MarioWiki talk:Proposals/Archive 1

Someone propose the chat be moved. Por favor. I don't think it even needs a vote, so I won't put it there.Saudy^Talk!

I'm a bit undecided if I should leave it up to the community. I will consider it though. Wa _T^C_@^Y 23:34, 29 May 2007 (EDT) EDIT: You're a sysop. You can bring it up. 23:34, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

What is this exactly? Mr. M _T^C_{Cragley ho!}

Splitting

Shouldn't we perhaps move this page to subpages? The edit glitch problem is starting to happen again.Knife (talk) 13:57, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

Anyone?Knife (talk) 16:30, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

Agree.

Gofer

Go ahead and do such splitting. I don't what type of page is this.(Super F22 Pilot 05:00, 22 November 2007 (EST))

Complete Rehaul

Expect a complete rehaul of this page and archives WITHIN THE NEXT COUPLE OF DAYS by me – sub-pages of this & archive page. It's next on my to-do list after a couple of new MarioWiki pages. Wa _T^C_@^Y 20:59, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

No way, that would make things hard to find if you make a sub-page for every proposal or category. ^Plumber 23:29, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

Question

I made the "It's not just america" section,and I want to know, did I set it out right? And about the deadline, is it just the time the section was made plus "EDT"? I don't understand that part... Davidk92

Archives

We need to do something about the super big archive page. It's getting harder and harder to load, so I can't even archive was I just removed from this page. -- Son of Suns

Simply make a second archive. The simplist explanation is almost always the corret answer. My Bloody Valentine

Should we archive 20 at a time like we do with the Main Page Talk? -- Chris 22:20, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

Actually, screw it. I'll move everything now. -- Chris 22:20, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

Done. Not perfect, but it's done. -- Chris 22:56, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

I was thinking, a better way to lower load times would be to thin out the archives. How, you might ask. Simple, each section would have it's own archive. IE: Merges & Splits has it's own archive, right? Well, New Features would get the same treatment, as would all other sections. Yes, this will increase the number of archives, but it will drastically cut down the load times for everyone. In fact, I might just make this a proposal. -- Chris 01:52, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Actually, now that I think about it, this isn't such a hot idea. It would create more work that needed. -- Chris 02:01, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Didn't I start a proposal? User:TehBooKid/sig

Wayoshi deleted it. Not sure if this is okay. Time Questions 15:52, 27 November 2007 (EST)

>=O User:TehBooKid/sig

Old proposals coming up again

Seriously, a lot of these proposals are on a previous subject. We should do something about it. MarioGalaxy2433g5 17:28, 15 January 2008 (EST)

It is annoying, but the most we can really do is point out that the proposal's already been done. Odds are the votes will turn out the same, or the person who proposed the idea again might just take it off, but we can't make them as far as I know. Besdies, things change over time, and I remember at least once instance where a proposal that passed was revoked the second time around because people looked at it again and thought of it a different way and realized it really wasn't really an idea that would fly. - Walkazo

A time limit could always be put in place. Say, a particular topic may not be brought up again until 60 days have past since it's last proposal. -- Chris 22:03, 16 January 2008 (EST)

I'd support a proposal for that if you made it. Stumpers! 01:17, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Perhap we could also have a list of proposal idea that passed/failed (and perhap the reasons why said proposals passed/failed) on the proposal page to indicate if it has already have been brought up. That way, perhap we could prevent something like the Improvement Drive from being brought up, accepted and turn out to be a simillar flop. --Blitzwing 06:59, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Good idea, it'd be like a shorter, easier to load version of the Proposal Archives. But that list is gonna be pretty big, so we should probably have it on a seperate page from Proposals. - Walkazo

Yeah, of course. I think this page (If it ever get created) should be organised in a table. --Blitzwing 17:12, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Or we could just say, at the top of the page, to check the archives before making a proposal. MarioGalaxy2433g5 16:35, 18 January 2008 (EST)

The thing is, there are tonnes of archived proposals and most people will not have the patience to look through them all. Plus some of us have old cruddy computers that can't handle the massive amounts of data in those archives or take forever to load the pages. - Walkazo

It isn't my fault that some of you have images in your sigs which significantly increases the loading. MarioGalaxy2433g5 17:28, 28 January 2008 (EST)

"Per"

I have a question, and this might make me sound not smart, but remember, I'm new here. What does it mean exactly when you say "per" all the time? I mean, by now, I've figured out that it means "I agree with this person." But why, and how did everyone here learn what it means? Everyone's always like, "Per this user. Per that user." And I'm wondering, "Is that a real thing that people say, or is it Mario Wiki slang? If you think I'm silly because I don't know this, just remember that I'm new here and I don't know many of these terms that people use. Could someone just answer the question? Orangeyoshi 20:33, 21 January 2008 (EST)

I just moved this so that it would get more traffic. I don't know personally. If it is MarioWiki slang I should put it in the glossary. Stumpers! 21:10, 21 January 2008 (EST)

It's not MarioWiki slang (see definition 4). Time Questions 01:21, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Ah. Thanks for helping me out. But why does everyone on MarioWiki use it? I didn't know what it means before Time Q showed me a dictionary entry. Before I was a user, did everyone on MarioWiki get together and say, "You know what? Let's say "Per" all the time when we're voting in proposals.", or what? (Just so you know, I wasn't serious.") Orangeyoshi 20:54, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Well, it's way faster than saying "I agree..." and I'm sure a few users have heard it used in real life (like me) or on other Wikis or polls or whatever, and decided to incorporate it here to save time, then everyone started copying them. But I dunno for sure; I've only been here a few months. - Walkazo

You're probably right. That's good enough for me. Orangeyoshi 18:55, 23 January 2008 (EST)

More rules

I believe we need two more rules for the proposals page. First, something that appears to be pretty obvious to me but the guidelines don't mention it yet: Every vote must be signed in order to count. (Currently, there's an unsigned vote by Fly Guy 2 on the proposal about Bob Hoskin's quote - I'm not suggesting the rule so his vote will be removed, I'm suggesting it to prevent this in future.) Second, there should be a deadline after which it won't be allowed anymore to edit the wording of a proposal - say, 3 days before the actual deadline. This is to prevent that users who don't visit the wiki very often have no chance to change their minds when a proposal's subject is modified (or when there are new voting options added - yeah, the Bob Hoskins proposal inspired me to that too :P). What do you think about this? Or should I start a proposal about it? ;) Time Questions 14:50, 9 February 2008 (EST)

Signing your votes sorta seems like one of those "well duh" things and I just assumed it was already a bonafied rule... But if it's not we should definitely make it one. But maybe we should be a bit less leniant about editing the proposal. Things like fixing grammer are fine, but if anyone wants to actually change the proposal they should just pitch the idea in the Comments section, and if anyone agrees with that change they can just vote Yes but also say something like "as long as User's idea is enacted." That way, the people who voted for the original proposal and never came back are still voting for the same thing (since it's always possible they only agree with the original idea, and not the updated one; it's like twisting someone's words and meaning, it's just not right). Also, if it's a major enough change another section can alwasy be added, and if any of the original votes say something like "yes we can remove the quote, but I'd rather it be censored with f---" (to use a recent example) than whoever mediating the proposal (or someone else) can move that vote accordingly (but keep the wording the same so you can tell where it originally was from). Long story short, I think saying "no more rewrites, period" or "only in the first 48 hours" is better than "not during the last 3 days". - Walkazo

Yeah, you're right, the changing crap was stupid. *Hits head* It should be a rule. BLOC PARTIER.

Problem

Am I the only one who gets an error when trying to view this page? Everytime I try to view it, a problem occurs, closing the page, and stopping me from viewing it. I'm not sure if anyone else has this problem, but its prooving fairly difficult for me to argue a Proposal. If the problem isn't just my Computer, then, can someone please try to figure out what is wrong with this page, and fix it. My Bloody Valentine

It works for me. Clear your browser's cache (Ctrl+Shift+Del for Mozilla) and then try to load it again. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 07:28, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

Making them?

How do I do it?