MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 21: Line 21:
====Support====
====Support====
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} Per Proposal.
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} Per Proposal.
#{{User|Peanutjon}} Per SeanWheeler.


====Oppose====
====Oppose====

Revision as of 16:19, June 18, 2014

Image used as a banner for the proposals page
Current time:
Wednesday, May 21st, 15:52 GMT
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • Voting periods last for two weeks, but can close early or be extended (see below).
  • Any autoconfirmed user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so.
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

If you would like to get feedback on an idea before formally proposing it here, you may do so on the proposals talk. For talk page proposals, you can discuss the changes on the talk page itself before creating the TPP there.

How to

If someone has 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 other users, who will then vote on whether or not they think the idea should be implemented. 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}}.

Rules

  1. Only autoconfirmed users may create or vote on proposals. Proposals can be created by one user or co-authored by two users.
  2. A given user may author/co-author a maximum of five total ongoing/unimplemented proposals. Any new proposals over this limit will be immediately canceled.
  3. Anyone is free to comment on proposals (provided that the page's protection level allows them to edit).
  4. Proposals conclude at the end of the day (23:59) two weeks after voting starts (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 two weeks later on Monday, August 15, at 23:59 GMT.
  5. Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available. Keep in mind that we use approval voting, so all of your votes count equally regardless of preferred order.
  6. Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it. Agreeing with a previously mentioned reason given by another user is acceptable (including "per" votes), but tangential comments, heavy sarcasm, and other misleading or irrelevant quips are just as invalid as providing no reason at all.
  7. 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(s) at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the wiki staff.
    • 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.
  8. 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 "(blocked)" 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.
  9. Proposals cannot contradict an already ongoing proposal or overturn the decision of a previous proposal that concluded less than four weeks (28 days) ago.
  10. If one week before a proposal's initial deadline, the first place option is ahead of the second place option by eight or more votes and the first place option has at least 80% approval, then the proposal concludes early. Wiki staff may tag a proposal with "Do not close early" at any time to prevent an early close, if needed.
    • Tag the proposal with {{early notice}} if it is on track for an early close. Use {{proposal check|early=yes}} to perform the check.
  11. 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.
  12. If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
  13. If a proposal reaches its deadline and the first place option is ahead of the second place option by three or more votes, then the first place option must have over 50% approval to win. If the margin is only one or two votes, then the first place option must have at least 60% approval to win. If the required approval threshold is not met, then the proposal is extended for another week.
    • Use {{proposal check}} to automate this calculation; see the template page for usage instructions and examples.
  14. Proposals can be extended a maximum of three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, then the proposal fails and cannot be re-proposed until at least four weeks after the last deadline.
  15. 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.
  16. After a proposal passes, it is added to the appropriate list of "unimplemented proposals" below and is removed once it has been sufficiently implemented.
  17. If the wiki staff deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to cancel it at any time.
  18. Proposals can only be rewritten or canceled by their proposer within the first four days of their creation. However, proposers can request that their proposal be canceled by a staff member at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived.
  19. 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.
  20. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Staff changes are discussed internally and handled by the bureaucrats.
  21. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
  22. Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy.

Basic proposal formatting

Copy and paste the formatting below to get started; your username and the proposal deadline will automatically be substituted when you save the page. Update the bracketed variables with actual information, and be sure to replace the whole variable including the square brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information" and not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but the objective(s) of each voting option 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|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}}<br>
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 GMT

====[option title (e.g. Support, Option 1)]: [brief summary of option]====
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.

====[option title (e.g. Oppose, Option 2)]: [brief summary of option]====

====Comments ([brief proposal title])====

Autoconfirmed users will now be able to vote on your proposal. Remember that you can vote on your own proposal just like the others.

To vote for an option, just insert #{{User|[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 simply say "Per proposal."

Poll proposal formatting

As an alternative to the basic proposal format, users may choose to create a poll proposal when one larger issue can be broken down into multiple subissues that can be resolved independently of each other. Poll proposals concerning multiple pages must have good justification for using the poll proposal format rather than individual talk page proposals or else will be canceled (for example, in the case of the princesses poll proposal, there are valid consistency concerns which make it worthwhile to consider these three articles simultaneously, but for routine article size splits, there is no need to abandon using standard TPPs for each).

In a poll proposal, each option is essentially its own mini-proposal with a deadline and suboption headings. A poll proposal can have a maximum of 20 options, and the rules above apply to each option as if it were its own proposal: users may vote on any number of options they wish, and individual options may close early or be extended separately from the rest. If an option fails to achieve quorum or reach a consensus after three extensions, then the status quo wins for that option by default. If all options fail, then nothing will be done.

To create a poll proposal, copy and paste the formatting below to get started; your username and the option deadlines will automatically be substituted when you save the page. Update the bracketed variables with actual information, and be sure to replace the whole variable including the square brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information" and not "[This is the inserted information]". 

===[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|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}}

====[option title (e.g. Option 1)]: [brief summary of option]====
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 GMT

;Support
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.

;Oppose

====[option title (e.g. Option 2)]: [brief summary of option]====
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 GMT

;Support
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.

;Oppose

====[option title (e.g. Option 3)]: [brief summary of option]====
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 GMT

;Support
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.

;Oppose

====Comments ([brief proposal title])====

For the purposes of the ongoing proposals list, a poll proposal's deadline is the latest deadline of any ongoing option(s). A poll proposal is archived after all of its options have settled, and it is listed as one single proposal in the archive. It is considered to have "passed" if one or more options were approved by voters (resulting in a change from the status quo), and it is considered to have "failed" if all options were rejected by voters and no change in the status quo was made.

Talk page proposals

Proposals concerning a single page or a limited group of pages are held on the most relevant talk page regarding the matter. All of the above proposal rules also apply to talk page proposals. Place {{TPP}} under the section's heading, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{settled TPP}}. Proposals dealing with a large amount 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 {{ongoing TPP}}. Include a brief description of the proposal while also mentioning any pages affected by it, a link to the talk page housing the discussion, the proposal author(s), 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.

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Deletions

Moves

Merges

Splits

Miscellaneous

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)
Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles, Nintendo101 (ended July 3, 2024)
^ NOTE: Not yet integrated for the Super Mario Maker titles and Super Mario Run.
Use the classic and classic link templates when discussing classic courses in Mario Kart Tour, YoYo (ended October 2, 2024)
Split major RPG appearances of recurring locations, EvieMaybe (ended December 16, 2024)
Split Mario & Luigi badges and remaining accessories, Camwoodstock (ended February 1, 2025)
Merge intro/outro sections, rename Gameplay section to "Overview" for Mario Party minigame articles, ToxBoxity64 (ended March 1, 2025)
Allow English Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia names to be mentioned on articles where they are not the title, Hewer (ended March 27, 2025)
Change previous and next entries cell in infoboxes to include actual entry names and change directory link, Bro Hammer (ended April 18, 2025)
Make a guideline for covering generic subjects that have a recurring and recognizable design in the Mario series, Koopa con Carne (ended May 4, 2025)
Rework "References" sections, EvieMaybe (ended May 5, 2025)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Allow separate articles for Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)'s subjects, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended August 3, 2024)
Create articles for specified special buildings in Super Mario Run, Salmancer (ended November 15, 2024)
Merge False Character and Fighting Polygon/Wireframe/Alloy/Mii Teams into List of Super Smash Bros. series bosses, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended December 2, 2024)
Create a catch-all Poltergust article, Blinker (ended January 21, 2025)
Give the Cluck-A-Pop Prizes articles, Camwoodstock (ended January 31, 2025)
Reverse the proposal to trim White Shy Guy, Waluigi Time (ended February 8, 2025)
Split Animal Crossing (game), Kaptain Skurvy (ended February 12, 2025)
Split the modes in the Battles page, Mario (ended February 15, 2025)
Count ongoing serialized comics for latest appearances, Rykitu (ended March 2, 2025)
Split Super Mario Maker helmets from Buzzy Shell and Spiny Shell (red), PopitTart (ended March 12, 2025)
Merge Mario Party 4 hosts with their species, Kirby the Formling (ended March 23, 2025)
Split Super Luigi subjects into a dedicated list article, EvieMaybe (ended April 3, 2025)
Merge the list of references to Super Mario Bros. with Super Mario Bros., Waluigi Time (ended April 6, 2025)
Split Hammer (move) from Hammer, Blinker (ended April 10, 2025)
Give Nathaniel's Fun Factory full coverage, Nelsonic (ended April 12, 2025)
Split Kongo Bongo Island and Jungle Kingdom from Donkey Kong Island, Kaptain Skurvy (ended April 20, 2025)
Deciding the fate of the last two episodes of Super Mario Maker 2 Challenges!, Rykitu (ended April 27, 2025)
Merge Coin Area and Coin Block Area, Altendo (ended May 9, 2025)
Restore general coverage for Pyramid, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended May 9, 2025)
Split the Story Mode chapters from Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games Tokyo 2020, Kaptain Skurvy (ended May 13, 2025)
Clean up Prohibited Command, PrincessPeachFan (ended May 13, 2025)
Split the individual Picross NP volumes from Picross NP, Nelsonic (ended May 14, 2025)
Reduce Super Mario Maker info from giant cannon, LinkTheLefty (ended May 15, 2025)

List of Talk Page Proposals

Writing Guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

Separate Featured Crossover Articles from Featured Mario Articles

Now some crossover character articles have been featured on the main page in the past. Ganondorf was featured before. And we're currently Featuring Kirby. But what message does it send to new people? It's probably very confusing as to why we have a character that isn't from Mario. So I think we should have a separate award for featured crossover character articles to not confuse people. Maybe there can be two Featured Articles. One is an article from the Mario series and the other can be a crossover article. The crossover article section can have an image smaller than the Mario article's image and at the bottom of the section, small info telling what series it came from, what games he/she met Mario in and a link to the more appropriate NIWA Wiki if there is one, plus a brief disclaimer of our Coverage policy. The Mario featured article section should be bigger than the crossover section on the main page.

Proposer: SeanWheeler (talk)
Deadline: June 25, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. SeanWheeler (talk) Per Proposal.
  2. Peanutjon (talk) Per SeanWheeler.

Oppose

  1. Baby Luigi (talk) This would complicate the process of featuring even further than necessary. The entire point of featured articles is to showcase the best articles in the wiki. There's no need to discriminate the content of the featured article.

Comments

Rumors Section

I believe that we should have a rumors section on articles that include rumors. This section could have a notice in it, stating that all it contains are rumors and have no proof. Some of the more popular rumors (like the DLC characters in Mario Kart 8, or the E3 "leak" in SSB4) could be added. A similar section is used on Zelda Wiki, for theories. The rumors section would allow people to see what may be in the game. While it may not be very encyclopedia-ish, it would be more helpful, which is indeed what MarioWiki is designed to be, right? I doubt I'll win this but you never know unless you try. So yeah.

Proposer: Peanutjon (talk)
Deadline: June 20, 2014, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Peanutjon (talk) Per proposal. I think it would be useful to know what may or may not be in the game.

Oppose

  1. Mario (talk) We document on what's confirmed, not on widely circulated unconfirmed, unofficial information. According to the Citation Policy, "Rumours and misleading info is commonplace online, so showing readers that we are not fabricating our info and in turn, letting them evaluate the trustworthiness of our sources is especially important." This policy is there to leave out rumors and keep us as a reputable source. We don't want people taking rumors as true just because they're documented here. Finally, there are countless rumors regarding upcoming games, so having to document all of them is going to be impossible. The only type of rumors that may be covered here are those debunked years ago, and even then, it's a maybe.

    I see that you're trying to make sections that already inform the reader that the information is dubious, but why add such information in the first place? I don't really agree with fan "theories" on Link Wiki either, but that's another wiki anyway. Anyhow, the best place to discuss rumors would be the appropriate talk page, so really, nothing is lost if this proposal fails; there's just an equally-valid outlet to put rumors and other information.
  2. Baby Luigi (talk) The internet is a chock full place of rumors. Look at Reddit and 4chan, they're basically "Rumors: The Site". We're not gonna site all rumors, and these are as valid as fan content such as fan games, no matter how popular or how well-documented they are. Well-known rumors like the Sonic and Tails April Fools joke in Super Smash Bros. Melee are more suited for Trivia sections. Also, per Mario.
  3. Yoshi876 (talk) Per both. Though I worry that discussing rumours on the talkpage may qualify as forum talk.
  4. Randombob-omb4761 (talk) Per All.
  5. Ninelevendo (talk) If we had a rumours section, Ridley would be all over the SSB4 page and this would the Fanrio Wiki.
  6. Dashbot (talk) Simply allowing rumors to be added may allow people to see what may be in the game as you've said. However, it doubts their mind on if we are really covering things from the game or from randomness. Encyclopedias only contains facts, so that they can be trusted. And as what LGM said, our Citation Policy already shows why rumors are not allowed. The Good Writing disallow speculation, which is the rumors are part of. And I agree with Yoshi876.
  7. Koopakoolklub (talk) Sorry, but the wiki covers real and comfirmed things, like an encyclopedia. But I guess everyone else is saying that too, huh?
  8. Ghost Jam (talk) Per policy. However, if you feel that a particular rumor might be useful for a particular article and can make a good case for it, feel free to hit up that articles talk page.
  9. Tsunami (talk) Nope... in this way we can add any fan-made information and this wiki will be a fanon (or at least in part).
  10. Stonehill (talk) Per all.
  11. Green 6017 King Of The Slowpoke (talk)Just when I thought we couldent think of a more pointless idea....(Facepalm)

Comments

@Yoshi876, it's not really forum talk, imo. We're talking about improving the article, so bringing up rumors and stuff can help us verify and filter information before it's added. We did allow some Mario Kart 8-related rumors on its talk page, usually the well-circulated ones, so we shouldn't remove those. Forum talk isn't really finely defined, so use your own judgement to see if it pertains to the article or not. Mario It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 16:52, 13 June 2014 (EDT)

Although I expected this to go rather poorly (as mentioned in my proposal), it appears (at least to me) that you think I'm suggesting putting rumors all over the page (like, in the characters section for SSB4 put Ridley as a rumored character). I was thinking rumors would be limited to just a single section (or possibly a page in a similar vein to SmashWiki). These rumors would make no other appearances on the site (except talk pages). Peanutjon (talk) 19:38, 14 June 2014 (EDT)

Even if it's confined to a single page, it's still opening the floodgates for kiddies to trip themselves over to add low-quality content and obvious nonsense like ~leaked conference listing sheets~ photographed at an odd angle or w/e. --Glowsquid (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2014 (EDT).

Make a new reference page.

Recently I was on the web, and found an article on a Mario reference in Wreck-It-Ralph. However, it was in the Wreck-It-Ralph ride in Disney Land. The Reference was a sign saying SUPER MARIO BROS. PIPES CLOGGED!!! I thought a reference page covering this sort of thing would be a good idea, or the discussions between Disney and Nintendo.

Proposer: John G (talk)
Deadline: June 24, 2014, at 23:59 GMT

Make a new reference page

  1. Stonehill (talk) If there actually is such a reference, then we make a page entitled something along the lines of Template:Fakelink. Sure, we have pages of Mario references in many different forms: advertisements, cartoons, films, TV, music, technology, plays, games, and the Internet. Still, good catch, John G (talk).
  2. SuperYoshiBros (talk) Now that I think about it, this isn't such a bad idea. Per the hill of stones.
  3. Misty (talk) – I would have it as something else, but I can't think of one.
  4. John G (talk)

Make a page on the discussions between Disney & Nintendo

DO Nothing

  1. Yoshi876 (talk) Per myself in the comments, as far as this proposal makes it this is the only reference within theme parks, and therefore a page with one thing like that is kind of pointless in my opinion.
  2. Koopakoolklub (talk) Put this movie reference in movie references page and on Mario's page. When it's released, of course. No need for a whole new page, like Yoshi876 said.
  3. Ghost Jam (talk) Per my comments below.
  4. Marshal Dan Troop (talk) Per all.
  5. Peanutjon (talk) ...No. Per all.
  6. Green 6017 King Of The Slowpoke (talk) Per Yoshi, even if we did make a "references in theme parks" page there would only be one small reference.

Comments

Where's the none option, because this proposal needs it? It is covered on List of Mario references in film and according to coverage that's all that needed, if we created a page like you propose then we may as well create a page on every single movie, TV show, song, or internet video that has something related to Mario in it. Yoshi876 (talk)

I agree, basically your proposal forces us to pick something you like. Add a "Do nothing" option please. --Waluigi's head icon in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 14:27, 16 June 2014 (EDT)
I do agree with SuperYoshiBros to add a stalemate option, but I'm convinced as to whether the two have understood the proposal. It said John G found the reference at the Disney ride, not the film itself. Template:Color-link-piped At last, the rock fell.
14:50, 16 June 2014 (EDT)
My apologies I did misread the proposal, but unless there are numerous references, I don't think one amusement park attraction should get a references page. Unless there are numerous references from numerous places, this should just be mentioned as a sidenote on the Wreck-It Ralph section in the film references. Yoshi876 (talk)

First off, as noted, there needs to be an oppose option. Secondly, this is covered by the various List of Mario references articles we have. Check to make sure what you want added isn't already there and add it to the appropriate list. I doubt you're going to get any support for a formal Wreck-It-Ralph article, as the movie has nothing to do with Mario outside of a few mentions (this stretches to other Ralph related promotional material). -- Shyghost.PNGChrisShyghost.PNG 14:50, 16 June 2014 (EDT)

"List of Mario references in amusement parks" sounds way too specific to have its own page. Mario It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:53, 16 June 2014 (EDT)

Under the note on the references in film page about Mario in Ralph, subnote in about the reference in further promotional adaptions. Serves the purpose without making a throwaway article. -- Shyghost.PNGChrisShyghost.PNG 21:59, 16 June 2014 (EDT)

I just contacted the proposer on the talk page issue about a "Do Nothing" option. I'm still awaiting a response. Template:Color-link-piped At last, the rock fell. 

17:28, 16 June 2014 (EDT)
As this is not a creative change that alters the goal of the proposal, I've went ahead and added an oppose section. -- Shyghost.PNGChrisShyghost.PNG 12:10, 17 June 2014 (EDT)
Against the rules, my foot; somebody needs to add an "oppose" section. For the love of god, who cares if it breaks a rule if the proposer doesn't even format it properly? Sheesh. Mario It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:26, 17 June 2014 (EDT)
Rules like that are meant to be followed, if the proposer does not add in an oppose within the allowable timeframe, then it'll probably be vetoed for the lack of an oppose section. Yoshi876 (talk)
Rules are just guidelines for bettering the wiki and community. If the user doesn't format a proposal properly, then we should help everyone (including this wiki), rather than hiding behind rulebook and waiting for the proposal to be vetoed. It's better to oppose the proposal so we can resolve it rather than waiting for it to be deleted just because the proposer didn't add a "do nothing" section. If we add an oppose section now, we're breaking the rules properly, and that's what counts. Mario It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:36, 17 June 2014 (EDT)
I'm not "hiding behind the rulebook", I want an oppose section in there so I can throw my two cents into the main body of the proposal rather than dilly-dally around saying why I think it's a bad idea in the comments section as it has no outcome on the overall proposal. I think it's better to inform the user that an oppose section is necessary and if they don't and if they do not follow this they face the consequence of their proposal getting vetoed. Hopefully this will get them to learn from their mistakes rather than just thinking that other people will come along and fix what they should do in the first place which would make a better user, and with a better user, the wiki and the community becomes a better place. Yoshi876 (talk)
I don't like assuming this guy has ignored the requests and all; he wasn't active ever since the proposal was made. I don't want to assume it's out of carelessness and he expects us to fix it for him; it sounds unhealthy to make such assumptions. We can oppose the proposal now just so there is a valid reason for it to fail. Sorry, I was just a tad annoyed that people revert (in my opinion) appropriate changes and then cite the rules. don't permaban me and force me to eat chocolate-covered bacon strips. Mario It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 16:04, 17 June 2014 (EDT)
I don't want to assume bad faith in the user, I just cited that reason as it is a common thing, people just being fine with letting others finish what they should have. I'll make you eat normal bacon instead. Yoshi876 (talk)
This is ridiculous. If someone makes a proposal and doesn't make an oppose section, will that proposal get vetoed? ---- no. Adding a "Do Nothing" section is exactly like making an Oppose section someone forgot. BabyLuigiFire.pngXiahou Ba(the Nasty Warrior) 17:12, 17 June 2014 (EDT)
No the proposal would get vetoed, as having something with no oppose section is detrimental to the upkeep of the wiki. Yoshi876 (talk)
Consulted with administrative team over IRC, they agreed that the presence or absence of an 'oppose' selection alters the course of the discussion enough that not having it is detrimental. Additionally, the editing rule relates to proposal itself, not standard procedures of the wiki at large (will request this is made more clear in further rule revisions). -- Shyghost.PNGChrisShyghost.PNG 17:37, 17 June 2014 (EDT)

Make a Mario Answers page

Wikipedia has one, many wikis have them. There is no reason for Mario Wiki not to have an Answers page.

Proposer: John G (talk)
Deadline: June 23, 2014, at 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. John G (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

  1. Mario (talk) This page? Our forum? Or the talk pages? Whatever use the proposed page may have, don't these already fulfill it?
  2. Ninelevendo (talk) Do you have any idea how many opinions would clash? Certain users wouldn't actually have real or correct answers, and arguments could happen, such as the 3D World Toad issue.
  3. Dashbot (talk) Per LGM, If you need anything Mario-related or not, ask them on our help desk on the forums.
  4. Ghost Jam (talk) I feel that our community is robust enough that answers can be more readily found by posting on the forums or asking in chat.
  5. Stonehill (talk) Per all.
  6. Green 6017 King Of The Slowpoke (talk) We can`t just add an entire section because "Wikipedia has one so we should have one." We should add something because it help the wiki not make it look like the others.
  7. Koopakoolklub (talk) Per Mario and the second sentence of my comment.
  8. Yoshi876 (talk) If we're asking general things about Mario, use the forum. Pages on the wiki should be used to improve it, and if you think your question will improve a page, then voice it on the respective article's talkpage.

Comments

Answers on what? This is a really vague proposal. Yoshi876 (talk)

I agree with Yoshi876. Please tell us what an Answers page is exactly, then we'll know which side we're for. (Oh, and by the way, could you make suggestions and comments? That would help out a ton.) Template:Color-link-piped At last, the rock fell.
14:44, 16 June 2014 (EDT)

What is an answer page anyway?! Besides, we can't copy Wikipedia all the time. Bowser Jr., in Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam.Triple K, Skye 15:49, 16 June 2014 (EDT)

I think it's a thing in which you ask questions about Mario stuff Misty (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2014 (EDT)

@Misty (talk): You are right. John G (talk) @Mario: Check the Wikisimpsons link I left and see how they make answers.

If that's the case then, we have it. It's called the forum. Yoshi876 (talk)

Removals

Delete the age-rating companies articles

This has been on my mind for quite a good time. The age-rating companies (I'm referring to ESRB, CERO, ACB, USK, DEJUS, PEGI) are pages that includes information about seriously nothing related to the Marioverse itself, the first also includes some worthless trivia, and overly big tables including rating that the Mario series games fall only in one or two of them by the maximum. Of course, I only propose deleting the page, the rating will be kept in the infobox of the games. Just the links will be changed to wikipedia's. The pages should be eliminated, they do not serve the wiki's purpose other than filling some links, which can be filled by Wikiedia's links. It includes much more information than us on that specific subject anyway.

The page do not provide lists of games with those rating, I guess It doesn't matter since we can look into Rating Image's usage to check this up.. Anyway, I'm thinking about creating a category for each rating, hadn't sorted my mind yet, but that's not what the proposal is about.

Bottom line: It's a media/related page that do not include much needed information, burn it.

Proposer: Dashbot (talk)
Deadline: June 23, 2014, 23:59 GMT.

Support

  1. Dashbot (talk)
  2. Glowsquid (talk) they're about as relevant to Mario as retail outlets and trade shows.
  3. Mario4Ever (talk) Per proposal.
  4. Mario (talk) They won't be missed. Nobody is sane enough to go to a MarioWiki to research ESRB ratings
  5. Ghost Jam (talk) Per all. Agree with the idea of a category. Maybe link the ratings off to relevant sites for more information.
  6. Koopakoolklub (talk) Why does it exist in the first place?
  7. Marshal Dan Troop (talk) Per all.
  8. Yoshi876 (talk) Like E3, and other terms like this, this should only be a note in the glossary.
  9. SuperYoshiBros (talk) Per all.
  10. Stonehill (talk) What's the point of them here when they're supposed to be Wikipedia articles?? Per all.
  11. Tails777 (talk) Per all
  12. Green 6017 King Of The Slowpoke (talk) Per all
  13. Misty (talk) – I don't really want them to be deleted, but they probably should due to the things mentioned above.
  14. Peanutjon (talk) If we don't get E3, why do we need ESRB...? Plus, it's really just pointless and doesn't have much to do with Mario.

Oppose

Comments

The peoples BJAODN

I like BJAODN as much as the next guy but I think we should remove the rule that prevents people form making original stuff to put into the BJAODN. I think making original stuff for the BAJODN is a safe fun way to get a few laughs and blow of some steam, so who`s with me?

Proposer: Green 6017 King Of The Slowpoke (talk)
Deadline: June 25, 2014, 23:59 GMT.

Support

  1. Green 6017 King Of The Slowpoke (talk) Per me, It`s my proposal.

Oppose

  1. Yoshi876 (talk) That defeats the entire purpose of BJAODN. It is meant to be nonsensical edits made by people that are unintentionally bad, if we create our own things it effectively promotes making these bad edits. And if you mean just coming up with stuff and adding it in normally, then it's not an archive which is its purpose.
  2. Glowsquid (talk) There are plenty of spaces to post inane shit, and as past attempts to add "original content" to BJAODN demonstrate, the result would be less chuckleworthy that a documentary on Darfur refugee camps.
  3. Ghost Jam (talk) Per everyone, use the forums, chat or possibly your userspace for original content. The only original content that has made BJAODN, aside from the years April Fools articles, are my pie proposals and, as stated elsewhere, those are due to administrative tomfoolery more than anything else.
  4. Baby Luigi (talk) Copied STRAIGHT from the rules: Don't write badly on purpose. Don't create all-new material just to add to the archives, don't alter existing material to "make it funnier", and definitely don't vandalize actual articles in order to get them into BJAODN, because you will be punished. Another reason? All the others already have stated: professional encyclopedias ACTIVELY discourage writing horribly.

Comments

Sorry for the bad quality early on I learned that I should not type my proposal on notepad then copy paste it on the page, sorry for inconvenience early on. Green 6017 King Of The Slowpoke (talk)

Changes

None at the moment.

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=1701113"