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. 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: 10:37, 23 December 2024 (EDT) New Features None at the moment. Removals None at the moment. Splits & Merges Paper Luigi It is pretty hard to find all of the data from Luigi's quest from The Thousand-Year Door, on this wiki. So I propose that we merge all the articles that have to do with luigi's quest in the waffle kingdom, into one single article. that way, if someone needs to look it up, they can easily find it. (I know that this is a pretty short proposal) Proposer: Dryest bowser Deadline: July 17, 2008, 17:00 Support Dryest bowser- per myself Oppose Walkazo (talk) - See below. Pokemon DP (talk) - I couldn't - And still cannot - make any sense out of what Dryest Bowser hopes to accomplish. So... Per Walkazo. Comments I don't get this Proposal at all. Pokemon DP (talk) Neither do I. I dont think weshould do it cus it is fine as is.Luigi3000 (talk) Dryest bowser (talk) I just want to make a single article for luigi's story in paper mario the thousand year door. it will make the wiki more organized. and we can stop having extremly short articless for all of the ccharacters and places As in this? If not, kindly provide a link to the pages you are talking about. - Walkazo (talk) Dryest bowser (talk) I mean articles like jerry,Hizza and torque. these articles are kind of minor,and It would be easier to merge them They're characters, and all characters get their own articles unless they're carbon copies of each other like the Boards, or if they're always found together and do nothing significant individually, like Ashley and Red and Kat and Ana. The only one you can argue over is Hizza, since his article's a stub; and because he wasn't encountered by the player, meaning he could be considered an implied character and can therefore be relegated to the List of Implied Characters, or converted into a redirect to Plumpbelly Village. However, neither of those options is what you want for this proposal; what you're asking just isn't feasible, sorry. - Walkazo (talk) Dryest bowser- ok, that's ok, let's do that, all the characters like hizza,crepe, and even princess eclair should be merged with the implied characters Merlon There are two Merlon articles, one for Paper Mario and PM:TTYD, and another one for Super Paper Mario. This is useless because all 3 Merlons are from the same series and serve similar purposes. That way Merlon would be easier to look up and easier to maintain. Proposer: StarYoshi1 Deadline: July 21, 2008 17:00 Support StarYoshi1-per myself Sonic64-Per SY1. Plus, they all have the same name, they're all shamans, and they all have mustaches. Oppose Comments Pikax (talk) - This is from the Merlon (Super Paper Mario) article: "Similar to the Merlon in Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door, this may be a different Merlon." Plus, contrary to what StarYoshi has said, the three Merlons do not all serve the same purpose. Also, Sonic64, the similarities you have listed are pretty much all of the similarities between the Merlons. Changes Multi-Appearing Mario Kart Track Pages Since it was unanimous to keep tracks with multiple appearances in Mario Kart games merged, I added an info box to each version of the track to keep things less cluttered. I was planning on including a gallery with several screen shots and artwork (if any) in a gallery at the end of the section pertaining to the game's version of the track. Coincollector seems to disagree. He feels that every version of the track should be squished into one info box. This is how the page is currently set up. With screenshots cluttered around left and right. If you look at my version, everything was a bit more organized in my opinion. My version is also not complete, as it was cut off before I could finish it. The finished version would still be filled out a bit more. However, I think it still illustrates the idea. Coincollector and myself both believe in our versions, so I wanted to hear some opinions on this. Proposer: Mario Gamer Deadline: July 22, 2008 17:00 Support Mario Gamer- In my opinion the less cluttered, more easily identifiable version is better. Starry Parakarry (talk) - I'm gonna go with Mario Gamer on this one. It's nice, neat, and I think because all of the pictures are there, it really looks bright, colorful, and it looks like effort was put into it to make it a great article, instead of just slapping an obvious picture of the course on. Oppose Coincollector - His revision, obviously. Pikax (talk) - I like it just the way it is already. The other version doesn't look as tidy, although it is supposedly under construction. Comments Mario Gamer - Just letting Pikax know I updated my version to a more complete version to portray what a more final version of mine would look like. Coincollector (talk) - Although you version is getting good right now, the article still have the problem with the infoboxes. As I told you, a information box must contain general info, but it seems you put some of specific elements for each racecourse, something that other courses don't have while comparing each other. Then, it's better put these elements in the text instead of putting in an infobox, because don't do it would reduce the importance of reading the text. By the other hand, why the Mario Kart DS section lacks of an infobox? Mario Gamer - The way I divided them was by each "version" of the track. That way if a person is looking for say, if Wifi is playable on the GBA version of Luigi's Circuit in MKDS it's right there. Or if someone wants to know what cup the Wii version of Luigi Circuit is, it's right there, they don't have to go searching through text. I didn't add a info box to Mario Kart DS because there is no new circuit on there. I did leave info explaining that while there was no new one, two did reappear and info can be found in the respective boxes. Miscellaneous Signature Image Height Restriction This is mostly a clarification of a certain rule on the Mario Wiki. Here, it says that an image in a signature can be no taller than 20 pixels. Here, it says that your signature must fit in a 225x35-pixel space. In a discussion I had with Time Q, he said that there are many users with images taller than 20 pixels and that he was unaware of the 20-pixel-height rule until I pointed it out to him. Therefore, I propose that the 20-pixel-height rule be changed to 35 pixels to match the height of the Sigbox. Proposer: Pikax Deadline: July 22, 2008 17:00 Support (change maximum image height to 35 pixels) Pikax (talk) - As it is, there are a lot of people who have images taller than 20 pixels and if an image is 35 pixels tall, the signature as a whole will still fit in the Sigbox. Time Q (talk): As above, it is hard to find any user who has an image in his/her signature and who doesn't break this rule. I think it didn't hurt anyone in the past, and it won't in the future. The only other possible solutions: 1) To enforce this rule, which would affect many users (and to me, personally, the image in this sig doesn't seem too tall, even if it breaks the rule). 2) To keep the rule, but accept taller images tacitly, which is obviously bad. Neither of these two options seem attractive to me, so I vote for easing the limit. Oppose (leave it as 20 pixels) Comments On a different note, can someone explain why the Comments header wasn't being properly formatted until I put this comment in? Pikax (talk)