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.
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, but they may not vote for every option available.
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 with a margin of at least 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: "May 18, 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".
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.
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
In Template:Species infobox, expand "Relatives" guidelines to include variant-type relationships with significant differences between species (discuss) Deadline:May 12, 2024, 23:59 GMT May 19, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Rename Moneybags to Moneybag (enemy) (discuss) Deadline:May 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT May 20, 2024, 23:59 GMT
This is an idea I had, and it's to cut back on the more lengthy articles like Mario. The Smash section for him is cluttered with his moves, Solid Snake convo and Subscape Emissary role, and I feel like it's a little too much. The Smash Wiki has an article for Mario in each different Smash Bros., so I kind of had the idea we could create a Mario (SSB) article where we can go more in depth about just his Smash Bros. roles; moves, trophy, stickers etc.
This would apply to other Marioverse characters in Smash, and doing this would cut back on the length of these already massive articles. It also allows us to redirect the Smash Bros. section for the Koopalings to Main Article: Bowser Jr. (SSB) without having to go into depth about Ludwig's moveset on his own article.
I figure this would only apply to Marioverse characters, as it's not like Link's or Pikachu's article needs to be reduced in size.
Proposer: Paper Jorge (talk) Deadline: September 24, 2014 23:59 GMT
Support
Paper Jorge (talk) It'd offer a much neater look to the Mario, Bowser, Peach articles. I'd say it's worth a try.
Superchao (talk) It seems like a useful idea to save on space, and we already have things like gallery and quotes spun off into their own pages.
Time Turner (talk) Most characters' sections aren't even that large, comparatively or otherwise. Besides, what about non-Marioverse characters who've appeared in other media, like Link or Kirby or Samus Aran? Where will you draw the line to say which articles deserves to be split and which don't?
Ninelevendo (talk) This sort of thing is best kept on Smashwiki, and by going into more smash related stuff some characters would have hardly any info on them because they only appear in a smash game. Creating one article for all four smash games also isn't that great of an idea, as all the different games would have their information cluttered and split, making it confusing for readers. Also, the name Mario (SSB) would be going against the rule of not using abbreviations.
Mario (talk) I don't understand why exactly the Smash Bros. series needs the split. The Codec part can probably be split from its main article, each special move can go further into detail in another article. There's no need to split off Smash Bros. Smash Wiki splits the articles because the wiki goes far into depth about character move properties, how effective the character is overall, and other technical stuff we don't cover. We cover the basic stuff, and that's not so much we need to split it.
'Shroom64 (talk) The Mario article is inevitably huge; but as Time Turner said, we have non-Mario articles like Link, R.O.B. and others that would be comparatively weird to have an unnecessary other article for SSB. But why does Ludwig (and the other Koopalings, I guess) have his own section? It is really Bowser Jr., right? Per all.
Toadbrigade5 (talk) I know Smash wiki does it, but hey, its still the same charecter and who cares if the article is huge!
Tsunami (talk) Per all. And I would like to remember we already have links to every SmashWiki page, so they can be checked. And why can't you go depth directly in the article?
Ghost Jam (talk) I agree that some of our more popular articles could stand a trim here or there, but I'm not sure splitting articles up into smaller articles is the way to go about it, especially considering the snowball effect it will create. If it's simply a matter of trying to shorten articles and save space, I would think cutting down the offending sections and truncating sentences when able (both of which are supposed to be standard editing practices) would be a more succinct way of doing that, and that's the method I favor.
Walkazo (talk) - The SSB clutter has always irked me to an extent, but it would be better to just move the Codec and Special Attacks sections to the "List of Profiles and Statistics" subpages that we've already created for the longer articles.
@Tsunami We don't really cover the technical things as, for one, it would make the section really long, but most of the terms (such as "Edge-guarding") could be considered "fan-made names". Plus, we don't really cover things like Hitboxes largely because, well, we aren't Smashwiki, our policy is different to theirs. - 01:26, 18 September 2014 (EDT)
Okey dokey. Thanks a bunch for the clarement :) Since our policy is different, I then don't see the point of following their. Maybe, if ever Smash Bros. will become complex over years, I will support this. TSUNAMI
@Randombob-omb4761: I take your point, but our inclusion policy has traditionally been interpreted as "more articles are better than less articles, if we can pull it off." -- Ghost Jam 22:05, 18 September 2014 (EDT)
About the special moves, couldn't we just go back to having separate articles for them? A lot of the reason behind the merge was to minimize Smash Bros. coverage, and there was also talk of stubs being created (which used to be a very scary word). The stub argument is tosh for a bunch of reasons, but the coverage of "minor" Smash Bros aspects is an interesting point that I've always wanted to discuss. We have several characters like stage-specific ones (Ultimate Chimera, Bulborb, the Great Bay turtle) merged, which is because of their small appearances. At the same time, we have SSB enemies like Mites and Like Likes that also have relatively small appearances but are still given articles because they act as full-fledged enemies. By that same token, the special moves are constantly used and being seen, and the wiki's certainly no stranger to giving articles to special moves. After all, giving them articles would clear up some of the section's clutter.
I've prattled on about a subject that I want to discuss with no real point other than that I want to discuss it. What exactly is and isn't "minor" to the point of not covering it is something that I always wanted to discuss. Anyone else wanna make sense of what I wrote and chime in with their own thoughts? Hello, I'm Time Turner.
We used to have separate articles for every individual Smash Bros. move. Sometime during the release of Brawl, something happened that our policy changed, probably a proposal. I'm not exactly sure why though (guessing article lengths?) or if we could change our policy back. Thoughts? Paper Jorge (Talk·Contribs)
We've overwritten larger polices that have lasted longer in the past. Besides, like Ghost Jam said, our policy has generally been in support of more articles if possible, and it's certainly possible in this case. Hello, I'm Time Turner.
I was reading New Super Mario Bros. Wii when it hit me. We should make an Article called New Super Mario Bros. (Series). I mean really, look how muuch installments we have in the series and new ones coming soon. Also, we have Mario & Luigi (series) article, a Mario Kart (series) article and a Mario Party (series) article. So why not we make one for the New Super Mario Bros. Series while it is a popular series. Also, it can provide editorial oppurtunities because millions play it.
Proposer: Iggy Koopa777 (talk) Deadline: September 30, 2014, 23:59 GMT
UltraMario3000 (talk)Per proposal. Why the heck not? I think it'd work pretty good.
Oppose
Skittles (talk) - Pretty much agree with what Walkazo said below; the NSMB series is part of the main Super Mario series and should not be separated from the rest of the games just because the gameplay is different. With the sports series and the RPG series, they are separate from the main games, therefore being deserving of a separate article to list the games and details of the series. The main series page we have now is fine and works well.
Mario (talk) We're messing with the foundation of the organization of this wiki. This proposal opens up questions regarding other "subseries" as well, including Super Mario Land, Super Mario 3D "thing", Super Mario Galaxy, and other subseries like that. Your examples describe standalone series, and New Super Mario Bros. is NOT a standalone series; it's a subseries of the "mainstream" Mario platformers. If this proposal passes, we have to acknowledge the existence of this New Super Mario Bros. series, which means we have to reorganize the history sections of a whole lot of articles, reorganize the navigational templates, and other things. Consider, if the door to acknowledging Super Mario Land and Super Mario 3D "thing" is opened because of this proposal, that means further reorganization of the history sections. Call me a slippery-slope spouter, but the amount of supports already, I find kind of alarming, so I'm opposing immediately.
Ghost Jam (talk) The way our lists are currently set up (which, as Walkazo pointed out below, are a mess and in need of maintenance), this would require a little restructuring and will most definitely have a snowball effect on the rest of the series lists. There is also the matter of acknowledging NSMB as a serperat series, what a series is, does it mesh with our current archiving methods, what are the long term effects on the rest of the lists (the snowball effect I mentioned). As Mario put it above, we're messing with the foundation here and I'm not comfortable with messing with the ground we're standing on till I'm sure the house isn't going to fall down as a result. There are various things to consider here and I don't feel that a proposal is going to offer enough time or space to hash them all out. My recommendation is to identify the various issues people are going to have, discuss them with the community on the forums, then bring the agreed upon criteria back here.
Ninelevendo (talk) The New Super Mario Bros Series is a sub-series of a sub-series in a series, which the wiki currently doesn't find applicable of having a page. Changing this would, like the people above said, cause a chain reaction, and end up making a everyone confused as to what deserves a page or not. If you make a proposal on changing how the wiki deals with Sub-series of sub-series (such as Mario Kart Arcade) that sounds reasonable, then this would be a good idea. In other words, per all.
Walkazo (talk) - Per myself in the comments, and per above, and per past proposals and discussions on similar matters. The Super Mario subseries is best read about as a whole, rather than breaking it into chunks; keeping the overall subseries page but making a separate NSMB-only sub-sub-series page isn't a solution to that since it just creates redundant duplication of info. It could also have repercussions on how History sections and other aspects of the wiki are organized, but in these cases too, keeping Super Mario games together makes more sense than splitting them up or getting horribly nested sub-sub-sub-sections and whatnot. Plus, making one sub-sub-series page might lead to more and more getting made, when we should really be focusing on making the series pages we already have actually look good.
Comments
Haven't we been through this? - 22:22, 22 September 2014 (EDT)
Yeah, exactly, the problem is that NSMB isn't actually a standalone series like the examples listed - it's a sub-series of the overall Super Mario series, and thus, giving it a series page is actually something new and has implications for how we deal with the other sub-sets of Super Mario games. Will the original SMB games they get a series? What about how NSMB is basically just a modern continuation of the oldschool sidescrollers - is it really right to split them up? What about the 3D games, or will only the one with "3D" in the title get their own series page? And what are the implications for History section orders, templates and other wiki-wide organizational systems: right now, everything's pretty consistently going by the overall Super Mario series, and I'm leery of messing around with that. Plus, series pages are currently a mess anyway: I feel like it might be better to focus efforts on fixing up the existing Super Mario series page rather than making one or more new, smaller series pages that are basically just duplicated subsets of the overall series... - Walkazo 22:46, 23 September 2014 (EDT)
Well, the Super Mario 3D series and the Super Mario Galaxy series are (currently!) just duos, but I'm curious about this; We don't have a page for this, and yet its amount of games are up to par with Super Mario Advance if New Super Luigi U isn't counted, and with the current number of Mario vs. Donkey Kong if it is. Is there areason for that? Especially because the SMA games are remakes with Mario Bros. stuck on. So basically, I can't vote yet. BabyLuigi64
Aside: Sorry for the premature deletion, everyone. Seemed like an open and shut violation to me and it probably would have been if a discussion hadn't broken out between us about this very subject at the same time. -- Ghost Jam 06:32, 24 September 2014 (EDT)
@Mario @GhostJam Erm... you two really have fear of changing some basics? I'm not blaming you at all, but I find it, like, a bit strange. Changing rules is a thing that sometimes in a project (MarioWiki, in this case) happens. By the by, I want to remember proposals can easily change from a win to a lose... TSUNAMI
But wait, the Super Mario Advance series is just a remake collection. At this point, since NSMB series is, more than a remake, a (sub)series, what should we do? Delete that too? I don't understand the organization anymore. Please, explain it to me. TSUNAMI
Look we made Subseries into pages such as Mario Kart, Mario Party, etc. and there is enough installments (5) so why oppose? And SMB, SMB2, SMB3 did not have the word "New" in their names so i am not saying "count them" i mean the 5 installments (NSMB, NSMBWii, NSMB2, NSMBU, NSLU) also this series is still pretty popular so let's do it when it is still popular.
Iggy Koopa777 (talk)
@Tsunami Advance gets it own series page because it's just a remake series, not a new instalment in the Super Mario Bros. line like the NSMB games are.
@IggyKoopa777 Mario Kart and Mario Party are a completely separate and cut-off sub series from the Super Mario (Bros.) series, wheras the New Super Mario Bros series is a sub series of a sub series. Changing this would result in a lot of chages, and lots of them wouldn't make sense. If we take a while and work something out, then we can understand what would go where. - 08:49, 24 September 2014 (EDT)
@Ninelevendo What? Super Mario Bros. is a subseries? Of what? We don't have "Super Mario 2D (series)". Sorry, I don't get this at all. NSMB could also simply be a continuation of it. I recognize all pseudo-series as series, and the Super Mario series as a whole as a collection of them. I have confusion, so I will be neautral by not voting like BabyLuigi64 does. TSUNAMI
@Iggy Koopa777 I should also add, Mario Kart and Mario Party are MUCH larger than NSMB, both have hit more than ten titles. The Mario Kart games reach a total of 11 games including arcade titles, meanwhile, Mario Party reaches 16, again including arcade games but discounting MP10. Therefore, the articles can be and are much more expansive.
@Tsunami I think Ninelevendo is referring to how the Super Mario Bros. games are a subset of the Mario series as a whole.BabyLuigi64
And then, if the Super Mario 2D is ever recognized as a series (I know it isn't), where is it placed in the diagram I am starting figuring out? I'm thinking a diagram image should be uploaded to avoid confusion. Not the general one, we already have it. By the way, no, I won't vote again, but remain neautral. TSUNAMI
Just a reminder that new comments always go on the bottom, lest this becomes a total mess. Anyway, as long as a set of games has three or more entries, it can get a series, that's not the problem here: the real question isn't "how much", it's "what". I.e. should a sub-sub-series of the Super Mario sub-series (of the overall Mario series) get a series article like its parent sub-series and other sub-series (like Mario Kart and whatnot), or is that going to cause organizational issues and inconsistencies between articles and series pages, duplication of information, and/or a snowball effect of sub-sub-series pages for increasingly blurry game groupings? I.e. should the original SMB games get a page too? Should SM64, SMS and the Galaxy games be grouped together as the more open-world platformers? Should the 3D games go with them because it's also 3D even if it's a bit more sidescrollery? If they make a third Galaxy game, will it get a separate series page? If they make a third 3D Land/World/etc. game, will it get a page? If they make a 3D Galaxy game then what do we do? And going outside the Super Mario games, should the three Mario Kart Arcade GP games get a page? Or the Super Mario Fushigi arcade party games? Do we really want to start prying open these cans of worms when the series pages we can agree on are already in rough shape? Anyway, the points about there already being a Super Mario Advance (series) are fair, and part of me feels like it'd be easier to just delete that page, but it's a bit different in that it's also got the Yoshi's Island remake in there, so it's not purely a subset of Super Mario-only games. It might be best to have a separate discussion/proposal about that series page... - Walkazo 16:27, 24 September 2014 (EDT)
Removals
None at the moment.
Changes
None at the moment.
Miscellaneous
Active rewards
Well I was looking around the Pie for everyone joke proposal, and one of the comments said that a reward would be nice,just not pie.So it hit me why not have a rewards program. In witch active users get rewarded for being active, or editing the most or other things. The prizes witch would be given away buy the breuacrats and could be coustom userbok towers,a signiture makeover,and other little goodies.Some stuff would be easy while others chalanging tempting users to go above and beond.
Time Turner (talk) Systems like these, besides being annoyingly tedious to manage if not automated and very easy to abuse if automated, always encourage making minor edits across a large amount of articles, rather than putting time effort into a few. They tend to be counterproductive simply because people care more about the rewards than what they're actually doing to get those rewards. Simply put, it's not in our best interests.
Baby Luigi (talk) As some say, intrinsic motivation is a far more powerful indication you want to aid wikis than extrinsic. I can totally see people abusing this system just for the reward and never contribute to the site again. Furthermore, isn't SEEING a page look awesome already rewarding in itself? I certainly felt great when I fixed up Miracle Book and made it featured, as well as Super Duel Mode, shouldn't that be a reward in itself? In the same way modding the game doesn't get you any rewards other than people loving you for what you have done, same should apply to this wiki. We should edit and not expect a thanks in return (though it IS appreciated, I've felt great when other editors complimented my hard work). A simple compliment can make another user's day already.
Ninelevendo (talk) Not only would the prizes or requirements be hard to work out, but it would lower the quality of work in the long run. Instead of people putting their back into fixing articles or adding things, they'll only do whatever is needed in order for them to claim their reward, then leave the project afterwards.
Tsunami (talk) Per all. This means I got reward because I talk a lot and do some minor stuff. If the work is big, acomplishmemt is enough (so per Baby Luigi).
Walkazo (talk) - Per Baby Luigi and Tsunami. Edit wikis because you want to, not because you want to be rewarded.
BabyLuigi64 (talk) Per all. This could be used as incentive for people to work, but too much incentive in my opinion. Honestly, using this system, I should have a reward for finally making Iggy Koopa a featured article, or maybe my and Tsunami's hard work to get Lakitu featured, but I wouldn't care. Signature makeovers are something already doable on one's own time, and custom userboxes are (aside from friend userboxes) already done. Just look at Tsunami for a whole ensemble of 'em. :) Really, others may not care about the wiki and only want the rewards, which is not at all good when our goal is to be the best Mario series wiki there is. As that is the case, we can't be flooded with users who just want rewards.
Tails777 (talk)Per Baby Luigi. Editing a wiki is not something to get rewarded for. I'm sure most people who take the wiki seriously edit and help out because they just enjoy doing so.
Ghost Jam (talk) Per all. We've actually attempted this in the past (very early years of the wiki). What we found is that it breeds contempt between users, encourages shoddy editing and ends with us finding someone to babysit the system to avoid abuse. In the end, it was all way more trouble than it was worth. Further comments below.
Truth be told, we tried this more than twice and in various forms. First was an informal barnstar-type system where any users could award something of their choosing to another user they felt was deserving of a more robust thank you (some talk page archives for the oldest users still have a few of these left around, despite our deciding to mass delete them). This ended up creating arguments about who gave who what for what reason and then rivals handing out bad rewards ("You got the Garlic reward cause YOU STINK!" and other crap like that). This tried to evolve into a formal awards system that fell flat on it's face (partly due to left over hostility from the informal system, partly due to apprehension on part of most of the administrative team), which then became version one of the long removed Trouble Center (this one still bugs me, it had so much potential). Other methods have been discussed over the years, on all fronts. One might ask why these attempts keep falling through when larger wikis, such as and pretty much exclusively Wikipedia, don't seem to have this problem, or at least the problem is minor at best. I think it's because of the size of the communities in question. Wikipedia is pretty much a community of communities and, much like what happens in Vegas staying in Vegas, minor award based issues that pop up in various sub-communities are handled by those communities and maybe an ops if it's Friday and Jimbo has had a few. MarioWiki is a much smaller community and intensely more intimate when it comes to it's users. When Martha May Whovier next door gets a shinny new trinket fro her lawn, Betty Lou Who wants one too. But time has proven that we can't play nice about it, so let's just stick with what Walkazo and everyone else said above. -- Ghost Jam 14:46, 22 September 2014 (EDT)
Even when wikis like this become much bigger that its current state, I'd still be against a rewards system of any kind. You still shouldn't expect to edit wikis to get a reward other than just being a help. People who donate or people who volunteer don't do it for a reward, they do it because it's the morally right thing to do and the reward you get isn't material, it's an intrinsic happiness when you did help out. Feeling that the wiki needs you is certainly a rewarding feeling, and I don't want any sort of rewards. It WOULD be nice, I would admit, to have a virtual image of my star in my user page but I can most certainly live without one just as well. Reputation and this good feeling you get when you help out is more of a better reward than a material one. Ray Trace(T|C) 23:46, 22 September 2014 (EDT)
If we could get people over the hump, so to speak, this all might have worked out better. There is a certain allure to having a system in place so we can send lighthearted gifts and heartfelt thankyous to different users for different reasons. It shouldn't be the only reason editors edit, but it's ok for a certain level of adulation to be a reason for doing something, so long as it doesn't become the reason and that's where our community issues started (or it all went ignored, such as with Trouble Center version 2). I'll be honest, if I could ACTUALLY give ever one of our major editors a piece of pie or a T-shirt, I'd do it. But all I can really give is my thanks and support. -- Ghost Jam 01:05, 23 September 2014 (EDT)
Same here. I am doing a quite difficult and long thing because 1) It is important enough to be noted and 2) Since none did it, and I have some free time, why not? I also do thing for helping out and being rewarded by the nice look of the result, NOT for being recompensed (though Mario T-Shirts are always appreciated ;). Why did I work to feature Lakitu? 1) It's my fav character, and I promised I would not let the nomination fail 2) Helping out to not make the nomination fail, since the article was in good shape. Aaaand... everything what I could say was already said by Baby Luigi. Speking of rewards, you can customize every template by copypasting and modifing the code. Points (just like reputation in some forums) could be an idea (and is the one that makes most sense), but this way the system would be too difficult to handle (still simpler of Pie for Everyone, how could one get pie if not American?). So, this is why the compliments are the best way to credit someone for their work, to feel like it's their own day (Baby Luigi's words). My day was Lakitu's Featuration. TSUNAMI
01:26, 18 September 2014 (EDT)
TSUNAMI
Ghost Jam
Paper Jorge (Talk·Contribs)
It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:06, 20 September 2014 (EDT)
BabyLuigi64
Ray Trace(T|C) 23:46, 22 September 2014 (EDT)
Ghost Jam