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}}.

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 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)
3. Every vote should have a reason accompanying it.
4. 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.
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 can not 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 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: 04:26, 8 November 2024 (EDT)

New Features

Mario Kart Wii competitions

Ok, i kinda get annoyed when a new Mario Kart competetion comes out and I haven't taken part so i suggest that we say when a Mario kart comp comes out on the news template to alert everyone. Ans since Nintendo news doesn't do it anymore i thimk it would be useful to know when one comes out.

Proposer: YellowYoshi127 (talk)
Deadline: September 16, 2009, 17:00

Allow the MKWii comps

1. YellowYoshi127 (talk) Yoshi! Per Me.
2. Tucayo (talk) - Per YY127
3. Itachi 96 (talk) Per Yellow Yoshi. And why do not put back the tourney template then?
4. Marioguy1 (talk) - This was actually made official in Timmy Tim's proposal earlier but what's a second opinion going to do, per my reasoning in the proposal to put minor news into the template.
5. Zero777 (talk) I am Zero! I like the idea to post it on the main page but it would be better to post it on the competition template, and it would be a great idea to also do this with SSBB. Zero signing out.

Removals

Delete Genre Articles

I have encountered a couple of articles in Category:Game Types and have thought that creating an article on each genre is redundant. Has Mario appeared in a lot of genres? Yes. But I hardly think there's a reason to create an article on each one. The only thing that would accomplish is defining what each genre is and what Mario games belong to it.

I'm proposing we delete every article in that category, with the exception of Three-Dimensional Game.

Proposer: Knife (talk)
Deadline: September 15, 2009, 17:00

Delete Articles

1. Knife (talk) – I am the proposer.
2. Marioguy1 (talk) - Maybe we could merge them all into the article "Game Types"...besides, the majority of those articles are stubs!
3. Edofenrir (talk) - Agreed! I would even say that these articles are superfluous, because all the contents actually belong to the respective game-articles. A short summary of the genre can be given at the top of every game article.
4. Itachi 96 (talk) Per all.

Comments

Uh, why keep "Three-Dimensional Game"? --Glowsquid 06:56, 9 September 2009 (EDT)

I was just about to ask the same question :D Time Q (talk)

I noticed that it is the only one of those articles that isn't a stub Marioguy1 (talk)

Well, if this is the reason, I'm against the proposal - keeping this one article while deleting all the others is just inconsistent. I'll wait for Knife's explanation though. Time Q (talk)

Splits & Merges

None at the moment.

Changes

Fred?

Er... Why is that wario ball named fred? I know it's pure conjuncture, but still! Why not call it "Wario Ball"? And so I propose we change the name of the fred article.

Proposer: --Fawful's fury 22:24, 9 September 2009 (EDT) Deadline: September 20, 2009, 17:00

Keep it "Fred"

Change FA Number

1. Marioguy1 (talk) - The FA Number is higher so making it lower would help to squish out those fan-votes because people love someone. On the proposal page I doubt there would be fan-votes. Oh yes and when this proposal ends, if even one of the numbers changes, I want it marked as a success (you know green).
2. Edofenrir (talk) - I support this, but only if the removal-votes have to be accompanied by a strong reason to be valid (like it is now). I think three strong reasons are enough.
3. Tucayo (talk) - Per, though i am of the idea that we should delete ALL fan votes without going through this....
4. T.c.w7468 (talk) Per all. But what are we going to change the number to? Four? Oh okay. I'm keeping this vote though. Three sounds more reasonable than five. And Per Time Q, too.
5. Pie Shroom (talk) Per MG1.
6. Timmy Tim (talk) Sounds fair. FIs need two, but that's too little in my opinion.
7. Randoman123456789 (talk) - Per Marioguy1.
8. Time Q (talk): There's no reason for having two different numbers, so it's a good idea to even them out. Three seems like a reasonable number: experience has shown that there are hardly ever 5 users that vote for the removal of an FA vote. Oh, and just to clarify: Current rules state that one sysop must be among the voters that vote for the removal of an FA vote. This, of course, should stay the same.
9. P. Trainer (talk) Per all.
10. Yoshario (talk) – Per all
11. Dark Bowser (talk) Per All.

Comments

@T.c.w7468: I think the proposer splitted the support section into two to avoid problems with this question. You just voted for decreasing both numbers of neccessary removal votes to 3. If you had picked the other support category, you would have voted for increasing both numbers of necessary removal votes to five ;3 - Edofenrir (talk)

Unless I wrote to change the rule it won't be changed. Marioguy1 (talk)

Timmy Tim: I would of included FIs but do you know how many headers that would take? Marioguy1 (talk)

You can't vote for the removal of FI votes. Time Q (talk)

I know, I was just saying, it was the same on the vote page too, before we canned it. I reckon that three is a good number for proposals and FAs. Timmy Tim (talk)

Creations & Deletions

OK, this proposal is just to test out whether or not this idea is worth proposing. Anyhow, my proposal is to make a section on this page called Creations & Deletions to replace the section Removals. This way there will be more space so that to propose, say a Q&A Page, you won't have to put it under Miscellaneous. This could also help with those old proposals of creating and deleting committees. So that's basically it, vote now!

Proposer: Marioguy1 (talk)
Deadline: Friday September 11^th, 2009 (20:00.00)

Create Section

1. Marioguy1 (talk) - OK, I think I made my point clear...
2. Hephaestus (talk) Sure why not

Comments

Couldn't the "New Features" section be used for creating something? –Yoshario (talk)

And removals for deletes Tucayo (talk)

Miscellaneous

Give Patrollers CheckUser

Before you oppose this, please read it. If I'm correct, we used to have an extension for CheckUser, which means (if we don't have the extension anymore) there is one for our version of MediaWiki. CheckUser would help Patrollers if they are dealing with possible sockpuppets, but they couldn't tell whether they really are. It wouldn't give them major Sysop powers such as oversight, deletion, or protecting of pages; which would give the users in the Patroller group more power/responsibilities, while retaining its place as the "in-between" of users and Sysops without it becoming redundant. I feel this would highly benefit Patrollers in the case of huge spam attacks or when suspicious users sign up.
Proposer: Super Paper Mario Bros. (talk)
Deadline: September 13^th, 2009, 15:00

Give Them CheckUser

1. Super Paper Mario Bros. (talk) My proposal. Also, see my comment below about the extension information.
2. Tucayo (talk) - I would find this very useful
3. Marioguy1 (talk) - So if it wouldn't do anything bad for the wiki then why not?
4. Timmy Tim (talk) If there's no harm in it, why not?
5. FunkyK38 (talk) This would make it easier for the patrollers to do their job.
6. Edofenrir (talk)- If it helps to keep this site safe from trolls, then I second.
7. Coincollector (talk) - It seems reasonable to me and fair for patrolles to use this page.
8. Hyper Guy (talk)- Mah boi, I am seeing exactly where your coming from! If I were a patroller, I'd want a bit more power than the current things available for the patrollers. MORE POWER FOR THEM!
9. T.c.w7468 (talk) Why not? It won't harm the wiki and it'll keep spammers out. Per all.
10. Walkazo (talk) - Per all. It takes too long when the Patrollers have to go and ask Sysops to CheckUser for them.
11. Jdrowlands (talk) - If you are giving them block, give them checkuser. Simple as that.

Comments

Here is a link to the extension: [1]. It is also listed in our version information, so I guess we have it. Super Paper Mario Bros. (talk)

How would you go about getting this, would you just ask and Mediwiki gives it or would it be more complicated? Marioguy1 (talk)

That is classified, I will note here though that Porple (the founder and owner of the Wiki) gave his approval for giving CheckUser to them (if this passes). Super Paper Mario Bros. (talk)

As of now, 21:54, 7 September 2009 (EDT), WarioLoaf has created a sockpuppet and has also trolled Userpedia. I feel this incident furthers the fact that it would be very useful for Patrollers to have CheckUser. It would further protect us from trolls like these. Super Paper Mario Bros. (talk)

Actually, a CheckUser is extremely necessary NOW Tucayo (talk)

The proposal must pass in the appointed date. However, if you see any suspicious action (like moving pages into nasty words) don't doubt on giving that guy a permanent ban. Coincollector (talk)