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.

Recently on the MarioWiki...
This section is the least updated on the Main Page, as there just isn't enough news to fill it with. Usually, there is only one section of news worth noting, and that always goes on the sitenotice.

Deadline: 20:00, Nov. 10

21:33, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

Support

 * 21:33, 3 November 2007 (EDT)
 * 1) I agree.Its rarely updated and it says daisy and waluigi ar now featured articles when they have been FA's for ages
 * 2) Glowsquid - What Xzelion said.

Oppose

 * 1) I'd like to see more use from that section.  Also, we don't talk about sysops and other promotions on the notice bar.  New Pipe Projects, new nominations for F.A.'s, and all of that sort of stuff could be going up there, but it's not right now.  I think maybe what we need is more freedom to edit it.
 * 2) -It just has been forgotten. It's still an important part of the Main Page.
 * 3) - Per all, especially Stumpers.
 * 4) Maybe we could think about reducing it to one or two lines. But I'm against giving it up.
 * 5) Walkazo - Per all, as long as it's updated it could be valubal information to users. As Cobald said, it's not being used as much as it should be right now: we should fix it, not get rid of it.
 * 6) This section only says stuff about promotions or stuff like that, it should have more than just that.
 * 7) Glitchman - I agree with 3dejong.
 * 1) Glitchman - I agree with 3dejong.

Comments
Maybe we should merge it with the Nintendo News section, since the Nintendo News section gets edited the most it, that way it could have six bullets instead of three.
 * That wouldn't work, Xze. News is about recent news on Nintendo, like new games, game releases, big news updates, etc. Recently is about the recent news on the Mario Wiki, like promotions, Shroom releases, the Improvement Drive, etc.
 * Um, and they can't be together, because? The improvement drive has failed, Promotions are rare, Shroom releases every month. There isn't much to put on the Recently template, however it shouldn't be just done away with. I don't really see a problem with them being together.

I dont know what i agree with(though i think i disagree, because it is good info), but it isnt getting changes like it says The Shroom Issue VIII has been released, but Issue IX has been released, it should get updated more.
 * Too true. But as Cobald said, we need to have more freedom in changing it. For instance, I'd change the Shroom thing but the fact that's it's on the Main Page is a bit daunting. I dunno, I need to learn more about the "do"s and "don't"s around here... Anyway, I don't think "Recently" should be merged with "News"; as DP said, "News" is about actual Nintendo stuff and "Recently" is just Wiki stuff. It's like sugar and salt: they look similar, but mixing them together's a mistake. Sure there's not too much to put in "Recently" but that can be remedied by removing one bullet, as Time Q suggested. - Walkazo

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.

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)

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

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.
 * 1) Walkazo - Per all.

Planets
I propose all planets from Super Mario Galaxy be merged into the respective galaxy article, and the information about the planet made into a subsection of the article. That will allow for fewer articles while still keeping information about the planets.

Proposer: User:TheGreatBlockyBoo Deadline: 10 November 2007, 20:00

Support Merge

 * 1) - Per TheGreatBlockyBoo.
 * 2) Per All
 * 3) Absolutely.  There aren't names for most of those planets, and Galaxies will just be like Categories if we can't write about their planets on them.
 * 4) Walkazo - Per All.
 * 5) User:Alphaclaw11/sig - Per all and nice idea by the way.
 * 6) user:Inanimate - Per all. Also, if we do this, try getting images of each planet so people can see.
 * 7) Per all, and it was my idea to get rid of those articles.
 * 8) User:MasterKoopa Its just basic, its like deciding wether or not to make seperate articles for Mario and all of it's subdivisions or not. I tootally agree
 * 9) Mariofanical I like it. It's so much better than having several short articles about small subjects which most names are conjectural. Oh and the Lava Planet is actually the Melty Molten Galaxy. So far, everyone supports the merge.
 * 10) Bomba&yen; Du&cent;k See my comment below.
 * 11) Glitchman - Per all, a very good idea.  Its only common sense that you should make one large article with all the information someone's looking for.
 * 1) Glitchman - Per all, a very good idea.  Its only common sense that you should make one large article with all the information someone's looking for.

Comments
Uh, we have images of most. Also, if we do this, we'll have to get info on ALL the planets of the galaxy. That reminds me. Can someone identify the galaxies for the planets without merge templates? TheGreatBlockyBoo 16:48, 6 November 2007 (EST)
 * Also, for the sections of the article, we'll have to use the conjectural names. Okay? TheGreatBlockyBoo 19:25, 6 November 2007 (EST)
 * It seems that some galaxies' articles talk as if they were planets exactly.

Mariofanical So do you support the merge? It is possible that the planet is the galaxy or that the planet is the center or centre of the galaxy, with other smaller planets orbiting.

So, anyone planning to get info? TheGreatBlockyBoo 20:09, 8 November 2007 (EST)
 * Also, would it be okay to look at the footage of levels and create new planets as sections? TheGreatBlockyBoo 20:12, 8 November 2007 (EST)

I guess I'll do that when the game comes out on November 12, 2007. I've seen many more planets already, from a youtube user called TyndelM
 * Considering superflous Super Mario Galaxy articles, I'd also like to merge the levels (=episodes) of the galaxies into their articles. They are simply too short, we don't have articles on each Super Mario 64 star or each Super Mario Sunshine episode either. - 07:34, 10 November 2007 (EST)

Cosmic Koopa to Mecha Koopa
The following reasons are: therefore, the article must merge with Mecha Koopa
 * 1) It shows an image that is found also in Mecha Koopa article.
 * 2) Its name is conjectural.

Proposer: Deadline: 11 November 2007, 15:00

Support

 * 1) &euro;zlo
 * 2) She's always right! and this makes alot of sense.
 * 3) I agree with Coincollector, they should be merged.
 * 4) Walkazo - The picture from the Mecha Koopa article convinced me "Cosmic Koopas" aren't a seperate species like their article claims. So yeah, definitely merge them (and by "merge", I mean scrap the conjectural article).
 * CC, great find. I have a feeling this is only one of many articles to get merged.  I'd like to see an end to the whole "cosmic" fad actually.
 * 1) Per Stumpers, and probably per the others whose comments I did not bother to read. >_>
 * 2) Inanimate They are the same thing, per all.

Comment

 * Compare both images, the left it's found in Mecha Koopa article, and the right from Cosmic Koopa article.

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.