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 anyone has an idea about improving the wiki or managing its community, but feels 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.
2. The voting period begins 24 hours after the proposal is posted (rounding up or down to the next or previous full hour, respectively, is allowed). The proposer is allowed to support their proposal immediately, but all other users may only edit the Comments section during that initial 24 hours. Each proposal ends at the end of the day one week after voting start. (All times GMT).
   • For example, if a proposal is added on Monday night at 23:59 GMT, the voting starts at 23:59 on Tuesday and 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.
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 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.
12. Proposals cannot be made about sysop 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.

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>
'''Voting start''': [insert a voting start time here, f.e. "January 1, 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====
#{{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.

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. There is no 24 hour delay between the posting of a talk page proposal and the commencement of voting.
4. Talk page proposals may be 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 Ridley into Ridley and Meta Ridley (Discuss) Deadline: March 3, 2011, 23:59 GMT Extended: March 10, 2011, 23:59 GMT, March 17, 2011, 23:59 GMT, March 24, 2011, 23:59 GMT
• Merge Whispy Woods to Green Greens and Dream Land (Discuss) Deadline: March 29, 2011, 23:59 GMT
• Split the SSBB section of Mario Circuit into its own article as Template:Fakelink (Discuss) Deadline: March 29, 2011, 23:59 GMT
• Merge Squarp Hole to Squirps (Discuss) Deadline: March 31, 2011, 23:59 GMT
• Merge Giant Donkey Kong to Donkey Kong (Discuss) Deadline: 2 April 2011 23:59 (GMT)
• Merge Giant Bowser to Bowser (Discuss) Deadline: April 3, 2011 23:59 GMT
• Split Arcade game from Arcade (Discuss) Deadline: April 4, 2011, 23:59 GMT
• Delete Climbing Koopa (Discuss) Deadline: April 4, 2011, 23:59 GMT

New Features

None at the moment.

Removals

Remove Spoiler Templates

These templates ({{spoiler}} and {{endspoiler}}) are pointless and ugly, and they should have been scrapped years ago. A database about the Mario series is obviously going to have Mario spoilers: people shouldn't need us to tell them that, and common sense can easily replace the way we're using the templates now. If you don't want ending details, stop reading once you get past the parts you already know in the story section of the game/movie/etc. page, and don't read the pages of characters (or whatever) from the game/etc. that you haven't encountered yet on your own. As for the Histories of recurring characters, almost every section is a spoiler (or has the potential to be one), but we can't possibly put templates everywhere - that'll look silly, which is probably why it hasn't been done (i.e. Bowser's page has a grand total of two sentences roped off). On these template-less articles, common sense is the only thing keeping readers from spoiling all the other games/etc. whenever they go there, and it seems to work just fine: the same principle can easily be applied to the entire database. The only times readers can be ambushed by spoilers is in sections dealing with multiple sources at one time (namely Trivia sections, but also things like "Powers and Abilities", "Personality" and even introductions), and for the most part, spoilers aren't even put on these parts! Fat lot of good that does the readers, but trying to change that would look just as bad as putting dozens of spoilers throughout History sections: the templates break up the flow of our articles badly enough as is. Putting spoilers right at the tops of pages looks bad too.

Simply put, everything is a spoiler to some extent, so we'd be wiser to wash out hands of the entire template nonsense and simply make a blanket statement on MarioWiki:About warning people that they're reading at their own risk. There's no need to put it on the Main Page: everyone should realize that the Super Mario Wiki, "with 11,389 articles on the complete Mario series", will have Mario spoilers - our coverage wouldn't be complete if that wasn't the case. It's our job to present our readers with all the info we can: how they actually go about reading it (or not) is their responsibility, not ours.

Proposer: Walkazo (talk)
Voting start: March 19, 2011 2:00 GMT
Deadline: March 26, 2011 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Walkazo (talk) - Per my proposal. I've wanted those templates removed since 2009.
2. Yoshiwaker (talk) - I agree that most things are spoilers. I've seen many spoilers that don't have the spoiler template.
3. Ultrahammer5365 (talk) - Per proposal, except I think that a spoiler statement should be put on the main page.
4. Zero777 (talk) I am Zero! At first I thought it will be a bad idea since some people may overread, but your argument is a good, complete reason, per proposal. Zero signing out.
5. Super Mario Bros. (talk) – I agree with Walkazo. Having spoiler templates on pages is just unnecessary. As was mentioned, we are a wiki that boasts about complete coverage of the Mario-series; it should be known that our articles will contain spoilers.
6. Fawfulfury65 (talk) Spoilers are all over this Wiki; we shouldn't fill articles with a worthless template that warns people about spoilers when they already should be aware that there are spoilers on a site about the entire Mario series. Putting the warning on a single page such as MarioWiki:About would work just fine, since new users are expected to read that page when they join. Per proposal.
7. MrConcreteDonkey (talk) - Per all. Perhaps we can mention it in the sitenotice ("it" being the removal of the spoiler tags).
8. Bop1996 (talk) Per MCD. Something like that works quite well on other wikis (eg. Zelda Wiki).
9. Gamefreak75 (talk) - Per all.
10. UltraMario3000 (talk) - Per all.
11. Luigi is OSAM (talk)- Per all. I mean I don't like the templete, and if your reading the storyline of a game, you know it'll give out spoilers.
12. Edofenrir (talk) - We are an encyclopedia. Our job is to cover all information available, and people should be smart enough to realize that "all information available" really does include all information available. We don't need to disrupt the formatting of our articles with templates that state the obvious. It looks unprofessional. Giving out a general warning on a high-traffic page is totally sufficient.
13. SWFlash (talk) Per proposer.
14. Pokémon Trainer Mario (talk) Per Edo.
15. Paper Yoshi (talk) - Per Walkazo, FF65 and Edo.
16. T.c.w7468 (talk) Per all.
17. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk) I was with you in the start, so I wouldn't change my opinions. Per all.
18. Bowser's luma (talk) I had an epiphany last night about the whole reason I was opposing this. I was comparing us to Bulbapedia, where they have spoiler templates. But there, they are only on articles about anime episodes or movies. Here, they aren't necessary because we're dealing with games. Sorry about all of my indecisiveness and lack of consistant logic to all, but especially myself.
19. Austinkshum (talk) Per Fawfulfury65 and Super Mario Bros.
20. Geniusguy445 (talk) But I think that the NIWA Metroid wiki has it right when they have a warning at the top of the page warning of spoilers, not where the spoilers are. "This article contains various irremovable spoilers. Read at your own risk!" warnings are also only on the new game articles. I think those would be more appropriate.
21. TheBreakshift (talk) I've often read articles on games I was currently playing and I'll be honest, it's not hard to realize when you should stop reading.

Oppose

Bowser's luma (talk) No offense Walkazo, but when I read this proposal I thought it was a joke at first because I thought that it was so obvious that spoiler warnings are necessary. First off, yes, we will have spoilers, but when going through articles, people don't want to see what is going to happen at the end of a game. Putting something in the MarioWiki:About page is a good idea, but removing the spoiler templates is unnecessary. To be honest, what guest here reads MarioWiki:About before getting information from one article on what they need to know? The spoilers keep people, and remember there are younger kids here as well, from finding out what happens in the end/climax of whatever will be spoiled. Removing those templates would also mean that we have to go to every article around with them and remove them, which is very tedious. This isn't necessary enough to pass and require people to do that much work, and I believe it is a common courtesy to anyone who reads the articles here to have a small warning before reading anything that may spoil the end/climax of a game for them that they do not want to find out. Also, the fact that everything does contain spoilers doesn't warrant that we remove the templates because some are much bigger than others, and I know we are all smart enough to deem what is currently worthy of said templates and what is not. If it bothers you that much that we have two gray boxes about a centimeter big in some places on certain articles so that people don't complain that we ruined it for them, I don't know what to tell you.

1. Marioguy1 (talk) - I don't think that putting the spoiler warning in an obscure place like MarioWiki:About is a very good idea. Putting a notice on the main page or in the sitenotice would be fine; people actually read those. But I forgot MarioWiki:About even existed before today. The place for important information that all viewers should know could be on the article itself, it could be on the main page of the entire website, it could be in a header above every single page, there are many places it can be, but a place it can't be is on an out-of-way page that is often forgotten, ESPECIALLY a page that doesn't even have a link from the Main Page. While the {{Spoiler}} template is ugly and annoying, it gets across an important point and if this proposal is going to hide that important point away on a no-traffic page, I can't support it.
2. Kaptain K. Rool (talk) Per Bowser luma and Marioguy1. It will delete thousands of info from the wiki and I won't know what the game is about then would I? No I would not.
3. Baby Mario Bloops (talk) - Per all except KKR (because I really don't understand the last part). Many people - such as I - often look at pages on the Wiki just to check out certain things on certain games. Yet the spoiler templates keep me from reading ahead in the game so that it doesn't spoil the game for me! My point is that not all articles are going to have spoilers, but some articles will have more major spoilers in one section then it does in others. Although we should all know that pretty much every article will have spoilers, its a nice reminder for some of us that want to not be spoiled at very important secretive information. I really think that without those spoilers, people who want to not be spoiled on major things would end up reading to far ahead because they wouldn't know when the major spoilers actually comes in.

Comments

So basically, you are proposing to remove "spoiler" tags because we're a complete Mario encyclopedia and people should know that since we are complete, they already know that they are warned? I'm with you. I think the title text on the main page: Welcome to the Super Mario Wiki! with (insert number here) articles on the complete Mario series should be enough to warrant a spoiler warning to anyone. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)

Yep, that's exactly what I'm saying. - Walkazo (talk)

Would something similar to what Zelda Wiki does, such as at the top, a notice saying "this wiki contains spoilers, read at your own risk" be a good idea? I get what your saying, just trying to clear up any ambiguity. Bop1996 (talk)

Although I support the rant that I previously ranted up there, I apologize for the length and unclearness of it. Bowser's luma (talk)

@Bop1996 (although it applies to other people's comments/votes too): We'll have a message like that on MarioWiki:About, but I don't think it's necessary to put it on the Main Page or on the SiteNotice (although I've already talked to the other Sysops and we are going to put a temporary notice about spoilers and the removal of the templates if this proposal passes, but that'll only be until SiteNotice is needed for something else). Zelda Wiki's warning is rather tongue-in-cheek; obviously their database will have spoilers of they want to cover the full series and they probably know that it's a bit ridiculous that they need to spell it out for people. Same thing applies here, but I think no warning would be better than a sarcastic one. Of course, if everyone wants a warning on the Main Page or something, another proposal can always be made; where the wiki-wide warning goes is a secondary aspect of this proposal - my main concern is the templates. To that end, if anyone wants to vote against the proposal just because of the "Main Page or MW:About" question, they should really reconsider. There will be time to move the alert before the SiteNotice changes, so the "out-of-way" locale won't ever be the readers' only resource (I'd personally be fine if another proposal just about the warning is made before the 4-week grace period is over, since it won't really be overturning this one, just modifying it a little). (On a side note, MarioGuy1: technically, MW:About is linked to on every page, including the Main Page, and I personally have checked About pages when visiting new wikis from time to time, although I realize I'm probably an aberration.)

@Bowser's luma: First of all, your argument about forcing people to do a lot of work isn't applicable, because I'm willing to remove every single template myself. That kind of gnomework is my speciality: I don't want any help. Secondly, it's not really our place to decide what's a "big" spoiler or not: that's making value judgements, but an encyclopedia should just present the facts; it's also subjective and can be different for different people. Obviously it wouldn't be the end of the world for people to know that SMB has a happy ending, but what about other side-scrollers? YIDS has a few twists and turns, yet it's not marked on Baby Bowser's article, nor is M&L:PiT, which is an RPG: you'd think these at least should be marked. And how about other media? In my opinion, the kicker of Super Mario Bros.: Peach-hime Kyushutsu Dai Sakusen! is much bigger spoiler than Bowser's battle tactics and his ending size in the finale of SMG2, and yet the latter is the one with the template. Why? Who decided that? What's the criteria they used? Fact is, there is no criteria, and that is not how we run this wiki. That's my main beef with these templates: if they were only eyesores (which they're not: they just wreck the flow and look out-of-place in an encyclopedia), I could live with them, but they're inconsistent, unofficial and ineffective. It's a broken system, and people would be better off regulating themselves than relying on it anyway. Like I said in the proposal, it's not that hard to avoid spoilers on your own. For example, I've avoided spoiling M&L:BIS's ending details for the last two years simply by not reading certain pages and sections - not once has a spoiler template helped me do that (Bowser's page doesn't even have one, yet I've been able to browse it dozens of times: I just skip that section). I'm sure even little kids can figure out when to stop reading too: kids are smart (or at least the ones I know are). Anyone who blames us for their own lack of self control and common sense isn't worth fussing over.

- Walkazo (talk)

I think it would be fine to take the spoiler templates away, but why not just put a "This wiki contains spoilers" note on the main page? I know it's kind of obvious, but it really can't hurt, and it seems like the more considerate thing to do. CrystalYoshi (talk)

But where would it go? The only place I can see it being appropriate would be in the "Welcome to the Super Mario Wiki!" part, but how? Expanding the second line? "with 11,392 articles on the complete Mario series including spoilers"? That sounds really lame; people will read that and think "well, duh". Looking at pikipedia:, skipping a line and then adding the warning would also look bad, and it'd mess up the spacing with the link box. So yes, it could hurt, and while it's considerate, I don't think it's worth it: people should know better than to not expect spoilers here. Not all wikis feel the need for spoilers or warnings on the main page: I couldn't find anything on smashwiki: or [[dkwiki:]]. Wikipedia's got a policy page and a notice template explaining why they don't fuss about spoiler alerts and consider the section headers of the articles themselves and their content disclaimer to be fair enough warning. - Walkazo (talk)

To be completely honest, I think what Pikipedia did there doesn't look that bad. I wouldn't have a problem with a line like that in that position. - Edofenrir (talk)

I think that most of the debate now is about what to replace the templates with. I agree that it could just as easily be done with another proposal, but I'm not sure what is the best way to replace them. I agree that it seems a little obvious that we'd have spoilers, but it would clear up a lot of potential confusion if we had a warning where everyone would see it. The argument about Mariowiki:About makes a good point. I count myself among the people who read about the wiki before using it, and on ZeldaWiki they just link to their about page on in big bold letters, and that seems to work well. Would having an "about us" link on the main page under the "Welcome to the Super Mario Wiki" heading be a bad idea? Bop1996 (talk)

I think linking to our about page would be a very good idea: there's room in that last line of links for one more (making it "Anniversary | Sandbox | Help | About Us"), so it wouldn't mess up any spacing, unlike adding an entire spoiler warning line like Pikipedia. You're also right that the debate is mostly about what to replace the templates with, which is why I think voting because of that should be left for another proposal (but of course we can still discuss it here in the Comments): there could be voting options for "on the Main page" or "on MW:About", and maybe some other solution (like making it the default SiteNotice for when we have nothing else to say). I actually thought about including multiple headers in this proposal (one for my preferred MW:About solution and one for the Main Page compromise), but decided against it, as it'd dilute the support for the main issue of removing the templates. - Walkazo (talk)

Guys, it is pointless to utilize the sitenotice to warn people about spoilers. The sitenotice is strictly user-specific, meaning that guests cannot see it anyway.--Knife (talk) 12:52, 19 March 2011 (EDT)

@Walkazo: I too favor having it on MW:About, what I'm wondering is, do we need a new proposal afterwards to decide or should we just change it now? Because if the templates are removed, we need a solution as soon as possible. Also, is there a way to modify the spoiler templates so that they add the article to a category for tracking down all the templates? Bop1996 (talk)

When the proposal passes, I'll add a small little section to MW:About concerning spoilers immediately, before I even start taking template down (I'll write it ahead of time and put it in my userspace to make sure the other admins are cool with it). A second proposal would be to change that initial arrangement, but no matter what, there will be a warning somewhere. As for the link to MW:About from the Main Page, we probably don't need a proposal: I was planning on simply asking Steve to add one / let us add one sometime this week. And finally, there's no need to alter the templates: if you look in the toolbox on the sidebar, there's a link to Special:WhatLinksHere, which can be used to find every page containing or linking to the page you're on. I use it all the time for maintenance work just like this. - Walkazo (talk)

That sounds like a good solution, I should have remembered the "what links here" feature though *facepalms*. Bop1996 (talk)

However, I am on the disagreeing side on putting it in MarioWiki:About. I'm pretty sure the majority of guests who want to look up information wouldn't give two hoots about viewing MarioWiki:About. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)

BLOF: Yes, and most of the people who come here looking casually that don't read the about page probably wouldn't be upset about reading spoilers. If they were worried about spoilers, they would probably go to the About page and see that we have spoilers. Then they would know and avoid the sections they thought might spoil the game for them. Putting the About page on the Main Page with the rest of the links will prevent a lot of cases where people didn't know how to find the About page. Bop1996 (talk)

I knew I would get a lot of flak for this. The spoiler templates are apparently not needed, and I don't feel too up to getting in an argument about this anymore. I'm gonna stay neutral and watch this from the sidelines now. Bowser's luma (talk)

King K Rool, your vote isn't making much sense. Nobody is going to remove any information from anything. This proposal merely deals with the removal of a few templates that add nothing to the page. Please reread what is proposed here. - Edofenrir (talk)

Hey y'all, I'm fine with removing the various warnings all around the wiki, but we should at least throw a little warning on the Main Page that says something along the lines of "this wiki has spoilers, bro." Not sure if anyone already said this (I didn't read the whole conversation), but I think it would be a nice, little, professional warning that could apply to the whole wiki. lulz, probably should have read the whole convo before posting this. Have a nice day! :) - Bloc Partier (talk)

Now that I have changed my vote, you (Marioguy1 and Kaptain K. Rool) should change yours becuase they reference the now nonexistant vote of mine. Bowser's luma (talk)

They don't have to change them: in the past (although I don't remember the specific proposal), we've kept disowned votes like yours around in slashed-out form. I think we moved the vote to the bottom last time, since it messed up the numbering, but since yours is at the top, rather than in the middle, it can probably stay there. If a vote's per'd by someone or discussed in the comments, it's best to keep them around for the record, or the things talking about them won't make sense. Like, if someone re-reads this proposal in a couple years and sees me arguing over points that were made in a vote you never apparently made, they'd get confused (or they'd think I'm crazy, and I obviously don't want that to happen either :P ). You don't need to remove your comments in this section either; you can't go back in time and un-say your old opinion if someone changed your mind about an issue over the course of a RL discussion, but the important thing is what you currently believe, and I think it's good to have a record of how you came to that final opinion. I know I've changed how I felt about a couple proposals in the past, and I don't mind having the earlier statements still on record. You can always slash the comments out like Bloc Partier, if you want. - Walkazo (talk)

When removing a vote, take out your vote and then place strikes in all other votes that reference it (of course only put the strikes through the offending parts of the votes, for example, see what I did to King K Rool's vote). Marioguy1 (talk)

Where is it said that we should do that, exactly? I've checked, and the closest I've come is this proposal, which says "If a vote is determined invalid, whether it is a support vote or an oppose vote, it does not get removed. Instead, it gets striked out with <s></s> tags." As far as I know, that proposal was never revoked. With that in mind (as well as the reasons I brought up in my last comment), I really think the way I was dealing with the vote should be maintained. - Walkazo (talk)

I didn't mean they should change their votes to support, just that they should make it not reference mine. Bowser's luma (talk)

I knew you didn't mean they should support, but they don't have to stop "per"ing your old vote if they still believe in what you said before you changed your mind. - Walkazo (talk)

Okay, I think I can summary my vote down here now. I don't think that spoiler templates are necesary, but I think that it should be on major sections like final boss information in game pages or major plot settings that happens that affected the story completely! Baby Mario Bloops (talk)

Changes

Allow autoconfirmed users edit other users' userpages

Recently I have seen red links, redirect links, etc. on other peoples userpages along with deleted images and I was wondering if us autoconfirmed users can edit their userpages for errors, etc. It really doesn't make sense that only sysops get to edit this so I set up this proposal. Also, on Wikia we get to edit others' userpages along with most other wikis.

Proposer: Kaptain K. Rool (talk)
Voting start: March 19, 2011 14:30 GMT
Deadline: March 26, 2011 3:30 GMT

Support

1. Kaptain K. Rool (talk) - Because I made this proposal.

Oppose

1. Yoshiwaker (talk) Sysops only edit userpages if they need to. This would let almost anybody put anything on your user page. It's just pointless anyway.
2. M&SG (talk) - I agree with Yoshiwaker.
3. Ultrahammer5365 (talk) - Per all. You shouldn't be allowed to mess with other people's userpages.
4. Zero777 (talk) I am Zero! Per all. Zero signing out.
5. Tails777 (talk) Per all
6. Bowser's luma (talk) Yes, let us support vandalism.
7. Super Mario Bros. (talk) - Ask a sysop to fix it. I believe the "Keep Your Hands to Yourself" extension was added to the wiki by Porple because vandals were messing with user pages. It makes complete sense that only sysops and the user that owns the user space gets to edit it. And nobody cares if you can edit others' user pages on Wikia, as we aren't Wikia.
8. Phoenix (talk) No way, I'm sorry, but there's really no reason...
9. Fawfulfury65 (talk) Imagine a vandal coming onto your userpage and replacing all of your personal information with fake, unnecessary and inappropriate information that could be offensive to you. This is why only sysops can edit other peoples' userpages. If there's a problem with a userpage, you are expected to ask a sysop to remove it. It only takes a minute to ask.
10. MrConcreteDonkey (talk) - Per all. Only Sysops can be trusted with these powers. In my opinion, you've made just another proposal to suit your personal wants.
11. Bop1996 (talk) Per all. I like how you have control of your userspace and I don't want a vandal messing up my page, even if I can revert it later.
12. Yoshidude99 (talk) I don't want some random person editing my userpage.
13. Reversinator (talk) Per all.
14. Ralphfan (talk) - Per all.
15. UltraMario3000 (talk) Per all.
16. Luigi is OSAM (talk) Ummmm editing another person's page? Most users are autoconfirmed, and you never know when someone could VANDILIZE!
17. Edofenrir (talk) - None of your points is significant enough to outweight the benefits this extention provides.
18. SWFlash (talk) I've just imagined how my userpage was edited…that's……:(
19. Pokémon Trainer Mario (talk) I think once a vandal moved a sysops userpage.
20. Walkazo (talk) - Per all.
21. Paper Yoshi (talk) - Per all.
22. DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr. (talk) - Per Bowser's luma and Yoshidude99.
23. T.c.w7468 (talk) Per all.
24. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk) Only if we autoconfirmed users can ONLY have the ability to remove fake new message boxes, but this is all or nothing, so I say nothing. Per all.
25. Baby Mario Bloops (talk) - Where to begin...hmmm...oh yes, no! There is too much vandals around the wiki to even let this happen. Not only that, but some users don't want other users putting crap on their page.
26. Gamefreak75 (talk) - Per my comment below and the rest above.
27. Mariomario64 (talk) - Per all. Plus, why give normal "everyday" users (I guess you could say that) access to editing other users' own pages? If you ask me, that makes no sense.
28. New Super Mario (talk) I like my userpage and don't want anyone editing my page.
29. Magikrazy51 (talk)Okay, so if your proposal passes, I'll erase everything and put on it "?". You could lose a lot of data that way. Per all.
30. Geniusguy445 (talk) Aren't talk page messages enough to offer help? "Your link to [Mario]] should really be [[Mario]]. Glad I could help." Or would it be better to have your entire user page destroyed except for that one correct Mario link.

Comments

@Yoshiwaker: We can revert vandalism if they do put junk on our userpages and we do need to help the community too. Kaptain K. Rool (talk)

@Kaptain: Is there ever any really good reason to edit someone else's userpage? Yoshiwaker (talk)

Err yes... to replace images and fix red links. Kaptain K. Rool (talk)

I don't think that's a very good reason, but I'll just stop arguing because this would go on forever. Yoshiwaker (talk)

@Kaptain K. Rool - Well, that may be true, but what happens when some vandal whams your userpage? I mean, do you really want to be constantly looking over your shoulder and reverting edits every other day...? Phoenix (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2011 (EDT)

I think we would need to talk to Steve about this even if the proposal did pass... Marioguy1 (talk)

Also, on Wikia we get to edit others' userpages along with most other wikis

How many of these edits are actually good edits? About 1 in 10, I say. Judging from my userpage at Kirby Wikia, those who have edited it besides me have only inserted derogatory remarks or just complete rubbish on it. Gamefreak75 (talk)

Imagine a vandal coming onto your userpage and replacing all of your personal information with fake, unnecessary and inappropriate information that could be offensive to you.

This. What if people go to my user page and say "I hate (insert any Nintendo character here)!"? It offends me a lot when Kirby or Diddy Kong gets insulted. DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr. (talk)

Basically, if a user page has any red links, let the Sysops handle that stuff. That's why the Sysops are here; if you want a user page fixed, just contact me or any other Sysop. M&SG (talk)

@Kaptain K. Rool - Adding on to what I said above: you say we need to "help out the community" by "removing red links, redirect links...along with deleted images," but technically, userpages are not really part of the community in this context. Pretty much the whole point of it being your userpage is that it's, well, your userpage. If other people start editing it left and right, then it's not really just yours anymore is it? That's the one thing that sets userpages apart from every other article on this wiki. In your argument, it seems to me that you're almost saying that the prospect of complete (and possibly recurring) userpage obliteration is better than some of the fairly minor problems you list above. Long story short: the only part of the wiki that we are responsible for improving is the articles. Phoenix (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2011 (EDT)

Look you're just embarrassing yourself with this proposal. It's not going to pass by any means. M&SG (talk)

I can see it possibly working if you could lock off sections of a page. Which would be FANTASTIC! for many articles. E.g. All of the stuff like release dates for past games that aren't going to change could be locked off. But until then...No. Geniusguy445 (talk)

Miscellaneous

Merge all of King Koopa's alter egos into one article

On The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! King Koopa has many alter egos. These alter egos are just him in a different costume. The costumes don't give him any extra abilities, they are only seen for one episode, and while wearing the costumes, King Koopa is no different from when he's not wearing the costumes. Thus, I propose to merge the alter-egos of King Koopa that currently have an article (Al Koopone, Captain Koopa, Emperor Augustus Septemberus Octoberus Koopa,Kid Koopa, Koopa Khan, Koopa Klaus (alter ego), Moon Man Koopa, and Robo Koopa (alter ego)) into a single article. I'd prefer merging them to King Koopa's alter egos, but I'll also add a section to merge them to Bowser.

Proposer: Reversinator (talk)
Voting start: March 20, 2011, 15:50
Deadline: March 27, 2011, 23:59 GMT

Merge to King Koopa's alter egos

1. Reversinator (talk) Per my proposal.
2. Walkazo (talk) - Per Reversinator.
3. Bloc Partier (talk) - Per above.
4. Reddragon19k (talk) - Per all!
5. SWFlash (talk) Per Bloc Partier.
6. Bop1996 (talk) Per all.
7. Mariomario64 (talk) If they give no special powers and only appear in one episode, then why have separate articles in the first place?
8. New Super Mario (talk) Per Reversinator
9. M&SG (talk) - Alter egos really don't need their own articles.
10. DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr. (talk) Per Mariomario64.
11. Luigi is OSAM (talk) PER ALL
12. Magikrazy51 (talk) DeletedeletedeletedeletedeletedeleteDELETE! Per all (delete).
13. Paper Yoshi (talk) - Per Reversinator's comment below (the one after mine).
14. Geniusguy445 (talk) good idea. per all. Because they were a separate article to begin with. We can do this now, and then allow another proposal if people really want the page to be part of Bowser.

Comments

I agree. Just as how the Super Strikes and Mega Strikes were merged together, these alter egos should be merged together. DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr. (talk)

How are you planning on merging? Are you going to add a new column to the table, or do something altogether different. Bop1996 (talk)

I was planning on adding a new column and giving a short description of the alter-ego's role. Reversinator (talk)

Before merging King Koopa, I suggest that you merge Robo Koopa to Robo Suit, because I feel that information belongs there rather than being deleted. Also, what are we going to do with the Featured Article status on Robo Koopa if this proposal passes? BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)

The powers of the suit should go there, and like I said before, I'll give a brief summary on King Koopa's alter egos. And if it's merged, there's no point in keeping the FA status. Reversinator (talk)

Although I believe the pages have enough information to stand by themselves, I'll stay open to any opinions before voting, as I never watched The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!. Paper Yoshi (talk)

Most of the info is basically the plot of the episode. Reversinator (talk)

Will this proposal unfeature Robo Koopa? I'm not sure the articles that will be merged will be the same quality. LeftyGreenMario (talk)