|
|
| Line 190: |
Line 190: |
|
| |
|
| ===Merge Game Boy ''Donkey Kong'' enemy variations / Split ''Wario World'' enemy variations=== | | ===Merge Game Boy ''Donkey Kong'' enemy variations / Split ''Wario World'' enemy variations=== |
| ''[[Donkey Kong (Game Boy)|Donkey Kong]]'' for the Game Boy and ''[[Wario World]]'' have one thing in common, that being that both games adapt an enemy's design to different environments and change its name to be more descriptive of its design, while keeping its behaviour intact. However, for each game's case, we apply a different type of coverage. The ''Donkey Kong'' enemy variations are currently split from each other, such as in the case of [[Aqua Man]], [[Miira]], [[Golem]] and [[Robo NO.1]] having their own pages despite being the same concept, while ''Wario World'' enemy derivatives such as [[Magon]], Clowns, Snowmen, Wolves etc. all share the same page. This proposal seeks to find a consistent treatment for enemies that only differ by appearance and name. | | ''[[Donkey Kong (Game Boy)|Donkey Kong]]'' for the Game Boy and ''[[Wario World]]'' have one thing in common, it being that both games adapt an enemy's design to different environments and change its name to be more descriptive of its design, while keeping its behaviour intact. However, for each game's case, we apply a different type of coverage. The ''Donkey Kong'' enemy variations are currently split from each other, such as in the case of [[Aqua Man]], [[Miira]], [[Golem]] and [[Robo NO.1]] having their own pages despite being the same concept, while ''Wario World'' enemy derivatives such as [[Magon]], Clowns, Snowmen, Wolves etc. all share the same page. This proposal seeks to find a consistent treatment for enemies that only differ by appearance and name. |
|
| |
|
| '''Proposer''': {{User|Bye Guy}}<br> | | '''Proposer''': {{User|Bye Guy}}<br> |
|
Current time:
Saturday, April 20th, 02:43 GMT
|
|
Proposals can be new features (such as an extension), 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
- 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}}.
- Only registered, autoconfirmed users can create, comment in, or vote on proposals and talk page proposals. Users may vote for more than one option on proposals with more than two choices.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
- 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.
- All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week. Proposals with more than two options must also be extended another week if any single option does not have a majority support: i.e. more than half of the total number of voters must appear in a single voting option, rather than one option simply having more votes than the other options.
- If a proposal with only two voting options has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail by a margin of three votes, otherwise the deadline will be extended for another week as if no majority was reached at all.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation (six days for talk page proposals). 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 canceled proposals must also be archived.
- 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.
- Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the administration.
- No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
- 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: "April 20, 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
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 MarioWiki:Proposals/TPP archive and Category:Settled talk page proposals.
Rules
- All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom) using {{TPPDiscuss}}. 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 {{SettledTPP}}.
- 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:
- 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.
- The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.
- 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
- Delete Trophy Tussle (discuss) Deadline: April 19, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Delete all Super Smash Bros. challenges pages (discuss) Deadline: April 19, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Merge Cog (Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!) and Cog (Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door) into Cog (obstacle) and rename page to "Cog" (discuss) Deadline: April 24, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Delete or be more specific with Template:Unreferenced (discuss) Deadline: April 25, 2024, 23:59 GMT
- Split Hell from List of implied locations (discuss) Deadline: April 27, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Unimplemented proposals
Proposals
- ^Note: This has yet to be done with with several non–Super Mario fighters who still have their own page; namely, Banjo, Fox, Inkling, Isabelle, Kirby, Link, Mega Man, Pac-Man, R.O.B., Sonic, and Villager.
Talk page proposals
List of talk page proposals
None at the moment.
Unimplemented proposals
| #
|
Proposal
|
User
|
Date
|
| 1
|
Create boss level articles for Donkey Kong Country and Donkey Kong Land series
Notes: The DK: King of Swing boss levels, while not explicitly covered by this proposal, should receive the same treatment. All Donkey Kong Land boss levels have been created.
|
Aokage (talk)
|
January 3, 2015
|
| 2
|
Expand the Behemoth King article
|
Owencrazyboy9 (talk)
|
December 23, 2017
|
| 3
|
Decide how to cover recurring events in the Mario & Sonic series
|
BBQ Turtle (talk)
|
July 17, 2018
|
| 4
|
Reorganize Map
|
LudwigVon (talk)
|
July 17, 2019
|
| 5
|
Split Jump Block (Mario & Wario) from Note Block
|
Alternis (talk)
|
July 21, 2019
|
| 6
|
Reorganize and split Gallery:Toys and other Merchandise galleries
|
Results May Vary (talk)
|
July 30, 2019
|
| 7
|
Split the Ice Skate and Swim Ring variants of the Goomba
|
FanOfYoshi (talk)
|
August 17, 2019
|
| 8
|
Split Buckies from Noki
|
FanOfYoshi (talk)
|
August 28, 2019
|
| 9
|
Create articles on the River Survival routes in Super Mario Party
|
Toadette the Achiever (talk)
|
November 2, 2019
|
| 10
|
Include information on Construction Zone for the rest of the Mario vs. Donkey Kong series
|
Bye Guy (talk)
|
November 24, 2019
|
| 11
|
Split Big/Giant Shy Guy from Mega Guy
|
LinkTheLefty (talk)
|
February 11, 2020
|
| 12
|
Merge Fright Jar and Fright Mask
|
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
|
February 26, 2020
|
| 13
|
Split backwards somersault info and merge it to Backflip
|
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
|
February 26, 2020
|
| 14
|
Prune White Shy Guy to remove non-Yoshi's Story information
|
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
|
February 26, 2020
|
| 15
|
Merge Jelly Pop with Jelly Candy and Coco Pop with Coco Candy
|
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
|
March 21, 2020
|
| 16
|
Create a "character/species" infobox
|
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
|
April 16, 2020
|
| 17
|
Split Jaxi (dormant) from Jaxi
|
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
|
April 21, 2020
|
Writing guidelines
None at the moment.
New features
None at the moment.
Removals
Abolish the No-Signature Policy
The no-signature policy is a policy that has pretty much become pointless nowadays yet it stil exists. Back when it was first established it used to be effective and one used for on various different things including this proposals and the long extinct Pipe Projects and Featured Images. Over the years the amount of pages this policy is used for has decreased massively but now as far as I’m aware this policy is only used in two areas: featured articles nominations and in both cases its useage does not match what the policy states.
In the case of featured articles nominations, there is no enforcement of it whatsoever. Here users just decide to put their regular sig in when they comment and they are not corrected or told off for doing so.
With appeals, it doesn’t even follow the guidelines the no-signature policy lists. No-signature policy recommends people to use {{User|User Name Here}} and forces users to link their user page or talk page when writing a comment. Neither of theses are present when writing appeals.
Therefore because of the reasons I listed above I believe the best thing to do here is to abolish policy altogether. Should this proposal pass these changes will be implemented
1. The deletion of Mariowiki: No-signature policy
2. Mariowiki: Featured Articles and Mariowiki: appeals will no longer mention the no-signature policy.
3. Signatures will now officially be allowed on the comments of featured articles nominations (even though they have be used for awhile anyway)
4. A message will be written on the appeals page asking people not to sign their comments.
If anyone has any amendments they would like to make to this proposal, feel free to suggest in the comments.
Proposer: NSY (talk)
Deadline: July 4, 2020, 23:59 GMT
Support
- NSY (talk) Per Proposal
- PinkYoshiFan (talk) Per proposal.
Oppose
- Alex95 (talk) - I don't see a good enough reason to outright remove this. I believe the reason why it was made in the first place was so signatures do not take up too much space. You can see examples of this in older proposals from the first few years of the wiki. For proposals, feature/unfeature nominations, and appeals, I'd rather use the {{user}} template. Signatures are mainly meant for signing talk comments, but can feel like they are in the way in the case of larger signatures (like mine) if used for anything else. EDIT: Additionally, sometimes they are irrelevant, like (using an example from earlier today) Scrooge200 signed his proposal in the proposal text, which isn't necessary when we also say to list the proposer directly after the proposed changes. I realize that's probably a mistake on Scrooge's part, but you usually sign your comments on pages, so the no-signature policy exists to say that you don't need to sign your comments/votes in specific areas.
- HEROWALUIGI (talk) Same as Alex95.
- FanOfYoshi (talk) Per all.
- DarkNight (talk) Per Alex95.
- TheFlameChomp (talk) Per Alex95.
By the "deletion" of the policy, you mean that there should be an {{abandoned}} template at the top of the page? 
(T|C) 10:12, June 27, 2020 (EDT)
correct me if i'm wrong but i'm pretty sure that the no-sig policy is unnecessary for proposals at least. if a sig is too big, it leads to a sigfix template. and even the largest of legal sigs wouldn't take up that much space. also, if a signature is coded in such a way that it messes up a good portion of the page it will probably be fixed rather quickly. but appeals makes sense
i'm going to be staying neutral for now. TheDarkStar 
10:25, June 28, 2020 (EDT)
- Yeah, we keep signatures within a size limit, but by "size", I meant more like unnecessary space usage. If you vote with {{user}}, you don't need the signature, because your name is already there, so the signature is just irrelevant.
22:59, June 28, 2020 (EDT)
Changes
None at the moment.
Miscellaneous
Split the Paper Mario: Sticker Star and Paper Mario: Color Splash attacks
This is something that has been bugging me for a long time.
Currently, each attack in Paper Mario: Sticker Star and Paper Mario: Color Splash is merged into a giant list: Sticker (Paper Mario: Sticker Star) and Battle Card (Paper Mario: Color Splash). There are many problems with this current arrangement.
- They're all different. Some have different action commands, they all do different amounts of damage, have different strengths and weaknesses, different buy and sell values, different descriptions, different sprites, different animations...
- Each attack from the first two games are split: see Hold Fast, Dizzy Shell, and Fiery Jinx.
- Linking to
Worn-Out Jump is easier than Battle Card (Paper Mario: Color Splash)#Worn-Out Jump.
- Things are special attacks that have different locations, different prices, different descriptions, designs, and animations, hints as to where each one is... A majority of them are required to beat Color Splash.
- Some attacks, like the Hopslipper, appear in both Sticker Star and Color Splash. Thus, the Hopslipper page has links to the two attack lists. It'd be much easier and more efficient to keep them on one page.
- The Hurlhammer is going to return in Paper Mario: The Origami King. What will that page's attack list be? I don't want to end up with an article called "Weapon (Paper Mario: The Origami King)" or "list of attacks in Paper Mario: The Origami King." It'd be flat-out incorrect to treat it as exclusive to The Origami King, too.
If this proposal is passed, the following changes will be made:
- Sticker (Paper Mario: Sticker Star) and Battle Card (Paper Mario: Color Splash) will still exist. We'll just give the attacks present their own pages: each The Thousand-Year Door badge has an article and List of badges in Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door exists.
- Every Sticker and Battle Card will receive their own article. If they're the same, like Blazehammer, we cover both the SS and CS info on the same page. In cases like POW Block, we'll include the information on the object's main article and not make a "POW Block (Paper Mario series)" article or anything.
- Every Thing will get its own article.
- Enemy Cards from Color Splash will remain as a list and not get their own articles.
Proposer: Scrooge200 (talk)
Deadline: July 4, 2020, 23:59 GMT
Support
- Scrooge200 (talk) Per nomination.
- Waluigi Time (talk) Per proposal.
- HEROWALUIGI (talk) Per Propsal
- Magolor04726 (talk) I think I was the one who started this thing by asking if there was a list of where to find things. Definitely will help if this passes. (Also, if this isn't how I should post this, I apologize. I'm a super noob at things like this)
- Mister Wu (talk) sounds good to me, if anything I think it’s time to cover the recurring attacks in the new Paper Mario games, especially those that are going to be featured in The Origami King.
- Toadette the Achiever (talk) Yeah, sure. Per all.
- TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.
- TheDarkStar (talk) - per all
- Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) Recurring items, so obvious yes. This has bugged me for a while, along with the SMRPG lists.
- Niiue (talk) Per all.
- Alex95 (talk) - Per all.
- BBQ Turtle (talk) Per all.
- FanOfYoshi (talk) Per all.
- Duckfan77 (talk) Per all.
- Yoshi the SSM (talk) Per all.
- DarkNight (talk) Per all.
- PinkYoshiFan (talk) Per all.
- AwdryFan1997 (talk) Per all, but also because anything differentiating Color Splash and Suck Star is something I'll support. But mostly per all.
Oppose
Would attacks such as Worn-Out Jump ×3 and Worn-Out Hammer ×3 be made into their own articles, or would they just be mentioned on the Worn-Out Jump and Worn-Out Hammer pages, respectively? I am not necessarily against it either way, I am just wondering. --
TheFlameChomp (talk) 22:38, June 27, 2020 (EDT)
- I was wondering about this, and I think now that we'll give them separate pages. They're still unique cards with separate museum slots, plus it'd be easier to say their buy/sell prices and locations. Scrooge200 (talk)
23:42, June 27, 2020 (EDT)
- We have separate pages for triple Mario Kart items now, so it makes sense. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 01:23, June 28, 2020 (EDT)
Merge Game Boy Donkey Kong enemy variations / Split Wario World enemy variations
Donkey Kong for the Game Boy and Wario World have one thing in common, it being that both games adapt an enemy's design to different environments and change its name to be more descriptive of its design, while keeping its behaviour intact. However, for each game's case, we apply a different type of coverage. The Donkey Kong enemy variations are currently split from each other, such as in the case of Aqua Man, Miira, Golem and Robo NO.1 having their own pages despite being the same concept, while Wario World enemy derivatives such as Magon, Clowns, Snowmen, Wolves etc. all share the same page. This proposal seeks to find a consistent treatment for enemies that only differ by appearance and name.
Proposer: Bye Guy (talk)
Deadline: July 11, 2020, 15:20 GMT
Merge Game Boy Donkey Kong enemy variations
Split Wario World enemy variations
- Bye Guy (talk). I am in favour of this option, as there is precedent of this type of coverage with enemies such as Klomp/Neek, Sour Dodo/Cheesy Chester etc.
Do nothing
10:25, June 28, 2020 (EDT)
TheFlameChomp (talk) 22:38, June 27, 2020 (EDT)
