MarioWiki:Proposals

Writing guidelines
None at the moment.

New features
None at the moment.

Delete the Paper Mario: Sticker Star sticker variation articles
I was going to do this already, though I suppose maybe a proposal is the right way to go in this case.

Now that a proposal to split the attacks in Sticker Star and Color Splash was successful, I fail to see how the articles Shiny, Flashy, Big Shiny, and Megaflash will have any foreseeable use in the near future. In the event that said four articles remain after the articles dictated by the aforementioned proposal are all accounted for, the former group will essentially just parrot every bit of information from the latter group. If you want a better analogy, you might as well look at how various proposals concerning hypothetical parent species have fared. After all, it's no different here; these are essentially hypothetical "parent" variations.

Basically, I propose we delete the aforementioned articles for being hypothetical and redundant.

Proposer: Deadline: September 13, 2020, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) We simply can't let these four articles outshine the importance of the aforementioned proposal.
 * 2) – Per proposal and the precedent set by the examples provided.
 * 3) This can easily be covered on the main sticker article or the articles for the individual stickers.
 * 4) Per proposal.
 * 5) Per proposal.
 * 6) Maybe they'd be better as a list or a category. Either way, I think the articles can be deleted now that we're improving our SS and CS coverage.
 * 7) Per proposal and Scrooge200.
 * 8) Per all. These are categories in page form.
 * 9) Per all, but maybe after more of these individual articles get created.

Allow blank votes as an implied "per all"
This is something that's been bothering me ever since Baby Luigi and Bazooka Mario first mentioned it around a year ago. Currently, every vote is required to have some reason attached to it, even if it's a simple "per all" vote. Going back to what they said...

I agree with them, I really don't think "per all" votes are necessary, and I certainly don't think the requirement that you have to per yourself to support your own proposal is necessary. If this proposal passes, blank votes will be allowed as an implied "per all" vote. A blank vote still cannot be made if there isn't anyone to per in the first place. Having to per yourself on your own proposal would also no longer be necessary, since your arguments should have already been made when proposing it.

Also, just to clarify, "per all" votes will still be allowed if users want to make them, just not required.

Proposer: Deadline: September 14, 2020, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Apparently my vote is invalid unless I specifically say that I agree with myself. (See why I made this proposal?)
 * 2) per proposal
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) Per all.

Oppose

 * 1) – I don't think a minimum of two words is too much trouble, considering how formal other aspects of the proposals system are meant to be. Users often add further reasoning to reinforce their "per all" vote, which is good to have on record and probably wouldn't happen so often if we default to not writing anything at all. Less isn't more in this case.
 * 2) Proposals are both a vote and a discussion. What good is your vote if you don't have any reasoning? A small "I agree with everyone else and don't anything much to add" is better than just voting and not saying anything about why.
 * 3) Per all = only two words. We shouldn't be lazy, it's only seven letters.
 * 4) Per Shokora.
 * 5) Per Scrooge200. (That wasn’t so hard, was it?)
 * 6) Per all; I feel like this would also open the floodgates even more of users voting just to jump on the bandwagon without actually meaning their vote.
 * 7) Okay, yeah. Per Mario jc.
 * 8) I don't think blank votes would be fully clear.

Comments
Additionally, all voters must still provide a reason until this proposal passes. 21:40, September 7, 2020 (EDT)

While allowing blank votes in place of “per all” is not a big deal, I’m not comfortable with the premise. Votes based on statements proved to be wrong don’t have the same power as validly motivated votes, if anything I wouldn’t allow decisions in clear contrasts with the games or what Nintendo says as it would go against the basic aim of the wiki. I think this is one of the reasons why a motivation for the vote was asked to begin with.—Mister Wu (talk) 21:52, September 7, 2020 (EDT)

@Shokora: Sure, it's not too much trouble, but that's not the point of this proposal. The point is is it even necessary? If this passes there's nothing stopping users from making elaborate votes if they want to, they can even continue making "per all" votes if they feel so inclined, but if you don't have anything to add to the conversation, why should you have to? I also question how "formal" proposals really are since I've seen humor sprinkled into otherwise serious proposals many times.

@Scrooge200: I think you misunderstood the point of this proposal. It's not to allow votes with no reason whatsoever, but instead to allow blank votes to function identically to a "per all" vote. I'd even argue that blank votes might actually be beneficial to the proposal system by drawing more attention to the people who do give reasoning. -- 11:28, September 8, 2020 (EDT)

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.