MarioWiki:Proposals

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 an 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 Sysop 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 of what 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. "January 1, 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 another 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 affected 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 be 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

 * Delete Poop (Discuss) Deadline: March 5, 2011, 22:45 GMT
 * Merge Hopgoon with Frogoon (Discuss) Deadline: March 7, 2011, 23:59 GMT
 * Merge Game Boy Horror SP with Game Boy Horror (Discuss) Deadline: March 8, 2011, 23:59 GMT
 * Split Ridley into Ridley and Meta Ridley (Discuss) Deadline: March 3, 2011, 23:59 GMT Extended: March 10, 2011, 23:59 GMT.
 * Merge Giant Kirby to Kirby (Discuss) Deadline: March 10, 2011 24:00 GMT
 * Merge Dark Spin to Bowser (Discuss) Deadline: March 11, 2011 23:59 GMT
 * Merge Mt. Molten with Melty Molten Galaxy (Discuss) Deadline: March 11, 2011 23:59 GMT
 * Change the title of Piranha Plant in the Generator to (Discuss) Deadline: March 13, 2011, 23:59 GMT
 * Split Behemoth King from Behemoth (Discuss) Deadline: March 13, 2011 23:59 GMT
 * Merge Ultimate Chimera with New Pork City (Discuss) Deadline: March 13, 2011 23:59 GMT
 * Merge Trampoline into Spring and use the "Springboard" title instead. (Discuss) Deadline: March 14, 2011, 23:59 GMT

New Features
None at the moment

Removals
None at the moment

Merge Planets and Missions/Levels sections (On every Galaxy article,from Gateway to Grandmaster)
Why is there a need to individually describe each planet? Can't we just do that in the Missions section? Also why are the planets named, Nintendo didn't ONCE give a planet a name, they probably don't even have names. They are just adding more conjectural information to the wiki which we don't need or want.

Proposer: IGGY7735 Deadline: March 5, 2011 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) IGGY7735 I made It!

Oppose

 * 1) - Where do I begin? Many planets appear in more than one mission, the planets are barely related to the mission otherwise, it will get very confusing, planet info will be hard to find...etc. Conjectural information is fine, as long as it describes what it's supposed to describe well.
 * 2) - Absolutely not!!! What you're talking about doing here is merging two completely different pieces of information across 91 separate articles...I'm sorry, but that cannot be allowed to happen...
 * 3) Per all
 * 4) Proposals involving the change of 91 perfectly good pages are totally unnecessary. I think our limit is at most 74.
 * 5) Per Bowser's luma.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per MrConcreteDonkey.
 * 8) Per MCD.
 * 9) Per MCD, Phoenix, and BL.
 * 10) – Per all.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) Per all.
 * 13) Per all, mostly MrConcreteDonkey, Phoenix and Bowser's Luma
 * 14) Per all, Iggy, you said we "Do not need or want" planet names. Why are they still there then? Why hasen't anybody got rid of it if we don't want it? Names help us find what we want, when we want easy. So my point is: Your proposal was a waste of time and, at this point, will never pass. 14 against 1? I think not. Per all.
 * 15) Per all.

Comments

 * Look, the very least someone could have done was to add this to the list of talk page proposals so this doesn't go unnoticed, like it did right now.


 * I can understand where you're coming from in your argument, but the truth is that giving the planets names helps to identify them when talking about them in the Missions / Levels for a particular galaxy. If none of the planets had names, the mission descriptions would all have to say "the large blue planet" or "the small red planet," etc. for every planet that is discussed in the description, which would make things extremely confusing. Naming the planets and giving them their own descriptions independent of the level descriptions completely circumvents this problem. Also, merging these two bodies of information would create more problems than it prevents. Adding the descriptions of planets to the level descriptions would just create larger bodies of information rife with excess information which, as a result, leans neither one way nor the other in relation to the newly-created paragraph. Therefore, the planet descriptions and the mission descriptions need to remain separated. Phoenix 23:13, 24 February 2011 (EST)
 * I have not once seen a galaxy page (of course this is when the article is up to the standard of all the others) where when I looked at a mission section and was confused because of ambiguity in planet names. There's usually only seven planets at the most in the galaxy, and most of them have clear, concise descriptions that aid in the mission section. In short, I found the planet names helped me understand the rest of the article more.

This should actually be a mainspace proposal: TPPs are only supposed to be for minor changes, not massive overhauls of dozens of articles. - 00:08, 25 February 2011 (EST)
 * Shall we move this to the proposal page or shall we have to close it? If we can move this, I'll do it.
 * Give the proposer a chance to move it himself. If he takes too long, a Sysop should do it. - 00:24, 25 February 2011 (EST)
 * Moved it. -

Split Buckbomb, Skullyrex, Mole Guard, etc. from their respective articles
Why are all of these enemies merged? For the most part, all of them have different looks, different attacks, different names, and, the most important thing, they are different species. Not much more I can say.

Proposer: Voting start: February 28, 2011, 20:20 Deadline: March 13, 2011, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per my proposal.
 * 2) Yes, yes, YES! I agree with this. We haven't all the other DKC enemies merged to each other for having just the same look with a different shade.
 * 3) I am Zero! Per Walkazo's reasoning of the Hopgoon and Frogoon Proposal. Zero signing out.
 * 4) Per ALL and the proposal is well written
 * 5) We have different articles for all the forms of the Strollin' Stus (you know, those SMS Goomba knockoffs). As long as the enemies aren't stub-worthy, I say go!
 * 6) I haven't even taken the time to look through all of them but I trust your judgement Reversinator and the Buckbomb example is pretty good and a split is necessary.
 * 7) YES! Another splitting proposal which is good. Per proposer.
 * 8) Absolutely, we've got sixteen different sub-species for Thwomp, Koopa, and Bullet Bill, but these are merged?
 * 9) - Per all, especially Zero.
 * 10) - If they aren't the same, then split them. I know that we could add enough information to make them not stubs.
 * 11) Per all, mostly Walkazo, who per'd Zero, who per'd Walkazo. Having played DKC, I can safely say it makes a good deal of difference which type of enemy is there, so they should be split.
 * 12) - Per all.
 * 13) Per all.
 * 14) Per all.
 * 15) Per all =).
 * 16) Per all.
 * 17) Per all.

Comments
Here's what I think is a full list of the merged articles I'm talking about. How did we get away with all these merged articles?
 * Tiki Buzz/Tiki Tork
 * Tiki Zing//
 * Awk/Rawk
 * Chomp/Mega Chomp/Shroom Chomp/Spore Chomp/Vine Chomp
 * Screaming Pillar/
 * Snaggle//
 * Toothberry//Cageberry/Ack
 * Squeekly//
 * Skellyrex/Skullyrex
 * Buckbot/Buckbomb
 * Char-char/
 * Mole Miner/Mole Guard
 * Mole Train/
 * Stompybot 3000/

I'm not sure. But what about the Skellirex and the Skullirex? If you jump on a Skellirex, it loses its body and therefore becomes a Skullirex. So they both seem to be the same enemies, should they stay merged?
 * Think of Skellyrexes and Skullyrexes as Koopa Paratroopas and Koopa Troopas, respectively. Once Koopa Paratroopas lose their wings, they become Koopa Troopas, similar to when Skellyrexes lose their bodies, they become Skullyrexes. Admittedly, I've never actually played or seen a video of Donkey Kong Country Returns and I'm going by the article, but what I said seems to be about right.

Y'know, should we also split from the Mole Train and  from the Stompybot 3000? Yes, they're bosses, but I never got it why they are merged anyway, besides they're related. Max is a mole, not an extra carriage for a train, which is a vehicle, an object. And Pluck is a chicken, not a robot or a robot part.
 * Yeah, they deserve to be split. It's not like Magnus von Grapple and Lord Crump are merged. I'll add those to the list of articles that will be affected.

See, this is exactly the point I'm trying to make with the Ridley / Meta Ridley Proposal! If you view them in this context, there is no difference between the two of them and any two enemies off the above list of merged enemies; they each need their own article... 10:21, 1 March 2011 (EST)
 * I see where you are coming from, Phoenix, but the splits requested here and the Ridley/Meta Ridley proposal differ in at least one very important way: Ridley is a Metroid character, and the same creature as Meta Ridley, while these enemies are different creatures, and from a series we cover in depth, namely the Donkey Kong Country series. Whether I think the splits here need to be made or not, I have not decided yet, but it seems to me that if we do split them, at least for most of the enemies, it would be a good idea to have a list of levels the enemies appear in and more details on each enemy. Hope this helped. 10:41, 1 March 2011 (EST)
 * Phoenix, I made this proposal because different species are merged. With Meta Ridley and Ridley, they're both the same person. And Bop, just because a character appears in a separate series doesn't mean we can't cover them. I just supported and opposed the separation of Meta Ridley.

Okay, fine, you guys win...I admit defeat... :( 10:55, 1 March 2011 (EST)
 * Reversinator, I didn't make this point again here, because it seemed not to make much difference, but the difference between Ridley and Meta Ridley is really only used for continuity purposes within the Metroid series. As far as Mario games go, the difference is negligible. That is why this character from another series doesn't need two articles for two different forms. I don't really even know why we are arguing about this on the Proposal Page instead of the talk page anyway. I guess I don't want people looking at this and going and voting to split without looking at the arguments against. 11:19 1 March 2011 (EST)

The only problem that I see with this proposal is that we'll end up with more stubbed articles, which is never good. Of course, this isn't for me to decide. 08:11, 3 March 2011 (EST)
 * Not necessarily: even if there isn't tonnes of information about all the species, as long as we provide everything we can to the readers, those pages shouldn't be labeled as stubs. Also, please use colons to indent comments instead of asterisks (*) - it says to do so at the top of the page, and it looks messy if people use different styles. -
 * Sorry for that. Fixed.  15:19, 3 March 2011 (EST)

Since my proposal will most likely pass, and I don't have Donkey Kong Country Returns, who will split the articles?
 * Well, I was the one who created some of those articles. I never put much thought into splitting them, due to the risk of adding to the list of stubbed articles.  17:49, 3 March 2011 (EST)

You know, whenever a Stub template is added on a page, most of the users come in conclusion to merge it with the most relevant thing. Whenever it happens in case of these articles, I don't think about merging, oh no. I'd rather do what the stub template says:  expanding  it (and  removing  the template from the page, as it is no longer needed after then). A lot seem to forget that.

Make second to last warnings, only warnings and state the reason a last warning was issued
I think this Wiki should have these three. A second-to-last warning would look like this.

This is a warning to stop your inappropriate behavior (reason put here). The next time you do this, a last warning will be issued.

An only warning would look like this. They are given out when it is your first and last warning.

This is your only warning to stop your inappropriate behavior (reason put here). The next time you do this, you will be blocked from editing this site.

The last warning should look like this (I assume you get one for insulting other users)

This is your last warning. The next time you insult other users, you will be blocked from editing this site.

Proposer: DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr. Voting start: March 6, 2011 13:00 GMT Deadline: March 13, 2011 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) I'm looking at this

Comments
A second to last warning already exists (the last warning) and we could just use to give them an only warning.


 * Okay, I'm confused; currently, it goes: reminder --> warning --> lastwarn --> block, right? So in your proposal, are you suggesting that we keep that the way it is, and then implement "only warnings" in place of reminders, warnings, and last warnings, leading directly to a block after, or are you saying that it should become: reminder --> warning --> last warning or only warning --> block, or do you want only warnings to be a completely separate entity from the normal cycle, to be used only in extreme situations...or am I just drastically overthinking this...? 12:55, 5 March 2011 (EST)
 * What I'm thinking he wants = reminder > warning > sec-to-last warning > last warning > block, or only warning > block. That means either adding an extra warning, or skipping one (and reminder), depending on the situation and user (so, what the user does).
 * Also, He may want to add a reasons thing to the Last Warning template, just like the reminder and normal warning

I like the idea of only having to give out one warning for certain offences (i.e. making spam-ish edits, or other probable cases of vandalism), but I think it'd be better to just add provisions for admins to do so on the appropriate policy pages (i.e. Blocking Policy), rather than confusing the issue with a whole different template. Plus, outlining exactly what offences are "one strike and you're out" situations on the policy pages will safeguard against the Only Warning template from being misused. I also think a second-to-last template is unnecessary: three chances is enough (and besides, people often get more than that, between multiple warnings for slightly different offences and informal reminders before the templates are broken out at all; all things considered, we hardly need to be more lenient). -


 * Well, honestly, I really don't think we need a second-to-last warning in between a warning and a last warning, I mean, by this point, the user must obviously realize they've done something wrong, and if its gotten to this point there's really no need to sugar coat it, so why not just cut out the middle man and leave it the way it is...? 23:17, 5 March 2011 (EST)

Miscellaneous
None at the moment