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: 04:25, 20 November 2024 (EDT) New Features No proposal at the moment. Removals None at the moment. Splits & Merges None at the moment. 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. If tracks with the same name are all going to be on one page, at least differentiate them a bit. -- Booster Pikax (talk) - Much better than when I first looked at it. Now I have nothing against the new design. Mateus 23 (talk) - Per all. I think the new version is more organized than the other one. Bob-omb buddy (talk) - Multiple info boxes mean more facts can be put in on for each game. Per all. Canama Glitchman (talk) - Per all. Iceyoshi Yeah, I think it looks organized. Also, it gets annoying when screenshots are place left and right with the info. P. Trainer (talk) Per all huntercrunch (talk) Per MG. It looks a lot cleaner and organized. GinnyN (talk) I love it ^^!, per all User:The Green GodDaWeegeeMan)It's really organized and you wouldnt have to keep changing pages it just seems more convinent Oppose Coincollector - My revision, obviously. However, if my proposal does not win, I'll try to make some changes on Gamer's page. King Mario (talk) - Per Coincollector Mrsdaisyluigi (talk) - Per All. Comments Mario Gamer (talk) - 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 (talk) - 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'm not sure why an info box can't be specific, and the reason other courses don't have them is because you stopped me before I could do them all. 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. Let's look at it this way. A Goomba has a different info box for each of it's appearances in a Paper Mario game. What makes that different from a race course? The information changes each time. Coincollector (talk) I was thinking that the reappearances section must be abolished, because the reappearance can be set in the "appearances" section as well - An option nothing special. Aditionally, The Goomba article shows many paper-mario infoboxes, because there are differents templates to use for each game. Mario Gamer (talk) - To be fair the layout changes depending on the Mario Kart game as well. Some have WiFi while others list the distance in the box. But what your talking about is merging all of the versions into one big info box. Why not do that on the Goomba? It'd be just as easy. Pikax (talk) - the biggest problem with your version, Mario Gamer, is that the images appear rather staggered. c- Could you tell me what you mean by staggered? Pikax (talk) - If you look at the Super Circuit gallery, it overlaps the info box. In fact, I really think that the galleries for all of them ought to be centered rather than left aligned. Also, why are we numbering our comments? Mario Gamer (talk) - I don't see any overlapping what so ever. I see what the gallery goes slightly past the bottom of the info box like this, but I don't see any overlapping. Is this what you're talking about? If not take a picture for me and I'll try to look over it. As for the numbers, they just got added, ignore them or take them off I don't care. Here's what Pikax sees. Mario Gamer (talk) - Well I think that is a problem with your browser or resolution, not the layout. I don't know of a way to fix that problem since it doesn't occur to me. Coincollector (talk) - For Pikax, the only solution is putting all the screenshots in a gallery, near the bottom of the article, as usually galleries of articles appear. the second solution would be to use the <br clear=all> between text and the gallery to move the gallery that overlaps the table. Now, respecting to the templates, It would not be a problem to me to make templates, although I should do that and see how it results. Mario Gamer (talk) - The page already had those <br> tags set up. I edited it slightly to see if I could fix the problem, but again it doesn't happen on any of the three computers I've viewed it with. Let me know if this solves it Pikax. Pikax (talk) - Never mind, I've sorted it out. Pikax (talk) - Argh! The edits I made changed the wrong version! Anyway, Mario Gamer, just stick those <br clear=all> tags before and after all of the galleries and the problem will be solved. Mario Gamer (talk) - I don't mean to sound rude here Coincollector, but what is the point of this proposal if you're just going to be changing the layout later? I think the layout should stay as the people vote on it. Mateus 23 (talk) - You're right, Mario Gamer. We should respect the votes, even if our proposal loses. Coincollector (talk) - It seems you misunderstood. I'll make some (minor) edits in the article. I never said I'm going to alter or cut your work off or so... For example, the tables - I've already made a template for the racecourses. Mario Gamer (talk) - Then I apologize, I just read it as you were going to change my article anyway. I do not mean to keep you from improving the page. While I approve of splitting up the article and using templates for each game, all the image galleries make the article seem a bit too spaceous. IMO, using Coincollector's Racecourse templates for each section and then having one big gallery at the bottom would be the best thing for the article (organization and aesthetics). - Walkazo (talk) Coincollector (talk) - It seems better in that way, I agree for Walkazo. Mario Gamer (talk) - No. Then we'd have to also say which game the shot came from in the description which would just get repetitive. I put them under the info on purpose and if you don't like that, vote against it. Not any more repetative than some of the captions in your example: "The icon from the menu" is used at least twise (three times if you include "The icons from the menu" for MKDS). With the gallery, similar images could be put side-by-side to show how the games differ, i.e. "The long turns on the ends of the MK64 course" next to "Yoshi and DK going around a curve in MK:DD" and "DK and Luigi going around the first turn in MKWii", to show the differences in the curves. That's much more helpfull than some of the individual galleries set up in the example, like the nearly identical images captioned "Luigi racing on the MK:DD port" and "Bowser racing on the MK:DD port" in the aforementioned MKDS section. Anyway, I'm not voting against this proposal because I want to see the articles split, but I might make another proposal about the seperate galleries in the future. - Walkazo (talk) Mario Gamer (talk) - Okay, maybe repetitive was a bad word choice. My point is if I was looking at an article on Mario Kart 64's Luigi Circuit and I wanted to see some pictures I'd rather have them right there. Not fishing through a big gallery on the bottom. I think it looks loads more organized and I just don't see what having one big gallery offers to having several. The only argument I see is that it's too spacious. In that case I really don't know what to tell you if you can't scroll a few more inches. It's not written in stone anywhere that there has to be one gallery, nor should it be. It simply looks better and more organized as several. When I click a track I want all my info right there. Not spread out over a big page. 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. Sonic64 (talk): Per all. Glitchman (talk): Per all. Walkazo (talk) - Per all. 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) That always happens with the last line of the page. Just put &nsbp ; in it to make it work next time. - Cobold (talk) Time Q: Third option - Do away with sig images altogether and make plain text the norm. That would certainly solve the problem AND reduce overall lag on the site. -- Ghost Jam (talk) True. I certainly would support that, but I guess the majority wouldn't. Time Q (talk) Is my signature too big? Check here. If it is, then I would have to say the restrictions are slightly too harsh, and should allow just a tiny bit of extra sig space. Dom (talk) It's definitely too wide and I think, even if the height rule were changed to 35 pixels, it'd still be too tall. Pikax (talk) I just checked it and your sig is 340x58 pixels, which is definitely too big. Pikax (talk) I replied on your talk page. Time Q (talk) Could you check if my signature is too big? Please check here. Mateus 23 (talk) Under current rules, it is too big. If my proposal passes, however, it won't be. Pikax (talk) No requests to check your sigs here please. Ask other users on their talk pages instead. Time Q (talk) Actually, MarioWiki:Signature says "A small image may be used, limited to 35 pixels in height." If MarioWiki:Personal Images says someething different, that's an inconsistency. CrystalYoshi (talk) This proposal is mostly about sorting out this inconsistency. Pikax (talk) Legendary Dogs Alright, when I was doing some infoboxes on some articles, one was the Entei article. When I tryed typing Suicune down, the article wasn't created. I tried Raikou, also, and there was no page. I don't see why we have an Entei article when there's not a Suicune and/or Raikou article. I'm proposing that we either: delete the Entei article; create the Suicune and Raikou article; or keep the Entei article and don't create the Suicune and Raikou article. For those who don't know who these three are and why Suicune and Raikou should have articles: is because that they are the three legendaries from the Pokemon games (ie. Zapdos, Moltres, and Articuno), so having one legendary dog without the other two is pointless. So, which option? Proposer: MegaMario9910 (talk) Deadline: July 28, 2008 15:00 Create Raikou and Suicune Article MegaMario9910 (talk) - Its best to create the article, since they've appeared in the same games that Entei has. per Megamario9910 a.k.a weird guy. Mrsdaisyluigi 08:56, 20 July 2008 (EDT) Delete Entei Article Keep as it is Stumpers (talk) None of the Pokemon are given articles unless they played a large role in Smash Bros, such as being a trophy stage. Walkazo (talk) - Per Stumpers (and Grandy02 below). Pikax (talk) - Per Walkazo. Cobold (talk) - It has been pointed out at several occasions that Entei only has an article because he is a stage. Pokemon DP (talk) - ...Um, why would you even want to create an article on Raikou and Suicune? To be honest, this Proposal seemed to lack logic. But enough of me insulting MegaMario, Entei has an article because it's an Event Match stage in Melee. Hence, it deserves an article. Comments As far as I know, there's an article for Entei because the Entei trophy is a stage in an event in Melee. That's the only reason, if there were no Entei stage, it would just be merged with the Poké Ball article like Raikou and Suicune. --Grandy02 (talk) But isn't that a bit minor? Its just an event, and the stage is a trophy, and a trophy is a trophy. I know its not the exact same trophy (no description, you battle on it), but its still a trophy, and which a trophy is a trophy. MegaMario9910 (talk)...I know that made no sense. I'm not making the guide lines. Majora's Mask has an article for the same reason. Grandy02 (talk)