MarioWiki:Proposals

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 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 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 ~~~(~). How To Actions that users feel are appropriate to have community approval first can be added by anyone, but they must have a strong argument. Users then vote and discuss on the issue during that week. The "deadline" for the proposal is one week from posting at: Monday to Thursday: 17:00 (5pm) Friday and Saturday: 20:00 (8pm) Sunday: 15:00 (3pm) 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. "# " should be added under the last vote of each support/oppose section to show another blank line. At the deadline, the validity of each vote and the discussion is reviewed by the community. A 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). 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. CURRENTLY: 00:56, 18 May 2024 (EDT) New Features No current proposals. Removals Changes FA Support The FA system was replaced numerous times, only to go back to the same flawed system. No mistake has been corrected that a supporter must give a reason to support, and I have seen many users support saying "I like character he should be an FA". Well, no longer. Plumber 00:46, 29 September 2007 (EDT) Deadline: 20:00, Oct. 5 Support Plumber Reasons above Oppose Son of Suns - Just because an article is nominated doesn't mean it will become an FA. If it is not FA worthy, opposers will oppose, and if supporters do not change the article, the nomination will eventually be dropped. The rules state that inactive nominations will be deleted in a month. You need to have more patience - the FA process takes a long time. It's not even October yet. And it's not a big deal to have a few nominations. All a support means is that you agree with the FA requirements. Are you proposing someone just lists all the qualities already listed on the FA page? We would then have to remove every sigle support vote right now, because not everyone is listing every single criteria. It doesn't make sense to have to provide a reason to support, cause all your reasons are already listed on the FA page. All a support means is that you will work on the article. If you don't - oh well, the article does not become an FA and the nomination is eventually deleted. Comments So I'm clear, your's proposing that users have better reasons for voting on FAs, right? -- Chris 01:33, 29 September 2007 (EDT) You are not clear enough, if you mean that support vote for FA should have a better reason, I deffinatelly agree. Glowsquid Maybe make to were we don't need to make comments but take out the supports like "Bowser rules", "Long live King K Rool", "Who doesn't Love Daisy?" ETC. XzelionETC Maybe they both support the article and like the character. Some supports even say this article isn't very good, but it could be, and we allow those. Maybe supports just shouldn't have reasons next to them? -- Son of Suns I mean that a support vote for an FA should have a valid reason like our proposals need a valid reason to support. Plumber 21:33, 29 September 2007 (EDT) X's right let's take down those votes User:Mr. Guy It's not just America This is something that upsets me greatly almost everywhere, not just on this site; people seem to assume that the only place where games are released in English is America. In most of the profiles here, things are said to have happened in "the American version." I want this stopped; it's not fair on other English-speaking countries. It should be refferred to as the "English version," or at the very least, "the American and European version." Proposer: Davidk92 Deadline: 21:26 EDT Support Davidk92 - My reasons given above. File:MiniMario.pngMinimariolover10 TALK TO ME ABOUT MINIES!!Yeah. Either though I do live in USA, a lot of users are still from Europe! It's not like USA is the only country that has the internet. Super Yoshi10 02:34, 29 September 2007 (EDT): I agree with you two because for example I live in Australia and in the mario party series koopa kid is called mini bowser! Oppose My Bloody Valentine There are differances between the American and PAL (Australia and Europe) games. Stumpers! From a research standpoint, to say that something is true in the European version just because it's true in the American version is a falsity, like DP says above. I know it feels like users like me have forgotten about Europe, but as we only play the American versions, you really can't point fingers. Whenever you see something that's true in the PAL versions as well, I hope you'll change it to say: American and PAL versions. Everyone's just contributing what they know about, so represent Europe for us, ok? Oh, and on a side note, no, I'm not coming back from hiatus yet. Just checking up on things. Cobold (talk · contribs) - The versions are indeed different, just check Luigi's Mansion. The PAL version can be noted at some points, but the problem is that it has many different languages which may all have different names. Walkazo - Per above, the two versions are often different, and if they're not, it should say "Engish version". Also, us Canadians get the American games too, so it's not really the United States version, but the North America version, just so you know. Plumber Per Stumpers. Comments "Creative" header Some lenghty article are broke up in section, each section having it own header. Some article, such as Yoshi have section-header that differ from the plain (Insert name of the game here.) formula. The problem is, those header make the wiki look informal and amateurish ("Humble Beginnings " is not something that I would qualify as profesionnal, really.), also, the fact than there is two style of headers might confuse the new users. This can really get confusing if the section don't mention the name of the game (Which is quite often.), the proposal is to get rid of all these "creative" header and replace them with more professional-sounding one. Proposer: Glowsquid Deadline: October 6 15:00 EDT Crush 'em Glowsquid I am the proposer and my reasons are given above. Mr.Vruet That's a good idea accually. Walkazo - I find some of these creative headlines way to cutesy for an encyclopedia, and sometimes the actual game isn't even mentioned in the section. While we don't necessarily have to label each sub-section as the game it concerns, we should make sure it is totally clear what game we're talking about. Let them be Son of Suns - I think I started this trend. I got the idea from Wookiepedia. Events are described in-universe, so I tried to create headers that described the events in the game. I think sub-headers can be "creative", but should sound more encyclopedic. Headers should describe a character's role in a game or the general events of the game. However, I don't think all articles need to be written in this style. Unlike Wikipedia, it's okay to have different style articles here, and users can decide how they want to order an article. King K. Rool might work better listing events game by game by release date, but Yoshi might work better with "creative headers", as some games take place in the past. I think a lot of sub-headers need to be written better, or changed (which you are free to do Glowsquid) but I think the style is just fine. And I don't think it's confusing - it just shows the variety of writing styles on the wiki. Comments SOS: By "confusing", I meant it might confuse the new user on hwo to write those headers, what to do, a creative header or a plain one? Glowsquid Oh I understand, and I think new users will either pick a style or just ask someone for help, or even pick a different style based on the article they are writing. -- Son of Suns One of the problems with this proposal is that some articles, such as Goomba, group many games under one header. It would be foolish to split the header into multiple headers listing each game, especially when there is not a lot of information. Also, a long header listing every game in that section would not make sense. And, according to MarioWiki: Chronology, headers should be listed in a relative chronological order. If we just stick to game names as headers, we would have two Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time sections in certain articles. I guess I am confused what a "creative" header is or not. That is a very relative term. What would this proposal do exactly? What is a "professional" header? I do believe the header needs to give reference to the events of the game and the name of the game needs to be mentioned in the section, but I don't believe a header needs to simply say the name of the game. Sections are supposed to name the game they are talking about - that's the source of the information. It's wiki policy, but some users may have forgot to put the name of the game in. We simply need to correct those errors. So.....what would this proposal change? -- Son of Suns Errmm.. By "Profesional", I mean that the header left no doubt about what it's talking about without reading lile something out of a fanfiction or an a promotional ad. Header like "Bowser Strike Again!" doesn't tell the reader what it's talking about, and sound like something out of an ad. However, header like "Mario third adventure" is already a little better, since the reader have an hint on what it's talking about and it doesn't sound too POV-ish. I don't think splitting up an header in each is "foolish, like you say. They appear in a game, it's notable. There's not a lot of information? Add some more! As for the Goomba appeatring in both past and presents in PIT... well, I can't say anything about that. -Glowsquid So as long as the header refers to the events of the game (such as "The Invasion of Dinosaur Land" or something), the header is fine? And I think it is important to have some games under one header, as long as the paragraph(s) state what games are being talked about. For example, in the Goomba article, I combined games that take place in the past to show that Goombas had a small role in games that take place in the past. This section also combines info from other titles that refer to past events (such as Super Mario Bros. and Mario Superstar Baseball). I also combined the events of Super Mario Bros. and Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels in another section, as the second game does not add much info to the first - not everything can just magically have more info added to it. Additionally, there is a section that descibes the events of Super Mario Land, Super Mario Land 2, and the Wario Land series. The paragraphs are written to make sense of all the information as a whole, not divided into sections. By forcing a section title into the article, the entire flow can be disrupted. I think writers should be given more freedom. I can't stand articles that have tons of section titles but one sentence per section. It is okay to consolidate information if it makes sense. Each article will have its own unique circumstances, so how the article is divided into sections should have its own unique rules. I do agree a lot of titles are silly - but you can change them. Be bold and active. It's not a big deal to make them more professional looking. "Bowser Strikes Back" can easily become "Conquering Mushroom World" or something like that. -- Son of Suns Deleting stubs It seems we have a rule that any new Stub articles are to be deleted. However I think that instead the rewrite template should be placed on the article, and if it isn't rewritten in a certain amount of time, it will be deleted, as simply deleting new Stub articles may discourage some newer users, also having SOME info should be better then having NONE, right? Proposer: Uniju :D Deadline: 20:00, Oct. 15 Support ~Uniju(T-C-E)I am the proposer, and my reasons are given above. Oppose Comments Merges and Splits Shrowser We all know the game MLPIT and we all know Elder Princess Shroob and that she is the supposed final boss of the game but she's not no the real one is Shrowser the shoobified Bowser who is merged with the Elder Shroob. But I think that Shrowser is worthy enough to be it's on article and not be merged with the elder princess shroob so I say we need to split these into two separate articles. Proposer Luigibros2 Deadline Oct 7 21:00 EDT Split Luigibros2 My reasons above I definately agree, if we have an article on Macho Grubba (Who si the same person as plain Grubba is.), Shrowser deffinately deserve an article.- Glowsquid Son of Suns - It is an officially named alternate form - Shrowser deserves an article. Keep The Same Master Crash its still the same person. Comments Miscellaneous Move Chat Exclusively to Forum The Super Mario Wiki has two primary functions: one – create the greatest database of Mario knowledge in the world, and two – unite a community of Mario fans to a common place. The wiki has been successful in both areas, although at times these two areas interfere with each other. Users interested in the community have used the encyclopedia as a playground for fun. Issues in the chat have flamed wars in the wiki, etc. This could turn off potential new users, users who could be great writers and know a lot about the Mario series. I think we need to make the distinction between the two functions clearer. Therefore, I am proposing that we move the Chat exclusively to the forum. Since the forum is a seperate website from the main wiki, new users will not encounter all the fighting in the chat, which is easily accessible from the wiki right now. As such, most community related content will be located off the main wiki. The wiki is first and foremost an encyclopedia, and should be treated professionally (but with fun). However, this would not deny community-focused members a forum and chat for their ideas and randomness. The areas will just be more distinct. User sub-pages will still be allowed, so users can still collaborate on comics and stories. I am just tired of problems in the chat affecting the main wiki, when I feel they should be dealt with on the forum where more community related content is located. Sysops can work on the encyclopedia, while moderators can monitor the forum and chat. As such, sysops can hopefully work on the wiki without having to manage community-related problems. Don't get me wrong. Both parts of the wiki are important - but they should not interfere with each other. Right now, I think the chat is one of the main interferences that can be remedied by moving it to the community-based forum. Proposer: Son of Suns Deadline: 15:00, October 7 Move Chat to Forum User: Son of Suns - I am the proposer and my reasons are given above. Leave Chat on Wiki No. I personally think it belongs on the Wiki. If I recall, someone has proposed this before, and the outcome ended up keeping it on the Wiki. Also, what Xzelion said makes sense. ~Huntercrunch Comments Only problem about this, is not everyone has an email address (needed to access chat on the forums) and wish to chat are at a crossroads. XzelionETC Pers, I agrees... Okay every time I go on here I noticed several users say "Per ___" "I agree" or "___ is right" but I think these shouldn't be said all the time because whoever say those are to lazy to think of something. Proposer: Mr. Guy Deadline: 2 October 17:00 EDT. Prevent constant these Mr. Guy the Guy Talk!E - These are plain annoying Just let them YELLOWYOSHI398 – I don't see how they're really a problem. They're still reasons; they're done simply because people do agree and don't want to completely repeat each other, not because they're too lazy to think of something. Peachycakes 3.14 Ironicly, Per YY Cobold (talk · contribs) - When you force everyone to make up their own reasons, you have a set limited number of votes there can be. Ghost Jam per Cobold. We have so few active users, limiting ourselves further is suicide. Per YY398. --KPH2293 Walkazo - A lot of the time whatever comment I would've made has already been said, it'd be stupid to say the exact same thing, and as YY398 said, way to repetative. By saying Per_ or whatever we're proving that we actually read through it all and thought about it before signing our names. How's that lazy? Plumber Per everyone (indeed, I am too lazy to think up something that others have already put into words) ~PY -C'mon, we can't all think of different reasons. Sometimes we have the same opinions. ~Uniju(T-C-E)Per the other guys, what if you thought of it, then saw someone else had already said the same thing? Comments And by the way, you shouldn't call others "lazy" when you're not adding a "Comment" headline, not making a line break, not even filling in the deadline. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 10:41, 25 September 2007 (EDT) Yeah, and shouldn't this be under Miscellaneous? It's not exactly a removal. - Walkazo Yes, it should and has been moved accordingly. -- Chris 23:15, 25 September 2007 (EDT) Thanks. - Walkazo Fanvotes Okay on several featured article pages there are fan votes, however due to a recent fight this is getting nowhere so let's just have a proposal on it. Prevent them Mr. Guy the Guy Talk!E 100% Unneeded Keep Them Son of Suns - How can you prevent a fan vote? Any vote could be a fan vote. Votes with justification could be fan votes. Votes with "per so-and-so" could be fan votes. And since the FA system does not favor a majority, it does not matter. One oppose will stop a million support votes. Comments Err... We already have proposal about this very matter. - Glowsquid I guess this is against "fan votes" while the other is that support votes need to be justified. So they are a little different. -- Son of Suns Community related issue on Main Page:Talk After talking a bit with Son of Suns, I think that community-related issue should'nt be brought up on the Main page talk. Why? First, the constant drama make us look like a bunch of idiots, remmember when Max2 threatened to leave for the first time, or when Wayoshi was revealed to be a spammer on the chat? Those ridiculous events very likely turned a lot of potential users off. You hate a guy and want to ramble on how much of a waste of carbon he is? Fine, but do it on the forum, geez. Second: This site is an encyclopedia, something most seem to forgot. You can chat with anyone at any time via the chat or the User talkpage, you can create sub-page that are not even related to editing such as sprite comic or fan-fiction archive, you can upload fours personnal image of your and waste our precious image space, this is being very generous. Some may being more inclinated toward the community side, I understand this choice. But please, don't mess with the editing space! This can be very annoying for users that don't want to be involved in more social-activities. Proposer: Glowsquid Deadline: October 6 21:00 EDT Prevent community-stuff from being brought up on the Main Page Talk. Glowsquid I am the proposer and my reasons are given above. XzelionETC Per Glowsquid Mr. Guy the Guy Talk!E Per Glowsquid ~Uniju(T-C-E)Per the other guys, who per Glosquid. :P My Bloody Valentine I agree. Per Glowsquid. No, let it stay the same. Comments