| Any proposal decided and past is archived here. Use the scroll box to see votes and comments. This page is protected to maintain the discussion as was. Please add archived proposals to the bottom of the page.
|
| All past proposals are archived here. This page is protected to preserve the discussions as they were.
|
Poll Selection Page
REORGANIZE 7-0
I looked at the Poll selection page, and I have to admit something: It is a disaster. So here is what I am proposing: We clean it up. To get more into detail:
- We have it split into multiple pages with 25 suggested polls on each page (In example, we have MarioWiki:Poll Selection/Page1, MarioWiki:Poll Selection/Page2, and so forth. We can link them together with a table like on the Proposals Archive, for example.
- No signatures. I know this was already a rule, but many users either A) Get around the rules by putting the images as they are in their signature and then putting the allowed coding. B) Flat out ignore the rule and post a signature. After a while, when users start doing this, it becomes out of hand to deal with the problem. All in all, what I am saying here is: You are only allowed to sign with {{User|User Name Here}} or [[User:User Name Here|Whatever]].
- Other laws of organization: Basically, if/when this proposal passes, we enforce these rules on a regular basis, and if it is necessary, make rules to adapt to new situations. This is obvious, but it did not seem to work on the page.
If this is passed, and it works, we can make suggesting and voting on new polls easier, quicker, and more efficient. Also, this plan can reduce loading time for the pages.
Proposer: Super Mario Bros. (talk)
Deadline: Friday, 3 July 2009, 20:00
Reorganize Poll Selection Page
- Super Mario Bros. (talk) Per my reasoning above and Timmy Tim's vote below.
- Timmy Tim (talk) It's falling apart and needs mending. Deleting repeat polls and one with more opposers than supporters will also have to be done.
- Paper Yoshi (talk) - Agreed. I've been wanting to do that by posting messages on the Poll Selection talk page and asking if I actually could do it, but a proposal definitively is the best way to enforce these rules and make that "disaster" a good page. If you need help with it, I'm up to the job. (I don't know if that expression exists, but w/e :P)
- Zafum (talk) - Of course, this will make it even more difficult to delete polls that are opposed or non-mario-related. After this proposal passes, hopefully I will be able to find a way to get around this.
- Coincollector (talk) - Aye per Super Mario Bros. It takes too long to load the polls page; its content is too large.
- Zero777 (talk) I am Zero! I sort of like and dislike (50/50) the idea of splitting the poll selection page into several pages. The no signature rule doesn't need to be enforced, nobody use signatures in the new polls. Zero signing out.
- Lu-igi board 15:22, 3 July 2009 (EDT)about time.
Leave It the Way It Is (Messy and Destroyed)
Paper Yoshi, I'm sorry to say I can't have your help in reorganizing the page right now, but in helping to observe the rules and help keeping it cleaned after I finish reorganizing it will help me a whole lot, as we might as well not do the proposal if the page is going to get messed up again. So, once again, to help me, all you need to do is keep the page clean once I'm finished. Thank you for your wanting to help me though. Super Mario Bros. (talk)
Zafum (talk) - How are you going to be able to get rid of the signatures that cover most of the polls already? I'm sure your not going to delete all those polls?
- No, I'm not deleting polls based on signatures, the signatures in question can easily be changed to acceptable forms of signing. The only polls that are going to be deleted are the ones with two more opposes than supporters. For a more in depth version of my plan, check my other comment below. Super Mario Bros. (talk)
- Well, here is my plan. First, I am going to, as Timmy Tim suggested, delete the polls that have two more opposes than supporters. Then, I am going to take the remaining ones and put them on separate pages, each page holding a maximum of 25 polls, and they will be linked to each other by a table (similar to the Proposals Archive pages). After that, I am going to change the signatures to {{User|User Name Here}} coding, therefore completing my plan and reorganizing the Polls Page. The pages, however, need to be maintained and kept organized. This should reduce loading time and make the Poll Selection page(s) more presentable, among other benefits that are gained from this project. Super Mario Bros. (talk)
- Zafum (talk) - It's not really a question of how easy it is to change the signatures, but how long it will take. But if you have the time to change every signature on the poll page, then go ahead. ps. I was the one that made the rule to delete polls with 2 more opposers than supporters
- If it passes, I should be finished organizing the day it meets deadline. Super Mario Bros. (talk)
|
Enforce No-Signature Policy
ADD NEW RULES 3-0
I feel that the "No-Signature Policy" on many of the pages around the wiki have been utterly violated. Many of the users like to use the "letter of the law" technique as opposed to the "spirit of the law", which, in other scenarios, is okay, but is not good to this policy. Due to many pages that feature the "No-Signature Policy" having limited space, they cannot touch upon the many ideas that were originally expressed when this "policy" went into enactment. As of such, as I stated earlier, many users dodge the rules (see the second bullet in my above proposal about the Poll Selection page). As of such, I would like to create one page that has detailed rules on the subject, and that could be linked to pages that share these many ideas. The page, if created, would most likely be titled MarioWiki:No-Signature Policy. A rough draft of my proposed page can be located here.
Proposer: Super Mario Bros. (talk) (With great advice from Walkazo (talk))
Deadline: Sunday, 5 July 2009, 15:00
Make the New Page
- Super Mario Bros. (talk) Remember, this proposal was not made to prevent this from happening, it was made to stop what is currently going on and prevent it from happening again in the future.
- Cobold (talk) - We can use a page like that to explain why we need to enforce the use of the {{user}}-Template instead of personalized signatures.
- Walkazo (talk) - Sounds good. Per all.
Leave It the Way It Is
On what pages exactly has this rule been violated? What pages are under this rule, anyway? - Cobold (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2009 (EDT)
- Technically, the rule has been violated on the featured images page as well as the poll selection page, which say that no signatures are allowed. Most times, signatures are frowned upon because of the images or size, that they ruin counting and slow computers down, among others. Users, instead, post the image and then allowed coding. They basically dodge the rules, so they are technically not breaking them in the way that they are stated, but they are skipping around the original intents that the rules stated were based on. Which is why I proposed this, to make a policy that is more in depth and that can be linked to on these pages. Super Mario Bros. (talk)
I made changes on the page that is linked to. Walkazo gave me some great suggestions, and I incorporated them into the rules list. Super Mario Bros. (talk)
- More changes have been made. Credit goes to Walkazo for the changes, she is really helping me with the ideas for the page. Super Mario Bros. (talk)
I find it ridiculous and annoying that almost all proposals these days are about signature rules. Dom (talk)
- I know, I hate making them just as much, but when we have users that dodge rules, it has to be done. Plus, this should be the last proposal about signatures (other problems about the signatures can be dealt with by a minor proposal, per say, on the discussion of a page that needs to deal with signature problems). Super Mario Bros. (talk)
|
Article censorship
NO CENSORING 12-0
I want to settle this once and for all. Do we want to censor the Bob Hoskins article or not?
Proposer: Clear Discoherency (talk)
Deadline: 11 July 2009, 20:00
Don't censor it
- Clear Discoherency (talk) We are a wiki dedicated to using full information on Mario, I wouldn't say to censor it
- Walkazo (talk) - This has been settled once and for all - on many occasions! This is an encyclopedia: our mandate is to communicate as many facts about Mario as we can, and that includes profane quotations. We do not censor anything. Fortunately, in the case of Bob Hoskins, there is a way to communicate his negative attitude towards the Super Mario Bros. film without including the f-word, and we decided to go with option a while ago to avoid this reoccurring nightmare of a debate.
- KPH2293 (talk)—An encyclopedia's goal is to report accurate information. We are under no obligation to censor facts just because people could potentially be offended by a simple word. It is the parent's responsibility to teach their children right and wrong, not ours. Our only goal is to report facts relating to the Mario series.
- Super Mario Bros. (talk) I guess every body else is right.
- Timmy Tim (talk) Per all. Why not put up a warning template or something like that?
- Zero777 (talk) I am Zero! A warning template will be a better idea. But I agree with this proposal, first of all SMW is a free encyclopedia that gives information on anything Mario[-related], second we are trying to make Mariowiki as close as possible to Wikipedia with alternations on this webpage, I said that because, in Wikipedia, I don't have an account there but I can still go to an article about a vag***, te*******, se*, and pe*** with pictures and detail and a movie article called Fu** without them being cencored, and last of all on a side-note, try to make your proposal more convinsing. Zero signing out.
- SpriteYoshi (talk)Per All
- Marioguy1 (talk)Per Zero
- Bloc Partier (talk) - Though on the original proposal I was for censoring it, now I just don't see the point. Whatever.
- Ghost Jam (talk) As I have stated in the past, a wiki is an encyclopedia and encyclopedias do not censor information.
- Time Q (talk): Per all. I'm glad to see so many people are against censoring an encyclopedia. Nowhere do we claim that this is a kid-friendly wiki, in fact this is "a collaborative knowledge-base about everything in the Marioverse" (see here), and censoring conflicts with this objective.
- Yoshario (talk) Per all.
Censor it
Clear Discoherency (talk) I think this younger person stuff is bullcrap because if we all know what a swear is then how is exposing us to a swear gonna hurt us? Explain that smb.
- Well, the young shouldn't have to be subject to your bullcrap, ok? we are supposed to be an age-friendly wiki. Movies and games themselves are rated PG-13 and T for Teens when swear words are present, and we are supposed to be a G-rated or E for Everyone wiki. So why do you want your bullshat so bad, huh? Super Mario Bros. (talk)
I wouldn't think it would by true to the quote by changing quotes however. Why would anyone care about a quote with the f-word in it? Yknow I used to not swear at all but when I realized it was pointless to not swear I swear all the time now.Clear Discoherency (talk)
- Yes, that may be the case for you, but others try not to or don't like to. I myself do not like to curse. I find it vulgar and unnecessary. If we censor it, readers still understand that a curse word is being said, so what is the loss? Super Mario Bros. (talk)
This whole edit war is pointless anyway. Its only going on because Max2 acted immature about a little swearClear Discoherency (talk)
Enough of the flamey remarks, already. We have no mandate to be a "kid-friendly" Wiki, all we are obligated to do is tell the truth. Every time someone goes on the Internet, they run the risk of running into profanity, or worse, and heck, you take the same exact risk everything you go outside. It's not our responsibility to shield little kids from words they are gonna learn sooner or later, and if it interferes with our abilities to communicate all the Mario-centric information at our disposal, we shouldn't even be trying. In the case of Bob Hoskins we can preserve most of that quote without profanity; it was a compromise many agreed on, and it still stands. - Walkazo (talk)
- And to you, Walkazo, a proposal has been made, I'm not going to be shut up. I find it ridiculous that this is considered flaming, or that you consider this flaming, as I am stating my point of view. Super Mario Bros. (talk)
I'm done arguing and wasting my breath about this even though it was pointless in the first place. Go ahead and go eat each other if you want I'm setting this one out. Clear Discoherency (talk)
- Yeah, ok. Super Mario Bros. (talk)
In response to SMB's earlier comment: A) I said "flamey", not "flaming". B) I wasn't talking about the proposal itself, I was talking about the comments: "So why do you want your bullsh*t so bad, huh?" "Well, the young shouldn't have to be subject to your bullcrap, ok?" "Explain that smb." - that's all egging each-other on, which is "flamey" - you're both rearing for a fight, and that's not acceptable, so just cool your jets. - Walkazo (talk)
In response to Walkazo: Ok. Directed towards CD: Please delete this proposal. If the edit war is pointless, please just delete it. You should have dealt with Max2 yourself or had another user, perhaps sysop or bureaucrat, deal with him. Super Mario Bros. (talk)
Since it's your proposal, you have to delete it. - Walkazo (talk)
It is not mine, CD created it. Super Mario Bros. (talk)
- True... Sorry, I was just commenting based on the fact CD commented first and usually it's someone besides the Proposer who comments first... Plus it's late and I'm tired... - Walkazo (talk)
- It's ok. i'm tired too. Ah forget it. I'm just going to remove my vote. i will probably wake up in the morning and realize that everybody else was right. Anywho, sorry for any flaming I could have almost started. Super Mario Bros. (talk)
Just to be clear, is this only for Bob Hoskins? Because Princess_Toadstool_for_President has the word "fuck" in it, and it'd be nice to have it set in stone somewhere what happens when this inevitably comes up again. Twentytwofiftyseven (talk)
Per twenty of two seven, walka please look at his points then tell me if we shouldn't have the word "fuck" in the Bob Hoskins article.--Clear Discoherency 01:03, 5 July 2009 (EDT)
The deadline is up now anyway too bad we havn't reached a verdict besides walka's answerClear Discoherency (talk)
- That's because the deadline was off. Proposals are supposed to be up for exactly one week. This hasn't even lasted a day. Anyway, it's been fixed. —KPH2293 (talk)
Well, it's 4-0 against censorship, which is a pretty clear verdict. But, if it only applies to Bob Hoskins, then that's not so much of an accomplishment of policy making. Now, I'm not sure why exactly there would be a need for a proposal so specific, but that's what the text seems to imply. After all, we can't really say "no lol it meant this," and expect it not to raise issues. Or, at least, I see it that way. Twentytwofiftyseven (talk) 01:24, 5 July 2009 (EDT)
"walka" is me, right? Pertaining to 2257's example, "jävla" has to be included in order to properly explain Bowser's "Din jäv-" quotation, and if we have the Swedish swear, why not the English equivalent? Still, like the Bob Hoskins quote, I suppose it would be possible to just leave the whole Trivia point as this, and still cover all the bases:
In the Swedish dub, when Bowser gets smacked by the kid, he says "Din jäv-", but stops himself, as the word he was about to utter is a profanity. This can be compared to a truncated "F-" exclamation in English.
Personally, I think the whole "jävla" exposition is interesting, but it's not essential, so I can see why removing it (and the full Bob Hoskins quote) is a reasonable compromise in the face of these sort of heated debate. "Fuck" is simply not worth the trouble. - Walkazo (talk)
- My point is that this
might will come up again in the future, so it would be nice to have an actual policy about it. Rather than arguing about it later, we could get it over with and use this as a policy for when censorship debates rise up again. And there's actually other pages with profanity, that was just an example. Twentytwofiftyseven (talk) 02:02, 5 July 2009 (EDT)
- We need a lot more official policies around here... I think the standing unofficial policy on profanity is that "We're an encyclopedia, and as such, we do not censor our articles. However, users are asked to use their discretion when dealing with profanity on the Wiki mainspace." We could easily add some sort of rule along those lines to a policy page somewhere, maybe with links to any text previously written about flaming and vandalism, so that people will know the difference between using curse words academically and using them in an unacceptable, vulgar manner. - Walkazo (talk)
YourBuddyBill (talk)Couldnt we just replace the word with F*** or sonething along those lines? This has been blown out of proportion.
- Marioguy1 (talk) - Why don't we just create a censored version and a non-censored version? This way, we can warn users that the non-censored one is bad for them!
|
|
