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.
- There are two topics that cannot be decided on through a proposal: the first is sysop promotions and demotions, which are decided by Bureaucrats. Secondly, no proposals calling for the creation of Banjo, Conker or Sonic series articles are allowed (several proposals supporting them have failed in recent history).
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: 00:37, 30 November 2024 (EDT)
New Features
None at the moment.
Removals
None at the moment.
Splits & Merges
Waffle Kingdom Locations
Well, since the Waffle Kingdom is only spoken of in the Super Luigi Series novels briefly, do we really need an article for every location mentioned? It seems a bit useless to make an entire article on something we've never seen that also doesn't play a significant role in any of the games or other incarnations of the Mario series. So, it seems like a good idea to merge all of the locations with their own section on an article titled "Waffle Kingdom Locations" instead of a whole category.
Proposer: Crystal Batamon (talk)
Deadline: September 19, 2008, 20:00
Support
- Fantastic Mr. L (talk) I agree, as much as I love the Waffle Kingdom there really isn't alot of information since Luigi is amazingly vague when it comes to details.Most of the articles have one or two paragraphs. If on the off chance a game or something is ever made with more info, maybe they should be split again.In the mean time, merged.
- Blitzwing (talk) I like the idea of having an article for every objects and locations of the Waffle Kingdom. While they're more developed than most of the other Implied articles, they're still pretty barebone.
- Xpike (talk) Better this idea, because each of those have each enough info for going to the list of implied, however, all items and implied persons/characters would also go into that page.
- Walkazo (talk) - It would be easier for people to learn about the Waffle Kingdom if it's all in once spot rather than spread out amongst multiple little articles. While it is technically an "Implied Location", it's a pretty substantial place; and seeing it relegated to the List would be a shame.
- Grandy02 (talk) All those locations don't need their own articles, but the topic is too complex to be completely merged into List of Implied Locations, so one article for it should stay.
- Booster - There's a lot to say about the Waffle Kingdom. It would feel out of place merging it all onto a list full of other, even more obscure and irrelevant places.
Oppose
Add to list of implied..
- tanokkitails- It makes sense to merge but List of implied locations would be better
- Ghost Jam - per current policy.
- Negative Squad (talk) Per all. Besides, there's the huge chance that Luigi actually made all this up, and paid all his "partners" to say stuff. Really, if you were Luigi, wouldn't you love to say you were actually doing something while Mario was off on his adventure? And besides, explain how he managed to show up at a lot of your battles if he was at the Waffle Kingdom?
- Stooben Rooben (talk) Per Ghost Jam. It could be incredibly easy if one were to just do something like this.
You might want to vote for your own proposal, Crystal Batamon. Time Q (talk)
It was also mentioned by Luigi in Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door. Sonic64 (talk)
Actually, current Wiki policy states that any character, organization, location, entertainment, etc. that does not physically appear should be merged with one of the "List of Implied ___s" page. For example, the Waffle Kingdom would be on "List of Implied Locations." So, if you just want the articles to be merged into that, please remove your proposal. If you feel it would be more applicable to create a separate article for the Waffle Kingdom locations because they are more fleshed out than other Implied Locations, keep your proposal here. Stumpers (talk)
Oh I didn't know that Stumpers, my bad. Fantastic Mr. L (talk)
- No problem. What we're looking at simply is that "oppose" would be the same thing as "merge to List of Implied Locations." P.S. Why is that your bad? Our policies are so involved these days and there's actually quite a few such as the one I mentioned that aren't actually written down. Stumpers (talk)
- Me thinks we should take the time to jot these things down some place. I didn't even know about this policy, I voted based on my trust of Stumpers. -- Ghost Jam (talk)20:51, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
- Definitely. Glad to hear you trust me. Sometime in the last year a proposal outlined topics about unseen subjects - it came from articles such as that one about Old Man Skoo - stubs all the way because the character was just mentioned in passing. Stumpers (talk) 22:31, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
Changes
Modifying Wiki Appearance
Long have I heard about "boring white" and "weird logo". Long have you hopefully heard I can do amazing things like this. Long have you thought it's time for a change...or not? That's what we're here for to decide...
- I am thinking we need a nice touch of red, but not as drastic as my skins (the h1 Jokerman font is not supported by all comps, anyways; the logo would not have those special effects...unless you think a reddened would work?).
- I think to really set us apart as unique we need to change the link colors: RED as the article EXISTS, PURPLE as the article DOES NOT EXIST. I understand if there's too much opposition to this, I won't try it.
- I'm thinking of using my current background font, "Super Mario Bros.", with caps filled in and non-caps just an outline, in the logo, and thus keeping the current skin's font intact.
This is somewhat of a special proposal, because it's going to REQUIRE some comments from all who support. Not supporting means you don't want any change to the wiki skin. Supporting means you do want something to change, any one of the above, something not mentioned above, or even all. Please explain in your line of support or in the comments what exactly you think needs to move on. Thank you!
Proposer: Wayoshi (talk)
Deadline: 20 September, 20:00
Time to Make a Change
- Wayoshi (talk) – I like all of the above...
- 1337Yoshi (talk) – The wiki is kinda plain as of right now. But Fantendo already has red links for existing articles, so maybe we should have existing articles some other color (to really set us apart). The logo does need some updating, since it's been like that since the Wiki was founded. Not much else to really say about it, though.
- Negative Squad (talk) – Per all. The wiki has been like this forever, and we NEED a new logo.
- Phailure (talk) &nddash; Per NS. I don't care about color, but our logo NEEDS to be changed. Perhaps we could use something like Mariopedia's[1] logo, I dunno.
- Walkazo (talk) - The current Logo could definitely be improved upon. But the colours (the links especially) should stay the same; creativity is good and all, but most people don't like it when the bare basics are spontaneously changed after years of service for no tangible reason.
- Palkia47 (talk) – as said above, it's just plain white, and is simply boring. The logo is just... blah.
- Luigi001 (talk) I really only think the logo needs updating. It's terribly boring. I'm not sure about everything else though...
- Tucayo (talk) Per Walkazo, but the links should stay the same, as it would be confusing to change the colors.
Current Appearance is Fine
- Super-Yoshi (talk) - Teh old school apperance looks fine. It just wouldn't give the regular feeling of coming onto a page in Mario Wiki.
- Blitzwing (talk) - I agree our current logo isn't exactly stellar, but if the rest of the skin is not broke, why fix it?
- Time Q (talk): I see no need for a change. Even the logo seems quite ok to me. Also, isn't this proposal somehow "insidious"? It's like "only oppose if you want absolutely nothing to change". I thought you'd have to actually make a specific proposal, and users should only support if they completely agree with what is proposed. But here it's the other way round.
- Garlic Man (talk) - I like the classic logo. And I don't want anything besides whitish-gray in the background, or else it's going to distract me. A lot. And I don't like the idea about red links purple links; it'll just make this wiki look like we're just trying to mess around with CSS rather than get stuff done. First impression, that is. Also, depending on ppl's opinions, if it becomes a dark background, I wouldn't like that. I just don't like dark backgrounds. That's why I stopped going to ZeldaWiki and Fantendo. I tried using Wayo's Css and modeified a bit, but even the smallest things changing is really inconvenient(no offense, Wayo. It's only my opinion). It's something you can only tell once you actually experience it.
- Princess Grapes Butterfly (talk) Per all. I like the classic background. So what if its plain. (BTW Bright colour may hurt peples eyes.)
- Stumpers (talk) - I want the Wiki's appearance to change, but I really think that red would be a very poor choice. Yes, the logo does need an update. I think this proposal really has too much gray area - you're basically asking us to give you permission to go forward on this and make decisions as you see fit for a time. I think it would be better if you could figure out EXACTLY what you want to do before you ask us to give you permission. Can you show us an example of what you're thinking of instead of just giving us the code? And yes, red links for created articles would be very confusing. I agree with some of the proposal's points, but not others.
- Cobold (talk) - per Stumpers. I see this proposal a bit lacking real ideas. Steve accepts submissions for redesigns (just create a monobook), and tell if he likes it or not. New logo: Yes.
- Stooben Rooben (talk) - Per Stumpers; the logo is really the only thing that needs a change.
- Jdrowlands (talk) - If you do not like our current skin, you can make your own. I see no point in changing the default.
1337Yoshi – what I meant is, separate us from major wikis like Wikipedia, the Star Wars Wikia one, etc. All those are basically white with blue links, the default (though the Stars Wars one did a good job altering it slightly). Wayoshi (talk)
- I didn't see much wrong with the logo, but meh, I got my own css. It sucks, but it's better than having red links as existing. I'd rather have purple for existing, IMO. But I'm either way. Garlic Man (talk)
Walkazo: The "tangible" reason is that I've heard 10s of complaints about the "boring white" wiki. Wayoshi (talk)
Garlic: Maybe you modified it incorrectly. :| Wayoshi (talk) 10:06, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
Time Q: There's too many possibilities to list them all. Wayoshi (talk) 10:07, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
- I'm pretty torn on this one. I think a red background might be a tad garish; for example, look at Pokemon DP's userpage – it is a solid red with yellow font. As long as it's a more subtle red like this or this I won't have any problems with it.
- My second concern is the change in link color. I think it's a good concept, but if the background were to stay a grayish-white, I would not be able to see the purple links. I know probably everyone else could, but I couldn't – that's something else I'm not particularly fond of.
- As for the font change, I have no objections to that. As long as it's not Webdings or some moronic font like that, I'm fine with it. Stooben Rooben (talk) 10:16, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
- I don't think we should change the link color or font. There's always the option to create your own monobook. Red on white is much harder to make out than blue on white. Cobold (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
- I gotta agree. You know, I was wondering - couldn't we use the backgrounds from Super Mario All-Stars as our backgrounds (we could fade the images much like we do for the backgrounds now)? That would be very old skool and it would give us a little color without obstructing text or changing anything too dramatically. Stumpers (talk)
- I was never going to do red links on white – it would be red links on red. And I would never make it as extreme as a userpage might, I'm always testing tens of colors until what I find is perfect. Am I going to have to make a sample of what I'm thinking of doing? *waits for agreement* Wayoshi (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
- That would be nice so that we would know what we're voting on. Stumpers (talk) 23:35, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
- Agreed. Stooben Rooben (talk)
I personally believe that the results of this proposal will not be definitive: voters who have the same opinions (ie that links should stay the same color but the logo should change) are voting either oppose or support. In other words, the proposal isn't specific enough as I stated in my vote: this is the evidence of that. Wayoshi, if I were you, I'd delete this proposal, finish up your ideas, make a mock-up, and make a new proposal that says, "Let's do exactly this." Stumpers (talk)
- Yeah, I agree with this. This is not how proposals (should) work. Time Q (talk)
Miscellaneous
None at the moment.
|
