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) 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: , 27 2024 (EDT)

New Features
None at the moment.

Removals
None at moment

Wario Man (character) and Wario Man (Final Smash)
Um, what can I say? If WarioWare, Inc. and WarioWare (stage) are seperate, why not this? It's not like there's a reason not to split them (to my knowledge >_>).

Proposer Dodoman Deadline December 5, 17:00

Split 'em!

 * 1)  I am the proposer and I like pie.
 * 2) -One's a move, one's a character. Merging them is unnessesary
 * 3) Theryguy They are two different topics!!!!!

Keep 'em merged.

 * 1)  - See my comment below.
 * 2)  per Cobold
 * 3) Walkazo - Per Cobold.
 * 4) Per Cobold;
 * 5) Per The Bold Company
 * 6) I was originally neutral on this Proposal, but, after hearing Cobold's comment, I saw the flaws in spliting them.
 * 7) - per Cobold.
 * 8) User:Girrrtacos - Per Cobold
 * 9) - Per Cobold

Comments
WarioWare the company and WarioWare the stage are something entirely different. Wario Man is not, he's a form of Wario in both meanings, just the fact that it's classified as a Special Move in Brawl does not change that. As such, F.L.U.D.D. (SSB attack) got merged with the F.L.U.D.D. article because of redundancy. - 09:08, 29 November 2007 (EST)

I see we have two different articles for Giga Bowser and Giga Bowser Transformation. What's everyone's take on that? Is this any different? We're going to have to decide which to split/merge, IMO. 22:07, 4 December 2007 (EST)


 * Nice spotting! We should merge the Giga Bowser articles and leave the Wario Man article alone. - Walkazo
 * Thank you! We should still wait to see how the vote turns out, of course, but I'm fine as long as we act for consistency.  19:15, 5 December 2007 (EST)

Redirects
Recently, I've seen that some articles have been turned into redirects because their too short(Like all of the Prankster Comets), however, I believe that as a Mario Encyclopedia, we should have a full article on every object, place, and character in the Marioverse, not clutter things into lists to save space. Lists usually tend to compress the information as much as they can, and not include smaller pieces of Information. They also tend to lack an image of each thing in the list, while full articles usually do not. Thus, I propose that any Object, Place, or character in the Marioverse is major enough to have its own article, not simply a redirect to a list.

Proposer: Uniju :D Deadline: 22:30 12 dec

Support

 * 1) I agree with myself.
 * 22:36, 30 November 2007 (EST) I agree with myself, who is agreeing with you.
 * 1) Snack 22:59, 30 November 2007 (EST) See comments below.
 * 2) --HyperToad 10:20, 1 December 2007 (EST) Per Uniju

Oppose

 * 1) - See Comments below
 * 2) -We don't need one-line articles. In real encyclopedias, it would say something like "See (other article)".
 * 3) Per Purple Yoshi.
 * 4) Walkazo - It sounds good in theory, but some things just don't have enough information for a full article.
 * 5) Blitzwing - Per Walkazo.
 * 6) Per Walkazo
 * 7) - per Purple Yoshi.
 * 8) - Per Walkazo

Comments
While I do see your reasoning behind the "every aspect deserves an article" approach, the truth is, some articles have very little to say about them. In these cases, it is better to have one page that can give all the information in a group rather than forcing people to go back and forth between bite-sized pages. Simply put, it makes navigation a mite easier. 23:02, 30 November 2007 (EST)
 * Almost any article can have more information than you seem to think. Also, I don't see how going between articles is hard or annoying in any way.

Although I support this proposal, I think it might be better to do it on a case by case basis. For example, I don't think much more information could be given on each individual Prankster Comet then is given on the current Prankster Comet page, although having each comet have a seperate page would make things cleaner and make the images (if any ever get added) fit better... Maybe I should have just opposed the proposal :P Snack 23:03, 30 November 2007 (EST)

Uniju, if you think more information can be put on the page, then you do that. But as it stands, in this case, there's not much to be said. Like Snack said, it should be a case by case basis, and in this case its hard to get enough information short of totally wringing it dry. And that doesn't make for good material. You can tell when articles that have little to say about them are stretched for the point of making them longer. Also, what about users who have slower computers? Wouldn't it be more convenient to have more little sections of information on one page rather than having those same little sections on separate pages, where they would have to wait for each individual page to load? 23:13, 30 November 2007 (EST)
 * Purple Yoshi: In real encyclopedias there would be an article on everything the encyclopedia would cover. Also, like I said, most one line articles are only one line articles because people where too lazy to make them any larger. It makes the place look sloppy of you are simply told to go to another article because someone was too lazy to write a new one. And, Rider: I never said I have a fast computer. Also, I never said this was only about that article, I said its about the whole wiki, and other Redirect-to-list articles. These articles make people not care about expanding the article, instead it doesn't really need to be expanded. Thats the problem with this place, things that either have small articles, or aren't "major" enough, will simply be either redirected to a list, or deleted.
 * Redirects are annoying, but I'd rather read one big page about Prankster Comets than six little ones: Either way I'd get the same amount of info, only one way is fast, and the other makes my computer bleat about how it's running low on system memory after fifteen minutes of tedious bouncing from article to article. As for the encyclopedia not looking profesional because of redirects, I disagree; it's stubs that are unprofessional. Also, PY's right about how some encyclopedias and dictionaries use "redirects" and clump similar information together, whether it's to save paper for hard copies, or time and server space for online resources (i.e. us). Still, I'm going to agree with Phoenix about taking things case by case; it seems the most sensible course of action consering this whole "delete/create-stubs-debate" doesn't seem to be going away anytime soon... - Walkazo

Uniju: Ok, explain how the guys on the List of Implied Characters are worthy of theirs own articles. Blitzwing
 * What about this article too, there isn't much to say about them
 * Xzelion: It seems that those Boos are a lot less major then things like the Prankster Comets, for them it would be like having an article for each Silver Star in Super Mario 64 DS. And, Blitzwing: Many of those characters seem to have enough information to have an article, and all are either notable enough to have a full article, or not notable enough even to be on that stupid list.
 * The only character on the Implied list that seem to have enough info for an article is the Bog Monster, all the others are simply thrownaway, one-time mention in a line of dialogue, the only reason most implieds are more than stub-size is that they are filled with ridiculous speculation based on their names, I agree we should have an article on every named things and all, but frankly, having an article on guys like Old Man Skoo is ridiculous. They do exist in the Marioverse, but something like WIN-tendo isn't worthy of it's own article, only a mention.

Blitzwing

I like Snack's point: determining whether to merge is an article-by-article process. I have had two experiences with this recently: Really, what you need to do is proove to the Wiki that the page deserves to be separate by writing about it. If the Wiki decides to re-merge, make sure that all your work got merged (and not generalized -- that goes against what we're here for) and look for more information and try again. It seems like a lot of work, but it destroys the possibility of a stub, right? 22:29, 4 December 2007 (EST)
 * 1) Ashley and Red: I tried writing the article for Red. When there was not enough information I could say about him individually (ie events not involving Ashley), I realized the merged page was fine.
 * 2) Super Star: This was a redirect to the Star page. Realizing that Super Star is the title the characters in MP1 are fighting for, I fleshed it out.

Recently, I've seen theres been some misuse of on articles. And its not being used for its real purpose, on Notice Templates and such, instead simply saying "This article", while its sometimes being abused in places like real articles, which in most cases is longer then the Page's name itself. So, I propose that be added to Notice Templates and such, and an official rule be passed that its not to be used on articles themselves.

Proposer: Uniju :D Deadline: 01:00 9th Dec

Support

 * 1) People are gonna get mad at me for making so many proposals when I never edit... Then maybe they'll make a proposal saying that you need to edit to make proposals, and that edits are kinda like currency to do things on the wiki... Oh yeah, reasons given above, ^^SO READ THEM^^
 * 2) I agree, aka, per Uniju. =P
 * 3) -  should not be used in articles.
 * 4) Per Uniju
 * 22:31, 4 December 2007 (EST) The less we use templates in the body of the articles the better. However... I love templates at the start and end and off to the side, but that doesn't apply here.