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. Actions that users feel are appropriate to have community approval first can be added by anyone, but they must have a strong argument.
2. Users then start to discuss on the issue. 24 hours after posting the proposal (rounding up or down to the next or previous full hour, respectively, is allowed), the voting period begins. (The proposer is allowed to support their proposal right after posting.) Each proposal ends at the end of the day one week after voting start. (All times GMT).
3. Every vote should have a reason accompanying it. Agreeing 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. The voter 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. All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week.
6. 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.
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. No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
9. Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation. However, the proposer can request that their proposal be deleted by a Sysop at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it.
10. 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.
11. There shouldn't be proposals about creating articles on a 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.
12. Proposals cannot be made about System Operator promotions and demotions. Sysops can only be promoted and demoted by the will of Bureaucrats.
13. If the Sysops 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. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters, and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.

The times are in GMT, and are set so that the user is more likely to be online at those times (after work/school, weekend nights). If a proposal is added on Monday night at 23:59 GMT, the deadline is the night of the Tuesday of the next week at 23:59 PM. If it is posted a minute later, the deadline is 23:59 PM of the Wednesday of the next week, since midnight is considered to be part of the next day, as 00:00 AM.

Basic Proposal and Support/Oppose Format

This is an example how 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 you want this Proposal to be like, what changes you would suggest and what this is about]

'''Proposer''': {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br>
'''Voting start''': [insert a voting start time here, f.e. "2 January, 2010, 14:00". Voting start times are 24 hours after the time at which the proposal was posted, as described in Rule 2 above.]<br>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the voting start, at 23:59 GMT.]

====Support====

====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 anoother 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.

How To

1. All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom). All pages effected 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. There is no 24 hour delay between the posting of a talk page proposal and the commencement of voting.
4. Talk page proposals may closed by the proposer 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 the weekly microgames from NinSoft and contests in WarioWare: D.I.Y. into separate pages. (Discuss) Deadline: May 7 2010, 24:00
• Split Template:Fakelink from Sherbet Land. (Discuss) Deadline: May 2nd 2010, 24:00 May 9 2010, 24:00
• Merge Vs. Wrecking Crew into Wrecking Crew. (Discuss) Deadline: May 9 2010, 24:00
• Merge Super Mario FX into Super Mario 64/Beta elements. (Discuss) Deadline: May 10 2010, 24:00
• Merge Shooting Star Summit into Star Hill. (Discuss) Deadline: April 28 2010, 24:00 May 5 2010, 24:00 May 12 2010, 24:00
• Delete the "Golden Banana Table" in the Donkey Kong 64 article. (Discuss) Deadline: May 18, 2010, 23:59

New Features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Items and enemies order

I noticed a lot of items and enemies in articles like Super Mario Sunshine and Super Mario Galaxy 2 are just ordered randomly, which it a pain in the ass to navigate. We already has a proposal on the list of character relationships, and it won ABC. We pretty much are going to do the same thing with the items and enemies.

ABC is that we order the items and enemies in alphabetical format

Chronological is which appears first. The ones that appear first goes first, and the ones that appear last appears last in the article. If 2 appear at the same time, then it will be organized in alphabetical.

Importance is how important that item/enemy is. The most important item/enemy goes first and the least important one goes last.

EDIT: It won't affect bosses, in case if you don't know

Proposer: KS3 (talk)
Voting start: 23:10, May 2 2010
Deadline: 23:59, May 9 2010

ABC

1. KS3 (talk) most convenient, and few other games' enemies are organized ABC
2. Zero777 (talk) I am Zero! ABC order will be the easiest way to navigate for those who don't know much of the Mario series. Zero signing out.
3. Vellidragon (talk) - Per comment below. Really the only way that makes sense, and it's already being done like this in various places.
4. Mr bones (talk) I agree.The ABC is the best order I can thik of.
5. Commander Code-8 (talk) Perfect!!

Comments

As I have stated on the characters proposal, sorting anything by "importance" is extremely subjective. Chronological seems overly complicated and isn't even possible for non-linear games. Alphabetical order is basically the order used for pretty much anything except appearances in a History section (as they can easily be arranged chronologically just by looking at the release dates of individual games/other media). The navigation templates already put these things in alphabetical order in fact, and some articles, like the Super Mario Galaxy article (at least the "Returning Enemies" section of it) attempt an alphabetical order as well (though parts of it apparently got messed up here). I would like to know though, would the outcome of this proposal would affect bosses as well?--vellidragon (talk)

It will affect bosses as well. KS3 (talk)

I'm tempted to oppose because of this. Bosses should be listed in the order they appear in the game. There is a very clear boss order in most games, and this order would be far easier to navigate than alphabetical. Bloc Partier (talk)

There is a less clear boss order in other games, however, like in Wario Land II, so those would probably have to be listed alphabetically. If the bosses with a clear order were listed in order of appearance and those without listed alphabetically, there'd be inconsistencies, which may not be the best thing either :\--Vellidragon (talk)

I knew someone would bring up this one. I'm pretty sure it's clearer than you think; if you look on the game's article, the levels are lined up very orderly. The bosses could be lined up equally to the level layout. Also, the fact that there is a clear "main" route in the game means that there is also a clear "main" boss encounter order. The other bosses are lined up with another chapter and should be included in the same order as the chapters above. If that makes sense. Bloc Partier (talk)

Uhm... I don't know why they weren't in alphabetical order... They're supposed to be. They are in almost every other game. Bloc Partier (talk)

Splitting Final Smashes

Yes, i know very recently we tried to split ALL the SSB moves, but i am proposing we split ONLY the SSBB Final Smashes to separate pages. They wont be stubs, since they have a trophy, foriegn name, and a large description. Does anyone agree?

Proposer: Raphaelraven497 (talk)
Voting start: 18:23, May 6 2010
Deadline: 23:59, May 13 2010

Split

1. Raphaelraven497 (talk) Per me.

Comments

Urk, wrong section? This should be in a talk page proposal. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)

It is not in the wrong section. It is proposing the final smashes to be split from the character articles into separate articles. KS3 (talk)

Btw, i am not going to vote on it because if we split the final smashes, we'll have to split all the rest of the moves, which would result in a lot of stubs, and if we don't, then we'll have to merge all the rest of the moves into the articles.
— The preceding unsigned comment was added by KS3 (talk).

"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." This is dealing with a specific group of articles. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)

There are a lot of recent proposals which deal with a specific group of articles that are still on here (the FI ones, the one on the Catch Cards, the Super Mario Advance one, the Main Page ones, etc.) KS3 (talk)

Critical Reception

I noticed something when I was browsing some articles about games. Some articles have a "critical reception" section while others do not. These sections do not describe the content about the game, but they do include how well the game did. My question is, what should we do with this section? It breaks the consistency of the game articles, and it is not a requirement on the articles. Should we remove this section, add this section to all game articles, or should we do nothing?

Proposer: LeftyGreenMario (talk)
Voting starts at: 1:00, May 7 2010
Deadline: 23:59, May 14 2010

Add them!

1. KS3 (talk) Per Grandy02's comment

Comments

I don't know. Though we are supposed to list information concerning game, we aren't a gaming site either that lists what other people think. Sure, I asked that question before in Mario Party 8 and the guys said it was fine, but the other articles don't use it either, and I'm not 100%. I'll wait and see what these administrators will say. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)

When an article doesn't have a reception section, it's just because nobody has added it yet. That something is not in all articles doesn't mean that it should be removed. It's not just what "other people" think - we don't cover fan opinions, but how people of professional media saw the game - media that have connections to the gaming industry and are officially given copies by the companies to review them prior to the release. --Grandy02 (talk)

Absolutely. Per Grandy02. Time Q (talk)

I really think we should only have them where there is something noteworthy to say about it. Most games eventually turn into a mixed bag. Some people like it, some don't. More often now people are reviewing classic / retro / older games. Sometimes they do better later, as the player did not expect anything from the hype. Sometimes they do worse. I think we would need to have a strict definition of "critic". I dislike Super Mario 64, I could go post a video on YouTube right now about everything I dislike about it, use my own video as a source and then post that it became one of the games future games were compared to despite being unoriginal, uninspired dreck. I think it would become too difficult to police. Turkishcoffee (talk)

Also I would like to add that The Sims 2: Pets got a horrible critic reception because it was difficult to actually kill your pets, which really just shows critics kinda missed the whole point (although I would give it a bad review for other reasons...) Turkishcoffee (talk)

Using your video as a source wouldn't work. As said, things that were simply brought up by fans aren't covered. And many games I know of haven't turned into a "mixed bag." For example, most games of the Super Mario Bros. series, the 3D Mario platfomers, the Wario Land and WarioWare series have almost only received favourable reviews by the major (English-language) sites and magazines (of course, there will always be some critics who disagree). I think the list at Wikipedia is a good reference on what can get in and what not. If there is a lack of the sources mentioned there, most notably for classic games, it can always be decided on a case-by-case basis. --Grandy02 (talk)

Well it isn't part of the proposal itslef, and for some reason I keep reading proposals as though they are what we should do and how we should do it (which most aren't). Anyway, I guess if someone feels and article would be improved by having this section, there's no reason not to have it. I am against adding it just because it's on a template though. I'm not really sure this would need a proposal, anyway. Turkishcoffee (talk)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.