MarioWiki:Proposals

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 Rules
 * 1) If users have an idea about improving the wiki or managing its community, but feel that they need community approval before acting upon that idea, they may make a proposal about it. They must have a strong argument supporting their idea and be willing to discuss it in detail with the other users, who will then vote about whether or not they think the idea should be used. Proposals should include links to all relevant pages and Writing Guideline proposals must include a link to the draft page.
 * 2) Proposals end at the end of the day (23:59) one week after voting starts, except for Writing Guidelines and Talk Page Proposals, which run for two weeks. (All times GMT.)
 * 3) *For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, the voting starts immediately and the deadline is one week later on Monday, August 8, at 23:59 GMT.
 * 4) Every vote should have a reason accompanying it. Agreeing with or seconding a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted.
 * 5) 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. Voters 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.
 * 6) If a user makes a vote and is subsequently blocked for any amount of time, their vote is removed. However, if the block ends before the proposal ends, then the user in question holds the right to re-cast their vote. If a proposer is blocked, their vote is removed and "(banned)" is added next to their name in the "Proposer:" line of the proposal, which runs until its deadline as normal. If the proposal passes, it falls to the supporters of the idea to enact any changes in a timely manner.
 * 7) No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
 * 8) 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.
 * 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) Proposals can only be extended up to three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, the proposal fails and can only be re-proposed after four weeks, at the earliest.
 * 12) 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 an administrator, the proposer can ask for that help.
 * 13) Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation. However, proposers can request that their proposal be deleted by an administrator at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that cancelled proposals must also be archived.
 * 14) If the administrators 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.
 * 15) There should not be proposals about creating articles on an 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 cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the administration.
 * 17) No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.

Basic Proposal and Support/Oppose Format This is an example of what your proposal must 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]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but what each voting section is supporting must be clearly defined. - ===[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: Deadline: [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the proposal was created, at 23:59 GMT. (14 days for Talk Page Proposals.)]

====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 another 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.


 * For a list of all settled Talk Page Proposals, see here.

Rules
 * 1) All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom). All pages affected 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. (All times GMT.)
 * 4) *For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, it ends two weeks later on Monday, August 15, 2011, at 23:59 GMT.
 * 5) Talk page proposals may be closed by the proposer at any time if both the support and the oppose sides each have fewer than five votes.
 * 6) The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.

List of Talk Page Proposals

 * Delete Mushroom Kingdom Tribune or merge it to Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story (Discuss) Deadline: March 20, 2012, 23:59 GMT
 * Split Grand Tail Goomba from Grand Goomba (Discuss) Deadline: March 22, 2012, 23:59 GMT
 * Split World 2 (New Super Mario Bros. Wii) into separate articles for each level. (Discuss) Deadline: March 25, 2012, 23:59 GMT
 * Delete The Weekly Wario or merge it to WarioWare: Smooth Moves (Discuss) Deadline: March 31, 2012, 23:39 GMT

Navigation Templates

 * ''Draft: User:Walkazo/Essays

This proposal is aiming to do for navigation templates, what this proposal did for categories. As seen in the draft, this will expand and update Navigation Templates, and while this will not overhaul the system like the categories proposal, there are a few changes, which I'll briefly go over here.

First of all, the policy includes a big chart of colours that should be used for all game- and series-based templates; I also have examples of recoloured templates further down my page. (There was already a proposal about this, but that user didn't create an actual code, so no actual changes could/should have come as a result of its passing.) Non-series-based templates (i.e. stuff like or ) can be given unique colours that pertain to their subject matter, rather than using the same colours as their parent series.

Secondly, the order in which templates should be placed on articles is outlined in the policy: namely, any random templates (i.e. species-based templates) should come first, followed by all the game/series-based templates, which should go in pure chronological order. So, unlike History sections, which clump series together, different games would simply be arranged according to the year they came out, with no regard for when the rest of the series' installations were released. Instead, the templates' colour-coding can be used to pick out all the members of a given series.

Finally, the policy outlines what types of templates can be made. Basically, there are three types of templates, each with slightly different content structure and criteria:
 * Game-specific templates will ideally contain everything about a game, like or, whereas separate templates about certain specific aspects of a game should hereon in be avoided. However, if a subject is very numerous, such as minigames, levels or RPG items, it can keep its own separate template, since merging it might make the main template too bulky. For example,  (bonus challenges) should be folded into , but  can stay separate. Both the main template and the separate level/whatever template should go on the level articles, but obviously, the level template wouldn't need to go on non-level pages (except the game's page itself, which should have all the relevant game-specific templates).
 * Series-wide templates should almost always be templates that list the games in a series, rather than templates for subjects that are found all throughout a series. These should only be made for things like that have lots of overlap or parallels between games best served by back-to-back comparisons, or things like, where a centralized list of far-reaching subjects is likely to be organizationally useful in a manner similar to species templates (see next entry), but limited to a single series and organized by game. In most cases, however, game-specific templates are a better way to organize things than templates like  or , both of which will be scrapped should this policy pass.
 * Everything else are species templates, which groups things based on what they are, rather than where they come from. Most of these templates will be species-based, like or, but important items like , and even a few miscellaneous subjects like  or  are given this sort of template too. The only stipulation is that they all have to be decently important, numerous and/or complicated: really minor and small, or overly large, vaguely defined groups of species (i.e. anything smaller than , or things like Category:Fish) don't need templates, and items and miscellanea are under even stricter scrutiny, so users will have to think long and hard before making templates like these.

The policy also has a big section on how to set up templates (i.e. what headers to use, how to arrange the lists of links, etc.), but that's a lot of nitty-gritty details, and it's mostly explaining what we already do, so I won't go over that here. If you have any questions about details on the draft or aspects that I could only briefly touch upon in the proposal, definitely post them in the comments, but overall, I hope this and the draft are enough to convince you that this will be a vast improvement to the small, outdated policy we have today.

Proposer: Deadline: March 30, 2012, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) - Per my proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) - Per proposal.
 * 5) This is a great idea. Per Proposal.
 * 6) Per proposal.
 * 7) - Per all.
 * 8) - Per proposal.
 * 9) Per proposal. Little bit complicated, but good idea.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Per all

Comments
I know you're trying to be clear, but can you please clarify further/sum it up what the changes are? I can't really comprehend what's going to happen, it seems too complex.
 * I don't understand this proposal either. All I know is that it is supposed to improve organization or something in templates. The rest, I had trouble comprehending.
 * The first section (of this proposal) covers the various template colors that are to be used (the color depends on the template). The second section determines template priority (so at the bottom of an article, you'd have species templates, followed by game/series templates (in order of release date by game)). The third section details what information goes into each template. The rest is about making templates in general.
 * Ah, thanks for clearing that up
 * No problem.

Mario4Ever's summary was bang on. And to clarify, this proposal isn't so much about making a few specific changes, but rather, getting a bigger, better policy approved. A lot of the drafted update to Navigation Templates is just explaining unwritten conventions that are already more-or-less followed, but from this point onwards, there will be something concrete to refer back to. It's also regulating a few things that are inconsistent now, or at the very least, making recommendations based on the various ways users are already setting up their templates. There are too many details to list, but there are a few notable features that I can further boil down if you guys do want the specific changes: The template classification and the terminology is also new (under the old system, there's four template types, whereas there's three types in the draft), but that's more of an internal change: it's important from a policy standpoint, but only the above list will really be affecting the wiki at large. A couple of the finer details (which I didn't talk about in the proposal to save space) that will also affect folks are: And that's all I can recall for now; I can't simplify the proposal any more than that without getting rid of the details, but like I said at the beginning of this post, when it comes to an in-the-nutshell description, M4E's post already has it covered. -
 * New colour-coding system (different series get different colours; random stuff gets personalized colours).
 * New order on templates (random stuff first, followed by games in chronological order).
 * Templates about subjects across a series (i.e. ) are now discouraged.
 * Everything about a game should be in one template, rather than multiple smaller ones, which used to be done periodically. The exception to this is when there's a really big subject like SMG galaxies, which can be left separate just to keep the templates from getting unmanageably large.
 * In the cases where there is a separate template for an aspect of a game, both that template and the main template would go on the page (i.e. a SMG galaxy would have both and, but an SMG enemy would only get ), whereas currently, the main template is often omitted.
 * Templates must be 100% wide (most of them already are, but there are a couple that run afoul of this, however a lot of them are already in trouble with the fourth bullet point).
 * If a page has 10 or more templates, they should be collapsed using ; the original threshold is 7. As always, the templates themselves should all be collapsible.
 * Templates should not have categories in them (this is already on the categories policy, but this emphasizes it).
 * Nav templates are for mainspace only (same as the current policy), with galleries and game subpages (/beta, /staff, etc.) getting their own special templates.
 * Really minor or vaguely defined subjects shouldn't get templates (i.e. yes to and, no to  or  , same as always.

Would Template:GPteams be merged to Template:PM2 as a result of this proposal?

I have a question about the templates: would it be a good idea if we add pictures to some templates? Or do all of them have to be a solid color?


 * Reversinator: No, GPteams is large and complex enough to remain separate: it's a good idea to sort the teams, but it would take up too much room and draw too much focus to a relatively minor aspect of the game to do so in the main PM2 template. LeftyGreenMario: Solid colour; templates don't need flashy pictures, and most won't get them anyway, which will just make things inconsistent and draw extra attention to a few select templates, wrecking the uniformity of the colour-coded blocks. However, I do think the image-background currently used on would be a neat addition to, seeing as that template is unique, and appears on a special group of articles (which are all about images).  and other templates like  or  might also work with that image setup, but with different background colours (i.e. dark blue from the water levels, and black for castles/underground; after that we'd have to get creative), or possibly different games' sprites, although that would be a lot more complex to make and set up. I didn't include that idea in the policy draft right off the bat, since I'm still mulling over the details, and seeing as it's a very specialized idea, I'd rather get specific approval for it with a subsequent Proposal. -
 * Also, it would be nice to see what the templates will look like when it's finished. Considering the support in this proposal, maybe you can work on the future templates as soon as possible. That way, I can have a better understanding what the result will be. Also, it is possible to make templates always expanded when only a few of them are present, like in the minigame articles?
 * The future templates are currently here
 * Hm, my CSS makes all those templates the same color. :P
 * You can see how it looks like when you log out.

New Features
None at the moment.

Removals
None at the moment.

Super Mario Bros. Film Information: Where Should It Go?
Recently, an issue regarding the Super Mario Bros. (film) article has been addressed. I have been here long enough to know that this old proposal stated that the film information that was previously in articles like Mario, Toad, Princess Daisy should be moved in separate articles. This was because that the film is significantly not faithful to the Mario series.

However, it's not clear what action should be taken when this later proposalcomes into account. Now, this proposal can be interpreted as an overturn for that aforementioned proposal, giving it a reason for re-addding film information to the articles. However, I interpret the second proposal outcome as "take no action", not a removal of a rule.

Now, it's important to know what means what. We have to close this ambiguity so there won't be more confusion. Did the second proposal really overturn the first one, or is it unrelated to the first one? Should we keep the film information split or merge the film information?

Proposer: Deadline: March 17, 2012, 23:59 GMT

Keep the Information Split (the second proposal is unrelated to the first one)

 * 1) I stated previously that the second article is not related to the first one. I thought the second one's outcome was don't take any action rather than re-merge the film information. If the second outcome (re-merge the film information) is the case, it is more likely an unintended motive of the proposal.
 * 2) - As I recently said on my talk page, the first proposal is determining whether fundamental differences in how certain characters are depicted in the films makes them separate from their videogame inspirations, whereas the second one is saying all appearances in non-game media are automatically not the same as the videogame characters just because of the media type itself. The idea that non-game media are secondary was rejected, but that in no way counteracts the earlier decision to split certain movie characters based on the fundamental differences between them and the videogame characters. For the record, that first proposal wasn't actually the first: there was another one first, which was cancelled and never archived (here's what it was like right before it was removed). Also, there was an even older debate about the whole thing; some of its conclusions (i.e. film-Daisy not getting a separate article) have since been rethought, but it's still an interesting part of the history of this whole issue.
 * 3) They literally can't be the same people there are way too many differences such as Luigi being much younger then Mario and Toad being a human so per proposal.
 * 4) Per all
 * 5) Per proposal
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) What I always say, per all.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Per Walkazo :)

Comments
So is this proposal saying to create a seperate article for the film characters (Toad, Luigi etc.) instead of having them merged with the actual character's article?
 * Yes based off the significant differences between Toad from the games, cartoons, and comic books and Toad from the movie
 * We'll end up in a load of new stubs for sure. --Super Famicom 64 14:07, 14 March 2012 (EDT)
 * Actually, no. A stub is a definition of a short article with not enough information. If an article is short, but there are no ways to expand it further, it is not a stub. The minigame articles, such as Surge and Destroy are short, for example, but can we expand it to match Super Mario Galaxy's article's size? No, it's not possible. So, if we create separate articles for film characters with all the information it needs, these articles will not be stubs, despite their length.

Merge all Super Mario World level articles
Goomba's Shoe 15 (Raven Effect) said to me that the SMW levels have names so therefore should have articles, but I think he's worng.

Firstly the names are very basic (Yoshi's Island 1, Yoshi's Island 2) it just has the name of the world before what number level it is instead of the name of the world and the Castles have the similar names anyway. Then the levels are the same length and have the same style like the games where their levels are merged into their world articles. Lastly the Speical world levels are the only exection to this, as they all have diffrent names but then they are only on word and my point is that they are like World 9 in NSMBW.

Proposer: Deadline: March 21, 2012, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per my proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) While yes some do have names like Yoshi's Island 1 but some have named like Awesome so unless you want to merge all levels from every game into the world articles like More Monkey Madness than I have to oppose. Also per my comments
 * 2) – Per Raven Effect. Another aspect of this is that they are relatively well-written, and they have somewhat more information than the usual sections devoted to levels in the usual world articles.
 * 3) – Per both my comment and Raven Effect.
 * 4) Per Raven Effect. Also, this would destroy the use of the information templates in the articles. Merging the articles into a world article wouldn't make it any more convenient, and it would make all of the articles less easy to read.
 * 5) Per all, it's fine the way it is.
 * 6) Um... Does it matter if the articles have nice titles or not. I don't think so.

Comments
No, the Special World levels don't count as like 9-1, 9-2, 9-3… that's another story. And we don't name for example Yoshi's Island 1 as (likely) "Course 1" then merging it in the world article. Super Famicom 64 ( Talk )
 * The problem with this proposal is that it wants to merge levels like Awesome which have separate names but if we do that we need to merge all the Yoshi, Wario, and Donkey series levels to keep things consistent
 * And then merge all of the courses of SMB, SMB2J, SMB3, SMW, YI, and so on into their respective worlds… It' also annoying and DIFFICULT.
 * Actually we already do merge the levels from SMB, SMB2, SMB3, NSMB, and NSMB Wii since their names consist of only numbers
 * Oh not noticed. But YI, SMW and several pther games do have different names… --Super Famicom 64 13:59, 14 March 2012 (EDT)

Regarding Comments not Pertaining to Improving the Article
Users posting comments relating to the game and not the article has always been the norm in the wiki, especially with new games coming out. However, me and several users are tired of constantly reminding users to cease posting comments that belong in the forums. There's a big, green template that reminds users that the talk page is not a forum. There are users out there that constantly remind the violators of the template not to post content that belongs in the forums. Problem is? Many more tend to continue to ignore these firm reminders.

Here, I'm proposing that we take a more assertive approach to this. Instead of reminding users not to post comments not pertaining to the article, we should immediately undo such comments. These comments do not take measures to improve the article and if they don't belong there, why are they there in the first place? If a user makes a comment, we should undo it, and tell them on their talk page to not do such things. If they continue doing it (about 3-5 more times, but it's tentative depending on the situation), they will be in grounds for a reminder and so on.

Once this proposal (if) passes, we will immediately delete any more comments made that belong in the forums. The previous comments that also belong in the forums will be left untouched. I hope this proposal will make sure the users get a firm reminder into not posting forum related stuff on article talk pages made for improving the article.

Proposer: Deadline: March 24, 2012, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) To those that think this new measure is harsh: this proposal is created because the green template on the top of the page is ineffective at deterring users from posting forum comments. I am also aware that new users make this mistake as well, so we have to tell them precisely once they break this rule. However, we cannot be too lenient with the rule. I am also annoyed by the constant mistakes other users make and this rule is supposed to decrease future annoyance. I think newer users will make this mistake in the future, but at least we can try to stop them from making future forum-like comments.
 * 2) – While I haven't reminded any to have discussions made on talkpages to pertain to the article, I for one support actually enforcing a rule – if a rule isn't enforced, then why should the rule even exist?
 * 1) – While I haven't reminded any to have discussions made on talkpages to pertain to the article, I for one support actually enforcing a rule – if a rule isn't enforced, then why should the rule even exist?

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.