MarioWiki talk:Proposals/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
Line 47: Line 47:
:::::::Or we could just say, at the top of the page, to check the archives before making a proposal. [[User:MarioGalaxy2433g5|MarioGalaxy2433g5]] 16:35, 18 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::Or we could just say, at the top of the page, to check the archives before making a proposal. [[User:MarioGalaxy2433g5|MarioGalaxy2433g5]] 16:35, 18 January 2008 (EST)
The thing is, there are tonnes of archived proposals and most people will not have the patience to look through them all. Plus some of us have old cruddy computers that can't handle the massive amounts of data in those archives or take forever to load the pages. - [[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]]
The thing is, there are tonnes of archived proposals and most people will not have the patience to look through them all. Plus some of us have old cruddy computers that can't handle the massive amounts of data in those archives or take forever to load the pages. - [[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]]
:It isn't my fault that some of you have images in your sigs which significantly increases the loading. [[User:MarioGalaxy2433g5|MarioGalaxy2433g5]] 17:28, 28 January 2008 (EST)


=="Per"==
=="Per"==

Revision as of 17:28, January 28, 2008

Someone propose the chat be moved. Por favor. I don't think it even needs a vote, so I won't put it there.SaudyTalk!

I'm a bit undecided if I should leave it up to the community. I will consider it though. Wa Yoshihead.png TC@Y 23:34, 29 May 2007 (EDT) EDIT: You're a sysop. You can bring it up. 23:34, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

What is this exactly? Mr. M Mr. M.jpg TCCragley ho!

Splitting

Shouldn't we perhaps move this page to subpages? The edit glitch problem is starting to happen again.Knife (talk) 13:57, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

Anyone?Knife (talk) 16:30, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

Agree.

Gofer

Go ahead and do such splitting. I don't what type of page is this.(Super F22 Pilot 05:00, 22 November 2007 (EST))

Complete Rehaul

Expect a complete rehaul of this page and archives WITHIN THE NEXT COUPLE OF DAYS by me – sub-pages of this & archive page. It's next on my to-do list after a couple of new MarioWiki pages. Wa Yoshihead.png TC@Y 20:59, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

No way, that would make things hard to find if you make a sub-page for every proposal or category. Tadaa!2.gifPlumberTadaaa!.gif 23:29, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

Question

I made the "It's not just america" section,and I want to know, did I set it out right? And about the deadline, is it just the time the section was made plus "EDT"? I don't understand that part... Davidk92

Archives

We need to do something about the super big archive page. It's getting harder and harder to load, so I can't even archive was I just removed from this page. -- Son of Suns

Simply make a second archive. The simplist explanation is almost always the corret answer. My Bloody Valentine
Should we archive 20 at a time like we do with the Main Page Talk? -- Shyghost.PNGChrisShyghost.PNG 22:20, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
Actually, screw it. I'll move everything now. -- Shyghost.PNGChrisShyghost.PNG 22:20, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
Done. Not perfect, but it's done. -- Shyghost.PNGChrisShyghost.PNG 22:56, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

I was thinking, a better way to lower load times would be to thin out the archives. How, you might ask. Simple, each section would have it's own archive. IE: Merges & Splits has it's own archive, right? Well, New Features would get the same treatment, as would all other sections. Yes, this will increase the number of archives, but it will drastically cut down the load times for everyone. In fact, I might just make this a proposal. -- Shyghost.PNGChrisShyghost.PNG 01:52, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Actually, now that I think about it, this isn't such a hot idea. It would create more work that needed. -- Shyghost.PNGChrisShyghost.PNG 02:01, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Didn't I start a proposal? User:TehBooKid/sig

Wayoshi deleted it. Not sure if this is okay. Time Questions 15:52, 27 November 2007 (EST)

>=O User:TehBooKid/sig

Old proposals coming up again

Seriously, a lot of these proposals are on a previous subject. We should do something about it. MarioGalaxy2433g5 17:28, 15 January 2008 (EST)

It is annoying, but the most we can really do is point out that the proposal's already been done. Odds are the votes will turn out the same, or the person who proposed the idea again might just take it off, but we can't make them as far as I know. Besdies, things change over time, and I remember at least once instance where a proposal that passed was revoked the second time around because people looked at it again and thought of it a different way and realized it really wasn't really an idea that would fly. - Walkazo
A time limit could always be put in place. Say, a particular topic may not be brought up again until 60 days have past since it's last proposal. -- Shyghost.PNGChrisShyghost.PNG 22:03, 16 January 2008 (EST)
I'd support a proposal for that if you made it. Stumpers! 01:17, 17 January 2008 (EST)
Perhap we could also have a list of proposal idea that passed/failed (and perhap the reasons why said proposals passed/failed) on the proposal page to indicate if it has already have been brought up. That way, perhap we could prevent something like the Improvement Drive from being brought up, accepted and turn out to be a simillar flop. --Blitzwing 06:59, 17 January 2008 (EST)
Good idea, it'd be like a shorter, easier to load version of the Proposal Archives. But that list is gonna be pretty big, so we should probably have it on a seperate page from Proposals. - Walkazo
Yeah, of course. I think this page (If it ever get created) should be organised in a table. --Blitzwing 17:12, 17 January 2008 (EST)
Or we could just say, at the top of the page, to check the archives before making a proposal. MarioGalaxy2433g5 16:35, 18 January 2008 (EST)

The thing is, there are tonnes of archived proposals and most people will not have the patience to look through them all. Plus some of us have old cruddy computers that can't handle the massive amounts of data in those archives or take forever to load the pages. - Walkazo

It isn't my fault that some of you have images in your sigs which significantly increases the loading. MarioGalaxy2433g5 17:28, 28 January 2008 (EST)

"Per"

I have a question, and this might make me sound not smart, but remember, I'm new here. What does it mean exactly when you say "per" all the time? I mean, by now, I've figured out that it means "I agree with this person." But why, and how did everyone here learn what it means? Everyone's always like, "Per this user. Per that user." And I'm wondering, "Is that a real thing that people say, or is it Mario Wiki slang? If you think I'm silly because I don't know this, just remember that I'm new here and I don't know many of these terms that people use. Could someone just answer the question? Orangeyoshi 20:33, 21 January 2008 (EST)

I just moved this so that it would get more traffic. I don't know personally. If it is MarioWiki slang I should put it in the glossary. Stumpers! 21:10, 21 January 2008 (EST)
It's not MarioWiki slang (see definition 4). Time Questions 01:21, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Ah. Thanks for helping me out. But why does everyone on MarioWiki use it? I didn't know what it means before Time Q showed me a dictionary entry. Before I was a user, did everyone on MarioWiki get together and say, "You know what? Let's say "Per" all the time when we're voting in proposals.", or what? (Just so you know, I wasn't serious.") Orangeyoshi 20:54, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Well, it's way faster than saying "I agree..." and I'm sure a few users have heard it used in real life (like me) or on other Wikis or polls or whatever, and decided to incorporate it here to save time, then everyone started copying them. But I dunno for sure; I've only been here a few months. - Walkazo
You're probably right. That's good enough for me. Orangeyoshi 18:55, 23 January 2008 (EST)