MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions
(→Oppose) |
|||
Line 139: | Line 139: | ||
#{{User|Time Q}}: There's no reason for having two different numbers, so it's a good idea to even them out. Three seems like a reasonable number: experience has shown that there are hardly ever 5 users that vote for the removal of an FA vote. Oh, and just to clarify: Current rules state that one sysop must be among the voters that vote for the removal of an FA vote. This, of course, should stay the same. | #{{User|Time Q}}: There's no reason for having two different numbers, so it's a good idea to even them out. Three seems like a reasonable number: experience has shown that there are hardly ever 5 users that vote for the removal of an FA vote. Oh, and just to clarify: Current rules state that one sysop must be among the voters that vote for the removal of an FA vote. This, of course, should stay the same. | ||
#{{User|P. Trainer}} Per all. | #{{User|P. Trainer}} Per all. | ||
#{{user|Yoshario}} – Per all | |||
====Change Proposal Number==== | ====Change Proposal Number==== |
Revision as of 09:59, September 4, 2009
![dessert1.jpg](http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r149/Deadringerforlove/dessert1.jpg)
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.
|
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}}.
This page observes the No-Signature Policy.
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.
- All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week.
- If a proposal has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail by a margin of three votes. If a proposal reaches the deadline and the total number of votes for each option differ by two or less votes, the deadline will be extended for another week.
- 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.
- No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
- Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation. However, the proposer can request that their proposal be deleted by a Sysop at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it.
- 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.
- There shouldn't be proposals about creating articles on a underrepresented or completely absent subject, unless there is major disagreement about whether the content should be included. To organize efforts about completing articles on missing subjects, try creating a PipeProject.
- Proposals can not be made about System Operator promotions and demotions. Sysops can only be promoted and demoted by the will of Bureaucrats.
- If the Sysops deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to remove it at any time.
- No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters, and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
The times are in EDT (UTC -4:00), 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.
New Features
No name, no vote, no creator's username, delete, Version 2
Alright a few months back we had a proposal known as "No name, no vote, no creator's username, deleted poll" which is a small rule for the poll selection page which organized voteing , the proposal pass, but when it pass the poll selection page was no longer used (which sucks because it just happen with no warning and a lot of users like it because it was a lot of fun. I still think the Poll selection page should still be running), so I came up with the idea to apply this rule to the FI and proposal page (I'm not sure if the FA has the support or oppose system, but if it does then it will be apply to that page also.). For all the new users who don't know what I'm talking about it's just basically if you don't put your username under support or oppose then your vote is deleted. note: This doesn't apply to the "comments" section but if a user forgot to put his/her name then just let them, you, or someone else put there username in.
Proposer: Zero777 (talk)
Deadline: September 5, 2009, 20:00
Support
- Zero777 (talk) I am Zero! (creator) The last one pass very successfully, because think about it why make a section if you are not going to support it yourself? There's no reason to oppose since if it pass then it will make a turn for the better for everybody. This proposal will make the pages I just said more organized. Zero signing out.
- YellowYoshi127 (talk) Yoshi! I don't like it when a niminator doesn't support it himself but I see no real reason to have to add creator after your user name as above it usually says nominated by.
Oppose
- Tucayo (talk) - So... If i dont say who i am when i vote, my vote gets deleted..... Stupid.
- Luigifreak (talk) - Per all. We dont need to delete those right off the bat, it's often just a misunderstanding and once the user is told, he/she will almost always change it.
- Yoshario (talk) - If this doesn't apply to the comments section, and a user could fill their username in there, then why not in the Support/Oppose section? There seems to be no need to remove a user's vote because they didn't sign it, someone else could for them.
- Itachi 96 (talk) Per all except Time Q.
- Marioguy1 (talk) - Just add {{unsigned}}, yeash. No need to make someone worry about not having their vote there like someone did to me.
- Randoman123456789 (talk) - Per all.
- Super Paper Mario Bros. (talk) No. Just no. I don't vote on some of my proposals (such as the recent amendment to the No-Signature policy that requires coding). Sometimes the proposer might understand the reasoning of both sides, and can't make up their mind. So, as I said, I oppose this.
- Time Q (talk): Per Yoshario. This is a rule that probably wouldn't do much harm, but it wouldn't make sense either.
- Baby Mario Bloops (talk) Per all.
- T.c.w7468 (talk) Per all
Comment
I am Zero! Oh ya, I forgot that part, I was thinking of the poll selection page. Zero signing out. Zero777 (talk)
I agree with the no name no vote part but I dont think the no username of creator is pointless. Don't most creators vote after they already have published it? Betaman (talk)
- The no name rule already exists with the no-sig policy. I don't think we have to rewrite it. Marioguy1 (talk)
What happened to the other votes? Itachi 96 (talk)
I am Zero! I altered the proposal so much I have to delete the votes and start all over, because some people aren't getting the picture. Zero signing out. Zero777 (talk)
I struck my vote and those that are "per-ing" me for now. Anyone of the users concerned feel free to replace your striked votes with a valid one. Time Q (talk)
I am Zero! Well if you put it that way, well ya it's stupid, but overall is good. Zero signing out. Zero777 (talk)
I have to say that I don't really get the point (what keeps me from voting). So an unsigned vote will be deleted, but another one can fill in your username and then it's fine? Wouldn't it be easier to just tell the person that he/she forgot to sign the vote? I don't understand it. To me it seems like the bold text and the rest contridict each other. Someone please enlighten me. Edofenrir (talk)
Marioguy1 (talk) - Sorry Time Q but you crossed out your vote and your vote has no logic. Plus, your vote is messing up the number system, it looks like there are seven people yet there are only four.
- I know it has no logic (anymore), that's why I crossed it out >.< But there are still some people per-ing me, so I left it there for now. I'll remove it soon, but I wanted to give the other users the chance to update their votes. By the way, you're vote has no reason and thus is invalid. Time Q (talk)
I am Zero! *sigh* It was a success last time, so I wonder what did I add or remove to make this one a failure? Zero signing out. Zero777 (talk)
Create spoiler boxes
Over on a couple wikis, they have boxes that toggle(show/hide) that contain any information that may give away the ending plot. I propose that we do the same thing. That way, people can't say that they just figured out the entire plot of the game without a warning. Now I know that we already have those warning things, but my eyes tend to linger and other people's probably do too. I would need lots of help to create and place these if this proposal goes through. So if it does, help would be appreciated.
Proposer: Electrobomber (talk)
Deadline: September 7, 2009, 17:00
Support
- Electrobomber (talk) Per above
Oppose
- Walkazo (talk) - It's too much hassle. Really, people should expect spoilers if they read anything on the Internet; the fact that we even bother warning them puts us ahead of the vast majority of websites out there (not to mention people who troll forums just to spoil plots). Our job is to deliver all the facts we can, and bending over backwards to accommodate people who don't want all the facts is counter-productive.
- Stooben Rooben (talk) - Per Walkazo.
- Yoshario (talk)}: Per Walkazo
- Marioguy1 (talk) - Wow, Walkazo's making a lot of sense today, first that comment and now this. Per Her.
- Time Q (talk): Per Walkazo. To be honest, even the spoiler templates we have seem sort of unnecessary to me. I mean, we're an encyclopedia trying to cover all Mario-related stuff, and of course this includes spoilers as well. Putting those templates in articles seems unencyclopedic to me. Just my two cents... anyway, no need for even more spoiler warnings.
- Grandy02 (talk): Per all. I also agree with Time Q, I don't find those spoiler templates useful, either.
- Itachi 96 (talk): Per all.
- Pie Shroom (talk) Per Azzy.
- P. Trainer (talk) Per Walkazo
Comments
we already have them :) {{spoiler}} Tucayo (talk)
So, if the wiki has them... are they in use?Sorry, i checked. They are.- Edofenrir (talk)- Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he's not talking about the {{spoiler}}-thingies, but about something that hides the spoiling contents from the visitors eyes and reveals it when clicked on. - Edofenrir (talk)
- Yes, you're exactly right, Edofenrir. The spoiler template is "those warning things", as mentioned in the proposal; Electrobomber is suggesting we put the spoiling information in show/hide boxes. - Walkazo (talk)
- oh, sorry :embarassed: i didnt understad the proposal ver good :/ Tucayo (talk)
- there, is the proposal a little easier to understand now? Electrobomber (talk)
- oh, sorry :embarassed: i didnt understad the proposal ver good :/ Tucayo (talk)
- Yes, you're exactly right, Edofenrir. The spoiler template is "those warning things", as mentioned in the proposal; Electrobomber is suggesting we put the spoiling information in show/hide boxes. - Walkazo (talk)
- Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he's not talking about the {{spoiler}}-thingies, but about something that hides the spoiling contents from the visitors eyes and reveals it when clicked on. - Edofenrir (talk)
Removals
None at the moment.
Splits & Merges
None at the moment.
Changes
Even Out Removal Votes
OK, I am very annoyed when I see an inconsistency on a wiki and as I look at the proposals page and the FA page, I notice that there is an inconsistency in the number of votes it takes to remove the invalid votes. On the proposals page, it takes three and on the FA page it takes five, why the two-number difference? If this proposal passes, those numbers will even out so that there is one universal number so that someone doesn't mess up like that guy :( Anyways, I've created three voting groups just in case someone wants one but not the other.
Proposer: Marioguy1 (talk)
Deadline: Thursday September 10th, 2009 (17:00.00)
Change FA Number
- Marioguy1 (talk) - The FA Number is higher so making it lower would help to squish out those fan-votes because people love someone. On the proposal page I doubt there would be fan-votes. Oh yes and when this proposal ends, if even one of the numbers changes, I want it marked as a success (you know green).
- Edofenrir (talk) - I support this, but only if the removal-votes have to be accompanied by a strong reason to be valid (like it is now). I think three strong reasons are enough.
- Tucayo (talk) - Per, though i am of the idea that we should delete ALL fan votes without going through this....
- T.c.w7468 (talk) Per all. But what are we going to change the number to? Four?
- Pie Shroom (talk) Per MG1.
- Timmy Tim (talk) Sounds fair. FIs need two, but that's too little in my opinion.
- Randoman123456789 (talk) - Per Marioguy1.
- Time Q (talk): There's no reason for having two different numbers, so it's a good idea to even them out. Three seems like a reasonable number: experience has shown that there are hardly ever 5 users that vote for the removal of an FA vote. Oh, and just to clarify: Current rules state that one sysop must be among the voters that vote for the removal of an FA vote. This, of course, should stay the same.
- P. Trainer (talk) Per all.
- Yoshario (talk) – Per all
Change Proposal Number
Don't Change Numbers
Comments
@T.c.w7468: I think the proposer splitted the support section into two to avoid problems with this question. You just voted for decreasing both numbers of neccessary removal votes to 3. If you had picked the other support category, you would have voted for increasing both numbers of necessary removal votes to five ;3 - Edofenrir (talk)
- Unless I wrote to change the rule it won't be changed. Marioguy1 (talk)
Creations & Deletions
OK, this proposal is just to test out whether or not this idea is worth proposing. Anyhow, my proposal is to make a section on this page called Creations & Deletions to replace the section Removals. This way there will be more space so that to propose, say a Q&A Page, you won't have to put it under Miscellaneous. This could also help with those old proposals of creating and deleting committees. So that's basically it, vote now!
Proposer: Marioguy1 (talk)
Deadline: Friday September 11th, 2009 (20:00.00)
Create Section
Don't Create Section
Comments
Miscellaneous
None at the moment.