MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
Line 1: Line 1:
<table style="background:#fefffe;color:black;-moz-border-radius:8px;border:2px solid black;padding:4px" width=100%><tr><td>
{{/Header}}
<div class="proposal">
{| align="center" style="width: 85%; background-color: #f1f1de; border: 2px solid #996; padding: 5px; color:black"
|'''Proposals''' can be new features (such as an extension), removal of a previously added feature that has tired out, or new policies that must be approved via [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] before any action(s) are done.
*Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so, not, e.g., "I like this idea!"
*"Vote" periods last for one week.
*Any past proposals are [[/Archive|archived]].
|}
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 with the signature code <nowiki>~~~(~)</nowiki>.


<h2 style="color:black">How To</h2>
==Writing guidelines==
#Actions that users feel are appropriate to have community approval first can be added by anyone, but they must have a strong argument.
===Change how "infinitely respawning" enemies are counted in level enemy tables===
#Users then vote and discuss on the issue during that week. The "deadline" for the proposal is one week from posting at:
Currently, the wiki lists enemy counts for each level in tables located in that level's article. This is all well and good, but the problem arises when infinitely respawning ones (like piped ones) are included. As seen [[World 6-B (New Super Mario Bros.)|here]], this is awkwardly written as
##Monday to Thursday: 17:00 (5pm)
*"[number] (not including the infinite [enemy] spawning from [number] [method]),"
##Friday and Saturday: 20:00 (8pm)
and why shouldn't it include them? That method of writing is ungainly, misleading, and bloats the table's width unnecessarily. Therefore, I propose the alternate writing of
##Sunday: 15:00 (3pm)
*"[number] + (∞ x [number]),"
#At any time a vote may be rejected if at least '''three''' active users believe the vote truly has strong reasons supporting it. Every vote should have a reason accompanying it.
with the "x [number]" and parentheses being removed if there is only one case. So in the linked example, it would be "6 + ∞," which says the same thing without contradicting itself with a lengthy diatribe.
#"<nowiki>#&nbsp;</nowiki>" should be added under the last vote of each support/oppose section to show another blank line.
<br>(Also I had to restrain myself from using * rather than x because that's how I'm used to writing multiplication in equations. Thanks, higher-level math classes defaulting to "X" as a variable! But the asterisk could be used too, anyway.)
#At the deadline, the validity of each vote and the discussion is reviewed by the community.
#A sysop or user calls the result of the proposal and takes action(s) as decided if necessary, and archives the proposal.


The times are in EDT, and are set so that the user is more likely to be online at those times (after school, weekend nights).
'''Proposer''': {{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}}<br>
'''Deadline''': September 30, 2024, 23:59 GMT


So for example, 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 indeed a minute later, the deadline is a day plus 15 hours (Sunday), as opposed to a day minus 4 hours.
====Support====
#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Per
#{{User|Altendo}} - This doesn't sound like a bad idea, although I do think there should be an asterisk like "*" instead which leads to a note saying "not including the infinite [enemy] spawning from [number] [method]", as enemies can spawn in different ways, and showing how they spawn could still be useful. If we just show "∞ x [number]", it wouldn't show how Goombas are spawned in (the linked page doesn't specify how they are spawned in otherwise). But I do like the idea of shortening the "count" section of tables.
<s>#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per Altendo. This formatting is much better, but I also think some note of where the infinite enemy spawner(s) originate from should be preserved.</s><br>
<s>#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per all.</s>


__TOC__
====Oppose====
 
#{{User|Hewer}} I don't see the benefit of changing this. The current wording is straightforward and succinct, I'd expect the reader to understand "6 (not including the infinite Goombas spawning from one Warp Pipe)" easily. Changing it to "6 + ∞" just makes it less clear for no reason, I'd definitely be confused if I saw that and didn't know this specific context. The fact that the other support votes have also brought up how doing this risks losing the specific information completely (and suggested a more long-winded solution that seems to contradict the proposal) compels me to oppose this more.
<center><span style="font-size:200%">CURRENTLY: '''{{LOCALTIME}}, {{LOCALDAY}} {{LOCALMONTHNAME}} {{LOCALYEAR}} (EDT)'''</span></center>
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per Hewer.
 
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Per all.
== New Features ==
#{{User|Axii}} Per Hewer
=== [[MarioWiki: Chronology]] ===
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per all.
This is a proposal to impliment a new writing policy that would give order to writing about Mario's fictional universe.  [[MarioWiki: Chronology]] provides a framework for writing about Mario's "history", as well as settle disputes about where to place items in a "History" or "Biography" section.  The intent is not to say what we are writing is the official chronology, only Nintendo can say that.  The purpose of the chronology policy is to provide a guide for writers when trying to place the order of games in a history section.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} we don't need to throw a mathematical equation at people
 
#{{User|Sparks}} Per all.
'''Proposer:''' [[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]] <br>
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} I realized that this only makes sense if you have it explained to you like in the proposal description, which defeats the purpose.
'''Deadline:''' 20:00, 31 August
#{{User|Arend}} I feel that "[number] (+ [number] infinite spawn points)" would be less awkward to write than what we currently do ''and'' more understandable fir most people than what is proposed here
 
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all.
==== Add ====
#[[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]] I am the proposer and my reasons are given above.
#{{User:Max2/sig}} Mr. SoS has a point.
#{{User:Cobold/sig}} - Very well written guideline, can create more consistency between articles around the wiki.
#{{User:SpikeKnifeNeedleSword/sig}} 21:34, 24 August 2007 (EDT) it would clear up a lot of confusion about the Marioverse.
#{{User:YellowYoshi398/sig}} &ndash; A helpful guideline and good way to keep chronology consistent.
#{{User:Plumber/Pignature}} Per the reasons given above.
#{{User:Paper Luigi DS/sig}} i agree with knife.
#[[User: Walkazo|Walkazo]] Right now many articles have history/biography sections with dissimilar ordering of the games. This proposed timeline will certainly put an end to that confusion (as others have stated above) and is an inspired idea.
 
==== Don't Add ====
 
==== Comments ====
To Plumber, we would simply be putting them in order of release unless it was obvious that it must be somewhere else.  ''Luigi's Mansion'' is not speculation, it is in order of release.  References are made to the game in titles released afterwards, so it cannot be at the end. We are not speculating on its placement, we are putting it where Nintendo gave it to us. -- [[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]]
:Ah, OK. {{User:Plumber/Pignature}} 13:46, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
 
== Removals ==
 
=== [[Glitch]] Articles ===
Glitch articles are a problem, as we could have thousands upon thousands of them, although none of them have been officially named.  I am proposing that we eliminate all conjecturally named glitch articles and either merge them to a "List of Glitches" article (similar to the [[Beta Elements]] page) or just erase them completely.  If this proposal goes through, someone can take action to create a List of Glitches page.  If no one cares, the articles will simply be removed. Either way would be fine.  However, the [[Minus World]] article should be kept, as it has been referenced in Mario games and has an official name.  A list of glitch articles can be found [[:Category: Glitches|here]].
 
'''Proposer:''' [[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]] <br>
'''Deadline:''' 20:00, 31 August
 
==== Delete or Merge Glitch Articles ====
#[[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]] I am the proposer and my reasons are given above.
#[[User: Sir Grodus|Sir Grodus]] I had this idea a while back, but forgot about it. And yes, putting the glitch articles all in one place seems best; though I'm not opposed to just getting rid of them completely, since I see no real use in having them anyways.
#{{User:Wayoshi/sig}} &ndash; 1000s of minor errors in programming are better put on 1 good-sized page
#{{User:Lario/sig}} I think they should be deleted, but also keep the [[Small Fire Mario]] page because it appears in a few more games.
#{{User:SpikeKnifeNeedleSword/sig}} 23:09, 24 August 2007 (EDT) glitches are unintended results of the developers, thus they are non-canon. I don't even think they should get a list page.
#{{User:YellowYoshi398/sig}} &ndash; Most glitches aren't notable enough to merit their own articles, and, as Wayoshi said, there are just too many of them. A List of Glitches page is a good idea.
#{{User:Purple Yoshi/sig}} - I agree with YY
#{{User:Plumber/sig|I agree with PY}}
#{{User:Walkazo/sig}} PP (chanting): merge! merge! list! list! merge! merge! list list! and I found lots of BLUE NOWHEREs in SMSunshine, mostly triple jumping into windows, but I found one in BH and 1 in PV... merge! merge!...
#{{User:Max2/sig}} Agree with YY, Knife, and Wayo.
 
==== Keep Glitch Articles ====
 
==== Comments ====
 
=== The Terrible Big Fandom ===
Ok people, I'm just sick and tired of even seeing the words "[[Big Eight]]". The article is totally nothing but fanon cruft. I think we should just get rid of the article and any mentioning of it within other articles. When you look at it this way all the article is saying is "Uh ok these eight characters appeared playable in early spin-offs before other people and a lot of them are used a lot in their own games or a mainstream game so they are the most important eight characters and since a lot of people think so it is a fact.". Maybe I'm exaggerating, but I don't think so. Oh and, no adding or removing of any characters could fix this thing. WE MUST DESTROY IT WITH FIRE (no not literally)
 
'''Proposer:''' [[User:Fixitup|Fixitup]] <br>
'''Deadline:''' 17:00, 24 August
 
==== Kill It ====
 
#I never thought much about it before, but now that you mention it, it sounds like a waste.-[[User:1337Yoshi|1337Yoshi]]
#{{User:Cobold/sig}} - The Big Eight (and the Marioverse) have already been made writer guidelines. As such, the Big Eight references in articles should indeed be removed, and Marioverse should be replaces with [[Mario (series)|Mario series]].
#{{User:YellowYoshi398/sig}} &ndash; Per Cobold.
#{{User:Phoenix Rider/sig}} &ndash; Definitely. I was thinking the same thing, but Cobold worded it better.
#{{User:RAP/sig}} &ndash; Whoa, that much dirt on one part. And the references that contain "Big Eight", *makes a thumbs-down* DE-LATED!!!!!!!!
#{{User:Stumpers/sig}}I say we kick its big, eight butts out of the Wiki!  Go, Fixitup!  (but you gotta admit, I helped weaken it earlier... :D)
#{{User:Pokemon DP/sig}}It is not official by Nintendo, only made up by fans. Get rid of it.
#{{User:Paper Luigi DS/sig}} its fanon info.
 
==== Nah Leave The Fanon ====
 
 
==== Comments ====
 
While some characters are obliviousy important than other, deciding who is a Big Eight and who is not is more of an opinion than anything. Per example, do Toad really qualify? Sure, he have his own game... but all he do nodaway is appearing in some spinoff. I don't see the point in it, anyway.
[[User:Gofer|Gofer]]
:We would have to edit the writer guidelines as well, to say these are general terms used by fans, but are not actual canon and should not be mentioned in articles. {{User:Wayoshi/sig}} 12:41, 17 August 2007 (EDT)
:I agree, some people are obliviously more important than others, but yeah I couldn't agree more. I'm not sure how the writer guidelines work, but the point of this is to simply rid of any existence of the article.[[User:Fixitup|Fixitup]]
 
== Changes ==
=== Reformat Featured Articles...again! ===
Featured Articles are an important part of any wiki, and I think it is about time we get users excited about featured articles again.  I am propsing we do away with the new PAIR system, and institute a new, simpler system I developed (but heavily based on the successful Wookiepedia FA guidelines).  By making the nomination process open to more users, and making it simpler, we will encourage people to get involved in the FA process.  This new system will be like the original, but stagnant nominations will be removed after a month of inactivity.  That way, we can avoid having huge lists of nominations if no one is working on the articles.  All new featured article nominations would have to be recast.  If we do not have a featured article by the time the new main page is up, we should invite users to help the Super Mario Wiki find its first featured article.  Here is what the featured article nomination page will look like:
 
The featured articles of the wiki are articles that represent the best the Super Mario Wiki has to offer. This is not a way to showcase the articles of your favorite characters, items, or the like.
 
An article must…
 
*…be well-written and detailed.
*…be unbiased, non-point of view.
*…be sourced with all available sources and appearances.
*…follow the Manual of Style, and all other policies on the Super Mario Wiki.
*…not be tagged with any sort of improvement tags (i.e. rewrite, expand, etc).
*…have a proper lead that gives a good summary of the topic and can be used for the front page featured box.
*…have a reasonable amount of redlinks.
*…have significant information from all sources and appearances, especially a biography for character articles.
*…not have been previously featured on the Main Page. Otherwise, it can only be restored to featured status.
*…include a reasonable number of images of good quality if said images are available.
*…be notable and have significant content – some complete articles like [[Spiny Shroopa]] do not have enough information to become FAs
 
First, nominate an article you find is worthy of featured status, putting it at the bottom of the list below; see criteria above. Note that a previously featured article cannot be featured on the Main Page again; however, it can be restored to featured status if there are no other featured articles in queue.
Others will object to the nomination if they disagree that the article is good enough; they will then supply reasons for doing so, and ways to improve the article (errors, style, organization, images, notability, sources).
Supporters adjust the article until the objectors (with reasonable objections) are satisfied.
The article is placed on the featured article list and added to the front page queue.
Also, if, at least a week after the article's nomination, that article has five supports and no objections, it will be added to the queue, and will be officially known as a "featured article".
 
How to vote:
 
Before doing anything, be sure to read the article completely, keeping a sharp eye out for mistakes.
Afterwards, compare the article to the criteria listed above, and then either support or object the article's nomination.
If you object, please supply concrete reasons for doing so, and how it can be improved. Please cite which rule your objection falls under. Failure to do so will result in your objection being considered invalid.
As stated above, any objections will be looked upon by the nominator, supporters, and anyone willing to improve the article, and action will be taken to please the objectors.
Once all objectors' complaints have been solved (or the article has five supports and no objections after at least a week), the article will be added to the queue and be officially known as a "featured article".
 
Also remember to add nominated at the top of the article you are nominating.
 
Every Sunday the next article in the queue will be highlighted on the Main Page as featured, marked with the featured template and removed from the list of nominations. The beginning of the article then appears on the Main Page via the featured articles template. Nominees that are inactive for a month will be eliminated from the nominations list.
 
'''Proposer:''' [[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]] <br>
'''Deadline:''' 17:00 4 September 2007 (EDT)
 
==== Use this New System ====
#[[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]] - I am the proposer and my reasons are given above.
#{{User:Sadaharu/sig}} - PAIR was a flop.
#{{User:Wayoshi/sig}} &ndash; I guess it's the old system with more checks for validity. Fine with me, it always seems templates like {{tem|PAIRreview}} are hours of work eventually wasted for me :P.
#{{User:Cobold/sig}} - This is a good system for featured articles. '''However''', the PAIR system helped me to improve the article a lot, helping me to get it into a status in which I can nominate it. I'd like it to stay as a non-compulsory feature, if it's okay.
#{{User:Plumber/Pignature}} Yes, a simpler system would be used more often.
#{{User:Max2/sig}} I agree with SoS's reasons.
#{{User:Purple Yoshi/sig}} I like it.
 
====Use the Old PAIR System====


====Comments====
====Comments====
To Cobold: I can keep the templates in existence so people can review freelance. {{User:Wayoshi/sig}} 13:11, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
{{@|Hewer}} - "succinct" would generally imply "short, sweet, and to-the-point," of which the current method is the exact opposite. I'm fine with including an asterisk-note next to the infinity, but the current one is much too bloated, outright admits to stating false information, and since the tables are center-aligned with that horizontal-bloat, it makes it look incredibly awkward. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 12:41, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
 
:I guess we just have totally opposing opinions on this one, because I don't personally find ten words of explanation to be "much too bloated", would rather "state false information" (not really what's happening because it's immediately clarified and the only way not to state any "false" info would be to just put "∞" which helps no one) than obscure the meaning of what we're trying to say, and I don't at all think the somewhat wider tables look "incredibly awkward". This is a case where I feel giving more explanation than "6 + ∞" is necessary for the sake of conveying clear information, so I'd rather prioritise that over having a thin table (which I still don't really see why that's so desirable). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 03:19, September 18, 2024 (EDT)
:PAIR reviews can still be used to help people improve articles, but they will have no effect on FAs.  We can use any system that helps people get articles to the highest quality! =) -- [[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]]
 
== Merges and Splits ==
=== [[Microgame]]s ===
We've had list of Microgame pages, like [[WarioWare, Inc.: Mega Microgame$! Introduction Microgames]] and individual Microgame articles. This proposal is to finally set whether we should go by list of Microgames or make an article for each Microgame.
 
'''Proposer:''' [[User: Knife|Knife]] <br>
'''Deadline:''' 20:03, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
 
==== Go by Lists ====
#{{User:SpikeKnifeNeedleSword/sig}} 20:08, 25 August 2007 (EDT) Since microgames tend to be 5 seconds long (unlike mini-games), I don't see why we should give each one of them an article. I think we should keep boss microgames though.
#{{User:Paper Luigi DS/sig}} i've played a little micro-games before, and there really short, i go with knife here.
#{{User:Purple Yoshi/sig}}Microgames don't have enough information to make it one article.
 
==== Make Articles for Every Single Microgame ====
#{{User:Moogle/sig}} I think they do deserve an article.
#[[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]] - Every single microgame is officially named I believe, and it is my personal wiki philosophy to support an article for any officially named game element.  Also, microgames change a lot based on the difficulty.  New challenges are added, as well as new characters and backgrounds.  One microgame soemtimes feels like three microgames in one with a common objective.  There is a lot to be said about each microgame.
#{{user:vruet1/sig}} What Son of Suns said.
#{{User:Uniju :D/sig}} They should each get their own article...
#{{User:Plumber/Pignature}} I must say that I have shared Mr. Anakin's thoughts on this subject.
#{{User:Max2/sig}} They all have enough info. The problem is no one will ever take the time writing them.
 
==== Comments ====
I just want to say that any micro-game article will probably have more information than many of our item articles, especially Paper Mario items ''(This item can be cooked with this item and another item.  This item heals 25 HP.'' '''vs.'''  ''This micro-game was developed by this character.  To play the game, the player must do this.  On higher difficulty levels, more enemies appear.)'' Some articles don't have a lot of information, but that does not mean they don't deserve to be articles.  Also, I don't think we should split up any current lists of micro-games until the articles are created (and not be created as stubs).  -- [[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]]
 
Everyone seems to think a microgame article would be like this:<br>
 
"(name) is a microgame where you must (whatever)"
 
But they wouldn't. They could have info on all difficulties, levels, a few of them have cheats, and the like. {{User:Max2/sig}}
 
=== Merge [[Zeus Guy (Snifit)]] with [[Zeus Guy (Bandit)]]. ===
 
Both species were once on the same page, however, Plumber splitted the page in two without asking anyone first. I say the twop page should be merged since the two species have the same name.
 
'''Proposer''' [[User:Gofer|Gofer]]<br>
 
'''Deadline''' September 1.
 
==== Merge ====
#[[User:Gofer|Gofer]]
 
==== Keep it that way ====
#{{user:Vruet1/sig}} They are different and deserve different arcticles.
#{{User:Plumber/Pignature}} They are completely different species.
#{{User:3dejong/sig|totally different. I agree.}}
#{{User:YellowYoshi398/sig}} &ndash; Per above; they're different species.
#{{User:Uniju :D/sig}} They are DIFFERENT...
#{{User:Purple Yoshi/sig}} Yep, they are different enemies. You can't merge them just because they have the same name.
#[[User:Walkazo|Walkazo and PP]] Different enemies! One is a Bandit, the other is a snifit! Different species for crying out loud, mergeing them because they have the same name is crazy!
 
==== Comments ====
 
If then, I guess we should split the [[Merlee]] (aswell as the other shaman) article to the various PM incarnation, they are different.
[[User:Gofer|Gofer]]
 
Gofers got a point, and they are both called zeus guy. but i'm staying neutral.
 
{{User:Paper Luigi DS/sig}}
 
:That is only assumed, not officially stated. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 14:52, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
::: But then, so is the Zeus Guy thing. They act different, look different, but have the same name.
[[User:Gofer|Gofer]]
 
 
=== Split [[Bowser]] and Bowser Bones ===
I think Bowser Bones deserves his own article on the Wiki, seperate from Bowser.
 
Now before anyone gives me that "but they da same person omgz" stuff, let me just say that [[Mario]] is also the same person as [[Raccoon Mario]], [[Metal Mario]], [[Superball Mario]], and [[Fire Mario]]. But then again, they all managed to get their own articles.
Oh, and don't tell me that he doesn't deserve an article because he was in one game only. That's Superball Mario's case as well, and, excluding remakes, Raccoon Mario's.
 
'''Proposer:''' [[User:Dodoman|Dodoman]] <br>
'''Deadline:''' Sept. 6, 2007
 
==== Split the Articles ====
# [[User:Dodoman|Dodoman]]
#{{User:Lario/sig}} Per guys whose name are Dodo
#{{User:Max2/sig}} no reason not to, I agree with the claims above completly.
 
==== Keep them Merged ====
# &nbsp;
 
==== Comments ====
I don't think you can argue that because forms of characters have their own articles, all different forms of characters should have their own articles. I don't think, for example, that we need an article for Mario's paper airplane form from ''PM2''. If you want to argue for Bowser Bones having his own article, you have to point out that he is ''important'' enough to warrant it. (I don't know, haven't played the game.) Is the name even official? - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 16:42, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
 
== Miscellaneous ==
=== Wayoshi's Return ===
As you noticed, Wayoshi has made a huge improvement in attitude since he was demoted. Seeing this improvement, he could be promoted to at least Sysop, without any huge worries. He continues to do Bureaucrat work, even as a normal user, and it doesn't seem to make much sense. So, should we give him another chance at being a Bureaucrat, or at least make him an Admin, or should we forget it, and leave him as a normal User?
 
'''Proposer:''' [[User:Pokemon DP|Pokemon DP]]<br>
'''Deadline:''' 20:00, 1 September
 
==== Give him another Chance ====
#{{User:Pokemon DP/sig}} I think he deserves another chance.
#{{User:Fg/sig}} Yeah give him another chance, and no user is perfect.
#[[User:Walkazo|PP]] Im with Fg on this one.
#{{User:Vruet1/sig}} Give him another chance.
#{{User:Max2/sig}} Ok, you were a ''bit'' Power Mad. But, I'm that kind of forgiving guy.
#{{User:YellowYoshi398/sig}} &ndash; Wayoshi has indeed improved in attitude and has probably learned a lesson since the Willy incident, and he made such a good bureaucrat while was one. I'd say he deserves a second chance.
#{{User:SpikeKnifeNeedleSword/sig}} 14:25, 25 August 2007 (EDT) I kinda liked him better when he was a sysop. The good old days.... I just don't think he should be in a position above others (Bureaucrat).
#{{User:WarioLoaf/sig}} what knife said. Can't see him not being above us , though.
#{{User:3dejong/sig|ditto, ditto, ditto, ditto, ditto, ditto.}}
#{{User:Paper Luigi DS/sig}} He's a great beaurocat, and if not sysop at least patroller, he help me alot. another chance!
 
==== Don't ====
#No way, it will just happen all over again, and I still don't trust him...(And what he did was pretty bad...){{User:Uniju :D/sig}}
#Sorry, but no. I don't trust him in a position of power after what happened. --{{User:KPH2293/Signature}} 01:55, 25 August 2007 (EDT)
#It's not that I don't trust him, it's that his sysophood drained him of his life. {{User:Plumber/Pignature}} 13:50, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
#{{User:Sadaharu/sig}} Dont trust him, don't like him, its Steve's decision, DID YOU EVEN SEE WHAT HE DID? He demoted himself, ta da.
 
==== Comments ====
Before I get any flames, this was entirely DP's idea. Ask him yourself. I will do whatever the wiki decides to do, even if it's not exactly my best wishes. {{User:Wayoshi/sig}} 01:39, 25 August 2007 (EDT)
 
:If he messes up again, we demote him for good. C'mon, give him another chance here. {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}}


I'm not even sure if this is a legitimate proposal. {{User:Wayoshi/sig}} 13:31, 25 August 2007 (EDT)
If this proposal passes, I think that a dedicated template should be made; something like <code><nowiki>{{infinite respawn|5|3}}</nowiki></code> that would produce "{{hover|5 + (∞ × 3)|5 (not including the 3 infinite spawning points)}}". Or at the very least, use an actual "×" symbol rather than "x". {{User:Jdtendo/sig}} 12:08, September 19, 2024 (EDT)
:I dislike the idea of hiding details in easily missable hover text and don't really see the benefit of using it. It just makes it more convoluted. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:12, September 20, 2024 (EDT)


Not hating Wayoshi or anything, but having a vote to see who gets to be a sysop or not isn't right. Then again this is a special case... since Wayoshi is a former sysop. But just to establish this, let's not have any more sysop elections here.{{User:SpikeKnifeNeedleSword/sig}} 14:25, 25 August 2007 (EDT)
I'll refrain from voting because I have a visceral reaction to anything that resembles a math formula, and I want as little as possible for personal preference to seep into my vote. That's not to say I don't understand what's being proposed, in fact it makes perfect sense if you're aiming strictly for concision, but you'd need to take into account how accessibly that information is communicated--you'd need to establish that "infinity symbol" stands for infinite enemy spawning point, which is not immediately clear. At that point, you'd go for a relatively lengthy explanation nonetheless. Though, I agree that the phrasing in that page you linked doesn't sound inclusive. I think something like "5 individual, 3 infinite spawning points" works better if we're going down this path.<br>If the proposal passes, I'd like to see it implemented in the manner Jdtendo suggests above.<br>EDIT: I'm aware there's [[Mario Kart Tour race points system#Bonus-points boost|already plenty of math on this wiki that has potential to confound people]], but in that case, not only is its succinctness a better way to explain how the game's scoring system works (as opposed to paragraphs-long descriptions), but it's taken straight out of the game as well. I'd say, use math formulas only when you're sure prose would be of less service to its intended audience: people looking up how many enemies are in a level aren't necessarily interested in complex gameplay dynamics. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 13:12, September 19, 2024 (EDT), edited 14:55, September 19, 2024 (EDT)
:If I were the site admin, I wouldn't like something like this either. It's the bureaucrat's right to nominate sysops, and noone else's. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 14:27, 25 August 2007 (EDT)


::Ultimately, only Steve can decide anyways.  I'm sure he will take all these comments and results into consideration, but he will have the final say, and we must respect his decision. -- [[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]]
I'd personally prefer if this was notated with ω instead of ∞, something like "{{hover|3ω+5|3 infinite spawn points and 5 others}}", but that would probably be too confusing to anyone not already familiar with transfinite ordinal notation. {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 10:01, September 21, 2024 (EDT)
:This should be written "ω⋅3+5" because 3⋅ω = ω; {{wp|Ordinal arithmetic#Multiplication|multiplication on transfinite ordinal numbers}} is not commutative. {{User:Jdtendo/sig}} 12:40, September 21, 2024 (EDT)


Yeah guys, this shouldn't be for us to decide. I think this proposal should be deleted{{User:Purple Yoshi/sig}}
Maybe just have a table for finite enemies and a table for infinite enemies? There's horizontal space for both. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 11:33, September 21, 2024 (EDT)
:That just needlessly splits information, which I again don't see the benefit of (and I still don't really see how there's a problem here that needs fixing anyway). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 21:26, September 21, 2024 (EDT)


:Agreed. Who or who does not become a sysop/bureaucrat is Steve's jurisdiction, not ours. --{{User:KPH2293/Signature}} 18:14, 25 August 2007 (EDT)
==New features==
::I only put this up, because Wayoshi was a former-Bureaucrat before, and I wanted to give him another shot at, at least being a Sysop. {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}} But, fine, if you want, get rid of this.
''None at the moment.''


:::I don't think we should get rid of this proposal.  I think Steve would like to hear what people have to say.  Just don't be angry if Steve makes a decision that is opposite of the final proposal result. It's like when Congress votes to show approval or disapproval of an executive action.  Congress can not actually change the executive action, the vote is purely symbolic. -- [[User: Son of Suns|Son of Suns]]
==Removals==
''None at the moment.''


Plumber: I guess we should depromote every sysop, it's draining their life. Infact, why we shouldn't block everyone from the wiki? It's draining their life!
==Changes==
[[User:Gofer|Gofer]]
''None at the moment.''


Why don't you go and say your idea to Porplemontage? I'm sure he would get a kick out of it. {{User:Plumber/Pignature}} 14:02, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
==Miscellaneous==
:I'm going to stay neutral however i have a few thoughts on this.
''None at the moment.''
*1) He should be a patroller first
*2) He can be inappropriate in chat (however he can be controlled if I pay more attention and not play Vid games =P)
*3) He is helpful and he does perhaps deserve a second chance. {{User:Xzelion/Signature}}

Latest revision as of 11:25, September 23, 2024

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Monday, September 23rd, 21:18 GMT
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • "Vote" periods last for one week.
  • Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so (not, e.g., "I like this idea!").
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

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 {{User|User name}}.

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 guidelines. Proposals must include a link to the draft page. Any pages that would be largely affected by the proposal should be marked with {{proposal notice}}.
  2. Only registered, autoconfirmed users can create, comment in, or vote on proposals and talk page proposals. Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available.
  3. 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).
    • 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 strong, sensible reason accompanying it. Agreeing with a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted (including "per" votes), but tangential comments, heavy sarcasm, and other misleading or irrelevant quips are just as invalid as providing no reason at all.
  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(s) at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the administrators.
    • Users can also use the comments section to bring up any concerns or mistakes in regards to the proposal itself. In such cases, it's important the proposer addresses any concerns raised as soon as possible. Even if the supporting side might be winning by a wide margin, that should be no reason for such questions to be left unanswered. They may point out any missing details that might have been overlooked by the proposer, so it's a good idea as the proposer to check them frequently to achieve the most accurate outcome possible.
  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 where none of the options have at least four votes will be extended for another week. If after three extensions, no options have at least four votes, the proposal will be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
  9. If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
  10. If a proposal reaches its deadline and the first place option is ahead of the second place option by three or more votes, then the first place option must have over 50% support to win. If the margin is only one or two votes, then the first place option must have at least 60% support to win. If the required support threshold is not met, then the proposal is extended for another week.
    • Use the {{proposal check}} tool to automate this calculation; see the template page for usage instructions and examples.
  11. Proposals can only be extended up to three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, then 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. 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.
  14. Proposals can only be rewritten or canceled by their proposer within the first three days of their creation (six days for writing guidelines and talk page proposals). However, proposers can request that their proposal be canceled by an administrator at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived.
  15. Unless there is major disagreement about whether certain content should be included, there should not be proposals about creating, expanding, rewriting, or otherwise fixing up pages. To organize efforts about improving articles on neglected or completely missing subjects, try setting up a collaboration thread on the forums.
  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.
  18. Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy.

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. Such options should also be kept to a minimum, and if something comes up in the comments, the proposal can be amended as necessary.

===[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''': {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the proposal was created (14 for writing guidelines and talk page proposals), at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "September 23, 2024, 23:59 GMT"]

====Support====
#{{User|[enter your username here]}} [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 "#{{User|[add your username here]}}" 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

Proposals concerning a single page or a limited group of pages are held on the most relevant talk page regarding the matter. Proposals dealing with a large amount 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 MarioWiki:Proposals/TPP archive and Category:Settled talk page proposals.

Rules

  1. All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom) using {{TPP discuss}}. Include a brief description of the proposal while also mentioning any pages affected by it, a link to the talk page housing the discussion, and the deadline. If the proposal involves a page that is not yet made, use {{fake link}} to communicate its title in the description. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links. Place {{TPP}} under the section's header, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{settled TPP}}.
  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).
    • 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.
  4. The talk page proposal must pertain to the subject page of the talk page it is posted on.
  5. When a talk page proposal passes, it should be removed from this list and included in the list under the "Unimplemented proposals" section until the proposed changes have been enacted.

List of ongoing talk page proposals

  • Consider the "Blurp" and "Deep Cheep" in the Super Mario Maker games an alternate design of Cheep Cheep with the former twos' designs as a cameo rather than a full appearance of the former two, in line with the game's own classification (discuss) Deadline: September 25, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Add English to {{foreign names}} and retitle to {{international names}} (discuss) Deadline: September 26, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Allow usage of {{Release}} as a generic "flag list" template (discuss) Deadline: September 27, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Prune "sports" games from Black Shy Guy in line with White Shy Guy and Red Boo (discuss) Deadline: September 28, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Merge Preying Mantas with Jellyfish (discuss) Deadline: September 28, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Create article(s) for the SM64DS character rooms (discuss) Deadline: September 30, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Create an article for the Peach doll from Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars (discuss) Deadline: September 30, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Remove the remaining non-Super Mario "stage gimmicks and hazards" from Super Smash Bros. (discuss) Deadline: October 1, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Remove non-Super Mario "stage cameos" from Super Smash Bros. (discuss) Deadline: October 1, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Rename {{Manga infobox}} to {{Publication infobox}} (discuss) Deadline: October 4, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Merge Play Nintendo secret message puzzles (discuss) Deadline: October 4, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Merge categories for Donkey Kong Country remakes with their base game's categories (discuss) Deadline: October 5, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Refer to this enemy as "Bull's-Eye Banzai" for coverage in New Super Mario Bros. Wii (discuss) Deadline: October 6, 2024, 23:59 GMT
  • Rename Perfect Edition of the Great Mario Character Encyclopedia to Perfect Ban Mario Character Daijiten (discuss) Deadline: October 7, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Establish a standard for long course listings in articles for characters/enemies/items/etc., Koopa con Carne (ended June 8, 2023)
Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)
Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles, Nintendo101 (ended July 3, 2024)
^ NOTE: Not yet integrated for the New Super Mario Bros. games, the Super Mario Maker games, Super Mario Run, or Super Mario Bros. Wonder
Expand use of "rawsize" gallery class, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended July 19, 2024)
Do not use t-posing models as infobox images, Nightwicked Bowser (ended September 1, 2024)
Create new sections for gallery pages to cover "unused/pre-release/prototype/etc." graphics separate from the ones that appear in the finalized games, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 2, 2024)
Tag sections regarding the unofficially named planets/area in Super Mario Galaxy games with "Conjecture" and "Dev data" templates, GuntherBayBeee (ended September 10, 2024)
Rename the remaining baseball teams to their current titles, GuntherBayBeee (ended September 19, 2024)
Create MarioWiki:WikiLove and WikiLove templates, Super Mario RPG (ended September 20, 2024)
Only add in the current voice actor in the "latest portrayal" section in infoboxes, Altendo (ended September 21, 2024)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Allow separate articles for Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)'s subjects, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended August 3, 2024)
Split Bowser's Flame from Fire Breath, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 18, 2024)
Split Banana Peel from Banana, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 18, 2024)
Split truck article into cargo truck and pickup truck articles, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 21, 2024)
Split Donkey Kong template into separate arcade and Game Boy templates, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 21, 2024)
Merge Crocodile Isle (Donkey Kong 64) with Crocodile Isle, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 21, 2024)

Writing guidelines

Change how "infinitely respawning" enemies are counted in level enemy tables

Currently, the wiki lists enemy counts for each level in tables located in that level's article. This is all well and good, but the problem arises when infinitely respawning ones (like piped ones) are included. As seen here, this is awkwardly written as

  • "[number] (not including the infinite [enemy] spawning from [number] [method]),"

and why shouldn't it include them? That method of writing is ungainly, misleading, and bloats the table's width unnecessarily. Therefore, I propose the alternate writing of

  • "[number] + (∞ x [number]),"

with the "x [number]" and parentheses being removed if there is only one case. So in the linked example, it would be "6 + ∞," which says the same thing without contradicting itself with a lengthy diatribe.
(Also I had to restrain myself from using * rather than x because that's how I'm used to writing multiplication in equations. Thanks, higher-level math classes defaulting to "X" as a variable! But the asterisk could be used too, anyway.)

Proposer: Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
Deadline: September 30, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per
  2. Altendo (talk) - This doesn't sound like a bad idea, although I do think there should be an asterisk like "*" instead which leads to a note saying "not including the infinite [enemy] spawning from [number] [method]", as enemies can spawn in different ways, and showing how they spawn could still be useful. If we just show "∞ x [number]", it wouldn't show how Goombas are spawned in (the linked page doesn't specify how they are spawned in otherwise). But I do like the idea of shortening the "count" section of tables.

#ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per Altendo. This formatting is much better, but I also think some note of where the infinite enemy spawner(s) originate from should be preserved.
#Super Mario RPG (talk) Per all.

Oppose

  1. Hewer (talk) I don't see the benefit of changing this. The current wording is straightforward and succinct, I'd expect the reader to understand "6 (not including the infinite Goombas spawning from one Warp Pipe)" easily. Changing it to "6 + ∞" just makes it less clear for no reason, I'd definitely be confused if I saw that and didn't know this specific context. The fact that the other support votes have also brought up how doing this risks losing the specific information completely (and suggested a more long-winded solution that seems to contradict the proposal) compels me to oppose this more.
  2. Waluigi Time (talk) Per Hewer.
  3. FanOfYoshi (talk) Per all.
  4. Axii (talk) Per Hewer
  5. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per all.
  6. EvieMaybe (talk) we don't need to throw a mathematical equation at people
  7. Sparks (talk) Per all.
  8. ThePowerPlayer (talk) I realized that this only makes sense if you have it explained to you like in the proposal description, which defeats the purpose.
  9. Arend (talk) I feel that "[number] (+ [number] infinite spawn points)" would be less awkward to write than what we currently do and more understandable fir most people than what is proposed here
  10. Killer Moth (talk) Per all.

Comments

@Hewer - "succinct" would generally imply "short, sweet, and to-the-point," of which the current method is the exact opposite. I'm fine with including an asterisk-note next to the infinity, but the current one is much too bloated, outright admits to stating false information, and since the tables are center-aligned with that horizontal-bloat, it makes it look incredibly awkward. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:41, September 17, 2024 (EDT)

I guess we just have totally opposing opinions on this one, because I don't personally find ten words of explanation to be "much too bloated", would rather "state false information" (not really what's happening because it's immediately clarified and the only way not to state any "false" info would be to just put "∞" which helps no one) than obscure the meaning of what we're trying to say, and I don't at all think the somewhat wider tables look "incredibly awkward". This is a case where I feel giving more explanation than "6 + ∞" is necessary for the sake of conveying clear information, so I'd rather prioritise that over having a thin table (which I still don't really see why that's so desirable). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 03:19, September 18, 2024 (EDT)

If this proposal passes, I think that a dedicated template should be made; something like {{infinite respawn|5|3}} that would produce "5 + (∞ × 3)". Or at the very least, use an actual "×" symbol rather than "x". Jdtendo(T|C) 12:08, September 19, 2024 (EDT)

I dislike the idea of hiding details in easily missable hover text and don't really see the benefit of using it. It just makes it more convoluted. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:12, September 20, 2024 (EDT)

I'll refrain from voting because I have a visceral reaction to anything that resembles a math formula, and I want as little as possible for personal preference to seep into my vote. That's not to say I don't understand what's being proposed, in fact it makes perfect sense if you're aiming strictly for concision, but you'd need to take into account how accessibly that information is communicated--you'd need to establish that "infinity symbol" stands for infinite enemy spawning point, which is not immediately clear. At that point, you'd go for a relatively lengthy explanation nonetheless. Though, I agree that the phrasing in that page you linked doesn't sound inclusive. I think something like "5 individual, 3 infinite spawning points" works better if we're going down this path.
If the proposal passes, I'd like to see it implemented in the manner Jdtendo suggests above.
EDIT: I'm aware there's already plenty of math on this wiki that has potential to confound people, but in that case, not only is its succinctness a better way to explain how the game's scoring system works (as opposed to paragraphs-long descriptions), but it's taken straight out of the game as well. I'd say, use math formulas only when you're sure prose would be of less service to its intended audience: people looking up how many enemies are in a level aren't necessarily interested in complex gameplay dynamics. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 13:12, September 19, 2024 (EDT), edited 14:55, September 19, 2024 (EDT)

I'd personally prefer if this was notated with ω instead of ∞, something like "3ω+5", but that would probably be too confusing to anyone not already familiar with transfinite ordinal notation. jan Misali (talk · contributions) 10:01, September 21, 2024 (EDT)

This should be written "ω⋅3+5" because 3⋅ω = ω; multiplication on transfinite ordinal numbers is not commutative. Jdtendo(T|C) 12:40, September 21, 2024 (EDT)

Maybe just have a table for finite enemies and a table for infinite enemies? There's horizontal space for both. Salmancer (talk) 11:33, September 21, 2024 (EDT)

That just needlessly splits information, which I again don't see the benefit of (and I still don't really see how there's a problem here that needs fixing anyway). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 21:26, September 21, 2024 (EDT)

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

None at the moment.

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4373875"