MarioWiki:Proposals

 A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed with the signature code (~).

How To
 * 1) Actions that sysops feel are appropriate to have community approval first can be added by anyone, but they must have a strong argument.
 * 2) Users then vote and discuss on the issue during that week. The "deadline" for the proposal is one week from posting at:
 * 3) Monday to Thursday: 17:00 (5pm)
 * 4) Friday and Saturday: 20:00 (8pm)
 * 5) Sunday: 15:00 (3pm)
 * 6) At any time a vote may be rejected if at least three active users believe the vote truly has strong reasons supporting it. Every vote should have a reason accompanying it.
 * 7) " # " should be added under the last vote of each support/oppose section to show another blank line.
 * 8) At the deadline, the validity of each vote and the discussion is reviewed by the community.
 * 9) A sysop calls the result of the proposal and takes action(s) as decided if necessary, and archives the proposal.

The times are in EDT, and are set so that the user is more likely to be online at those times (after school, weekend nights).

So for example, if a proposal is added on Saturday night at 11:59 PM EDT, the deadline is the next Saturday night at 8:00 PM. If it is indeed a minute later, the deadline is a day plus 15 hours (Sunday), as opposed to a day minus 4 hours.

CURRENTLY: , 27 2024 (EDT)

Maintenance Committee
I propose a Maintenance Committee that will be run by democracy. The committee will ensure that Orphaned pages will be linked, unused files will be tagged for deletion or used, unlabeled PIs will be deleted, and other maintenance work will be done. Anyone who is up for it can join the committee.

Proposer: Deadline: 15:00, 30 June

Support

 * 15:37, 23 June 2007 (EDT) – it hurts.... me?
 * 1) I ended up doing some the other. I love the name PLUMs made for it too.
 * 15:37, 23 June 2007 (EDT) – it hurts.... me?
 * 1) I ended up doing some the other. I love the name PLUMs made for it too.

Comments
I'm putting all new committees on the Wiki Maintenance page (to expand it). I might rename this the Technical Committee. 17:15, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

5 Links
I propose to remove the Only 5 links in sig rule. It doesn't seem to make any sense.

Proposer: Deadline: 17:00, 25 June

Support

 * 1) Strong Support Wayoshi, just because you only need 5 doesn't mean everyone else only needs 5. I, for example, need 6 really.
 * 2) --This is a silly rule.
 * 3) come on! i mean you should be able to have more than that!
 * 1) come on! i mean you should be able to have more than that!

Oppose

 * 1) – User, user talk, and any 3 out of the following: user comic, user story, contribs, email, external link. 5 is a perfect amount.
 * 2) Gofer
 * 3) – Five links is enough, if not too much; any more is just annoying.
 * 4) – It is quite hard to click on the links which are only a single character wide. Pretty pointless if you ask me.
 * 16:51, 22 June 2007 (EDT) – sorry guys, but the other users are right, it does get confusing. Sigh, this means I'll have to remove one of me links. 16:51, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
 * 16:51, 22 June 2007 (EDT) – sorry guys, but the other users are right, it does get confusing. Sigh, this means I'll have to remove one of me links. 16:51, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

Comments
Most people don't look at all five links so they're useless, and its annoying when i try to respond to someone and I have to llok through all the links.

It should be no more than 10, but 5 is too little.
 * And ten is too much.
 * Yeah, 9 seems about right.

7 is OK, right?
 * 1 for userpage
 * 1 for talk
 * 3 for subpages (these 3 are wayoshi's plan)
 * 2 links to other pages (these are what most people want/need)

That's fair, right?

Maybe 8 to play it safe. Actually, just leave the links alone if you don't want to click them. And just click their userpage one, and go to the talk tab, Gonzo.

2 "Other" pages usually = other userpages or articles, which are either banned or useless. 18:51, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

again. Just because you think they're useless doesn't mean they are.

Yeah. Max's plan seems good, but he left out contribs.
 * Take SLS for example i have to hover over all his links to reply to him, and even his userpage is annoying to find.

well, that's a different story. How about at least 6 links?

The userpage is almost always the first one. And SLS's one is the first one.
 * Why do you need more than five links anyway, 1 for userpage, 1 for talk, one for contribs(maybe) and then three(or two) for subpages.

For Fantendo.

What he said. and article links. and about... 2 users actually have 3 or more subpages.
 * why exactly do we need article links? and if only a few users have 3 Subpages then there really is no need to have more than 5.

because, it's convinient... and it's helpful... and just because You and washi don't need them doesn't mean we don't.
 * and cause you and pumber need them doesn't mean everyone else does.

Well, we'll see how many do at the end of the week.

I feel very strongly that is a silly rule. Just because one or two people find something useless doesn't mean it is.
 * alright after looknig over all the sigs Heres the stats: 51 Sigs = Less than 4 links, only 19 = have More or around that number.

I think 5 is a perfect number. Userpage, talkpage and subpage, nothing more, nothing less. I hardly see the point in linking wiki articles, I can see why people link them, but geez, why adding even more slot for something tottaly pointless? And that signature check was a godsend for me, when you fear that Plumber send you a message because his sig will lag your computer, you know there's something wrong. Gofer
 * lol, I'm sorry... I use a pretty good computer. But, I will admit that Banana-Plumber is a little annoying to see 10 times on a talk page... but it is cute.  If this is a lag problem I would say that you should be the deciding factor. 00:23, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Writer Guidelines

 * Added by Wayoshi, from Talk:Main Page

Recently, a discussion has arrisen in regards to the future of the Big Eight page. Several users, including myself, see an issue with the amount of fanon in the category. Please view the talk page for individual ideas. Main concerns include the lack of any such category in the Marioverse and the level of favoritism involved in choosing characters. Another idea is that the Big Eight page would do better under the title MarioWiki:Big Eight as it is more of a guide for writers on the Wiki than an actual Mario element. Please post ideas for change or support for the page as is! Thank you! 13:52, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

If we make this a guideline, we'll have to make the other pages guidelines (i.e. Marioverse).

Proposers: and Deadline: 20:00, 29 June

Make them Writer Guidelines

 * 1) - AAAHHH!!! - Seriously, they're better as guidelines.
 * 2) – Although I'm not 100% sure about Marioverse, most of these seem like they'd be better off/less fanon-ish as writer guidelines.
 * 3) While the Marioverse is a little sketchy, the Big Eight and Filler Characters appear to be simply determined by us. This means that it would do better as a MarioWiki category article in my opinion.
 * 4) User:FixitupSigh, this isn't what this article particularly needed yet. Oh well, patience.
 * 5) -- Sir Grodus (note: Sir Grodus commented below.  Please do not delete this comment! --Stumpers)
 * 1) User:FixitupSigh, this isn't what this article particularly needed yet. Oh well, patience.
 * 2) -- Sir Grodus (note: Sir Grodus commented below.  Please do not delete this comment! --Stumpers)

Comments
What exactly would it mean to make them writer guidelines? Want to know quick. User:Fixitup
 * We mean make them helper articles. Remember the importance policy?  Didn't have much impact on which articles you could write for, right?  This would be the same way.  19:02, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

I fail to see how making an article like this a guideline will fix anything. What we need to do is decide who should really be a part of the big eight or decide to take down the article! I see no improvement right now and find it unfair. Am I understanding this correctly? User:Fixitup
 * Making it a guideline removes the implication that it is an official concept. However, it is not.  By making it a guideline, we are left with a list of major articles on dynamic subjects that are frequently accessed to constantly update when needed.  19:42, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

Ok that makes that better, but I still don't see how this solves who should be a part of the big eight and who shouldn't. This just doesn't provide me the options I was hoping for. User:Fixitup

Sorry to step in, but if you oppose, you should vote, not just comment. 22:22, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, the problem is I'm not sure how to resolve the selection thing. :( Oh, well. Baby steps I guess.  01:13, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Um..well if you were reading carefully I ended up supporting making it a guideline I'm just upset that the only thing being done is that so whatever, time to vote. User:Fixitup

They're basicly fan conceptions, same with Filler Characters. -- Sir Grodus

Miscellaneous
None currently