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 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) All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week.
 * 10) 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.
 * 11) 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.
 * 12) No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
 * 13) 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.
 * 14) 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.
 * 15) 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.
 * 16) Proposals can not be made about System Operator promotions and demotions. Sysops can only be promoted and demoted by the will of Bureaucrats.
 * 17) 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.
 * 18) No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters, and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.

The times are in EDT (UTC -4:00), 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.

Luigi and Boo FAs
I was on the featured articles page recently and I saw that the Luigi and Boo articles are still nominated. You wouldn't believe how many fan votes there are on the Boo one, and Luigi's has been there for over a year. I propose that the nominations should be deleted because of those things and can be started up again if the articles improve.

Proposer: Deadline: October 13, 2009, 17:00

Remove Luigi and Boo FAs

 * 1) - See above.

Keep Luigi and Boo FAs

 * Nah, keep those pages. We have no right to delete them. Nomination pages are only deleted if they stay unchanged for one month.
 * 1) - It is currently against this wiki's rules to delete those articles unless they are (as Time Q said) unchanged for one month. Breaking the wiki's rules is not what you propose here, here you propose to change those rules.
 * 2) Per all.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) They can get improved so they can get worthy of an F.I. status.
 * 5) If you do this, you might as well change how the FA system operates. Per all.
 * 6) - Though I am greatly against fan votes, they are no reason to delete the whole nomination. There might be some really thoughtful and intelligent comments under the support votes, even if they tend to get submerged by all the nonsense. You never know.
 * 7) It won't matter anyway. The FA system is in place for a reason.
 * 8) – Per all.

Comments
Note that this happened a while ago for the Bowser FA.
 * I can't remember that happened. And I don't think so, otherwise I would have protested against it :P

You saw Tucayo's proposal yet? Unless this is something different.

No, wait a minute. You want to delete old nominated FA's, right? Sorry

Platformer levels articles
Some platforming levels (like Super Mario World articles) has whole article. Some has section in world (like SMB3). These in articles aren't short, but they sound like walkthroughs (Donut Ghost House). Also they contain basic errors (for example in Iggy's Castle we hear "Hitting the Yellow P-Switch will cover up some of the holes in the ground."). Where is yellow P-Switch? SMW has only Blue and Gray P-Switches.

Propeser: Deadline: October 14th, 2009 17:00PM

Each world article contains all levels in world

 * 1) - Merging the levels into the worlds would streamline navigation and cut back on stubs and red links. Yes, there are many good level articles, and yes, with enough effort they can all be good, but that's a long way away, and in the meantime, the case-by-case policy isn't cutting it: it just looks sloppy. Merging would not remove any information from the Wiki or undo what hard work has been done - it would simply move the level pages in their entirety (templates and all) to sections of the world articles. There shouldn't be a stigma about whether or not something gets a page: the important thing is the information, not the presentation. Also, I personally disagree with the name-vs-number rationale: just because a level (or anything else, for that matter) has a name shouldn't mean it is any more pageworthy than one which happens to be identified with numbers instead of words: that merely reflects the arbitrary style the designers decided to go with for that particular title. In a perfect world everything (both named and numbered) would have an article, but we're not there yet, and merging would make that less apparent.
 * 2) Walkazo's sounds more reasonable. If we expand these sections, they can end up being split later.
 * 3) As Walkazo said it is about the information. If the levels have little information on them it's much easier to read a comprehensive list than to have to click on each one individually.
 * 4) - I'm going to have to agree that we are getting biased about articles with names vs. numbers.

Continue like is actually

 * Probably this isn't the best solution actually, but IMO it's the best we can do now. Even if I'd love to see in-depth articles on Mario levels, I guess it's okay to merge some of them in world articles (as we do with the Super Mario Bros. games and probably more). But levels in more recent games are often complex enough to give them separate articles (especially if they are named, not just "World 1-2", but actual names. Those in Super Mario World are actual names for me as well). To sum it up: I think "case by case" is the solution here, rather than a general decision.
 * 1) - Sorry but as another user said before me: If something 'aint broken, don't fix it! These articles just need some help.
 * 2) - Aside from the fact that I created about 60 articles for Wario Land 2 levels and worlds, and I would be really annoyed if they were all merged: I concur with Marioguy1. I am currently at it to revamp the articles for SMB3, and once I'm finished with that, I will take a look at SMW. These articles just need some maintenance/rewrites. Perhaps making a PipeProject would be meaningful, but don't make the situation more complicated with rashly decided merges/splits/etc.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) &mdash; I think the original reason we kept things this way is because those levels didn't have a 'name' per se, like Super Mario World's levels did. Either way, per all.
 * 5) – Per all.

Comments
I abstain from voting on this proposal. I feel that we need a uniform way to have these articles, but we would end up with many more stubs, which would take up space on our server as well as make us look unorganized. I feel before any action is taken, we need to expand these little stub sections. After that, we can reconsider making it with each article.
 * I change my mind. I think Walkazo has a point.

Walkazo: "Merging would not remove any information from the Wiki" - Yes, it would. For example, we could not categorize the levels separately.
 * I concur here. I can tell that I constructed my Wario Land 2 level articles as independant articles. If they are simply tacked together, they will get stupid and repetative. And if they are rewritten to be less stupid and repetative, then it can no longer be said that my work wasn't reverted in any way. I can also see that parts of my articles get ripped apart and re-combined with other parts, and... I just don't think that's necessary :/ -
 * Time Q: Good point. The only solution I can think of is to include raw lists of applicable levels in the category summaries themselves; it might not be conventional categorization, but in the end, the readers will be presented with all the pages/sections that they're looking for, so it'll still get the job done - and it could even do it better than the straight categories, as we'll have more control on the organization of the data. Instead of having the levels all mixed up, as they are now, we could subdivide the list of levels into their parent games. See here for an example of what I mean and some more justification.
 * Edofenrir: it's more like it would be forcing you (or someone else) to rewrite all your hard work - but infoboxes and much of the text will stay, as will the information itself - which is the biggest part of anyone's contributions. Rewrites are a way of life on any database, as is trimming back on repetition; it's painful, but it's necessary if it'll present the info in an clearer, more concise way.
 * I also thought of two more arguments for merging. The first is minor: in plot-driven games, the story would flow much better if it were all on one page, whereas there has to be short recaps on the individual level pages (at times). The second is also about continuity between articles: none of the missions or episodes ("levels" by any other name) of the 3D titles (Super Mario 64 etc.) have individual pages - a point always seems to be ignored when these debates comes up. The only difference is that the 3D episodes take place in exactly the same area of a world (give or take enemies and interchangeably reachable/unreachable obstacle courses, platforms, planets - and other things like that), whereas the 2D games are spread out in different areas of a world. Is that enough of a difference to continue splitting one genre while merging the other? -
 * I actually think that 2D platformers and 3D platformaers are hard to compare. I disagree with the comparison "Course = World" and "Mission = Level" for different reasons.


 * The first one is the one you mentioned already: The setting in a course is always the same, while only the objectives differ. A level is an independant instance. You can f.e. not play two levels at once. In Super Mario 64 however, you enter a course and have access to the objectives of every mission from the start. If you compare missions with levels, that would mean you play six levels at once in that game.


 * The second reason is: Take a look at Super Mario World. The game is notable for it's branching level system, and many levels have more than one exit, hence you can complete them in more than one way, which gains you different results. If we regard your objection here (different missions throughout an instance equals different levels), that would mean we have to split many of the SMW level articles, just because you can complete them in two ways. I think that would not be meaningful. -

Change FA rules part 1
I have seen many FA rule changing proposals/problems recently so I'd like to clear everything up with some different rules that accommodate almost everyone. Rule: The rule that states you cannot remove support votes, I propose that rule be changed to "You need five users to agree that this vote is a fan vote before deleting it" so that Tucayo's problem with the fan-votes can be solved. Reason: Tucayo said it all in his proposal, some of these votes are just wrong.

Proposer: (With ideas from ) Deadline: October 14th, 2009 (17:00.00)

Allow Support Vote Removal

 * 1) - Read the proposal
 * 2) - This is really needed, the wiki should not be one-sided when removing votes!
 * 3) - Apart from my opinion that even three votes would be enough, I fully agree with this proposal. Fan votes don't have use for the wiki at all and there's no reason to keep votes that don't add new views to a discussion. They're just like comments, and comments do not count as votes as well. Also, per Baby Mario Bloops: Equal rights for both sides!
 * 4) - I told you, fan votes clutter up the support section. When somebody says, "Boo is teh reulz!" it's probably a fan vote and it sounds like our wiki doesn't know grammar or spelling. If the voter fears to have his/her vote removed because someone thinks it's a fan vote, then he/she should say how the article deserves to be an FA.
 * 5) good idea. Per all.

Keep All Support Votes

 * Since fan votes do no harm (see my arguments on the previous proposal), I'm against removing them. I can imagine very well a situation when 5 users agree to remove a perfectly valid vote just because it seems "fan-ish".
 * 1) I can see what would happen if 5 users decide to remove every single fan vote (and there's more than 20, usually) at a time. Also per TimeQ. The fan votes do relatively no harm, but they do take up space.
 * 2) See my comment on proposal above. (Since that is gone to the archives, what I said was that the vote description [the vote details] should be removed, while retaining only the name of the voter).
 * 3) Per Time Q.
 * 4) Per Time Q again
 * 5) Per Time Q. I pretty much have the same reasoning here as I did with the proposal living directly upstairs.
 * 6) - Per Time Q.

Comments
The reason why we can remove oppose votes, but can't remove support votes is simple. There are requirements that FAs must meet. Any article that meets all these requirements is of FA quality, but any article that fails to meet at least one of the requirements should not be an FA. So opposers of a nomination have to show which requirement is not met (i.e. they need a valid reason). Oppose votes that do not have such a valid reason can (and should) be removed. But how could support votes be reasoned? The only way to have a really "valid" support vote would be to list all the criteria, with comments like "fulfilled", "fulfilled", etc. Since this doesn't make sense, support votes don't really need reasons. Thus, they can't be removed either.
 * Then support votes should be mainly used to question opposing votes, or to prove them wrong. And too many fan votes without reason do harm the wiki. They consume server space. It's the same reason why we disabled comments for the BJAODN pages: because comments without content weight the server down. -
 * Server space, shmerver space. Sorry, but I can't hear that anymore. ;) With this reason, you can question everything. Cut down on the size of the articles? Sure, they just consume server space. Etc. And no, support votes should not question opposing votes. That's what the "Removal" section is for. Support votes come from users who think that an article should be featured, not more, not less.
 * Then tell me why we disabled the comments at BJAODN, or why I just cannot add "I think Ganondorf stinks and he shouldn't be an FA 'cause he's green in the face!" on the Ganondorf FA oppose section. Equal rights for everyone, but it is just not right like it is now. -
 * Hm, obviously I didn't explain the difference between support and oppose votes well enough. The opposers' task is to prove the supporters' points (= "this article is FA-worthy") wrong, by stating what is bad about the article. So they need reasons. Supporters, however, don't need those, because-- how would such a reason be like? "The article is FA-worthy, because it meets all the requirements." This would be the only possible "valid" reason. We can't force people to put that, it would be pointless.
 * Compare the Unfeature system. Here, both sides need valid reasons. Why? Because the supporters are of the opinion that an article is not FA-worthy, i.e. they have to point out what is bad about an article (similar to the opposers of FA nominations). UnFA opposers need to give reasons as well in order to prove the supporters' points wrong. Do you see the difference?
 * Ok, that makes sense. But then tell me why it isn't just enough to have one person to nominate the article. Why have, like, sixty people to jump on the already rolling train? I see no use in that, and unless someone states a significant advantage to have it like that, I cannot change my mind. -
 * You make a good point here. Support votes really have very little impact on a nomination, so it's a good question why we even need them. The only reason I see is that they prevent a nomination that nobody really cares about from becoming featured. Imagine someone nominates an article about a very minor topic. If no one cares about it, that means that probably no one will oppose it and the article is featured (despite perhaps being not that good). If we require 5 support votes, however, we prevent this situation. We need 5 users who at least care about the article and support it before it can get featured.
 * Maybe we could have someone to check the FA nomination category and check the significance of the article. Or maybe we just go ahead with the suggestion above, maintaining support votes but remove their reasons in case they neglect the article and just focus on the character. -
 * And besides: Comparing removing useless, baseless fan votes with removing valuable information from articles? I hope this is a joke. -

On the point about server space: Those comments create such a minimal amount of space, that the server probably doesn't even notice enough of a change to merit concern. (IMO, if you disable the comments allowed on BJAODN, you might as well make it a rule that people can't talk to each other casually on their talk pages.) But that's a different subject altogether, so I'll stop.
 * Just for clarification: You are aware that the comments at BJAODN are currently disabled, aren't you? -

Sorry, but that "reverts" my proposal
 * Not really, Tucayo. This suggests a different system, and the users are turning this proposed system, not the one you suggested.
 * No, actually he's right. This proposal conflicts his proposal. -

Change FA rules part 2
Here is the second part of my three part proposal Rule: The rule that says it will take a month of no editing to remove a nomination, I propose that this is changed to a month of no voting OR three months with no verdict AND more than five users opposing. Reason: Some nominations have way too many fans that just won't quit so get rid of the votes if there is a REAL reason to delete them (in other words if five people are opposing, they all agree)

Proposer: (With ideas from ) Deadline: October 14th, 2009 (17:00.00)

Delete Noms After 3 Months

 * 1) - Proposal

Keep The Long Noms

 * 1) &mdash; I personally don't think the wiki needs to be cluttered up with any more dead nomination pages than there are already. I remember when I originally nominated this page for FA status. The nomination page was thriving with activity for a while, but after progress on the actual article slowed down, so did the nomination page. Besides, it's not like someone can't re-nominate an article to be featured.

Comments
Maybe it's just me, but I don't quite understand this one... what do you mean by, "with no verdict"?
 * I think he means that a nomination should be removed if we can't decide wheter to feature an article or not (if the votes even each other out). -
 * Ok, I guess that makes sense, thanks. Not sure if I can support this though..
 * This'll get rid of those dumb articles clogging up the FA page and some server stress too!
 * I don't know which side to support: Could you explain your proposal in-depth?
 * Basically, I want to remove all of the nominations like Luigi's that have taken three months to decide. So I am proposing to impose a deadline so that the nominations don't remain on the wiki forever because let's face it, the Luigi nom is never going to be deleted.

Change FA rules part 3
And finally, I'll finish off my proposals with this Rule:Change the rule that says needs all appearances of the character to needs all mario appearances of the character. Reason: This rule is redundant with another rule that states that articles cannot have any unmario appearances, if this rule stays; it will cancel about the featurability of the non-mario articles even if they are the best articles on the wiki!

Proposer: (With ideas from ) Deadline: October 14th, 2009 (17:00.00)

Needs All "Mario" Appearances

 * 1) - Proposal
 * 2) Just making the MarioWiki only have Mario stuff (plus Yoshi and DK parts) and ONLY the Mario stuff makes MarioWiki look like a "one trick pony".
 * I'm copying this from the FA talk page: "What is wrong with the current rule in my opinion is that since we're the Mario Wiki, nobody expects to read non-Mario content here. If people come here to read an article about, say, Kirby, they don't expect any information that has nothing to do with Mario. There are other sources of information then. See: Kirby's or Ganondorf's role in the Marioverse is bigger than some original Mario character's. It would be unfair to reject FA status for characters like Ganondorf when the only reason is that they originated from a different series. Articles should cover Mario content, that's our task. And any article that meets this requirement should get the chance to become featured."
 * 1) Per all
 * 2) &mdash; Per all.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) Per all
 * 5) Okay, now I see your point. As long as there is a short background section included, I agree with this!
 * 6) Per all.

Comments
BMB: What do we care about wikia wikis? We're the mariowiki and if our content is good, who cares what zeldapedia thinks? We care about the community, our community, not zeldapedia's, not Kirby Wiki's and not Wikipedia's
 * MG1: Think about the first sentence I said, "What if you were in their shoes?" I'm surprised you even say that about other Wiki's! The way you stated that was very cruel, because I help out with other Wiki's along with other users on this Wiki, and they would probaly agree with me on this. Our community has many things to do with Kirby, Zelda, Samus, and all the other characters. That's why we need them to stay in this wiki, they are very important to our Wikia!!!
 * Just to add, there is a DK, Wario, and Yoshi Wikia, so, in your words, your saying we should get rid of them because they are techically non-mario. Is that what you want?
 * I'm sorry if I add more confusion-spice to this stew of discussion, but isn't MG1s point just to lighten the requirements for an article to become an FA? To me it sounds like he's just saying "An article can become a FA, even if the article cannot contain all the infos related to the chara (such as Ganondorf)". Am I misinterpreting things? -
 * Thank you edo, you hit the nail on the head! BMB: Sorry, I shouldn't have been so strict, what I meant was I think that we should not discriminate, this is just racism in another form. No matter how you put it this is like gamism, very very bad :( Stop the gamism, feel the power!!!
 * Yeah, I thought for a sec a read it wrong. Sorry! Yes, lets stop the Wikism here (just made it up). Probaly should change my vote a little bit (talk to Dim. Kn. (he probaly just agreed with what I said)). I'm sorry, but I am still opposing this.
 * Time Q, there is mostly Mario content on the non-mario articles! We need to balance it out a little by adding some information about them being non-mario. Seriously, you got to admit that we do need to balance stuff out by adding a little bit of themself, read the above, and you'll see my reasons...
 * Hm, no, the characters' roles outside the Marioverse simply don't matter for our wiki. It can shortly be mentioned in the introductory sentence, but not more. Actually, I don't really understand why you're opposing this proposal. Your reason sounds like you would support it...
 * Well, what do you mean by that! I don't really understand what you telling me! I love other series! They have a right to be here, because that is what a wikia is! It shows all the stuff included in it. Yes, they should not have too much stuff about there origin, but at least a background section, about a paragraph (maybe two at most), be added to their article!!!

Um, some characters like Ganondorf only appeared alongside with Mario exclusively in the Super Smash Bros. series, which I don't really consider it to be part of the Mario series. The Donkey Kong series and the Yoshi series are branches off the Mario series, but Super Smash Bros. isn't from what I assume.
 * "Mario appearances" means everything that our wiki covers. This includes Super Smash Bros. as well (no matter if you consider it part of the Mario series or not).
 * Whoa, looks like one of my proposals is going to pass, one is going to fail and one is going to end up in no quorum. Those are the only three possible results for a proposal except for deletion and trust me, I could make a random proposal and then delete it :P

Did You Know...
...that there are quite a lot of proposals here at the moment? This one's the seventh one, so lets hope that lucky 7 will guide this proposal on its way to a good decision.

Anyway, you all know the "Did You Know" section of the main page. This page is currently updated by me and it shows three more or less interesting facts from recently created articles. However, some voices have arisen, claiming that it might be better to change the sources of info for this section. That would mean that the trivia in there could be from every article that was ever created here, regardless of age. Using this policy would make room for witty, interesting trivia in that section, but it would also rob recently created articles of their base to be showcased.

This proposal's purpose is to give those arisen voices a chance to be heard, as well as potential opposing voices to arise as well.

Proposer: (Inspired by  and ) Deadline: October 17. 2009, 8:00 pm.

Put trivia from every article ever created in that section

 * 1) I think this is a good idea. Making the trivia section longer will help the main page to be less lopsided (Every time we switch featured articles, or get a new piece of recent news, it looks weird.) I'm all for beefing up the main page.
 * 2) - Per Funky.
 * 3) &mdash; As I said on this page, all articles (whether they're old or new) have interesting content that users may not even be aware of.
 * 4) - I'm trying to make a point against discrimination here. On the FI page with that SMB nom, in my above proposal with the allow non-mario characters thing and now here. I can not take some articles being singled out from other articles and I won't.
 * 5) - Ok, here goes my vote. I want the trivia in that template to be wittier, therefore a bigger source might be helpful.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) - As I said in the original discussion, old subjects still have lots of interesting trivia to offer. New subjects get enough press without Did You Know?, so using the template to unearth obscure facts would be more worthwhile an endeavour.

Comments
I will leave this proposal here first and vote later on. -

FunkyK38: You know that this proposal just deals with where the trivia parts will be taken from, do you? The change will not affect how long the main page will be. Maybe I should rewrite that part. It's misleading... -

Well, that does help, but the main page does look a bit lopsided. Maybe you could make the trivia a bit longer, too? Just for when we are lacking in information on one side. To make it look better. I'm still behind you on this, though.
 * I could try to adjust it within my possibilities, but the mainpage's appearance also depends on the five other templates. If one of these template gets changed, the adjustment will be in vain again...
 * Well, if we need to fix it, we can. I'm only saying we put more trivia in to even things out.

I like the idea of using only the most recent articles as a source for the Did You Know section. However, I think that if there's really not enough notable facts in the most recent articles, we should take them from other articles as well. But the main focus should still lie on our new articles, in my opinion.

Edofenrir: If this proposal passes, could you (or whoever is going to update the section) still prefer more recent articles over older ones? That would be cool. But that's just my opinion and it's your job, so it's your decision of course.
 * I could of course check the newest articles for witty trivia, before checking older ones, if that is wished. -

Definition of "Administrators"
I feel this is an important matter, due to a recent debate that a few of our users are having, I feel it is time to redefine the term "administrators". Some are saying that Administrators are confined to Sysops, Bureaucrats, and Stewards. Others are saying that Patrollers should be included as well. I am in support of the latter, since our Patrollers help with the clean-up and organization of the wiki as well as helping the Sysops in decisions that we can only make. The Patrollers are given extra powers to help keep the wiki in order, they also have access to a "secret" board in the forum so that we can discuss issues among ourselves. I feel that we should redefine our official meaning of Administrators (Sysops, Bureaucrats, and Stewards) to a more moderate meaning to include the Patrollers (those who have the necessary powers to bring trolls to justice and enforce the rules). Proposer: Deadline: Tuesday, 20 October 2009, 17:00

Support

 * 1) Per me.