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: 05:33, 18 January 2025 (EDT)
New Features
None at the moment.
Removals
"Repeal "Featured Article Voting Modification"
I'll just cut to the chase here: I propose we repeal this proposal.
Now, this proposal was accepted very well. Many people thought that it would be the best option available for the wiki. It seemed so at the time. However, there are many faults in this system:
- As per this comment, the votes can be removed as soon as three users call for the deletion of a vote. This can mean a five-minute discussion and then a deletion of any vote.
- The original proposal said:
ONLY FAN VOTES WITHOUT FURTHER REASONING [...] CAN BE REMOVED!
Now look at one of the support votes for Paper Mario: "Awsome!" It is obvious that it is a vote without further reasoning. It is anything but obvious, however, that it is a fan vote, because it possibly refers to the quality of the article. So, can this vote be removed or not? Pointless discussions could evolve around issues like this.
- Flame wars could be a big factor in this system. If a (*ahem* volatile) user opposes a vote of another easily distressed user, it could be a long and bad flame war, and would probably draw other users in. This would cause tension and distrust between the users and may lead to other problems.
- Anyone who opposes a removal does not need to give a reason. Take the comments of this page for example. Time Q is able to just oppose the removal and is not forced to give his thoughts on why it should stay.
- It's a useless system. One single oppose vote can cancel out an infinite number of support votes. Which gives us the question: Why do we need this system in the first place? Also, only five support votes are necessary to Feature an article with no opposes. So, most of the time, there are already enough legit votes to feature an article even if all the fan votes are removed.
To cut a long story short, the new system tries to regulate things ("useless" support votes) that don't need to be regulated (because support votes don't really matter).
There is no need whatsoever to regulate support votes. If the rules were simple and clear, we could accept them (even though they would still be rather useless), but they pose several problems, as pointed out above. There was one good thing about this proposal, however. This was the following portion:
[...]OPPOSE VOTES THAT ARE NOT CLARIFIED CAN BE REMOVED[...]
This was the one good thing because it allowed users to get rid of oppose votes that were impossible to appease or unneeded to the article. I also propose that, after repealing the current system, that we restore this option for users. The restoration would come with some differences from the original proposal, however:
Five users, including a sysop, must vote to remove the vote, and each remover must have a valid reason for the removal.
You now have our opinions. Users of the MarioWiki, you must now vote on what you think is best. Take your time, review our points, and make sure that you make the best decision possible.
Proposers: InfectedShroom (talk) and Time Q (talk)
Deadline: Thursday, June 5th, 2008, 17:00
Support (Repeal proposal and restore the option to discuss oppose votes)
- InfectedShroom (talk) - My reasons above.
- Time Q (talk): Per IS and myself. In short: There are several problems arising with the new system, some of which surely could be solved, but it's simply not worth the time and work, because it's a simple as that: Support votes don't change nothing, only oppose votes do. Even so-called "fan votes" don't hurt anyone, ergo no need to waste our time discussing them.
- Toadette 4evur (talk) Per IS and Time Q. Before we know it, all the FA nomination pages will be empty if we keep this system.
- Glitchman (talk) Per IS and Time Q.
- Pikax (talk) Now this is a much better solution to the problem than the previous proposal was.
- Blitzwing (talk) Per my opposition of the Proposal in the first place.
Oppose (Keep everything how it already is)
I'm beginning to think that I voted too quickly and rationally on the last proposal. I didn't really think through with what I was saying should be done to the FA pages. While I find it quite necessary to remove fan support votes (due to the fact that they are merely biased votes about the character and not the article itself), I also find non-descriptive oppose votes to be invalid. If a user merely states, "the article has bad writing", or "some areas need expansion" it does not help the decision to feature said article whatsoever. I feel that oppose votes should be quite informative as to what that user feels is wrong with the article. For example, rather than stating "some areas need expansion", one should state "while parts of the article are thoroughly written, I find that the Yoshi's Safari, Super Mario Galaxy, and Other Appearances sections are quite minimal". I'm not requesting that every opposer speak in "fancy words", I merely believe that the opposers state precisely which section(s) require work; by doing so, others can fix the "bad" area(s) of the article, making the article more suitable for an opposer to become a supporter. Stooben Rooben (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
There is only one certain thing about our FA problem: there is no simple solution. It is our own users who are not as professional as Wookiepedia and the other successful non-Wikipedia wiki communities out there. We are more loose on purpose to make others feel welcome, and with the good things that come with it come some drawbacks as well. There may be no solution at all, as long as users continue to care mostly about their Userpedia content and their status in the community, not just how our articles are coming along. Wayoshi (talk) 21:53, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
- (Yes, I know this is not related to the proposal, but I need to get it out of my chest)
I find kinda ironic (and rather hypocritical) that you patronise users over the "lack of proffesionalism" of their edits even thought you haven't yourself made any signifiant mainspace contribution in over a year. Hypocrisy much? Blitzwing (talk)
Splits & Merges
None at the moment.
Changes
Humourous Image Captions
'Nuff said. Nah, I'm just kidding. OK, so, a long, long time ago, we removed clever/witty/humourous image captions from the Wiki. The only one I can remember so far was the Groove Guy caption, which stated "Groovy.", but there were plenty across the Wiki, I'm sure. While most would consider this "unprofressional", with clever headers like "Sharp Shooting" or "Mario and the Seven Koopa Hotels", which were deemed allowed in a previous Proposal, surely we can stand to add humourous captions to images (of course, so long as it abides to the rules).
And note, I'm only proposing humourous image captions. I'm not proposing any major changes to the article itself, just the images.
Proposer: Pokemon DP (talk)
Deadline: June 5, 2008, 17:00
Allow Humourous Image Captions
- Pokemon DP (talk) - I am the Proposer and my reasons are given... Blah blah blah blah, just vote.
- Jdrowlands (talk) - Per DP. This would certainly make the wiki a better place.
- Blitzwing (talk) - Per DP. I agree that we should allow humorous caption It's better to have a witty comment that something retarded like "Mario in a (game). But the (very few) actually informative captions (Such as the one on the Ninji article) shouldn't be destroyed to make way for "Witty" caption.
- Dom (talk) - Yeah, seriously, I agree with DP! I love funny captions, especially if they're random. The gaming magazine I read has heaps of good ones, and it really brightens it up. And most of the captions are pretty useless, like a picture of Mario would say something like "Mario wearing his trademark outfit" or something (I made that up).
- InfectedShroom (talk) - Hmm... Per Blitz. Captions can tell a lot about a picture. So long as good captions are not lost, this is a good idea.
- Toadette 4evur (talk) Per all.
- Walkazo (talk) - Per Blitzwing, et al.
- Glitchman (talk) - Despite the fact that this proposal seems a bit pointless, I'll side with DP.
- Wayoshi (talk) – see comment below
- Pikax (talk) Provided that users don't go over the top with this, I see no reason to oppose.
- Bob-omb buddy (talk)As long as it isn't made rude.
- YellowYoshi398 (talk) - Per DP, but I'm gonna have to say I won't want titles like captions to reappear...
- WiiBoy7 (talk) - I think it would be a great addition. It would improve the Wiki in my opinion.
Do Not Allow Humourous Image Captions
I don't know what you mean by "humorous" and I don't know which "rules" you're talking about the captions should abide. I love humor and funny image captions are appropriate for gaming magazines. But you should remember that the MarioWiki attempts to be an encyclopedia. Have you ever seen an encyclopedia with "funny" image captions? I haven't. I'm not saying that the wiki shouldn't be "fun", but when it comes to articles, they should be as neutral as possible. There's also a difference between the "creative headers" you're mentioning and humorous image captions, in my opinion. The headers aren't humorous, they're merely an alternative to simply putting the game title as the header. I'm leaning towards oppose, but perhaps you could explain a bit further what you mean by "humorous"? Time Q (talk)
- Actually, the Transformers Wiki is an encyclopedia with "funny" image captions, and it's used and edited by personallities that have worked on the Transformers brand, so please don't pull out the "IT'S NOT ENCYCLOPEDIC!!!!111!" bullcrap. Blitzwing (talk)
- I wouldn't say it's bullcrap, 'cause that's how I think it is. Thanks for the example though. The image captions on this wiki (I randomly looked at Decepticon) are way too "funny" in my opinion. I mean, nobody of us would want to change the general style of articles to a more "funny" style (at least I hope so), so why should we do that with image captions? It wouldn't fit the general style of the wiki. Time Q (talk)
- Yeah, that Decepticon article was a bit too informal, but I dion't think that's what DP's going for with this proposal. His "Groovy" example's good, because it's funny but not unneccesary, especially when the alternative is "A Groove Guy": 99% of the time that would result in a "no duh" from the reader, sorta like "A Pirate Goomba is a pirate Goomba." If there's nothing worthwile to say about the picture, then there's no harm in a bit of wit; as long as its done in moderation. - Walkazo (talk)
What Walkazo said. Pokemon DP (talk)
I see no problem with it, it adds to our reputation as carefree, not too strict on the rules like Wikipedia. Wayoshi (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
Miscellaneous
None at the moment.
