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) 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.

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: , 28 2024 (EDT)

New Features
None at the moment.

Removals
None at the moment

Splits & Merges
None at the moment.

Difficulty
Why does the level template used in DKC and SMW2 levels, among others, have a section that says something along the lines of Difficulty: Super Easy? This seems to be POV- What if I thought, say, Jungle Hijinks was hard, but the page said otherwise? This could call for many edits and opinionated statements. I propose that the template is changed so it doesn't have the Difficulty: Whatever.

Proposer: GreenKoopa - Comments or questions? · Look what I did! Look what I did!: Deadline: February 18, 2008, 17:00

Support

 * 1) GreenKoopa - Comments or questions? · Look what I did! Look what I did!: For reasons I stated.
 * 2) Per GreenKoopa. This is indeed POV and we don't want that here.
 * 3) - Per all. Especially cuz I suck and it makes me realize how much I suck every time I see a level I had a ton of trouble with labeled as "easy" :P
 * 4) Yes,Wrold 1-1 is easier that World 8-8, duh. But as the proposer said, level difficulty is mostly opinion and I don't really see what's the point of having it.
 * 5) Unless Nintendo provides difficulty levels (I believe they did for the SMB3 Advance guide), we should allow the reader to determine difficulty for themselves and list out the threats of the level, which we already do.
 * 6) PaperStriker Difficulty says nothing, it can even change if you replay the level. For example in Galaxy, I found the Trial-Galaxies were very hard with Mario, but with you-know-who, I beat them in a few tries.
 * 7) Well, the Special World of SMW is obviously harder than, say, Cheese Bridge. :P So per all.
 * 8) - It's simply a subjective parameter that can't be decided encyclopedially. What if there was a dispute about a level's difficulty?
 * 9) Con 20:07, 12 February 2008 (EST) Level difficulty is only an opinion. Let's not confuse this with difficulty set options (like the setting Classic mode in Melee to Easy, which is for a fact easier than the Normal difficulty).
 * 10) Yeah, per all.
 * 1) Yeah, per all.

Oppose
The Dreadnought Galaxy is harder than the Good Egg Galaxy. Duh.

Comments
Fly Guy 2: Ehheheheh, I athought the speed run Prankster Comet in Good Egg galaxy was actually harder than the Dreadnaught galaxy. See? The whole difficulty thing is all opinion. --Blitzwing 20:51, 12 February 2008 (EST)

Main Article Template
I've noticed with a lot of articles on main characters (e.g.:Mario), it shows that character's relations with other character (e.g.:Luigi, Peach, etc.). That article section gives a brief synopsis of his or her relation with another character with the Main Article Template above it. However, the articles also give a brief synopsis of appearances in games, and how his or her role is important to the story of that game. I think that the Main Article Template should also appear in this area of the articles. For example, with the Mario article, it would say Main Article: Paper Mario above the synopsis of Mario's role in Paper Mario.

Proposer: Deadline: February 18, 2008, 17:00

Support

 * 1) HyperToad Of course, I don't see why not.
 * 1) HyperToad Of course, I don't see why not.

Oppose

 * 1) I don't think this is necessary. The links to the corresponding articles are there anyway. Putting this template almost everywhere is overkill, and it doesn't serve its purpose.
 * 2) - Per Time Q. The purpose of the Main Article template is not a "see also" notice, but that the content which could else be exactly in the section where the template is used has been split up into a different article.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) --Blitzwing 13:47, 11 February 2008 (EST) Per Time Q.
 * 5) Walkazo - Per all.
 * 6) PaperStriker Per all. (duh)
 * 7) Con 20:07, 12 February 2008 (EST) Would cause the template to become overused.
 * 21:53, 12 February 2008 (EST) Like Cobold said, Main Article isn't a See Also, which I think is more appropriate with what you're thinking of. I know to say "during the events of", etc. breaks in-universe writing, but I really don't think that's a big problem.

Comments
Of course, we could easily create a "see also" template which does the same as the Main Article template with different text: "See also". However, this shouldn't be overused, especially when the article of the game is linked in the text anyway. - 13:07, 11 February 2008 (EST)

You know what I think we should do? Mabybe we should only do what the proposal said if the character is the main character in the game. For example, for the Paper Mario section in the Mario article should have the main article template, but not in, say, Bowser's article. The part of Peach's article about Super Princess Peach would have a main article template, but not in Mario's article. What do you guys think? Then Mario's article still would be full of templates. He has more than 15 games of his own. --PaperStriker 08:09, 12 February 2008 (EST)
 * And what would you do with Super Paper Mario, with features several playable characters? Or every Super Mario Bros. game where Luigi is also playable? This sounds inconsistent. - 10:38, 12 February 2008 (EST)
 * We don't have to if you don't want to, but I would go by the character in the title, or the default character.
 * The "links to the corresponding articles" are in the synopsis paragraphs for games. You're right. BUT, in--let's just say--the Mario article, links to Luigi, Princess Peach, Toad', Bowser, Yoshi, Wario, you get the point. Since these links are used (sometimes several times) previously in the article, what is the point of the Main Article Template? As for how to use the template, you would only use the character played as most in the game. For Super Paper Mario, Mario's article would be the only one with Main Article: Super Paper Mario. Though Luigi, Peach, Bowser, and a number of Pixls can be played as, Mario is the character played as most. As for Super Mario Bros., Mario and Luigi would both have the template, since both can be played as the same amount of time during the game. For Super Mario Bros. 2, the same principal would work, only with Mario, Luigi, Princess Peach, and Toad. As for...Yoshi's Island DS, Yoshi would be the only character with the template in the article. Though almost all other color Yoshis are played as in the game, Yoshi's article is the only one to mention a main role in the game. The Babies wouldn't have the template in their articles simply because they couldn't survive without Yoshi (or Yoshis). Party games and spin-off games wouldn't have Main Article Templates, because no character is played as more than the other due to choice and the fact that some are unlocked (which would be a spoiler).
 * As Cobold explained, this is not the purpose of this template. If a section has the Main Article template, the reader knows: What I'm reading is a short synopsis of the link article's content. However, to use your example, this article is not an extended version of this section, because it's not only about Mario's role in the game but about the game in general. Also look at articles like Yoshi, which combine several games in one section. We would have to put more than one Main Article template then. 04:03, 13 February 2008 (EST)
 * With Yoshi, if you are referring to Hero Rescue, there are two games mention, yes. But only one of which can Yoshi be played as, Super Mario 64 DS. As with Flipped, I guess it wouldn't be so much a synopsis as it would be a...cliff-notes version of the Story, so nonetheless it is a "shorter version" of this. Even though it does tell about the game in general, not just Mario's role (this I do agree with), it does tell the whole story, Mario's role and all.

LETS RECREATE SNUFIT BALL AGRESSIVELY
I think the Snufit Ball deserves an article. Duh. It's an important object! Article worthy!

Support

 * 1) I made the proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) HyperToad You make me sick FG2.

Comment
Is this worthy of another Proposal? We already had one related to the Snufit Ball article, and it was decided to NOT make the article.
 * I think he's making a joke. 01:06, 13 February 2008 (EST)
 * OK, can I remove this Proposal, in that case?
 * It's not up to me, but maybe to make this cleaner we should get some more imput? Buuuut... if you want to delete it I'm not going to complain.  01:17, 13 February 2008 (EST)

Pokemon DP: Actually, there is no conscensus on the Snufit Ball since I deleted the proposal before it could pass (It was winning 3-1, BTW). No opinion on this proposal, thought.