MarioWiki:Proposals

http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r149/Deadringerforlove/dessert1.jpg 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 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) 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.
 * 8) " # " should be added under the last vote of each support/oppose section to show another blank line.
 * 9) All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week.
 * 10) 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.
 * 11) 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.
 * 12) No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
 * 13) 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.
 * 14) 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.
 * 15) There shouldn't be proposals about creating articles on a 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.
 * 16) Proposals can not be made about System Operator promotions and demotions. Sysops can only be promoted and demoted by the will of Bureaucrats.
 * 17) 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.
 * 18) No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters, and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.

The times are in EDT (UTC -4:00), 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 Saturday night at 11:59 PM EDT, the deadline is the next Saturday night at 8:00 PM. If it is 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 the moment.

Boss and boss-parts
This proposal is for supporting the merging of different aspects of a boss to their related boss article. This is because these are suggested by their Tattle information to either be a part of or actually are the boss, because the main boss article is lacking complete information, and finally, because the division has largely resulted in stubs.

Specific examples of what I mean are as follows:


 * 1) Bosses with different parts of their body that can be targeted, such as Exor or Smithy.
 * 2) Bosses that have parts not necessarily attached to them, but are physical representations of that boss' mind or powers. Examples would include the elemental crystals of Culex or the crystals of the Crystal King. This does not extend to individual moves, or minions of the boss with individual sentience. Only those that are suggested by descriptions that these pieces are intimately connected to the boss in some way that results in one being unable to exist without the other.

Here is a quick and easy list of what this proposal will accomplish: And reasons why: If anyone has any questions or comments, feel free to use the Comments section below. Hopefully I provided enough information to make a decision. If you agree with this proposal in general, but you don't agree with some of the merges or are wary of the reason why, feel free to comment about it and we can discuss it. This is a big proposal and I don't want anyone Opposing if they don't agree with just one aspect.
 * 1) Remove stubs by merging them with their main articles
 * 2) Create more complete articles by piecing together all the information in one place
 * 3) Remove unnecessary division of information
 * 1) The information is divided. Putting it all in one place creates more complete articles as well as removes stubs
 * 2) Many of these divisions are enemies that are either different rounds of the same boss, while still others are just pieces of the boss, so aren't really a different enemy

Proposer: Deadline: Monday December 21st, 2009 (17:00/5:00 PM)

Merge

 * 1) - Per proposal
 * 2) I am Zero! Hmm you do serve a well made point, alright because of presenting such a good point a support. Zero signing out.
 * 3) per proposal
 * 4) Supporting not so much because parts of a boss should be regarded the same entity, but because enemies/targets that only appear as part of a boss battle and would never reach anything beyond "stub" status on the Wiki don't need a seperate article (if it can be avoided) imo, regardless of whether or not they'd be part of the actual character/creature; it makes more sense to me to merge them into the main boss articles than have them lying around as eternal stubs. They can still have their own enemy cards in the boss article, but an entire article devoted to something like a Culex crystal is a bit too much imo.--vellidragon 20:43, 15 December 2009 (EST)
 * 5) - Like last time, we need this to happen. There is just no way for some articles like stated above just be able to become un-stubbed. Well, unless you babble on and on about one thing that they did to fill it, but then it is just a stub still, so...you have my support.
 * 6) Like I said before, it's ridiculous how projectiles used by bosses get their very own articles that act a lot like stubs.

Comments
I agree with merging limbs and body parts to the person they belong to (that's why we don't split Exor). But then there's this line: "'and finally, because the splitting of these minions has largely resulted in stubs. '" You're talking about body parts, and all of a sudden you talk about minions? It's an easy decision for me: body parts -> merge; minions with an own consciousness -> no merge! -
 * I picked the relevant parts of my original proposal and edited various parts to make a more specific proposal, though that slipped through. Been revised. Redstar 23:48, 14 December 2009 (EST)

Just to clarify, if this passes will it mean all "boss-parts" that meet the criteria in the proposal will be merged on the spot, or is it merely opening up the floor for discussion? Different people have different opinions on what does and doesn't deserve a unique page, so like how we decided to have one page for Smithy and all his heads yet gave separate articles to Tubba Blubba and his heart, any more merges should be done on a case-by-case basis. -


 * I say it depends whether the articles you want to merge are different cretures and have their own attacks.
 * It actually makes more sense to do this on an article-to-article basis. This whole proposal has called attention to the issue well enough, so anyone that has supported or opposed can easily take their votes to corresponding pages. The only reason I brought up this proposal in the first place was because I have indeed brought up proposals for merging on various pages, only to receive no response. Hopefully that has made it possible for discussion to carry over. Feel free to delete this proposal, but leave it up for awhile longer so people can be aware of the attention individual articles will be getting. Redstar 20:55, 15 December 2009 (EST)
 * I seem to be getting supports, just as last time. I'm going to ask, does anyone feel this proposal is necessary, or would it be wiser to just do it on an article-to-article basis? Redstar 21:00, 15 December 2009 (EST)
 * In my personal opinion, something like this should be done on a article-to-article basis. The examples you provided in your proposal seem fine to me; I would support merging any necessary articles to those specific examples. (Unless they have already; I'm not entirely sure.) Tubba Blubba and Tubba Blubba's heart is probably going to be the main thing I'd oppose moving since they seem to have distinct differences and play each play an important role in fighting Tubba Blubba. (I haven't played the game, but this is how it looks on the articles.) Though, this may be my own person bias here; I've grown to feel that any type of split/merge should be done on an article-to-article basis. (I've held two different proposals about merging things in the past, and they were just as hectic and controversial as this proposal was before.) The decision is ultimately yours, but I would do it one article at a time to ensure that everything is merged accurately. --
 * I do recall that after you beat Tubba Blubba he says something like "I'm just a really sensitive guy trapped inside a huge body", possibly saying that they are both different characters but the heart does control TB so... I don't really know. Wait forget that! Tubba Blubba can move without his heart.
 * I vote for an article-by-article basis as far as this proposal goes. If push comes to shove, I'd have to oppose the proposal.

Either split the colored enemies or merge the colored Yoshis
It has come to my attention that while articles for each of the differently colored Yoshis exist, other colored variations of enemies, such as Toads and Shy Guys, do not. I know there's exeptions, but ignore those. Anyways, I ask this one question: why? For the Yoshis, there is very rarely a difference between them, as with the rest, yet they still get articles. If they get articles, so should the other characters.

So here's one of the two options I'd like: either merge the colored Yoshi articles to

Proposer: Deadline: Wednesday, Dec. 23, 2009 (5:00 EST)

Create articles for colored characters

 * 1) I'd like to create new articles rather than have them merged.

Leave as it is

 * 1) The Yoshis get their very own artwork and some get their very own, distinguishable stats such as Super Mario World, Mario Super Sluggers, and Yoshi's Story. The Yellow Yoshi article even had a personality section and some colored Yoshis have notable Yoshis. The other colored characters that are not Toad or Yoshi do not have distinguishable traits other than the color.
 * 2) In Yoshi's Story the Black and White Yoshi like chilis while the others dont and per BLOF.
 * 3) - Are there significant differences between the different color Toads? I don' think so, the Yoshis have many differences, per BLOF.

Allow Support Votes to be Removed on Nomination Pages?
For this proposal, I think that users should be able to vote for the removal of support votes on FA nomination pages. I mean, we can vote to remove oppose votes, but what about support votes! Users might support articles to become featured because they like that certain character that was nominated or they might not make a good reason on why they supported. Other users should have the right to choose on to delete those or not.

So, here's how it would go: Users can vote on if they want to remove a support votes or not. If three users, including an admin, support for the removal of that vote, we can delete it. Good, right?

Proposer: Deadline: Wednesday, Dec. 16, 2009 (5:00 EST)

Be able to remove support votes

 * 1) Per above.
 * 2) - I suppose we must trust our sysops (though I don't know why it doesn't extend to all admins) to make the right decision in the end as that is why they were promoted, per Fawful Phew Ree65.
 * 3) I still see some supports that sound a lot like fan votes, but maybe the SYSOPs are little slow in deleting fan votes. Some other support votes sound like fan votes but with the word "article" instead of the character's name in it.
 * 4) I've seen a lot of support votes that say "oh i love *insert character here*!" when we're supposed to give a good reason.

Leave as is

 * 1) - I think our current policy is fine.
 * 2) - Per Tucayo. Besides, the oppose votes are really what keep a page from getting features, not support votes.
 * I do NOT think our current policy is fine, since the proposal has passed that allowed admins to remove support votes. So of course I don't agree with this proposal either. I explained a thousand of times why removing support votes is pointless, and I'm tired of doing it again and again. Please read my reasons here. In short: Support votes do no harm, and no, they should NOT be treated the same as oppose votes, since they serve a totally different purpose. Opposers need to state what is wrong about an article, but supporters CANNOT state what is "good" about an article without reciting the FA requirements, which would be pointless and redundant.
 * 1) -- I can't think of any reason an admin would ever agree to remove a support, but still, the idea behind this proposal is pointless. Oppose votes are really the only ones that matter. Per Time Q.
 * 2) - If the reasoning Time Q provided, that an article cannot be featured without complete support, then I don't see a reason to change it now. Just make that a bit more clear or obvious.
 * 3) Per Time Q, and, as I stated before in the comments of a previous proposal, I am in support of removing any vote description, while keeping the vote intact (thereby leaving the name of the supporter), I do not see anything wrong with the actual vote. The reason is that I think the main issue is not the vote itself, but rather the unattractiveness and clutter the reasons attached with the vote, therefore I think the reasons can be removed, but not the vote itself, as it would probably cause anger to those who put in the vote. (Do you guys think I should create a proposal with these terms? :))
 * 4) Per All, I think that it's good now.
 * 5) Per all.

Comments
Well, we already have that rule that the most blatantly annoying votes (aka fan votes) can be removed from the support section. I cannot think of another kind of vote that would be useless enough to justify its removal. I don't think this rule change is necessary, since support votes are basically useless after the nomination got five of them. Can you provide an example of a vote you'd like to remove? -

Well, supports shouldn't be moved for fan votes only. When people oppose and just say something like "this is a terrible article" with no reason why, people can vote to remove that, but if someone supports saying something like "this is a great article!" why can't users vote to remove that? All votes that don't give a reason on why they supported and think the article is great really should be removed...

@Marioguy1: By all admins, you're saying sysops and patrollers, right? I'll change that I guess. I really want this to be like removing oppose votes.

Uh, you know people this days may load up the support with fan votes and we may get into a huge mess just trying to remove one at a time. But I do agree that "this article is good" isn't enough. In that case, some people may think many grammar errors are ok, but others think it is horrible. Fawful: Yes, that is what I mean - Admins=Sysop, Patroller, Bcrat, that other rank...
 * @MG1 - Whether or not all ranks of admins can have the same privilages seems to be outside the power of proposals, so I'd take that up elsewhere.
 * @Stooben - Just because an article is nominated doesn't mean it should be featured just because. Removal of oppose votes protects an article from not being featured for baseless reasons, but what if the article is supported for baseless reasons and doesn't deserve to be featured? We need to protect the honor of what a featured article means just as much as the process of getting to it. If the article truly deserves it, then a removal of supports privilege won't change anything. Redstar 01:19, 10 December 2009 (EST)
 * I don't know if you are used to the wiki's FA nomination system rules yet, so I better explain them. Unlike the Proposal page, the ratio of support and opposal votes actually doesn't matter, they don't affect each other. Support votes have only any impact on the nomination as long as there are less than five. If the amount of support votes meets five, the nomination becomes valid and the article will be featured after a set amount of time. However, if someone opposes the nomination, the whole process becomes stalled. The article will then not be featured until the pointed-out flaws are rectified. The opposal vote is then removed. Because of this, one single opposal vote is able to outnumber all given support votes, and this is why opposal votes are watched much more strictly than support votes, or at least that's how I was told about it. We had a Proposal about removing fan votes some time ago and I am glad it passed, but I think this is as far as we can go... -

I vote for the removal of Reversinator's vote since unlike what he says, supporters of an FA nomination are NOT supposed to give reasons for their vote.
 * Ok, I dont want another discussion, but TimeQ, if they do not give any reason at all they will be removed...
 * Well, under the current rules that were enforced by the proposal I linked above, any admin can arbitrarily remove votes they don't like (well, in the wording of the proposal, those that "do anything but help", but who is to judge what falls under that description?). There is NO rule stating that every support vote needs to have a "good reason", as Reversinator puts it.
 * Any support vote should at least refer to the article it supports. I think this doesn't ask for too much. And now let's please end this discussion. It was started one time too often. -
 * I certainly won't end the discussion, as we're here to do just that: discuss the matter.
 * Yes, exactly. We are here to discuss the matter. The matter that is listed above, not the matter of something else. I tried to prevent the discussion from going off-topic. If you want the discussion to derail though, then go ahead ;3
 * Sorry, I misunderstood you then. You're right that this isn't exactly the topic of the proposal. But it's a very similar discussion (what are support votes worth, what are oppose votes worth, etc.).

Ok, I dont plan to argue again :)You can make a proposal to revert that, or even veto it...
 * I might propose to revert it sometime, but of course I won't veto it. Obviously there's no consensus among the admins, so I wouldn't even be allowed to.