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'
 * 11) 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)

New Features
None at the moment.

Condor
DP and I waged a brief war on the talk page for the Condor's qualifying for an article. I say yes, he says no. In any case... here is a proposal and whatnot.

Proposer: Dodoman (or, depending on how ya look at it, Pokemon_DP) Deadline: 17:00 Nov. 14

Remove the Condor!

 * 1) It is too minor. It barely effects gameplay; only appearing in Target Smash in Super Smash Bros. Melee, and only appearing as the Ice Climbers battle entrance in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. We should not be making articles on every last minor character in Super Smash Bros.
 * 2) - Merge with Break the Targets!, he's too minor for an extra (conjectural!) article.
 * 3) Everything minor is not enough for an article, such as the deleted "Helicoptor Pack"

Keep the Condor!

 * 1) Betcha never saw someone against their proposal.
 * 2) Its in Super Smash Bros. Brawl, so we must have it. Thats what DP always says.
 * 3) Glowsquid If we have an article on freaking Old Man Skoo, a character who was only mentioned once in a game and didn't affect the storyline nor the gameplay. I think Condor, who actually affect gameplay, have enough right to have an article.
 * 4) Walkazo - Per Glowsquid; we have articles on tonnes of other random little things, why is Condor any worse?
 * 5) Caith_Sith - I think that all the characters appeared in Mario games can have his own articles; that means Pokémon, Assist Troppy and, in the same way, that Condor or the Polar Bear, for example.--Caith Sith 16:32, 9 November 2007 (EST)
 * 6) Per Caith
 * 7) Isn't this Wiki where I post all information that Wikipedia's goons find too minor?  And when did minimizing and removing information become our motus aparandi around here?  It's a character who appears, it gets an article.  I believe that the Importance Policy states, "Cross-overs... are of the lowest focus to this wiki... [but] "there are no article limits for any area of focus."  If you wish to get rid of the Condor, you'll need to alter the policy, even if it is just to add the line, "except for the Condor, who doesn't get an article." But that's pretty flimsy.  Back to my hiatus!
 * 8) Two appearences in seperate games, it notable. --Gowser 09:28, 17 November 2007 (EST)

Comments
Uniju: I never say that. When have I said that?
 * Thats always your general attitude about SSB info.
 * OK, so, you have now resorted to making up stuff to flame me? If I really thought everything on SSB should be made, I would've made articles on Grabs and Clones LONG ago.
 * Erm, but, the clones already have articles.

Unless you meant something else. The Unwitty
 * I don't think he meant the playable characters who are clones of others, but rather creatures which are simply called "Clones". Also, I think the information on the Condor would fit best in a remark on the Break the Targets! article. - 10:27, 8 November 2007 (EST)
 * THANK YOU, COBOLD! He read my mind! :O


 * Erm, what do we do with this proposal now? Just wait for it to be archived?

What happens now with the other minor Super Smash Bros characters?...--Caith Sith 19:53, 16 November 2007 (EST)

They're the same
 * How is Helicopter Pack minor? It's a weapon used by the Koopalings, right?  ...or is it just unimportant because it's in Hotel Mario?  If so, I hope you know it has more right to be here than any item enemy attack in the Smash Bros. series and make judgements accordingly.  20:51, 19 November 2007 (EST)

It's minor and doesn't have an official name


 * Actually his name IS officially "Condor" as stated by the official site. http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/9276/papertoycf7.gif Paper Jorge! I give paper cuts so stand back! http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/9276/papertoycf7.gif So...he's not conjecture.

No, it's the Helicopter Pack article!

Article about "Implied" subject (2nd nomination.)
As some of you may know, the wiki have quite a few articles about "Implied" subject, AKA elements that don't actually appear in a game and is only mentioned in passing. In my opinion, most of those implied subject doesnt' deserve to have their own article.

This is an example what the average implied article look like:

"(Name of the page.) is an organisation/character/item briefly mentioned in (Insert name of game here.)

It is unknow what (name of the page) do or if it actually exist, however (Insert ridiculous speculation based on the name of the subject.)"

Of course, not every implied articles are like that, but a good chunk of them are. Most of those implied subject are as major as say, a Mario Kart sponsors, while the sponsor's are mere thrownaway background imagery, the implied are (most of the times) thrownaway mention in a dialogue. Heck, the various Trophy in Super Smash Bros. Melee could be considered more major, since they have backstory info and a representation of what it's talking about, while the average implied is an one-time mention.

The goal of this proposal is to merge these articles in various list (More on that later.), this is not actually the first proposal against those Implied articles, the reason the first proposal failed (In my opinion) is because it was sugested that we should merge EVERY implied into one big page instead of various smaller list, most pointed out that this page would have been too big, and I agree. However, in this proposal, the implied wouldn't be merged into one single page, but rather into various smaller list divided by subject (List of Item implied to exist, List of organisation implied to exist and so on.). Of course, not every implied would be merged, some such as the Pixl Queen and Scarlette actually have efect of the plot, and thus, still would have their own articles. Minor implied deseve a mention, but not a full-blown articles, if we allow guys like Old Man Skoo to have an article, we should also create seperate pages for every Mario Kart sponsor out there.

Proposer: Glowsquid Deadline: 18:00 Nov 15

Merge

 * 1) Glowsquid - Do you think I would vote against my own proposal?
 * 2) As I used to say, Implied characters don't deserve articles. Unless it is something like Princess Eclair, which has a huge amount of information from Luigi's adventure, as well as not going TOO speculative.
 * 3) Walkazo - Per all.
 * 4) Per two guys who say "Per all"
 * 5) The non-stub articles should have there own.
 * 6) - Per Glowsquid.
 * 1) - Per Glowsquid.

Oppose Merge

 * 1) I'm not hot about this idea because you don't specify enough.  What's going to be merged and what won't be?  If you gave us a list, I'd be more willing to agree with you.  I'm also worried about personal preference getting in the way of all this.
 * 2) If it's mentioned, it deserves an article. 20:34, 13 November 2007 (EST)

Comments
Stumper: Uh.... To make it short, let's say that every implied that is mentioned more than once (Like Princess Eclair) or have effect on the plot (Like Scarlette) could still have their own articles. Only random one-time mention (Like Old Man Skoo) should get merged. Glowsquid
 * Ok, that's a little better. Still, there's a tendency for the quality of articles merged into a table to plummet.  Take a look at any of them, especially the non secuitor-ally named "Game Sightings" or things like the glossary.  I think people are afraid of editing or the hardcore editors just don't want to "waste time" on something that's accepted as minor by the Wiki of minor topics.  It just makes it seem low.
 * Oh, and the above comment (Crash) about non-stub articles: basing the importance given to something based on its current article length is a bad idea. We're constantly growing, after all.  Some game articles (Mario Tennis: Power Tour) are shorter than attack articles (Peach Blossom), but Power Tour is much more notable.  The same applies to the implied articles but to a lesser extent.  As soon as you merge, no one will expand, even if it has more information.
 * The problem is, unlike Power Tour, the implied articles can barely be expanded, they are mentioned once by some character, and are never heard from again. The only reason most implied are not one-liner is that they are filled with ridiculous speculation (See Old-Man Skoo, which go on ridiculous lenght to speculate that the character *might* be a Koopa simply because his name have Koo in it.). There's no real way of improving them past grammatical correction. And I never said they would be merge into a table (Hardly see the point of having one.) but rather in a simple list page.


 * Plumber: OK, do you think we should split the article about the Mario Kart Sponsors too?
 * Glowsquid
 * I remember articles about characters whose existance isn't even proven, like Elizagoom. That's merged already, and so should be the rest of these kind of articles with no proof. Other stuff, like the Waffle Kingdom and its articles, however, can stay. Is there an option in the poll to vote for that? - 06:55, 14 November 2007 (EST)
 * Ahem, I stated in the first post that implied that hve enough informations to stand on theirs own (Like The Waffle Kindgom Guys) or are actuallly revellant to the plot (Like Scarlette ) could still have theirs onw articles. Only random throwaway one-time mention like WIN-tendo or Breadward should be merged.

Glowsquid
 * I'm somewhat neutral on the idea at the moment. If we do merge them, I think we should make seperate articles for what the implied things are, and what game they were mentioned in (ex. "List of Implied Items in Super Paper Mario").
 * Meh, if we did a separate list of implied for each games, we would end up with hundred of tiny lists that couldn't be expanded, I think "List of Implied Items" work just fine.

Glowsquid

Ashley & Red (Revisit)
As per this proposal, the article Ashley and Red must be split into to separate articles.

Aside from not a single person who voted on the proposal taking steps to follow through, read the article. There just isn't enough information on the character Red to create anything substantial. It would result in two articles being created, one being virtually unchanged, the other being little more than a stub, resulting in a deletion or a proposal for merging. -OR- Two articles being created, both nearly identically in content, resulting in a redirect or proposal for merging.

Until the character of Red starts to play a bigger role, I say we leave well enough alone.

Proposer: Ghost Jam Deadline: 17:00 Nov. 29

Overturn Previous Proposal

 * 1) I am the proposer and my reasons are listed above.
 * 2) Per Ghostly Jam
 * 3) Per Traffic Jam. I mean, Ghost Jam. =P
 * 4) Per the Jam of Ghosts.
 * 5) Red's as worthy of an article as "Gullible Soup". >_>

Continue with the split

 * 1) Glowsquid Yeah.... No one took the time to split thee page, but ti still say it should be split. Red have different abbilities, a different personnality (He have more speaking lines than Ashley, infact.) presently, the Ashley page doesn't disccus this, but this could be changed with the split. Sorry for my lazyness...
 * 2) You want someone to split it?  Fine.  No promises, as today is Thanksgiving.  I probably only have five minutes, but I'll do what I can... ASAP.

Comments
Glowsquid: Is there enough unposted information to make a Red article at least a full fourth of the size of the current article (not including templates)? If yes, and it can be proven, I'll pull this proposal. Stumpers: My issue isn't with the the article not being split (in fact, that's a whole 'nother matter). My issue is with a split just not being practical based on the information we have. -- Chris 13:47, 22 November 2007 (EST)

Changes
None at the moment.

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.