool User Lists
Many users have a section on their userpage listing other community members they like. Often there is unnecessary conflict and even (pardon) stupid flaming when a user removes someone from this list. I say we get rid of all of these sections – there's no need to hurt anyone's feelings over any one of these. True friends – online or offline – can't be simply added or removed from your life on a list. We have a good group dynamic overall in our community, so let's not wreck it. Another option is to rename & rephrase all these lists so they are neutral, such as "User Neighbors I Know", though removing users could still bring questions and trouble.

Proposer: Deadline: 17:00, 19 September

Delete Them All

 * 1) – reasons in description above.
 * 2) saying some people are cool and leaving some out is a recipe for bad blood.
 * 3) Bastila Shan You guys are right,
 * 4) Agreed, I removed my Cool Users list already.
 * 5) If the wiki had a few hundred active members, then I could see sections like these working. The way it is, no.
 * 6) Walkazo - Per Xzelion and Ghost Jam.
 * 7) - After reading the above... Per all the other dudes... *Goes to delete his*
 * 8) User:Fixitup - Makes perfect sense to remove them.
 * 9) Even a neutral one will one day cause a problem somewhere.
 * 10) Wayo is right. You couldn't believe how long I wiated to be in one,seems right not to make people do that like me.
 * 11) - i will remove mine right now. I agree fully.
 * 12) The K I agree. These lists might hurt someone's feelings.

Rephrase for Neutrality

 * 1) - per my comments.
 * 2) Zach121- I think that they should change the name to wiki friends
 * 3) -I'll just descibe if I met/talked to them and how I helped them or how they helped me.
 * 4) Change name like alll guys above
 * 5) -What's wrong with having one. Look at mine! Mine is neutral.
 * 1) -What's wrong with having one. Look at mine! Mine is neutral.

Keep As Is

 * 1) The only people who flame about these things are the people who don't edit.
 * 2) --Luigibros2 21:00, 13 September 2007 (EDT) As long as it ain't flameing or swearing at another user it's fine.
 * 3) – Cool User lists were made simply to list friends and make others feel liked. It's silly to start flame wars over them, and that seems like something very few people here would do.
 * 07:35, 18 September 2007 (EDT) Per Yellow Yoshi

Comments
Could we do something like, users we've come across? or at least something like that.
 * That would be the option "Rephrase for Neutrality". - 16:26, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

oh.....

While I agree that we should nuke the cool user list, I have the impression it would create a flame war as bad as the one over the removal of featured article. Thus, I'm kind of neutral on it. Glowsquid

I havn't seen a flame war, yet, but its stupid to fight over something like this!


 * Fg flamed Glowsquid in chat.
 * To be honest it doesn't matter if we rename it or not, everyone knows what is it, no-mater what the name, at this point renaming it would be useless.
 * Agreed. For something like this to work and not be a problem, we would need a far larger number of active users than we currently do. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Chris[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 17:46, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

can i do two? 0_o


 * What?

New Subject Articles
This proposal would put a bit stricter standards on what articles can be created on new subjects (i.e. those with the Newsubject template). While most are fine, such as the Super Smash Bros. Brawl articles, some are not. I am mostly referring to the mass of fan conjecturally named Super Mario Galaxy articles. Many creatures and planets are given conjectural names, despite the fact they may disappear entirely, or may never be officially named (the planets may just be a part of greater officially named galaxies, and should just be described in the galaxy article in the first place). This proposal would not delete all these articles. They will stay until they can be organized when Super Mario Galaxy and other games are released. However, if this proposal passes, all new subject articles will be regulated from that point on. The criteria would be that the subject must be officially named by some means. Although these names are still considered conjecture until the game is released, they are still officially conjectured names, and will have a name (even if it's changed) when the game is released. All other conjectural information that is not officially named should go in the unreleased game's article (or in the articles of species, characters, places, etc.). The information is fine, but it's not article worthy.

Proposer: Son of Suns Deadline: 17:00, 24 September 2007

Regulate the Creation of New Subject Articles

 * 1) Son of Suns - I am the proposer and my reasons are given above.
 * 10:04, 17 September 2007 (EDT) Here here, I've been wanting a crackdown on those Super Mario Galaxy articles for a long time.
 * 1) Per above. I also don't like this "cosmic species" concept, when it has never been said that the guys are indeed from a different species.
 * 2) Glowsquid Completly agree. I find ridiculous that we have an article on Cosmic Tox Box, which act exactly like a regular Tox Box, simply because it's appear in Super Mario Galaxy.

Comments
Again, I will note this proposal will not delete all these articles in one fell swoop. You can argue on individual talk pages if you think a certain article should be merged, and take action if there is a consensus. Or you can just wait for the game to come out before making changes. But if this proposal passes, we won't allow something like this Super Mario Galaxy article fiasco happen again. -- Son of Suns

Subsized Categorys
Every once in a while, a category that can have too few enteries shows up. Such as Category:X-Naut's Weapons (Though it's deleted), so I think that those should be prevented like stub articles.

Proposer: Lario Deadline: 20:00, 22 September 2007

Prevent Them

 * 1) This is important

Keep Them

 * 1) They are still categories. I think that stuff like that should exist if it's not only one article.  13:24, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

Comments
I think we should just do a case by case basis, like new articles. We ask: "Is there enough for its inclusion?" There's no way to prevent someone from creating categories - we just have to decide if they are needed when it happens. I don't think this proposal can do much, so I am not voting either way. -- Son of Suns
 * I agree. - Walkazo

Improvement Drive Idea
I think we should have a project similar to Featured Articles and the Pipe Plaza, where, instead of pointing out the best articles, we point out the ones that need Work, so users can all work on one project, instead of everyone editing the "featured article" status ones, and leaving articles like Doopliss un-edited.

The process would be similar to Featured Articles. We make a new page about the project, where we come together and list the articles we think are shortest, but have potential. Then, we might make a box on the main page to show what the article is. Each article will get one week on the main page, again, similar to Featured Articles.

I know no-one may say yes cause I'm not someone who edits, but I think this would help users, ecspecially new users, who may be nervous making an article. This does not mean we will have stub articles, and I frankly think this project will prevent them.

Proposer: Max2 Deadline: 20:00, 22 September 2007

Give it a Try

 * 1) Supporter, reasons given above
 * 2) Walkazo
 * 3) Sounds like a good idea!
 * 4) -Per Max2
 * 5) Minimariolover10 I agree. It won't fail. Plus, we have no idea what to edit, and recently messages aren't replying fast.
 * 06:57, 17 September 2007 (EDT) I'll help, it seems like a neat idea.
 * 1) [[Image:Triforce.gif|30 px]] CaptainN [[Image:Triforce.gif|30 px]] I think that would help!
 * 1) [[Image:Triforce.gif|30 px]] CaptainN [[Image:Triforce.gif|30 px]] I think that would help!

Nah

 * 1) These projects always seem to fail. I don't think we're ready for it yet.

Comments
Are you thinking about something like PAIR; or an Improvement Drive, where we pick one article a week or month, feature it somewhere and encourage all users to work on it? Or are you thinking something else? It would be nice to get a better sense of what you are thinking, cause I am all for helping users getting active and making improvements. -- Son of Suns

Yeah, an Improvement Drive. That's exactly what I mean!

Okay. I think you need to clarify some points. You should state above what this would entaiil exactly. For starters, you can answer these questions and put them in the proposal itself. Would users vote for an article to be improved (the one with the most votes gets featured)? Would the article be featured for a week, a month, etc.? And would the article be featured on the main page (like, This Week (or month)'s Collaboration is: so and so) with a link to that page? -- Son of Suns

Ok. Is this clarified enough? I added descriptions of the aspects of the project, how to set it up, and why I think it would work.


 * Yes. That makes sense.  One more question: would one of the secondary goals be to get improvement drive articles to FA standards, if the subject is notable? (An aside: even Doopliss is a notable subject - it could become an FA.) -- Son of Suns

Well, as most users say, the goal for every article would be to become an FA. i'm ont saying we only improve articles that can be FA articles, this is mainly just to cut back on stubs and short articles.


 * That makes sense. I wish you the best of luck with this project.  I don't know how I feel about this yet, as previous improvement drive/collaboration projects have failed.  We'll see what happens. =) -- Son of Suns

Mario Cartoons: Split Multiple Episode Pages
Some of The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! cartoon articles are seperated by what cartoon episode they appeared with, such as the article King Mario of Cramalot / Day of the Orphan. This proposal would split these articles into two independent articles. Each episode is independently named, and in re-releases of the series, such as on video and DVD, the episodes are often grouped differently from the original television release, showing that the pairings are rather arbitrary. While it should be noted what episode each one originally appeared with, I feel each cartoon should have its own article. It's strange having an article that is split in two sections that are basically completely unrelated.

Proposer: Son of Suns Deadline: 20:00, 21 September

Split these Articles

 * 1) Son of Suns - I am the proposer and my reasons are given above.
 * 2) Per Son of Suns;
 * 3) Agreed. They are two entirely differant episodes, with nothing to do with each other.
 * 4) Per all the ones on my side
 * 5) Walkazo - Per everyone above.
 * 6) – Per SoS.
 * 7) -- Sir Grodus – Per Son of Suns; The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3 articles are seperate, so I guess these should be too.
 * 8) Booster - Per everyone else. The two stories are unrelated. I'd be willing to fix things up a bit once this proposal goes through.

Keep them Merged

 * 1) For "cartoon-learners", I think the should only spend half the time, and I find it fine. Minimariolover10

Comments
Minimariolover10: Could you expand on your comment about cartoon-learners. Most of the Mario cartoon episodes were "half-episodes" (half of the half-hour show), but they all have plots and deserve their own articles. I couldn't even find an episode called cartoon-learners... - Walkazo

If this proposal goes through (and it probably will), I think that we should integrate the live-action segments from The Legend of Zelda cartoons into the chronology of the segments from the Mario cartoon episodes, like so:

And so on, meaning that every fifth segment would be from the Legend of Zelda, for a total of sixty-five segments. -- Booster
 * 1) Neatness Counts
 * 2) Day of the Orphan
 * 3) All Steamed Up
 * 4) Marianne and Luigeena
 * 5) Slime Busters
 * 6) The Mario Monster Mash


 * I just want to state this is not part of the proposal, but users can debate this issue on article talk pages (or here - whatever; I'm just saying any consensus reached on this issue is distinct from the actual proposal). -- Son of Suns

Recipes Pages
Almost all of the Recipe Articles are short and state:
 * What Game
 * What Effect
 * How to get the item
 * Picture

All which would be included in a table. Table shown here, Credit to SpikeKnifeNeedleSword for the design. This would work such as the Badges page. Lets face it they're too minor and too many of them.

Proposer: (started by ) Deadline: 17:00, 19 September

Merge

 * 1)  My Reasons are stated above.
 * 2) Bastila Shan Xzelion is right
 * 3) - Though items which can be gotten without cooking, such as the Boo's Sheet, should still have their own article.

Keep Separate

 * 1) Son of Suns - As officially named items they should be kept. They have just as much info as any other item in the series.  They are exactly the same as regular items: what game, what effect, how to get the item, and a picture.  Look at the Strange Leaf article, a normal item used for recipes.  It is exactly what is in a recipe article, or any other item article for that matter.
 * 2) - We have articles for other items, dont we? D:
 * 3) All items should get an article, since a lot of them can be gotten by cooking, AND by finding them somewhere not to mention some other reason... *Talks for hours*.
 * 4) Per SoS.
 * 5) Per that Pokemon
 * 6) – Per SoS.
 * 7) Booster - Per SoS. They qualify for seperate articles, as they are officially named, and they have different effects, unlike say Wario game treasures.
 * 8) Glowsquid - Per Booster.

Comments
Son of Sun: Your example would be a little more convincing if you didn't purposely choose a stub. For normal items, you can talk about were they are found, if they are revallant to the plot (Like the Dried Shroom) ,how you can obtain them apart for beating up random enemy, and how they can be used for cooking. For a recipe, you simply say which item can be used for cooking them and their effects, deffinately a table job IMO. Glowsquid

I think there's been some confusion between recipes and food items. As far as I know, Recipes are "Item 1 + Item 2 = Item 3", not the food items involved, which is what seems to be the common belief (Food Items are even categorized as Recipies, which makes no sence). I'll use the Dried Shroom article to highlight my point: The text part is about the item Dried Shroom, and the "Recipes" secion is a list of the recipes it's used in. Make a list of the recipes, but keep the articles about the items. - Walkazo

Look at the Shroom Steak article. There's numerous ways to make one. If we were to list all possible ways of making each item, the chart would be huge. Also, a list makes it harder to describe items in detail, such as is it worth the money to cook, or is it unworthy, and should only be made once just for the recipe log? Booster

There are problems on with both solutions. The current way, we have a high number of articles that are just a few words shy of stub-status (EX: Fried Shroom). The other way, we end up with a handful of very, very long articles (EX: Shroom Steak). We need to find a middle ground. -- Chris 20:01, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

List of Mario Kart Sponsor
Some day ago, Wayoshi deleted an article about Wario Mall, an organization briefly mentioned on a spot in Mario:Kart DS. The Mario Kart series is FULL of random sponsors. I thought we could create a list of these organization of one page, since they do exist, but aren't major enough to have their own articles.

Proposer: Glowsquid Deadline: 17:00, 19 September

Create that list

 * 1) Glowsquid
 * 2)  Per Glowsquid
 * 3) Bastila Shan What gofer Said
 * 4)  - Too minor to warrant articles.
 * 5) Walkazo- Good idea.
 * 6) - Sounds like a neat idea!
 * 7) Per Glowsquid.
 * 8) Snack 20:55, 14 September 2007 (EDT) Sounds like a great idea. Like Cobold said, they are way too minor to have their own articles, but one big list of them would be great.
 * 02:10, 15 September 2007 (EDT) I think I was going to do this a long time ago, but wasn't sure if they should be on a list or not. Now I've made my decision.
 * 1) – This is a great idea; Mario Kart sponsors aren't worthy of their own articles, but a list would be fine.
 * Ya, i've always wanted somethin like this.

Miscellaneous
No current proposals.