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: 05:12, 27 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.

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

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)

Miscellaneous

Add Shortcuts for Mario Kart Wii tracks

My first proposal. Add shortcuts to Mario Kart Wii tracks.
This will help struggling racers get the fast staff ghosts, or beat an annoying sibling's best time.
Add more spots if necessary.

Proposer: lllkkklll (talk)
Deadline: 20 November 2009, 20:00

Add Shortcuts

1. lllkkklll (talk) as per above, and for the people who can't find them on their own.
2. Pie Shroom (talk) If nothing else, it's more encyclopedic.
3. Lu-igi board shortcuts are part of the track, so deserve a mention.
4. Purplebackpack89 (talk) see no reason why not to

Don't add Shortcuts

1. Super Mario Bros. (talk) Per Coincollector and FunkyK38's comments below.
2. Edofenrir (talk) Ok, since the proposer didn't explain his/her intentions further, I have to conclude what it means. And judging from how the proposal is written, I think he/she wants to add mere tricks to get to the goal quickly, instead of built-in shortcuts. And as stated below, I oppose this.
3. Zero777 (talk) I am Zero! Like Funky said, were not a strategy wiki, and I think there are alrady shortcuts on some courses on MKWii, but only if there notable enough. Even though there is such thing as a spoiler section we don't want to spoil the player too much they end up as an ass on online play and are now roten and had to be thrown away (metaphor right there). Zero signing out.
4. Gamefreak75 (talk) Much easier to look up on YouTube. ;D And per Funky's and Coin's comments below.
5. Dodoman (talk) The 'W' in 'SMW' stands for "Wiki," not "Walkthrough."
6. Vini64 (talk) Per Dodoman.
7. T.c.w7468 (talk) Per all. Shortcuts should be found elsewhere, not here.
8. FunkyK38 (talk) Per my comment below.
9. Boo Destroyer (talk) Hm, yeah. This is just an info site, not a strategy guide.

Comments

What do you mean with shortcuts specificly? Are you talking about shortcuts implemented in the tracks (like secret tunnels) or just driving tricks that help you getting to the finish faster? I'd support the first and oppose the latter one. - Edofenrir (talk)

Per Edo. Also, your reasoning makes it sound like you're trying to turn those articles into game guides. :/ -- Stooben Rooben (talk)

Aren't shortcuts already in some of the racecourse articles? Marioguy1 (talk)

The tone of this proposal makes me to think like a joke (or a walkthrough issue, like explaining bug shortcuts or glitches, eg: the worst shortcut glitch of Grumble Volcano) and that's not a valid question to propose. Coincollector (talk)

There's already mentioned shortcuts in articles. I think he's trying to say that he wants EVERY article with a shortcut-explanation guide. Vini64 (talk)

We don't really have to put those on there, this isn't a strategy Wiki, we're the Mario wiki. FunkyK38 (talk)

This proposal is not described well enough for me to vote. Describe it better or I will not vote. Marioguy1 (talk)

Same here Vini64 (talk)

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.

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)  

Peach/Daisy in Film

Currently, ForeverDaisy09 has been reverting all edits I make relating to the portrayal of Princess Daisy/Peach in the Super Mario Bros. movie. It seems obvious to me and many other fans of the movie that the character is Princess peach with merely a composite name of Daisy. Her personality and appearance all support this: blonde hair, more feminine personality, and the daughter of the Mushroom King as well as Princess of the Mushroom Kingdom (Dinohattan). The only traits that could identify her with Princess Daisy are the name, which suggests nothing (note that the Mushroom King is named "King Bowser") and her relationship to Luigi, which also suggests nothing because this relationship occurred far before the two were even featured together.

I am currently not aware of any specific identification of which video game character Princess Daisy is meant to be a counterpart of, if either, so I feel that the necessary pages should not link specifically to either but make a note that she is a composite of both. Anything other than that is speculation.

I would also like to remove the entry on the infant Daisy appearing in the beginning of the film on the Baby Daisy page, because Baby Daisy is a character, not simply an age-differentiation. The infant in the film is not a character, just an age-differentiation. Another point is that the character of Baby Daisy wasn't introduced until much after the film came out, so the film can't be said to be a representation. Redstar 01:45, 22 November 2009 (EST)

Proposer: Redstar
Deadline: 29 November 2009, 17:00

Support

1. Redstar

Comments

So wouldn't we also have to remove the information of the cartoon versions of the baby characters for mario luigi peach toad and bowser? FD09

No, I don't believe so. But those depictions aren't the same character as the later introduced video game characters, so they should be moved to the main corresponding character pages. Infant Mario should be moved to the main Mario page, for example, because that wasn't a character... It was Mario at a younger age. Redstar 01:53, 22 November 2009 (EST)

Well I just meant remove them from the baby pages. FD09

Also I don't see why this proposal addresses me personally when I'm the one who suggested redstar make it and even lindsayoris reverted his edits. I don't remember seeing other users agree with him about the mentioned reverts. I was planning on supporting this proposal, but the user seems to be attacking me or something? lol weird FD09

This sounds like an objection than a proposal... what is the change? bring the info of Daisy in the film to Peach's article and create a new article for the "baby Daisy" of the movie? Coincollector (talk)

No, I want to identify both video game Peach and Daisy with the film Daisy because she is meant to be a composite character of both. And I don't want a new article for the baby Daisy of the movie, but no information on it at all because it's not relevant. People don't make articles on "toddler" Anakin for the Star Wars wiki.
The preceding unsigned comment was added by Redstar (talk).

Regardless of this chaos I definitely agree with that. FD09

Concerning the Daisy/Peach Mushroom King/Bowser comparison: There actually is a difference between both cases. Bowser has a direct counterpart in the movie: President Koopa. This is why the Mushroom King cannot be matched with Bowser at all. Daisy doesn't really have another counterpart in the film, and there is also the fact that the film-Daisy affiliates with Luigi (much like the Game-Daisy) which of course occurs far before their actual depiction as a couple, but that fact would make it highly odd to put this character on the Peach article. - Edofenrir (talk)

I believe he meant not put it on either page? Just mention the specifics of it on the film pages? Right??FD09

Couldn't you bring this up on FD09's talk page instead of putting it in the community space? It is a very minor issue. Marioguy1 (talk)

He told me to make a proposal, like, four times. It's more his proposal than anything since he was so vehement about me doing it rather than actually discussing it.
The preceding unsigned comment was added by Redstar (talk).

Yeah too bad when I tried to discuss it with him it just turned into a pointless argument. I shouldn't be considered the ruling hand of anything Daisy, the wiki should, that's why we're here. lol logic FD09

It turned into an argument because you refused to accept my points or offer any of your own. I don't want to argue it here, so unless you're going to offer reasons for or against, please don't bring up our talk page discussions.

Anyone can check and see exactly what went on if they like. Redstar 02:04, 22 November 2009 (EST)

You are the one that first mentioned our discussions. And when I gave you my reasoning you denied it yourself. K? FD09

Marioguy I think you're referring to the reverts? If not I have to disagree, this seems to be a problem that needs proposal attention. FD09

You gave bad reasoning. You said Daisy is dirty-blonde in the film, not simply "blonde", which is splitting hairs and doesn't remove from the fact that the video game Daisy is a redhead-brunette. You also suggested that her relationship with Luigi made her the video game Daisy's counterpart when this film was written years before that made it's way into the video games. I asked you to offer any legitimate points, and you didn't. You couldn't make any suggestion besides her name. Redstar 02:10, 22 November 2009 (EST)

And her name is all I really need at this point. Look, you don't seem to get that I plan on supporting your proposal, that basically at the end of the finish line I am agreeing with your basic point. So stop arguing with me about it and just do what you're here to do, convince others to vote for you. :) JEEZE haha FD09

Another possibility is to make a totally separate article for the Princess Daisy in the film, like we've done with Iggy (Super Mario Bros.) vs. the Koopaling Iggy Koopa: while the name of the movie character is probably based on the game character, their relation to Koopa is different, as are a bunch of other minor things (which, like Daisy, add up). Another character we could consider for this kind of game-vs.-movie character debate is Toad: if Daisy, Iggy and Big Bertha (in her case it's comic-vs.-movie) get their own pages, we should consider giving the movie Toad a separate page too. This isn't the case with all the movie characters, though: King Koopa and the Mario Bros. are faithful enough to the games that separate pages would not be necessary. - Walkazo (talk)

That sounds really smart walkazo. I think we should make a proposal that suggest creating pages for all(most) characters from the film like you mentioned. Good thinking. FD09