MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/13



Mario Kart Name Changes
NO CHANGE 1-12

okay... I have noticed that all the articles on the wii karts all have their european names. Why? What's wrong with the american ones? They used to have american names! and so, I propose we change the article names...

{{scroll box|content= Deadline: March 3, 2009, 17:00 Proposer: {{User|Dryest bowser}}

Change them

 * 1) - per myself

Leave them

 * 1) - Per the recent proposal that just passed changing the names.  Both names are listed at the beginning of the article, and both are even included in the Mario Kart Wii vehicles template.  We are simply using the first English title in order to keep consistency and be fair to our international friends.
 * 2) - See below.
 * 3) - Per all.
 * 4) - Per the First English Artical Name. Everthing was changed to it's first English Name. So Mario Kart Wii Kart and Bike names changed to its first english name. So Nostalgia 1 was Classic Dragster.
 * 5) - I really hate that the European name proposal got through, and I wish we could reverse it, but I have to agree with Stumpers. After 6 months, I hope somebody immediately makes a proposal to reverse it.
 * 6) - Per Zafum.
 * 7) - I asked the same question myself.  Son of Suns mentioned that the reason for the European names is so that we're fair to the European gamers.  Keep note that Mario Kart Wii was released in America AFTER it was released in Europe.  If America got the game first, then the American names would be used instead.
 * 8) - Per SoS. Really. We just had this proposal not a short while ago.
 * 9) - per Zafum.
 * 10) - European names > American names at times.
 * 11) - Per all.
 * 12) - The Mario Kart Wii names we now use on Mario Wiki arn't just used in Europe, but also in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Japan.

Comments
In accordance with a previous proposal, for six months following a given proposal, no proposals can be made to overturn it. For example, we just had the proposal to use European names for subjects which first appeared in games that were released in Europe first. It passed, and so, for the next six months, we can't make proposals to overturn it. Therefore, this proposal is invalid, but there's no way you could have been expected to know... sorry about this.


 * (Hey Stumpers, have you found a link for that six-month rule? It would be nice if we could point to something in writing.) --


 * I can't remember such a rule, to be honest.


 * Me neither. It's a pretty good-sounding rule to me, though. Although, 6 months is quite a long time.


 * Yeah, we really need to find if such a policy has ever really been established by proposal. And I agree, six months (half a year!) is a long time regardless. --
 * We operated on it - I remember several proposals being shot down because of it, but if no one remembers it, and I can't find it, perhaps we should make a proposal about it. :P
 * If we do, however, it should be a shorter time, like 1-3 months. 6 months is too long.


 * I definitely agree with that. --
 * As do I.
 * Agreed. 3 months tops. Anyone want to make it?
 * Well it was Stumpers' idea. Maybe he wants to make it.

Arend: Those aren't the Japanese names. o_O
 * The PAL version uses more names that are identical with the Japanese names or that are closer to them. For example, the B Dasher Mk. 2 has its original name, and the kart "Hot Rally" is known as Rally Romper in the PAL version. The American version removes the namely references to the B Dasher and to the 3D Hot Rally vehicle Monster by calling them "Sprinter" and "Tiny Titan." --
 * Oicic. That's one of the things I don't like about NoA.

Personally, why the hell was it changed anyways? Doesn't that just screw things up for us Americans? :/ --
 * It was decided in a proposal some days ago. Check the archive.
 * I know that, P_Y. But where did the idea come from in the first place? --
 * In the words of proposer Son of Suns, "This should help us curb American cultural imperialism at the wiki while simultaneously fostering a spirit of internationalism." The proposal passed by one vote after a long discussion with many insults against Americans and no insults sent back (unless "go USA" said once is an insult). :P Go figure, right?  If it's any consolation, Blue, the proposal only affects a handful of titles, so it's not like it even matters that much to us in the US (lol), but, based on what was said during the proposal it apparently means a lot to people in Europe.

}}

Change Six-Month Proposal Reversal Rule to 60 Days
ALLOW REVERSAL OF PROPOSALS AFTER 60 DAYS 18-0

I recently learned of a rule that says proposals cannot be reversed for six months. However, six months seems like a ridiculously long wait, and some of these proposals really do need to be reversed. Simply, it only makes sense to change the limit to 60 days.

{{scroll box|content= Deadline: March 9, 2009, 17:00 Proposer: {{User|Ralphfan}}

Change limit

 * 1) Per above!
 * 2) An actually really great idea. 6 months seens like more than enough of a trial period. 1.5 months is a great trial period!!
 * 3) - Two months sounds good to me.  I'd be up for anything from 2-3 months, but I'm happy as long as we have some policy to go by now. My apologies for propagating something that someone somehow made policy without it really being policy or whatever. (see below) P.S. to Corka: 60 days is 2 months, not 1.5
 * 4) Per all
 * 5) - Per all
 * 6) - Per all; there is a situation that is REALLY nagging to me that I can't mention on this part of the proposal.
 * 7) - Per Ralphfan
 * 8) - Per Stumps
 * 9) - Per all.
 * 10) - Per all.
 * 11) - Per all. Generally after 6 months the proposals are either forgotten or so deeply entrenched in the way things are run that people just accept them; in the dynamic reality of an Internet community, being stagnant does not fly.
 * 12) - Per all.
 * 13) - I completely agree! 6 months is such a long time, and there are certain proposals which really need to be reversed faster than that.
 * 14) - Change it. 6 months is unnecessarily long. 60 days is good, but I think 30 days would be even better. One month is more than enough time for people to make up their minds about almost any change.
 * 15) I'm in! I just read 6 months and jumped on the bandwagon! NEEDS CHANGING!
 * 16) Per all
 * 17) - Per The Great Gonzales.
 * 18) - 6 months is ridiculously long, but 60 days is approximately two months, which is still an unnecessary amount of time. 30 days (approximately one month) is a neat idea. Per The Great Gonzales.

Comments
Look at the proposal above!
 * There's no actual rule about the time limit to revert a proposal, the sixth month thing is completely made up. So yeah, this proposal should be about setting the rule. --Blitzwing 12:04, 2 March 2009 (EST)


 * Yeah, so if this proposal does not pass, there would be no rule about reverting proposals (as opposed to us "leaving as is" a six month rule, which apparently we never had). --
 * Yeah. And you should put the amount of months, not days. (60 days=2 months)
 * Yup, I was just parroting what I was told by people who were sysops and bureaucrats way before I was, so really there's no weight to the six month rule... I'd like to be able to assume that everything told to me is true, but alas. :3 Blitz, were you a sysop when that idea came about?  You'd probably know more about how the notion came about and why it was used to block some proposals even when it wasn't policy than I would.
 * There was never any real idea of a "time limit" for reverting proposals. If someone saw a proposal didn't quite work out, they would just make another proposition and that's it. --Blitzwing 16:06, 3 March 2009 (EST)
 * Except for the two or so proposals about Banjo and Conker articles that were shot down based on the fact that they were released so shortly after each other. :P Whatever - doesn't matter now.
 * Toadette: "60 days" is far more accurate because months are different amounts of days and if we say "two months from July 22*" that can be interpreted in a few different ways, such as two 30-day periods, two month name-changes, etc. So I'd go for days. *Totally random.

Okay, we'll do it... and then change it back 60 days later! :D }}

Create a Dispute Resolution Committee
DON'T CREATE 0-6

So, I've been browsing Wookieepedia and have noticed they have a sysop's noticeboard. I think we should have something like this to alert sysops of important things and solve disputes between users. We would call this the "Dispute Resolution Committee".

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{user|Yoshario}} Deadline: March 16, 2009 17:00

Oppose

 * 1) - A public record of issues may do more harm than good. Sysops can already discuss things on their forum board.
 * 2) Per YY.
 * 3) - Per YY.
 * 4) - YellowYoshi398 does have a point. So per YY.
 * 5) - Per YY.
 * 6) per YY

Comments
I think we need this so regular users may alert sysops, since regular users do not have access to the sysop boards.
 * I used to and still do use the main talk page when the matter is public, and before I was buro or sysop and I wanted to keep something quiet (like an interuser dispute) I just dropped a note on a sysop's page. If this feature was updated and I had something I didn't want to get full blown I'd probably just use the sysop's talk page anyway... What I want to know is, how would it be different from the main page?  We still have a smallish Wiki so I think we might be able to make do with that. :)

}}

Change Log-In
NO CHANGES 3-8

1 hour ago I just had a horrible experience.My computer had somehow forgot my password for this Wiki,thus I took 1 hour trying to remember it,as I had lost the piece of paper the password was written on.So to stop this experience happening to anyone else,we could maybe have two options,like a question? Instead of a password? Are we allowed this? Do you want it? I'll be waiting!

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Hyper Guy}} Deadline: March 16, 2009, 17:00

Something Different!

 * 1) Huzzah! per above.
 * 2) - SOunds good, maybe adding a security question
 * 3) - I'm Yoshikart, and I've got a severe problem, I entered my password, and IT WOULDN'T LOG ME IN. So I had to resort to my backup account.

Leave as is!

 * 1)  - Um... You guys do realise this will lead to sockpupeting and people being able to log in as other users. So this is one heck of a bad idea.
 * 2) - Umm, no. You can store your passwords in like a secret text document, but losing your password would be kinda silly amirite? If you choose a password that you cant remember well, then choose a password thats both secure and you can remember it from the top of your head. Mistakes happen, I know. I don't think there's a MediaWiki extension for a second log-in thingy.
 * 3) - If someone forgets their password, it's their fault and their problem. If you know you have memory issues (AMNESIA for example...), then save the password in a text document somewhere on your computer. Users must take responsibility for their own account issues.
 * 4) - Per all.
 * 5) - It's better to keep the passwords rather than just add questions, because, as Nerdy Guy said above, this would lead other users into logging onto accounts that don't belong to them, and therefore hacking in to them. Per all.
 * 6) - Per all,We rather have an user who have to make ten accounts because the user forgot the password for the other nine,other then to block an user for what someone else did.
 * 7) - Per all. Even if it is possible to implement something like this, it's too much trouble just to accomodate a few people who can't remember a password. To avoid forgetting, simply choose something easy to remember, and if necessary, store it in multiple places on and off the computer; logging-in shouldn't be a challenge.
 * 8) - Per all.

Comments
Is the password thing something all Wikis HAVE to do? if it is,ignore this.

Hmmm... I'm not entirely sure I understand the proposal. Do you mean two accounts? That's what I think you are saying.


 * No, it means two ways to log in
 * You're going to have to specify that second way. You mentioned security questions as an idea in the proposal, but right now we're just voting for "something" to happen.  You'll need to reword it, otherwise we're voting on whether or not to give you a blank slate to work with as far as log ins are concerned.  22:44, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Ok,I added an example.This IS my first proposal.
 * Much better - and I'm sorry if I came off strict. :)

Woo-hoo! I'm logged in correctly now! }}

Courses based on Courses
MERGE THEM 2-14

Hey everyone it's User:MC Hammer Bro. again. This time I've noticed things like Super Smash Bros. stages and Mario Kart courses that share names with courses in games that they are based off of. Mainly I noticed how Article: Tick Tock Clock, course 14 in Super Mario 64 is seperate from Tick Tock Clock (course) but...Rainbow Ride from Super Mario 64 and Rainbow ride (Rainbow cruise) stage from Super Smash Bros. Melee are in the same articel. So my question is show the articles be merged or seperated?

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|MC Hammer Bro.}} Deadline: March 26, 2009, 17:00

Split 'em up

 * 1) Courses of the same name from different games should stay split because, well, they have their own qualities.Besides, SSB stages are usually a "very rough" version of the real stage.
 * 2) - I think it would be crazy to merge these together, because they really are two different things. I mean, wouldn't it be confusing if you clicked rainbow ride on a template trying to get to the ssbm level, but went to the sm64 world instead? Of course you would have it on that page, but not as the main thing, but as a side subject. I say we Split 'em up.

Merge 'em together

 * 1) - I say merge, beacuse they're supposed to be the same place
 * 2) - I would merge article titles that have the same name.  As we now seperate history sections by appearances, articles could have section titles for each game the topic appears in.  For example, Luigi's Mansion could have a section under the title "Luigi's Mansion," then a section titled "Mario Kart series" with the Luigi's Mansion from Mario Kart, which would then state the differences between the original and the MK versions.  Finally, the article could have a "Mario Tennis" section for the mansion's appearance in Mario Power Tennis.
 * 3) - Per SoS.
 * 4) - Per SoS.
 * 5) - Per SoS.
 * 6) - Per SoS.
 * 7) - Per Sos. It's a great idea and I guess there are more articles with this delemas than I though.
 * 8) .-i think merge for the same reasons as SoS but also some articles are very small and even if we merge all of their realated articles it still wont be nealy as song as say... mario's article so yes MERGE!! DEFINATELY MEEEEERRGE!!!
 * 9) - Per SoS.
 * 10) - Per SoS.
 * 11) - I think that we should merge all articles on the same topic. However, we should not go as far as merging Rainbow Ride with Rainbow Road, only articles on things with little to no notable differences, like the Mario Circuits.
 * 12) - Per Son of Suns.
 * 13) - i like sos's idea. per above.
 * 14) - Per SoS.

Comments
Zafum: It will take you to both things, so i dont see whats wrong


 * Also, links can be directed to sections, instead of the top of the article. So say you specifically want to link to the Luigi's Mansion in Super Smash Bros. Brawl.  You simply turn the link into Luigi's Mansion and you will go straight to the Smash Bros. info, passing by the other sections. --

Idk, it just seems......as a "bad example" to new users.Who knows, probanly they'll say, "OMG y don't they put seperate articles 4 it!ZOMG they suck!!!lol.I'm leaving." or something like that.
 * Well that would be their loss, now wouldn't it? You can't always get what you want, and if you storm off just because you disagree with some policy somewhere then you're gonna be unhappy for a very long time; it's better to just be flexible. -

}}

Beta Enemies
MAKE BETA ENEMY PAGE 5-3

I dont know where to put this but here goes.

I propose we create a page for all beta enemies, including stats, behavior, psychopath thoughts etc. and redirect drill bit (the only beta enemy with a page bcause it was accidentaly left in a cutscene (smithy! reember your blood pressure!)) to this page we could add a link 2 drill bit on the page AND if possible, the action replay codes used to access some of these beta enemies. Im sure interested in anything beta. Rite nao, the info is scattered about the beta elements page and pages of similar enemies.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{user|YourBuddyBill}} Deadline: 17:00 Monday, March 31, 2009

Make Beta Enemy Page

 * 1) YourBuddyBill- Ill take out the part about drill bit. we could just add alink to the page to drill bit
 * 2) - per ybb
 * 3) - This can make extra pages.Extra Pages = better example for guests = MOAR users = better articles.
 * 4) - Great idea, but we better put the beta enemies to the Beta Element page. Also, I've recently seen the name of the beta Blooper enemy of Mario and Luigi: Partners in Time on TMK.
 * 5) - Good idea. But it would be better to take out the part about the action replay codes. I have never seen codes on this wiki so it would be best to leave it that way.

Do Not Make Beta Enemy Page

 * 1) - I'd prefer to see Beta Elements sorted by game. To me, it seems a largely arbitrary distinction to separate beta enemies from the rest of the main beta article. Especially so when considering that all the other information on that page would remain as it is. A subsection under the relevant game's section of the page would work equally well.
 * 2) - Per Twentytwofiftyseven. Keeping all the beta information pertaining to each game together in one place is the most effective way at presenting the info to the readers. Also, if the enemies get their own seperate page, why not beta items, beta characters and beta locations? Regardless of how much info there is about them, enemies are no more important than anything else on that beta elements page, so separating them and nothing else seems wrong.
 * 3) Per all Lu-igi board 15:22, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

Comments
Fixed. ;) And I would like to know all the stuff about them too, but separate pages for each enemy is rather tedious, in my opinion. Maybe not, but I would like it if we could know more about them.

Did Son of Suns vote in the wrong place? He said he wanted to keep separate pages; yet voted in do not make separate pages. Or am I reading it wrong? --


 * Oh, never mind, I read it twice, and I understand now. =D


 * The proposal states we should create one page for all enemies. Bloc Partier labeled the sections incorrectly.  (Not his fault, original proposer did not format anything right.)  I fixed it--

sorry, the directions are a bit complicated 4 me


 * If you remove the Drill Bit part of proposal, leaving it as its own page and linking to it, I will remove my oppose. --

I do think that YBB has a point, though, since it does have to do with the beta enemy being notable or not. Plus, a list is always good as an easy directory for articles. Then again, a category would do that job also.

thing is, not every one HAS an article. theyre just meshed together on the beta elements page with tidbits on other pages

Yoshario, I believe YBB is proposing to create ONE page to cover all Beta enemies, which right now have content in different places, not their own articles (nor is YBB proposing to give them each articles). Drill Bit is unique for being an enemy that appeared in the game but is also a beta enemy, as it was given stats but never used in battle. Hope that clears things up. --

So its not just a list, but an article that has the information on Beta Enemies instead of separate articles? I think that would be good. But then, would we still cover unused Drill Bit information in that article? --
 * OOps, I did read it wrong. The poor grammar threw me off. :P But yeah, one page sounds great.


 * To Yoshario - yep, one Beta Enemies page (there are no separate articles). Drill Bit would probably have a section with a "main article" link to Drill Bit.  The Drill Bit article should cover everything, while the Drill Bit entry in a proposed Beta Enemies page would give a summary of the subject Drill Bit as related to the article subject - Beta Enemies. --

Alright, I like that idea, better remove my oppose.

Instead of creating another page, how about having a sub section in the Beta Elements page? They would classify in that category, but would things get a little too complicated?


 * Yes, that looks better

Arend: Are you sure you voted under the right header? Supporting means the enemies will get a page separate from the Beta Elements, but it sounds like you want them as part of the main Elements page only (which is the current policy, as far as I know)... -


 * To Arend (and Walkazo as well): There is no policy (I believe) regarding how the Beta Elements page should be organized. Currently it lacks a Beta Enemies section, but that does not mean it can't have one.  This proposal is specifically about creating a separate article about Beta Enemies.  If that's what you want Arend, that's fine, but I think several of us are confused by your vote, which would suggest you don't want this page to be created. --


 * Oh, I thought it was proposed on articles about beta enemies. Ah, well, still great idea. But how is is about Categories?
 * It's not really about categories at all (as far as my understanding goes). Since the beta elemets page is currently listing all the beta stuff by game, I'd assume that's the current "policy". None of the specific types of beta elements have their own sections - they're all spread out amongst their parent games (SMB3 enemies under the SMB3 header, etc.). My argument is that creating a beta elements page would make our coverage inconsistant, as none of the other types of beta elements are organized like that; change them all or change none. -
 * I got it, but why some people are saying that YBB says we sort the beta elements page on ememies. After reading SoS's comment, I looked at the whole proposal, and I understood that the proposal is about just adding a page of the beta enemies. This is a great idea, but still, the categories and so. For that Blooper enemy of PiT, we need to add a category of Bloopers; however, Drill Bit is also a beta foe, which needs a different category than Bloopers. That would be a gigantic problem. Plus, that the name of the article is Beta Enemies. Shouldn't new users be confused about that?

I have AR codes for a beta Red Koopa in Sm64ds!Not to mention beta hat boxes.Too bad my AR broke.... }}

Worlds and levels
MERGE ARTICLES 7-6

YBB again, Im noticing that some games have all of the levels of a world on the world's page, like 7-1, 7-2, 7-3, and 7-4 are all on the same page as World 7, but with other games, worlds just have links to level pages, like Chocolate Island and Chocolate Secret. Should we merge them all together, or split them apart? Note that this is relevant to pipeprojects.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|YourBuddyBill}} Deadline: April 2, 2009, 17:00

Merge

 * 1) - Yes, one big stub is no better than lots of little stubs, but this isn't about stubs - it's about organization: the real question is whether the same amount of info should be covered by tens of big articles or hundreds of smaller ones. Merging the levels would not cut down on the amount of information that could be included, it just rearranges it. Whether or not an aspect of a game has its own article shouldn't matter to how important it is in the grand scheme of things; not every named thing needs its own article to tell the readers what they need to know. Bloc Partier's Mt. Teapot is a good example of a world article that negates the need for individual level articles because it essentially has all the important information right there (though I'll admit that "importance" is in the eyes of the beholder). Other world articles need work, such as Desert Land, which has around the same amount of info as all of Chocolate Island's subsidiary stubs put together. However, expanding the former as a whole and expanding the latter stub-by-stub would essentially be the same thing, with only the organization differing (as is the inconsistent case now).
 * 2) - Per Walkazo. It is much easier to see all the information on one page than splitting it and needing to click back and forth between pages just to view all the levels and whatnot.
 * 3) - Per Walkazo and Bloc Partier. Plus, one article per world per game is more organized than one article per level.
 * 4) - Per Walkazo. It makes much more sense to have one umbrella world article than a ton of little one-level articles floating around.
 * 5) - I think that we should. It is more organized and efficient to use when some are already meged and some are not.
 * 6) - Per all.
 * 7) - Per all.

Split

 * 1) - Levels are independently named, even if only by number.  Each level contains a WEALTH of information - to cut down on stubs people should actually expand these level articles instead of creating one-sentence articles for the sake of creating one-sentence articles.  Merging the levels doesn't solve the stub problem, as the world article would still lack A LOT of information and would just be a stub of a larger size.  Level articles can then be linked by a profile template similar to the ones already in use by Donkey Kong Country and Yoshi's Island level articles in order to organize the different level articles.
 * 2) Sos has a good point.
 * 3) - Per SoS.
 * Per SoS. We can't just merge all levels into their world articles.
 * 1) Per all Lu-igi board 15:21, 28 March 2009 (EDT)
 * 2) Per SoS.

Comments
Ugh, this would destroy all my hard work to make Mt. Teapot Featured. But unfortunately it's a good idea. Blech. I'm not voting.

I think it is wrong thinking of merging or splitting everything. Like any other section in every page, if a section about a zone is too large, it'll need an article, if it fits well in the page of the world it'll remain a section. It is fool to have lots of stub pages just because we decided to split them all, or to have incredibly large articles just because we decided to merge. I think the only point is how long should a zone section be to become an article?
 * Well, we do need standards...
 * Kombatgod: I don't agree with all of your points, but I definitely do agree that this should be decided on case-by-case basis. While on the one hand Super Mario Land levels could be perfectly placed in world articles (well, except someone would really expand them), on the other hand it makes no sense to me to merge Super Mario World levels into world articles.
 * I definitely agree with Time Q. SMW levels' articles are good enough to stay the way they are. But there are other levels that don't have enough information to have their own articles.


 * Any level has as much or more information than any SMW level. The problem is someone actually has to write down the information and expand the level's article content on the wiki. --

}}

Change Calendar to Featured Images on Main Page
CHANGE TO FEATURED IMAGES 18-2

Of all the sections on the main page, I find the Calendar to be the least useful, so I am proposing to replace it with a Featured Image section. The Featured Image would highlight high quality, interesting, witty, provocative, rare, and important images that can be found in articles on the Mario Wiki. The Featured Image would be selected by a vote just like the Featured Poll. The image would be updated every week and would be selected by the wiki's users. On a new Featured Image Selection page, users could nominate an image (probably just linking to the page instead of putting the image on the selection page), give some reasons for the nomination if they want to (i.e., let us know what makes this image so special) and users can then Support or Oppose. The Featured Image of the week will be decided by subtracting the number of opposes from the number of supports - the image with the most "points" will be featured. Any image with negative points (that is a majority of opposes) after a week will be removed from the selection process. The only condition for images that can be nominated is that they must be in an actual mainspace article in the wiki. No personal images or others; only images that can actually be found in the wiki's articles will be allowed.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Son of Suns}} Deadline: April 9, 2009, 17:00

Change to Featured Images

 * 1) - Per my reasons above.
 * 2) - Nobody maintains the calender. In the six months that it's been running, it has been on time twice. It was 28 hours late this month, which really is plenty of time to make the wiki look silly and unprofessional. A featured image would, I believe, be more popular and better maintained.
 * 3) - Per SoS and 2257. I've always wondered what the point of the calendar is. Does anybody actually look at it and go, "ZOMG, game X was released Y years ago, let's celebrate this day!"? The Featured Image thing, on the contrary, seems like a good idea to implement. It could actually make the main page look better, and that's what the page's point is, isn't it?
 * 4) - Featured images sounds more interesting than a calender im my opinion.
 * 5) - Per all. I hope the Featured Image's support and oppose system works better than the Poll Selection one. And the Calendar isn't useful in my opinion. If someone wants to know when a game was released, he/she just has to see the game's article.
 * 6) - Per all.
 * 7) - Though it is interesting to see what games came out around the time, the calendar is not that interesting and is never prepared on time. Chop it. Also, FI's sound cool.
 * 8) - Featured image: good idea. Calender: bad idea. By that comparison, I mean per all.
 * 9) - Per all.
 * 10) -- Per all. I never found the calendar to be a really great feature anyway. There are tons of high-quality images on this site that would be great to see on the Main Page.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) - I think having a featured image is a great idea; I just hope that it's much much better than the calender thingy.
 * 13) I think the Calendar is useless because no one cares about old release dates unless the game is getting re-released. This is a great idea that would coexist with the Featured Articles!! I think everyone should get together and go through the Main Page to get rid of sections we dislike and consider a waste of space. SoS got a Head Start!!
 * 14) - Per All! What's it for anyway?
 * 15) - Agree in response for all.
 * 16) Per all, but I agree with comments below to put the calendar into The 'Shroom
 * 17) User:Supermario6449I don't care for a calander.There is no point "celebrating" release dates.I WANT PICTURES!
 * 18) Per all.

Keep Calendar

 * 1) We can have both, i find the calendar useful and informative. Also, there may be many problems for choosing a FI, and there may not be many images deserving that title
 * 2) I agree with Tucayo

Comments
Why don't do BOTH? there's enough space when you see it on my webbrowser.


 * Because the calendar is not very attractive to being with. At least in my opinion. --
 * I think we can do both! I think the calendar is pretty handy, but the Featured Images are great, too!
 * The Calendar doesn't work as part of the main page, but perhaps it could still be used as part of The 'Shroom. If someone is put in charge of the Calendar as if it were a 'Shroom section, hopefully that would mean it won't be neglected so much. -


 * That's a good idea. --
 * Thanks! -
 * As Sub-Director, I fully support that idea. --

While we're on the subject of the main page, should we consider removing the QOTD? It's not even a QOTD, just a random quote generated each time. We could also do something like change the coding and add an actual quote, rather than DPL.
 * NO! I think it's fun. But yeah, we can better rename it. Maybe just: The Random Chosen Quote?
 * More like "The Quote Chosen By A Random Generator That No One Actually Randomly Picks." >_> But yeah, I've said chop off the QOTD for a while now.
 * I made a version of the QOTD that actually picks a quote based on the date, here. What's there is unfinished, though. Eventually, llquote would be integrated into the main deal, but I don't want to do that until I know people are interested. Also, I'm not guaranteeing it won't suddenly start splitting atoms. Use at your own risk.
 * Well, I just merged it. Assuming it works correctly, which I can't test, the only possible alteration at this point would be to add support for leap days. I'm not doing that. After doing this, I can understand why Wayoshi thought would be better. >_>

I do the Calendar of Events for the Shroom, which was released last month. I could edit it, because I'd love to bring some peace to editing the Main Page!! Check out my Proposal below!!


 * How many people even visit the Main Page multiple times? (Personally, I'm on it once a month.) QOTD may not be the most accurate title, but it sounds better than "Random Quote" (or something like that), since "random" sounds sorta unprofessional / cheap / gimmicky / whatever. In my Grade 6 class we had Quotes of the Day which spanned entire weeks, it's really no big deal. -

Corka Cola: Perhaps for this month's issue you can add some info from the Main Page's calendar }}

Let Members Go Through Main Page To Eliminate Unwanted Sections
NO VOTING 1-8

The proposal above by got me thinking, how many sections are unwanted or useless to the Main Page? All Members of any rank will be worth 1 Point for every positive vote, -1 for negative vote. I'll change it if complained. If approved, I'll see if we can get individual pages for voting for each section that will last 1 week. Most likely, it'll go in order based on their location on the Main Page. Anytime during the week after approval, anyone may voice new Section Ideas on this Proposals page. Let's begin voting and see change!!

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User| Corka Cola}} Deadline: April 12, 2009, 15:00

Let Voting Take Place

 * 1) - Since I was the Creator of this proposal, per above.

Leave As Is

 * 1) - I don't think we need to go through a big voting fiasco to change the main page.  We should just stick to the normal channels - main page talk page discussions and proposals.
 * 2) - Per SoS.
 * 3) - Per SoS.
 * 4) -- Per SoS and my comment below.
 * 5) - Per all.
 * 6) Per all, I also have to mention that I strongly agree with SoS
 * 7) I agree with all of you
 * 8) - Per SoS

Comments
I am seeing disorganizatiopn in editing the Main Page, disgust in Members based on what it contains. Let's just see what the people want.
 * Lol, Patrollers are less important than Sysops. You do realize this, yes?
 * More importantly, why should being a sysop/patroller/whatever make someone's opinion more important than anyone else's?
 * I agree. All members here are equal. Just because certain members have more power than others doesn't make them better, more valuable, or more important; it makes them more experienced. --
 * Also, lots of members are just as (if not more) active as many of the Admins, so weighting votes differently based on rank would be even more unfair for them. -
 * Changed it so everyone is equal. Sorry, just didn't understand!!

}}

Change 60-Day Rule to One Month
CHANGE RULE 6-0

I think that the 60-day minumum for waiting to overturn proposals is a bit of a long to to wait. What if a proposal is passed and it lowers the quality of the wiki extremely? Or what if a majority of people who voted in favor of the original proposal want to overturn it? I believe that one month is neither too short nor too long.


 * By "month" I mean 4 weeks, or 28 days. Thank you Ralphfan for helping me decide.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Super Mario Bros.}} Deadline: April 13, 2009, 17:00

Change to One Month

 * 1) - Per my reasons above.
 * 2) - Per Super Mario Bros.
 * 3) per all
 * 4) - per all. I really want to go back on a certain proposal, but it hasn't been 60 days yet...
 * 5) - Per Walkazo.
 * 6) - Good point, but make it 28 days (4 weeks) because some months are longer than others.

Keep at 60 Days

 * 1) - The last proposal wasnt more than 60 days ago, so it cant be reversed

Comments
This is not overturning the decision made about a month ago to make a rule to make the limit 60 days. The original intent of that proposal was to change the limit from 6 months to 60 days. This is only changing the limit, and not making it 6 months again. - Previously unsigned comment signed by

I'm not try to be smart or anything,but It haven't been 60 days since the "60 day proposal".Rules are Rules


 * Super Mario Bros. is actually correct. This proposal would not overturn the previous proposal, and thus it should be allowed.  The previous (unstated) rule was actually any proposal could immediately be overturned at any time.  The current rule is to wait sixty days to overturn or reverse a decision.  This proposal would clearly not reverse the decision of the original proposal back to zero waiting time, so it is within the rules. --
 * Why not removing it directly, as if the problem is solved?

Thank you SoS.


 * Not saying that you're wrong, but couldn't one apply that logic in a way that circumvents the "60 day" rule totally? Plus, didn't this proposal get shot down when it could have passed by similar logic? (Actually, I'm glad it did, but I want to be fair.)


 * And on the subject of the proposal I linked, the proposal that it would have half-overturned was quite the hotly contested issue, yes? It just barely passed, and if it came up again, it might be overturned. Seeing as it affected quite a few articles, this would necessitate a lot of reversions. And then what would happen if it came up again in 30 more days?


 * I'm not sure what to do about that, so I thought I'd bring it up. Who knows, maybe nobody will care enough to keep proposing it. But it will be allowed for reconsideration if this passes. (Or five days after it fails.)


 * Yeah, I might have drifted from the topic a bit. Sorry.


 * The Mario Kart Name proposal would have made the naming standard inconsistant, so it already had a strike against it; the 60 day rule was just the final blow. Also, you're forgetting that many of us would be perfectly happy to see that First Official Title proposal revoked. Many more people have come forward and expressed their displeasure with the changes since it passed, so perhaps it would be useful to take another look at the issue now that we've seen it in use - that's one of the points of this "X day" rule, isn't it? But yeah, this is getting a little off topic. -


 * "Also, you're forgetting that many of us would be perfectly happy to see that First Official Title proposal revoked." That was actually my point. It was almost equally divided between people who were for it and people who were against it. If it would come up again in the future, then it could swing back and forth, necessitating many reversions and generally wasting time.


 * Oh, I see now. I've actually been mulling that over too: it seems ridiculous that a change that big passed by a single vote. I've been meaning to propose a new rule saying that if a proposal has more than 10 votes, it can only pass or fail by some sort of margin (maybe by 3 or 5 votes) so that only clear majorities result in changes. If a proposal reaches the deadline and it's a close race (i.e. 13 vs. 14) then the proposal would be extended a few more days (again, 3 might be a good number). That way, we won't have to worry about flip-flopping on issues every month; it also deals with ties, which we don't have any official stance on at the moment. -

Yep, the Mario Kart naming proposal was shot down because it did not offer an alternative policy to the previous proposal. The previous was not simply about changing the name of articles, but established a policy about how all current and future articles should be named. As there was no rule before (I think...I'm not sure), someone could propose a policy to replace it at anytime, but it would need to be a clear system or policy, not simply change article title X to Y (i.e., overturn the previous decision for a small class of articles). A new policy would not overturn the previous proposal and can be issued if need be - to overturn it would mean a proposal calling for the elimination of standard naming conventions (which the Mario Kart proposal was essentially calling for by upsetting the standard). --

Tucayo, this is. I am letting your vote count. I am sorry I kept on pestering you to take it down. I decided to let your vote count because I saw some of your votes on other proposals and I think you have a good voting record, and I feel like a jerk trying to insist to take your vote away. Besides, you are the only one at this point that opposes my proposal, so I guess it would be ok to let your vote count. Also, nobody besides myself has really made this thing a big ordeal, so I am retracting my argument. Once again, I am sorry for making a huge thing out of something little. }}

Clear Majority Rule
SET "CLEAR MAJORITY" RULE 14-0

I was looking at the comments of my last proposal and noticed that the proposal itself is a bit controversial. That is why I, Super Mario Bros. am organizing this proposal, which was originally voiced by Walkazo. If it were to pass, this proposal would create a rule that in order to pass or fail, the "winning side" of a proposal (with 10 votes or over) needs to beat the "losing side" of the same proposal by at least 3 votes in order to pass or fail. If it wins or fails with 2 votes or less or ends in a tie, then the deadline will be extended for another week.

{{scroll box|content= Proposers: {{User|Walkazo}} and {{User|Super Mario Bros.}} Deadline: April 14, 2009, 17:00

Support

 * 1) Per Walkazo's reasons above
 * 2) Per Super Mario Bros.
 * 3) Per Super Mario Bros.
 * 4) - Per my reasons that have been paraphrased above (see below for original version).
 * 5) per all
 * 6) - Per Walkazo. I find the current rule to be rather redundant, anyway.
 * 7) - This proposal is just great! I think we should do the same with the Poll Selection page.
 * 8) - Per all. If only this rule could have existed 2 months ago...
 * 9) - Sounds great, I find it to be cool because some users miss the chance of voting sometimes (reasons: school,problems with internet, lack of time, et cetera) and with the proposal deadline extended, they would have a chance to vote. Plus this would make more users vote when the proposal is extended and we can gather different opinions.
 * 10) - Per all.
 * 11) - Good point; we'll get more opinions in that case.
 * 12) - Per All
 * Per Walkazo. Sometimes which side wins is just a matter of luck (e.g. if it's 13-12). Requiring a greater difference seems reasonable.
 * 1) - Per all, but I think we should include a little addendum (see my comment below).

Comments
What happens if it is still tied or there is no clear majority after another week? --
 * SoS, to answer your question, I don't know. I'm split between letting it pass/fail or marking it as No Conclusion. Which do you think I should do? Then I guess the proposal will have to wait another month (or sixty days if my proposal doesn't pass).

"It seems ridiculous that a change that big passed by a single vote. I've been meaning to propose a new rule saying that if a proposal has more than 10 votes, it can only pass or fail by some sort of margin (maybe by 3 or 5 votes) so that only clear majorities result in changes. If a proposal reaches the deadline and it's a close race (i.e. 13 vs. 14) then the proposal would be extended a few more days (again, 3 might be a good number). That way, we won't have to worry about flip-flopping on issues every month; it also deals with ties, which we don't have any official stance on at the moment." - If you're gonna use my idea, Super Mario Bros., at least have the decency to give me credit, because otherwise it's intellectual theft and if you do it in real life you can get in serious trouble (for example, if you're caught plagiarizing in University you get expelled). -
 * Yes Walkazo, I was actually going to credit you, it's just that I was busy since I have made the proposal, so I am sorry for not doing it sooner. I am not sure if you are interested to hear why, but today was my parent's anniversary and they went out to eat, and I was not at the computer to thank you. But I will credit you in the main part of the proposal. Once again, I'm sorry for forgetting. Plus, I hope it is ok if I put you as one of the proposers.
 * Much better, thank you. -

Son of Suns: The official stance would be to extend the deadline by another week, but the practical thing to do would be that the proposer remove the proposal and rework it, taking into consideration all the arguments for and against it so that they could find a way to appease more Users and reach a clear majority next time (which, as the proposal was removed and not passed or failed, could come at any time without a 30/60 day buffer period). I've found turning all the arguments for and against the proposal into a chart and matching points and counter-points/rebuttals makes it easier to get a clearer idea of which of those arguments are strong and which are weak, and how to address the entire thing more effectively. I know I don't need to tell you how to reason, SoS, but I just thought I'd put my strategy out there anyway. -


 * Technically, "majority" is anything above 50% of the vote. Just throwin' that out there...
 * Yep, that's why we're asking for a "clear" majority. Actually, while we're on the subject of terminology, if you take abstaining Users (who have commented on the proposal but did not vote) into account, it's also possible to end with a "minority" vote. The only Wiki-based example I know of is the First English Name Proposal: the final tally was 14-13, with 2 abstainers, meaning the proposal only passed with 48% support; it beat the 45% opposition, but was not, in fact, a "majority". -

Just to be clear, does it need ten votes total, or ten votes for just one side?
 * Ten total. If the proposal passes, I'll make sure the new rule is written clearly so there won't be any question about what it means. -
 * I'm actually somewhat worried about that... Ten users do often not vote on any given proposal. For example, this one. :O
 * Yeah, but this rule concerns the big proposals more. If there's gonna be a big policy change, people get involved, whereas smaller issues like this aren't consequential to most Users. I've found that these smaller proposals generally accumulate obvious majorities anyway, and if it's close, last minute voters who only sorta cared often flock in and tip the balances rather than risk the possibility of it falling the other way. I also suggested the 10 votes minimum thing because you don't need 3 votes to be a clear majority when the numbers are small: for example, even though a 4-2 tally only differs by 2 votes, at 67% to 33%, it's still clear which side has the community backing. I just think pestering the little decisions with the Clear Majority Rule would be more trouble than it's worth. -

I like the idea, but I see a potential failing: if the proposal is consistently supported by only a one or two vote margin, then it will be hopelessly deadlocked, which is pretty much the same as failing. But that doesn't make sense, because it did get a favorable majority. In this situation, perhaps we could (and I know that this won't always be possible) try to reach some sort of compromise on the issue to circumvent potential logjams. --
 * If an issue is deadlocked, wouldn't it be better to see it rethought than to slip by because of a single vote? If the community is so divided on an issue, there is no right answer. The proposer can take down the proposal and retool it to work for more people, so it'd be more like a rough draft than a failure; the buffer zone is itself a compromise. -

}}

Merge or Delete Demo Articles
MERGE 5-2-1

I am proposing that we delete or merge articles like The Legend of Zelda: Orcarina of Time. I think that if we keep this article as it is, there will be a whole bunch of Kirby, Zelda, and Metroid game articles. Therefore I am proposing to either merge or delete demo articles.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Yoshario}} Deadline: April 17, 2009, 20:00

Merge them into one Article

 * 1) - Most of the articles are stubs. This will use up less space here on the wiki.
 * 2) - Merge them in Masterpieces will be much better, they havent got images or category, a total stub
 * 3) - Per. An all-pupose masterpieces article seems about right.
 * 4) - Per all
 * 5) - Per above & Blitz

Keep as it is

 * 1)  I am not sure what you are talking about. If you would go to my talk page and supply me with some examples of these demo articles, then I will definitely reconsider my vote. I personally don't think that pages should be deleted unless they do not supply efficient information and nobody on the wiki is doing a thing about it.

Delete

 * 1) First of all, there never were any metroid or zelda or kirby articles on this site. Second of all, If those pages exist, those pages would be against the rules anyway.
 * 2)  Per Zafum.

Comments
Zafum: Thats why they should be merged in 1 article, because they appear in SSBB, so theyre part of the Marioverse, the articles dont give complete info as if it were a Mario game, its just saying what appears in the demo, have you seen them?

"...they appear in SSBB, so theyre part of the Marioverse..." Please explain this assertion.
 * As we have articles for trophys and stickers, we should have an article for those

}}

DKC T.V. Show Episodes
DON'T MERGE 1-5

Okay, I was looking through the episodes of the old Donkey Kong Country TV series, and 27 out of 40 of the episodes were stub articles. In other words, about 67% of the episodes list were stubs, 33% were exceptional articles (and of that 33%, I think more could qualify for stub articles). What I am proposing is that we merge all the articles into one (of course, the articles that aren't stubs would just be linked to). That would reduce many of the stub articles and boost the quality of Super Mario Wiki up.


 * I have created a PipeProject that will deal with these types of articles. If this proposal is passed, and I get enough support for my PipeProject, I will work on condensing the episodes lists for all the T.V. shows into articles accordingly with their own shows.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Super Mario Bros.}} Deadline: April 19, 2009, 15:00

Merge

 * 1) Per my reasons above.

Leave As Is

 * No, merging some of the articles and leaving others separate wouldn't boost the wiki's quality up. It would make the wiki look rather unorganized. Those stub articles can easily be expanded, and I guess they are more likely to be expanded if they are kept separate.
 * 1) Merging the DKC TV show episodes into one article would mean we also must merge, for example, the SMW TV show episodes into one article, which are quite long enough. Also, most TV show articles are long enough, and merging all episodes of a show into one aricle would probarbly be SO long that it is worth too much KB. Plus, if most think merging the episodes AND the show into one, would be worth too much KB, maybe even some MB, all because it's making too long. Look at the SSBB article, it has already much.
 * 2) - Per the individual up there. It will look bad, its all or none (In few words, NO)
 * 3) I am in concurrence with the above users.
 * 4) - Per all.

Comments
I added a note on my proposal above. Besides, the articles for the episodes are not supposed to tell a whole story, but rather give a brief summary, which is why most of the articles are stubs.
 * Actually, the episode articles are supposed to tell the entire story. Same goes for all game, comic, movie and book articles too. -
 * Oh... Never mind then. Um... Forget that part of the argument! Still, many of the episodes articles can still be condensed and still have good quality. If any are still to long to include in a list of episodes with its text, then they can still be linked to. This would reduce the amount of stub articles and lower the number of huge articles while retaining major information.
 * But that would be inconsistant; if you wanna merge a group of articles (stubs or otherwise), you have to go all or nothing. -
 * What do you mean, inconsistent?
 * Don't think that note will get more voters on the supporting side. Just look at my vote on the opposing side.

}}