MarioWiki:Proposals

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
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 using the code {{user|User name}}. Signing with the signature code ~~~(~) is not allowed due to technical issues.

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. 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.
  7. 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: 09:00, 25 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, 20:00

Support

Dryest bowser- per myself

Oppose

Repeated Info, Pointless Pages?

If you look at the Final Smash page, you'll see that each one is listed in a table, along with a fairly large amount of info about it. Each one has a link to the page that is specifically about that particular Final Smash (e.g. the Aura Storm has its own page, etc). I've read these individual separate pages, and their info is practically the same as what it says on the main Final Smash page. So, are these small pages kind of pointless? In fact, some of the descriptions on the FS page are more detailed than on the page they link to, as they contain info about damage percentages and stuff.

I think either one of these options should be considered: We either remove all the individual FS pages (as in End of Day, Mario Finale, etc) and make the info in the table of Final Smash page more detailed...

OR we only include very small amounts of info on the main Final Smash page, so that it's actually worth having the linked pages.

Proposer: Dom

Deadline: July 13, 2008, 15:00

Support

  1. Dom (talk) - I'm thinking my second option is the better one, after reading Pokemon DP's comment. In other words, I'm kind of supporting myself.
  2. Freekhenstra (talk) - See my comment
  3. MegaMario9910 (talk) - Per Dom and Freekhenstra
  4. Pikax (talk) - Per Freekhenstra
  5. Tucayo (talk) - I support the idea of erasing the individula pages, it's better to have them in a unique, more complete page
  6. Glitchman (talk) - See my comment below.
  7. ItameMarioFan (talk) - Yes. The pages have the same description as on the Final Smash page. Only thing new is the throphies. Per Dom and Glitchman (comment below).
  8. Luigi001 (talk) Per Dom and Pokemon DP. Expanding the individual pages would make much more sense than getting rid of them all.
  9. Walkazo (talk) - I guess something's better than nothing.
  10. Toadette 4evur (talk) Per DP.
  11. Yowuza (talk) Yeah, this isn't the SmashWiki, this is the Super Mario Wiki.

Oppose

Comments

If the moves have articles, Final Smashes should have them too. The Final Smash article has too many details, Aura Storm for example. It can be shortened to just: "Lucario jumps high above the stage, then fires a beam of Aura, that the player can guide across the stage to devastate his opponents". The Final Smash article should have descriptions like that, while the article of the Final Smash itself could have the details. Freekhenstra (talk)

That sounds good in theory, but I'm going to respectfully disagree. While the idea of getting rid of information on the main page to make all of the pages incomplete would definitely lead to more proposals down the road, I do agree that we should get rid of all the off-shoot pages and have all of the final smashes on one big, complete page. Each of the final smashes would just have to redirect to that page. Glitchman (talk)

Uhh, I don't get what the proposal is saying, what are we supporting? I'm confused. Toadette 4evur (talk)

Same, it's not really clear whether we're deleting the list or the articles, as it is now, "Support" is just saying we do something. Anyway, I support Glitchman's idea, for all the reasons listed above as well as the fact that the Final Smash articles could be turned into redirects, wheras the list would be harder to deal with. However, if memory serves, a similar proposal was shot down a couple months/weeks ago, on the basis of Freekhanstr'a point that moves have articles too, and they're more minor than FSs. I say the moves and the Final Smashes should be nixed, though sadly I don't think that will fly. - Walkazo (talk)

I actually have to say, asking for all the respective pages to be deleted was the dumbest thing I ever heard. If we do that, we might as well delete all the special move articles, which would be of less importance than the Final Smashes. Regardless, I agree that the information on the Final Smash article is overboard. But do not touch the individual articles; ONLY the Final Smash article. Pokemon DP (talk)

Note to Toadette 4evur: I guess the support means that you agree that some information should be moved/merged to or from the main FS page and the individual pages. That sounds a bit vague, I know. Dom (talk)

Note to Pokemon DP: I hope you weren't calling me dumb... I'll admit it would be a bit harsh to delete all those articles, but that's why I mentioned 2 options. And I'm leaning towards the second one, the one you agreed was more appropriate. Dom (talk)

But even considering to delete those articles as an option wasn't very wise... Well, whatever. I'm still all for shortening the (supposedly) brief descriptions on the Final Smash article. Pokemon DP (talk)

What option do you vote for when supporting? I am for individual articles and less information on the Final Smash page. - Cobold (talk) 10:41, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Note to Cobold: - Since my comments to 2 other users, I guess I've kind of confirmed that the Support means what you agreed to - less info on Final Smash page. Dom (talk)

Changes

Fire and Ice Templates

As I said on the Fire talk page, too many things use fire (or ice) for these templates to be practical. Instead, I propose we alter these templates so that they only include things made of, or irrefutably linked to fire/ice. This is a better design because readers could then research creatures of fire or ice with as much ease as if they were using the Bird or Fish Templates to research those kinds of beings, instead of getting bogged down with species that only use fire or ice. For example, if someone wants to research Birds, anything else in the Bird Template that flies but isn't a bird would slow them down; however a misfile like this would be obvious as a bird is a clearly defined animal, while what can be considered appropriately placed under "Fire" and "Ice" is much more subjective. As such, I'm open to suggestions on what should or shouldn't be removed, my first attempt (complete with justifications for my choices) can be seen alongside the original templates here; as are newer split-template versions of Fire and Ice suggested by Soler below, which are now the designs I plan to put into effect if this proposal passes.

Proposer:Walkazo

Deadline: July 9, 2008, 17:00

Support

  1. Walkazo (talk) - My reasons above.
  2. Pikax (talk) - I have seen what Walkazo plans to separate from the templates and why she wants to separate those things, and I have no objections to her plan.
  3. Dryest bowser (talk)-per all
  4. The Writing Guy (talk) - Per Walkazo.
  5. ParaBob-omb (talk)- Per all.
  6. Dom (talk) - Per the above users who are crushing my writing here with their heavy words. I say Soler's comment below which includes his 2 split templates is a perfect solution, that should be used instead of what currently exists.
  7. MegaMario9910 (talk) - Per Walkazo and Soler's comment.
  8. Mrsdaisyluigi (talk) - Per all
  9. Tucayo (talk) - Per Walkazo. They should be separated, its OK for characters like bowser to be removed, because the fact they spit fire doesnt make him a fire creature.
  10. Stooben Rooben (talk) - Per Walkazo, the Proposal-Genius. 23:18, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
  11. Soler (talk): per all.
  12. Pokemon DP (talk) Per Walkazo.

Oppose

Comments

How about something like this for the Fire template, and something similar for the Ice? I tried to simulate Walkazo's formatting as best as I could: feel free to fix the formatting. I feel that this would serve both people with Walkazo's view of the term and those with a broader view of it. If the show/hide feature is unnecessary, please remove it. Another option would be to split the templates in two. —Soler (talk). (I am going on holidays on Sunday, so please excuse me if I do not reply to your unrelenting criticism...)


Dom (talk) - Hey, the User called Soler made these templates about fire! Get it? Solar...fire? Ha ha...........???

On a serious note: Soler's split templates are a brilliant idea, better than the all-in-one oversized template.

Yeah, I definately like that idea, too! Awesome work, Soler! Stumpers (talk)
Oh, thanks! Does anyone think that two Ice and two Fire templates would be better than the above idea of a "double template"? (I myself think that the double one would be easier for navigation.) —Soler (talk).
I prefer the double one, and I've taken your example and refined new split-templates for both Fire and Ice which I've put up here with the earlier versions. As I said in the added last line of the Proposal, I'd rather go with them than my earler attempts. Nice going! - Walkazo (talk)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=411964"