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. At the deadline, the validity of each vote and the discussion is reviewed by the community. 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: 19:07, 18 January 2025 (EDT) New Features Featured Article Voting Modification Browsing the current FAs Nominations on this Wiki, I have noticed users complaining about two types of votes. (1) Support votes cast because of personal favor to the subject of the article, aka "fan votes", ie "Peach deserves the nomination." as opposed to, "Well written article about a notable character." (2) Oppose votes that do not specify enough information for supporters to fix the problem, ie "This article has poor structure." as opposed to, "The Mario Kart information should be placed in one section." I am proposing that, in light of votes such as these, we give the users power to remove votes on Featured Article nomination pages in the same way users have power to remove votes from the Proposals section (see the top of this page for more information) with a few modifications to prevent the posibility of three users teaming up. Briefly, this would mean that if three users believe a support vote is a fan vote or an oppose vote is is impossible to appease without further comment from the opposer, the vote could be removed. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THREE SUPPORTERS/OPPOSERS CAN REMOVE RIVAL VOTES BASED SOLELY ON OPINION! ONLY FAN VOTES WITHOUT FURTHER REASONING OR OPPOSE VOTES THAT ARE NOT CLARIFIED CAN BE REMOVED! IF AN USER IS DISCUSSING HIS/HER VOTE ON THE NOMINATION PAGE, THE VOTE CANNOT BE REMOVED WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THREE SYSOPS AND/OR USERS OF HIGHER RANK. An oppose vote that has been appeased can be removed in the same manner if the opposer is not in discussion. Proposer: Stumpers (talk) Deadline: May 26, 2008, 17:00 Support (Give Users This Power) Stumpers (talk) This would prevent an article from being supported on the basis of the subject rather than the article. Additionally, oppose votes that do not enable the improvement of the article could be removed, both of would allow the FA process to more effectively serve its purpose of improving articles and celebrating good editing. It would also prevent users who have opposed and now left the page from bringing the process to a halt. Stooben Rooben (talk) - Per Stumpers. This will also probably decrease the likelihood of flaming on FA pages. It just clears things up for everyone, making it a lot simpler than it was.}} Glitchman (talk) - You're not going to remove my opposed vote are you? XD No, I think this is just common sense, if someone doesn't think an article is good enough to be featured, they HAVE to explain WHY it isn't so someone can DO something about it! Xzelion (talk) - Per all Super-Yoshi (talk) Per Xze Purple Yoshi (talk) - Per all. I am sick of votes like that. Pokemon DP (talk) - Per all. SoS always said that Fan Votes have just as much relevance as a serious vote. What a bunch of crap. Fan Votes mean the person likes the Subject, not the Content. -_- Coincollector (talk) - Fanatic opinions don't really support the article itself, and sometimes users sign for opposing the article to be featured, because the articles can't be featured without any reason. Princess Grapes Butterfly (talk) Per all I agree. (It might prevent flaming.) EnPeached (talk)Per all Oppose (No Modifications to the Current System) Time Q (talk): No. Sorry, but giving users the power to remove support votes is a very bad idea. SoS is absolutely correct here, they won't change anything if there is just one oppose vote, so we really shouldn't care about them. And SoS had another really good point: if a supporter says "B0wzA r000lzz!!!1111!one!!1", how do we know that he really refers to the character, not the article? Why should we force supporters to give a reason for their vote, when all they can really say is "good article", "looks good to me", "I like it"; basically, how can one give reasons for support, without mentioning every criteria the article has to meet in order to become a FA? Sorry, I know I'm talking like SoS, but that doesn't make sense to me. Per Time Q, plus, with regards to oppose votes that aren't specific enough, there must surely be a better solution than what Stumpers is suggesting. --Pikax 15:34, 20 May 2008 (EDT) Blitzwing (talk) - Per Time Q and Cobold in the comments. Removing the "fan-votes" is purposeless since the supporter might aswell say "Per X", and if anything, this new rule will creates a lot of pointless flame war in the FA Nomination page comments. Comments I know this vote gives more power to sysops under rare circumstances. Supporters are free to specify that every sysop except me should have this power, just so that you know this proposal is not a ploy to give me more power. Stumpers (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2008 (EDT) I'd also like to mention this: The vast majority of support votes, especially for articles such as Mario, consists of what seem to be "fan votes". Now, wouldn't it make things really complicated if for any of these votes we required three users (btw, what does "higher rank" mean...?) to support the removal of the vote? Not only it would make things complicated (and the comments section really long and unclear), it also serves no purpose, because as said above, FA support votes basically change nothing. Sure, there is the tiny possibility of five "fan votes" being collected for a bad article, without any other users noticing that, making it featured after a week. But I guess that won't ever happen, because, well, first we need five votes (there are several users observing the Recent Changes, including me - if I noticed such a case I would try and find a valid oppose in order to let the article stay unfeatured), and then there's still one week left to oppose. So this possibility practically can be excluded. Now, there's no reason left to worry about so-called "fan votes", right? Time Q (talk) 05:07, 20 May 2008 (EDT) But what about the other half of the proposal? About oppose votes that aren't specific? --Pikax 11:45, 20 May 2008 (EDT) If I disagree with one part of the proposal, I necessarily disagree with the whole proposal. Still, I think the "unspecific oppose votes" part is reasonable. Users should have the power to remove such votes. I just wonder whether this needs to be proposed, or whether it goes without saying. Current rules state: [...] Others will object to the nomination if they disagree that the article is good enough; they will then supply reasons for doing so, and ways to improve the article (errors, style, organization, images, notability, sources). Supporters adjust the article until the objectors (with reasonable objections) are satisfied. [...] To be very exact, it isn't mentioned explicitly that opposers need to give specific reasons (where in the article is something wrong?), so Stumpers' proposal probably has a point. Sometimes it's better to lay down rules officially than to assume them tacitly. Still, I think the proposal will have very bad consequences, if it goes through in its current form. Unlike oppose votes, deciding on the validity of support votes is just biased and pointless. Time Q (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2008 (EDT) I'm sorry...but Son of Suns himself said that fan votes were just as important as well-reasoned votes? When the heck was that? Wayoshi (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2008 (EDT) Yeah, I remember that someone, probably him, said that fan votes don't matter because a thousand fan votes can be ruled out by a single opposing vote - as long as there is one, the article can't get featured. There would not be much difference when forcing fan votes to get removed - a single user would make an acceptable point, the rest goes "per XXX", as here in the proposals. - Cobold (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2008 (EDT) True. Besides, I still wonder what such an "acceptable" point would be. What makes a support acceptable? What more can you say than "The article is FA worthy"? Time Q (talk) Removals Site Logos I have always had this huge pet peeve on any wikipedia site, especially this one, over how bad images look when they contain a site logo. This includes character artworks, screen shots, and any other images that are not for a users personal use. Sometimes they're not really THAT noticeable, but when you resort to using imagery just because you don't have it in spite of it having a sites logo stamped on it, it's depressing to see articles get featured or even nominated when they contain low quality imagery such as this. On a side note, a lot of these logos can be digitally removed which in the case of editing an image before upload is completely harmless. If you don't know how, then make a note of it when you upload the image, or better yet, in the images description. It's not hard, it's quick, and it makes a big difference. Regardless, I don't feel images containing site logos should be permitted for upload on the supermariowiki unless it is for user purposes (talk pages etc.) If you oppose this, you support the idea of keeping images which lower the quality of our wiki. If you support, you agree to make it so that no images with site logos may be allowed on our wiki without at the very least having them edited out of site. Proposer: ForeverDaisy09 (talk) Deadline: May 27, 2008, 15:45 Support (Remove+Refuse Imagery With Logos) ForeverDaisy09 (talk) - Images as suggested lower the quality of any page they are associated with, and are simply put, an eyesore. Glitchman (talk) - FINALLY someone notices this problem!! I agree with ForeverDaisy09 in all aspects, it's an annoying and pointless problem that can be fixed. How could you say no to this? Oppose (Continue Accepting Images Containing Website Logos) InfectedShroom (talk) - As you said: people can edit the logo out. But not all people. Microsoft Paint makes it very difficult, and it's not easy in Photoshop. And as Wayo said: it's a very hard rule to enforce. Tykyle (talk) - Per my comment below. Comments All I can say is good luck trying to enforce this, and fix it now... Wayoshi (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2008 (EDT) Images with low quality or site logos are merely tolerated, but definitely not encouraged. I don't see any policy change in this proposal. See Category:Quality requested. - Cobold (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2008 (EDT) Well, I think FD09 is proposing to get rid of these images, i.e. to introduce a policy which forbids uploading such images. That would be different from "merely tolerating" them. Did I get that right? Time Q (talk) Basically, I think that sounds right. - ForeverDaisy09 (talk) FD09: I do not "support the idea of keeping images which lower the quality of our wiki." That would be ridiculous. Most people do not support that, as it would be stupid. I believe that if an image can show more than text, even if that image is lower quality, it is beneficial to the wiki. This is probably the mentality of other users. InfectedShroom (talk) And we should have a list or something of all the images like that, as I can easily edit them. :/ OOps. Cobold's Category is what I wanted. ;) The main point is to prevent such imagery from being used on our wiki. The point is an image is meant to visually show something, and when that purpose is interrupted with an ugly site logo, it's purpose is no where near an acceptable standard. - ForeverDaisy09 (talk) I fully oppose this proposal. Images with a website logo or a water-mark should only be removed if an appropriate alternative can be found. In other words, these offending images should be replaced, not removed; furthermore, images such as these should not be immediately refused, especially if the article in question lacks any images at all. --Tykyle 18:54, 20 May 2008 (EDT) Like I said right above, bad images take away the purpose of imagery at all. I already suggested an alternative just to make it that much easier. - ForeverDaisy09 (talk) Splits & Merges Merge Super Mushroom to Mushroom I think we should merge the Super Mushroom article to the Mushroom article. Why? They're almost THE SAME! I mean, look at the beginning phrase of the Super Mushroom article. It says: "A Super Mushroom is a red Mushroom that allows whoever eats it to grow to an enormous size". The normal Mushroom is also red and also will you grow. However, the Mushroom have some other effects in other series. But, notice the images on the Super Mushroom article. You'll see an artwork of Mario Kart Super Circuit. But in other Mario Kart games, it's called Mushroom. Also, the Golden Mushroom was sometimes called Super Mushroom. In SSB series, they are called Super Mushrooms, but they are still the same. I also readed on the Super Mushroom article that a Super Mushroom appeared in Super Mario 64 DS that will let you grow. But on the Mushroom article, there stands information that has the same meaning. And there was only ONE red-capped Mushroom in that game! So both articles has information about the same item. So, now I told enough information from why we should merge the Super Mushroom Article to the Mushroom Article. When we have merged, we can maybe (I say "Maybe") make a Disambiguestion page with the name "Super Mushroom" (I told that the Golden Mushroom also sometimes was called Super Mushroom). Sooo... Do you also think that the Super Mushroom article should be merged to the Mushroom article? Or do you think of NOT? Proposer: Arend (talk) Deadline: May 23, 2008, 20:00 Merge the Super Mushroom Article! Arend (talk) What do you think? I'm the proposer! Don't Merge it! Stumpers (talk) I'm opposing because "Super Mushroom" and "Mushroom" are two distinct items in many (all?) Mario RPGs. You bring up a very good point which made question my oppose: the two articles do need clean-up. How to go about doing that for an item that is the same in the platformers but different in the RPGs is a tough question. While I do think some things should be moved from one page to the other, I think that they are things that should have independant articles. Also per Stumpers. -Canama Ninjayoshi (talk) - Per all. To follow on from what Stumpers said, the Mushroom and Super Mushroom are distinct items in the Mario Kart series as well. --Pikax 06:17, 17 May 2008 (EDT) Pokemon DP (talk) - Per Stumpers. CrystalYoshi (talk) Per Stumpers. I have some issues with those two pages, actually. The main picture on the Mushroom page is actually a Super Mushroom (It's from New Super Mario Bros.). Plus the Mushroom page doesn't cover enough about all Mushrooms in general, and the Super Mushroom page doesn't cover enough about it in platformers. EnPeached (talk) Per all. They're not stubs, so why be merged? Walkazo (talk) - Per all. InfectedShroom (talk) Per all. I'd say more, but everyone else has me covered. Glitchman (talk) Normally I'd agree with Arend here, but they both aren't stubs, have images, and are officially named, so....yeah. Comments I thought we solved this problem long ago by combining all mushrooms into the main mushroom article. -- Ghost Jam (talk) 21:03, 16 May 2008 (EDT) Pikax, in Mario Kart series, there ia an item called Golden Mushroom, who is SOMETIMES known as Super Mushroom. You didn't really readed the proposal fully. Arend (talk) Can you give us an example of the Golden Mushroom being called a Super Mushroom? - Walkazo (talk) I'm pretty sure that MK64 is the only place it could be. Someone should check. Stumpers (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2008 (EDT) Check the Europese Mario Kart DS site for example. Arend (talk) Changes None at the moment. Miscellaneous None at the moment