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
- 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.
- At the deadline, the validity of each vote and the discussion is reviewed by the community.
- 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: 08:15, 29 December 2024 (EDT)
New Features
Beta Elements
I say we put a beta section on each page, so we won't have to go to the beta elements page.
Here would be an examlpe for Mario Kart Double Dash!!
"This was supposed to be a stage (blahblahblah)"
Proposer Blue KoopC
Deadline: May 1, 2008, 17:00
support
- Stumpers! What I often find is that by not mentioning beta elements on a game's page, we lose the ability to see how the the game developed and so on. Besides, this proposal doesn't mean the end of the Beta Elements page. I could really see the BE page being a collection of "cream of the crop" Beta Elements while the game articles show all the nitty gritty little details. Or vice versa.
- Blue KoopC I say we do this, and for those who oppose saying were going to get rid of the beta elements page if we do do this, were not.
oppose
- BLOC PARTIER. I'm not against your idea, but I really like that Beta Elements page. It compiles all the Beta elements into one convenient page. Why don't we just add a section and keep the Beta Elements page?
- Walkazo - I bearily remember the proposal going the other way on this issue a few months back... Anyway, see below for my real resoning.
Grapes Per all to me just leave the bete element where it belongs in a nice neat page.
Ninja Yoshi-Think about it.You can just go to one page to find all the wierd and cool stuff Nintendo has left out of games.
XzelionETC Per All- — Stooben Rooben Like IS said, I'm not against your idea, but I always like the Beta Elements page. You can have a link to the section of the Beta Elements page that deals with the said article on the article itself – people could still easily access the Beta Elements to that game in particular.
- Green Guy
Talk!E Per all
Palkia47
Also like SR & IS said. I'm not against your idea, but I always like the Beta Elements page, also. But if we did add beta elements to the pages, it would be in the trivia section. And you know how much Beta Elements are in each game.- Knife (talk) 11:42, 26 April 2008 (EDT) I think it is okay to use both ideas.
Hey, Blue Koop, you gonna vote for your own proposal? ;) BLOC PARTIER.
- It all comes down to a question of whether more people will want to read about Beta Elements all together or while they read the specific game articles. The real problem is how much variance there is in the amount of beta elements between games: some have enought for a nice big section, others have a line or two of iffy info. For the latter, it would make more sence to give a link to the section of the Beta Elements page, because there, the information scraps fit in. Plus, it makes writing and editing info on beta elements easier doiwn the road, since they're all in one place and you don't have to go hunting around the various port and remake articles of a game to find the differneces, etc. - Walkazo
- Walkazo -- the ports of games have all been combined, with the exception of recreations, such as Super Mario 64 DS and Diddy Kong Racing DS. In the case of recreations, a game had to be remade from scratch to fit a completely different control scheme, so it's not really the same game in terms of the actual programing, as far as my understanding goes. What I'm saying is: with very few exceptions the ports and remakes are on the same pages now. That should ease your trouble a bit. :) Stumpers! 23:33, 24 April 2008 (EDT)
- Eh, I don't quite understand what you are trying to get to. You are lecturing Walkazo about game ports... on a proposal about having Beta Elements information on game articles?
Also, the Yoshi's Story page do have a section about Beta Elements. Just want to point that out. Blitzwing (talk · gnome work)
- Yeah, I don't get what you're trying to say about ports and remakes either... anyway, I'm not sure where to vote. I'm leaning toward "oppose" since I don't see a reason for it not to be in one page.
CrystalYoshi 
10:28, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
Removals
None at the moment.
Splits & Merges
Recipes
Ok, here we go. I've been looking through some pages and I saw that there is a different page for each of Saffron, Zess T., and Tayce T.'s recipes, even though the grand majority of them are stubs. I propose that we merge them all into a table on the Recipes page for easier access to them, sort of like the Badges page. So it's up you know. Tell me what you think.
Proposer: SJ derp :P April 24, 2008, 20:54
Deadline: May 1, 2008, 17:00
Merge recipes
- SJ derp :P What I stated above.
- BLOC PARTIER. Per T4E. I have done the same thing. We need just one page for all the recipes.
- Blitzwing (talk · gnome work) There was a proposal about this (Which failed). I agree that the Recipes article are rather short and minor.
- Grapes Sound great merging a the stub into one great stub free page in a neat order. Also we'll have less recipes page.
- XzelionETC Per All; I had this proposal going before, had tons of supporters, than SoS opposed it, then everyone opposed it. ;-;
- — Stooben Rooben Per all. I like GJ's idea; neat and compact...it sounds good.
- Walkazo - Per all.
- Green Guy Talk!E Per all is all I can say
- Knife (talk) 11:44, 26 April 2008 (EDT) I originally suggested this, but the vote was to keep it separate. I have an idea for a template.
- User:Byfordej per all.
- Ghost Jam
per my comments below.
Glitchman (talk · contribs) Per all.
Leave them the way they are
- YELLOWYOSHI398 They're officially named items; I think they're worthy of articles. Some even have backstories, like Cake and Couple's Cake. They also have other notability (like maybe TTYD recipes needed for troubles, or even physical descriptions) that could give them longer articles with some work, and it seems like a lot of them could at least have the bare bones "____ is an item in Super Paper Mario that restores 398 HP and is made by having Dyliss cook a ___ and a ___"; maybe the articles that just CAN'T have any more info than that can be, like, exempt from being stubs or something. (That could even be a proposal...)
- Wikiguest - Per YellowYoshi398.
This is a good proposal; I can tell, because I'm having a hard time deciding what side to vote on. So, good work on that, T4e! ;) While I do agree that a good portion of the recipe articles are stubs, merging all 174 of them into one article...I think that the one big article would be very large and take a while to load. And, each recipe has a different effect...what to vote... — Stooben Rooben
- Hmmm, maybe we could have 2 pages. SJ derp :P
- No, that would just make navigation confusing. Besides, what about the Recipes page? Or do you want something more? Also, we already had a proposal about this a few weeks ago, so I'll reiterate my point form then: the recepies aren't substantial enough for their own articles, the existing Recepies Page is perfectly fine for that; however, the ingrediant/product pages should all list the recepies they are involved with to make it easier to research things concerning them. - Walkazo
- Walkazo: We don't want 100-some stub pages. It would be easier to merge them all. SJ derp :P
- Oh, I get what you're saying now, yeah, totally we don't need the individual recepis pages, I wa salways againt that. But I still think the big list of recepies is enough: it indicates the game the recipe comes from and it has the ingrediants and products; if you want to find out what they do, just use the link. What more is there to write about? - Walkazo
- We can merge the info onto the page. SJ derp :P
- Uh oh, a no solution problem. The articles themselves are too small. But a page with all of them would be too big. And two pages would be weird. I thought about "list of recipes in Paper Mario", "list of recipes in PM:TTYD", etc. But that wouldn't work since some recipes are in both. CrystalYoshi 10:35, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
- Everything could merged onto a table on the Recipes page. We don't need to go into super detail over what an item is, how it works and where to get it. Just how to make it, a note about what it does...maybe how much it sells for. -- Chris 12:06, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
- You mean sort of like the Badges page? — Stooben Rooben
- Hmmm... when you put it that way, it doesn't sound bad. Maybe I'll vote support when I've thought about it more. CrystalYoshi 17:13, 25 April 2008 (EDT) And when I'm feeling a bit less lazy.
- Great idea, Ghost Jam! I changed the proposal so that we can do that. SJ derp :P
- Neatness and compactness, all in one page; this is what is needed. — Stooben Rooben
YellowYoshi398: Even if they're officially named, do you want 174 2-4 sentence articles? The badges were officially named, and they are all on one page. SJ derp :P
- I do feel like they're worthy of articles... And I guess my real point was that there's more to be said about them. I kinda feel the same about Badges, though... YELLOWYOSHI398
- About 130 of them are stubs, though. We can get rid of all of them by making this one page. SJ derp :P
- That is a good point... CrystalYoshi 11:17, 26 April 2008 (EDT)
Changes
What's-a-Gibberish?
Hey-hey, come on!
Ok users, pay attention, and read carefully.
As some of you may know, there was a proposal that said, "Lately i've been searching around the wikis quotes, and have seen quotes like "whupee heeheeheehee!" when thats just a bunch of giberious and also something like AHHH!!! thats just someone yelling! should we get rid of these?". Now, the problem some users (including me, of course) have encountered is what to actually consider a "gibberish" quote. Now look at the quotes that have been recently removed from the Baby Daisy article:
- "Baby Daisy!" – Mario Kart Wii
- "Ha-ha! YAY!" – Mario Kart Wii
- "Go-go!" – Mario Kart Wii
- "GO!" – Mario Kart Wii
- "NO!" – Mario Kart Wii
- "NOoooo.." – Mario Kart Wii
- "Heh-heh!" – Mario Kart Wii
- "Okey-dokey. Yeah!" – Mario Kart Wii
- "Yaaaay! Whoo-hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo." – Mario Kart Wii
- "Yipee. Yipee. Yi-hee-hee-hm-hm.." – Mario Kart Wii
Okay,just so you know, a current issue trying to be settled is, which of these quotes actually count as gibberish, and which should actually be allowed to stay. Now, as of the current point in time, and according to the outcome of the proposal linked above, gibberish quotes count as anything that is random babbling or plain screaming. So, Which of these quotes qualifies in those groups? Well, as the quotes that contain nothing but yelling qualify as gibberish, you COULD mark out these:
- "Baby Daisy!" – Mario Kart Wii
- "Ha-ha! YAY!" – Mario Kart Wii
- "Go-go!" – Mario Kart Wii
- "GO!" – Mario Kart Wii
- "NO!" – Mario Kart Wii
- "NOoooo.." – Mario Kart Wii
- "Heh-heh!" – Mario Kart Wii
- "Okey-dokey. Yeah!" – Mario Kart Wii
- "Yaaaay! Whoo-hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo." – Mario Kart Wii
Oh, but wait! All of these quotes contain yelling! There's the first problem. Just because quotes contain a character showing excitement, in any odd manner of saying it, does that mean we should count it as actual gibberish? Last time I checked, gibberish was random babbling, not yelling because of excitement or anything otherwise. Also, just because a character is exclaiming something like Yay, No, or laughter, doesn't mean their mindlessly speaking in tongue, does it? So, what it comes down to is, do we remove all quotes that are to a short point, and that are exclaiming remarks?
As I gave examples on the Baby Daisy talk page, many characters plenty good quotes would qualify for this, thus leaving certain pages to the point of "quote-less". Now, I know most people know what a quality quote is, but I also know that a quote shouldn't have to be entertaining or a long sentence in order to define characteristics of said character. Please take in to account the outcome of your vote, and also take into account that gibberish is quite literally random babbling and not actual wording.
P.S: Choosing support doesn't mean quotes considered gibberish will stay, it means quotes not to be confused with gibberish cannot be removed for that reason. Therefore, certain quotes would stay, while certain quotes would be removed. According to ACTUAL consideration.
Proposer: Fixitup April 22, 2008, 23:01
Deadline: April 29, 2008, 17:00
Support (Keep Certain Quotes Considerably Acceptable, Regardless Of Length Or What's Being Said)
- Fixitup Per above, lol.
Oppose (Remove All Quotes Containing Those Of Examples Listed, And Any More Found Throughout Other Pages)
- My Bloody Valentine The official definition of "gibberish" may be random babbling, but this Wiki has a different definition. Its any quote that is just a simple stupid expression that says nothing about the character. "NO!" is NOT a valid quote. Why? Its just someone saying "No". Its not unique AT ALL. It says nothing about the character's personality. Any simple quote like this, or any compilation of things like "WHOO-HOO-HOO-HOO! WHEE!", should not be considered a REAL quote. Its not professional, AT ALL. That's my two cents.
- Wa
TC@Y – per DP. A quote should be revelant and not be a restatement.
- Blitzwing (talk · gnome work) - What's the point of knowing that some guy said random nonsense like "AAHAHAHAH" or "NO"? Those kinds of quotes are a waste.
- XzelionETC Perl All.
- — Stooben Rooben Per all. Anybody can scream or cry. Specified quotes like "Only cheaters mess up", make Waluigi different from Peach. Waluigi and Peach have both screamed and cried before, so it's pointless.
- Grapes Per all.
- Marcelagus (T • C • E) - Per DP. Whether they are real words or not, they make no sense at all, and are thus "gibberish".
- Anyone can say "woo hoo!". Only quotes like "Toadette's the winner!" should be kept, because it is unique, unlike "woo hoo!". SJ derp :P
- BLOC PARTIER. Per all.
Well you know, DP, when I gave examples of other quotes, that have been here for quite a long time, someone said to me something like, well although this quote is almost the EXACT same line, this one is more humorous, therefore is fine. Does that make sense? I didn't think so. Also, like I said, not all of these quotes are just, "NO". Fixitup
Also, I don't no if I said this incorrectly above, but I know quotes should be relevant, but I know that not all of these quotes are at all irrelevant. Fixitup
First of all, I didn't understand what you said. You are treating this like "Since its on other pages, it should be on every page.". That's not the case. The case here should be that ALL quotes like this should be removed from ALL pages, not added to others just cos' other people decided to add them to other articles. And no one is saying they are all just "NO!". SOME of the quotes you gave are fine, most of them are just... No, sorry. My Bloody Valentine
I'm not saying that, I'm saying that's how it was, and I don't see why we are just now getting to that. Naw mean? Well the thing is, on the Baby Daisy talk page, that IS what they were telling me, that all are not allowed. Listen, the accept choice is not to allow quotes that count as gibberish, it's to allow quotes that may be confused because of how they are worded. Fixitup
I tend to agree with the second option, but wouldn't that also include quotes like "It's-a-me, Mario!", which Mario is famous for? It's an exclamation, yes, and in most cases such quotes should be removed, but I feel we need to make exceptions to this rule. Saying "It's-a-me, Mario!" is very characteristic of Mario, while Baby Daisy saying "Baby Daisy!" is just random. Maybe one day, when she has appeared in more games than Mario Kart Wii, it turns out that she actually commonly uses this phrase as her "identifying feature", but until this point we shouldn't allow that (and the other) quote(s). Time Questions 04:33, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
Somebody give Time Q the "Most logical User of the Year" award! My Bloody Valentine
- Yeah... Baby Daisy won't have many good quotes until she's in a game that's not a spin-off. CrystalYoshi 08:30, 23 April 2008 (EDT) I don't think I'll vote just yet, though.
Hmmm... I'm preferring the second option. But the word "all" in it's title is a little ominous. We shouldn't need to delete all the quotes from a page, just most of them. Leaving a page with no quotes is... Not preferable. BLOC PARTIER. Sorry if that didn't make much sense, I couldn't find a way to say it perfectly...
DP, you just said that only certain quotes listed from the Baby Daisy page should be removed. Then you agreed with TimeQ that none of the quotes were relelvant. I don't know if anyone has noticed, but Mario hardly even says "It's-a-me. Mario!" anymore. Aside from that, some of you are ignoring the fact that I stated that supporting this isn't to support quotes like, "No!"/"Wahaha!". It's to allow certain quotes, like SOME of the quotes from the Baby Daisy page. If you are against keeping any of the quotes on the Baby Daisy page, then you are against most of the other quotes used as examples, which I know for a fact hardly anyone disagrees with. As I expected, everyone is misinterpreting the outcome of this proposal. Fixitup
- Then make the meaning clearer. Short and concise is a much better way to go then long, rambling and sarcastic. Anyway, the only quote I think is relevant up in your example is "Okey-dokey, yeah!", since "okey-dokey" is something usually uttered by Mario, making it strange coming from Baby Daisy (though the "yeah!" part was in character with her older self). - Walkazo
I think it is safe to say how this proposal will turn out, therefore the only type of "work" I will be doing around this type of situation will be resolving it on the Baby Daisy talk page. I know how votes go sometimes, regardless of what I would've liked, it is obvious most of you have a mind set. Fixitup
While we're on the subject of removing quotes, can someone please put Bowser's Quotes back on his page? I tried to undo the edit that scrapped them myself, but my ancient computer couldn't handle the amount of coding. Also, what's the status about the pages devoted entiurely to quotes? Are they still being constructed or have those projects been abandoned & forgotten? Sorry if this is a bit off-topic, but it's not quite enough for a stand-alone proposal, and nobody's done anything about the issues when they're brought up on the individual talk pages. - Walkazo
- Ah! About quote pages... I am still making them. I did kinda abandon them for a bit there, but I am working on it again. :') And also, where is that edit that deleted his quotes? I can't find it in the history. BLOC PARTIER. Note: Go here for a category of the quote pages.
Format of Quotes
Next up, I have noticed articles such as Wario and Princess Rosalina have a different format for quotes compared to many other pages. For example, the Rosalina page quotes appear as this:
Template:Llquote
While a format of quotes used on other pages look like this:
You'll notice the first style is obviously "neater" and more formal than the second, but takes up much more space. Sooo, we should decide on one quoting system in order to make sure pages follow a specific guideline. One, the first style, or the other, the second style. Obviously this isn't a big deal, but should be addressed. I actually have a hard time choosing myself.
Proposer: Fixitup April 22, 2008, 23:01
Deadline: April 29, 2008, 17:00
Support (Star Using First Format)
- Fixitup Per above again, lol.
Bob-omb buddy The first one may be longer but it is much neater.
Oppose (Keep Using second Format)
- Wa TC@Y – This meaning both formats are kept, right? The standard one works well with top of pages, this bullet-formatted one works well for multiple little quotes related to each other. I can incorporate all of these into RandomQuote if I had some time over the weekend...
- BLOC PARTIER. Per Wayoshi. Multiple quotes look a bit better when they're in a list, and the {{quote}} looks great on the top of the page. IMO.
- Walkazo - Per Wayoshi.
- Per Wayoshi. SJ derp :P
- — Stooben Rooben Per Wayoshi.
- My Bloody Valentine Per Wayoshi.
- Time Questions: The "neater" layout takes too much space when there are many quotes.
- Grapes Per Time Q More space more KB. (Another pointless proposal.)
- CrystalYoshi How is the first "neater"? It's just longer and more annoying, not neater. In fact, I think the second one is neater. It's bulletpointed, and plus it only takes up one line. And the quote doesn't need to tell who's saying it, we already know from who the article is about.
Um, I think there was a reason the {{quote}} template wasn't used like that. I think it was that ALL the quotes on the page would end up on the Random Quote of the Day Template, instead of just one. At least, I THINK this was the reason. I don't remember. My Bloody Valentine
Yes, second choice is for both being kept, as in first format at top only, and second used in quotes section. First choice is for first format in both quotes section, and at top of page. Fixitup
Yeah, the first format is for the quote at the top of the page, and the second is better for quote lists. It takes up less space, and you don't need to tell who says it; everyone already knows. Is the oppose side for keeping two types in quote lists, or for having only the second in quote lists? CrystalYoshi 08:34, 23 April 2008 (EDT) I don't see how the first is more formal.
Princess Grapes Butterfly, this one definitely isn't pointless. There are obviously different layouts of quotes on this wiki, but we should use a consistent way, so this proposal helps us deciding which way to choose. Time Questions 15:52, 24 April 2008 (EDT)
Miscellaneous
Japanese Names
I've been going through character articles and I saw that some for articles, they have Japanese names while for them while others don't. This makes the wiki look unprofessional. So propose we keep them for the characters, or get rid of them all. If we keep them, the readers can see what characters are called in other countries. It's all up to you now.
Proposer SJ derp :P April 26, 2008, 11:03
Deadline May 3, 2008, 20:00
Keep Them
- SJ derp :P Per my comment about the keeping the Japanese names above.
- Blue KoopC i 'gree, totaly it will help a ton
- Ghost Jam Would push towards better, more complete articles.
- — Stooben Rooben Per T4E and GJ.
- User:Meat Knight I think we should keep the Japanese names, because it's fun and cool to look at what their names are, in Japanese
- Time Questions: Of course keep 'em, because removing would mean getting rid of good information, we even have a template for this.
Delete Them
Well, sometimes it's hard to find the Japanese names for everybody; that's why they're not on all articles. — Stooben Rooben
- Wikipedia has 'em. SJ derp :P
- I know, for the characters and some species; but you're making it sound like it should be all articles. I know what you mean, but others can use that wording against you. ;) — Stooben Rooben Be a little more specific, and I'll vote. ;)
- Done. SJ derp :P
- Just for the sake of argument, I'll note that it IS possible to have the Japanese name listed for just about every article (with a few obvious or otherwise impossible exceptions). -- Chris 23:58, 26 April 2008 (EDT)
