MarioWiki:Proposals

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Revision as of 19:24, January 25, 2008 by Tykyle (talk | contribs) (→‎Support)
Jump to navigationJump to search
f_propcopym_9045f2d.png


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 with the signature code ~~~(~).

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 vote and discuss on the issue during that week. The "deadline" for the proposal is one week from posting at:
    1. Monday to Thursday: 17:00 (5pm)
    2. Friday and Saturday: 20:00 (8pm)
    3. Sunday: 15:00 (3pm)
  3. Every vote should have a reason accompanying it.
  4. 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.
  5. "# " should be added under the last vote of each support/oppose section to show another blank line.
  6. At the deadline, the validity of each vote and the discussion is reviewed by the community.
  7. Any proposal that has three votes or less at deadline will automatically be listed as "NO QUORUM"
  8. 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.

CURRENTLY: 16:11, 15 November 2024 (EDT)

New Features

None at the moment.

Removals

Spriting Refrence

On the wiki, many people add in articles refrencing about spriting and models. I know what these mean, but not all guests or users who don't care about the community side may not know what exactly sprites are, and the differences with models. So should we allow this kind of talk? Or shall we make this only for people who know about this stuff?

Examples of these articles would be Beta Elements and sorry to say but parts of Super Smash Bros. Brawl.

Proproser: Crypt Raider
Deadline: 20:00, 1 Febuary 2008 (EDT)

Let's not add spriting refrences

  1. GrodenE T C ElMy reasons above.

Keep spriting refrences

  1.   Tykyle - spriting references are essential to explaining the beta elements some games

Comments

I still haven't quite understood what you are talking about? Could you say where in the Brawl article exactly there is a reference? The Beta Elements would be a different story, it's vital to the article and could perhaps be explained for that. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 18:03, 25 January 2008 (EST)

I don't really understand this proposal... Spriting is a legetimate videogame term, refering to 2D models of characters and items, it's not just a community thing. Same things for Model. What's the point of removing mentions of something perfectly legetimate? Blitzwing (talk · gnome work)

Splits & Merges

Merge of the same stages/courses into one article and split the the different ones

I propose to merge the various courses from the spin-off series that have their own articles. This also goes for those who have appeared in main games before, and only have changed layouts, with (almost) identical names. One great example of this is Bowser's Castle from the main-games which has individual pages for the stages named Bowser('s) Castle in Mario Kart and even the Bowser Castle stadium in Mario Superstar Baseball while the Bowser Castle-stage for Itadaki Street DS is STILL in the main-game's article of Bowser's Castle.

I also propose to split the pages that have two or more entirely different stages in the same article, mostly the Super Smash Bros. stages, such as the article with the original's and Melee's Mushroom Kingdom, two ENTIRELY different stages. Well, you may think "But they have the same name and design!" No, they don't. All stages based on Super Mario Bros. would have that design and the Melee versions is called Mushroom: Kingdom, with "Mushroom" being the stage location and "Kingdom" the name.

(BTW, I is not neutral to English and this is the first time I porposes so if anything is spelled wrong or wrong in any other way, feel free to edit this.)

Proposer: KingMario

Deadline: January 26, 2008, 20:00

EDIT 20/01: Looks like i forgot the idea to add a category in which users can support one idea only.

Support

  1. Blitzwing Per KingMario.
  2. Xpike the hedgehog per KingM
  3. King Boo Per King Mario.
  4. RedFire Mario Per KingMario

Oppose

  1. Boop Explosive Pants Modifier i have to oppose cause those are completley different places.
  2. Stumpers! I like your second idea, not so much the first. I wouldn't think you'd want to combine an article about a race track in a city and the city itself, would you? Bowser's Castle is larger than most cities in the Mario series, so... I wouldn't think that you'd want to combine these based on the fact that they have the same name. Oh, and remember that we have articles on individual rooms in Luigi's Mansion? We've already combined the clearly different racetracks, so at this point it'd be like making the article about the individual Toad a sub-portion of the article about his species. Remember, we even split the Mr. E article (two minor subjects w/ same name = two articles). Merging is only applicable when you have minor subjects with different names, not major subjects with the same name.
  3. huntercrunch Per Stumpers.
  4. Cobold (talk · contribs) - Per Stumpers. Bowser's Castle isn't the same castle in most games, anyway. It is a place in Super Mario World, a flying building in Paper Mario and a Bowser-Statue-formed Battleship in Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga.
  5. Walkazo - Per Stumpers.
  6. Nay to the First, Yea to the second. Per Stupers, in other words. BLOC PARTIER.
  7. Glitchmansig.PNG Glitchman (talk · contribs) Glitchmansig.PNG Per Stumpers.

Supporting one idea

Comments

Are you gonna vote, KM? NMRodo

I'm split. No to the first, yes to the second. Where do I put my vote? O_o BLOC PARTIER.
If we're merging areas in the spin-off games with the main games, than shouldn't the same be done for Super Smash Bros. stages? Your argument about how they're different places is valid, however the same could be said for al the other spin-off places (i.e. MSB's Bowser Castle stadium is certainly not the same as the Castle he actually lives in). Also, the individual stages of most games (except more obscure games like the Japanese-only Itadaki Street DS) already have articles and not all of them have corresponding main-game areas, so it's going to be difficult acting on this Proposal. Then there's the other option of cramming all these odd-ball stages together into lists of stages for each game, which would also have links to the main-game artciles for the stages that were merged in that fashion. It's a very big and daunting undertaking, but I still don't want to vote against it, since if it's done right it could be beneficial... Walkazo

InfectedShroom, you may want to put your vote in oppose so that the proposal doesn't go through? If you don't you might lose both of your arguments. Stumpers! 13:02, 21 January 2008 (EST)

I think we should split this proposal into two different ones, people's votes shouldn't be influenced by only offering one rating on two different issues. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 13:05, 21 January 2008 (EST)
Stumpers: You have a point. Thank you. BLOC PARTIER.

Snifit or Snufit?

Note: Message is edited from Talk:Snufit

So, um, according to TMK, these guys' Japanese names are exactly the same as a normal Snifit's. On top of that, i and u are right next to each other on most English keyboards. They look nearly identical (especially in the remake, which makes almost all enemies look more like their traditional forms), and, floating aside, act identical as well--and the originals could jump and hover for a short time anyway. And this very wiki says that they were "accidentally" referred to as Snifits in one of the MPs anyway.... Considering all that, can we really say that they're intended to be different enemies? I'd suggest a merge.

Proposer: Dazuro and Knife
Deadline: 26 January, 2008, 20:00

Keep as Snufit

  1. Walkazo - See comment below.
  2. Cobold (talk · contribs) - Per below.
  3. Boop Explosive Pants Modifier PER ALL. A snifit has legs. A snufit is like a ghost snifit, but theyre different :P
  4. BLOC PARTIER. Per everyone. And the fact that they umm.. don't have freaking legs is a big part.
  5. Tykyle - Per all
  6. Stumpers! Any name change deserves notation as a separate subject.
  7. Master Crash Isn't there the Boo Guy article?

Merge to Snifit

  1. Dazuro - Per above. Per below. Per common sense. Per logic. And, most importantly, per the designers' own designation!
  2. Blitzwing - The fact that they were refered to as Snifit in Mario Party kind ofp oint out to the fact that those things are infact Snifit. I think the proposer could be more polite and reasonable, thought.
  3. Per the above guys. HyperToad

Comments

They're different species, but I do see what you're getting at with your arguments on the talk page. I agree that it's strange how Koopa Troopas started out quardrupedial and are now totally different but retain the same name. If it were up to me, the 4-legged ones would be called Shellcreepers and only the anthropormorphic turtles would be Troopas, but it's not up to me, it's up to Nintendo, and they say they're all Koopa Troopas. It's the same case with the Paratroopas: they're just Koopa Troopas with wings, but they've been given different names so we have to say they're different species, and the same goes for Snifits and Snufits. Of course, I'd still want to list Paratroopas as their own species (or at least sub-species) anyway, since they look and act different from Koopa Troopas, which are the main criteria for determining species in biology (aside from genetics, which doesn't really apply here as this is the fictional Marioverse where DNA means squat and anything can happen, including a species getting its wings knocked off and magically turning into another species). Maybe Snifits and Snufits were meant to be the same thing, but they're not. They act and look different, just like the two kinds of Koopa Troopas, and just like Paratroopas and Troopas; but like the latter, they got seperate names. It doesn't matter if it was a typo, Nintendo has spoken and we're obligated to follow it. - Walkazo

I just want to point out that if this proposal pass, we should also perhap split the Super Mario World Goomba from the Goomba article since they act differently and haves a different name in the Japanese localisation, which is kinda the opposite of this "Snifit = Snufit?" deal. --Blitzwing 12:22, 20 January 2008 (EST)


Exactly. Whether NoA screwed up the localization or not, they were designed as the same characters (Snifit example) and different characters (Goomba example), and we should respect that. I mean, come on--Bloopers were known as Bloobers in a few games, but we aren't rushing to make new pages for those! You say it's up to Nintendo, Walkazo--well, Nintendo says they're the same. Just because NoA typoed doesn't change that fact. Dazuro 13:14, 20 January 2008 (EST)

Your Blooper example doesn't work: Blooper and Blooper look and act exactly the same way. Snufit and Snifit are obliviously different (If similar) creature, beside, we are an english-speaking wiki, I think it make sense to follow the American localisation. --Blitzwing 13:17, 20 January 2008 (EST)
Come on. The Japanese creators of a Japanese game say they're the same species. The American translators change one easily-typoed letter, be it by accident or otherwise, and redesign them even less drastically than others that remain the same species. They then proceed to call them by the "other species"'s name even in American publications. Where's the logic in saying they're different? There is not a single argument for keeping it Snufit that doesn't apply to dozens of other changes you never questioned. The American localization has screwed up in the past. We don't follow those mistakes. What makes this one different? Dazuro 13:19, 20 January 2008 (EST)
The difference between this case and Pakkun Flower (which is a half-translated Piranha Plant), is that Snufits actually look different and have different abilities (flying). So as there is already an official name for this sub-species, we should use it. Because these are a sub-species, not regular Snifits. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 13:26, 20 January 2008 (EST)
NoJ says otherwise. Dazuro 15:19, 20 January 2008 (EST)
I was not referring to the name, but the appearance. Check again. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 08:10, 21 January 2008 (EST)
And your point is? NoJ says they're the same species. NoJ designed them. NoA may have said they're the same species with a minor typo, or they may have been foolish enough to try to make a new species out of something that's clearly not supposed to be so. Either way, what's the point? Every single creature in 64 that I can think of except the goombas changed in some major way from their previous selves. "It isn't like the old snifits" is NOT a valid argument unless you're completely blind to all forms of common sense and pattern recognition. There is not a single reason to say it's different--except for a ONE-KEY-OVER LETTER, which was later corrected anyway! You people are being completely irrational! Dazuro 14:26, 21 January 2008 (EST)
Keep a cool head. Anyway, do they fix this typo in SM64DS? If not, then they were meant to be a separate species. If they did, then they are Snifits. Either way, I think their official name in SM64DS should be the deciding factor here.Knife (talk) 15:49, 21 January 2008 (EST)
It should be noted that, even when they are called Snifits, the "Snufits" are a sub-species nethertheless. They just have features regular Snifits don't, or better the other way round, they are lacking Snifit bodies. They are a subspecies, it is just the question whether they have an official name. The Bloober <-> Blooper example doesn't really fit here because of that. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 16:09, 21 January 2008 (EST)
Cobold, you're entirely missing my point. Every enemy in SM64 has features they didn't before, so that is NOT a valid argument. Knife, are they ever even named ingame? And I'd keep a cool head if these people would stop acting so ridiculously dense. -_- But hey, what do I know? I'm only following the original creators' obvious-as-(censored)intentions, after all. Sheesh... Dazuro 19:39, 21 January 2008 (EST)


Okay, so having looked at SM64DS's revamped model (it has a TAIL!), it's clearly intended as a subspecies. This, however, does not prove anything. After all, was not Bubba turned into a different species (Big Bertha, IIRC?) for the DS one? Yet we still have the Bubba article for the original game's sake. So, while it seems that 64's Snifits were apparently retconned into Snufits, they were Snifits in the original game. Dazuro 19:49, 21 January 2008 (EST)

Well.. if you look at this image File:Snufit.jpg they do look pretty different from normal Snifit, they don't even have feets! --Blitzwing 17:58, 22 January 2008 (EST)
Right, and any self-respecting biologist knows that an animal without feet is not the same as an animal with feet. I like your Goomba point too, SMW Goombas don't look like any other Goombas, but like bipedial/quadrupedial Koopa Troopas I thought that since they have the same name we're stuck saying they're the same species, however if they have different Japanese names I say we should split the article. Besides, we don't just have to go by names, we can still use common sence where we can. Like with the Koopalings: Ludwig Von Koopa and Kooky Von Koopa have different names, but we know they're about the same person and therefore we only have one article for them/him. And Dazuro, no swearing. - Walkazo

Split Luma into Hungry Luma

Currently, we do not have an article on Hungry Lumas. Although Hungry Lumas are simply Lumas that are hungry, I believe they should get a separate article because they appear so consistently in the game and their name is official, with a capitalized Hungry in front of Luma. They also affect the gameplay a lot by forming new planets, new galaxies, or even Mushrooms. Of course, they are still the same species as Lumas (not subspecies), but should that be reason that they have to stay on the same article?

Proposer: Knife (talk)
Deadline: January 29, 2008, 17:00

Support

  1. BLOC PARTIER. Yeah, I agree. They are big in finding more stars, and the fact that they can transform into galaxies is very big, especially when the galaxies have seperate pages.
  2. GrodenE T C El Per InfectedShroom.
  3. Master Crash Well, we do have that Koopa article.
  4. Tykyle - The Hungry Lumas are much more important to the gameplay than normal lumas. Now, would this article include the shop and comet lumas?

Oppose

  1. Glitchmansig.PNG Glitchman (talk · contribs) Glitchmansig.PNG True, but they're basically regular Lumas and do not have any separate abilities, so it would be best to just create a large section on the Luma page dedicated to Hungry Lumas, to show what they do and where they appear in the game.
  2. HyperToad They are just lumas, not any different except they eat. Do we make articles for Koopa without a shell? HyperToad
  3. Boop Explosive Pants Modifier TEH PER ALL-NESS.

Comments

Hypertoad:Yes. --Blitzwing 11:43, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Hey, Knife, you gonna support your own proposal? BLOC PARTIER.

Changes

None currently

Miscellaneous

Character Stats and Descriptions

I find it rather odd that semi-minor characters such as Daisy and Waluigi have extremely detailed stats and character descriptions from recent spinoff games such as Mario Party DS and Mario Superstar Baseball while main characters such as Mario and Wario have very vague stats and no descriptions for games such as Mario Party DS. It seems like a minor complaint, but for the Super Mario Wiki, it seems kind of unfair and silly not to include thorough stats for everyone, especially main characters such as those mentioned. For those who can not find out for themselves (such as myself), the Mario Wiki should definitely include the information to live up to its reputation as a thorough database. All who support should be for attempting to locate these stats or finding one who is able to.

Proposer: Have A Rotten Day!
Deadline: January 28, 2008, 17:00

Support

  1. Have A Rotten Day - Per myself
  2. Glitchmansig.PNG Glitchman (talk · contribs) Glitchmansig.PNG Per Have a Rotten Day!

Oppose

Comments

The main reason for that, is 'cos Daisy and Waluigi's articles are hit by incredibly over-zealous fanboys, who put all their time to that one article. That's awesome for us, cos' we need all the info we can get, but other articles are ignored in this way. I'm only commenting to give the reason why this has happened, sorry. My Bloody Valentine So, anyway, what exactly are we Supporting and Opposing here?

I don't think this is even proposal-worthy, yes it's odd, but like Pokemon Dp said, some off our users here are *ahem*, more dedicated to certain characters. --Blitzwing 18:02, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Couldn't Have a Rotten Day just do it himself? Even if this passes the only thing that will change is that he will HAVE to do it himself. Not just could. Stumpers! 18:12, 22 January 2008 (EST)
Good point, Stumpers. He says in his proposal that he does not own all of the Mario sports title and cannot find all of the info by himself, but if the proposal passes he's going to have to do it anyway. Glitchmansig.PNG Glitchman (talk · contribs) Glitchmansig.PNG 18:54, 22 January 2008 (PT)
No, I totally agree with you guys. I'm not horrendously concerned over this, I just think that when it comes to stats that people have obviously gotten hold of, that they should include all of the characters over time. I really have been trying to locate the info myself and trying to locate people I know who may have the information but I haven't really met anyone who has the info. I am more than willing to include the info myself, I just don't own the games or know anyone who does. If I get the info, I'd be happy to personally apply it to the proper pages. I just really feel that when it comes to information like that, that all characters need to be included, regardless of popularity, in order to fufill the Mario Wiki's reputation as a thorough database. Have A Rotten Day!
The proposal page is for things that can alter the working of the MarioWiki (New rules, deleting/merging an article), if you think some articles lack informations, there's the Trouble Center --Blitzwing 06:42, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Ugh, are you serious? Just because CERTAIN PEOPLE [ugh-huh, ME!] were willing to do it for characters they liked doesn't mean other characters are by your opinion MORE deserving of the same information. I don't have to add info to certain pages if I don't feel like it. I can indeed do this with ease, it's just that no one seems to care as much about MArio and Luigi's spin-off information as they do for characters like (i.e Waluigi et Daisy). I have no problem with doing this, it's just frustrating the way you put it. Fixitup

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=315859"