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}}. Signing with the signature code ~~~(~) is not allowed due to technical issues. 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) Every vote should have a reason accompanying it. 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. "# " should be added under the last vote of each support/oppose section to show another blank line. 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. 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. 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. Also, NO PROPOSALS ABOUT HAVING BANJO AND CONKER ARTICLES -The Management. CURRENTLY: 03:46, 9 November 2024 (EDT) New Features None at the moment. Removals Remove Automatons, Machinations, Ghosts, Ghouls, and Specters from the "Species" Category It is true that a species is a group of of living things. It is also true, that undead things, and robotic things, are not living things, and do not constitute a species. Since common sense often fails, I'll included dictionary definitions of a species in my comments below. Now, many of you who are reading this will think I'm just getting bogged down by semantics, but any errors in the wiki reflect on the wiki (and us, the users) and I think an error as large as this one greatly detracts from the credibility of this wiki. Proposer: Goomb-omb Deadline: June 27, 2008, 20:00 Support Goomb-omb per my reasoning above and below Soler (talk) —Accuracy is key, and "Character Type" (see comment by Goomb-omb below) seems to be an adequate term. Oppose Stumpers (talk) I'm afraid this is nitpicking, but I'm usually all for that. What I'm thinking of is a page like Bow or another notable Boo. What should we put in the species section of the character infobox? If you have another word we should use instead of species, that would help. Ninjayoshi Per Stumpers. Also, Boos are a species. Thirdly, if we change 'species' on any robot family and the like, we should change it to something like 'series'. InfectedShroom (talk) - Per Stumpers. This seems a bit... Particular... about what we should add to our articles. Also, the Mario Bros. series is not the most scientific series (Being able to float in space? :O), so I think that this would not be necessary. Pikax (talk) - "Species" is simple enough to understand and, like Stumpers said, this is nitpicking. Blitzwing (talk) - Per Pikax and IS. Mario isn't exactly the most scientifically-correct out there. Toadette 4evur (talk) Per all. Walkazo (talk) - Per all. The.Real.Izkat (talk)-A boo is a speices though. and i mean its really simple anyways. Per Blitzwing about the scientific thing. reecer6 (talk) - Why would you take them out? they are a kind of species! all species, NO MATTER WHAT, goes in the species section. Comments Definitions of species according to two credible dictionaries:According to Encarta World English Dictionary a species is ''a subdivision of a genus. . .containing individuals that resemble one another and that may interbreed'' And in Websters New Revised Dictionary of the English Language species is defined as ''A category of animals or plants. . .with the capacity of interbreeding only among themselves.'' I don't think MeowMaids fit any of that criteria. Goomb-omb (talk) Stumpers, I think something along the lines of "Character Type" would be sufficient.Goomb-omb (talk) Sorry I didn't respond to your comment sooner! That would be cool... I think there's a pretty clear concensus already, though... :( Stumpers (talk) Ninjayoshi, the 12:02, 13 June 2008 (EDT) revision of the Boo article quotes Goombario's tattle for Igor thus: " ‘He probably was a merchant before he became a Boo,’ " and goes on to speculate that "Boos may be a species of ghosts [sic—ghosts cannot belong to a species] who were once living." It is therefore possible that Boos are ghosts, and so do not belong to a species. —Soler (talk) Should have checked my sources, my bad.-Ninjayoshi Actually, Soler's quote proves this proposal's wrong: clearly there can be species of ghosts in the Marioverse, or they (the writers) wouldn't've made that tattle. Besides, "Character Type" sounds more like when you say whether or not a player's a Power Character or a Technique Character, etc. in sports/kart racing titles. - Walkazo (talk) Er... no, sorry, the quote does nothing of the kind. A ghost, in this context, is "the disembodied spirit of a dead person, supposed to haunt the living as a pale or shadowy vision; phantom." (Collins English Dictionary, third edition). Spirit, for the record, in this context means "the force or principle of life that animates the body of living things". As far as I know, "life forces/principles" can't breed, and according to BOTH of Goomb-omb's dictionaries, members of a species may interbreed. The article, not the tattle, used the word species, and thus contradicted itself: that's why I used "sic" (There is, however, still the possibility that Boos are not ghosts, but a ghost-like species that one can transform into in place of dying; however, in SM64DS, the message "Ghosts don't DIE!" sometimes appears after defeating a Boo, which would seemingly refute this argument.) Perhaps my first comment was ambiguous: I should've probably used single and double quotes on the first quotation, to show a "double quotation", and only used double on the second quote. I'll fix that now. —Soler (talk). And about Mario not being scientific, that is completely irrelevant--this wiki should still strive be scientific. Isn't the goal to make an encyclopedic catalog of everything Mario? You can't accomplish that without being scientific, errors like this just make it look like the people who work on the wiki don't actually care enough to make sure that everything is correct (no offense to any one of course!!). Goomb-omb (talk) Hear hear. —Soler (talk). I object. Since when was a mushroom making Mario grow to double his size (or sometimes even bigger) scientific? Since when was a turtle flying in a cloud, holding a fishing rod and dropping spiked eggs scientific? Since when was racing on a giant pinball table scientific? The Mario Wiki already has plenty of material that isn't scientific, so changing "Species" to something like "Character Type" is going to make hardly any difference at all. Pikax (talk) If you read what I wrote, I just said Mario not being scientific is irrelevant. As in, Mario isn't scientific. The goal of a wiki is provide a encyclopedic database, and to be encyclopedic one must scientific cataloging, such as dividing articles into categories, (which we do) and to use proper terminology (which we do not) Goomb-omb (talk) Wait, you're saying that we should be scientific about something that isn't scientific? That's like saying we should make a rock solid flannel. Pikax (talk) No, it isn't. "Scientific" here refers to a type of accuracy, and inaccuracy borders on giving misinformation. —Soler (talk) About the Boo thing, there is multiple kind of Ghost. In a way, the Boos are a "species" of Ghost, uh. Blitzwing (talk) The Boos would be a type/form/kind of ghost, rather than a species, unless the Marioverse had the (somewhat disturbing) distinction of allowing its ghosts to breed... —Soler (talk). If this were a wiki about, oh say, Dora the Explorer, would we write about how Swiper the Fox is a kleptomaniac? I think you're looking at it a bit too hard..... - Ultimatetoad If Swiper is a kleptomaniac, why not? —Soler (talk) You said scientific meant a type of accuracy? Why not just use the word accurate to describe the situation in the first place? Pikax (talk) I did. See my vote. Other people started using the word scientific. —Soler (talk). Splits & Merges Star Rod The Star Rod article is currently about both the Star Rod that Bowser stole in Paper Mario and the item used in the Super Smash Bros. series that originated from the Kirby series. Should the article be split in two articles, or remain as one article about two subjects? Proposer: Stumpers (talk) Deadline: June 30th, 17:00 Support (split article) Stumpers (talk) - Historically, multiple subjects have only been on the same page if they are minor (Board (Super Mario Galaxy)) or they are very closely connected (Ashley & Red). The two Star Rods are neither: they are prominent subjects from different video game series. Each has its own distinct history. I have heard the arguement that the Paper Mario Star Rod is a reference to the Kirby Star Rod, but this arguement has no source behind it, official or otherwise. Even if it was a reference, I fail to see why the two should be merged. The Devolution Gun isn't merged with the Super Scope, for example, as both have significant, distinct roles in the Super Mario series. MegaMario9910 (talk) - Both have had different roles, and are complete different things in the Marioverse. One SSB (which is also the same one from Kirby), and the one from Paper Mario. Per Stumpers. MC Hammer Bro. (talk)-Good point. Both have different powers and different uses. And plus only one is used in SSB while the other isn't. The.Real.Izkat (talk)-Per MegaMario9910 which inadvertatley means Per Stumpers. InfectedShroom (talk) - Per Stupmers. PeteyPiranhaLover (talk) - Per Stmpers. Ninjayoshi - Per Stumpers. Starry Parakarry (talk)- Per Stumpers. Shouldn't we have the MP 8 Star Rod included in the PM Star Rod article as well? Dryest bowser (talk)- per stumpers Reecer6 (talk)- I wasn't going to per stumpers 'till i saw his reason. so now: per stumpers ItameMarioFan (talk) - Per Stumpers. Both have their own history, both differ with powers, etc. luigi3000 (talk) - Per Stumpers.Stumpers has a good idea. Oppose (keep as one article) Comments We need to decide what we're going to do about the split if it happens. When someone types in "Star Rod," should it go to a disambiguation page or to the Paper Mario Star Rod? I'm inclined to think the latter. If we do that, the Paper Mario Star Rod can be left on the "Star Rod" page and the Kirby Star Rod can go to "Star Rod (item)" Sound good? Stumpers (talk) There was a comment about a Star Rod from Mario Party 8. For now, the above proposal would only split out the Kirby Star Rod. If it would better the article to have it removed, a follow-up proposal splitting the article further is in order. We'll have to see. ~Stumpers (talk) Changes The Notability Standard To quote one of the standards for a Featured Article as established by MarioWiki:Featured Articles, to become an FA an article must, "…be notable and have significant content – some complete articles like Spiny Shroopa do not have enough information to become FAs." On a number of Featured Article Nominations, including Smithy and Alien (Club Nintendo), the nomination has been questioned on the basis of this rule. If a single user feels that a subject is too minor, he or she can stop the nomination in its tracks by casting an oppose vote. In my opinion, the quoted standard leaves too much up to opinion of a small group of users and defeats the purpose of an oppose vote. The point of an oppose vote is to help the supporters to make improvements on the article (as established by MarioWiki:Featured Articles). The supporters cannot make a subject more notable. In addition, the rule may hinders desire to edit an article about a minor topic. However, I do appreciate the need for a featured article to be longer than Spiny Shroopa if the Wiki is to look established and appealing to new editors and casual readers. Therefore, I propose that we replace the above condition with the following: to become an FA, an article must have at least 4,000 characters (letters, spaces, etc.) not including templates, categories, quotes, images, and "official profiles and statistics" sections. Text in an image thumbnail is included. Examples of articles that just make this limit are Baby Daisy and Booster. I am currently open to increasing the minimum character limit or removing non-breaking spaces (the ones the spacebar puts in) from that limit; please discuss. Microsoft Word includes a statistic feature that allows a user to easily find the character count with and without spaces. Proposer: Stumpers (talk) Deadline: June 30, 17:00 Support (replace standard) Stumpers (talk) - See proposal. This proposal would limit the amount of pointless discussion without allowing short articles to hinder the appearance of the Wiki further. Ultimatetoad This is a good Idea. Having a length requirement sort of ensures that the chracter is "important", without allowing arguments over chracters that only appeared in one game. InfectedShroom (talk) - Great idea. Per Stumpers. Soler (talk) —Having a definite standard would in all probability speed up the process and avoid petty disputes. Great idea. Ninjayoshi - Yeah, some pointless articles have been nominated. Per Stumpers. Cobold (talk) - Sounds like the best solution, no more fights on what's important enough and what not. Starry Parakarry (talk)-Pretty good idea! I like it, a lot actually! Per Stumpers! Oppose (maintain standard) Comments Not a bad idea. However, do you have plans to do a Byte limit as well? That would wear it down to an even finer point. I dunno, just a suggestion. Thought I'd throw it out there. :P InfectedShroom (talk) Do you know how you find the byte count for the articles? If so that might work better. Stumpers (talk) Yeah, just go into the history and it's right in the last edit message: (cur) (last) 11:18, 24 June 2008 Ninjayoshi (Talk | contribs) (18,397 bytes). ;) InfectedShroom (talk) Awesome. Let me experiment with that a bit and see if it's a better alternative. I really like that we can check that on-website, but I'm worried about users adding lots of quotes or screenshots to make an article meet the requirement. Stumpers (talk) Bytes could be difficult to determine. I'd go with a bottom limit of 4000 characters, including spaces. Cobold (talk) Okay, I'll keep the proposal as it is, then. Thanks for the support, everyone. Stumpers (talk) Miscellaneous Write Articles in the Same Tense Here I go: I mean tense as in past, present, future. Now, I've been looking at quite a few character articles, but this also applies to game articles, in the Story sections. I've noticed that the older games and characters' articles seem to be written in past tense, as in "Mario then defeated Bowser and then went psycho" - but more recent games/characters (e.g. Rosalina, Super Mario Galaxy...) are in present tense, like "Mario defeats Bowser and returns peace to the kingdom." So, I think it makes sense to have them all in present tense, no matter how old the character/game is. It's all about consistency, if you ask me. This is my first proposal, so I've probably done it wrong and it might get deleted...oh well, I tried. UPDATE: OK, I'll admit I kind of confused myself with what I wrote at first. OK, after reading the Comments and Oppositions...here's my change: There should be a rule that determines how to write an article...such as a rule about how old the game/event/whatever is. Or the rule could be that certain Sections, such as Story or History, are always consistent for any article, but that same article may have the more appropriate tense in other sections. Does that make sense? Proposer:Dom Deadline: June 27th 20:00 PM. Support Blitzwing (talk) - Per Dom. MegaMario9910 (talk) - Per Dom. It would cause confusion if an early game article had the past tense, while the new ones would have the present tense. Cobold (talk) - all sections should be in the same time. But for flashbacks within a section, the past tense still should be used. (like explaining the preface of PM:TTYD in Peach's article) Oppose Ninjayoshi - No. Mario does have a timelime. In some games, they even reference back in the timeline. Stumpers (talk) - Past tense always sounds better for a history section in an encyclopedia. Also, enforcing this will be very difficult if it is passed -- you've got about 800 pages that will need to be changed. InfectedShroom (talk) Yeah, sorry for the vote change. Anyway, Past tense makes things flow more easily. IMO, we should do the lead in Present and the body in Past. Per all. Toadette 4evur (talk) Per all RedFire Mario (talk) Walkazo (talk) - Per IS. Comments 'Wouldn't this cause confusion' if Super Mario World and Super Mario World 2 were written as if they were happening at the same time?Ninjayoshi Should this really be generalised for all? For the character bios I wrote, I wrote about story-relevant events in past tense, independent of how new the game is, since these events already passed. I have to agree with Ninjayoshi's demur. --Grandy02 12:11, 20 June 2008 (EDT) Ninjayoshi: if you write both sections in the past tense, no, it won't. Stumpers (talk) Hey, I forgot to say stuff about articles to do with future games or characters...maybe that should also be discussed? Dom (talk) I'm confused about this proposal. Stumpers wrote in his support vote that past tense should be used for passed events, and I think the same. However, this proposal is about present tense in every case, isn't it? I'm for consistency, but not for present tense everytime. What is it all about now, really?? --Grandy02 07:44, 21 June 2008 (EDT) That was my fault. I misread the proposal and though this was to make all tenses be consistent in each sub-section. Sorry about that. You're going to want to oppose if you want to be allowed to write in the past tense still. Stumpers (talk) By the way, I'm really not sure how one would enforce this rule, even after you spend countless hours fixing each tense. I've done some tense fixing before, and let me tell you: its like rewriting the entire thing. It will probably take you one half the time that it took the contributor to write the original text. Let's think about this then: on the first part of the history section for Mario up to Super Mario Bros. 2 USA, it took me probably a total of five hours to write. That means that for one third of one third of one article, (one ninth of an article), you're gonna need roughly 2 hours. As the proposer, you and the other supporters are going to have to put this into effect. Do you really want to be in charge of changing all the past tenses into present and then changing every new edit by a user who doesn't know about this proposal? Stumpers (talk) 10:54, 21 June 2008 (EDT) Make sure you read my UPDATE before any more comments. Dom (talk) I meant that if they were both written in present tense, because I support writing in past tense.-Ninjayoshi It doesn't take a long time to fix tenses with the ctrl+f function (find). Just type in ed, ing, etc. in the find window. Clay Mario (talk) If only English were that simple! Take "is," one of the most common verbs. It's past tense is "was." Don't forget about "are" and "were," too. There are other verbs like that, too. "Run" vs. "ran," for example. The only way to do it right would be to go through line by line and fix it, although yours would work for an initial fix, I have to admit. Stumpers (talk) Yo, CM, one more thing. My computer is limited just to finding things outside of the edit box. Which conveniently takes away that option for me and other Mac users. ;) InfectedShroom (talk) You'd have to copy it into a word processor and use the find fuction, then, right? Stumpers (talk) 02:43, 24 June 2008 (EDT) I'm a Mac user and I made the Proposal...but I never thought of issues related to finding words to change. Dom (talk) Allow cameo appearences to be documented in character articles This is fairly simple. Looking on the Cameo page I noticed that we have two different types of "cameos" listed there. One is references: The SMB theme playing during a show, a character mentioning playing Super Mario Bros. etc. The other kind is actual Cameos: such as Mario's appearence in Robot Chicken or Futurama. I propose that whenever a character actually appears in another franchise, it should be mentioned in that characters main article. We need to have every bit of info relating to these chracters in their articles, and this one way to do it. Proposer: Ultimatetoad Deadline: July 1, 2008, 17:00 Support Ultimatetoadper above Oppose No. First of all, give reason to your votes. Second, that would make the Character pages too cluttered. -Ninjayoshi Comments I dunno. If we listed every time Mario has been seen/mentioned in a tv show, the page would be (even more) horribly long. --Blitzwing 12:41, 24 June 2008 (EDT) I am not suggesting that we mention every Mention, or even every appearence. For instance several series feature characters who dress in a style similar to Mario: these can be left out of the article. However, when Mario (or any other character, for that matter) makes a full-fledged appearence and has an actual role in an episode, it should be mentioned. - Ultimatetoad Maybe we should cover official cameos on that page and leave unoffical ones out? It would keep it short. Stumpers (talk) Hmmmmm..... what would classify as an official cameo? - Ultimatetoad Indeed, what's an official cameo? One put into a non-Mario game by Nintendo themselves? One Nintendo gave permission to? (those sports games for the GameCube with Mario, Luigi and Peach in it). - Cobold (talk) 13:31, 24 June 2008 (EDT) That was what I was thinking. Thanks for defining it! Stumpers (talk) Ultimatetoad, please always add a reason to your votes, even if you're the proposer. Time Q (talk) But I don't wanna - Ultimatetoad As much as I'm all in favor of forcing voters to give their reasons, this is ridiculous. Blitzwing (talk) I was just joking. I dit put a reason, even if it is just : please refer above (ok, so maybe it's just "above, you know what it means. I think that Stumpers had a good idea: non-mario games which Mario appears in (and games which are made by nintendo) should be incorporated into the character page. Everything else can stay on Cameo. I will change my proposal to reflect this. - Ultimatetoad