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 their 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 anoother 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 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

 * Split from Star Hill. (Discuss) Passed
 * Split 1-Up Super from 1-Up Mushroom. (Discuss). Deadline: July 10 2010, 24:00
 * Split / from Goomba. (Discuss). Deadline: July 24, 2010, 03:09
 * Merge Congazuma's Castle into Congazuma. (Discuss). Deadline: July 27, 2010, 9:30
 * Delete Template:Wikipedia. (Discuss). Deadline: July 29 2010, 16:25
 * Change Sunglasses Salesman into (Discuss). Deadline: July 30 2010, 18:01
 * Merge all the Rocs into the Roc article. (Discuss). Deadline: July 31, 2010, 13:00
 * Merge Super Mario Advance 2: Super Mario World into Super Mario World. (Discuss). Deadline: July 31 2010, 24:00
 * Merge Yoshi's Island: Super Mario Advance 3 into Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island. (Discuss). Deadline: July 31 2010, 24:00
 * Merge Super Mario Advance into Super Mario Bros. 2. (Discuss). Deadline: August 1 2010, 24:00
 * Split from Monty Mole. (Discuss). Deadline: August 3 2010, 23:59
 * Merge Davy Bones' Locker into Davy Bones. (Discuss). Deadline: August 3, 2010, 14:30
 * Merge all Status Ailments. (Discuss). Deadline: August 3, 2010, 14:30
 * Split from Krow. (Discuss). Deadline: 23:59, 4 August 2010

Set a day for the DYK section to be updated
The DYK section is being updated randomly, sometimes not even upgraded at all for months in a row. I propose that we set a day (I don't know yet) that the DYK is going to be updated, like the FA and the "soon to be ending" FI. If you support, vote underneath the date which you want the DYK to be updated.

Proposer: Voting start: 17:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Deadline: 24:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Tuesday

 * 1) per proposal.

Removals
None at the moment

Set limit of proposals by a certain user
Well, first of all, we have this for FA's, so why don't have it here? I now that will not convince you all, so I will detail it even more. Please, take this in count, this is nothing personal against anyone.

So, many of the proposals made are rather pointless, impossible, unprobable, or simply useless, so why not set a 2 proposal per person limit in order to avoid this? When one proposal passes/fails, then the proposer can propose another one. Simple.

Proposer: Voting start: 14 July, 2010 18:00 GMT Deadline: 21 July, 2010 18:00 GMT

Set proposal limit

 * 1) - Per me

Allow infinite number of proposals by a certain proposer

 * 1) Sorry Tucky, but this really doesn't seem necessary. Users may have a few good ideas at a time that they wish to propose. They could be restricted by the limit. I understand that they could wait, but limiting proposals wouldn't stop people from making fake/pointless ones. Also, if it is fake/pointless, it should be removed, and if a user continually makes bad proposals, they can be warned or banned or something. From what I see here, you are just fed up with a certain user who made a few "bad" proposals above. Also whether or not a proposal is bad depends on the opinion of the person viewing/making it. Sorry, no way.
 * 2) Thats not really fair or nesccary.
 * 3) Please don't compare proposals to Featured Articles. Proposals are an idea. Just because you think it's terrible doesn't mean that others think the same (such as the proposer of those). Besides, what's the point in setting the limit? It's bound to fail anyway. Besides, several people can think up of several well-thought out proposals that they don't want to forget and so they state that idea and see the opinions of the others.
 * 4) Proposals and Featured Articles are two different things, sorry. Per all.
 * 5) Sorry, but I have to admit you're overreacting. Per all.
 * 6) And I feel it's just a horrible idea. It won't solve any problem. Your comparison of Featured Articles to Proposals, first off, is a mistake in itself– "Featured Article" is pretty much just a status for an article that is well-written (it's also technically a sort of "Cheers!" to the users who helped the article rise up to F.A. status). Proposals are not some sort of status thing, and directly comparing it to FAs makes it seem like a status thing. What if a user comes up with an outburst of revolutionary, wonderful, magnificent, overbearingly awesome, spectacular ideas that they just to get out there? FAs serve for recognition. Proposals serve to make the general community come to make decisions in a more organized manner. If there are any bad proposals that are coming in, well, they'll probably fail. If not, then the Administrators can have one good look at it and make a decision. Seeing as we deal with quality of proposals already, there is no need to limit the quantity.
 * 7) The more proposals the better, we can't limit them.
 * 8) FAs don't "help" the wiki as much as propasals. Per Super Mario Bors.
 * 9) Proposals are far more important than FA's and shouldn't be limited, per all.

Comments
Using the FA rule as an example is terrible because the FA rule reinforces the notion that it is important to be acknowledged for your work with a gold star. - NARCE 17:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...shorten the proposals per user? Do you mean, when his/her proposal passes/fails, he/she can add a new one right? In that case, I'm with this. Some proposals are pointless. But FAs aren't the good thing to compare with this. Cause' there are millions of articles!
 * Exactly :) Also, NARCE, your comment makes no sense.
 * Good then, I'll wait til' tomorrow to vote!--Mr bones 18:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It makes no sense? Well, here's a q - what good reason exists to limit the number of FAs a person may have under their belt to three? - NARCE 18:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, here is the answer. There are so many articles here. If a user creates 10 articles a day. Wouldn't that be a disaster?

YOu don't understand, is the number of FA's you can nominate. Not "have under your belt", as they are not yours.

Do TPPs count?
 * Nope.

Whose Point of View is it Anyway?
It caught my attention that some level walkthroughs, bosses, etc. articles have it said in the players point of view (Then the player will need to.....), but on the Congazuma article it has it in the character's point of view (.....then Donkey Kong has to hit him in the head). So it comes down to this issue should we have all the articles at the character's or the player's point of view, or should we leave them alone, or do we do both?

Proposer: Voting start: 15 July, 2010, 14:00 Deadline: 22 July, 2010, 14:00

Leave them alone

 * 1) Per Walkazo's comment.
 * 2) I'll choose this vote because there are less people. (Aren't the two options basically the same thing?)

Keep Using Both

 * 1) I am Zero! Per Walkazo's comment, if you don't get "Keep Using Both" term then look at Walkazo's comment. And do you like my reference on the title! Zero signing out.
 * 2) Walkazo makes a great point. We only can use the character's name for articles such as any levels on Donkey Kong, But in articles on multiplayer games such as Mario Kart, we can use "the player"
 * 3) Either way works fine. Per all.
 * 4) - If it's an action the player is doing (pressing buttons, deciding to go somewhere, etc.) you use "player". If it's something the controlled character is doing (hitting an enemy in the head, climbing up somewhere, getting hit, etc.) you use the character's name.
 * 5) - Per Edo.
 * 6) Let's say you have the option to be either Mario or Luigi. You say "the player" which is easier than saying "Mario or Luigi." If there is no option (such as if you must play as Donkey Kong) use the player's specific name.
 * 7) - As long as using "you" is not in this act. ;)
 * 8) - If you have the option to choose who you're using in a boss fight, use the term, "the player"; examples include bosses from Donkey Kong Country and Paper Mario.  Of course, you use the name of the character if only he/she is used in the fight; you can only use DK in the Donkey Kong: Jungle Beat boss fights.
 * 9) - Per All.\
 * 10) - Per all; and as long as we're not referring to the reader directly, it's fine.
 * 11) - Per my comment below.
 * 12) Per all.
 * 13) - Per Walkazo.
 * 14) Per all.

Comments
I think the games where there ARE alot of ranged gender character we can use "the player" but when its solely male or female we use the character.

I think a mix of the two is fine: multiplayer games need the option to talk about the player. For example, when you've got something like Mario Kart or Mario Party, you can't list off all the playable characters the text could apply to, and simply saying "the character" all the time would sound really bad. However, when you're talking about more conventional games like Yoshi's Island or Super Mario Galaxy, always saying "the player has to do this, and that, and then they face Bowser" starts sounding a bit too walkthrough-ish, whereas talking about it all using "Mario" as the vehicle sounds more like an in-game perspective, like the character articles (you definitely can't say "the player" when you're talking about what happened to Mario during Super Paper Mario, for example). So, by necessity the wiki will always have some articles saying "Mario/whoever" and others saying "the player", so for the pages where either would work, I think having the option to use both would be the best course of action. For one thing, it'll add variety to the writing: I've always found the presence of both "Mario" and "the player" in the same paragraphs much less repetitive, and therefore easier to read, than passages with only one or the other. And even if some people do find the duality distracting, as I said before, the wiki needs both styles, so really, having common ground utilizing both of them isn't inconsistent, but merely knitting the two halves of the wiki together. A voting option to keep using both should be added. -

If we use "the player", then we have this pronoun problem of he/she. Case right here: "The player has to do this and that, and then they face Bowser." If we use Mario, we can always use he.

Zero: Anyways is not a word. Change it to anyway.

That's why I use "players" on Wikipedia. ie: "Players have to do this and that, and then they face Bowser." - NARCE 03:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I am Zero! @LGM oh whoops, I tried to make a reference to Whose Line is it Anyway? and probably thought it said "Anyways". Zero signing out.

One thing we'll have to be careful about is that some mainstream games such as Super Mario Bros. have different characters the player can choose.

LeftyGreenMario: It actually is acceptable to use "they" when talking about a singular player (or another gender indeterminate title). There was a discussion about it last year when we decided to stop using "he/she", after a sockpuppeting troll suggested we simply use "he" to refer to players (but obviously, that didn't go over well). You can see the cancellation of the proposal here, but the idea to use "they" did become policy. (However, I'm not sure if we unofficially decided to do that as a result of what the proposal brought to light, or if there was another proposal about it at a later date - it was too long ago...) -
 * I know "they" is becoming more acceptable in everyday writing and speech, but I feel that we should steer clear of the word when it refers to one unspecified person. It's not correct in everyone's eyes. My teachers don't accept it and I don't accept it.

Wait, this brings up something. If we do The Player, shouldn't that be consistent throughout it? Not saying He/She unless its a ranged gender game? Since both Mario and Luigi are male it should just be The Player the entire time through. Same with Princess Peach, shes only female.

Case in point sometimes things will look like this:BJAODN/Other

My opinion would be to use neither. The walkthroughts are just that -walkthrought, trying to peper them with this kind of faux-narrative is cheesy and unnecessarily wordy.... but I'm sure not many will agree with me. --Glowsquid 12:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

?So then what do we write if we use neither?

Err, now that I reread the proposal, I'd say the character pov should be used for Boss articles. Buuuut, levels which have walkthrough in them (ex Hooktail Castle) should just state the action directly ("Hit the switch, then enter the room"). Things like "From X character point of view" are just baddly-writen word cruft. --Glowsquid 16:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Wrong. That's an imperative sentence. We can't use imperative sentences. Imperative sentences have the hidden "you".
 * And you say you're bad at english. I don't even know what imperative MEANS!
 * I didn't say I was bad at English. I just said that I don't know how to write the language. Imperative sentences are orders, such as "make Wario lose!" or "destroy Wario!" They have a hidden you. The actual sentence is supposed to be "You make Wario lose!" but we can omit it in English.
 * On my talk page, you said your english teacher gave you a C or something. Your teacher must be on crack.

'Leave them alone' and 'Keep Using Both' are ultimately the same thing.

Create articles for the Game Boy Advance ports of Donkey Kong Country series
You may have noticed how lately I've been making some changes related to the Donkey Kong Country series. While checking the games' articles, I noticed how they have a quite lengthy section describing MOST of the changes of the Game Boy Advance ports. In the case of the third game, there wasn't even one. I think we should create articles for the ports (including the Game Boy Color port for the first game. This way, we could a more well-explained article that won't be a stub. A link to the article should be put in the original games' article.

Proposer: Voting start: 17 July, 2010, 21:00 UTC Deadline: 24 July, 2010, 23:59 UTC

Support

 * 1) As explained above.

Oppose

 * 1) Per comments below
 * 2) Well, if we give the GBA ports articles, we would produce multiple stubs or clone articles. Also, they work fine as sections in the original games article.
 * 3) Yeah, they'd make clone articles, just like Super Mario Advance 2: Super Mario World and Super Mario World.
 * 4) - Per all. Merging the GBA games with the originals would be a better way to make our coverage of these ports uniform.
 * 5) I've never played any of these GBA games but I've heard Fawfulfury65 that they're fairly similar to the originals.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all.

Comments
Many of those listed changes are minor. Other than that, the game are too similar to have an article.
 * I agree with BluePikminKong. They really aren't that different, and the changes can easily fit right into one article.

I concur, they are two versions of the same game with the same plot, and few changes. If they were given articles, they would be clones of their root articles.

Also, if we split them all, I'm sure they'd turn out like this.

I agree, the lack of major differences means that those ported versions do not deserve articles, that is why this proposal is useless.


 * Then how about a separate article for the changes on each game?
 * Automatic stubs, we should keep them in the article itself.
 * Well, if we put the differences in the articles they wouldn't be stubs, but I think the game articles with the GBA ports merged into them is be just fine as it is now.

Seeing how the Super Mario Advance articles ended up, I'd actually prefer to merge those again rather than even separating the handheld versions of Donkey Kong Country. --

I put up 3 proposals to merge the SMA remake articles back into their respective original game articles.
 * Good idea, though the better thing to do would have made one proposal concerning all four SMA games, like how the New Super Mario Bros. Wii Toads were dealt with: with the proposal on only one page, and the other linking to it. Having one voting arena for all the pages ensures uniformity, avoiding a situation where people vote differently for different pages (or simply not vote for one page). I could fix it for you tomorrow, if you want. -
 * Only thing, the first 3 articles should be merged, because they are stubs/clones, but the fourth one is long enough to be a separate article.
 * But that would be inconsistent. The fourth game may have a longer page and more things to write about, but it's still just another Super Mario Advance game, and if we merge the other three, we must merge the fourth: "all or nothing" is basic Super Mario Wiki policy. -
 * But if that's inconsisent, then we should merge all the remakes into their original articles, like Super Mario 64 DS.