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: 04:39, 5 January 2025 (EDT)
New Features
None at the moment.
Removals
Site Logos
I have always had this huge pet peeve on any wikipedia site, especially this one, over how bad images look when they contain a site logo. This includes character artworks, screen shots, and any other images that are not for a users personal use. Sometimes they're not really THAT noticeable, but when you resort to using imagery just because you don't have it in spite of it having a sites logo stamped on it, it's depressing to see articles get featured or even nominated when they contain low quality imagery such as this. On a side note, a lot of these logos can be digitally removed which in the case of editing an image before upload is completely harmless. If you don't know how, then make a note of it when you upload the image, or better yet, in the images description. It's not hard, it's quick, and it makes a big difference. Regardless, I don't feel images containing site logos should be permitted for upload on the supermariowiki unless it is for user purposes (talk pages etc.) If you oppose this, you support the idea of keeping images which lower the quality of our wiki. If you support, you agree to make it so that no images with site logos may be allowed on our wiki without at the very least having them edited out of site.
Proposer: ForeverDaisy09 (talk)
Deadline: May 27, 2008, 15:45
Support (Remove+Refuse Imagery With Logos)
- ForeverDaisy09 (talk) - Images as suggested lower the quality of any page they are associated with, and are simply put, an eyesore.
- Glitchman (talk) - FINALLY someone notices this problem!! I agree with ForeverDaisy09 in all aspects, it's an annoying and pointless problem that can be fixed. How could you say no to this?
- Per all. -Canama
- Finally! Someone notices! user:Yoshitheawesome
Oppose (Continue Accepting Images Containing Website Logos)
- InfectedShroom (talk) - As you said: people can edit the logo out. But not all people. Microsoft Paint makes it very difficult, and it's not easy in Photoshop. And as Wayo said: it's a very hard rule to enforce.
- Tykyle (talk) - Per my comment below.
- Blitzwing (talk) - Per Tykyle.
- Shroobario (talk) - Per Tykyle.
- RAP (talk) - Per Tykyle.
- Stooben Rooben (talk) - Per Tykyle. I also want to note that just because we oppose this proposal, does not mean that support the lessening of quality on this wiki. It could just be that we think an image is an image, regardless of a small logo.
- Stumpers (talk) With images on any Wiki, here's how it goes: you get an image you can legally use that illustrates what you're looking for, no matter how cruddy. Then, the low quality image serves the purpose of being an informational aid AND a request for someone to upload a higher quality image (like one w/o a site logo). Because we're here to provide information rather than be an art show, anyone who says that information in picture form should be removed just because it doesn't "look good" is lowering the quality of the Wiki.
- Pokemon DP (talk) - While they are annoying, they shouldn't be removed completely. What if no better image can be found? While I'd prefer no logos, sometimes, there is no other choice.
- EnPeached (talk)Per Tykyle and DP
- Bob-omb buddy (talk)-They may be the only option,and if left up a user can edit it out by copy and paste
- Clay Mario (talk) Per Tykle
- Walkazo (talk) - Per all.
All I can say is good luck trying to enforce this, and fix it now... Wayoshi (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
- Images with low quality or site logos are merely tolerated, but definitely not encouraged. I don't see any policy change in this proposal. See Category:Quality requested. - Cobold (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
- Well, I think FD09 is proposing to get rid of these images, i.e. to introduce a policy which forbids uploading such images. That would be different from "merely tolerating" them. Did I get that right? Time Q (talk)
- Basically, I think that sounds right. - ForeverDaisy09 (talk)
FD09: I do not "support the idea of keeping images which lower the quality of our wiki." That would be ridiculous. Most people do not support that, as it would be stupid. I believe that if an image can show more than text, even if that image is lower quality, it is beneficial to the wiki. This is probably the mentality of other users. InfectedShroom (talk) And we should have a list or something of all the images like that, as I can easily edit them. :/ OOps. Cobold's Category is what I wanted. ;)
- The main point is to prevent such imagery from being used on our wiki. The point is an image is meant to visually show something, and when that purpose is interrupted with an ugly site logo, it's purpose is no where near an acceptable standard. - ForeverDaisy09 (talk)
I fully oppose this proposal. Images with a website logo or a water-mark should only be removed if an appropriate alternative can be found. In other words, these offending images should be replaced, not removed; furthermore, images such as these should not be immediately refused, especially if the article in question lacks any images at all. --Tykyle 18:54, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
- Like I said right above, bad images take away the purpose of imagery at all. I already suggested an alternative just to make it that much easier. - ForeverDaisy09 (talk)
- A small, 75 x 25 px watermark does not take away from the imagery. And that alternative (of digitally editing) is not great, as many users are probably unable to edit the mark out. InfectedShroom (talk)
- Just for the sake of argument, I'll point out that if we have a member with the time and a reasonably new copy of Photoshop the watermark can be removed. -- Ghost Jam (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
Regardless of weather or not this goes through, we all still have the ability to edit site logos out of images. You don't always need to be good with the computer, or even have a good art program to edit out logos. I use paint more than photoshop to edit out site logos. Don't act like everyone is helpless just because they don't have photoshop. Also, it is still my opinion that these images (with site logos) do lower the quality of pages, regardless of what information they provide. A good example would be a screen shots section. It's not there to show you a crappy image of a character from the specified game, it's there to show off the quality of their appearance in that game. - ForeverDaisy09 (talk)
- I wasn't acting "like everyone is helpless just because they don't have photoshop." I was saying that some users may not have the skill to professionally remove a web logo. And not all screenshots are meant to show off the quality of a certain game. As Nintendo doesn't always make good graphics, screenshots aren't always meant to show the quality of the game. Ah, well, I'm done with this conversation. InfectedShroom (talk)
- Ok, let's take IGN's images for example. Great quality, but watermarked/logo'd. Definatly not a "crappy image", but it has a watermark. It doesn't instantly turn to "crap" just because there's a mark in the corner. And, I should remind you: often editing out a logo means editing out a chunk of the image itself. So, if you feel that black spots on images is preferable to logos... Stumpers (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
- So you automatically assume editing out a logo means putting a black censor block over it? That's cool. :| - ForeverDaisy09 (talk)
- I kinda agree with the oppose people here, but I don't have a strong enough opinion to vote. CrystalYoshi (talk) 10:52, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
Splits & Merges
None at the moment
Changes
None at the moment.
Miscellaneous
None at the moment.
|
