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.
- Proposals can not be made about System Operator promotions and demotions. Sysops can only be promoted and demoted by the will of Bureaucrats.
The times are in EDT, and are set so that the user is more likely to be online at those times (after work/school, weekend nights). 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 a minute later, the deadline is a day plus 15 hours (Sunday), as opposed to a day minus 4 hours.
CURRENTLY: 08:10, 29 November 2024 (EST)
New Features
None at the moment.
Removals
"Relationship with other characters" sections
Most (All?) of our articles about major characters have sections detailing how they interacts with other major characters, I could do a tl:dr rant explaining why these sections irks me, but I will be short here:
In short, Relationships Sections are an embarrassing poorly-written mess of informations rehashed from the Biography. Let's kill them, WITH FIRE.
Proposer: Blitzwing (talk)
Deadline: January 5, 2009 17:00
Slash 'Em
- Blitzwing (talk) - Because I'm a totally voting against my own proposal.
- Tucayo (talk) - Per Blitz
- Super-Yoshi (talk) - Per Blitz, let's burn them AGGRESIVELY =3
- Uniju :D (talk) I always wondered why those exist...
- Walkazo (talk) - Per Blitzwing, 99% of these sections are a waste of time. For the other 1%, just add the information as a stand-alone section: to use Son of Sun's example, I'm sure a Mario-Peach Relationship section wouldn't seem out-of-place in either of their articles.
- Purple Yoshi (talk) - Well, we'll delete the ones who have not been in a proper game together, like Wario and Toadette.
- Bloc Partier (talk) (AKA InfectedShroom... >_>) - Let's cut them up and roast them on spits. See? Slashing and burning. But, seriously, most of them are ridiculously speculative and, while some are quite hilarious, utterly unnecessary.
- Storm Warrior (talk) Per Blitz.
- Dom (talk) Per Blitzwing, and also Walkazo's response to my comment below.
- The Gravitator (talk) Per Walkazo.
- Z3r0 Tw0 (talk) They are just severely based off of a single person's point of view. Per all.
- Per all -Canama (talk)
- Super Luigi! Number one! (talk)-Per Walkazo and a note: I HATE DAISY...but I love Luigi.(I needed to say this)
Keep 'Em
- CrystalYoshi (talk)Why can't we just keep them and make sure that they're free of nonsense? I think the sections are good information about the character.
- Son of Suns (talk) - Some of the official comments from Nintendo placed in those sections would not make sense anywhere else (such as commentary on Mario and Peach's relationship). It does not make sense to outright delete them, but instead work (re-writing, cutting, editing, etc.) on them to make them better. If we just deleted things because they are poorly written, we should probably delete most of the articles on this wiki.
- Grapes (talk) Per all.
- Shrikeswind (talk) Per all. Look, while ALOT of the information bites the big one, the Interactions sections can be done WAY better. You can see it under Waluigi, in fact, who only has three characters, Wario, Luigi, and Daisy, who are all associated with him in some way (Wario, his partner, Luigi, his nemesis, and Daisy, his apparent love interest.) He has interacted with Mario and Bowser on numerous occasions each, but has no information regarding them because Mario and Bowser are not major connections. Only Wario, Luigi, and Daisy are. Also, calling something poorly written is a mark of low motivation. If it can be fixed and needs to be fixed and you can fix it, then why not fix it? A poorly written article is an easy fix.
- Koopalmier (talk) Some are not useful, because they are not important. But somes are useful, like the Mario/Peach or Waluigi/Wario relantionships. Some must not be deleted.
- Randoman123456789 (talk) - I say do not delete the sections because some of the information (e.g. Mario/Peach, Luigi/Daisy, etc.) is very (if not slightly) important. If we were to delete articles/sections from this wiki because they are poorly written, then there would only be a few articles on this wiki. But editing the sections is a better idea. Per Son of Suns.
- White Knight (talk) - Per all. There may be some bad ones, but we should just fix or remove those instead of getting rid of all of the interactions with other characters.
- Arend (talk) - Per all. Removing the relationship section is like not mentioning Luigi is Mario's brother.
- Snowwstalker (talk) -Per all. Keep them, but some definitely need to be improved.
- ForeverDaisy09 (talk) - THIS IS WRONG. You have no idea how valuable some of the interactions sections are on some pages! Some have GREAT information. Removing ALL of them is RIDICULOUS!!!
- Yoshi of Death (talk) - The sections are exceedingly important, as in Mario/Wario, Peach/Toad, Bowser/Bowser Jr., Luigi/Daisy, etc.. Deleting the sections is completely and utterly ridiculous. Just rewrite them, and make sure they're free of nonsense like "Mario hates Bowser", "Luigi loves Daisy", etc.. Per all, especially Son of Suns and Shrikeswind.
- Time Q (talk): Supporting this proposal means supporting the removal of each and every of those sections, even if there are some that are actually useful. And since there are some useful ones (see Son of Suns's comment, for example), I can't support this proposal.
- Grandy02 (talk) - There are really poorly written and unneeded sections, but it should be decided case by case whether it needs to be removed or to be rewritten. Just deleting all relationship sections even if there are useful ones is no good.
- Leirin (talk) - I do agree that sometimes they are of overly-speculative nature; but that should just be a reason to improve them, not get rid of them.
- Per all. ToadetteAnime4evur (talk)
- King Mario (talk) Per All
While most of these sections I run across seem to be poorly-written, speculative, and sometimes way too extended (I hear rumors there was a Diddy Kong entry in the Mario relationships section?), that does not mean they cannot (in the future) be well-written, informative, and kept to a close circle of important character relationships. It could be a great place to provide all the official connections between two specific characters. For example, the Princess Peach section in the Mario article does a decent job of listing all those comments made by Nintendo about their ambiguous relationship. I found it to be very helpful, and I would not want that information to suddenly disappear. If it could just listed under a general "Relationships" section (instead of one sub-divided into many sections about individual characters) we could focus on a few key relationships - relationships Nintendo has provided a lot of commentary on, such as the Mario-Peach relationship, as opposed to the Mario-Rosalina relationship listed in the article, which is basically a plot summary of Super Mario Galaxy, but doesn't tell us anything about their relationship. So basically, I don't think we should completely delete these sections, but find a way to highlight those specific relationships Nintendo has actually offered commentary on. -- Son of Suns (talk)
- Then we can place the good informations in a note in the relevant game or in a Trivia section. --Blitzwing (talk)
- So that means the Mario-Peach information would be unorganized and scattered throughout the article, or a three paragraph entry in the Trivia section?? -- Son of Suns (talk)
- THREE PARAGRAPH ENTRY THREE PARAGRAPH ENTRY THREE PARAGRAPH ENTRY. --Blitzwing (talk)
After additional thought and EBAL PEER PRESSURE I have come to the conclusion I do not clearly support either position and will thusly abstain from voting. Snack (talk)
- Blitzwing: Don't spam. Anyway, as I said in my vote, the really major developments can get sections of their own. And as Blitzwing said in his first post, notes can be made in the proper games for the more minor aspects. They're part of the "Biography" section, after-all, and for things like Mario-Rosalina, the game is all there is to them. - Walkazo (talk)
- Yeah, that makes more sense. But then this proposal seems irrelevant, as some relationship sections will have to be retained, such as Mario-Peach and Luigi-Daisy. There is nothing wrong with taking the initiative and writing articles better, even if that includes deleting repeated or unnecessary writing (such as some aspects of the Relationship sections). -- Son of Suns (talk)
- It's not irrelevant. Deleting all the relationships on all the articles (excpet Mario-Peach, Bowser-Peach (on Bowser's article only), Luigi-Daisy and perhaps Wario-Mario) is a pretty big thing, and if Blitzwing just did it someone would probably make a stink about him not getting community feedback first (heck, that's why I haven't done it yet). Plus, the proposal makes the whole thing more structured; it's not just a couple Users fed-up with the one-liners, but a new way to approach inter-character relationships. It also gets more feedback on which relationships do merit sections, so no one can say, "you just made a Daisy-Luigi section because you want them to be together! >:P" - Walkazo (talk)
- Yeah, I guess some users might get upset, although I personally wouldn't care as long as the edits were of better quality than the originals. I say its "irrelevant" because, regardless if it passes or fails, the outcome will likely be the same - more focused relationship sections. So I guess it's good that attention was brought to the issue, although it probably could have been done on the main talk page. =) -- Son of Suns (talk)
If an article itself makes it obvious how said character relates to another character, there's no need for an extra section on these pages. However, if it's too difficult to fit this type of info into the rest of the article, then maybe these sections can be kept on articles that don't make it clear enough. I can't decide which side to support on this proposal. Dom (talk)
- Well, as SoS said, either way results in the removal of the pointless relationships and the development of the worthwhile sections. It's semantics, really: do you wanna say you're hacking away the bad stuff, or building up the good? Personally, I like deleting stuff, and I hate the one-line relationships, so I say "Slash 'Em" ;D - Walkazo (talk)
Time Q: Who says I won't follow on with Walkazo's idea of keeping the few relevant section under a different name? Blitzwing (talk)
Splits & Merges
None at the moment.
Changes
None at the moment.
Miscellaneous
None at the moment.
|
