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: 01:56, 26 December 2024 (EDT)
New Features
None at the moment.
Removals
None at the moment.
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.
- Mrsdaisyluigi (talk) - per Stumpers. two completley differnt things
- Walkazo (talk) - Per all.
- Mario321 (talk) - Two different things. There needs to be two different articles on each.
- Glitchman (talk) - Why does nobody ever oppose proposals made by Stumpers? XD Per all.
- Hangyaku no SnackuSaibu - Per Stumpers.
Oppose (keep as one article)
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)
- In that case, "Star Rod" should lead to the Paper Mario Star Rod page, with that little notice at the top giving you the option of going to a different Star Rod page ("Star Rod (SSB)", perhaps). - Walkazo (talk)
- You know what, since there's three Star Rods, maybe we should make a Star Rod redirect to Star Rod (disambiguation) and then have it go to Star Rod (PM), Star Rod (MP8), and Star Rod (SSB). Sound good? Stumpers (talk)
- Yep. - Walkazo (talk)
Merge Mario's clothing
So I've been looking around the wiki, and I recently noticed that there are articles of each piece of Mario's clothing (excluding his overalls). I find this a bit odd. They aren't very notable in any way. So I think we should merge each piece into one article. It would be named something like "Mario's clothing" or "List of Mario's clothing" or something to that effect. Opinions?
Proposer:huntercrunch
Deadline: July 3, 2008, 17:00
Support
- huntercrunch (talk) - I am the proposer and I give my reasons above.
Oppose
- Time Q (talk): Per Stumpers in the comments. Mario's Hat should have its own article. His gloves and shoes also seem to play a more or less important role, according to the respective articles.
- Ninjayoshi - Per Stumpers and Time Q. Also, the hat has been in every single Mario game. Ex. his overalls were changed around in the beginning
- InfectedShroom (talk) - Per Time. The gloves and shoes are rather important in Luigi's Mansion.
- Glitchman (talk) - Mario's Hat, Shoes, and Glove all have an important role in Luigi's Mansion, plus the hat also has an important role in Super Mario 64. Keep them how they are.
Just so that people can judge better, the articles are: Mario's Hat, Mario's Glove, Mario's Shoe, Mario's Shirt, Mario's Overalls, and, if you consider it, Mario's Star. I would agree with you on the glove, shoes, shirt, and overalls. We did the same with Pauline's Items. However, the hat is what's getting to me. That has played an important role in the series and is apparently the secret to Mario's power (see Super Mario 64). Stumpers (talk)
I think his shoes and gloves should be merged. -Ninjayoshi
- I agree with Stumpers. After this proposal dies we should have another one to merge everything but Mario's Hat (since it's too late to alter this one). - Walkazo (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!
- Walkazo (talk) - Per all.
- Clay Mario (talk) - Per Stumpers.
Oppose (maintain standard)
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
Allow cameo appearences to be documented in character articles
The Cameo page currently includes numerous examples of purposeful Mario appearences by Nintendo. These incude his appearences in those sports games )can't remember the names) Mike Tyson's Punch-Out Kirby Superstar, etc. I propose that we incorporate these "official" cameo's into the main characters article, as a way to include more info.
Proposer: Ultimatetoad
Deadline: July 1, 2008, 17:00
Support
- Ultimatetoadper above
- Blitzwing (talk) - Per Above (Ahahaha).
- Stumpers (talk) - We do the same for Nintendo cameos within Mario/Donkey Kong/Yoshi games (see Link or Sonic), so why not? Would this also include the official crossovers NBA Street V3, SSX on Tour, and Itadiki Street DS? I suppose it should since we already include Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games.
- Cobold (talk) per all of them.
- Ninjayoshi (talk) - Vote Change. Yeah, after reading Stumpers' vote, it makes sense. Per all, and I agree with Blitzwing in the comments.
- Dryest bowser (talk) - per all
- Glitchman (talk) - I think this would be a good idea for minor characters like Stanley the Bugman, Donkey Kong Jr., ect., but characters like Mario, Luigi, and Peach already have sooooo many appearances, why bother? So in short, no for major characters, yes for minor ones.
- MelissaMarioSister (talk) - Per Ultimatetoad and Stumpers. In response to Glitchman: yes, the main characters have many appearances, but this is a reference site. I think the goal here is to be as complete as possible.
- Iron Maiden (talk) - Great idea. Per all.
- P. Trainer (talk) Per all
Oppose
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)
- Not really, it could prevent users from seeing the "unreasoned" vote and thinking "Oh hey, there's someone who doesn't give a reason, so I don't have to either". It's like the "Per [insert user]" thing, almost everyone uses it now, most of them just copying what other users do. Time Q (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
- Currently, NBA V3 and SSX on Tour (I believe those are the names) are both on the Game Sightings page. Stumpers! 09:22, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
erm, well, thos are "official" sightings too, so they should probably be moved.... I mean, we have articles for the games. don't we? - Ultimatetoad
- At one time we did, which is probably what you were remembering. With the introduction of the game sightings article, someone merged them. I'd be for separating them, though. Stumpers (talk)
- Since discerning official and unofficial cameos is gonna get hairy, why not just include a short, concise list of all the cameos on the page, minus generic allusions to the character by non-Nintendo/video game sources (as Ultimatetoad mentioned earlier). The list would be something like this:
- Tennis - Mario is the referee.
- Banjo-Kazooie - Mario is mentioned by someone (can't remembr who).
- Pokémon Red/Blue/Yellow/Fire Red/Leaf Green - Mario and Wario is depicted on a TV.
- Admittedly for Mario it's basically a streamlined version of Cameo, but for the other characters it'd be more original and usefull. - Walkazo (talk)
