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 using the code. Signing with the signature code (~) is not allowed due to technical issues.

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) 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.
 * 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 are two topics that cannot be decided on through a proposal: the first is sysop promotions and demotions, which are decided by Bureaucrats. Secondly, no proposals calling for the creation of Banjo, Conker or Sonic series articles are allowed (several proposals supporting them have failed in recent history).

The times are in EDT, 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 Saturday night at 11:59 PM EDT, the deadline is the next Saturday night at 8:00 PM. If it is a minute later, the deadline is a day plus 15 hours (Sunday), as opposed to a day minus 4 hours.

CURRENTLY: , 27 2024 (EDT)

New Features
''None at the moment.

Removals
None at the moment.

Crystal Stars
Though this isn't the case of my last proposal, the Waffle Kingdom Locations merging proposal, it is a similar situation: I think the Crystal Star individual pages should be merged into the Crystal Stars page. The pages themselves are short and are an estimate of about 10 sentences long or so. If all of the Crystal Star pages were merged, the article would be fairly long, but it would be more regular sized, which is better than having lots of individual little pages.

Proposer: Deadline: November 16, 2008, 15:00

Merge

 * 1) - For the reasons above.
 * 2) - Hey, I think so too.
 * 3) - There's already articles about the special moves the Stars enable, so explaining them in the Stars' articles is a bit repetitive (for example, Art Attack and the corresponding section of Ruby Star are nearly identical). The attacks are officially named as well, and the information pertaining to them are best placed in their articles (currently, Earth Tremor puts Diamond Star to shame). Without that information, the Star articles are pretty barren, and the plot elements could easily be incorporated into the Crystal Stars article: each Star would get a section, and the article would look much better and be much more useful than it is now. Yes, the Crystal Stars are officially named, do different things and are important to the plot, but merging them will not make them any less important, and their combined article will be much stronger than any single one of them is now.
 * 4) - Per Walkazo.

No Merge

 * 1) - They were officially named, so the best thing is to just leave it IMO.
 * 2) - The stars are each officially named, require different tasks to be completed in order to be received, give the player access to another location, have their own special move, etc. They may just be the same sprite colored differently for each star, but they affect gameplay much differently than each other.
 * 3) Per all! St00by right. All 7 of the Crytals Star different just like the Pure Heats and the Star Sprits.
 * 4) Booster - Per Stooben Rooben.
 * 5) - I feel like a broken record, so I'm really sorry!  But, it needs to be said: we merged Smash Bros. content because we want our focus to be the Mario series proper and its spin-offs, but we also appreciate the fact that Mario and friends have played quite a large role in the series.  But, content from Paper Mario is completely different: we do want to focus on that, and therefore merging is the opposite of what we're trying to do.
 * 6) - per all. they are different items, with different powers, and different names...How are they the same?
 * 7) - Per All!
 * 8) - Per Stooben.

Comments
@Stumpers: ... Wrong proposal? --Blitzwing 06:45, 11 November 2008 (EST)

Um. . . Stumpers this is about PM:TTYOD Crytal Star not SSB.
 * Exactly my point. When we merged the special moves from Smash Bros., we did so because we wanted to reduce our focus on it, not because the articles were too short (remember the Final Smashes?  Longer than some Mario series moves).  These articles are definitely not to short and are part of what we want to focus on. Let me see if I can't clarify my vote.
 * Oh okay.

Using Cheat Sites as References
and I recently found out that the Mario Super Sluggers page uses a cheat site as a reference. This doesn't seem very professional. Cheat sites often contain unofficial information, have no proof to verify their "facts", and commonly have fake cheats. In my opinion, we should avoid linking to cheat sites because of this. After all, this wiki is not a game guide, it is an encyclopedia. We usually write articles on games and levels in a walkthrough manner, yet it does not refer directly towards the reader. We do not place cheat codes on our articles; we do not place game hacks on are articles. Why link to a cheat page when we don't allow cheats directly on an article in the first place? So, here's my proposition: we keep writing articles in the same fashion we have been – a neutral, third person walkthrough style. We always have allowed hints in our articles as long as they are written in a walkthrough manner. So, in turn, we should stop adding links to cheat sites to our articles as references.

Proposers: and Deadline: November 20, 2008, 17:00

Support

 * 1) - Per my and Luigi001's reasons provided above.
 * 2) Kinda obvious why...
 * 3) I agree. We are and Mario Wiki a site for informantion about the Mario series and it only. We don't need codes since they have noting to do with Mario series. We are not gamespot, gamefaq or Open Code Wiki!!!
 * 4) - Per All.
 * 5) Wow, never noticed that. Off with the site! that has NOTHING to do with mario.
 * 6) - Per all. (2 people working together - "TEAM POWER"... or something)
 * 7) - Per all.

Oppose

 * 1) - Read my comment first.  The reason I'm opposing is NOT because I don't agree with a majority of what is being said.  However, looking at the wording of the proposal and Rooben's comments, this means we aren't going to be able to post the official, in-game cheat codes from Diddy Kong Racing.  You'll recall that in that game, Rareware gave players a new cheat each time they won against Wizpig to encourage continued play and add replay value to the title.  Now, on the other hand, I believe there was a title that used a code system to let players continue their games.  I would be against posting those cheats.  Overall, I feel this proposal is good because you're saying that yes, cheating and hacking shouldn't be on here in regards to websites just as it should be here in regards to video games.  However, you don't come out here and say that.  Instead, you talk generically about cheat codes and such as if what I posted was about Mario Super Sluggers itself rather than its website.  I don't feel that an official game mechanic (cheats in DKR) should get the shaft because one user, myself, didn't see the similarities between those cheats and hacking.

Comments
Now for those who I know are going to say, "We already have a rule on this," think twice. Why would that bit of info be put on the page in the first place? And did anyone try to delete it? No, no they did not. I even tried to delete it, but a day later, there it was again! So before anyone says what I know is coming, please do think again!

Since when did we write walkthrough-style articles? I thought the focus of level/world pages was general information: enemies, special items, plot line, etc.; not "Mario jumped into the third pipe to the right of the door and found a Blue Coin."-type exposition... -
 * He's means little bits of info on how to get through a level. Just look at the World articles; they say the basic way to get through a level. But still, that's not the point here. The point is whether to keep these "cheat site" resourses or not.
 * Er... You're not talking about IGN, are you? They're not only a cheat site, you know... If you're not talking about them, please tell me. :O
 * IGN, Gamespot, 1-Up, and others can still be used as citations, as long as it's pertaining to things such as reviews or official interviews. That actual cheat part is the only thing that we want to get rid of. Also, Walkazo: Luigi001 said it just as I would have. The level/world articles explained the layout of a level, what enemies are found there, etc.; but they also explain how to get through a level. That's what I meant by "walkthrough-style".
 * As the person who added the "cheat codes" in the first place and who put them back when Luigi001 removed them on the basis of looking "unprofessional," I think it's telling that I see your logic. Now, had you just posted a message on my talk page about this issue, explaining why it looked unprofessional as you did above rather than running right to the proposal page, I would have backed right down like I am now.  Not to critique your actions, but this really was something that could have been settled "out of court" so to speak, and is the sort of thing I've handled many times before with other uses.  Anyway, I'll remove my oppose vote straight away if you address it - it's simply about an oversight I felt you made in the proposal.
 * Actually, I was going to. But I got kind of nervous and went to ask Stooben on his opinion. He said he agreed with my case, and we should make a proposal so everyone is clear we don't want these sources. Who's to say that another user wouldn't add it again after you and only you backed out from it? So this proposal is completely necessary.
 * Gotcha. For future reference, you should never feel nervous to criticize my work.  There's always the possibility I'll argue back until a solution is reached (I wouldn't have in this case), but it's surprising how many people on this Wiki place the good of it above what they've already written.  In any case, I hope I'm not giving off an intimidating vibe!  I'm always for what you're striving for: writing down an unwritten rule of the Wiki, but this proposal is placing so much emphasis on the inclusion of that one blog post that I put up.  You guys are against, "cheat sites," like the one I posted, according to the proposal.  However, the "cheat site" in question was actually a blog.  Obviously, you aren't talking about "blogs" but that's what you're saying by targeting this one instance of a "cheat site," which happens to be the first we've had in ages.  By all means make a proposal about this issue, but please, for future reference, targeting one instance makes the user who's edit is being brought into question feel threatened and more importantly takes away from your aims.  Please clarify this for me: this is what I assume you want, but what isn't necessarily written. (1) Rather than "cheat sites" (which would include IGN), you want to stop people from writing about hacks, cheats, mods, etc. (2) You are not against in-game, official cheat codes that expand gameplay, but you would be against posting a code intended to let players continue their games.  (3) The issue is not with my one edit, but rather the philosophy that people could possibly derive from that edit: that cheats are acceptable to post on this site.

Add a Superstar Link
I saw that, well, the Yoshi's Island series' item Superstar does not have a link, and its "page" is one paragraph on the Super Star page, which is mostly about the one in Mario Party 2. So, who is with me for splitting it into Superstar (MP) and Superstar (YI)?

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

Add

 * 1) - Per me
 * 2) - Per Pink Boozooka
 * 3) - I agree that the move needs to be made, however, looking more into the articles you wanted to merge, you are in error.  We don't want to split Super Star into Superstar (MP) and Superstar (YI), we want to split Superstar into Superstar (M&L) and Superstar (YI).  Someone just put the information from Yoshi's Island on the Super Star page in error - it should have gone on the Superstar page to begin with.  And yes, Walkazo is right, we need to fix up our "Superstar/Super Star" pages... maybe "Superstar" and "Super Star" should redirect to two disambiguation pages that would each point to "Superstar (M&L)", "Superstar (YI)", and "Super Star".
 * 4) - Per Stumpers, though I think having ONE disambiguation page would be the least confusing course of action. Since there are multiple "Superstar"s, that should be the disambig. page, with "Super Star" being a redirect to it, and the article about the term itself being "Super Star (PM)" (this would also avoid errors like the YI information currently  on "Super Star").
 * 5) - Walkazo hit it right on the nose; one disambiguation page is the best way to do it.
 * 6) Yeah..... No reason not to. Two seperate objects.

Comments
I'm sorry, but what do you mean by link? Do you want to divide the Superstar page into two different pages, say, "Superstar (MP)" and "Superstar (YI)," or is there another article that currently exists that you want us to link to?
 * Yeah, you might wanna make your proposal more specific.
 * I believe the article in question is Super Star, though all the "Superstar"/"Super Star" articles could use some sorting-out, actually. -

List of Quotes Pages
Completely Redesigned Proposal, version 2.0:

OK, stuff that - it was merely an experiment to test your reactions, so thank you for participating :P! So, from your reactions I have a better idea for this Proposal: I'm basically just proposing that we make all the List of Quotes pages 'much better than they are - that means finishing all the "Under Construction" ones (for example, the Super Mario Galaxy quotes page is barely started...), removing a few pointless/stupid quotes (mainly on the Mario Kart series quotes, as some are just "Woo-hoo!", "Hi", "Okay", etc - you call them quotes!? The quote pages could also be improved in many other ways - yes, that sounded vague because I can't explain exactly ow, but surely some smart users will know what to do.

Proposer: Deadline: November 19, 2008, 17:00

Support
I give waffles for people who support this Proposal. (*everyone changes sides*)


 * 1) - I've made my points above.
 * 2) - I agree.  For the most part, the quotes are not very detailed.

Oppose
This means you either don't like me, or have reasons which you must explain clearly why you disagree.


 * 1) - No because i dislike you, no its not true, idisagree because if wikipedia has wikiquote, why shouldnt we have the quotes?
 * 2) - As the proposal is currently written, I cannot support it: to remove Mario's quotes would remove information about The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!, Nintendo Comics System, The Great Mission to Save Princess Peach, and many other sources.  UPDATE: You updated your proposal, so now I need to update this comment.  I still cannot support your proposal because then I'd be saying, "Whichever quotes Dom says are stupid should be removed." There's no objectivity.
 * 3) Quotes are hilarious! Why get rid of them??
 * 4) - I'm really sorry about this Dom, but I have to oppose. If people actually put effort into making the articles aesthetically pleasing, they won't be so bad.
 * 5) Per all. (Mostly Per Stumpers)
 * 6) - Per myself below.
 * 7) Quotes have to belong, or else like Stumpers said, we would have to remove info about some movies and comics and whatnot. Besides, they are under construction, it will be completed soon. It won't take so long, with everyone from Mariowiki contributing to one part time by time.
 * 8) - Per Stumpers. Quotes are also essential for understanding characters themselves, and if you can't get your hands on certain sources, the MarioWiki's quotes are a Godsend, especially for fanfiction writers.
 * The quotes should stay for the reasons that the users above have mentioned.
 * 1) Per all. Like said above, Wikipedia has WikiQuote, Quotes contains sources and some quotes are so funny, you have to ROFL - litterally (Sorry if I spelted wrong). By these 3 of all those reasons, WHY REMOVING QUOTES FROM THIS WHOLE DAMN WIKI??? And you say that Quote pages are under construction, but never finish, because nobody works on it? NOT TRUE! There are MANY, MANY quotes, and how more quotes found, how more construction! So again, per ALL.
 * Per Walkazo. As long as they don't actively dtract from the value of the Wiki in any way, I see no reason to remove them. They're funny and interesting; I see no good reason to get rid of them.
 * 1) - Per all; to get rid of polls would do no one any good at all.

DOM's NOTE: '''The opposes above are referring to my previous, failure version of this Proposal, so any Opposes to this new version go below this comment. So, please don't count the numbers of Opposes above for this version.'''

Comments
I'm not sure if I got the Deadline date correct (I'm in a way-ahead time-zone in Australia)
 * The deadline is fine, but can I just clarify something? Are we talking about quote pages for characters as well?  If that's the case, I must disagree, even for Mario.  The little guy was quite the talker in the anime, American television shows, and comics all over the world.
 * Perhaps a show/hide option for long pages should be added?

Just FYI, these quote pages were the result of two proposals, the reason for these is that some quote sections are ginormous and made long pages like Mario even more tedious to load.

Um CoinCollecter can you please (and thank you) state why you're agreeing with Dom or put per Dom. ( there nothing there next to your user name. ) Um nevermind his vote has been removed.

Yeah, I'm pretty offended by this proposal. I am the only person ever to work on those pages, because everyone else was either too lazy or not interested enough to do it. I started that proposal to make the dang things. And oh, yeah, I forgot how much frickin' talking there was in Super Mario Galaxy! Oh my dear heck, Mario was so dang talkative in that game! And Bowser, whew, those four lines he said each time you battled him were so terribly full of quotable information! And what's your definition of "overly long?" Let's go and split Bowser and Mario while we're at it! And how the heck are we supposed to make it more professional? Put in images of people talking? OOOOOOOH!!! SO EXCITING! Also, shut up about the Mario Kart Quotes. If I made those pages, it was simply because I didn't want to be screamed at by, say, ForeverDaisy09, who had those proposals about Nonsensical Quotes at the time. I never saw you working on them, by the way. Maybe they would be more complete and useful if people contributed to them. Woah, I know, big, crazy idea there. Sorry. So yeah, I say no.

It shows.
 * lolwat.
 * For a minute there, I lost myself, I lost myseeeeeeelf... Yarly.

Calm down and stop saying random crap, IS - calm down. Now, that was highly exaggerated and aggressive. This goes to all Users: Please read my all-new version of this Proposal. It's completely deifferent.

Why you made a proposal to make the quote page better than before. Can users do that with out this proposal?

Dom, you might want to delete this proposal and start a fresh one, so all those oppose votes referring to your old proposal would be gone.
 * We're still going to be counting the old oppose votes: as long as a user has placed his/her vote in the oppose and it was valid BEFORE you edited your proposal, it will still be an oppose and be considered valid AFTER you edited the proposal. However, you can delete the proposal now and nothing will happen, then start afresh.  It's really to your benefit.  13:47, 14 November 2008 (EST)