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 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 his/her 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 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.
 * 12) Proposals cannot be made about System Operator 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 how 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. "2 January, 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 effected 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

 * Merge Leo Luster with Bluster Kong (Discuss) Deadline: 16 December, 2010. 23:59 GMT
 * Merge Galactic Tornado with Tweester (Discuss) Deadline: 20 December, 2010 23:59 GMT
 * Merge Smile Meter with Health Meter (Discuss) Deadline: 25 December, 23:59 GMT
 * Split Life Mushroom from Life Shroom (Discuss) Deadline: 27 December, 2010 23:29 GMT
 * Split from Grand Goomba (Discuss) Deadline: 31 December, 2010 23:29 GMT

New Features
None at the moment.

Removals
None at the moment

Autoconfriming Wait Time Cut
Hi,this is my first proposal too so I apologize for any mistakes.I recently discovered that new users have to be Autoconfirmed In order to edit articles but in order to do that the new user has to wait 1 week and make at least 10 non-article edits.I also discovered that this rule was made to prevent vandals from moving pages.While I understand that there are jerks who want to make peoples lives harder,I feel it is more important to let new users who are probably eager to let their voices be heard edit articles.So it is my proposal that we cut the number of days that a new user has to wait from 7 to say,5.I hope this if this Proposal is passed it will make more people interested in joining Mario Wiki so they can post new information so people who are new to the Mario series may better understand it. Thank you for letting make my Proposal

Proposer: Voting start: December 20,2010 11:35 Deadline: December 27,2010 23:59

Support

 * 1) Per my proposal

Combine Game Guides
Hi, this is my first time suggesting a proposal, so forgive me if I screw something up.

My proposal is this: the "Super Guide" function has now, to my knowledge, appeared in four games: New Super Mario Bros. Wii, Super Mario Galaxy 2, Mario vs. Donkey Kong: Mini-Land Mayhem!, and Donkey Kong Country Returns. It doesn't look like Nintendo is getting ready to stop using this new feature, so I propose we make a "Super Guide" article that will encompass all of the analogous features that count as a "Super Guide" between the Mario series games, with a section for each game, with possible subsections for distinctly different things with similar features in other games (i.e. the Super Play videos and Super Guide Block in NSMBW and the Tip Network and Cosmic Spirit in SMG2, respectively).

Again, sorry if I've gone about this wrong, but I thought it'd be better if I was a little more professional and made a proposal here instead of on a talk page for, say, one of the Super Guide features, since this proposal involves several articles.

Proposer: Voting Starts: 23:59 December 13, 2010 Deadline: 02:57 20 December, 2010 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Per proposal
 * 2) Good idea. Per proposal.
 * 3) Perchlorate all.
 * 4) Per all too
 * 1) Per all too

Comments
OK, I moved this here from the talk page
 * Thanks, I'm not entirely familiar with the proposal process. Teamrocketspy621 23:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Remake Exclusive?
I've noticed on a few pages about games that have remakes, SMB2 for example, have information or even whole sections of stuff that is only in its remakes. Examples are voice acters or on the staff page, there's people who only worked on the remake version.

So I say we move this information from the original game to its respective remake.

Proposer: Voting Starts: 03:00 December 14, 2010 Deadline: 23:59 21 December, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) - It's better to have all the information about the games on one page: and that means both the originals and the extremely similar GBA remakes. Splitting the remakes from the originals was a bad idea, and two of them should have been re-merged by now anyway, due to a pair of TPPs that were never enacted (their proposer was banned before he could do it, and then they fell through the cracks). This proposal runs counter to the plans to re-merge the remakes, and therefore, I oppose it.
 * 2) Per Walkazo.
 * 3) Per Walkazo.
 * 4) Per SMB and Fawfulfury
 * 5) Per all, this is sensible.
 * 6) - Per Walkazo.
 * 7) Remakes, other than few and aesthetics changes, are too similar to their parent game to be warranted a separated article. The remakes are so similar to the original games, that a list can be devised listing changes without heavily expanding the article.

Comments
You mean like make a whole new article for remakes?

No, I mean move information about a game's remake, such as the 'Voice Actors (Super Mario Advance)' section on the Super Mario Bros 2 article to the Super Mario Advance article.

I thought a proposal passed to merge the Super Mario Advance series with their original games.


 * Two TPPs passed to merge two of the SMA games. Here's a complete timeline of proposals regarding GBA ports (I'm pretty sure I got them all):
 * Separate pages for the SMA ports - Passed, March
 * Split GBA ports from the SNES DKC games - Failed, July
 * (Merge SMA into SMB2 - Deleted, August)
 * Merge SMA - Improperly cancelled; would have passed otherwise, August
 * Merge SMA2:SMW - Passed, August
 * Merge YI:SMA3 - Passed, August
 * SMA4:SMB3 - No TPP has been made
 * Long story short, it's a pretty big mess: if the two pages are merged, the other two should be merged as well for consistency, but this proposal has confused the issue, and it would be best if it was voted down before any merging occurred. -
 * Well, the SMA one was cancelled because KS3 was banned. I think maybe we should try to merge SMA again, the other games have done the same and it has worked. Otherwise, that would probably render this invalid.
 * There is no policy saying that when someone is banned, their proposals are cancelled. As for whether or not the proposal is invalid, that's hard to say: two of the pairs of pages it deals with shouldn't be separate anymore, but the other two are fair game. Alternatively, this could be interpreted as an attempt to repeal the two TPPs that did go through. In an ideal world, rather than make three TPPs, KS3 would have made one Proposal here about merging all of them, and then the merges would have actually been done, and we wouldn't have this current conundrum. -
 * Really? That's pretty strange, looking back in the proposal archive, things have been removed due to the proposer being blocked, like the proposal to update DYK (did you know) more regularly, and quite a few by NARCE. Surely these shouldn't have been deleted. On topic of the proposal itself, I thought there was a proposal on this page to merge them with their respective remakes...I guess there may not have been. Surely we should create one.
 * Apparently they were deleted because Rule 10 ("The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it.") couldn't be upheld if the proposer was banned. Anyway, once this Proposal ends, TPPs are going to be made about merging SMA and SMA4, and then everything's going to merged once those pass (if SMA2 and SMA3 are merged immediately, there'd be a huge inconsistency in how the remakes are being dealt with in the meantime; doing it all at once will be much neater). -

Change of plans. Seeing as everyone voting on this proposal seems to be fine with merging all the articles, and recalling how the two TPPs that have been made were unanimously approved, odds are no one will take issue to the other two pages being merged. Therefore, we're going to go ahead and merge all four of the SMA pages when this proposal hits the deadline (unless someone does complain on the talk pages in the meantime and talking it out doesn't work). Before TPPs were made, pages were merged, split and deleted without proposals all the time, so this is perfectly legitimate (and much faster and convenient). -
 * Great, this issue has been bugging us for some time and I'm glad it can finally get settled. I don't see why anyone would have a reason to object.

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.