MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/14



Re-Split Orange Yoshi
SPLIT 7-0

I think it wasn't a good idea to merge Brown Yoshi to Orange Yoshi. It only was merged because of that Brown Yoshi was replaced by Orange Yoshi. Worst is, there first stand, after the merge, that Brown WAS Orange. But even thought it is in the same color group, yellow, it can still be seen that the two colors are different to each other. Orange is a mix of yellow and red, brown is much darker and a bit more yellow (meaning you can't consider brown as orange, only because it looks like each other!). If you think to keep merge, because of too less text, then add more info!

That's why I think we must re-split Orange Yoshi to Orange Yoshi and Brown Yoshi.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Arend}} Deadline: 9 May, 2009, 20:00

Re-Split

 * 1) Per myself
 * 2) I would have to agree with Arend. Even though they replaced Brown Yoshi with Orange Yoshi, they are still different Yoshi types.
 * 3) - Per Arend.
 * 4) - per Arend
 * 5) - Per all.
 * 6) - They are two slightly different species of Yoshi, and therefore must be split into two articles. Per all.
 * 7) Per all -Canama

Comments
}}

Revive Pipe Plaza
REVIVE 8-0

I know many of you will say "What for? We have the Talk:Main Page" but i'll tell you what, that talk is that, a simple talk page, all unorganized. On the other hand, the Pipe Plaza provides good info, is neat and organized.

If this proposal succeeds, we would post Mario related things in the Pipe Plaza talk and Technical issues in Talk:Main Page.

Also, we would need a team of loyal, active and trustworthy users to keep the page nice, current and organized.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Tucayo}} Deadline: Wednesday, May 13th, 17:00

Bring it back from the world of dead

 * 1) - Per me
 * 2) - Per you (i can be from the loyal-active ones!) yes!
 * 3) - Makes since, and I'll gladdley help with the page
 * 4) - Yeah, we just have to change the edit permission to Patrollers and others and it'll be updated alot!
 * 5) Per all and Tucayo, his idea does make a lot of sense, I think that it would be great if the PipePlaza was brought back from the dead.
 * 6) Per all
 * 7) -That is a great idea. It will be great for orginizing information and allow easier access to helping other user with technical issues. I'd love to help in its resurection.
 * 8) - Per Tucayo. I'll help out whenever I can, too.

Comments
@NG - You can't change the editing permission for one specific locked page for patrollers, its impossible with MediaWiki software. You can however, install an extension that would lock it to all users who don't have the password. But I think an extra extension for one page would take to much time and work. If we were to do this, I think we should just lock it to registered users. --

We need to tell sysops about this,either to unprotect it,or to take care of it by thmselves, or just to allow patrollers to edit it
 * We could either a) Allow only Sysops to edit it, or b) block all users who haven't been here for a month.

}}

Mario Award Voting on Main Page
VOTING ON MAIN PAGE 9-0

I've already cleared this mostly with Steve, but I want to make sure there is a majority agreement on this –

Remember when we only had 62 voters for Mario Awards I? 2007, yeah. N00bsday...then that turned to 93 in 2008, nice improvement. But my goodness, 2000 votes a week on the poll...and 140 this year if the 50% increase trend continues....no way I'm settling for that, man! :P

Overall provisions of this proposal:
 * Replace the Weekly Poll from June 14 (Monday) to July 14 (Tuesday). This kinda would split a poll in half starting on Friday, but maybe on June 11 we could draw the usual poll-voting crowd in with a promise for a lot of polls (40: 30 traditional + 10 anti, hopefully) on Friday and kinda just starve it off from 7/14-17.
 * Make it explicit in the Poll Selection page that no future question may copy a Mario Award. To distinguish, we aim to be as general as we can, while many of the questions on polls are hypothetical for the future or specific by game. We can keep the Mario Awards special annually. I would be willing to compromise if this is too harsh, by keeping away from Mario Award type poll questions only when it's coming up, and letting it be allowed in the winter months. Please comment on this and I'll definitely respond.
 * Userpedia Awards aren't exactly something that visitors will recognize. But if the iFrame extension is installed, I will gladly come on and help put on those awards on their Main Page as well, which may produce more voters than the 56 last year.

I will take care of any and all costs necessary to get polls that will suit the needs for the Mario Awards (hiding results, allowing write-ins, deleting duplicate votes / all by an IP). Google Forms is an excellent free service that is my backup choice right now, but two polls have suffered from duplicate voting (Funky Kong as Favorite Kong comes to mind) and that is an absolute no here...but again, I'll take care of all that, please let it not factor into your votes.

While I could put all the new polls on MarioWiki:Anniversary and link it in the announcement line...the polls being right there for everyone on the most hit page of the wiki by far will be very noticeable and should be a significant increase in voters.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: (who else) {{user|Wayoshi}} Deadline: 17:00, 14 May

Let's Get Thousands of Voters

 * 1) – This will make the awards all the more special with more widespread opinion. Gotta take advantage of our gigantic traffic.
 * 2) - Per Wayoshi. This sounds like an absolutely wonderful way to make the Awards thrive. I'll talk to Neurario about getting the iFrame extension installed.
 * 3) – Even though I didn't understood a thing, I prefer this than nagging.
 * 4) - Per Wayoshi. This would really help the Mario Awards.
 * 5) - Per Wayo, nice idea. The same as XP said
 * 6) Per Wayoshi and XP.
 * 7) Per all, a great idea to utilize traffic from both our sites. Stoob, I'll get in touch.
 * 8) Per Wayo and XP
 * 9) - Best...idea...ever!

Comments
Wayo: what will we do with the "other" votes. they cant be forgotten }}

No Sigs on Featured Images Page
DO NOT ALLOW SIGS ON FEATURED IMAGES PAGE 4-0

Though this may seem minor now, I have seen one or two sigs that have altered vote counts on that page, and if we allow sigs on this page, eventually as the amount of images on the page grows, more and more sigs will mess up vote counts.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Zafum}} Deadline: May 14, 2009, 17:00

No Sigs

 * 1) - i find Sigs a bit unformal to be used in there.
 * 2) i wasnt planning to support it, but as SMB made an opposing proposal, i did. Zafum, you forgot to support it
 * 3) - Per all; plus sigs make voting pages impossible to load for old computers. They should be banned from all three Feature-nomination pages: that way the rules for FI (Images), FA (Articles) and FL (Lists) will all be consistant.
 * 4) - Oops, forgot to support my own proposal.

Comments
You dont have to make a proposal about this

See my proposal below. }}

Change "No Signature" Policies
NO CHANGES 1-8

Before you vote against this rule, listen to this for one second. I think that we should reverse, well, partially reverse, the rule that eliminates signatures on voting pages. I think that the rule should be changed to "no signatures that ruin vote counts". For example, if you have seen my signature or Walkazo's signature, you will see that it would probably not ruin vote counts. Here are some ideas for my proposed rule:
 * Signatures that do not ruin vote counts can be used.
 * No images can be used in the signatures.
 * If a signature does ruin vote counts, the signature will be changed to the format.

Users can make a second signature page that they could use specifically for proposals and other voting pages if their signature does not meet these requirements, use their regular signature if it does meet the requirements, or use the format.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Super Mario Bros.}} Deadline: Sunday, 17 May 2009, 15:00

Support

 * 1) Per me.

Oppose

 * 1) - NO, Users wont respect if their sig ruins vote counts or not, neither they will know if it ruins it, so i say NO.
 * 2) - It's too complicated; it's better to just be straightforward: all or nothing. (Personally, I'd like to see all main community pages sig-less, but I'm a kill-joy on an eleven-year-old computer, so don't mind me...)
 * 3) It will be hard to tell if a sig ruins it unless they post, and by the time we realize it, it will be hard to clean up. also per walkazo, its too complicated.
 * 4) - I have answers to all your ideas:1.Signatures, wether they change vote counts or not are just informal.2.So many different people use pics on their sigs, that removing pics on them would be crazy. Anyway, my sig is completely based on images.3.why should you delete a user's vote because his sig differs from other user's sigs?Per All
 * 5) - Per Walkazo.
 * 6) - Per all.
 * 7) - Per all.
 * 8) Lu-igi board per all

Comments
I changed the elimination of votes part, which the replacement being written in bold. }}

Movie Section
NO "MOVIES" SECTION 1-10

As you may already know, over at Userpedia, they have some sections where you can create your own stories and such. But there's one thing they don't have- A movies section. Here at Super Mario Wiki, we could have a "Movies" section, where users can freely get others to sign up with their sprites and partake in a comic-like movie, that would then be put on YouTube, in Parts, if wanted. I've put an example over on my UserPage, and if anybody wants to take part in that movie, it will be put up as an option if we do get a "Movies" section. I believe this to be a great way for Users to communicate and share ideas!

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Hyper Guy}} Deadline: May 23, 2009, 20:00

Support

 * 1) (creator)

Oppose

 * 1) - No. Just no. Super Mario Wiki is a place for factual things about the Mario series, not fan-art/fictions/movies. This is why Userpedia was created. Userpedia is the place to put these things, not at SMW.
 * 2) I would have to agree with StarYoshi1, this is a wiki for information. Also, see my comment below.
 * 3) Per StarYoshi1. This is going to distract people from editing the wiki.
 * 4) per staryoshi Lu-igi board
 * 5) - Per StarYoshi1.
 * 6) - NO WAY.  Per StarYoshi.
 * 7) 4DJONG-No, first they already have one, plus this is not the Unmario wiki this is the SMW so, basically per StarYoshi.
 * 8) No that´s a bad idea and it will give the Wiki a bad or different maning of what it is.
 * 9) Per StarYoshi1 and Super Mario Bros. Try the 'Shroom or Userpedia.
 * 10) - Per StarYoshi1.

Comments
Hyper Guy, here is a suggestion, try asking this guy if you could have this on the 'Shroom.
 * You can sign up in the Fun Stuff page if you like

Add it on The 'Shroom, but not any where else. K?4DJONG

Are you allowed to put the 4DJONG code in your comment, 4DJONG?
 * Everyone should sign with, but we won't remove Username, as that doesn't mess with people's computers, like some personalized sigs do. However, seeing as 4DJONG's signature included a timestamp, that implies he signed with ~ , which we ask people to not do. Again, it's mainly to prevent sigs containing images and backgrounds from clogging-up the page, but it would look better if everyone simply signed the same way. -

Yes, he is, he just can't use, or  if he has a custom sig.

MrV: You dont know what were talking about, right? }}

No Offensive Material
DON'T CREATE OFFENSIVE MATERIAL RULE 1-9

As a wiki user, I have rarely seen it, and I do not know if there is an already exising rule for this, but I think we should make a new rule for Offensive Material. If a proposal has material deemed offensive by at least three active users, the part that includes the offensive material must be deleted. If it is added again by the proposer, the proposal itself will be deleted. If you have any suggestions for this proposal, please put them in the comments section.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Super Mario Bros.}} Deadline: 17:00, Monday, 25 May 2009

Create New Rule

 * 1) Per my reasons above.

Leave As Is

 * 1) - I don't think we really need a rule for this as it's more of a matter of common sense. In general, Sysops will delete obviously offensive material.
 * 2) Per Ghost Jam- leave it to the Sysops.
 * Per Ghpost Jam. Why make a rule for everything? The list of rules on the proposal page is way too long already, anyway.
 * 1) Per that ghosty thing up there. Some people could also take offense to certain things, while other don't. (Take the Mario Hentai debate a few months back for example. Many hardcore MarioWikians wanted to add information on it as long as it was official; others didn't want it because it would 'taint' the community.)
 * 2) Per Stooben Rooben. Hehehe. Hentai. Perfect example.
 * 3) - Per all.
 * 4) - Per GJ & Stooby
 * 5) - Per everybody, that sounded weird, Per all.
 * 6) - Yes the patroller r for that, but why not we have a Warn button on some places like forums it works...

Comments
}}

Split Proposals Page and Rules
NO SPLIT 2-5

I was looking at one of the comments on one of my proposals, and I got to thinking. Why do we have rules in the How To section? I think we should make a new article (well, I will make an article) that contains some of the rules for the proposals page. It would take a lot out of the How To section and would be easier to add rules without it making the main proposals page too long.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Super Mario Bros.}} Deadline: Tuesday, 26 May 2009, 17:00

Support

 * 1) Per reasons above
 * 2) Also, the rules r different and it may be on a Navigation page.

Oppose

 * 1) - No one will read the rules if they're on a separate page. There are too many policy pages scattered about the Wiki as it is, and the last thing we want to do is make more of them.
 * 2) - Per Walkazo. If we really want people to follow the rules, we want them to stick out on the Proposals page.
 * Per Walkazo and Stooben.
 * 1) - Per all, its easier to have em in just one page
 * 2) - Per Walkazo, and also, keeping them here would save space.

Comments
If we should not split the pages, then could we at least separate it from the How To section and make it into its own section? If we could do that, then I will delete this proposal. }}

Eliminate Mainstream Signatures
ALLOW SIGNATURES 3-5

I was listening to what one of the fellow wiki members have said, and I actually think my proposal about allowing certain signatures was dumb. I myself own an eleven year old computer as well. So, I am going to say what this proposal is about now. If this proposal passes, signatures will be banned from MarioWiki and Help talk pages as well as other pages that say that they are, but will be allowed on article talk pages, user pages, and user talk pages. I think that it slows down older computers and it looks more professional with the   format on the mainstream wiki.

{{scroll box|content= Proposer: {{User|Super Mario Bros.}}, with ideas from {{User|Walkazo}} Deadline: Tuesday, 26 May 2009, 17:00

Support

 * 1) Per reasons above.
 * 2) I have a good computer, but I think so, cause old computers take time to load.
 * 3) Signatures look silly on public pages, and they can cause coding problem (Infact, I remember when a signature made it completely impossible to access a page.)

Oppose

 * 1) &mdash;I understand banning them from organized voting pages, but this is too extreme. Why don't we just ban signatures that cause technical issues? Not all of them are disruptive.
 * 2) - Oppose, oppose, OPPOSE. Blitz:You can just revert that edit. TimeQ: Theyre banned from voting pages, and that only really leaves us talks pages. Stooby: Not all sigs cause problems, so i dont see why the sigs of users who are fine must be deleted from other pages. SMB: If you have an old computer, just mark on your browser something to not show the images
 * 3) - Per KPH and Tucayo, plus the following: 1) Having all signtures look the same makes it hard to keep track of who's talking. 2) If the things listed in the perposal happen, we would look boring and dull to anyperson looking at talk pages to see what we think. 3) We can just give a reminder and/or a note to anyone whose sig is causing problems. Besides those reasons, there are other reasons why I think this proposal shouldn't pass; the perposal is a little too extreme, no offense.
 * 4) - KPH convinced me. Having no sigs on this page is understandable; but let's not go for overkill.
 * 5) - Per all.

Comments
I don't really care either way, but let's assume this passes. In that case, that template should really be moved to to avoid accidental userpage transclusions. e.g. "", instead of ""
 * KPH: That's a good idea. However, certain sigs cause certain problems on different computers. One of my older sigs that had a blue background messed up talk pages for some users, (Pokemon DP, Walkazo, Stumpers, and a few others), while it cause no problems for others. It'd be kind of difficult to narrow down what does and what doesn't cause technical problems, unfortunately. -
 * Tucayo: You misunderstood me. I know that not all sigs cause problems, but some do for certain computers. (Example: Super-Yoshi's signature causes the background of a talk page to turn lightgray on my computer, while on others, I'm sure it's fine. So it's hard to target which sigs are "problem-causers", for lack of a better term. -
 * By "not all of them are disruptive", I was mainly referring to signatures that are no more problematic than, like "KPH2293 (T/C)". Most technical issues are caused by colors/images, and a signature like this uses neither of those. &mdash;
 * Then we can just edit sigs taht affect
 * Why edit those sigs? I don't even think it is possible, users are not allowed to edit other people's user space. If they were, i

Limiting sigs to User space does seem a tad extreme. Maybe they should just be banned from MarioWiki and Help talk pages, but allowed on article talk pages. -
 * Check the proposal. Is it ok?
 * Honestly, I wouldn't mind this proposal as much if it didn't ban anything besides . Look at the example I posted in my previous comment - how is that anymore disruptive than the template? Furthermore, why ban them from only MarioWiki/help pages? How would they would be any more problematic there than they would be on a mainspace talk page? &mdash;
 * Well, are you suggesting that we delete them from the mainspace? Also, Tucayo, why edit those sigs? I don't even think it is possible, users are not allowed to edit other people's user space. If they were, I don't think that would be right.
 * Sorry, I should have been more specific. What I mean is, I believe it should be all or nothing. There is little difference between mainspace and MarioWiki talk. Why ban them from one and not the other? Leaving user talk alone makes sense, since what's disruptive on those pages is really up to whoever owns the userspace. Also, you are correct; users do not have the technical power to edit others' pages. Only sysops have that function. &mdash;
 * Mainspace talk pages rarely gather enough comments to be problematic (and the ones that do are generally for the big pages like Bowser, which old computers can't handle anyway), whereas things like MarioWiki talk:FAQ can become monstrous. Users with old computers can always avoid the big pages (I do), but viewing something like the Community Portal is essential if you wanna stay in the loop. Another reason to not ban custom sigs on mainspace talk pages is the fact that it'll be an obscene amount of work to go around to every single talk page and switch the sigs for s, which we'd have to do to be consistent and to insure users won't get confused about how they're supposed to sign new comments from now on. There are far less Help/MarioWiki talk pages that would need this treatment, so while it is still not a savory task, it is doable. Also, timestamps are really handy on mainspace talks pages (old queries may have been answered over time on the page, but just not on the talk) and most people won't think to add after, whereas automatically signing with ~ is much more straightforward. Losing timestamps from Help/MarioWiki talk pages is disadvantageous too, and when you take into account the fact that most of the Help/MarioWiki talk pages are short (like the mainspace talks) and don't pose problems, this proposal starts to look like overkill again. Perhaps more specific proposals could be made in the future (assuming this one fails) to target specific problem pages, like the aforementioned FAQ and Main Talk pages. However, in the end, something needs to be done. I don't mind waiting five minutes to see the Main talk page (when it hasn't been archived in a while), but it just doesn't seem fair that those of us with old technology get penalized by something as frivolous as signatures. -
 * The length that a talk page reaches depends on the significance of the subject, not the namespace. Not every MarioWiki page will become horrendously large, and not every mainspace page will stay at a couple of sections. Besides, not all signatures cause technical problems; we could always just fix/ban the ones that do. &mdash;
 * That's why I haven't voted: I don't like signatures clogging up my computer, but I also think this proposal is a little excessive, and that sig usage should be banned on a case-by-case basis instead (like for this page and the poll pages). -

}}