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 sixty (60) days old. 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: 04:49, 27 December 2024 (EST) New Features Removals Let Members Go Through Main Page To Eliminate Unwanted Sections The proposal above by Son of Suns (talk) got me thinking, how many sections are unwanted or useless to the Main Page? All Members of any rank will be worth 1 Point for every positive vote, -1 for negative vote. I'll change it if complained. If approved, I'll see if we can get individual pages for voting for each section that will last 1 week. Most likely, it'll go in order based on their location on the Main Page. Anytime during the week after approval, anyone may voice new Section Ideas on this Proposals page. Let's begin voting and see change!! Proposer: Corka Cola (talk) Deadline: April 12, 2009, 15:00 Let Voting Take Place Corka Cola (talk)- Since I was the Creator of this proposal, per above. Leave As Is Son of Suns (talk) - I don't think we need to go through a big voting fiasco to change the main page. We should just stick to the normal channels - main page talk page discussions and proposals. Bloc Partier (talk) - Per SoS. Paper Yoshi (talk) - Per SoS. Stooben Rooben (talk) -- Per SoS and my comment below. Walkazo (talk) - Per all. Super Mario Bros. (talk) Per all, I also have to mention that I strongly agree with SoS zeldagirl (talk) I agree with all of you Yoshario (talk) - Per SoS Comments I am seeing disorganizatiopn in editing the Main Page, disgust in Members based on what it contains. Let's just see what the people want.Corka Cola (talk) Lol, Patrollers are less important than Sysops. You do realize this, yes? Bloc Partier (talk) More importantly, why should being a sysop/patroller/whatever make someone's opinion more important than anyone else's? Twentytwofiftyseven (talk) I agree. All members here are equal. Just because certain members have more power than others doesn't make them better, more valuable, or more important; it makes them more experienced. -- Stooben Rooben (talk) Also, lots of members are just as (if not more) active as many of the Admins, so weighting votes differently based on rank would be even more unfair for them. - Walkazo (talk) Changed it so everyone is equal. Sorry, just didn't understand!! Corka Cola (talk) Splits & Merges Merge or Delete Demo Articles I am proposing that we delete or merge articles like The Legend of Zelda: Orcarina of Time. I think that if we keep this article as it is, there will be a whole bunch of Kirby, Zelda, and Metroid game articles. Therefore I am proposing to either merge or delete demo articles. Proposer: Yoshario (talk) Deadline: April 17, 2009, 17:00 Merge them into 1 Article Keep as it is Delete Comments Changes Change 60-Day Rule to One Month I think that the 60-day minumum for waiting to overturn proposals is a bit of a long to to wait. What if a proposal is passed and it lowers the quality of the wiki extremely? Or what if a majority of people who voted in favor of the original proposal want to overturn it? I believe that one month is neither too short nor too long. Proposer: Super Mario Bros. (talk) Deadline: April 13, 2009, 17:00 Change to One Month Super Mario Bros. (talk) - Per my reasons above. Walkazo (talk) - Per Super Mario Bros. zeldagirl (talk) per all ToadetteAnime4evur (talk) - per all. I really want to go back on a certain proposal, but it hasn't been 60 days yet... Keep at 60 Days Tucayo (talk)- The last proposal wasnt more than 60 days ago, so it cant be reversed Comments This is not overturning the decision made about a month ago to make a rule to make the limit 60 days. The original intent of that proposal was to change the limit from 6 months to 60 days. This is only changing the limit, and not making it 6 months again. - Previously unsigned comment signed by Super Mario Bros. (talk) I'm not try to be smart or anything,but It haven't been 60 days since the "60 day proposal".Rules are Rules Dark Lakitu 789 (talk) Super Mario Bros. is actually correct. This proposal would not overturn the previous proposal, and thus it should be allowed. The previous (unstated) rule was actually any proposal could immediately be overturned at any time. The current rule is to wait sixty days to overturn or reverse a decision. This proposal would clearly not reverse the decision of the original proposal back to zero waiting time, so it is within the rules. -- Son of Suns (talk) Why not removing it directly, as if the problem is solved? Arend (talk) Thank you SoS. Super Mario Bros. (talk) Not saying that you're wrong, but couldn't one apply that logic in a way that circumvents the "60 day" rule totally? Plus, didn't this proposal get shot down when it could have passed by similar logic? (Actually, I'm glad it did, but I want to be fair.) And on the subject of the proposal I linked, the proposal that it would have half-overturned was quite the hotly contested issue, yes? It just barely passed, and if it came up again, it might be overturned. Seeing as it affected quite a few articles, this would necessitate a lot of reversions. And then what would happen if it came up again in 30 more days? I'm not sure what to do about that, so I thought I'd bring it up. Who knows, maybe nobody will care enough to keep proposing it. But it will be allowed for reconsideration if this passes. (Or five days after it fails.) Yeah, I might have drifted from the topic a bit. Sorry.Twentytwofiftyseven (talk) The Mario Kart Name proposal would have made the naming standard inconsistant, so it already had a strike against it; the 60 day rule was just the final blow. Also, you're forgetting that many of us would be perfectly happy to see that First Official Title proposal revoked. Many more people have come forward and expressed their displeasure with the changes since it passed, so perhaps it would be useful to take another look at the issue now that we've seen it in use - that's one of the points of this "X day" rule, isn't it? But yeah, this is getting a little off topic. - Walkazo (talk) "Also, you're forgetting that many of us would be perfectly happy to see that First Official Title proposal revoked." That was actually my point. It was almost equally divided between people who were for it and people who were against it. If it would come up again in the future, then it could swing back and forth, necessitating many reversions and generally wasting time. Twentytwofiftyseven (talk) Oh, I see now. I've actually been mulling that over too: it seems ridiculous that a change that big passed by a single vote. I've been meaning to propose a new rule saying that if a proposal has more than 10 votes, it can only pass or fail by some sort of margin (maybe by 3 or 5 votes) so that only clear majorities result in changes. If a proposal reaches the deadline and it's a close race (i.e. 13 vs. 14) then the proposal would be extended a few more days (again, 3 might be a good number). That way, we won't have to worry about flip-flopping on issues every month; it also deals with ties, which we don't have any official stance on at the moment. - Walkazo (talk) Yep, the Mario Kart naming proposal was shot down because it did not offer an alternative policy to the previous proposal. The previous was not simply about changing the name of articles, but established a policy about how all current and future articles should be named. As there was no rule before (I think...I'm not sure), someone could propose a policy to replace it at anytime, but it would need to be a clear system or policy, not simply change article title X to Y (i.e., overturn the previous decision for a small class of articles). A new policy would not overturn the previous proposal and can be issued if need be - to overturn it would mean a proposal calling for the elimination of standard naming conventions (which the Mario Kart proposal was essentially calling for by upsetting the standard). -- Son of Suns (talk) Tucayo, this is Super Mario Bros. (talk). I am letting your vote count. I am sorry I kept on pestering you to take it down. I decided to let your vote count because I saw some of your votes on other proposals and I think you have a good voting record, and I feel like a jerk trying to insist to take your vote away. Besides, you are the only one at this point that opposes my proposal, so I guess it would be ok to let your vote count. Also, nobody besides myself has really made this thing a big ordeal, so I am retracting my argument. Once again, I am sorry for making a huge thing out of something little. Clear Majority Rule I was looking at the comments of my last proposal and noticed that the proposal itself is a bit controversial. That is why I, Super Mario Bros. am organizing this proposal, which was originally voiced by Walkazo. If it were to pass, this proposal would create a rule that in order to pass or fail, the "winning side" of a proposal (with 10 votes or over) needs to beat the "losing side" of the same proposal by at least 3 votes in order to pass or fail. If it wins or fails with 2 votes or less or ends in a tie, then the deadline will be extended for another week. Proposers: Walkazo (talk) and Super Mario Bros. (talk) Deadline: April 14, 2009, 17:00 In Favor of Proposal Super Mario Bros. (talk) Per Walkazo's reasons above Arend (talk) Per Super Mario Bros. White Knight (talk) Per Super Mario Bros. Walkazo (talk) - Per my reasons that have been paraphrased above (see below for original version). zeldagirl (talk) per all Stooben Rooben (talk) - Per Walkazo. I find the current rule to be rather redundant, anyway. Paper Yoshi (talk) - This proposal is just great! I think we should do the same with the Poll Selection page. ToadetteAnime4evur (talk) - Per all. If only this rule could have existed 2 months ago... Elvira Maltina (talk) - Sounds great, I find it to be cool because some users miss the chance of voting sometimes (reasons: school,problems with internet, lack of time, et cetera) and with the proposal deadline extended, they would have a chance to vote. Plus this would make more users vote when the proposal is extanted and we can gather different opinions. Against Proposal Comments What happens if it is still tied or there is no clear majority after another week? -- Son of Suns (talk) SoS, to answer your question, I don't know. I'm split between letting it pass/fail or marking it as No Conclusion. Which do you think I should do? Then I guess the proposal will have to wait another month (or sixty days if my proposal doesn't pass). Super Mario Bros. (talk) "It seems ridiculous that a change that big passed by a single vote. I've been meaning to propose a new rule saying that if a proposal has more than 10 votes, it can only pass or fail by some sort of margin (maybe by 3 or 5 votes) so that only clear majorities result in changes. If a proposal reaches the deadline and it's a close race (i.e. 13 vs. 14) then the proposal would be extended a few more days (again, 3 might be a good number). That way, we won't have to worry about flip-flopping on issues every month; it also deals with ties, which we don't have any official stance on at the moment." - If you're gonna use my idea, Super Mario Bros., at least have the decency to give me credit, because otherwise it's intellectual theft and if you do it in real life you can get in serious trouble (for example, if you're caught plagiarizing in University you get expelled). - Walkazo (talk) Yes Walkazo, I was actually going to credit you, it's just that I was busy since I have made the proposal, so I am sorry for not doing it sooner. I am not sure if you are interested to hear why, but today was my parent's anniversary and they went out to eat, and I was not at the computer to thank you. But I will credit you in the main part of the proposal. Once again, I'm sorry for forgetting. Plus, I hope it is ok if I put you as one of the proposers. Much better, thank you. - Walkazo (talk) Son of Suns: The official stance would be to extend the deadline by another week, but the practical thing to do would be that the proposer remove the proposal and rework it, taking into consideration all the arguments for and against it so that they could find a way to appease more Users and reach a clear majority next time (which, as the proposal was removed and not passed or failed, could come at any time without a 30/60 day buffer period). I've found turning all the arguments for and against the proposal into a chart and matching points and counter-points/rebuttals makes it easier to get a clearer idea of which of those arguments are strong and which are weak, and how to address the entire thing more effectively. I know I don't need to tell you how to reason, SoS, but I just thought I'd put my strategy out there anyway. - Walkazo (talk) Technically, "majority" is anything above 50% of the vote. Just throwin' that out there... Bloc Partier (talk) Yep, that's why we're asking for a "clear" majority. Actually, while we're on the subject of terminology, if you take abstaining Users (who have commented on the proposal but did not vote) into account, it's also possible to end with a "minority" vote. The only Wiki-based example I know of is the First English Name Proposal: the final tally was 14-13, with 2 abstainers, meaning the proposal only passed with 48% support; it beat the 45% opposition, but was not, in fact, a "majority". </tangent> - Walkazo (talk) Just to be clear, does it need ten votes total, or ten votes for just one side? Twentytwofiftyseven (talk) Miscellaneous