Editing MarioWiki talk:Proposals

{{Proposals talk}}
<!-- ALL COMMENTS BELOW THIS LINE -->

== Autoconfirmed ==

Does a user not have to be autoconfirmed to vote in a TPP? [[User:27Burst27|27Burst27]] ([[User talk:27Burst27|Talk]]) voted on [[Talk:Bowser#Make an article for Giant Bowser of Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story|my proposal]], but he just joined today and therefore, is not autoconfirmed. (Also, I'm not sure his vote is valid). I was going to delete his vote, but I wanted to make sure first.<br>
{{User:Ultimate Mr. L/sig}} 11:32, 24 October 2016 (EDT)
: Rule 2: ''Only registered, autoconfirmed users can create, comment in or vote on proposals''. So, yes, only autoconfirmed users can vote on proposals.--{{User:LudwigVon/sig}}  11:35, 24 October 2016 (EDT)
::Curse you, Lugwig :P It's nice that they're willing to participate, but yeah, their vote is invalid. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 11:37, 24 October 2016 (EDT)
:::I guess I lose a supporter. I'll go ahead and delete the vote and tell them on their Talk Page.<br>
:::{{User:Ultimate Mr. L/sig}} 11:38, 24 October 2016 (EDT)
::::I don't know if this rule applies to TPPs {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 17:40, 24 October 2016 (EDT)
::::: Rule 2 of TPPs: ''All rules for talk page proposals are the same as mainspace proposals [...]'' --{{User:Megadardery/sig}} 07:09, 25 October 2016 (EDT)

== Cancelling a Proposal ==
I made a proposal and within 12 hours it is being opposed very strongly, with 10 opposers and 2 supporters.  How do I cancel this proposal? -[[User:YoshiFlutterJump|YoshiFlutterJump]] ([[User talk:YoshiFlutterJump|talk]]) 14:51, 5 May 2017 (EDT)
:Just do it if rules allow it. [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive|Archive it]] by moving contents (cut and paste). Don't forget {{tem|Proposal outcome}}. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 14:58, 5 May 2017 (EDT)
::You can delete a proposal so long as it is within the first three days of its creation. Alternatively, you can ask an admin to do it for you, so long as you have a good reason to do so. Your proposal must also be archived as it is on the main proposals page. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 15:14, 5 May 2017 (EDT)
:::I just archived it; did I do it correctly? -[[User:YoshiFlutterJump|YoshiFlutterJump]] ([[User talk:YoshiFlutterJump|talk]]) 15:54, 5 May 2017 (EDT)
::::You used the wrong outcome, but I corrected that. Otherwise, looks fine. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 16:04, 5 May 2017 (EDT)
:::::Also, you didn't give a short description of the proposal on [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive]], which [[User:TheFlameChomp|TheFlameChomp]] did for you. {{User:Yoshi the Space Station Manager/sig}} 16:07, 5 May 2017 (EDT)

== What are the sections for? ==
In all of my time here, I don't think I've ever completely understood what each section for proposals are for. Besides the Writing Guidelines section, which is well-defined per [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 26#Add a section for Writing Guidelines on this page|the proposal]] that created it, I have many questions regarding the way the page is divided. What is a "new feature"? What's the difference between a change and a removal? When should something go under miscellaneous? If I make a proposal that may or may not change a current yet minor standard, where should that go? {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 08:54, 24 August 2017 (EDT)
:Based on their names, "new feature" would refer to, well, a new feature that the proposer wants implemented into the Mario Wiki, like a new template or something. A "change" is adjusting one or more things to fit a certain requirement, and a "removal" is the outright deletion of something (though the two could probably be split, if that's what you're referring to). "Miscellaneous" is anything else. Your supposed proposal would likely go under "change". {{User:Alex95/sig}} 21:50, 25 August 2017 (EDT)
::So, we have sections for adding something brand new, changing something on the wiki, completely removing something, and literally everything else (also Writing Guidelines, but again setting that aside). Is it just me, or does the Changes section seem ''way'' too broad? All merges and splits would be slotted under it, as would editing the content of policy/help pages and much more. It seems like that overlaps too much with the miscellaneous section's purpose. For the record, the proposal I had in mind for the "minor standard" bit was the ''Mario's Time Machine'' proposal that I ended up slotting under Miscellaneous. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 22:51, 25 August 2017 (EDT)

== Rule 8 ==

Rule 8 states that any proposal with three votes or less meets "NO QUORUM". Does the proposer's vote(s) count? I'm asking for my proposal [[Talk:Special Attack (Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story)#Special Attack vs. Bros. Attack|here]].<br>
{{User:Ultimate Mr. L/sig}} 22:12, 25 August 2017 (EDT)
:The proposer's vote is treated like any other vote. In the Special Attack proposal's case, there are four votes, so it wouldn't be classified as a no quorum. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 22:51, 25 August 2017 (EDT)

== Rule 7 (RP) ==

"No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old." I think this should be changed to "No proposal can be created to overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.", so that it is clear what is meant by this statement (as a proposal can be created during that time, but ends after the 4 week limit as with [[Talk:King Bill (Banzai Bill)#Change this page's identifier|what was decided with this]]). {{User:Yoshi the Space Station Manager/sig}} 23:15, 25 August 2017 (EDT)

== The Comment Glitch ==

Everyone knows about the glitch where the comments section shows up as raw code instead of a header, right? Placing any sort of code under the header fixes the glitch. So should we add some sort of code underneath the header to the copy-and-paste template?<br>
{{User:Ultimate Mr. L/sig}} 23:04, 20 November 2017 (EST)
:I remember that Walkazo put this code: <nowiki> &nbsp; </nowiki> on the bottom of the proposal page to fix it (also it still parses together despite me putting a nowiki tag.... {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 00:12, 21 November 2017 (EST)

== Conjectural in headers ==

[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 44#Prohibit the Usage of .7B.7Bconjectural.7D.7D in Headers|This proposal]] is listed as a change that has not been implemented, but I can't find a single article with {{tem|conjectural}} in a header.<br>
{{User:Ultimate Mr. L/sig}} 22:08, 2 December 2017 (EST)
:I think the idea is that the rule is not written down anywhere, though I cannot confirm that. (On a side note, you need to include <nowiki><nowiki></nowiki> tags around the template so that the link works.) {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 22:09, 2 December 2017 (EST)

::[[Mariowiki:Conjectural names#Conjectural subjects within articles|It is, actually.]] The exact wording is: ''To avoid unsightliness and problems with linking, headers themselves do ''not'' use the template, however the first line of each section should repeat the name in boldface and using <nowiki>{{conjectural}}</nowiki>, in the form:'' <code><nowiki>{{conjectural|</nowiki>''Glitch name''}}</code> I see no reason why that proposal should be there. I'm going to go ahead and take it down.
::{{User:Ultimate Mr. L/sig}} 22:12, 2 December 2017 (EST)
:::Fair enough. The archive must not have been updated, then. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 22:14, 2 December 2017 (EST)

== HELP ME!!! ==

How to create a new proposal??? Where??? please let me the link where you can create a new proposal just on mariowiki:proposals??? {{unsigned|EnderMatrix}}
:Where to put the proposal depends on the matter in question.  If you are only discussing a single article or a small grouping of them, put the proposal on the talk page of one of the articles in question.  If you're talking about large matters that affect large groups of articles, those go on [[MarioWiki:Proposals]].  Note that any proposal relating to policy changes are put on MarioWiki:Proposals rather than the policy talk page.  MarioWiki:Proposals should tell you anything more you need to know about making proposals. -{{User:YoshiFlutterJump/sig}} 12:16, 16 July 2018 (EDT)
:Just follow the instructions linked to [[MarioWiki:Proposals#Basic proposal and support/oppose format|here]]. {{User:Toadette the Achiever/sig}} 01:06, 18 July 2018 (EDT)

== I don't really see the point in requiring users to provide a reason for their votes ==

I think it's a pointless rule as users who are forced to provide a reason are just going to either "per all" or "per proposal", when a support vote without a reason is essentially a "per proposal" vote, just as how a support vote for a featured article without a reason is, well, a "per nomination" vote. This might be a different case if someone makes a first oppose, but I don't think people are going to try abuse that nor will solitary oppose votes negatively affect proposal outcome. If there is a case where a single person tried to be the first to vote oppose for no reason, it's extremely rare. Subsequent oppose votes without a reason should otherwise be equal to a "per all" vote. Nevertheless, we exercise discretion anyway when it comes to validity of votes, per Rule 5, so it goes back to this rule ultimately being pointless. {{User:Bazooka Mario/sig}} 18:58, 1 September 2018 (EDT)
:Agreeable, but it also conceals invalid votes, should they appear. Invalid votes are a rarity nowadays, that's true, but they still can happen. Even if the odds are slim, removing a rule on the assumption that something won't happen is a bad assumption and likely ''will'' cause problems. "Per all" isn't a very difficult phrase to type out, anyways. {{User:Toadette the Achiever/sig}} 19:13, 1 September 2018 (EDT)
::Yeah, but I say again, the only time where someone might be needed to justify a vote is when voting on an opposing side or otherwise doesn't agree with the proposer, but Rule 5 easily takes care of obviously invalid votes anyway. "Per all" and "per proposal" also "conceals" invalid votes too. Not hard to type "per all" but I also think there shouldn't be any worry or need to enforce (and thus waste time and space in the comments section pointing out that one needs a reason) if someone wants to vote without any more text beyond the username. We don't require users to support their "yea" votes in Featured Articles (in fact, at one point, we discouraged it, and that turned out inconvenient where we stopped enforcing that). Same here, maybe less inconvenient, but I don't think it's necessary. {{User:Bazooka Mario/sig}} 19:30, 1 September 2018 (EDT)
::::Requiring a reason is never too much - we have low invalid votes because we forced users to explain why they were voting, especially if they were the first to agree with a side. If we don't require this, how can we distinguish the votes of new users who start voting without reasons from valid "per all" votes? And asking for a reason in the comments section when things get suspicious - which is almost always when very few provide reasons - doesn't take up space as well?--[[User:Mister Wu|Mister Wu]] ([[User talk:Mister Wu|talk]]) 03:04, 2 September 2018 (EDT)
:::::Actually, I think I'm fairly sure we have low invalid votes because most people are honest and take this seriously to begin with: I've seen dubious per all votes before done by users who clearly have no clue what they're voting for, and it's not me just being overly speculative either judging by those said user's voting and edit history. Additionally, the point being made is that voting one side is already just a valid "per all" vote, as the intentions of the vote clearly are, so adding a reason just for the sake of satisfying some quota seems to be vastly redundant to me. Also, things don't get that suspicious to begin with: the only places that are ripe for suspicious votes are Featured Articles, because they feature a subject the said voter likes and are more likely to vote biased towards it: in the first place, that's where most of the problem of bad votes originates from; proposals almost never had this issue ever. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 14:51, 2 September 2018 (EDT)
:::::::Troll votes can be spotted with the current system, they are impossible to spot with the system without motivations. This method is going to add an unneeded burden on the proposer and the administrators, because a proposer will want to know why the unexplained opposition votes are there, and the administrators will be forced as well to ask an explanation due to rule 5 in the cases in which an outcome is decided due to unexplained votes. If you want to remove the "per all" statements, how about different solutions like using nested lists below a certain motivation without perring?--[[User:Mister Wu|Mister Wu]] ([[User talk:Mister Wu|talk]]) 18:49, 2 September 2018 (EDT)
::::::::Troll votes were never a problem to begin with anywhere, and people who vote with trollish intentions wouldn't bother reading any of the rules anyway, so I don't know why troll votes are even a considerable problem. Additionally, trolls can be smarter and mask votes with a "per all" regardless; the best way to deal with trolls is to look at their edit history, and that's it: the general rule otherwise is to assume good faith in which most people who don't add reasons for vote ''are'' casted in good faith. I've also questioned the amount of "per all" votes in the past, because I believe people voted without reading any of the arguments opposition made, and with or without the extra text I would still get that vibe. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 13:03, 4 September 2018 (EDT)

== Starting a proposal while being opposed to the split/merge ==

Is it possible to start proposals in which the proposer itself is opposed? --{{User:FanOfYoshi/sig}} 05:51, 23 October 2018 (EDT)
:Ps:Or you can't start a proposal if you are opposed to it? --{{User:FanOfYoshi/sig}} 06:54, 23 October 2018 (EDT)
::No immediate examples come to mind, but I have seen it done in the past to try and settle debates. {{User|Yoshi876}}
:::[[Talk:King_Boo_(Super_Mario_Sunshine)#Talk_Page_Proposal:_Merge_with_King_Boo|Here's the only example I know of]].
:::{{User:Ultimate Mr. L/sig}} 09:30, 23 October 2018 (EDT)

== Rules ==

Can we add that agressive proposals are forbidden and that if the proposer and the voters are voting agressively, the proposal gets cancelled by an admin? --{{User:FanOfYoshi/sig}} 11:29, 20 November 2018 (EST)
:Admins will do so anyway. [[MarioWiki:Courtesy]] still comes into play here. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 11:50, 20 November 2018 (EST)
::Also, the header is [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Header]]. If anything else, is it the only wiki having proposals? --{{User:FanOfYoshi/sig}} 11:52, 20 November 2018 (EST)
:::SmashWiki also has proposals, and I think Nookipedia does as well. But they're done differently from how we do it. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 11:56, 20 November 2018 (EST)

== Maximum options ==
How much a proposal can have options up to? --{{User:FanOfYoshi/sig}} 11:32, July 17, 2019 (EDT)
:I don't think there's any solid limit as long as it's a reasonable amount.  If you're getting more than five or so options, it would probably be a good idea to split some options into a new proposal. -{{User:YoshiFlutterJump/sig}} 12:27, July 18, 2019 (EDT)

==Proposer's vote==
Does the proposer of a proposal have to vote for one of the options in the proposal they proposed, or does the proposer of the proposed proposal not need to vote right away on their proposed proposal? {{User:TheDarkStar/sig}} 13:45, August 15, 2019 (EDT)
:You are not required to vote on your own proposal, in the same way that you're allowed to oppose it.  <s>Also thanks for the tongue twister lol</s> -{{User:YoshiFlutterJump/sig}} 17:35, August 15, 2019 (EDT)
::I find that very interesting, since if the proposer is proposing a proposal, not voting on their proposed proposal seems a bit odd, because the proposal's proposer normally would need a reason to propose their proposal, which would necessitate a vote on the proposal the proposer proposed. Same goes for the proposer opposing their proposed proposal, unless the opposers have convinced the proposer to change sides or some other reason for a proposal opposal, like a vote switch. <s>I am the lord of tongue twisters</s> {{User:TheDarkStar/sig}} 17:48, August 15, 2019 (EDT)
:::You don't have to vote on your own proposal. Sometimes, you can make a proposal just to see what others think, but may not be sure about where you stand yourself yet. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 17:52, August 15, 2019 (EDT)
::::Makes sense. {{User:TheDarkStar/sig}} 17:56, August 15, 2019 (EDT)

==Archiving==
Would it be considered edit sniping to archive a proposal that isn’t your own? {{User:TheDarkStar/sig}} 16:04, September 11, 2019 (EDT)
:I don't think so. If someone forgot to (or just decided not to) archive their proposal on their own, it would stay for quite a while past its deadline if someone else didn't step in. When a proposal of mine finishes, I usually wait for another user to archive it to prevent edit conflicts (unless they take too long, then I would archive it myself). {{User:Obsessive Mario Fan/sig}} 16:16, September 11, 2019 (EDT)
::I'd say give the proposer a day to do it themselves. If nothing happens by then, someone else can do it. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 16:33, September 11, 2019 (EDT)
:::Thanks. Would it be at all necessary to add it to [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Header]]? {{User:TheDarkStar/sig}} 16:39, September 11, 2019 (EDT)
::::Nah, it's a pretty standard courtesy thing. Give the user time to take care of it themselves, unless they ask for help right away, before attempting to fix it. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 16:42, September 11, 2019 (EDT)
:::::I just figured that it probably should be added because [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&action=history looking through the history, basically no one has archived their own proposal in the last little while.] {{User:TheDarkStar/sig}} 17:00, September 11, 2019 (EDT)

==Partial proposal overturning==
How should this represented in the archive? A proposal was made to [[Talk:Note Block#Split into Note Block, Jump Block (New Super Mario Bros. Wii) and Jump Block (Mario & Wario)|split the Jump Blocks from ''NSMBWii'' and ''Mario & Wario'' from Note Block]], then another proposal overturned the decision to split the ''NSMBWii'' Jump Block but not the ''M&W'' one. Would the older proposal be turned yellow? Or should it be left green, with a text change to only mention the part that still applies? This was asked on the comments of the second proposal but didn't really get a definitive answer. I think it should be the latter, since turning the first proposal yellow would imply the whole thing was overturned rather than just part of it. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 00:35, September 25, 2019 (EDT)
:Agreed with the latter, though, that's a question to Porplemontage, since he created the wiki. --{{User:FanOfYoshi/sig}} 02:09, September 25, 2019 (EDT)
:If no available color completely applies, we can also add a new one for proposals where only part of it applies. If this was our decision, I suggest we use {{color|limegreen|lime green}}. {{User:Obsessive Mario Fan/sig}} 11:40, September 25, 2019 (EDT)
:I say green. It shouldn't matter whether or not a part of the proposal is in effect. It should be green if it passed and is in effect. Besides, Proposals with multiple options are green if the do nothing option wasn't chosen and there was a majority and the effects are still in effect. And those can just as easily be partially overturned. {{User:Yoshi the Space Station Manager/sig}} 12:00, September 25, 2019 (EDT)
::Green, as part of it is still in effect. @FanOfYoshi there's no need to go to Porple over a small matter. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 12:04, September 25, 2019 (EDT)

==Self-cancellation==
Why is there only a specific timeframe in which you can cancel your proposal yourself? It seems inconvenient to mandate going to an admin over something small like that. {{User:TheDarkStar/sig}} 17:34, October 15, 2019 (EDT)
:Safe to assume that it is to prevent users from canceling proposals because they are losing. Requiring admin closure after three ddys prevents bigotry, as if admins deem that the proposer just wants to cancel due to losing, then they just won't cancel it. {{User:Doomhiker/sig}} 17:54, October 15, 2019 (EDT)
::It also prevents users from doing this and then re-proposing it, hoping that the previous opposition doesn't notice and then it will pass. Unlike failed proposals, I don't think there's any time limit between re-proposing something that was only cancelled. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 17:59, October 15, 2019 (EDT)
:::That seems kinda unrealistic. Most of the users who would even be bothered to make a proposal here don't do that. I haven't seen anyone even ''request'' cancellation for reasons besides "oh hey this idea is fundamentally flawed in both concept and design so could you cancel this thanks" in any of the talk archives I've gone through. Could you provide an example? {{User:TheDarkStar/sig}} 18:03, October 15, 2019 (EDT)

== Stale, resolved proposals ==

I was checking the table of proposals and many, if not all of them, have been resolved. Should they be archived? --[[User:SirMoogle|SirMoogle]] ([[User talk:SirMoogle|talk]]) 15:07, April 2, 2020 (EDT)
:They have been archived. And they're not in that table because they haven't been settled, but because they haven't been implemented yet. {{User:Bye Guy/Sig}} 15:37, April 2, 2020 (EDT)

== [[Template:proposal notice|This template]] ==
I was looking through the [[Special: UnusedTemplates]] the other day, and found the proposal notice template, which wasn't labeled as abandoned, so should there be a rule about putting the template on the page? {{User:DarkNight/sig}} 14:22, September 18, 2020 (EDT)
:Well, it's in use now. It certainly isn't being used a lot, but I don't see why we can't keep using it. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 14:32, September 18, 2020 (EDT)
::I think it needs to be used more often tbh. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 15:36, September 18, 2020 (EDT)
:::Then can we add a rule stating that if you make a proposal relating to an already created page, you must add the template to it? {{User:DarkNight/sig}} 17:17, September 18, 2020 (EDT)
::::Late, but yeah, I don't see why we can't add that. I'll suggest something. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 00:31, October 13, 2020 (EDT)
:::::It's already added. {{User:DarkNight/sig}} 01:09, October 13, 2020 (EDT)
::::::Ah. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 01:22, October 13, 2020 (EDT)
:::::::I feel it should be optional myself. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 02:01, October 13, 2020 (EDT)

== Unable to create my own user page ==

I just created my account, but I noticed I am unable to create my own user page or my own timeless.css .

New users should at least be able to create their own user page.

I hope my suggestion is considered. --[[User:AccoNut|AccoNut]] ([[User talk:AccoNut|talk]]) 19:30, October 12, 2020 (EDT)
:Make 10 edits and wait for a week, then you can create your userpage. See [[MarioWiki:Autoconfirmed users]]. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 19:43, October 12, 2020 (EDT)
::If new users could create their userpage immediately after account creation, we'd have a lot more spam and a lot less new dedicated contributors. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 00:30, October 13, 2020 (EDT)

== The proposal regarding removal of non-Mario characters from the trophies, Assist Trophy, stickers, and Spirit pages ==

I think that the proposal fits more in "Removals". {{User:Wynn Liaw/sig}} 06:34, March 11, 2021 (EST)

== April Fools proposals ==
It's no longer April Fools day, so it's probably time to get rid of all these joke proposals. {{User:Keyblade Master/sig}} 03:01, April 2, 2021 (EDT)
:But the staff refuse to do so. {{User:Wynn Liaw/sig}} 03:14, April 2, 2021 (EDT)
::[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_zone Ahem] [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 03:26, April 2, 2021 (EDT)
:::Then we will wait until 5 hours later. {{User:Wynn Liaw/sig}} 03:38, April 2, 2021 (EDT)
::::The staff STILL refuse to do so. {{User:Wynn Liaw/sig}} 12:16, April 2, 2021 (EDT)
Now that AFD is officially over, I have a legitimate semi-related question: why are those pie proposals (not the one from yesterday, but the ones Ghost Jam made) actually listed in the archives alongside the serious proposals? They belong either [[User:Ghost Jam/PIE|here]] or in BJAODN. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 15:37, April 2, 2021 (EDT)

==Question==
Sorry if this has been answered before, but what is the reasoning for proposal rule ten (the one that states proposals with two options are extended if there are more than ten votes and one option isn't winning by a margin of three votes)? It seems kind of arbitrary to me. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 16:23, May 15, 2021 (EDT)

==Where?==
Where are we supposed to write proposals? - {{user|RabbidYoshi2}}

== Unimplemented proposal list formatting ==
The chart we have now is honestly kind of a chore to work with due to the reformatting necessary to list a proposal there. I think we should just copy and paste the formatting from the archives into the unimplemented proposal list instead. It would make it a lot quicker and easier to add new proposals to the list, the only real change that would be needed is adding the year to the date, which is easy. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 20:56, August 6, 2021 (EDT)
:The number is also a pain in the ass to reassign if an earlier proposal was completed. I agree with this in that it would be easier to see plus it would be consistent with the formatting. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 20:28, August 22, 2021 (EDT)
::I didn't even think of that. Yeah, the numbering on the chart is completely useless. However, that also means that if we go with my suggestion then the {{tem|proposal archive}} and {{tem|TPP archive}} templates will need to be edited to make the numbering optional, since there's currently no way to omit it. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 21:32, August 22, 2021 (EDT)
Bumping this, after archiving ''six'' proposals at once this whole chart thing is really grating on me. {{User:7feetunder/sig}} 20:13, September 12, 2021 (EDT)

== Why don’t we merge white, brown and orange together? ==

All three mean the same effect of “the proposal didn’t pass or fail, and no one canceled it”

How does a proposal count as “no quorum” anyways?

{{User:Remembered Old Buddy/sig}}
:No Quorum is when a proposal has 3 or less total votes on it. White is for when a proposal does have a sufficient amount of votes, but there's no clear winning option. AFAIK, Brown is a remnant of the old wiki days when ties were possible. [[User:Somethingone|Somethingone]] ([[User talk:Somethingone|talk]]) 11:07, January 31, 2022 (EST)

== Deceiving red link in passed proposal ==

I would like to request the administration to replace the red links in [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/56#Allow/create categories for images and media by website|this archived proposal]] with their corresponding working links ([[:Category:YouTube images]], [[:Category:Prima Games images]], [[:Category:Play Nintendo images]] respectively). As it stands, the links give off the impression that the changes supported in the proposal haven't been enacted, or that the related pages were somehow deleted in spite of the consensus. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 13:17, April 15, 2022 (EDT)
:I fixed them, thanks for bringing it up. --{{User:TheFlameChomp/sig}} 13:24, April 15, 2022 (EDT)

== Proposal paradox. ==

So, on the BJAODN proposals page, there's a proposal on removing removals, & BMfan08 brought up a really good point. I told him that he had a point, but it got deleted. That removal was both unnecessary & something that the proposal was meant to remove. {{User|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)}} 14:29, December 19, 2022 (CST)
:That particular proposal was nothing more than an April Fools joke. {{User:Swallow/sig}} 15:40, December 19, 2022 (EST)
::Yes, but it still is a bit concerning. {{User|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)}} 10:38, January 04, 2023 (CST)

== Did I archive my proposal wrong? ==

I created a proposal, but then I wanted to cancel it. I cut and pasted the contents into the proposal archives, but I think I might be doing it wrong. Did I do it wrong? [[User:PaperMarioGolf|PaperMarioGolf]] ([[User talk:PaperMarioGolf|talk]]) 17:55, December 23, 2023 (EST)

== "no joke proposals" ==

There seems to be an exception to this rule for April Fool's Day. Is this true? [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 15:43, April 1, 2024 (EDT)
:It doesn't seem like it's an explicitly stated rule, and it's just kind of this unspoken agreed-upon thing that April Fools can beget April Fools Proposals as long as they're y'know, properly dealt with. But also, given there was a proposal semi-recently that didn't pass about April Fool's Proposals, it presumably jogged a ''lot'' of people's minds this year around (we know it did for us), hence the sheer quantity of them compared to previous years. Though, this does raise a question--with just ''how many'' April Fool's proposals we have this year, when it comes time to mirror all the April Fools nonsense over to BJAODN, do we make a subpage just for the April Fools 2024 joke proposals? {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 16:48, April 1, 2024 (EDT)
::I don't recall recent years archiving every joke proposal that's happened on April Fool's Day, I think that's mostly reserved for the annual spotlight joke. Even the actual BJAODN Proposals archive doesn't feature all of them. That being said, this kinda does bring up two things I've thought of in the past: First, maybe we should include something in the rules about joke proposals being acceptable on April Fool's. I understand the idea of it being an "unspoken agreed-upon thing", but for me personally, I spend all morning going back and forth as to whether or not my own joke proposal was okay, questioning if I was even allowed to do it or if the Wiki followed a more structured and organized plan for April Fool's content (once others started making their own proposals, most of those thoughts vanished entirely, mind you). So the idea of maybe mentioning that it's okay would be nice, in case there are those that might second guess the idea of participating. Second, archiving these types of proposals is something I would (and [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/65#Reserve April Fools' joke proposals to a new section|kinda already have]]) supported. A bit of a winded response here, but I myself love April Fool's Day on this wiki and would definitely support the idea of archiving more of our ridiculous antics. {{User:Tails777/sig}}
::The last time there was a comparable number of joke proposals was 2021 and [[MarioWiki:BJAODN/Proposals#Remove removals|only one]] got archived, there were none in 2022 and only one in 2023 (which didn't get archived). IMO it might be time to revisit [[MarioWiki talk:BJAODN#Allow section(s) for certain April Fools' proposals|this proposal]]. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 03:55, April 2, 2024 (EDT)
:::I think a dedicated BJAODN page solely for April Fool's Proposals would be a suitable idea. Or maybe sub-articles for April Fool's proposals each year. {{User:Tails777/sig}}
::::Went ahead and made that proposal! {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 19:38, April 2, 2024 (EDT)

== Request to replace two intra-wiki links in [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/61#Change the way Super Smash Bros. fighter lists are organised|this proposal]] with Wayback Machine snapshots ==

I'm specifically talking about these two links:
*[[User:Koopa con Carne/List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros.]]
*[[User:Koopa con Carne/List of fighters in Super Smash Bros.]]

which I'd like to have replaced with:
*https://web.archive.org/web/20240414113918/https://www.mariowiki.com/User:Koopa_con_Carne/List_of_fighters_debuting_in_Super_Smash_Bros.
*https://web.archive.org/web/20240414113001/https://www.mariowiki.com/User:Koopa_con_Carne/List_of_fighters_in_Super_Smash_Bros.

These two project pages were meant to illustrate the changes promoted by the proposal and make it easier for participants to see what they were voting for. Now that the fighter lists were created in the mainspace, the project pages have long outlived their usefulness and I'd live to have them removed from my own userspace. The Wayback Machine snapshots would ensure that anyone perusing that proposal can still see how the two different iterations of the fighter lists were envisioned at the time; sort of like a history log before the fact, you know. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 15:38, August 21, 2024 (EDT)
:Done. - [[User:RHG1951|RHG1951]] ([[User talk:RHG1951|talk]]) 15:01, August 22, 2024 (EDT)

== Why the inconsistency? ==

{{talk}}
I never understood, why is it 1 week on the "main" proposals page and 2 weeks on the TPPs? Is it because the "main" ones are "more visible?" I disagree, I look at the TPP list more often. Plus, it makes more sense for proposals with wider consequences to have more time for people to consider. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 18:15, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
:I guess there's something offputting about having the voting period be at the same length as the wait for the counterproposal. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 21:22, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
::Main proposals tend to garner more attention and votes than Talk Page Proposals, so TPPS are afforded extra time to make a decision. If I recall correctly, there has been a question about this a while ago (like before 2016). {{User:Mario/sig}} 21:28, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
::But... the counterproposal is ''four'' weeks.... [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 22:07, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
:::Well, at least it's not two months. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 22:11, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
::::Yes, but it's one month. The point I'm making is that more important decisions should probably be given more time and weight than single-page ones. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 22:47, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
:::::Personally, I like how the proposals are structured right now. There's an easy link to the non-talk page proposals on the main page, after all, so it is a bit more accessible than the talk page proposals. Besides, habits vary from user to user (I look at the main proposals more often than talk page ones simply because the link is right in front of my face when I log on). I think we should keep it as is. -- {{User:FanOfRosalina2007/sig}} 12:48, September 18, 2024 (EDT)
Relatedly, why do "writing guidelines" proposals specifically last two weeks? The "visibility" argument (which I don't agree with anyway) doesn't apply here since these proposals are the highest up on the page. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:18, September 20, 2024 (EDT)
:I feel like a good portion of proposals that could technically fall under "writing guidelines" are not labeled as such just to avoid waiting for two weeks. [[User:Axii|Axii]] ([[User talk:Axii|talk]]) 11:22, September 20, 2024 (EDT)
::Two weeks because writing guideline changes typically involve wiki policy and other matters that more fundamentally affect the wiki, or at least that's how I saw it. Hence, it's given more time to discuss. {{User:Mario/sig}} 13:15, September 20, 2024 (EDT)
:::I'll admit, I've had difficulty determining which category my main proposals should fall under, so maybe we should explain the types and have examples for each? [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 13:33, September 20, 2024 (EDT)
:::I think it's a stretch to say the "writing guidelines" proposals are always or even generally more important and fundamentally changing to the wiki than the proposals in other sections, and there's nothing stopping proposals about matters like wiki policy from being put in sections other than "writing guidelines". For example, at [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4339890 this moment in time], I'd argue the proposal in the "writing guidelines" section was less wide-reaching and proposing a smaller change compared to the second proposal that was in the "changes" section. I think the fairest thing to do would be to make all proposals two weeks, as that both removes the inconsistency and gives every proposal that same adequate discussion time. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 13:47, September 20, 2024 (EDT)
::::On that matter, would the "writing guidelines" ones have the "cancel within 6 days" like the TPPs or 3 days like the week-long proposals? The rules aren't clear there. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 22:22, September 21, 2024 (EDT)
:Late to the party, but personally, we feel like the policy change that would make the most sense is just making ''all'' proposals 2 weeks long. And of course, keep the 4 week delay between proposals on the same subject. The only real downside we can think of is that it would make select proposals that are basically already locked in within the day even more drawn-out than they already were, but [[Talk:Alien (Club Nintendo)#ANTI-ALIEN ALARM!!! (Delete this article)|it's not like that isn't already a thing that happens with TPPs]], and we'd wager that it's the amount of times we'd expressly want to have a proposal happen ''faster'' are fairly slim. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 15:38, September 23, 2024 (EDT)