MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 122: Line 122:
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per all.
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per all.
#{{user|Coincollector}} - We removed the quote section because it took a lot of time to load the main page. Also, I don't see why featuring a quote since all of them are trivial.
#{{user|Coincollector}} - We removed the quote section because it took a lot of time to load the main page. Also, I don't see why featuring a quote since all of them are trivial.
#{{User|MechaWave}} -- I don't understand why everyone's saying "because it took a long time to load the Main Page." That was because of the quotes always switching, but this is a '''Featured''' quote, which would probably mean a limit of quotes that wouldn't use a code to grab them from articles, thus making the Main Page ''only slightly'' slower. However, I think it's just pointless.


====Comments====
====Comments====

Revision as of 08:45, March 1, 2010

dessert1.jpg


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

  1. Actions that users feel are appropriate to have community approval first can be added by anyone, but they must have a strong argument.
  2. Users then start to discuss on the issue. 24 hours after posting the proposal (rounding up or down to the next or previous full hour, respectively, is allowed), the voting period begins. (The proposer is allowed to support their proposal right after posting.) The "deadline" for the proposal is one week from voting start at: (All times GMT)
    • Monday to Thursday: 23:00 (11pm)
    • Friday and Saturday: 2:00 (2 am) of the next day. A proposal posted on a Thursday ends the following Saturday morning; a proposal posted on a Friday ends the following Sunday morning.
    • Sunday: 21:00 (9pm)
  3. Every vote should have a reason accompanying it.
  4. Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the Comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may not remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. The voter can remove or rewrite their own vote at any time, but the final decision to remove another User's vote lies solely with the Administrators.
  5. "# " should be added under the last vote of each support/oppose section to show another blank line.
  6. All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. Proposals cannot be made about System Operator promotions and demotions. Sysops can only be promoted and demoted by the will of Bureaucrats.
  14. If the Sysops deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to remove it at any time.
  15. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters, and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.

The times are in GMT, 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 Monday night at 11:59 PM GMT, the deadline is the next Monday night at 11:00 PM. If it is posted a minute later, the deadline is a week Tuesday, since midnight is considered to be part of the next day, as 00:00 AM.

Basic Proposal and Support/Oppose Format

This is an example how your proposal should look like, if you want it to be acknowledged. If you are inexperienced or unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. Then replace the [subject] - variables with information to customize your proposal, so it says what you wish. If you insert the information, be sure to replace the whole variable including the squared brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information", not "[This is the inserted information]".

===[insert a title for your Proposal here]===
[describe what you want this Proposal to be like, what changes you would suggest and what this is about]

'''Proposer''': {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br>
'''Voting start''': [insert a voting start time here, f.e. "2 January, 2010, 14:00". Voting start times are 24 hours after the time at which the proposal was posted, as described in Rule 2 above.]<br>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, f.e. "8 January, 2010, 23:00". Rule 2 above explains how to determine a deadline.]

====Support====

====Oppose====

====Comments====

Users will now be able to vote on your Proposal, until the set deadline is reached. Remember, you are a user as well, so you can vote on your own Proposal just like the others.

To support, or oppose, just insert "#{{User|[add your username here]}} at the bottom of the section of your choice. Just don't forget to add a valid reason for your vote behind that tag if you are voting on anoother user's Proposal. If you are voting on your own Proposal, you can just say "Per my Proposal".




Talk Page Proposals

All proposals dealing with a single article or a specific group of articles are held on the talk page of one of the articles in question. Proposals dealing with massive amounts of splits, merges or deletions across the Wiki should still be held on this page.

How To

  1. All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom). All pages effected must be mentioned in the brief description, with the talk page housing the discussion linked to directly via "(Template:Fakelink)". If the proposal involved a page that is not yet made, use {{fakelink}} to communicate its title. The Deadline must also be included in the entry. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links. Place {{TPP}} under the heading.
  2. All rules for talk page proposals are the same as mainspace proposals (see the "How To" section above), with the exceptions made by Rules 3, 4 and 5, as follows:
  3. Voting in talk page proposals will be open for two weeks, not one. There is no 24 hour delay between the posting of a talk page proposal and the commencement of voting.
  4. Talk page proposals may closed by the proposer if both the support and the oppose sides each have fewer than five votes.
  5. After two weeks, a clear majority of three votes is required. Without the majority, the talk page proposal will be listed as "NO QUORUM".
  6. The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.

List of Talk Page Proposals

New Features

Add Quote of the Week (or Featured Quote) to the Main Page

There are a lot of quotes out there that are great. If we have the featured Articles and the Featured Images, there are a lot of quotes that are wise and this might make our wiki seem that there is more than "this weird person who rides on ugly froglike creatures killing people just to save his girlfriend" (I was just giving an example Sorry if I insulted Yoshi but that's what some people actually think). We can put it under the Featured Images and move the Did You Know section down. There will be a separate page for voting to see which ones are the best (like the FA and FI)

Proposer: KS3 (talk)
Deadline: March 2 2010, 23:00

Add new feature

  1. KS3 (talk) Per proposal.
  2. MATEOELBACAN (talk) Per Proposal (But don't say that of Yoshi...people he's a dinosaur!)
  3. Mr bones (talk) Per proposal.
  4. LucariosAura (used to be specialk) I agree with MATEOELBACAN, yoshi is cool. And per proposal.

Don't add

  1. T.c.w7468 (talk) Didn't we knock the quote of the day thing down a few months ago because it slowed everything up? Besides, many of the quotes that end up on this are pretty bad, and it doesn't add much to the page anyway. +Oh, and per Time Q and Marioguy1, below.
  2. Bloc Partier (talk) -- Per all. Plus, no one ever puts the quotes in right so we always have to edit the pages themselves to keep the Main Page template working. My bad. Voting is an even worse idea than using the template. It will make (like FI's) another complicated, annoying page for things to go wrong.
  3. Baby Mario Bloops (talk) - I knew people would come over to the don't add side. Anyways, we got rid of the quotes for many reasons (like I said in the comments): 1 - Takes forever to get to the Main Page, plus all the broken links it can cause. 2 - It can glitch a lot when doing some quotes that is more than one sentence, making it not that useful. 3 - We have plentiful things about our wiki that tells info on the Mario things.
  4. Time Q (talk): Nah, don't add more to the Main Page before removing something from it. Also, I'm opposing this for the same reason I opposed the Featured Images for: quotes are not our work, so it makes little sense to "feature" them.
  5. Marioguy1 (talk) - We had this quote before, it slowed loading time and showed a different quote every time someone looked at it - that isn't even a "Featured" quote! I definitely don't think we should create Mariowiki:Featured Quote as we have enough featured content already, besides - a quote is too minor to be nominated and then we go through a whole process over about 10 words.
  6. Fawfulfury65 (talk) It will make the main page take longer to load. And do we really need it? I mean, are we gonna like choose a featured quote or something? I don't think this will really help anything.
  7. Zero777 (talk) I am Zero! There was a reason it was removed, it caused a seven second delay to load up the main page for a fast computer, seven seconds for fast ones but longer for slow ones. Zero signing out.
  8. Stooben Rooben (talk) -- Per all.
  9. Gamefreak75 (talk) - I could get one as short as Fawful's "I have FURY!" or you can get one as long as a paragraph, like Wario's. It's all random, and my crappy computer likes freezing on me. :/ Per all.
  10. Reversinator (talk) It's pointless.
  11. Walkazo (talk) - Per all.
  12. Coincollector (talk) - We removed the quote section because it took a lot of time to load the main page. Also, I don't see why featuring a quote since all of them are trivial.
  13. MechaWave (talk) -- I don't understand why everyone's saying "because it took a long time to load the Main Page." That was because of the quotes always switching, but this is a Featured quote, which would probably mean a limit of quotes that wouldn't use a code to grab them from articles, thus making the Main Page only slightly slower. However, I think it's just pointless.

Comments

Can I see what the new main page would look like? The main page is half informational, half aesthetic (probably the only page that is). Marioguy1 (talk)

LOL, LeftyGreenMario said that. Anyway, did you know that there was a proposal to remove that Quote of the Day thingy because of loading time? Just for your information. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)
Just like BLOF said above, the loading time took forever to get onto MarioWiki, and for many users like me it caused the broken link to appear more often. Also, wasn't there a glitch with the template for the quotes when it used more than one quote? Baby Mario Bloops (talk)

@LucariosAura Can you please use the form {{User|LucariosAura}} We don't need to know that You used to be specialK. -KS3 (talk)

@Baby Mario Bloops: Yes. That was the glitch that I was talking about in my vote. Bloc Partier (talk)
@KS3: Actually, he doesn't have too - according to the no-sig policy, he's allowed to do [[User:LucariosAura|XYZ]]. Marioguy1 (talk)

@Baby Mario Bloops: We aren't going to use the template. We are going to vote on the quotes like the images for the FI, so 1. we won't get any bad quotes, and 2. this won't cause the glitch.

Opposers, Read the Proposal!!! Only Marioguy1 has a valid vote (and the ones that says per all). Which is 3. The Proposal says that we are going to vote on quotes on the page MarioWiki:Featured Quote . KS3 (talk)

KS3 is correct. He doesn't propose to bring the old template back that caused slowdowns. Time Q (talk)
Not entirely correct. I do, in fact, have a legitimate vote. "Per all" constitutes a real vote. But I'll change it for you anyway. Bloc Partier (talk)

@KS3 that is my signiture by the way, and will stay like that for a while. LucariosAura (used to be specialk) 09:35, 28 February 2010 (EST)

I think this place observes the Non-Signature Policy T.c.w7468 (talk)
And according to the non-signature policy he is allowed to do that Marioguy1 (talk)

Bring back Weekly Polls

We used to have weekly polls, and they are very good. We still have this page. But instead of doing only one poll, we will be doing 3 polls. The reason why is because let's say the poll is "What is the easiest stage in Platformer games", and you only own Spinoffs and RPGs, then you can't answer the poll, while if you have 3, then you can at least answer one.

Proposer: KS3 (talk)
Voting start: 25 February 2010, 23:00
Deadline: 4 March 2010, 23:00

Bring them back

  1. KS3 (talk) Per proposal.
  2. MATEOELBACAN (talk)- Per Proposal, I mean, They were funny :D.
  3. Zero777 (talk) I am Zero! Although I don't know the reason why it was removed in the first place I will LOVE it if comes back, that what made the SMW fun that time and it will most likely still be fun if this pass (you notice I said love with all capitals, as most people know Zero NEVER used all capitals except for that one). Zero signing out.
  4. luvluv321 (talk) Per proposal.

Don't bring them back

  1. Tucayo (talk) - Sorry, but no. Your proposal doesnt propose anything to make them better, they will fall into chaos again. They were rmeoved for a reason.
  2. Time Q (talk): Per Tucayo.
  3. Reversinator (talk) Per Tucayo.
  4. Marioguy1 (talk) - Per Tucayo, you can't force someone to vote on a certain poll, people will vote on any poll they want. The more rules there are, the more they will get broken is my frame of mind - I'm afraid this rule falls right under that category.
  5. Walkazo (talk) - Per Tucayo.
  6. Baby Mario Bloops (talk) - I see that you are still partly new. I think you want to see the main page as it was before all that got voted out, yet for good reasoning. The Main Page is better without this since it can be troublesome for updating. Per all.
  7. Coincollector (talk) - Per Tuck. It was chaotic and the poll system on the main page looked the portal so informal.

Comments

It got removed because it was too bustling with activity ONLY with that Poll page. I may be fond of the Poll of the Day, but we don't get it our way all the time. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)

Maybe if the whole poll process was completely revamped, it would be easier to maintain. But I still think it should stay off the wiki for the time being. -- Stooben Rooben (talk)

Per Stooby. WHats with all the "bring back" proposals... I think people are getting nostalgic Tucayo (talk)

I am Zero! If this proposal does pass I think all the previous polls should be deleted and the page should start new and fresh. Zero signing out. Zero777 (talk)

Bring Back Soundtracks

I was looking at the List of PipeProjects and found one that says that it can't pass without a proposal bringing back the Soundtracks. PipeProjects are important to the MarioWiki and makes it a better place. Besides, we have images, why not soundtracks???

Proposer: KS3 (talk)
Voting start: 2 March 2010, 6:30
Deadline: 9 March 2010, 23:00

Support

Oppose

Comments

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Proposals Should End At The end of the day one week after voting starts (In GMT)

It's a really long title, but here's what it's trying to say. Currently, after proposals are posted, there's a 24-hour delay, and then voting starts. Depending on when the voting period starts, the voting could end anywhere from 7 to 8 days from when voting starts. I don't like this, because I realise that the times (5 p.m. and 7 p.m. I think they were) were adjusted for the GMT proposal, but now the times are 11 p.m. and 2 a.m. of the next day. I believe the proposals, from the beginning of voting should end at 23:59:59 of the same weekday 7 days later. (i.e. From the proposal itself, +8 days and however many hours until 11:59 p.m. GMT). So, for instance, (for our purposes, let's just pretend that today is a Friday.) the voting for this proposal (it is currently 23:16, 23 February 2010), would end at the end of the day (23:59 or 0:00 depending on how you see it) of 2 March 2010, rather than 2:00 of 3 March 2010. I believe this would simplify the process a lot more, not to mention that the whole ending time difference was so it's more convenient for people living on the East Coast to vote for. I apologize if the whole "end-of-the-day" thing is confusing; I tried my best to explain it. Feel free to ask questions in the comments before and after voting starts.

Proposer: Garlic Man (talk)
Voting start: 24 February 23:16
Deadline: 3 March, 2010, 23:00

Support

  1. Garlic Man (talk) -- Per proposal.
  2. Time Q (talk): Sounds like a good way to make things much less complicated.
  3. Tucayo (talk) - Per Time Q
  4. KS3 (talk) It should really be 23:59:59.99999999999999... . Per all (and proposal.
  5. MATEOELBACAN (talk)- Per all.
  6. Walkazo (talk) - Per all.
  7. T.c.w7468 (talk) Per all, especially Time Q.

Oppose

Comments

Actually, there is no difference with the GMT time, proposals end at exactly the same hour. Sorry if I didn't understand the proposal. Tucayo (talk)

He's proposing we scrap those ending hours and simply use midnight as the deadlines. I never liked how different days of the week had different ending times - it always seemed superfluous, and now that the conversion to GMT has pushed the weekend times into the following day, it's even more confusing. The proposal's example is a little hard to follow too, but if I understand correctly, simply put, Garlic Man is saying that the new system will be: "Proposal written on Day 1 at X:AB o'clock, voting starts on Day 2 at X:00 o'clock, deadline at Day 8 at 24:00 o'clock (which is also Day 9, 00:00); the day of the week doesn't matter." ...right? - Walkazo (talk)
Thanks Walka :) I udnerstand now. Seems a good idea Tucayo (talk)

Yes, that is correct. --Garlic Man (talk)

OK, this is kinda related - what will we do when voting opens? Remove the Voting Opens thing? Cross it out? Leave it as is? Marioguy1 (talk)
Uh, leave it as is. There would be no reason to change it. This proposal says nothing about changing it, so we would be unable to touch it. Bloc Partier (talk)

Deciding Birdo's Sex

We had 2 Proposals about deciding Birdo's Sex (here's one) [1]. This is an international wiki, not an American Wiki. In Japan, people call Birdo male, and in the US, people call Birdo female. I propose that we call Birdo he. Don't forget that multiple birdos appeared in crowds and in The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! In the Birdo (species) article, it says that it is common for male birdos to wear ties on top of their head. In Mario and Luigi: Superstar Saga, Birdo attempts to be a girl, therefore Birdo is a man. And also per the old reasons.

Proposer: KS3 (talk)
Voting start: 26 February 2010, 23:00
Deadline: 5 March 2010, 23:00

Because this is an international wiki, call Birdo Male

Call Birdo it because of the old proposal

Just Call Birdo Female

  1. Tucayo (talk) - She is a female, if "he" wants to be so, then we call Birdo a female. And no need to remove or move this proposal to the BJAODN, it is valid, I think.
  2. Reversinator (talk) Per Tucayo.
  3. Fawfulfury65 (talk) Per all.
  4. Vellidragon (talk) - Per Tucayo and comment below.
  5. MATEOELBACAN (talk)- No, Birdo always has been female in mmy opinion, for example if she is "male", why she acts like the girlfriend of Yoshi? Why she uses a ribbon? Why in Super Mario Advance she has feminine voice? , simply the fact that the SMB2 manual, among others called she male; we cannot say that is male, What present game call she male?, also per BabyLuigiOnFire in the comments.
  6. Mr bones (talk) Ow come on!There's a lot of proofs which makes her female the ribbon,her acting in M&L:SSS,and like MATEOELBACAN said:her acting as Yoshi's girlfriend.
  7. T.c.w7468 (talk) Oh please. Per all. Oh yeah, aren't the option titles a little biased?
  8. MeritC (talk) Per all; this case REALLY needs to get closed here, right now.
  9. Gamefreak75 (talk)...-_-' Per all.
  10. Supermariofan14 (talk) - Let me think about it... A regular man with a ribbon, a ring, a bow and a pink body?

Comments

Another issue dealing with Birdo's gender? Look, Birdo wants to be treated as a female, as she states in her description, so we better call her a "she". Besides, we're dealing with a single Birdo, Birdo, the character who appears as playable in spin-offs. Besides, does she look ANYTHING like a man? She wears a large, red ribbon, has some lipstick, has feminine team names, wears rings, etc? Besides, Nintendo wouldn't make transsexual characters anyway, despite their craziness. They always make genders obvious. Why should Birdo be any different? BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)

This is Birdo's Sex, not gender. KS3 (talk)
Sex and Gender are the same thing. Reversinator (talk)
No, not necessarily. Time Q (talk)
It's not my fault Nintendo didn't clear things up. The Japanese should start calling Birdo she if this should come up again. KS3 (talk)

On the other proposal we agreed that calling Birdo an it was discriminatory. Tucayo (talk)

This looks like BJAODN material to me. LeftyGreenMario (talk)

"This is an international wiki, not an American Wiki."

No, it's an English wiki (English as in the language, not the country). In all the English games, Birdo is a female. Infact, I think Japan is the only country that calls her a he. Homestar Runner (talk)

What, this proposal again? :\ As I stated the last time this came up, calling a male-to-female transgender person "he" just because they were born male is offensive and nobody profits from it if we start doing that anyway. The gender issue is already being addressed in the article, I don't think there's any need to emphasise it like that. This has nothing to do with the internationality of the Wiki, but simply with what makes sense and what doesn't and what can be taken as offensive and what won't.--vellidragon 10:17, 26 February 2010 (EST)

I don't see the point in this proposal. Proposals made on this issue have turned out in favor of calling Birdo a female consistently in recent times. · SMB (Talk) · 17:16, 26 February 2010 (EST)

Can we move this to BJAODN now? I mean, do we really need a whole proposal just for the gender of a character? Reversinator (talk)
Um...this is the third one of that type...Marioguy1 (talk)

Ugh, I wonder how did I make this proposal, but I regret it. Can someone help me move it to the BJAODN??? KS3 (talk)

This is not BJAODN material. You can remove it if you want to. Tucayo (talk)

If they call her "He" in japan,then we just add that in her gender in the infobox:(In japan:Male,other region female Mr bones (talk)

I am Zero! I think there should be a fourth section for refering Birdo as it or she. Birdo is a species and not all of them are female, but to the point: I think if it refers to Birdo as Yoshi's girlfriend or the game makes it a 100% clear it's female then refer to it as "she", but if it refers to a random Birdo then refer to it as "it", if users aren't sure then they could have a discussion on the talk page to see if Birdo is she or it in that section of the article. I don't think they ever refer to Birdo as male but if it does in the future then refer to it as "he". Zero signing out. Zero777 (talk)

TPP Archiving

OK, I was looking at the list of TPPs and I found that the list was taking up about as much space as about two whole proposals and that is way too much space just based on TPPs IMO so I decided that I would make a proposal to shorten it in one of three other options. Now, I heard from Reversinator (talk) that the rules say that TPPs aren't deleted off that list until the appropriate action has been taken (E.g. The articles have been merged) and I think that this idea is keeping it way too long, even if this quiets down another one is bound to arise because nobody is actually merging their proposal articles...

Anyhow, here are my three resolutions (and one non-resolution)

  1. Move all TPP results to "Mariowiki:Proposals/Talk Page Proposals" and leave them there for all of eternity so that people can easily see where the archives of their TPPs are and not clog up the proposals page (though eventually we'd have to archive that page too after 100 proposals*). The proposals that have not passed/failed yet would stay in the TPP section of the proposals page but there would be a link off of there to the archives.
  2. The section resolution is to just remove the proposals when they pass and kick them off the proposals page so that they can't clog up space and this is the easiest of the resolutions. It will keep the list short and to the point and people will not be confused about what to do when they archive a TPP.
  3. The third (and final) resolution is to remove TPPs one week* after the proposals have passed whether or not the action has been taken so as to not leave them sitting for ever and ever. This will not clog up the page (though it will clog it up more than the second option would) and it would give proposers one week to merge their articles and then it is deleted off the page (though after it is deleted they can still merge, the reminder just won't be there). It gives users time to archive but keeps the TPP section short and simple.
  4. The fourth option (not resolution) is to do nothing, this is most definitely the easiest option but not the most productive...

*These numbers are up to debate in the comments section

Proposer: Marioguy1 (talk)
Voting Opens: March 2nd (23:00 GMT)
Deadline: March 7th 11:00 PM

Move to New Page

Kick off Immediately

Remove after one Week

Do Nothing

Comments

I'm gonna vote later because I'm currently tied between two of my options. Marioguy1 (talk)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

 

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=725363"