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)

New Features
No current proposals.

Articles on Websites
A while ago, the Smash Bros. DOJO!! article was created. It's, up to now, undecided whether we should create articles on websites.

Proposer: Deadline: Saturday, October 13, 20:00 (EDT)

Delete articles on Websites

 * 08:32, 6 October 2007 (EDT) - It's useless, the websites are self-explanatory, and we have the Links page.
 * 1) Walkazo - Per Cobald, the information on the Links page is all anyone would need to know until they actually go to the site (however the page could be cleaned up a bit).
 * 2) Per Cobold, and these sites are not part of the Marioverse.
 * 3)  Per Cobold.
 * 4) Per Cobold.
 * 5) We have Links...
 * 6) -Per Cobold, you explained it all.
 * 7) Per Cobold. And, in my opinion, websites have too little relation to Mario.

Create articles on Websites

 * 1) Websites give info about games, and are about a certain game, that gives them enough right to have an article. Also, some websites give additional info not found in games, such as Wario's Warehouse.

Comments
To Uniju: Websites are not part of the Marioverse, but neither are most of the games themselves. Mario and Luigi don't have a copy of Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga at their house. Should we get rid of video game articles then? Websites are sources of canonical information, just like video games are. -- Son of Suns
 * Only some websites are official. For instance, Lemmy Land does have lots of info on some games, but most of it is fanon (fanfiction, fan-made biographies, fan-art, etc.). As for the games themselves not being part of the Marioverse, that's kinda correct, but they do cover Mario and the others' escapdes during a certain period of time. The subject matter of the games is part of the Marioverse, and it's easier to just include them within an article about the game itself (or within an article about a game's level). If we did it otherwise it'd be hard enouph for us to navigate the Wiki, much less newcomers or visitors. -Walkazo

I was only referring to official sites of course. You should know me by now. =P

All I am saying is that we have articles about the official "sources" of the fictional universe, such as games, comics, and movies. Why should that be different for websites? -- Son of Suns


 * I figured you only meant official sites, but I just wanted to make my point about unofficial sites for the sake of clarity (and for everyone who doesn't know you yet). - Walkazo

Okay, what are we? We're a Wiki about the Super Mario Bros. series that goes very in depth. Sources that are not from video games are considered non-canon. No other specifications given that will say anything about websites. So, we're not going to find our answer in that definition. Let's look further: definition of Mario video games -- labors of the developers that provide us with in-universe information. Other mediums, such as TV, are considered non-canon. BINGO! Check it: other mediums -- TV, movies, comics, toys, commercials, magazine articles regarding game storylines, conclusions made and names given in unofficial strategy guides. Wouldn't websites be considered another medium? OH, SNAP! That brings in lots of gray area, don't it? What I would do if I were you is to look at each website and consider: can this be put as a section on a game article (like the zillion websites from Nintendo.com)? Should it be placed as a secondary source on the links page (ie IGN, etc)? Should it get it's own article? Anyway, my opinion about DOJO is that it should be put under the game's article. But I don't favor making a policy for everything! 12:07, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
 * And what would be, according to you, a website worthy of its own article? - 12:12, 8 October 2007 (EDT)


 * I don't think we should put website articles under the games' articles. For DOJO it sounds like it might work since it's only about Super Smash Bros. Brawl, but what about all the other sites which are about many games? Or what about the un-official sites that only include canocal information like The Mushroom Kingdom.net, would we have to leave them out? I feel we should keep all the info on the websites together, like on the Links page. We could always expand the link page to include more info than it already does (though I personally don't feel this is neccesary). In theory it is reasonable to include websites just as we include comics, movies and TV shows; but if we start making articles about Mario websites I'm worried that things are just going to get muddled. - Walkazo
 * Yeah, that's what I'm worried about, too. Too much emphasis on sites would be kind of messy.  And, Cobold, I purposefully didn't mention a site that deserved an article because I don't know of any that do currently.  Anyway, sorry if I offended you, Cobold.  I was in a hurry when I wrote that.  As far as the Dojo article, I would merge it with SSBB, but as far as the Mushroom Kingdom.net, I would put it on the links page with a paragraph blurb, sort of like the article for Dojo is currently.  Then again, I've been on hiatus for some time, so I don't really have much information about the other issues surrounding the Wiki.  17:10, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
 * I don't see from what I should have been offended, so you don't have to worry... ;) - 08:31, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
 * That's good! You know, all this website info could be posted in the game articles under a "Marketing and Promotions" header or something like that.  22:22, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
 * That could work. The information concerning other forms of marketing could be included there too, like all the stuff surrounding Super Mario Bros. 3. ButI still think the majority of the information about all websites should be kept on the Links page. - Walkazo
 * If this is passed, then all the information should at least be on a list, I mean Wario's Warehouse has a trove of information not found elsewhere as the site itself was taken down. 20:21, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
 * As I see it, a "website article" is like the Smash Bros. DOJO!! article, with the statistics and informatipn about the website. Wario's Warehouse is about information released on a website about Wario and Waluigi, so I don't think it really counts as a "website article" and therefore wouldn't be deleted. - Walkazo

Deleting stubs
It seems we have a rule that any new Stub articles are to be deleted. However I think that instead the rewrite template should be placed on the article, and if it isn't rewritten in a certain amount of time, it will be deleted, as simply deleting new Stub articles may discourage some newer users, also having SOME info should be better then having NONE, right?
 * Proposer: Uniju :D
 * Deadline: 20:00, Oct. 15

Support

 * 1) I am the proposer, and my reasons are given above.
 * 2) Glowsquid Stub may eb created because the editor don't have much time or there isn't much to say to begin with, I saw perfectly sized and well written articles deleted because of that retarded rule, I still say that one-liner (X is a character in a game, Pirate Goomba is a Pirate Goomba.) should be deleted, thought.
 * 3) Walkazo - Per Uniju and most of what Glowsquid said.
 * 4) Some info is better than none.
 * 5) Deleting stubs should not be brought up because it makes it unfair to other people who can't find information and need more time to do this. Also people can't think of anything to do and my conclusion is in one word which some people would agree to me, time, it is not enough and therefore stubs should not be deleted because of this. This is per to Glowsquid. "Some info is better than none." Peachycakes 3.14 is quite correct. Info is valuable and should not be judged on how little it is. If there is some information, as long as it is worthy information, as long as it is true, it is information and should not be deleted. Therefore, stubs should not be deleted because of the reasons above.
 * 6) Caith_Sith - Per Peachycakes
 * 7) -Per Uniju. We can expand on it anyway. What is maintenance for?

Oppose

 * 1) Stub articles should not be made, full stop. We need a lot of information on the subject, not one or two sentences.
 * 2) You can always find at least five things to say about something, what game it is, what it looks like, etc.
 * 3) Per Plumber
 * 4) Wario Land 3 is labled as an stub, should it get delelted?
 * 5) Per all

Comments
DP, what if its something small that doesn't have a lot of info to put? Should we make some kind of list, "Articles that aren't big enough to be articles"?
 * I am highly against all Stub articles, articles that don't have much information should NOT get their own articles. Unless it is from an unreleased game.
 * Having SOME info is much better then having NONE. Without these articles our encyclopedia is incomplete, who cares if there isn't much info, it still exists, and deserves an encyclopedia entry.
 * I'm not saying they shouldn't be in the Wiki, I'm just saying they should NOT get their own article. Articles that have very little information to offer should not be made into an article, but rather be merged into something that is very closely related.
 * Say its a Mini-Game article, all other mini-games get articles, so why not? Should we have some big list "All mini-game articles that where too small", "All item articles that where too small"? Thats not what encyclopedias should do, we should simply have an entry for everything, no matter how little info there is.
 * The Mini-Game articles are of decent size. And, remember, we said to delete NEW Stubs, not the Stubs already made! Also, those list names are pathetic.
 * They may be pathetic, but their what we would wind up needing. "NEW Stubs" we should be able to make them, as many Mini-Games or Micro-Games would wind up having stub articles. We are an encyclopedia, and should have an entry for everything, no matter how little info there is.


 * However, this also encourages laziness. People can just increase the number of articles they make without putting any actual content in.  And then other users are less likely to put that information in, as the article is already created.  The problem is not that articles don't have enough information, it's that users are too lazy too research the subject in question, thus producing tiny, informationless articles.  Anyone can say a mini-game is from a certain game.  But should that article be allowed, when someone later might actually write everything about the subject?  -- Son of Suns


 * Like I said, IF the article doesn't contain enough information, then a rewrite template should be placed on it, not a deletion tag.


 * That doesn't solve the problem. Users are more likely to create a new article than expand an old one.  So it may be better to allow someone to create an already expanded new article than create one with no information that no one will expand in the future. -- Son of Suns


 * We are a wiki, there shouldn't be such thing as an article no one will expand, theres a lot more editing then creating new articles going on, or will your idea change that eventually?

I'm just pointing out what I have observed after over a year at this wiki. For example, a lot of Super Paper Mario article stubs are still stubs. No one has expanded them. And I do know a lot of users feel special when they create an article. It becomes like a child. You made that before anyone else could! All this shouldn't be the case on the wiki. It's sad that is how people act - any article should be expanded because of an expand tag. But I think a lot of users are attracted to the prospect of creating an article without actually putting the effort into expanding it. Therefore, by deleting new stubs, users will be forced to actually put effort into creating a new article and find a new appreciation for the research needed to create a new article, not the opiate of simply creating a new article. -- Son of Suns


 * Or it could discourage a newer user from creating new articles, this idea can, and often WILL back fire.


 * I think that's the point. Discourage bad new articles.  If new users know they cannot create high quality articles, they can work on other things, not the creation of articles.  That's not a bad thing.  Discouraging users from doing things they are not ready for is not wrong, but forces them in the long run to improve the quality of their edits or work in other spheres.  -- Son of Suns
 * SoS has a very good point. If we do NOT delete New Stub articles, it WILL promote laziness, and encourage others to make incredibly crummy articles. If we delete the New stub articles, then Users will know they CANNOT make crummy articles, and thus, will work hard to make a GOOD article with a lot of information. Uniju, is it also possible that you, and all the people who voted to keep New Stub articles, are also lazy and don't want to make good quality articles?

For me, the problem is not the concept of delleting the stub itself, but rather the "standart" for a stub size. For example, Do-Drop describe the appearance of the creature, it's behavior and where it's found, and yet, it's tagged as a stub. I saw quite a few good article delleted because they were shorter than the average size. However, I agree that one-liner like "Pirate Goomba is a pirate Goomba" or "Elder is a character in Super Mario Rpg: Legend of the Sevens Stars" should be delleted. Glowsquid
 * I agree that Stub Articles shouldn't be deleted just because they don't have as much information pertaining to their subject matter as most articles. As many other users have said before, some info's better than none. However, I don't feel simple one-liners should be deleted. The "Pirate Goomba" artcile can easily be expanded to include what games the character was found in, a picture and/or a description of a Pirate Goomba, etc. Many people oppose letting these one-liners be created because it will supposedly stop other users creating bigger articles, but I doubt this is the case for all users. I.e. before I joined up it'd always drive me crazy to come across stub articles on stuff I knew about and could expand upon. However, when I discovered there was no article on another subject I knew, it didn't get me as riled up: I just figured all the info was part of already-existing articles and didn't warrant getting its own article, and left it at that (though I know better now). I don't know if anyone else shares my (old) way of thinking, but I just thought I'd put it out there. - Walkazo
 * ...Like Glowsquid said, everyone is thinking of stubs as "One-liners" when almost all stubs have a lot more info then that, if an article does not state what game its from, it means that the user who made it most likely never played the game, and only made the article because he/she was browsing the "Wanted Articles List", and say it on there, which almost no one will do.

Split
They are two seperate enemies and thus desrve seperate articles.

Keep the same

 * 1) Dimenzio They are the same so let's merge the informations. But which name shall we take and which name shall we redirect?

Comments
Whoever proposed this really needs to include some information and proper formatting. There wasn't even a "Comment" section for crying out loud! - Walkazo

To late Dimenzio cause I heard that Barecue Guy is more profesional and less conjectural Also this proposal doesn't make much sense...

LugiBros2: Uhhh... Actually, both article are about the same subject, but with a different name. The problem is we dunno which name we should use. Glowsquid

Okay, so you say who Barbecue guy is, but what's the difference between him and Fire Guy? Who is Fire Guy even? 19:15, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

Ashley 'n' Red
The page Ashley and Red deal about these two WarioWare character, however I think the page should be split. Unlike say, Macho Grubba who is simply Grubba with a new alias and powers, Ashley and Red are two completly different characters. I say that the page should be split in two, one for Ashley, and one for Red (Demon).

Proposer Glowsquid Deadline Oct 19 21:00 EDT

Split

 * 1) Glowsquid - I am the proposer and my reasosn are given above.
 * 2) Son of Suns - Surely you can guess. Anything officially named deserves an article in my book.

Miscellaneous
No current proposals.