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. All 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 using the code {{user|User name}}.

This page observes the No-Signature Policy.

How To

1. Actions that users feel are appropriate to have community approval first can be added by anyone, but they must have a strong argument.
2. 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)
3. Every vote should have a reason accompanying it.
4. At any time a vote may be rejected if at least three active users believe the vote truly has no merit or was cast in bad faith. However, there must be strong reasons supporting the invalidation.
5. "# " should be added under the last vote of each support/oppose section to show another blank line.
6. All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week.
7. If a proposal has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail by a margin of three votes. If a 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.
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. No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
10. Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation. However, the proposer can request that their proposal be deleted by a Sysop at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it.
11. 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 a Sysop, the proposer can ask for that help.
12. There shouldn't be proposals about creating articles on a 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 creating a PipeProject.
13. Proposals can not be made about System Operator promotions and demotions. Sysops can only be promoted and demoted by the will of Bureaucrats.
14. If the Sysops 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.
15. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters, and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.

The times are in EDT (UTC -4:00), and are set so that the user is more likely to be online at those times (after work/school, weekend nights). 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 a minute later, the deadline is a day plus 15 hours (Sunday), as opposed to a day minus 4 hours.

CURRENTLY: 09:26, 1 June 2024 (EDT)

Removals

None at the moment.

Splits & Merges

Split "List of Glitches" into Sub-Articles

This article is almost like what the Beta Elements Article used to be. I think what is best for us is to separate it into sub articles just like what happened to Beta Elements. I consider Glitches to be just as informative as Beta Elements and should have their own sub article on the game. Besides, the list is huge, just like the Beta Elements, and I didn't even know about the glitches before typing "glitch" in the search box.

This is my first proposal, so if I did something wrong, feel free to correct me.

Proposer: BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)
Deadline: 28. November 2009, 20:00

Split Them

1. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk) per me
2. Edofenrir (talk) - Didn't I suggest that at the old Proposal already? Hm... Unfortunately it doesn't seem to have made it into said Proposal... Well then, from scratch. I support this idea because... well, duh, consistency.
3. Dry Paratroopa (talk) - I was about to make this myself, but then I realized that you had already done it. Plus, if we split the second longest page on the wiki, why can't we split the longest?
4. Marioguy1 (talk) - The Beta elements and list of glitches are practically the same - they can both be made into sub-articles. Just promise me that this one will be capitalized (not Beta elements).
5. Walkazo (talk) - Per BabyLuigiOnFire and Edofenrir.
6. LeftyGreenMario (talk) Per Baby Luigi
7. Vini64 (talk) I was going to make a proposal exactly like this one xD
8. Coincollector (talk) Agree with BLOF
9. Baby Mario Bloops (talk) We did this with Beta Elements, and it can out to be a big sucess! This and beta elements have many things in common, and spliting glitches with definitely work out (in my opinion). 100% on this side!!!
10. T.c.w7468 (talk) Per the proposal.

Keep as it is

1. Lu-igi board I enjoy reading through it finding random glitches from random games. it would ruin the experience to have to browse many pages for interesting glitches
2. Egg Yoshi (talk) Per Lu-igi board
3. King Bean (talk) - I agree with Lu-igi board.

Comments

Lu-igi board, I also enjoy reading through the beta elements page without clicking on those many links (and I also HATE the gallery), but sometimes, loading speed is important so I think this proposal is necessary. LeftyGreenMario (talk)

Shouldn't you support then? BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)

BLF, remember rule 11 "The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it." Tucayo (talk)

Yeah, I won't forget. Wait. Does it mean that I might need to split them right now? BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)

Changes

Different Version Characters

In the Mario film and also in the Mario cartoons, there are versions of characters that are not necessarily the same characters from the character's real media. Such as:

• The princess in the Mario film basically has all of the qualities Peach would have with a few exceptions including her name.
• Same goes with the koopa cousins in the film, neither are actually their corresponding counterparts.
• The infant form of the princess in the film is hardly BABY Daisy in video games.
• The infant forms of Mario, Luigi, Peach, Toad, and Bowser are not the same as the Baby characters from video-games.

This proposal is to make it so that in the case of characters from the film, we create separate articles for the character that explains them for the film but also makes note of the connections to video game characters.

It is also to make it so that just because in some previous media there has been an infant form of a character, does not mean that it is the Baby form of the character from video-games. Infant Princess Daisy from film =/= Baby Daisy from videogames.

If there's any confusion, ask. This proposal was made from ides of numerous users on the comments of previous confusion from the original proposal made by Redstar.

Proposer: FD09
Deadline: 1 December 2009, 17:00

Support

1. FD09 - Per other users suggestions and ideas. above
2. Redstar (talk) - Results in article clean-up by creating more specialized articles. The better organization sounds good to me.
3. Edofenrir (talk) - Per what is proposed there.

Comments

This is the result I originally had in mind, but failed to voice that proposal in a clear way. Under this new proposal I think special attention can be paid to both the film characters and their video game-counterparts in an equal way, satisfying all parties and make for a much more informative encyclopedia. Redstar 17:39, 24 November 2009 (EST)

Good to hear it. Now don't forget to add some reasoning next to your vote. If you don't explain your vote or say something like per (another username who voted) your vote is liable to be removed by a sysop that deems it incomplete. FD09

Miscellaneous

Staff pages

I've noticed how we have a bunch of separate articles on the staff of video games. I believe this is fine, but why do we need stand alone articles on the staff pages? Why not just move them to subpages of the games' articles, kinda like the Beta elements sub-pages? The only page they are linked from is the game anyways (the template doesn't count).

Proposer: Knife (talk)
Deadline: 24 November 2009, 20:00

Support

1. Knife (talk) – Per proposal suggestion
2. Time Q (talk): There's no need for a stand-alone page. Making it a sub-page of the game article makes more sense. Per Knife.
3. Edofenrir (talk) - This should actually go without saying, but of course we can't skip the proper channels...
4. Vini64 (talk) Per Knife.
5. T.c.w7468 (talk) Per Knife's proposal.
6. Gamefreak75 (talk) - Per all.
7. Marioguy1 (talk) - Sounds good :D
8. Stooben Rooben (talk) - Per Knife.
9. Coincollector (talk) - If galleries and betas have that, why not staff?
10. Yoshario (talk) – Per Knife
11. Grandy02 (talk) - Per Knife.
12. Glitchman (talk) - Makes sense to me.
13. Walkazo (talk) - Per all.
14. FunkyK38 (talk) - Good idea. It would be more organized to keep them all like that.
15. Dodoman (talk) - Honestly, I'm indifferent to the staff pages, but that sounds like it would make the Wiki a little more organized.
16. King Bean (talk) - Good idea.

Comments

Vini64: You seem to misunderstand the proposal. It's not about putting the staff information into the game articles themselves. Rather, they would go on a sub-page of the game articles (e.g. Template:Fakelink), just like it's already done with the beta elements: Super Mario World/Beta elements. Time Q (talk)

Ohh, now I understood. Sorry about the misunderstanding. Vini64 (talk)

No problem! Time Q (talk)

Vini64: It's not about merging those pages with the article, it's about making the standalone pages to subpages for organisatory meanings. That doesn't consume any room on the original article at all. I was too slow, so, what Time Q just said. - Edofenrir (talk)  

Merge Traps and Obstacles pages to super-article

These pages are usually quite small and would be better suited if merged to a super-article. This would allow them to be better located as well as cut down on needless articles covering every minor aspect of the games. Redstar 17:27, 24 November 2009 (EST)

Support

1. Redstar (talk) Proposer

Comments

I fixed up the coding, remember to use the format ===<proposal=== when making a proposal. Marioguy1 (talk)

Yeah, I'm sure there's a lot of coding I need to learn. I joined up and made some edits over a year ago, so I'm trying to jump into it again now. Thanks for the advice. Redstar 17:35, 24 November 2009 (EST)

Let me get this straight: You want to merge all traps and obstacles articles from everywhere into one single article? - Edofenrir (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2009 (EST)

Yes. Why do we need an article explaining what a "spike" is and how it is bad for the player? This is repeated ad infinitum, ad nauseum with many other articles. A single article saying "Obstacles and traps are (or a separate article for the two mechanics) game mechanics that hinder the player, etc." then a list of the different traps. It's cleaner, more organized, and doesn't seem to be detrimental to anyone unless they like reading one sentence-articles on things that make much more sense in a general page. Redstar 18:07, 24 November 2009 (EST)

Considering how many obstacles there are in the Mario series, wouldn't it take forever for the page to load if we do that? Mario Wiki is slow enough the way it is. :/ SJ derp :P