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. If users have 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 the other users, who will then vote about whether or not they think the idea should be used. Proposals should include links to all relevant pages and Writing Guideline proposals must include a link to the draft page.
2. Proposals end at the end of the day (23:59) one week after voting starts, except for Writing Guidelines and Talk Page Proposals, which run for two weeks. (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 one week later on Monday, August 8, at 23:59 GMT.
3. Every vote should have a reason accompanying it. Agreeing with or seconding a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted.
4. 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 at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the administrators.
5. 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.
6. No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
7. 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.
8. All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week.
9. 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.
10. Proposals can only be extended up to three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, the proposal fails and can only be re-proposed after four weeks, at the earliest.
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 an administrator, the proposer can ask for that help.
12. Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation. However, proposers can request that their proposal be deleted by an administrator at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that cancelled proposals must also be archived.
13. If the administrators 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.
14. There should not be proposals about creating articles on an 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.
15. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the administration.
16. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.

Basic Proposal and Support/Oppose Format

This is an example of what your proposal should look like, if you want it to be acknowledged. If you are inexperienced or unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. Then replace the [subject] - variables with information to customize your proposal, so it says what you wish. If you insert the information, be sure to replace the whole variable including the squared brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information", 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|[enter your username here]}}<br>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the proposal was created, at 23:59 GMT.]

====Support====
#{{User|[enter your username here]}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]

====Oppose====

====Comments====

---

Users will now be able to vote on your Proposal, until the set deadline is reached. Remember, you are a user as well, so you can vote on your own Proposal just like the others.

To support, or oppose, just insert "#{{User|[add 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 just say "Per my Proposal".

Talk Page Proposals

All proposals dealing with a single article or a specific group of articles are held on the talk page of one of the articles in question. Proposals dealing with massive amounts of splits, merges or deletions across the Wiki should still be held on this page.

For a list of all settled Talk Page Proposals, see here.

How To

1. All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom). All pages affected must be mentioned in the brief description, with the talk page housing the discussion linked to directly via "(Template:Fakelink)". If the proposal involved a page that is not yet made, use {{fakelink}} to communicate its title. The Deadline must also be included in the entry. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links. Place {{TPP}} under the heading.
2. All rules for talk page proposals are the same as mainspace proposals (see the "How To" section above), with the exceptions made by Rules 3 and 4 as follows:
3. Voting in talk page proposals will be open for two weeks, not one. (All times GMT.)
   • For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, it ends two weeks later on Monday, August 15, 2011, at 23:59 GMT.
4. Talk page proposals may be closed by the proposer at any time if both the support and the oppose sides each have fewer than five votes.
5. The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.

List of Talk Page Proposals

• Split Flying Question Block from Question Block (Discuss) Deadline: July 15, 2011, 23:59 GMT
• Move Waluigi Pinball to Template:Fakelink (Discuss) Deadline: July 16, 2011, 23:59 GMT
• Split Giant Banana from Banana (Discuss) Deadline: July 3, 2011, 23:59 GMT July 10, 2011, 23:59 GMT July 17, 2011, 23:59 GMT
• Merge Dry Dry Desert (course) with Dry Dry Desert (Discuss) Deadline: July 18, 2011, 23:59 GMT
• Split the Spike Pillar section of Pillar from it. (Discuss) Deadline: July 19, 2011, 23:59 GMT
• Mention unofficial SMA4 level names in articles to help minimise confusion (Discuss) Deadline: 22 July 2011, 23:59 GMT
• Move Expresso II to Template:Fakelink (Discuss) Deadline: July 25, 2011, 23:59 GMT
• Merge Power Gauge with Health Meter (Discuss) Deadline: July 25, 2011, 23:59 GMT

Writing Guidelines

MLA Format

All articles should be written with the most updated version of MLA Format. This will help in the eternal preservation of always citing your sources.

Proposer:Plumber (talk)
Deadline: July 23, 2011, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Plumber (talk)For clarity
2. Super Mario Bros. (talk) – From the sounds of this, what Plumber is doing is suggesting we change our quotations and citations to a well-known, credible standard. I don't know why we shouldn't upgrade to a more credible standard, so I'll offer my support to this proposal.
3. Superfiremario (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

1. Walkazo (talk) - Regulating our reference formatting is a good idea, but I feel like it would be better to go about this by drafting a policy page with our own structure (based on MLA, but tailored to our specific needs) and then making a proposal. A vague, one-sentence statement (with a one-sentence justification) is far to little to go on, especially when hundreds of pages will be effected by the unspecified changes.
2. Zero777 (talk) Per Walkazo
3. Mariomario64 (talk) – MLA format shouldn't be directly used on a website like this, in my opinion. Also, per Walkazo.
4. Mario4Ever (talk) Per Walkazo.
5. Rise Up Above It (talk) Walkazo has a good idea.

Debate

What is MLA? Xzelion (talk)

Modern Language Association. Phoenix (talk)

See here, Xzelion. Mario4Ever (talk)

Okay, that is seriously freaky, I was just gonna link to that... :O Phoenix (talk)

Won't this be a massive overhaul of practically every single article on the wiki? Dr Javelin (talk)

I CAN READ YOUR MIND, PHOENIX! I've never found a better source on MLA, so I figured that if I didn't link to it, someone inevitably would. @Dr Javelin: That depends on what exactly needs changing. On that note, Plumber, would you mind clarifying exactly what you propose to do? Mario4Ever (talk)

@Mario4Ever - Yeah, my last two college English teachers practically forced us to use that when typing our assignments, so, needless to say, that was the first thing that popped into my head... Phoenix (talk)

It won't be a massive overhaul of the article on the wiki besides making source clarifications more useful. Wikis adhere to a rough version of MLA anyhow. The effects of this proposal are to be minor. Plumber (talk)

How minor? Xzelion (talk)

Basically this only changes citations and maybe quotations (like where the periods go and stuff, not the actual templates). Also standardizes the English to American English, but that's already done on the wiki as a whole. Plumber (talk) 01:29, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

Standardizing the English doesn't make sense if the article is already written in British English (or vice-versa). As this is an international wiki, both variations are allowed, and changing one to the other is actually a warnable offense. It sort of operates on a first-come, first-served basis. Mario4Ever (talk)

I agree with Mario4Ever. We made a proposal to stablish that British English can be used here. Coincollector (talk)

Well MLA includes Canada, so I suppose we could grandfather Britain into it. But that's distracting from the main point, which is primarily that of quotation and citation, which so desperately need essential reforms. Plumber (talk)

May you please elaborate on that, because I'm still not sure what you trying to do. Zero777 (talk)

I don't really understand what is going to happen. Could you show us some examples? LeftyGreenMario (talk)

Hello Plumber, are you there? May you please answer our questions? Zero777 (talk)

Just Google MLA Standards sonny ;) Plumber (talk) 01:25, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

All that does is inform people what MLA is; it does nothing to explain exactly what you plan to do according to its standards (there's quite a lot of info, as you can see when clicking on the above link of mine). Mario4Ever (talk)

New Features

None at the moment.

Removals

Reform MarioWiki:Proposals

As two old users, we jointly feel that the decision-making system pre-MarioWiki:Proposals was superior to the current system. The current system of MarioWiki:Proposals is based upon popularity contests. The previous system involved discussion on the Community Portal and Talk:Main page. This new proposal would restore any potential problems to be discussed on Talk:Main page, not with "support" and "oppose" columns, but genuine ”bona fide” arguments and discussion. When consensus has been reached, the fate of the "proposal" will be decided. This was the way the system worked before the infamous and perfidious troll A Link to the Past (talk) tricked Porplemontage (talk) and Wayoshi (talk) into creating the proposals (only after his disastrous MarioWiki:Peer Review scheme had failed; Proposals were made largely as a concession to his whining). If this measure passes, it shall go into force July 17, 2011, although any Proposals that still need to expire will be left to expire at their natural time.

EDIT: MarioWiki:Proposals will still serve as the main place for talk page proposals. Many thanks to Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) for bringing that up.

Proposers: Xzelion (talk), Plumber (talk), and Master Crash (talk)
Deadline: July 16, 2011, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Xzelion (talk) — Per Plumber.
2. Plumber (talk) — Per Xzelion ;) See how that's all one needs to get a vote? I think this case is justified since we wrote the proposal, but you know what I mean.
3. Master Crash (talk) — Per all
4. SWFlash (talk) I have to agree with this proposal. Supporting the proposal without describing why does one thinks it should be so is just bumps it and, sometimes, the wiki may end up to be in even worser situation than it was before the proposal. The good proposals may be unresolved just because one have said the good option to sage the proposal and everyone're just agreeing with him/her. But, of course, some users may be not creative enough to think about their options and they just want the proposal to be settled, but, I think, it's their problems.
5. Reddragon19k (talk) I love this proposal! This is my favorite time to per all for this one! Seriously, that is my favorite kind! So... PER EVERYONE!!!
6. DKPetey99 (talk) Per all does seem to be used a lot. Mostly it's used for friendship. I was actually goanna make this proposal myself, but I didn't think people would approve of my idea. Per all
7. ThirdMarioBro (talk) Per DKPetey99. I am getting tired of people just "going with the flow" and labeling their vote as "per all".
8. BoygeyDude (talk) Per all, especially Dr Javelin & SWFlash. :)
9. Super Mario Bros. (talk) – Making decisions through intelligent discussion, rather by a simple vote count restricted by time limits, seems much more understandable. Per the proposers.
10. LeftyGreenMario (talk) This makes sense. I think some people put "per all" in their votes, but they don't really understand what they are voting for.
11. Mariomario64 (talk) – Per proposal and everyone else's comments. In my opinion, this is a much better way to decide on proposals.

Oppose

1. Walkazo (talk) - What worked in the old days doesn't necessarily translate to how things work now: the community and its dynamics have changed a lot over the years. There are a lot more users now, meaning discussions could potentially be dragged on forever: that's the advantage of deadlines (and the Clear Majority rule makes sure things that aren't settled by the deadline don't just pass). Popularity-based voting is bad, but it's not necessarily the driving force between "per"s, and if someone says everything that needs to be said, it is completely fine for others to per them. Even if all the people on the one side have something to add to the argument, ultimately, if more people agree with one person's idea (which they "per"), that idea should be used. To quote Star Trek, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Besides, debates already happen in proposals, and proposals can be changed and replaced if better courses of action are identified. While free-flowing discussion might make this a little more natural-feeling, the lack of rules and structure could easily backfire, and will certainly be harder to archive. And who's to say popularity won't still be a factor in discussions: paraphrasing is just as easy as "per"ing.
2. Zero777 (talk) Oh the reform proposal is to debate until a decision is reached whenever (not by a deadline). Walkazo is right, that will drag on longer then the Starting Planet Proposal, per. And since were proposals popularity contests?
3. Edofenrir (talk) - I pretty much agree with Walkazo on this one, but I'd like to go into something in conjunction with what she said towards the end of her comment. A lot of the supporters here seem to support solely to get rid of "Per" votes. However, those who do should stop and think about this for a moment. Specifically: How is this proposed system going to do anything about that? Counting arguments instead of heads? Is that going to fix it? Not at all. It is very, very easy to take an argument and rephrase it in a way that makes it appear like an entirely new argument. This older system will be just as exploitable than the one we are currently using. "Per" votes will not be eliminated by this change; they will just resurface in a different form. And then we will have to deal with those.
4. Yoshiwaker (talk) - I'm changing my vote. There is nothing wrong with the current system. It's more like a democracy, which it should be when making decisions like this. Also I agree with Zero that if we had to have full consensus then it would take forever to make a decision. Also, per Edofenrir.
5. twentytwofiftyseven (talk) Hahaha. Ironically, one guy like NARCE could filibuster the proposed system forever. Per all.
6. Supremo78 (talk) - Simply, the argument can still continue in the proposal still having the phrase "Per all". All it is is agreeing, which is what commonly people use. While I realize some people may just put it there just to vote with their friends, is this proposal really going to change that? A continuing argument is like court, which is not what we do here. Making decisions should be simpler than "court". However, some people who want to agree aren't just voting with their friends, may not have something to say, but: I agree (what Per is). People will never know which one the user is trying to do, so just leave it alone all together. Also, like Walkazo said, proposals may go so long, it may be over 2 times of that that the proposal Phoenix (talk) did (No Starting Planet Left Behind!) will last over 2 months. That's just not a good way to reach consensus.
7. Glowsquid (talk) I'm not convinced an argument-only system would be that preferrable. One thing endemic to e-arguments is that they are frequently "won" not by the actual merits of the position presented, but rather by sheer repetition, as one or more participants repeat their stances ad-nauseum up until the other side gets bored or tired (and I was going to use the example of our friend ALinkToThePast/NARCE, but 2257 beat me to it). Of course the matters can be ultimately decided by the administrators - but then that kind of defeat the point of changing the system. I won't deny the current system is sometimes victim of the Popularity Contest/Sheep mentality phenomenom, but strong arguments can and often do change the tides of adebate, and I think the proposal as they are now have worked reasonably well. Also, per everything Walkazo said.
8. Phoenix (talk) There is nothing whatsoever drastically wrong with the system we use currently, and I very highly doubt that the proposed system will make anything any better than it is now, even if it happened to work out well in the past. If I could see it improving the overall decision making process, I would support, but I honestly cannot see it turning into anything less than a travesty. As it is, I seriously doubt that the majority of users are so lazy or shortsighted that they would ignore the important issues at hand and only per the arguments of their friends or per arguments without fully realizing what it is that they are doing. Does that have the potential to happen? Possibly. Does that mean that the entire system is ineffective and detrimental? I don't think so.
9. Hypnotoad (talk) As much as I'd like to avoid a simple "per" reasoning, pretty much everything I can think about has been said, so per all.
10. Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) per Walkazo after reading her comments i find the proposal system to be just as good if not better than the old system.
11. Gamefreak75 (talk) Even though the "per" reasoning can be annoying at times, it is even more annoying and redundant to restate the exact points that have already been said. So in general, per all.
12. Fawfulfury65 (talk) I agree with the opposers. Also, there are too many users to settle proposals in the way they used to be settled. The arguments would become extremely long and last forever. The current way makes everything more organized, and it helps you tell who is on what side more easily. Some people may vote on a side just because their friend is voting there, but they are outnumbered by the number of users who vote on the side they are sure is best.
13. Bop1996 (talk) Even though I'm still on hiatus, I think that this is such an important issue that I needed to vote anyway. I don't want to argue about what may or may not have happened in the past with User A or User B. That being said, the current system works quite well as it is imho, and the new system wouldn't work better as per everyone above, so per all.
14. Young Master Luma (talk) The system currently used is much simpler than the one proposed, which (in my opinion) attracts more people to vote. On a wiki with so many users, it would be mildly chaotic to let all the users argue about something just to often come to a quite ambiguous conclusion.
15. MrConcreteDonkey (talk) - The "”bona fide” arguments and discussion" is the "comments" section of the proposals. Support and oppose columns are much more organised and simple than just cluttered argument. It's easier to find out the end result, too. If we reform this page, how will we know when a proposal has passed? Who will check, and when? And would there be debate even after the end result? If most of the supporters are voting to get rid of the "Per" system, it's quite ironic they're doing it themselves. Per all, especially Walkazo and Edofenrir.
16. UltraMario3000 (talk) "Per" all (Horrible pun).
17. Rise Up Above It (talk) Although I joined in 2007, I assume that that event you mentioned took place before I jooined, for in the two weeks I was active after joining, I voted in some proposals that seem to have the same basic formula as the ones today (One of my main memories of late 2007 MW is Stumpers' tirades on the Proposals page). I have no idea then of the changes you propose, so I shall agree with all these good arguments.

Debate

This proposal include removing the TPP proposal system and if it does are all the TPP proposals that expire after the deadline of this proposal cancelled Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)

The Talk Page Proposals are not affected by the system, so they'll still be here. No worries.Plumber (talk) 01:56, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

What about any proposals proposed before this proposal ends but that expire after the dead line are they cancelled to Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)

Wait what do the peer reviews have to do with proposals i though those were for the FA process Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)

What happens if it's a huge proposal with plenty of people with good arguments on both sides? So far, it seems to me that this will create stalemates that eventually stop the wiki from making decisions because of red tape. See the "No starting planet left behind" proposal in the Archives. I do agree that many proposals end up as popularity contests, but at least things happen. Dr Javelin (talk)

Well i think what would happen is they would debate until one side wins cause even now a proposal can only be extended so many times until it fails. And i'm sorry if this doesn't answer your question or is wrong cause i wasn't around during the day and age when they used the talk main page Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)

Huge proposals actually become smaller because less people are willing to actually write a detailed opinion compared to doing "Per X." Back in the day, things got done and stayed done. If the arguments are good on both sides, generally the sysops step in to referee, which is not the ideal situation, but it's the general solution. They already referee the Proposals enough as it is. Plumber (talk)

It still seems like it might take longer than the current proposal system. And what happens if the sysops have differing opinions? I am in no way supporting the current proposal system, but as far as I can tell, things still happen. Articles get merged, split, edited, and changed, all according to the proposals. I agree that people should be required to give detailed arguments for or against proposals, but people shouldn't have to wait for a consensus. A time limit might still be needed to make sure that things still happen. Dr Javelin (talk)

In the past, consensus was always able to occur, moreso today with the Sysop Boards. CC: Basically, that's how it was done before. However such things would be done at Talk:Main Page like they were because we have agreed the Proposals is too formulaic to be conductive. Strict deadlines are often too short or too long to be effective as well. If anyone needs more information, Xzelion will be happy to oblige, although I know you, CC, of all people are familiar with the old system :) Plumber (talk)

I'm not exactly familiar with the old proposal system, mostly because I never attended many proposals during my earlier wiki days. M&SG (talk)

@DKPetey99 and ThirdMarioBro: Well, if that is truly the case, then pretty much nothing we can do will be able to stop that because by this system, they could just "agree" with their friend. Yoshiwaker (talk)

I have a question for the proposers: will this effect the proposals box on the Main Page? If so, how do you plan to adapt the Main Page for this change? Super Mario Bros. (talk)

So how will the old system work? You didn't necessarily elaborate on that. Zero777 (talk)

Hmm. I'm switching back to neutral because of the good opposition arguments, and I'll stay that way unless someone can clearly define the pros and cons of each system in an unbiased manner. Dr Javelin (talk)

2257: NARCE could filibuster the proposed system because at that time executive power was concentrated in Wayoshi and (the aloof) Steve. He just needed to wear down one person. Now this is not the case. Also, the "per alls" are not the central issue here, but the voting patterns themselves. Already a few people have defected from my side to the other side. This just proves my point that the Proposals system leads to "vote trends" where the influence of well-known people convinces unsures to go to that side. This proposal was going to pass for sure until Walkazo made things more exciting. If Walkazo had remained silent, then there is a greater likelihood someone such as Zero or Yoshiwaker would not have their votes / voted for my side. The fact that Xzelion and I and Crash (all-well known people, and all in favor of this measure) backed it was to illustrate the flaws of this system as well. Did I already mention how Son of Suns eloquently confused everyone into destroying something they had just backed in a previous Proposal days earlier? Ever since then, I have been at odds with our current system of Proposals; people who liked Son of Suns voted for him because he was popular or because he wrote all fancy-like and whatever it was, it sounded smart or something. I would go on, but I haven't slept in two days, so I'm a bit worn out. The old version in action can be seen in older Talk:Main page archives, where problems were discussed and solved. Plumber (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

The funny part is that Son of Suns got just as peeved whenever I threw spanners in his proposals. But on a serious note, demonizing a retired user who did much more good than harm to the wiki isn't a very fair argument, especially when half of his battles were waged in the comments sections of the proposals anyway: cutting out the voting part wouldn't have stopped him. Straightforward issues are votes, but anything more in-depth already turns into a debate; the voting part is just so we can keep track of who's winning the argument. Fan votes happen, but it's unreasonable to act like every person's change of heart here is because of a reputation showdown - you can't know that for sure, and assumptions do not make for good arguments. The origins of the system is also a moot point: it has worked just fine for four years (during which the community has changed its face multiple times over); since we've added the Clear Majority and emergency Admin Veto rules, I can't recall any cases where I felt a proposal passed that shouldn't have, and before those rules were made, I can think of only one. Even if you can dredge up a few other mistakes, there will still be hundreds more that came to a just outcome. And really, had this been a discussion, it would have become just as "exciting" before long: an idea is proposed suggested, people like it, but then someone points out some flaws and more people join in (maybe because the first person is well-known, maybe because simply having someone else cast the first stone makes it easier to speak up, or maybe because they simply happened to get there after the first person). The only difference is that maybe we would have less people involved in between the major point-makers, but I don't think that's actually a desirable thing at all: the few people who actually get involved with intimidating, time-consuming discussions aren't necessarily representative of the community as a whole. - Walkazo (talk)

Demonizing? Harsh words. That particular proposal was a very lengthy description with little comments at all IIRC. The only people who I think would be less involved would be people who don't care at all and are just voting for their friend or the cool kid or something. Most of the community doesn't care about every little single issue, or else everyone would always vote on every proposal unless they were unable to due to RL concerns. Plumber (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

I had to dismiss my vote since I rushed in my decision to retrieve the old proposal's way without looking the drawbacks clearly. I'll stay neutral but I'll go with any absolute conclusion. By the way, would Proplemontage agree to change this proposal for another regarding to these decisions if succeeded? I guess he might have the last word. Coincollector (talk)

What do you mean? That seems unclear. Plumber (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

@Plumber: The "vote trends" you are talking about could very well occur in the proposed system anyways. Somebody could make a good enough argument to convince somebody to change their mind about something. Also, it doesn't matter who makes an argument that could convince others to take their side. If I had made the exact same argument as Walkazo before she did, I doubt that any less people would have opposed this. Also, that argument is similar to the one in this proposal, I find the logic flawed in that it is based off of something that cannot be proven. Yoshiwaker (talk)

Cannot be proven? Have you looked at the archives of Talk:Main page? There's old evidence there. Reasonable debate unfettered by random votes by people who don't care. Plumber (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

I wasn't a user back when the old system was going on. In fact, I wasn't even active until March but I joined on Jan 9 2011. So, i'm not voting. Superfiremario (talk)

I would also like to point out that the "per" problems were "solved" by an old Proposal to abolish "per X" as a reason. IIRC, another Proposal brought it back. That's just a good example of the fickleness of the Proposals system. Plumber (talk) 01:29, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

New comments are actually supposed to go on the bottom, not imbedded between other comments, since that can really muddle things up. Specific comments can be addressed using "@X:" or "X:", or something like that. Anyway, in response to your response to my comment, I stand by my choice of words, and I wasn't actually talking about any of Son of Suns' proposals in particular. (Although, having gone through the archives, I found that six of his proposals were straightforward votes (half of those were straightforward yes/no decisions, however, so there was nothing that could be debated), whereas two passed proposals involved lengthy discussions and three others failed after lengthy discussions.) Yes, everybody doesn't care about everything, but it's not reasonable to say that everyone who will vote but not discuss something doesn't care at all. Someone could easily care about an issue to some extent, but not want to get involved in a free-for-all debate on behalf of it, or they might feel that all their points have already been added to the discussion and worry that people won't appreciate them cutting in just to say "I agree with X". On the other hand, perhaps people would do that, en masse, in which case we're back to a vote, only it'll be a lot messier than proposals and their running tallies. Plus, people could always flock to their friends' aid in discussions just as easily as in proposals, in which case, again, we'd have gained nothing from the change. In response to your comment to Yoshiwaker, just because it worked back then doesn't mean it'll work now, when the community has grown and changed so much over the years. Besides, while there were lots of good discussions back then, users still resorted to votes on three occasions (1, 2, 3) before the proposal system was brought into existence (first spoken of on Archive 10, although obviously you can't get the full story from that section alone), which is rather interesting. And finally, regarding your last comment, I checked the archives and all I found was a failed attempt to remove "per" votes (here), and similarly, both times they were were brought up on the talk pages (here and here), they were left alone. - Walkazo (talk)

Remove Logos from Infobox Titles

Quite a few games have logos instead of plain text for their infobox titles, but seeing as the game boxart also contains the logo and is located directly beneath the title, all this really does is show us the exact same graphic twice. This is redundant, and it looks sloppy, especially when the logos are transparent and the background colour interferes with the words. It's also inconsistent, since most games just use good ol' fashioned text. Compare Mario Kart DS with Mario Kart: Double Dash!! - there's no question as to which one looks more professional, and by extension, which style we should use. Other games using the superfluous title-logos include Super Mario Sunshine, Super Mario Galaxy, all three Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games titles, Mario Party 8, Mario Kart Wii and both Super Smash Bros. Melee and Brawl, among others. Then you have the occasional character page with a title-logo, which is completely unnecessary. The only time it makes sense to have logos is for series pages, since a single boxart isn't adequately representative of all the games involved. Some example of this logo usage are Super Smash Bros. (series), Mario Party (series), and Mario Kart (series) (compare with Mario Kart DS), but even then, the logos are being used as the infobox images, not the titles. And, while the consoles don't really the logos in their images, the transparency issue is still a problem, and the inconsistency with other types of pages is also undesirable, so it'd be better of the logos were simply used elsewhere.

In short, I propose we remove all instances where the logos are being used for the infobox titles. The logos can be put into the galleries (or incorporated into the body text, as is the case with the character and console pages), so nothing is being lost. Series pages with logos being used as their images will not be affected.

Proposer: Walkazo (talk)
Deadline: July 12, 2011, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Walkazo (talk) - Using text instead of logos is neater, simpler, clearer, more concise and less redundant, and it will make all the game pages consistent.
2. Phoenix (talk) Couldn't have said it better myself. I support this 100%.
3. Lindsay151 (talk) Per proposal.
4. Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) Per Proposal
5. Xzelion (talk) – Per Walkazo.
6. Zero777 (talk) I found those incredibly hideous, per Walkazo.
7. Coincollector (talk) - I always wondered where it came the tendency to put the game logo in the game infoboxes. Per proposer.
8. Reddragon19k (talk) I'm going to agree with Walkazo on this one. We don't need logos on infoboxes, we already have some in the gallery section. Take Mario Kart Wii for example. The logo is on the article and the gallery for the game. If we lose it, then it can only be seen in the gallery page for that game. So, per Walkazo!
9. Tails777 (talk) Per proposal.
10. MeritC (talk) Per all on this case.
11. Supremo78 (talk) That's why I removed the SM64DS logo from its page. Per proposal.
12. Mario4Ever (talk) Per all.
13. Baconator (talk) They looked clunky and unprofessional. Per all.
14. Super Mario Bros. (talk) – Per Walkazo.
15. Super Luigi! Number one! (talk) Per.
16. Fawfulfury65 (talk) The logos are already shown on the boxart. Plus, it's inconsistent on how some infoboxes have logos in their titles, while others don't.
17. DKPetey99 (talk) Per FF65. Also, it looks sloppy to have pages with logos and pages without logos. Especially the Mii logo.

Oppose

1. BoygeyDude (talk) I don't see anything wrong with keeping the logo.
2. Superfiremario (talk) Transparent ones are fine, but I'm afraid to agree for untransparent logos.
3. Mariomario64 (talk) – Per the two above.
4. Plumber (talk) Why must art be destroyed in the name of conformity?

Comments

@ Walkazo: Could you include the removal of Logos of the consoles? Just as you said that color interferes with the design of the logos, this problem can also be seen in the Wii U's page and the Wii. The GameCube takes a step further: How do you read a symbol of a game console in the infobox? Coincollector (talk)

Well, this proposal is already about removing all logo-titles, but I agree that adding consoles to the explicit list of what shouldn't have them is a good idea; thanks for pointing it out! - Walkazo (talk)

Actually, removing the logos are okay, but maybe they should be moved to the subject's gallery. There may be some chance that we want these plain logos. - Akfamilyhome (talk)

I think you missed a couple lines of the proposal: I am suggesting that they be moved to the galleries (and they can even be incorporated into the body text, in some cases). They're not being removed from the articles, just from the infoboxes. - Walkazo (talk)

@Coincollector: Sorry. SWFlash (talk)

If this proposal passes, are we going to remove the logos on games that haven't been released? Tails777 (talk)

I don't see why we wouldn't. Yoshiwaker (talk)

Yes, we'd remove the logos from the infobox titles, but if there's no other artwork available, the logo would be used as the infobox image, like the series pages. So, pages like Super Mario 3D, Paper Mario (Nintendo 3DS) and Luigi's Mansion 2 would be unaffected, while Mario Kart 3D's title-logo would be converted into the image, and Mario & Sonic at the London 2012 Olympic Games's logo would be removed from the infobox altogether (it's already on the gallery page). - Walkazo (talk)

@Plumber: We are not getting rid of them, one, the artwork of the title is already in the boxart, and two, they are most likely already located at the gallery. Zero777 (talk)

Since some articles don't have logo's in the infobox titles and some do, I wouldn't mind if we remove the logo's from the info box titles. It looks more professional that way. However, we should realize a game logo is one important image of the game. Logo's are used for commercials on TV or advertisements in newspaper. Websites of the game also show the logo big. The logo is also on the box and even in the game itself. I think we should find a more efficient place for the game logo on the article. A game logo is MAYBE even more important then the boxart. Arend (talk)

Changes

Artwork Transparency Issues

During the past set of months, I've been noticing that a good number of JPEG artworks were being replaced by PNG artworks with transparent backgrounds. However, a lot of those images look quite ugly when they're viewed in backgrounds that aren't colored white. I've mentioned this dilemma at the admins boards, and some of the Sysops there do agree with my statement. I propose that any artworks with ugly-looking transparency has to lose the transparency. After all, we shouldn't be modifying the artworks by any means; if the artworks are JPEGs, upload them as JPEGs; if the PNG artworks don't have anything transparent, upload them that way.

Update: To understand what's going on, please look here for examples of good transparency and bad transparency.

Proposer: M&SG (talk)
Deadline: June 30, 2011 23:59 GMT July 7, 2011, 23:59 GMT July 14, 2011, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. M&SG (talk) - Per my proposal.
2. Supremo78 (talk) - As I hear a lot, we strive to make this wiki better and better, and if images that don't make the wiki look well, it brings down the wiki's quality. Sometimes it's just better to leave small things alone to make bigger things better.
3. Mario4Ever (talk) Per proposal.
4. Reddragon19k (talk) Per all!
5. Yoshiwaker (talk) - I recall some images, such as the Black Mage artwork, looking better without transparency. Per all.
6. Fawfulfury65 (talk) Adding transparency ruins the image. Per proposal.
7. SWFlash (talk) "If the artworks are JPEGs, upload them as JPEGs." PNG. Even if not transparent, always upload PNG.
8. Coincollector (talk) - Per proposer. Actually I don't see the necessity to converse JPEG files into PNG: there is no real difference in a picture when converting a JPEG into PNG, and the transparency thing is more of an excuse to say that the PNG is better than JPEG, never noticing the size of the picture wich is a lot heavier in PNG files. This is one of the various causes that retouching official artworks really bothers me. That and the user's less knowledge about a in-game model and a (very bad) cropped screenshot.
9. Rise Up Above It (talk) Per all.
10. Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) Per all i don't like the way transparent images look anyways
11. Dr Javelin (talk) As far as I can tell, transparency doesn't need to be added and makes many images look terrible. Per all.
12. Magikrazy51 (talk) Per UhHuhAlrightDaisy who tried to rid the Black Mage artwork of transparency (sorry Ultramario, but our princess is in another castle transparency isn't always better). Also per everyone else who supports this proposal.
13. Superfiremario (talk) Okay, I get this now. Your saying you want bad transparency removed, right? I support now. If you didn't see this you should.
14. Gigaremo (talk) Per all. If transparency makes some images look bad, then it should be removed on those images.
15. Xzelion (talk) – Per all.
16. MarioMaster15 (talk) Per all.
17. Goomblob (talk) The wiki needs of good and striking images.
18. Boowhoplaysgames (talk) Per all, and, who the hayfidget thought of making transparency for the Mario Sports Mix anyway? the shadows of them make one know that they shouldn't make transparency. leaving white in for thee shadows to be shown is just goofy, and puts this wiki [to me] to shame.[“why, why must this wiki have good info with bad quality?”]
19. Shadow34 (talk) – Per all!
20. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk) What we're proposing is that we delete images of bad quality, not remove it all together! Most of the opposers misunderstood this proposal. And I completely agree with this proposal. If it looks crappy, it's better if it's not transparent.
21. Petergriffin555 (talk)Per all.
22. Plumber (talk) — The artwork should be uploaded in the way it originally was uploaded.
23. Baby Mario Bloops (talk) – Gonna say what I can pretty much sum up to be the case here for many opposers. "It is not about making all PNG's into JPG's, but actually have good PNG's!!!!"
24. Super Mario Bros. (talk) – We should not alter official artwork in any way. Per proposal.
25. Cleanup Guy (talk) - Per all..

Oppose

1. UltraMario3000 (talk) I disagree with this proposal as PNGs are usually better then JPGs and the conversion from JPG to PNG is rather good because the images that I did in that way always looked more clear quality-wise.
2. Zero777 (talk) Per UM3000 and comment below. Just let users have the freedom to do whatever they want with the image as long it will look good on and make the article better in quality.
3. SKmarioman (talk) Per UltraMario3000.
4. YoshiGo99 (talk) Per all.
5. BoygeyDude (talk) Per all. JPGs (JPEGs) are a little crappy compared to PNGs.
6. Mario Bros.! (talk) Per UltrMario3000,
7. DKPetey99 (talk) Per UM3000.
8. Mariomario64 (talk) – Per all.
9. Smasher 101 (talk) Per UltraMario
10. New Super Mario (talk) Per UM
11. Hypnotoad (talk) Per all, and as someone who works with these images, I find PNG images easier to use, and maintain a better quality post-process.
12. Koopa K (talk) Per all.
    #Arend (talk) What the heck, you want to get rid of all the transparent PNGs because they get a checkered background when you're viewing them in their file page? That's ridiculous. Per all.
13. Mario Fan 123 (talk) Per all and Arend. This community is sort of annoying sometimes, when they make dumb proposals 'because transparent images look ugly'. Come on, transparent PNGs are way better than plain white background JPGs! And some of the JPG images come with a background, so that's annoying too.
14. MrConcreteDonkey (talk) - Per all, especially Arend.
15. Not Bugsy (talk) Per all, and also, PNGs are good for saving space and keeping quality. You can compress them fine without losing quality, but if you compress JPGs, you get artifacts which lower image clarity.
16. Yoshidude99 (talk) Per all.
17. Kingbowser99 (talk) Per all.
18. Bowser Jr And Tom The Atum (talk) I'm neutral. JPG is horrendous, while PNG is amazing. JPG does not work with transparency, so... I'm just doing it here to make it tied on votes.
19. Super Luigi! Number one! (talk) JPEGs are for photographs and realistic images. PNGs are for line art, text-heavy images, and images with few colors.Btw, We can "correct" the bad images, making it completly tranparent.
20. EctoBiologist (talk) I was joking. and yes I oppose this. >>

Comments

Recently I've been working with PNG sprite images with white backgrounds that are unnecessary and removing them and reuploading it. I haven't done anything with JPEGs. That's ok, right? Bowser's luma (talk)

I think the proposal is saying that we should stop making non-transparent images transparent because if you put them behind a background that is a color other than white, you can still see some of the white around the picture. Fawfulfury65 (talk)

I don't understand the difference between a JPEG a PNG or transparency all i ever see are pictures Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)

JPEG and PNG are popular image file formats. PNGs are more easily modifiable than JPEGs in a software such as Fireworks or Photoshop. Most images have backgrounds (generally white), and people can use software to remove them (an image without a background is considered transparent). It can be useful at times, but it is not always done perfectly. Usually, the software will remove most of a background using a tool, leaving the user to remove the rest manually, sometimes pixel-by-pixel depending on the quality wanted. The problem is that it can be a tedious process depending on the size of the image and the quantity of background to be removed, so some of it is likely to remain either unnoticed or unattended. On a white background (or one colored identically to the image background), there's no problem, but other backgrounds reveal these unnoticed or unattended portions and make the image, and by extension, the wiki, look unprofessional. Mario4Ever (talk)

I'm really confused on this still. Can you give a few examples to really clear this up? Baby Mario Bloops (talk)

This image File:TrSuper mushroom.jpg has a background (all of the space surrounding the trophy), while this image File:MarioNSMBWii.PNG is transparent (all transparent images have that checkered "background" you see when clicking on it). Mario4Ever (talk)

UM: No, the proposer is talking about the bad quality transparent images, not all of the transparent images. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)

I can see where some people are going by replacing JPEG artworks with PNG artworks. However, if the PNG artworks do not have a transparent background, you should upload them just like that. If a PNG artwork has transparency already when you download it, odds are, it'll probably look good on any kind of background. If that truly is the case, that kind of artwork image can be uploaded; Ex.: File:MASATLOG Tails.png; when I found that image, it already had an Alpha Layer, and it looked good on a black background. Basically, by normal standards, quality > transparency, and transparency should only be implemented if it looks good. - M&SG (talk)

I have noticed that some users don't know how to keep the quality when changing it to a transparent image. When they upload the image it is smaller than the JPEG file was and so some users who know how to keep the quality and have it transparent have to fix the image. Also JPEG files has little dots that are hard to see that surround the image and they blend in with the white. We don't want to see that because it makes the image look like it has bad quality and that is probably why we make images transparent. - YoshiGo99 (talk)

Regardless, if the original artwork doesn't have transparency, do not alter it. At times, adding transparency to artwork will make it look much worse, due to the pixelated edges that can be seen. I learned that the hard way when I modified some Mario Super Sluggers artworks. - M&SG (talk)

@UltraMario3000: He's not saying that we shouldn't convert from JPG to PNG, but that if someone does that, they shouldn't make it transparent. Yoshiwaker (talk)

@Yoshiwaker: I don't see what's wrong with making it transparent though.:/--UltraMario3000 (talk)

Take an image and put it behind a black background. You'll see. Xzelion (talk)

I don't get what you're trying to say Xze.--UltraMario3000 (talk)

Look here. Xzelion (talk)

We should upload all artworks as PNG, because when JPG pictures are rescaled ([[File:Example.jpg|200px]]), the they become very artifacted. SWFlash (talk)

Most artworks that can be found on gaming websites are JPEGs however. Besides, you shouldn't replace an HQ JPEG image with a low quality PNG image. M&SG (talk)

@Goomba's Shoe15: This proposal only applies to bad quality transparency artworks. Artworks such as the one that Xzelion showed would not be affected, since those artworks already had transparency implemented before being uploaded; artworks that already have transparency usually tend to look good on any background color. M&SG (talk)

I know that Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)

@M&SG Did I say anything about quantity? Also, PNG is lossless, if you didn't notice it. SWFlash (talk)

I didn't say quantity. Also, I didn't say that you shouldn't replace JPEG artworks with PNG artworks. You can still do that, but if the PNG artworks have no transparency, don't make them transparent. M&SG (talk)

Just in case the proposal deadline has to be extended, please refer to here for some examples of acceptable transparency and unacceptable transparency. M&SG (talk)

@Arend: You're missing the point. This proposal only applies to artworks that have bad transparency. Please look at my examples, and you'll clearly get the picture. M&SG (talk)

@Mario Fan 123: Well it's one thing when you have a white background, but when you put the image on a black background, that's when you'll notice how poorly done the transparency is. M&SG (talk)

Okay, basically you want to remove transparency? Guys, they're saying they want bad transpaprensy removed. Superfiremario (talk) @Mario Bros.! I'm supporting now. Superfiremario (talk)

@Zero's vote: Most of these "transparent" images don't look good on articlesSuperfiremario (talk)

I'd like to point out a png image with awful transparency which should be used as an example for this proposal. Alas, I don't know the file name, but I know the image. It's the Galaxy Airship artwork that was ripped from the boss poster. The image looks fine on a white background, but put against a black background or save it to your computer and open it in MSPaint and it reveals how horrendous the transparency is. Rise Up Above It (talk)

IDK, but I'll show directly some examples from MS&G's page to coroborate the problems. Maybe many of you misunderstood this proposal. This is not to kill PNG as many of you think, it's to get rid badly edited or cropped pictures that they turned out be of worse quality than their originals (regardless they were JPEG or PNG or whatever). In a few words, pictures, like artworks Shouldn't be edited.

The chart shows the bad-edited pictures set in a black background, this problem can be seen in any colored bg but white or some white-based color.

File:BowserKartWii.png

It's possible to converse JPEGs into PNG but never edit them unless it needs so and in this case must be well-crafted, not like this. This is becoming in a trend by many user and shouldn't be atually in the Mariowiki, so think twice before taking a decent decision.

Coincollector (talk)

@All Opposers What M&SG is trying to say is that we need to remove the transparency from the images that look bad on a different color background than white. Jusy look at the pictures above. The look crappy in a black background. Supremo78 (talk)

Well, just like Supremo above, I don't think it means ALL jpg to png images are really going to be undone, as I know many of them that are amazing that had that happened. I think that the proposal is just to have some quality better. I really don't understand why a jpg image is just tossed out there like it is trash when many amazing images have been uploaded by jpg. Png's might be really good as well, but if you try to put a jpg into a png and it doesn't work out, then you might as well just leave it as in instead of trying to continue with what you are doing. But...I still am trying to decide which side I should support, because I can see it - through the opposers' eyes - as to why this shouldn't pass as well, and what the outcome of all this change could lead to. Baby Mario Bloops (talk)

@ Bowser Jr And Tom The Atum: You don't get the point. This proposal, again, this is not to remove PNG images, nor saying that JPEG is better than PNG nor something, this proposal is to stop users that believe they can edit or make certain pictures transparent without noticing important details like the chart shown above. Don't think you're becoming experts on this... Coincollector (talk)

Okay, I see now what the whole purpose is. You want to delete the PNG's with bad quality of transparency. That is kinda okay, but here comes my opinion. You see, it is kinda good when we're talking about the ones that have some effects that have less to no hardness (like shadows of some people, or fur standing upright, or even fire). However, I think it doesn't make sense at all to delete those of bad quality with 100% hardness (so, for example, no shadows & stuff, no fur standing upright, no fire). An experienced converter or transparency maker could easily take the original file and make the file better transparent. If you don't get what I mean, take a look at these blue dots (the upper ones have no hardness, and the lower ones have a hardness of 100%):

See what I mean? The blue dot with 100% hardness has it's background completely removed, and there's almost no sign of white pixels left around, while there is a whole bunch of white left at the blue dot with no hardness. As with the middle two in the earlier example, it's transparency could be better. Seeing the Black Mage at the right, that one could also be done better (seriously, there are pixels left behind that don't even belong to the artwork), but it has a shadow, so we therefor have to wait for an official release of the artwork with no background (though I, unfortunately, think it will never come).
So, what I want is that most artwork that has no background nor hardness-less things, such as shadows, should have another re-upload, with original file, with the background removed, making it looking more polished than it first was.
Arend (talk) - I see, btw, that all the examples above, have at least been upoaded by UltraMario3000 as the latest revision. I suggest for him that he needs a (better) program that removes the background easily, and/or that, if he uses a Magic Wand tool, that he should increase its tolerance, but not too much. Testing the tolerance is always good, too.

@ Arend: There is no problem to upload high quality transparent images, specially those that are 2D artwork that have plain effects and the tolerance is reliable. The problem comes when you try to make the artwork transparent. If you find a picture with no transparency, keep the image unaltered. If you find a transparent image of quality (of tolerable size, not too smaller than the original and the alpha is smooth) keep the image unaltered. If you find or make a transparent image and has bad quality in transparency and the alpha is not smooth, then undo it. By the way, just a 2D artwork is transparent doesn't mean will be 100% good: For example, look at the history here Coincollector (talk)

@Coincollector: I actually meant all art, not just 2D. I thought anyone would get it, then someone thinks I only talked about 2D, though I never said it was about 2D. I only used a simple example.
Anyways, people who make things transparent can try to make things transparent, but should not save directly. They first need to test the transparency, by adding, for example, a black background as a new layer, if possible. If the art's transparency's not good (enough), they have to undo the action of making it transparent, change the tolerance, select the unwanted things, and try it again. Then they have to test it again, and, if needed, repeat the whole thing, until it is finally good enough.
About the 2D art you showed me, it is because the uploader (who seems to be the same person who uploaded the LQ transparency pics above), did not care about the tolerance. Eventually, he should resize the picture a little to make the black lines smoother. To keep a higher quality, shrinking is suggested.
I think you skimmed my whole lecture-thing (or whatever it could be described the best) and thought I talked about that transparent 2D art is always good quality, but I never said that. Arend (talk)

@ Arend: I see your point and is right. In fact you've expandend one of my statements in bold of the comment with the pictures. I have other things to support this. As you said, making a transparent image requires much more time than somebody can think. You may get a whole day dealing with a single image to make it ransparent, testing how will look and undoing it over 100 times if there is a noticeable mistake. The thing gets more complicated when you're playing with the alpha where the colors blend with the background (if you don't what alpha is, is the opacity's bearing of every pixel in a picture, for example the diffuse blue in black bg). Some of the pics above have alpha that the user overlooked and left them in white patches, which makes these pictures unsettling when you look over a background of another color... even more, the white's presence and that dithering ruin the pictures' aesthetics. As I said, the pictures should remain unaltered if they don't need. Making oneself a picture transparent is not easy actually and, these are the mistakes that one can get if they don't this work in a professional way: if you'll do it, do it well and if you didn't well, undo it. Consider my last comment but one as a consequence of this explanation. Also, there are more tools to use than a "magic wand" Coincollector (talk)

@Super Luigi! Number One!: Do you know how in the simplest way? It's not an easy task as you think. Requires trial and error to get the best quality.

Miscellaneous

Merge the non-game lists on the side bar with the video game lists

I find it very weird that this wiki considers the non-game elements canon but still keeps them separate on the side bar so i think we should merge the two lists together because if everything is official/canon than they should be on the same list. Because right now the two lists separates the game and non-game elements on these lists and i don't think we should do that. Plus we already merged all of the non-game categories so i think it only makes sense to merge the lists two

Proposer: Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)
Deadline: July 14, 2011, 23:59

Support

1. Goomba's Shoe15 (talk) per my proposal and consistency also i am sorry if you can't understand what i'm proposing due to my grammar.
2. Reddragon19k (talk) Per GS15!
3. Koopa K (talk) Per GS15
4. BoygeyDude (talk) Per all.
5. Supremo78 (talk) Ah now I understand. Per proposal.
6. Superfiremario (talk) I get it.
7. Super Mario Bros. (talk) – Yes. Our wiki establishes games and other media as being equal in how we should cover it and not being in separate canons. So it would make sense for us to merge these lists. Per proposal.
8. Walkazo (talk) - See my comment on the series proposal above. Having one list is best since you can find everything in one place and it's all equal and whatnot, but I also think we should use symbols to differentiate the various series and the alternate media within that unified list. The more organization, the better.

Comments

Sorry, but I don't get what you are saying. Zero777 (talk)

Yeah I don't either. Supremo78 (talk)

You see those lists on the side bar well currently there separated into game and non-game i'm proposing we merge them together like we did with the categories Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)

By "non-game" do you mean beta? Can you please clarify what the non-game stuff is? I don't know what it is. Supremo78 (talk)

Non-game stuff is things from the cartoons and the comics and according to the mario wiki canon policy they are supposed to be on considered on the same level of canon as the games. However, for some reason they are split on the big lists on the side bar and i'm proposing that they be merged together like how the non-game categories and game categories were merged together Goomba's Shoe15 (talk)