MarioWiki:Proposals

Proposals can be new features (such as an extension), removals of previously added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken. 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. All past proposals are archived. All proposals must pass by a majority, including proposals with more than two options.

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}}.

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. Anyone can comment on proposals whether logged-in or not, but only registered users can create or vote on proposals.
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 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. 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 all votes cast must be for a single option, rather than one option simply having more votes than the other options.
10. If a proposal has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail by a margin of three votes. In other words, one option must have 50% + 3 of all votes cast. This means that if a basic two-option 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. Proposals with more than two options require more precise counting of votes to determine if an extension is necessary.
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. 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 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.
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 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.

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''': {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the proposal was created, at 23:59 GMT. (14 days for Writing Guidelines and Talk Page Proposals)

====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 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 "(Template:Fakelink)". If the proposal involved a page that is not yet made, use {{fakelink}} 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 {{TPP}} under the section's header, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{SettledTPP}}.
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. 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.
5. The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.
6. When a talk page proposal passes, replace its deadline with "Passed" but do not remove it from the list below until the proposed changes have been enacted.

List of Talk Page Proposals

• Rename GAME & WARIO (WarioWare: D.I.Y. Showcase) to GAME & WARIO (Discuss) Deadline: May 8, 2013, 23:59 GMT
• Split Photo Together with Super Mario (Discuss) Deadline: May 13, 2013, 23:59 GMT
• Delete the List of chronological references page (Discuss) Deadline: May 15, 2013, 23:59 GMT
• Delete the Count Bleck's Army category (Discuss) Deadline: May 15, 2013, 23:59 GMT
• Make a separate article for "The Brain (Discuss) Deadline: May 16, 2013, 23:59 GMT
• Make separate articles for Greenies wearing suits of armor/mummy wrappings (Discuss) Deadline: May 18, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Writing Guidelines

None at the moment.

New Features

Merge Mario-related controversies into a single page.

After extensively searching both the Wiki and the Forums, I've concluded that the Wiki does not include a page that lists controversies that involve the Mario series, nor has any proposal been made towards creating one. Being Nintendo's flagship franchise, it is apparent that the series has dealt with controversy, with examples such as the Mario Party 8, Tanooki Suit and Ashley's Song controversies coming to mind. Should these issues be detailed in their own article akin to the one on Bulbapedia, or should they continue to be listed in separate articles as sections? The new article would also allow for expansion on these topics, and the inclusion of additional controversies related to Mario that are unmentioned on the Wiki (such as PETA's recent KFC campaign).

Proposer: GBAToad (talk)
Deadline: May 9, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. GBAToad (talk) Personally, I believe that there aren't enough controversies to compose a really long article. However, I also believe that this article could include smaller examples such as the satanic references in Super Mario Bros. 3, Birdo's gender, and lawsuits against Nintendo that pertain to its systems, thus giving it more depth and making it a significant contribution to the Wiki. Plus, the Wiki lists the inclusions of Mario in both positive (main appearances) and neutral (cameos and the like) perspectives, but why doesn't it list the inclusions of Mario in a publicly negative perspective? I created this proposal because the idea has never been raised before, which is really surprising to me. Anyway, I support the merge of these controversies to form a new article.
2. Yoshi876 (talk) Seems like a good idea, the page could be laid out like the List of Mario references in various forms of media.
3. Tucayo (talk) - I feel this sort of content can be really attractive for readers, and having them all together in one place would be convenient. However, as a fellow staff member had mentioned in earlier discussions, we have to be really cautious not to be biased. A page like this requires to be absolutely objective, stating only the facts and not going into speculation; it's up to each reader to draw his conclusions on subjects like this.
4. Mario4Ever (talk) Per Tucayo.
5. King Pikante (talk) Per Tucayo.
6. Walkazo (talk) - A "List of controversies in the Mario series" page is a good idea, for all the reasons proposed (although "merge" is a bit of a misnomer, as the info shouldn't be moved from the individual articles, just copied). Also, to elaborate on the point Tucayo alluded to, this sort of article will need to have references for every single point (direct quotations from the games works), to ensure that we're keeping our facts straight, our writing unbiased, and our credibility high.
7. BowserJunior (talk) Per all.
8. Super Mario Bros. (talk) — Per GBAToad, Tucayo, and Walkazo. I especially agree with the notions that this isn't a proper "merge" and that the content should be completely based on references to avoid bias and misleading "facts."
9. Turboo (talk) - Per SMB.
10. ThePremiumYoshi (talk) - Per Walkazo's support reasons.
11. Baby Luigi (talk) Per all. I don't see why not.
12. UltraMario3000 (talk)Per SMB.
13. ParaLemmy1234 (talk) Per all.
14. NewSMBU (talk) Things like MARIO KILLS TANOOKI or Birdo's supposed "double gender" deserve their article, easy to find.
15. Mariotime11 (talk) Per GBAToad and Tucayo.
16. Blue CosmicToad (talk) Per all.
17. Binarystep (talk) Per all!

Comments

" I also believe that this article could include smaller examples such as the satanic references in Super Mario Bros. 3"

is that a joke.--Glowsquid (talk) 21:56, 5 May 2013 (EDT)

My fault on that one. I could swear I read it in the article once, but after researching it recently I found it was just a joke made in an AVGN video. I feel silly. GBAToad (talk) 21:57, 5 May 2013 (EDT)

Make a list page for ripoff/bootlegs that have been acknowledged by Nintendo.

There's been various proposals about covering knockoff. They've failed in part because of the community's kneejerk reaction to anything "unofficial" and also because while listing every random Hong Kong bootleg is entertaining, it's neither all that informative or useful.

Maybe so, but what about the times where Nintendo has legally pursued the producer of such products? Legally dubious knockoffs are part of the life of any big media franchise, and covering them is as essential to establishing Mario's global popularity and influence as random pop culture references are. And if Nintendo has acknowledged these things exist (however how quietly), why shouldn't we?

Of course, the page would require some proof that the things listed were c&d or otherwise acknowledged by Nintendo to prevent the page from being flooded by random Chinese bootlegs. Example of stuff that would be elligible for inclusion on such a page:

• Great Giana Sisters (devs were pressured by Nintendo to pull out the game from shelves)
• Mole Kart (videos of it get copyright claim from NOA)
• Era's Adventure 3D (idem+ the game was briefly pulled from Google Play)
• Super Hornio Brothers (:lol:)

Proposer: Glowsquid (talk)
Deadline: May 12, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Create page

1. Glowsquid (talk) - What I wrote above.
2. Mario4Ever (talk) Per proposal.
3. Mariotime11 (talk) Per proposal.
4. BowserJunior (talk) Per proposal.
5. newSMBU (talk) per all.
6. Baby Luigi (talk) Per Glowsquid.
7. Turboo (talk) - Per proposal.
8. Tucayo (talk) - Per Glowsquid.
9. Super Mario Bros. (talk) — Per Glowsquid.
10. Binarystep (talk) Per all.
11. GBAToad (talk) Per proposal.
12. ThePremiumYoshi (talk) - Per proposal.
13. ParaLemmy1234 (talk) Per proposal.
14. King Pikante (talk) Per proposal.
15. MeritC (talk) Per proposal; a case like this would make sense in terms of the details that are described in this proposal.
16. Freakworld (talk) Per proposal.

Comments

Do we have to cover Super Hornio Brothers? Time Turner (talk)

I think it's at least worth a mention as long as we avoid coverage of actual pornographic content, which I don't think even the Wikipedia article discusses. Mario4Ever (talk)

It's legally owned by Nintendo. It's not like the page would describe the content in more details than "It's a porno parody", anyway. --Glowsquid (talk) 13:16, 5 May 2013 (EDT)

How do we know if a bootleg or knockoff is acknowledged by Nintendo? LeftyGreenMario (talk)

Press/independant reports and other signs. For example, if you click a youtube link and get a message among the lines of "This video was removed due to a copyright claim by Nintendo of America", there's a tacit acknowledgement by NOA that the thing exists. --Glowsquid (talk) 12:32, 6 May 2013 (EDT)

Warning for editing large pages for mobile users

So, I was roaming around SmashWiki, and I was about to edit a page, when I saw this at the top of the editing window;

I was thinking, "That's a great idea for the MarioWiki to use as well!" Because, lately, I've seen some revisions of pages where, by accident, users deleted massive amount of content from pages when only they are adding something in good faith, because their mobile browsers can't handle all of that text. What I am proposing is making a MediaWiki page having a template that is similar, but not exactly like the image, that automatically adds itself to large pages; pages that are 32 KB or more, as seen in the image. If SmashWiki could do it, so could we.

Proposer: Goomba (talk)
Deadline: May 13, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Goomba (talk) Per proposal

Oppose

1. YoshiKong (talk) – Even though the issues described within the template could occur, I don't think this it's necessary to have a distracting notice which users are forced to look at as a precaution. Any mistakes can easily reverted, and it's just as easy to let users know when something does happen.
2. Marshal Dan Troop (talk) Per Yoshikong.
3. GBAToad (talk) Per YoshiKong. Users should be competent enough to know not to edit large pages on mobile browsers. If the problem is major, maybe it needs a note in the policies, but certainly not its own template.
4. Yoshi876 (talk) Per YoshiKong.
5. ThePremiumYoshi (talk) - Per all.
6. NewSMBU (talk) - per all.
7. Mario4Ever (talk) Per YoshiKong.
8. ParaLemmy1234 (talk) Per YoshiKong.
9. King Pikante (talk) Per YoshiKong.
10. Walkazo (talk) - Per YoshiKong.
11. Time Turner (talk) Per all. Besides, the template here actually overlaps the actual screen on my phone, so unless you change it, it's not going to work out.
12. MeritC (talk) - Per YoshiKong and GBAToad.
13. BowserJunior (talk) Per GBAToad.
14. Mariotime11 (talk) Per all.

Comments

There is not way we are allow to have that template on. That could disrupt users on a mobile phone. Beside, Tucayo is editing on a mobile phone, and if you did that, he would be disrupted by that message. Pinkie Pie (talk)

Although I oppose the template, maybe we could do this, so it shows up only when editing the page and we don't have to see notices littered around:

<!-- WARNING: This page contains a large amount of content and may not be suitable for mobile browsers. Please take note of this before editing.-->

Mariotime11 (talk)

Removals

User shops

Many years ago, users started spending inordinate amounts of time and edits on comics and stories based on their fellow users, so much so that Userpedia was created and it was decreed that all fiction must get off this main wiki and onto that database. (Or something like that.) Now, users have been spending inordinate amounts of time and edits on fictional "shops" that they run out of their userspace (messing about with stock, hiring other users, advertising, giving stuff away, etc. etc.). However, the Super Mario Wiki is NOT a social website, and these shops do NOT help us document all things Mario - rather, they distract folks from editing, clutter up the recent changes, and eat up our server space. Just as works of fiction were removed all those years ago, and just as user subpages "that do not serve the Super Mario Wiki" are not allowed, I am proposing that we bring the user shop phenomenon to an end. In other words, a bullet along the lines of "fake businesses (stores/shops, etc.)" would be added to the "What should I avoid? section of MW:Userspace. There are plenty of outlets for socializing: setting up shops on the wiki instead of editing is not one of them.

Proposer: Walkazo (talk)
Deadline: May 13, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Walkazo (talk) - Per my proposal. Hate to be a killjoy, but this trend has gotta stop.
2. Mario4Ever (talk) Per proposal.
3. LeftyGreenMario (talk) I never really liked the idea of imaginary commerce. I've never engaged in a shop myself, but I do think messages such as "Your Chance Orb has arrived! Transaction of 20 coins has been made." feel distracting and (I daresay) pointless. It might be fun, I guess. Having fun uplifts morale and it should be encouraged, but there is a line we should draw between having fun and being productive. Per proposal.
4. Turboo (talk) - Per proposal.
5. Phoenix (talk) Per all.
6. Baby Luigi (talk) User shops probably violate the userspace policy anyway (though not explicitly), so even if we made a new guideline that might overlap, it wouldn't hurt to make a point devoted to the shop. Per all.
7. King Pikante (talk) Shops and user-related stuff needs to be ON USERPEDIA. This is an encyclopedia about Mario, not a userspace-based wiki. Plus, there would be much more productive edits, without the shops. Comments like I want to buy a Yoshi, or Can I work in your shop? are UNPRODUCTIVE and very distracting and hide the primary purpose of this wiki:an encyclopedia about our favorite plumber. This is needed. And what's worse, shops are getting more and more common and more unproductive edits are being made. I've never liked the shop idea, and it's just distracting and a waste of time.
8. GBAToad (talk) Per Walkazo.
9. Tucayo (talk) - Per Walkazo.
10. MeritC (talk) - Per Walkazo; I never liked this kind of idea in the first place. This needs to cease.
11. Glowsquid (talk) - Mariowiki isn't a social network, and that includes not being a venue for off-topic inanity. I hardly see how removing them is "removing fun", anyway, as the wiki is far more (too) lax than every other large wikis in existence when it comesto userspace and socializing, anyway.
12. BowserJunior (talk) The' unnecessary subpages' rule is there for a reason. Shops only get away because they're on the main userpage. And we're not 'outlawing fun', we have the forums and userpedia for messing around. Per proposal.
13. YoshiKong (talk) The shops shall go bankrupt, per all!
14. ParaLemmy1234 (talk) Unnecessary. They belong on Userpedia.
15. ThePremiumYoshi (talk) - Per all. I definitely agree that they distract users from editing the wiki.
16. MrConcreteDonkey (talk) - Per proposal.
17. Mariotime11 (talk) - When I first saw shops on the wiki I was like, "Are you serious"? And I don't mean to pick on anyone, but the majority of users I've seen who operate shops have more edits to userspace. If you want to do this, the wiki is not a suitable place for it, start a thread on the forums or do it on Userpedia. Per all.
18. Freakworld (talk) Although I kind of agree with Time Turner, I also have to say that we are NOT outlawing fun because fun just moved to Userpedia. Per proposal.
19. Yoshi876 (talk) Shops always seemed pointless to me, and I do see many users just editing talkpages asking for this, that and the other; so per proposal.
20. SuperMario150 (talk) Per all.

Oppose

1. Electrical Bowser jr. (talk) The wiki is doing just fine in this state.
2. Time Turner (talk) I don't want to engage in a slippery slope argument, but it really does feel like we're outlawing fun. The shops may be pointless, but at the same time, they're harmless. They do nothing to undermine the quality of the mainspace articles, and are used as nothing more than a fun side-activity for most users. They don't distract users from editing and polishing the articles, they're simply something that they do for their own entertainment. I just don't see the point in disallowing them.
3. Goomba (talk) Per Time Turner, plus, I have one of those shops, and it doesn't make up most of my edits, and no one's complained about the messages.
4. SuperYoshiBros (talk) Per Time Turner. Let them have their fun. Now if, say people start putting ads on mainspace articles, then I'd say otherwise.
5. A Paragoomba and the Koopa Bros. (talk) Goomba only updates his shop at times, and thus the wiki won't become a social network. Per all.

Comments

Wouldn't this "user shop" business violate some pats of the Userspace policy anyway? Baby Luigi (talk)

If you remove my oppose, can't we just have one big, official shop? Electrical Bowser jr. (talk)

No matter how much we disagree with your oppose vote, it's still valid so no, it won't get removed. And having an official shop is highly unlikely as it serves the exact purpose and it gives the same reasons that Walkazo is trying to remove. You can always set up a fictional shop where appropriate; here is not the right place. Baby Luigi (talk)

To answer your question, Baby Luigi, it probably does, but rather than try and classify it as something already in the list of things to avoid, we thought it would be easier for it to have its own point given how widespread it is (feel free to correct me if that's inaccurate, Walkazo). Mario4Ever (talk)

Goomba: it's not necessarily your shops that make you unproductive (in which you are productive in mainspace). I think it's the other users being engaged in the shops. LeftyGreenMario (talk)

If that's the case... why not directly confront the people that you feel are being unproductive? The shops aren't the problem here, it's the people running the shops. Time Turner (talk)

Agreed with Time Turner, just let the users know that their shop is distracting other users, and they should take it down. Goomba (talk)

@KP: Removing the shops isn't automatically going to convert every edit that could have been used on a user shop message into a mainspace edit, though... people being distracted is one thing, edits magically becoming productive is another. - Turboo (talk)

Yeah, but I mean by that that there will be fewer userspace based edits. Sorry if that wasnt unclear to you. King Pikante (talk)

I apologize if this sounds somewhat biased, but I believe if every single shop on the wiki was removed, several users may get disappointed or angered, and they may wish to overturn this proposal if it passes. I know, we aren't a social network, but at least allow users to have some fun. Goomba (talk)

Maybe some will get angered at first, like some policy changes that happened to me several times in the past (Featured Images ;(), but eventually, they'll get used to it being gone. And any attempt to overturn it will probably be futile without a decent reason to put it back. If you want to have fun on a scale like this, another site can do (you can even PM each other on the forums, or maybe start a topic there or something). Baby Luigi (talk)

The other site would have to get some publicity, and even if it's popular like Facebook, people will have to know your account name, and then you may not want to share too much personal info. And I don't see how the forums are going to work out very well, IMO. Goomba (talk)

Which is why we have Userpedia for this. Userpedia is made for all user-related stuff. You can have as much fun as you want there, provided you follow their rules of course. And I can imagine it working it out in the forums. Typing a PM is not that much different than leaving a message on the user page. And you can make the shop a forum game or something. Be creative. PS Facebook is terrible. Baby Luigi (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2013 (EDT)

Actually, not very many people I know have even heard of Userpedia; I myself just found out about it a month ago. Goomba (talk)

Is it possible to actually put an image from Mario Wiki onto Userpedia? If so, then I will support. ParaLemmy1234 (talk)

No, it's not, you'll have to upload it. Goomba (talk)

You can if you hotlink it, I guess, but I'm pretty sure just uploading is preferred. - Turboo (talk)

Might as well blank my userpage soon as there isn't much use for it when this passes. Goomba (talk)

Thus, if we had no shops, the wiki would lose popularity. and thus moving them to the forum only gets ideas. A Paragoomba and the Koopa Bros. (talk)

The wiki shouldn't be popular for userspace distractions in the first place: losing users who don't care for editing the mainspace is no loss at all. Now to respond to earlier questions, @Baby Luigi: The "keep non-encyclopedic material to a minimum" vibes that permeate MarioWiki:Userspace dissuade this sort of userspace-focused project but as long as there's no subpages involved, it's not against any hard rule; I suppose you could say that shops are already technically disallowed via the "no fiction" point, but that was intended to stop stories, not elaborate role playing, and it'd be a bit of a cheap shot to suddenly say it has all these other meanings too. Which brings me to my next point, @Time Turner: since there is no official legislature against shops, it' be better to change that before we start confronting users about them. Besides, if we want to get rid of them and stop them from coming back, a rule is more effective than doing it case-by-case. We're also hoping most users will see the new rule (either here, or via the planned SiteNotice should this Proposal pass) and get rid of the shops without us having to directly tell them to: the less confrontational this change can be, the better. - Walkazo (talk)

Still, I just don't see the harm in keeping the shops. What's wrong with letting people have their fun? It's not undermining anything nor distracting anyone, is it? Time Turner (talk)

I'm pretty sure the entire point of this proposal is that they are distracting people - people are spending all their time on the shops instead of doing other things, is the issue. Superchao (talk)

@Paragoomba: This proposal is directed towards every shop and not just Goomba's, so I don't really get what you're trying to say...? - Turboo (talk)

@Pinkie Pie: Really? You should vote based on your personal beliefs, not whether you'll disappoint admins or not. After all, this proposal carries the same weight as a proposal made by any other user. It's not anything special; if it was, the policy would be changed without us voting on it. Baby Luigi (talk)

Exactly. The proposal was made because we wanted the users to have their voice in the matter, and either way, being a sycophant is not going to earn you any brownie points with anyone, admin or otherwise. @Time Turner: User pages were never meant to be the staging area for fake shops, and that abuse of user rights is what's wrong: shops are a distraction to editing and that does undermine the wiki's primary function as a community-driven Mario encyclopedia. That's the harm, that's why they gotta go. - Walkazo (talk)

Changes

None at the moment.

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.