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 with the signature code ~~~(~).
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.
- At the deadline, the validity of each vote and the discussion is reviewed by the community.
- 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.
The times are in EDT, and are set so that the user is more likely to be online at those times (after school, weekend nights).
So for example, 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 indeed a minute later, the deadline is a day plus 15 hours (Sunday), as opposed to a day minus 4 hours.
Also,
NO PROPOSALS ABOUT HAVING BANJO AND CONKER ARTICLES -The Management.
CURRENTLY: 10:21, 22 December 2024 (EDT)
New Features
===Normal Smash Movesets
I have read the Player's Guide to Super Smash Bros Melee, and realized that every character's moves have a different name. I propose to add a list of their move names on each character's page. It would help complete the articles, plus I remember some advice on the talk page of Son of Suns:"If there is any information ina a manual that is not on the wiki, upload it". Guides help you just as much as manuals do, so that's why we should do this. Anyone with me?DarkMario Hamtaro PWNS|
Proposer:DarkMario Hamtaro PWNS|
Deadline:Monday, April 21st,2008
Add
- DarkMario Hamtaro PWNS| Reasons above.
Removals
None at the moment.
Splits & Merges
Mario Kart DS Karts
So I've been reading through the after-mentioned articles, and I've noticed that they all read something like "The [insert name here] is [insert character here]'s [availability] kart in Mario Kart DS. [Describes appearance here]. [Describes stats here]." So I propose that we merge these into character aticles such as "Mario's Karts in Mario Kart DS" or something shorter to that effect. Opinions?
Proposer: huntercrunch
Deadline: April 20, 2008, 15:00
Merge Kart articles
- huntercrunch My reasons are given above.
Keep articles seperate
- Time Questions: They're all officially named and major enough to have their own articles. Appearance, stats, and maybe some trivia make enough info for an article.
- RedFire Mario: They're different things so they have to be seperate
- Pikax: Per Time Q. Plus, there is a table in the Mario Kart DS article itself that contains the stats of each car.
- GreenKoopa - Comments or questions? · This is a MarioWiki, with information on EVERYTHING Mario related- This includes karts.
- Jdrowlands (talk) – Per all.
- Glitchman (talk · contribs) Per all.
- Palkia47 Though a lot of the karts have only made one appearance, they were big in the game. Tracks go for the same. Some items also. They should deserve TO BE SEPERATED!
- — Stooben Rooben Each kart is different; that's reason enough for them to stay separated. Even if they are short, they can't be classified as stubs because they are complete and contain of all the needed information. If we were to merge all of the karts, we would have to merge all of the courses as well. It's simply to much effort for something that will make very little difference.
- BLOC PARTIER. Per all. The karts are different, and as long as they're not stubs, they're fine.
- Walkazo - Per all.
- Per Roob Grapes I agree about what he wrote up there ↑.
- Stumpers! The merges of badges and such were only because so little information was available for them.
Super Mario Advance series
It has recently come to my attention that there is a page for the original Super Mario Advance, but not for Super Mario Advance 4, which is just included as a remake of SMB3 on that game's page. There is also a separate page for the Super Mario Advance series, which includes information and the cover art of all four games. Having to try to find information about these games on different pages is a hassle, so I propose we delete the Super Mario Advance article and simply expand the page that has to do with the series itself.
Proposer: Glitchman (talk · contribs)
Deadline: April 21, 2008, 17:00
Merge articles to one page
- Glitchman (talk · contribs) My reasons given above.
- Blitzwing (talk · gnome work) - Per Glitchman. The Super Mario Advance series are simply a bunch of port with graphical enhancements, only the port of SM2 haves any real changes, and even with that, I don't think it deserves it's own article.
- Palkia47 Per all. Even though I don't own any Advance games except SMA, they should be merged. They're exactly the same game (with some changes).
- BLOC PARTIER. Per all. Uh, everyone else said everything else I was gonna say.
- — Stooben Rooben Per Glitchman. I own two in the series, but have played all, and they definitely aren't original enough to have their own articles...especially when SMA4 doesn't even have one.
Keep the articles the same
Changes
None at the moment.
Miscellaneous
None at the moment.