MarioWiki:Proposals

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. Proposals can not be made about System Operator promotions and demotions. Sysops can only be promoted and demoted by the will of Bureaucrats. 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. No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old. 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. All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week. 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. CURRENTLY: 13:37, 12 January 2025 (EDT) New Features New User Ranking I am proposing that a new ranking should be added added (the current rankings are Patroller, Sysop, and Bureaucrat) for a few reasons. I feel that the Wiki has been kind of lagging per say lately. In example, the proposals section sometimes has proposals a day past deadline. The New Proposals section, unless it is updated by another user who has started a new proposal changes it, will often sit not being updated for a few days (not day, days) before being updated. These are only a few examples out of many I could point out. Some users deserve promotions, but may or may not be ready for the current rankings. The Patrollers, Sysops, and Bureaucrats would probably like more help. The rank, if this proposal passes, would probably be called Assistant-Patrollers or Monitors and would be ranked below Patrollers but above regular users. This ranking would bring minor things on the wiki up to date and help Patrollers with their duties. For more information on the proposed position, please check this page. Proposer: Super Mario Bros. (talk) Deadline: 5 May 2009, 17:00 Create New Ranking Super Mario Bros. (talk) Per my reasons above (and below) and Stooben Rooben's below. Stooben Rooben (talk) - Per the comments above, and my comments below. There are several wikis that have a ranking strictly with the 'rollback' power. While a lot of arguments went on over the Patrollers position's "usefulness", I honestly see no problem adding a rank with the ability to rollback. Sure, any user can revert an edit by clicking 'undo' and saving the page, but having the ability to 'rollback' makes that rank all the more useful. I remember when I was a standard user and I could only revert spam by clicking 'undo' and saving. It took a long time and the odds were that more damage was being done while I was reverting. A few seconds may not seem like a long time, but on the wiki, a lot can happen in a short amount of time. dark boo (talk) I think this could get some users more active if they know that there is yet another rank that they can strive for which could leave the wiki in a better situation Don't Create New Ranking Blitzwing (talk) - Considering Patrollers were once removed not having enough power, a ranking whose only power is a souped up version of something normal users can already do (Anyone can undo an edit) seems incredibly pointless. Tucayo (talk) - Per Blitz Time Q (talk): Per Blitzwing. There's no need for another rank. If we need more "higher-privileged" people, they can be perfectly patrollers. Grapes (talk) - Per all. Walkazo (talk) - Per all. Rollback is handy, but normal users can still revert a bunch of edits at the same time by going into the History and clicking "Edit" on the last revision before the bad edits were made (admins still have to do that if other people have edited in the interim). The whole process takes a minute or so, as opposed to the seconds used for Rollback, but really, that's too small a change to justify all the hastles of installing a new rank. Zafum (talk) - There is no reason we need a new rank. Per All. Coincollector (talk) - I disagree in response for all. I don't think that another new rank should be set here. In that case, you have decided to create some of the other ranks seen in Wikipedia (checkusers, stewards, oversighters, etc), which they have a more specific action to do, but resulting more complicated to add these restricted features here to an user who is going to be promoted basically. Yoshario (talk) - Per Blitz and Coincollector. There is no reason why a normal user couldn't just undo an edit. Promotions aren't a "title" but rather a set of tools experienced users use, and it does seem incredibly pointless to make porple go through the work to make another usergroup that can virtually do the same thing normal users can do. Comments I am not sure if this falls under the promotions rule of proposals, I do remember a proposal about Patrollers, though. Super Mario Bros. (talk) Okay, a few notes here. First and foremost, once this clears, we must inform Porplemontage (talk) about the changed that need to be made. (If they can be.) Secondly, what kind of powers would this ranking have? Patrollers have the ability to Block, Patrol, and Rollback, so this ranking would have to have even less powers. Third, the proposals page does not need to be updated by a Sysop. Any user can archive proposals. -- Stooben Rooben (talk) To respond to your notes: I will make sure that Porplemontage (talk) knows about this. He seems to have been offline lately, if he is when we tell him, and he doesn't respond, I won't know what to do then. This new ranking would have the powers of Rollback and Patroling, not much less than a Patroller, but they are basically Patrollers in training. I know, I have archived proposals before, but a lot of users who see proposals just sitting there and don't do anything about it. This could possibly be a part of the new position, making sure that everything is up to date. This would help keep the flow of Wiki going. I hope that explains everything. Super Mario Bros. (talk) Cool, thanks for elaborating. Porplemontage was recently on a short hiatus, but he returned last night. He'll be active daily, likely. Okay. This is merely my thoughts on a Monitor's power, but I believe they should only have the ability to Rollback. There are several wikis that have a rank just for rolling back, so I think that would be a good idea. But, since this is your proposal, I'm not forcing my opinions on you. Alright, that sounds fair. -- Stooben Rooben (talk) Well, now that I look at what you said, I think you are correct. I think the Moniter would be too similar to Patrollers with both powers, they should only have Rollback. Thank you for pointing that out. Super Mario Bros. (talk) Alright, then. You have my support! Stooben Rooben (talk) Thank you for your support and help with the proposal itself. Super Mario Bros. (talk) But, what I am saying, is that the Wiki has been slow, and that a new ranking could possibly help. Some users might think that they shouldn't do stuff if they don't have a fancy title (which I think would be dumb, but very well might be true). Some users who qualify for Patroller never get promoted, (and one user, who's name I will not state, was never promoted, did a lot on the wiki. He has retired and considered himself a failure). Besides, as I said, even a tiny position such as the proposed Monitor can have a big effect on the wiki. If the Patroller ranking was deleted, then why was it added back to the wiki? It was considered a small position to the wiki, but when it was deleted, people realized that change. So, yes, even a minor position can have a big effect . Super Mario Bros. (talk) And besides, think about it. Do we have a need for Sysops? If you think about it, we could just break up the position and give more duties to the Bureaucrats and Patrollers. A Sysop can be compared, in a sense, to a Patroller with a few more duties or a Bureaucrat with less duties, so it can easily be done. If the Sysops group was broken up right now, those in the group who are not Bureaucrats can either be promoted to Bureaucrat or demoted to Patroller. Right? So, the proposed Monitor can be thought of as a user with a little extra power or Patrollers with a little less power. Super Mario Bros. (talk) The Patroller rank was gone for a long time and the wiki was just fine; it was brought back because the place became all the more active and we could justify having Patrollers around again. Also, promotions aren't just about power, but responsibility; even if someone is really active, they may not be ready for the ability to block or promote people. There's much more to Wiki politics than meets the eye, so having Bureaucrats (executive decisions), Sysops (rule enforcement and content regulation) and Patrollers (monitoring) does make sense. Some Wikis do skip Sysops, but their user population dynamics are different than ours, and can therefore be handled differently; what works for them might be disasterous for us. Also, your "Sysop is just a less powerful 'Crat/more powerful Patroller" logic is flawed: all ranks can be seen as "just" more or less powerful than the others. - Walkazo (talk) Ok, a few things to you, Walkazo: I understand what you said about the Patrollers being removed and reinstated, and wouldn't another rank be good, then? This could give the wiki a better chance to have more activity among the users. Did you even look at the link I added on the proposal? I listed some of the powers and responsibilities of this proposed promotion. The monitor position would be kind of like training for Patroller. Not all users are ready for promotions, and this position can help shape some of the users into better candidates for promotion. I was only using the "Sysop is just a less powerful "Crat/more powerful Patroller" as an example, I beleive in Sysops, and could not imagine what horrors could happen without them. Also, I was using it to prove wrong the quote below. The Sysops thing I mentioned was also not my logic, but Blitzwing (talk)'s Here is the quote: "Blitzwing (talk) - Considering Patrollers were once removed not having enough power, a ranking whose only power is a souped up version of something normal users can already do (Anyone can undo an edit) seems incredibly pointless" - It also may seem pointless, to some users, to have Sysops or Patrollers. Also, why do we have rollback? If any user can undo an edit, then I guess the Patrollers, Syops, or 'Crats don't need rollback either, am I correct? And, if Patrollers boosted activity, then couldn't the proposed Monitors, too? It can, in fact, train people for Patroller-hood while still retaining some of their "regular" user features. So that above statement by Blitzwing (talk) can also be considered "incredibly pointless" also, right? Super Mario Bros. (talk) Patrollers have something of an actual, clearly defined role. Your proposed rank can... revert stuff faster (And even there, most trolls only vandalize a page once. the only difference rollback has with undo is that it removes all edits by one user instead of the last). While a Patroller could at least block the vandal, a monitor would be stuck reverting the vandal's edit up until an higher rank comes. And the "It will increase activity!" argument is very flawed, if anything, chances are anyone that have an interesting thing to bring have already edited. I'd also like to point out you simple can't create a new rank out of the blue, you need a plugin for that. --Blitzwing 07:08, 30 April 2009 (EDT) Blitzwing, I can understand your point, but this rank would be a little more than just a rank... As I have said before, it could help train users who have the potential to be Patrollers, but are not yet just ready. And I said it could increase activity, I never said it definitely would. Super Mario Bros. (talk) The Patrollers themselves are supposed to be a "training" for sysop, having another rank to "train" is very redundant, especially since such a small rank could easily lend itself to a mass of Biased, not well thought out promotions. --Blitzwing 17:24, 30 April 2009 (EDT) The extension is right here; it's still compatible with our version of MediaWiki. Personally, I doubt that activity will increase because of a new rank. But, I do believe that it will 1) Give users something even more to look forward to, and 2) it will make vandalism easier to revert for some users. Sure, it may only be a few seconds' difference, but the shortest amount of time seems to make all the difference at times. -- Stooben Rooben (talk) Now that I think about it, the rank may not increase activity, and I agree with Stooben Rooben. Super Mario Bros. (talk) Dark boo (talk) As I said above this could really inprove the wiki by making more active users. It could possibly make more active users, it actually may, it may not. Super Mario Bros. (talk) Dark boo (talk) yea it may not make more active users its just I personilly think that it has a good chance of makeing users more active, just my oppion. Okay Super Mario Bros. (talk) Despite I'm opposing the proposal, it's possible you might refer to an user who can be under the rank of a patroller, but higher than a normal user, able to get some new features, and the best fitting would be the rollback feature. Users sometimes consider that undoing a revision is a bit cumbersome, specially when the article is long, and requires a lot of time to save the undone work. The disadvantage of using the undo option is that only appears when you compare the two last revisions, and sometimes the info contained in an article is really long and it takes long time waiting to undo the las revision. Still, we have the rollback feature which is faster, and doesn't require to compare the latest revisions, because you can "undo" all the revisions made by an user. In wikipedia, those users that have this action are known as Rollbackers, and perhaps it can be implemented here for those active users who are always checking the history of pages. Coincollector (talk) That is basically what I was proposing, only I wanted to rename the position to Monitor because I thought it would fit with the name of the Patroller ranking. I intended the proposed ranking to give some active users who are not yet ready for the Patroller rank, who deserve the title and are responsible enough to use the rollback correctly. Also, because it is not too different to the Patroller ranking, the users who would be Monitors can be considered "Patrollers in Training" or back-up to Patrollers if things get out of control. Super Mario Bros. (talk) However, going to my comment (why I'm opposing) is that I'm not pretty sure if many active users should deserve this special ranking (specially if they gain faith from administrators and bureaucrats, beacuse maybe we are giving those privileges to the wrong hands); while sometimes, patrollers claim that their rank status is boring, giving a response that another specific rank shouldn't be set here. By the way, how could consider Porplemontage (talk) if we need another new ranking? Coincollector (talk) Well, from the sound of his reply, Porplemontage doesn't seem against adding a new rank, but I had only told him that there was a proposal on the subject. He said, "Sounds good". I asked him if he would be ok with the new ranking if the proposal were to pass; I am waiting for a response and will post what he says here. And simply, if a user does not deserve a promotion, they would not get one. I would say that the qualifications of the proposed monitor rank are: Active users Serious about the wiki, and not taking it for a joke Would do good as a monitor. And besides, you mentioned that some Patrollers find their job boring. Does that mean that we should exclude that ranking? I think that, though some users would not like being a monitor and find the position boring, it can still help the wiki. Some people, if the proposal passes and monitors are appointed, might think that the position is fun. I think it is definitely more efficient. Super Mario Bros. (talk) And Porplemontage said that he would add the ranking if the proposal passed on his talkpage. Removals None at the moment. Splits & Merges Re-Split Orange Yoshi I think it wasn't a good idea to merge Brown Yoshi to Orange Yoshi. It only was merged because of that Brown Yoshi was replaced by Orange Yoshi. Worst is, there first stand, after the merge, that Brown WAS Orange. But even thought it is in the same color group, yellow, it can still be seen that the two colors are different to each other. Orange is a mix of yellow and red, brown is much darker and a bit more yellow (meaning you can't consider brown as orange, only because it looks like each other!). If you think to keep merge, because of too less text, then add more info! That's why I think we must re-split Orange Yoshi to Orange Yoshi and Brown Yoshi. Proposer: Arend (talk) Deadline: 9 May, 2009, 20:00 Re-Split Arend (talk) Per myself Super Mario Bros. (talk) I would have to agree with Arend. Even though they replaced Brown Yoshi with Orange Yoshi, they are still different Yoshi types. Keep Merge Comments Changes Make rules for Poll Selection The poll page is really falling apart, little by little. So I've come up with some rules that we could make that would eliminate unwanted, or repeated polls, and would make the page look much more formal: No signatures All polls with 2 more opposers than supporters will be deleted All repeated polls will be deleted All non mario polls will be deleted All polls that have over 10 options will be deleted Proposer: Zafum (talk) Deadline: 4 May, 2009, 17:00 Make Rules Zafum (talk) - Per me. Stooben Rooben (talk) - The polls page needs some support. I've been thinking of some new rules since the duty was just passed to me, and these look just fine. Dark boo (talk) The polls really need these rules Super Mario Bros. (talk) Per all, Zafum does have a few points. Tucayo (talk) Though i rarely agree with Zafum, this time i have to, Per Paper Yoshi (talk) - OMG THANKS ZAFUM!!!!! I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS PROPOSAL WAS MADE!!! *realizes he's shouting* Ahem, I really wanted a proposal like this one. I've been posting messages in the Poll Selection talk page to make people (and specially Sysops) enforce some rules. Once again, great job, Zafum. I'm glad you took some minutes of your precious time to type this. :awesome: Coincollector (talk) - Right to the nail. This surely will work. Walkazo (talk) - Per all. Leave As Is Comments Miscellaneous Creating Pages for Galleries Going to the point, I see that certain pages have a lot of pictures in their gallery sections, especially in the characters' pages. My proposal consists if we can create a page for those big galleries, while a small part of such gallery can be seen in the original page. This is simple, and can reduce the loading time for the pictures, setting them in an independent page (in a subpage attached to the article's page, exactly); similar to the quote pages, but using images. I have a small proof where this game's artwork was set here. Proposer: Coincollector (talk) Deadline: 7 May 2009, 17:00 Agree Coincollector (talk) - Said above. Super Mario Bros. (talk) Per Coincollector, I think this would be a good idea, my computer is slow even loading a short page! Stooben Rooben (talk) - Per Coincollector. Zafum (talk) - Though the loading time on my computer is really not that bad, if it helps others with their comps, I guess it's worth a try. Time Q (talk): Per Coincollector. Grandy02 (talk): Per Coincollector and Time Q's comment. MeritC (talk): Per all; I'm definitely for this. Would be a great help. Tucayo (talk) - Per Coincollector Walkazo (talk) - Per all. Yoshi96 (talk) - I think that would be a great idea. It would help clean out pages and more pictures could also be added to the page than the character's page. Disagree Comments I think it would make sense to make those gallery pages sub-pages of the article where the images were taken from. For example, Luigi's gallery should be put on a page called "Luigi/Gallery". Time Q (talk) OK, let's do it. Coincollector (talk) Oh happy me! Someone used my left-out and obscure idea for this freaking proposal! XD (with the exception of St00bs) A question or two, is it categories or pages? Categories...? Images would be marked as if they have no article to attach to. ;o And then... I would cry and say, HOW COULD YOU?!!!!?! </being dramatic because of his work of uploading images> So... any questions? :) RAP (talk) The images would go in a gallery. I think the category linked to in the proposal is just an example of which images would be in a NSMB Gallery if one were made; the category is an example of the same style of organization (but I'm not Coincollector, so I could be wrong). And yeah, we definitely don't want the images to appear "unused", as that gets confusing and makes it hard to spot actual unused images. - Walkazo (talk) I just have one question. Would you do the same for screenshots or only artwork?If you do would they have sepreate galleries or be part of the same? I guess it matters on the amount of artwork and screenshots. - Yoshi96 (talk)