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.
- 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: 07:35, 6 November 2024 (EDT)
New Features
None at the moment.
Removals
Remove Automatons, Machinations, Ghosts, Ghouls, and Specters from the "Species" Category
It is true that a species is a group of of living things. It is also true, that undead things, and robotic things, are not living things, and do not constitute a species. Since common sense often fails, I'll included dictionary definitions of a species in my comments below.
Now, many of you who are reading this will think I'm just getting bogged down by semantics, but any errors in the wiki reflect on the wiki (and us, the users) and I think an error as large as this one greatly detracts from the credibility of this wiki.
Proposer: Goomb-omb
Deadline: June 27, 2008, 20:00
Support
- Goomb-omb per my reasoning above and below
- Soler (talk) —Accuracy is key, and "Character Type" (see comment by Goomb-omb below) seems to be an adequate term.
Oppose
- Stumpers (talk) I'm afraid this is nitpicking, but I'm usually all for that. What I'm thinking of is a page like Bow or another notable Boo. What should we put in the species section of the character infobox? If you have another word we should use instead of species, that would help.
- Ninjayoshi Per Stumpers. Also, Boos are a species. Thirdly, if we change 'species' on any robot family and the like, we should change it to something like 'series'.
- InfectedShroom (talk) - Per Stumpers. This seems a bit... Particular... about what we should add to our articles. Also, the Mario Bros. series is not the most scientific series (Being able to float in space? :O), so I think that this would not be necessary.
Definitions of species according to two credible dictionaries:According to Encarta World English Dictionary a species is ''a subdivision of a genus. . .containing individuals that resemble one another and that may interbreed''
And in Websters New Revised Dictionary of the English Language species is defined as ''A category of animals or plants. . .with the capacity of interbreeding only among themselves.''
I don't think MeowMaids fit any of that criteria.
Goomb-omb (talk)
- Stumpers, I think something along the lines of "Character Type" would be sufficient.Goomb-omb (talk)
Ninjayoshi, the 12:02, 13 June 2008 (EDT) revision of the Boo article quotes Goombario's tattle for Igor thus: "He probably was a merchant before he became a Boo," and goes on to speculate that "Boos may be a species of ghosts [sic—ghosts cannot belong to a species] who were once living." It is therefore possible that Boos are ghosts, and so do not belong to a species. —Soler (talk)
- Should have checked my sources, my bad.-Ninjayoshi
Splits & Merges
Prevent loss of information (Recipes)
A previously passed proposal (which can be found here) called for the merging of the Recipes articles into one long page. While I'm not particularly bothered about this, I fear the possibility of information (such as notable trivia or complete lists of combinations) being removed so as to avoid an overly long page. (The second sentence of what appears to be Xzelion's page for working on the merge suggests an intention to not include every combination, for instance.) I propose that it be set down that if any merge of the Recipes pages does eventually take place, all possible recipe combinations and all pieces of important trivia must remain somewhere easily accessible on the wiki, such as a separate page for combinations. (The combinations page is only a suggestion and not part of the proposal.) My reasoning is that useful information should not be removed from this wiki for the sake of convenience, that the wiki should be a compendium of all things Mario-related, and that one should not have to visit another fansite to find out recipe combinations.
Proposer: Soler
Deadline: 20:00, Friday June 20, 2008 A.D. (EDT)
Rule that a merge cannot lead to loss of information (Support)
- Soler (talk) (I am the proposer: my reasons are above.)
- Super-Yoshi (talk) Per Soler.
- Bob-omb buddy (talk)-If it is on one page then it should be good enough for the next one.
- Ninjayoshi- Per my comments below.
Allow loss of information (Oppose)
I think that we should have two pages for the Recipes: Recipes and Recipes (Trivia). Recipes (Trivia) will list the Recipe, then game, and finally the trivia. No descriptions on the Trivia page. Ninjayoshi
- No, that'd be too disorganized/disjointed, and too much of a hastle for readers to go flicking back and forth between the two articles. The recipies page should simply be a big table listing all the things that can be baked/cooked, all the different recipies for making each one (with what game they come from indicated somehow), and the effects, etc. of the thing made. A Trivia section could be added at the bottom of the article; but only if it deals with the recipies, because as far as I know most, if not all of the ingrediants and final products have their own articles anyway. - Walkazo (talk)
- Walkazo's idea sounds good to me, but personally I don't mind too much how this is done so long as it's done somehow. Also, the final products won't have their own articles if the project initiated by the previous Recipes proposal is completed. That's why I made this proposal in the first place: to ensure that all the content of the deleted articles will remain on the wiki, in an easily accessible format. —Soler (talk).
- Yeah, didn't think about the flipping back and forth. Maybe, to shorten the page length, we could have two pages (again): Recipes (A-M) and Recipes (N-Z). Go ahead prove me wrong. Ninjayoshi
Changes
None at the moment.
Miscellaneous
Write Articles in the Same Tense
Here I go: I mean tense as in past, present, future. Now, I've been looking at quite a few character articles, but this also applies to game articles, in the Story sections. I've noticed that the older games and characters' articles seem to be written in past tense, as in "Mario then defeated Bowser and then went psycho" - but more recent games/characters (e.g. Rosalina, Super Mario Galaxy...) are in present tense, like "Mario defeats Bowser and returns peace to the kingdom." So, I think it makes sense to have them all in present tense, no matter how old the character/game is. It's all about consistency, if you ask me. This is my first proposal, so I've probably done it wrong and it might get deleted...oh well, I tried.
UPDATE: OK, I'll admit I kind of confused myself with what I wrote at first. OK, after reading the Comments and Oppositions...here's my change:
There should be a rule that determines how to write an article...such as a rule about how old the game/event/whatever is. Or the rule could be that certain Sections, such as Story or History, are always consistent for any article, but that same article may have the more appropriate tense in other sections. Does that make sense?
Proposer:Dom
Deadline: June 27th 20:00 PM.
Support
- Blitzwing (talk) - Per Dom.
- MegaMario9910 (talk) - Per Dom. It would cause confusion if an early game article had the past tense, while the new ones would have the present tense.
- Cobold (talk) - all sections should be in the same time. But for flashbacks within a section, the past tense still should be used. (like explaining the preface of PM:TTYD in Peach's article)
Oppose
- Ninjayoshi - No. Mario does have a timelime. In some games, they even reference back in the timeline.
- Pikax (talk) - Dom says all articles should be in the present tense. Events of games are events that have passed, so they should be in the past tense. I will support if this proposal is refined.
- Stumpers (talk) - Past tense always sounds better in an encyclopedia. Also, good luck trying to enforce this if it's past -- you've got about 800 pages that will need to be changed.
- InfectedShroom (talk) Yeah, sorry for the vote change. Anyway, Past tense makes things flow more easily. IMO, we should do the lead in Present and the body in Past.
'Wouldn't this cause confusion' if Super Mario World and Super Mario World 2 were written as if they were happening at the same time?Ninjayoshi
- Should this really be generalised for all? For the character bios I wrote, I wrote about story-relevant events in past tense, independent of how new the game is, since these events already passed. I have to agree with Ninjayoshi's demur. --Grandy02 12:11, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
- Ninjayoshi: if you write both sections in the past tense, no, it won't. Stumpers (talk)
Hey, I forgot to say stuff about articles to do with future games or characters...maybe that should also be discussed? Dom (talk)
I'm confused about this proposal. Stumpers wrote in his support vote that past tense should be used for passed events, and I think the same. However, this proposal is about present tense in every case, isn't it? I'm for consistency, but not for present tense everytime. What is it all about now, really?? --Grandy02 07:44, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
- That was my fault. I misread the proposal and though this was to make all tenses be consistent in each sub-section. Sorry about that. You're going to want to oppose if you want to be allowed to write in the past tense still. Stumpers (talk)
- By the way, I'm really not sure how one would enforce this rule, even after you spend countless hours fixing each tense. I've done some tense fixing before, and let me tell you: its like rewriting the entire thing. It will probably take you one half the time that it took the contributor to write the original text. Let's think about this then: on the first part of the history section for Mario up to Super Mario Bros. 2 USA, it took me probably a total of five hours to write. That means that for one third of one third of one article, (one ninth of an article), you're gonna need roughly 2 hours. As the proposer, you and the other supporters are going to have to put this into effect. Do you really want to be in charge of changing all the past tenses into present and then changing every new edit by a user who doesn't know about this proposal? Stumpers (talk) 10:54, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
Make sure you read my UPDATE before any more comments. Dom (talk)
- I meant that if they were both written in present tense, because I support writing in past tense.
