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 start to discuss on the issue. 24 hours after posting the proposal (rounding up or down to the next or previous full hour, respectively, is allowed), the voting period begins. (The proposer is allowed to support their proposal right after posting.) Each proposal ends at the end of the day one week after voting start. (All times GMT).
3. Every vote should have a reason accompanying it. Agreeing or seconding a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted.
4. Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the Comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may not remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. The voter can remove or rewrite his/her own vote at any time, but the final decision to remove another User's vote lies solely with the Administrators.
5. All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Proposals cannot be made about System Operator promotions and demotions. Sysops can only be promoted and demoted by the will of Bureaucrats.
13. 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.
14. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters, and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.

The times are in GMT, 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 Monday night at 23:59 GMT, the deadline is the night of the Tuesday of the next week at 23:59 PM. If it is posted a minute later, the deadline is 23:59 PM of the Wednesday of the next week, since midnight is considered to be part of the next day, as 00:00 AM.

Basic Proposal and Support/Oppose Format

This is an example how your proposal should look like, if you want it to be acknowledged. If you are inexperienced or unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. Then replace the [subject] - variables with information to customize your proposal, so it says what you wish. If you insert the information, be sure to replace the whole variable including the squared brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information", not "[This is the inserted information]".

---

===[insert a title for your Proposal here]===
[describe what issue this Proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the Wiki handles that issue]

'''Proposer''': {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br>
'''Voting start''': [insert a voting start time here, f.e. "2 January, 2010, 14:00". Voting start times are 24 hours after the time at which the proposal was posted, as described in Rule 2 above.]<br>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the voting start, at 23:59 GMT.]

====Support====
#{{User|[enter your username here]}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]

====Oppose====

====Comments====

---

Users will now be able to vote on your Proposal, until the set deadline is reached. Remember, you are a user as well, so you can vote on your own Proposal just like the others.

To support, or oppose, just insert "#{{User|[add your username here]}} at the bottom of the section of your choice. Just don't forget to add a valid reason for your vote behind that tag if you are voting on another user's Proposal. If you are voting on your own Proposal, you can just say "Per my Proposal".

Talk Page Proposals

All proposals dealing with a single article or a specific group of articles are held on the talk page of one of the articles in question. Proposals dealing with massive amounts of splits, merges or deletions across the Wiki should still be held on this page.

How To

1. All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom). All pages effected must be mentioned in the brief description, with the talk page housing the discussion linked to directly via "(Template:Fakelink)". If the proposal involved a page that is not yet made, use {{fakelink}} to communicate its title. The Deadline must also be included in the entry. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links. Place {{TPP}} under the heading.
2. All rules for talk page proposals are the same as mainspace proposals (see the "How To" section above), with the exceptions made by Rules 3 and 4 as follows:
3. Voting in talk page proposals will be open for two weeks, not one. There is no 24 hour delay between the posting of a talk page proposal and the commencement of voting.
4. Talk page proposals may be closed by the proposer if both the support and the oppose sides each have fewer than five votes.
5. The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.

List of Talk Page Proposals

• Split Template:Fakelink from Grand Goomba (Discuss) Deadline: 31 December, 2010 23:29 GMT
• Merge Wooden Trapdoor and Steel Trapdoor into Template:Fakelink (Discuss) Deadline: 8 January, 2011 23:59 GMT

New Features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment

Changes

Autoconfriming Wait Time Cut

Hi,this is my first proposal too so I apologize for any mistakes.I recently discovered that new users have to be Autoconfirmed In order to edit articles but in order to do that the new user has to wait 1 week and make at least 10 non-article edits.I also discovered that this rule was made to prevent vandals from moving pages.While I understand that there are jerks who want to make peoples lives harder,I feel it is more important to let new users who are probably eager to let their voices be heard edit articles.So it is my proposal that we cut the number of days that a new user has to wait from 7 to say,5.I hope this if this Proposal is passed it will make more people interested in joining Mario Wiki so they can post new information so people who are new to the Mario series may better understand it. Thank you for letting make my Proposal

Proposer: Bowwow828 (talk)
Voting start: December 20,2010 11:35
Deadline: December 27,2010 23:59

Oppose

1. Zero777 (talk) I am Zero! Per my comment below. Zero signing out.
2. MrConcreteDonkey (talk) Per all the comments below.
3. Walkazo (talk) - Per the comments below: a week and ten edits isn't asking much.
4. Edofenrir (talk) - The rule is fine as it is. Changing it wouldn't bring much benefit, so there's no need.
5. Bowser's luma (talk) Per all.
6. Koopayoshi (talk) No need, and alot of people sometimes just edit there userpage all the time while they are waiting
7. Ultramariologan (talk) Per everyone.
8. M&SG (talk) - There's a reason for having the current auto-confirmed rules. Just refer to the comments.
9. Ralphfan (talk) – Per all.

Comments

Non-autoconfirmed users can edit most articles in case you didn't know. They just can't create articles. Besides, new users need to get a little more experience on this Wiki and its rules before they can create pages and upload images. Fawfulfury65 (talk)

Yes, I agree. 7 days isn't long, and you can have ten edits on any article IIRC. MrConcreteDonkey (talk)

65: Don't you mean new users? Anyway, what are the pros and cons of reducing the amount of days to 5? Are 5 days enough for a user to learn? LeftyGreenMario (talk)

I am Zero! I see no difference between 2 days. I think the rule is fine as is. Zero signing out. Zero777 (talk)

@LGM: Oh thanks for picking that up. It was a stupid mistake of mine. Fawfulfury65 (talk)

Bowwow828 (talk) @Fawlfulfury65 yeah when you mention it is fine to leave it as it is.Sorry for your trouble

A week and 10 edits isn't long anyway. No need to reinvent the wheel. Mpeng (talk)

It seems to me that the creator of this proposal is not autoconfirmed and instead of waiting the duration of the week he's trying to cut the wait. Bowser's luma (talk)

That would be pretty stupid then, since proposals take one week to be concluded anyway. - Edofenrir (talk)

Mario Kart Wii Kart Statistics

This is my first proposal. I just think it would be easier to understand the stats, if they were in percentages. I don't understand all the '+1's and '+3's (etc.). It would be easier to know what to choose for which Grand Prix-s and courses. And if this does take action, I ask for help.

Proposer: Britannic124 (talk)
Voting start: December 29, 2010 00:00
Deadline: January 10, 2010 00:00

Oppose

1. Ralphfan (talk) – Per comments below.
2. UltimatePetey (talk) Per my comments.
3. Zero777 (talk) I am Zero! We shouldn't change official statistics just because someone somehow find it hard to understand how to add some statistics. How hard is it add just a few numbers on some stats? Zero signing out.
4. MrConcreteDonkey (talk) Per all. It's going to be confusing for some people either way anyway.

Comments

I really don't understand what you are talking about! I went through the whole Mario Kart Wii page and saw only one thing mentioned about '+1' or '-3'. it wasn't even about the statistics! Yoshigalaxy2 (talk)

Yoshigalaxy2: The proposer suggested that we should change the character specific bonus numbers. Anyway, I'm not sure if the quantity values are official (but they are accurate). BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)

I agree with BLOF, but again, no one would know the exact percentage of the statistics. UltimatePetey (talk)

Approximate can be good. Or X/10 format. Tucayo (talk)

No, the proposer didn't mean the vehicle values, the proposer meant character values. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk)

No, they mean vehicle values. Check the proposal's title. Bowser's luma (talk)

Bowser's luma is right, but Britannic, you can win with any vehicle on the Grand Prix if you do good stuff with it. Basically, I don't think we should even have a statistics thing on the article because if they want to know that stuff, they can just go on the game and look at the stuff.. UltimatePetey (talk)

We can't get rid of info just because you can see it in the game. Then there would be hardly anything here. Fawfulfury65 (talk)

BabyLuigiOnFire: Oh! Well, Ok that kinda helped. That made it clearer to me. Thanks! Yoshigalaxy2 (talk)

The TPP Effect

Third times the charm I hope, but let's not focus on what proposal number this is that I've made. Lately there has been many talk page proposals by the same user that conflict with each or they conflict with past tpps that have already passed. It is quite confusing on how unorderly and how inconsistent it is starting to become.

What I propose is that we have some changes to the Talk Page Proposal rules shown far above this. I say that if a tpp is being runned that conflicts and disagrees with another tpp that one of them has to change in order for consistency to be played out. Now of course some circumstances should be made about that, depending on what it is and the reasons, but if it is for the same reasoning as another, then that rule should change. But it is hard if it conflicts with other proposals from the past. What I say we should do about it is to have that ttp turn into a proposal that will go into misc and deal with all that it effects. Then, depending on whether the proposal passes or fails, shall the pages be changed depending on the outcome.

I believe that all I have said above is very logical, and will solve many issues that we have had here on the MarioWiki with the tpp's going on lately. If you don't quite fully understand my proposal, comment in the comments section.

Proposer: Baby Mario Bloops (talk)
Voting start: December 29, 2010 5:16
Deadline: January 4, 2010 23:59

Support

1. Baby Mario Bloops (talk) - Probably should have done this when I made the proposal, but wanted to see some opinions first. Since this seems to be looking like a good proposal, I support it 100%! Per me!
2. SWFlash (talk) Per guy above
3. Zero777 (talk) I am Zero! Per BMB. Zero signing out.
4. WigglerWhoopin'Warrior135 (talk) Per all.
5. UltraMario3000 (talk) Per Proposal.

Oppose

1. Edofenrir (talk) - I'm sorry, but this is way too vague to be incorporated in our policies. Maybe if you flesh it out and formulate it into clear, precise paragraphs, we can think about adding something like that. But in this form: Just no.

Comments

I like your idea, we do need that. Consistency above all. Tucayo (talk)

Can you clarify what you're saying please? Bowser's luma (talk)

@Bowser's luma: Pretty much I am just solidifing the rules since a lot of agruements and conflicts have been going off in some TPP's. I am just saying to add/change a rule or two in the TPPs so that we can have consistency and to have a more understanding structure. That is about it. Baby Mario Bloops (talk)

Ok. Consistency is good. Bowser's luma (talk)

This seems a little vague, could you be a little more in-depth? Ralphfan (talk)

Let's see if I can make it fit your idea of "clear". Hmmm...Pretty much if this proposal passes, we will be adding some more rules to TPP's. If a TPP conflicts with another (let's say one is to merge Goomba and Paragoomba, but another at the same time that has Goomba be split to Goomba (species) and Goomba (character)) then one of them has to be deleted or changed so that it doesn't happen like that. But if they interfere with each other, and one is running and another is passing (Example, split M&L series mushrooms apart, and a proposal that passed a few months ago merged them to the Mushroom article), then the current one either has to change the proposal, delete it, or bring it on this page as a main proposal and if passes, then the TPP would say something like "this TPP has changed via Template:Fakelink". Its to help put consistency into the TPP's as we have struggled ever since they have been made with what is right and wrong and if this or that conflicts with that or this. Baby Mario Bloops (talk)

Agree! But that is not consistency, that is preventing conflict. Marioguy1 (talk)

WAIT! This proposal has already been passed! See the "How to" section above, it has this rule:

8. No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.

So that means that the proposal made second would have to be deleted to follow this rule so this proposal is unnecessary. Marioguy1 (talk)

Not exactly, it is actually to expand that rule. Because the rule refers to proposals dealing with the same subject, while this proposal talks about proposals that deal with similar circumstances. Tucayo (talk)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.