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}}. This page observes the No-Signature Policy.
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.
- All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week.
- 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.
- 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.
- No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
- Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation. However, the proposer can request that their proposal be deleted by a Sysop at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it.
- 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 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.
- Proposals can not be made about System Operator promotions and demotions. Sysops can only be promoted and demoted by the will of Bureaucrats.
- 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: 18:18, 4 January 2025 (EDT)
New Features
Ask A Sysop
Whenever someone has a question, the first person the ask is...a sysop! However, sometimes, the certain sysop isn't available. The wiki should have an "Ask A Sysop" section where people could post a question and a sysop would answer it. This would be much easier than the tedious process of going from talk page to talk page to post your question.
Proposer: Ralphfan (talk)
Deadline: July 27, 2009, 17:00
Support
- Ralphfan (talk) - Per above!
Oppose
- Time Q (talk): We already have the FAQ talk page and the Main Page talk page, so we don't need another one that's basically serving the same purpose. The pages I mentioned also have the advantage that "regular" users can answer there as well. This is good because they might be faster than a sysop, and still know the right answer.
- Marioguy1 (talk) - Maybe a userbox (I don't get why you don't say an userbox) that says; this user is an experienced member of the Mariowiki. That userbox links to the Category of experienced users and you ask the active members of that category, but no page for sysops only; I know several users (Me, SMB, WarioLoaf, MeritC, Tucayo, M&SG and Arend) that know a lot of stuff and this category would deprecate them of the opportunity to spark a hope in the hearts of new users by answering their questions to receive that glowing feeling of self-accomplishment. I personally know that I helped WeegeeO and Doopliss Rocks out and I felt good about myself those two nights and I'm not a sysop, if we made this page; less users would come to me (and the aforementioned others) and give me that feeling.
- Super Mario Bros. (talk) Per all. :D
- Coincollector (talk) - Aye per Time Q, there is the FAQs page to reply some common doubts and the main page to tell somebody what's happening around the wiki. I think these two resources are enough, and, in my opinion, don't consider sysops as gods XP.
- Timmy Tim (talk) Per Marioguy1 (And Super Mario Bros.' comment below). I've helped YellowYoshi127, Baby Mario Bloops and Doopliss Rocks and felt good about it, and I'm not a Sysop either.
- Yoshario (talk) - Per Time Q. We have MarioWiki talk:FAQ and Talk:Main Page, there really isn't a need for other pages.
- Glitchman (talk) - Per everyone else. You can ask sysops things on their talk page, the FAQ page, the main page talk, forums, chatrooms, etc.
One suggestion, a minor one that won't change my vote: Perhaps we should include a list of sysops at the top of the page? Super Mario Bros. (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2009 (EDT)
- In addition to what coincollector said, Mediawiki created the rank sysop to be users who are trusted with a few extra buttons, they did not intend for them to be the leaders if the wiki, no. They created Bureaucrats to be the leaders of the wiki and they still want other users to have just as much authority as sysops just less power! Marioguy1 (talk)
Mariowiki:Ask the Experts
OK, let's see, my second proposal, totally random section and the vote count is already 3-1. Anyways here is the proposal: The Mariowiki needs to have a new page where anybody can ask a question and have it answered. Yes, I agree with Time Q that there is the Main Page talk and the FAQ talk but shouldn't those pages be used to discuss Problems with the wiki (and its forums) and new questions to be added to the FAQ respectively? If this proposal passes, there will be a special page for users who's questions cannot be found in the FAQ and still need to know. I have prepared a rough draft of how I believe it should look here and believe it should be added to the main mariowiki space! If you do not find the name pleasing, please request that I change it and I will, I just thought that "Ask the Experts" sounded cool. I know that the above proposal (Ask a Sysop) may seem really familiar to this, believe me, I was debating asking Ralphfan to put this option into his proposal, but (as you can see if you look at my talk page) a game of chance told me not to. So I made this proposal as it doesn't distinguish sysops as above other users because (in the words of Mediawiki.com) "A Sysop is a user who has been trusted to be able to handle a few extra buttons" not "A Sysop is a user who is clearly seen as the all-powerful ruler of a wiki" see?
Proposer: Marioguy1 (talk)
Deadline: July 29, 2009, 17:00
Support
- Marioguy1 (talk) - Well it is my proposal but I have prepared a lengthy report on it. If anybody cares to read it, see here!
- Super Mario Bros. (talk) It is organized well and it seems like it will work.
- Zero777 (talk) I am Zero! If you have good set rules and organize it then it will turn out good. "Ask the experts" sounds good enough because it doesn't particularly means Sysops can only answer it, it means any experienced user can answer. Zero signing out.
Oppose
- Time Q (talk): Well... what would be the essential difference to the "Ask a Sysop" system proposed above? Why do we need another page? Not long ago, the Main Page talk was called "Community Portal" and we linked to it in the sidebar. I'm not sure why it was removed, but it shows a lot more promise to me than to introduce a completely new system. We even had a "Trouble Center" where users could post questions and troubles, but we had to close it due to inactiveness. So no need for another page that doesn't serve a very different purpose from the main page/FAQ talk, IMO.
Yahoo! Marioguy1 (talk)
I am Zero! What's so weird about this page is, somewhere between the time SMB and me entered the proposal page, all of a sudden a lot of users from the poll selection page and the FI page started to flood in here and started to make there own ridiculouse poll selection proposals after SMB's. Zero signing out. Zero777 (talk)
- Time Q: Didn't I cover that in the description? Marioguy1 (talk)
Removals
None at the moment.
Splits & Merges
Split Missions From Galaxy Articles
I think that we should split all of the Super Mario Galaxy missions from their respective galaxy levels. I have started a PipeProject that could help improve the stub articles that would be created, such as adding more in-depth explanations and descriptions about the mission, which planets are traveled to during the mission, creating more specific templates and adding them to the articles, adding/uploading images specific to that level, etc. We could make good articles out of these, but I need community permission before I start splitting a ton of information from the articles. An example of one of these proposed level pages can be found over here.
Proposer: Super Mario Bros. (talk)
Deadline: Tuesday, 28 July 2009, 17:00
Support
- Marioguy1 (talk) - Nice example, I'm just worried that they won't all be like that! I think it would be only fair as we have articles on: Yoshi's Island 1, Yoshi's Island 2 and even Yoshi's House!
- Super Mario Bros. (talk) Whoops, forgot to vote. Uh, as you can see, I am the proposer, so my reasons are above.
- Zero777 (talk) I am Zero! Great idea, this can avoid stubs in some articles. Zero signing out.
Oppose
Can I please see a rough draft of one of the pages before I vote? Marioguy1 (talk)
- I will work on one, I will probably have it done by tomorrow or the day after and it will be linked to the proposal. Super Mario Bros. (talk) 01:17, 22 July 2009 (EDT)
- Just remember: You cannot change your proposal three days after you propose it or later! Marioguy1 (talk) - Remember to offer feedback about User:Marioguy1/Mariowiki:Ask the Experts! I think I'll make a proposal about it!
- Ok. Super Mario Bros. (talk)
Changes
Amend No-Signature Policy
Ok, I guess I'll be the first to propose to amend the No-Signature Policy. I have looked around and have already seen an incident happen when it came across signing: A particular system of signing that is often referred to as Signing Without a Signature (S.W.A.S.). I would like to propose the question: For pages that follow the No-Signature policy, do we allow "S.W.A.S.", or do we not allow it?
Proposer: Super Mario Bros. (talk)
Deadline: July 23, 2009, 17:00
Allow S.W.A.S.
Don't Allow S.W.A.S.
- Ben117 (talk) I don't think we should allow it for the No-sig policy because it is easier to access a user's page and talk page if they provide links as opposed to just words.
- Marioguy1 (talk) - Point 1: Simply on four pages of the wiki, FI, FA, PipeProjects and here, you are supposed to sign with a link, four pages. On those four pages, JUST THOSE FOUR, could we please have links to user pages (and from that extent, talk pages). It is four pages, can users not even sacrifice those four pages? Point 2: Doing this will improve how the page looks, having some users sign like this and some like this doesn't look good to me and I'm sure none of you like it either. If we did this, more users would look at the page and see the real info on the page instead of the ugly looks. Point 3: It will allow us to distinguish between votes, just look for the blue writing and there's the end of the vote. More than once, I've passed on to another vote thinking that it was the same vote because it had no blue link at the end of it. The blue links help determine where the end of a vote is by changing the color of the text. Users will (not should, will) learn that when you see blue writing, it means link!
- Time Q (talk): Since signing in the [[User:XYZ|XYZ]] format will be still allowed if this proposal passes, I think I can support the elimination of "S.W.A.S." (i.e., simple text without a link to the author's user page). Links are always helpful, so it's a good idea IMO to "force" users to put them. Sorry for calling this "ridiculous", I just didn't quite understand the proposal.
- Timmy Tim (talk) per Time Q.
- Yoshario (talk) - Sorry for supporting S.W.A.S., I didn't understand the proposal. [[User:Example|Example]] would still be allowed, and links would help distinguish between votes, as Marioguy1 said, and they'd be helpful if you need to get their talkpage.
- Glitchman (talk) - Per Marioguy.
- Zero777 (talk) I am Zero! I agree with this idea so much. You literally took the words out of my mouth, this proposal can avoid confusion upon users and visitors. Zero signing out.
Once again, this is related to a particular incident, I am not inventing the idea for no reason. Also, I'm not voting just yet, I want to see the way most users vote. Super Mario Bros. (talk)
- Marioguy, that was the incident I was referring to. LOL Super Mario Bros. (talk)
- It was? OMG! Marioguy1 (talk)
- Yeah. I used this page right here (what a small world we all live in). Super Mario Bros. (talk)
Marioguy1, please give a reason for your vote. Time Q (talk)
- By the way, Time Q, I do not actually have an opinion on whether it should be allowed or not, I just want it added to the Policy so no more confusion goes on. Also, S.W.A.S., if I'm correct, uses no coding with no links. The policy already considers signing with [[User:User Name|Whatever]] a correct form of signing, perhaps I didn't quite understand the situation... Super Mario Bros. (talk) 18:32, 16 July 2009 (EDT)
- I did give a reason, I yelled at a guy and then got yelled at, I don't like being yelled at! Marioguy1 (talk)
- I don't believe not wanting to get yelled at is a valid reason to oppose the proposal. Yoshario (talk)
I don't get what's this proposal is about. Honestly. --Glowsquid 07:13, 17 July 2009 (EDT)
- SpriteYoshi voted because of Marioguy1's invalid reasons. Should we remove both the votes? Yoshario (talk)
- I don't know, do what you think is right. Super Mario Bros. (talk)
- Is my vote O-K now?SpriteYoshi (talk)
- @Yoshario: I didn't either, that's why I asked for it to be removed, I realized that I was wrong in letting my feelings take control of my vote changing it to the worse of the wiki. @Glowsquid: This proposal is proposing the users cannot sign like this and must sign like this. @SpriteYoshi: Pers are never not OK unless you are pering an invalid vote, which you are not. I hope I covered everything. Marioguy1 (talk)
- Baby Mario Bloop, do you know what we are talking about? SMB is not proposing that we use signatures on pages, he is only proposing we use links. It will not mess up the page, it will turn the end of each vote blue; distinguishing between the votes. Marioguy1 (talk)
- Might I mention that I am not proposing to specifically eliminate SWAS, I am proposing to amend the policy, whether to include SWAS or not. This doesn't mean that this would ban it from every page, rather, it would eliminate it from the pages that follow the policy. Super Mario Bros. (talk) 17:05, 19 July 2009 (EDT)
- Also, Marioguy, might I point out that the No-Signature Policy is followed on more than three pages, another example being the PipeProject page. Super Mario Bros. (talk) 17:09, 19 July 2009 (EDT)
Sorry, I only knew about three. Anyways, I know we are referring only to those few pages; see my point 1 thing in my vote. Are you going to vote SMB? Marioguy1 (talk)
- Not really, I understand both points of view, I can't make up my mind anyway. Super Mario Bros. (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2009 (EDT)
I don't think other users understand that I am trying to promote organization in articles by opposing this proposal. The blue or red writing marks the end of a vote, it's very simple and gives users an easy view of who made the vote; the one with the blue writing did it! If you can find any points to make no links, state them here and I will change my vote (other than server stress because blue writing is not going to crash your computer). Marioguy1 (talk)
- You have a point. I will reconsider my vote tomorrow. Time Q (talk)
- Thank you, now could you please remove the point about me in your vote? Marioguy1 (talk)
Yoshario, since you are referring to my vote and I removed it, please check if your vote still applies. Time Q (talk)
Marioguy: Might I mention, and delete this if I'm wrong, but he provided another reason with his vote as well. He just forgot to remove the per part of his vote. Super Mario Bros. (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2009 (EDT)
- See my vote Marioguy1 (talk)
- Ok, I see that. He provided another reason along with his vote. His vote is outdated, what he means is per Time Q's old reasoning. I don't think he would "per" something that opposes his views: All in all, I don't think that it qualifies moving his vote to the oppose section. Super Mario Bros. (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2009 (EDT)
- Fine, I withdrew my proposal for removal but (there's always a but), if he does not update his vote by tomorrow, I will put back my proposal for removal (trust me, I have the whole thing saved) Marioguy1 (talk)
- Okay, I understand. He should update his vote, that gives him enough time to change it. Super Mario Bros. (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2009 (EDT)
I'm not sure what SWAS is. Is it something like..... *insert random text here* Luigifreak out. (with no links to the userpage at all in the message.) Also will this remove the blurbs that some people put at the end of all there messages, but still sign at some point? Luigifreak (talk)
- No. Super Mario Bros. (talk)
Miscellaneous
Mario Calendar
Okay, we used to have a calendar on the main page, for those who weren't here, it can be compared to the "On This Day" section of the Wikipedia Main Page. The Mario Calendar, however, was removed from the Main Page and replaced by the Featured Images during April 2009. Some others wanted the Calendar and the Featured Images to be on the Main Page at the same time. Now, I originally supported the removing of the Calendar as it was not updated and maintained. But I realized that the Calendar could be informative and teach everybody something about Mario that they didn't know. So I am suggesting: We have both the Mario Calendar and the Featured Images put back up. If it were maintained, it would improve the wiki. I'd be happy to maintain it if it were put back up.
Proposer: Super Mario Bros. (talk)
Deadline: Wednesday, 29 July 2009, 17:00
Bring The Calendar Back
- Super Mario Bros. (talk) Per me.
- Leirin (talk) Totally. I loved the calendar, but at the same time I like the Featured Images, so having both would be an awesome combo. We should also educate all the new Mario players!
Keep It The Way It Is
|
