MarioWiki:Proposals

List of Talk Page Proposals

 * Delete Category: RPG Characters (Discuss) Deadline: August 19, 2013, 23:59 GMT
 * Delete Template:Sprite gallery (Discuss) Deadline: August 22, 2013, 23:59 GMT
 * Move Knight Greenie to and add information (Discuss) Deadline: August 24, 2013, 23:59 GMT
 * Create a separate page for (Discuss) Deadline: August 27, 2013, 23:59 GMT
 * Move Venus Fire Trap to (Discuss) Deadline: August 29, 2013, 23:59 GMT
 * Delete Template:WarioWareChar (Discuss) Deadline: August 31, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Writing Guidelines
None at the moment.

New features
None at the moment

Disallow Usage of "Per All"
My proposal is simple. It is the disallow of "Per All" sentence in proposal. Instead The voter will need a few seconds to specify the the users.

Example:

1. Users should atleast have sometime reading the proposal before voting. 2. Per User1 3. Some Users may just want to vote, so they be called a participant in proposals.

Instead of: 4. Per All He would say: 4. Per User1 and User3 He doesn't need to say Per User2, because User2 opinion is the same as User1

Proposer: (banned) Deadline: August 20, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Oppose

 * 1) I don't see a good reason for it to be gotten rid of, and it'd be incredibly annoying if lots of users contribute to a proposal each with their own reasons for (dis)agreeing with something and you having to go, Per: User 1, 2, 3, 4 etc. if you agree with all of them.
 * 2) &mdash; Per all... uh, I mean, this is completely unnecessary. Per the user above.
 * 3) per all.
 * 4) If the per all thing is removed, then people who's reason for agreeing/disagreeing with something is already mentioned, those people either can't vote or need to come up with a whole new reason. Agreeing with someone else just makes it easier.
 * 5) This seems to be a needless hassle to be specific on who you're perring when you per all.
 * 6) This is Ridiculous.
 * 7) - Per all. Having to list individuals is tedious and unnecessary, especially if lots of users make points you agree with. "Per all" isn't a cop-out, it's a perfectly valid vote.
 * 8) – The current system is fine, per all.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) - Per all.
 * 11) This is preposterous. And additionally, how are you going to deal with users who will persist using "Per all"? Send a Warning? Possibly ban them?
 * 12) Per all. (ha ha)
 * 13) Per Yoshi876, Iggy Koopa Jr...ahhh! Per all!
 * 14) All I can say is...uh...what was that... Oh! Per all!

Comments
Most votes are 'Pers' after all. - @Tail777 They can say Per someone -
 * True, but agreeing with many people isn't a bad thing.
 * Alright, I got it now. I'll withdraw the proposal by tomorrow. Keeping it wouldn't hurt -

Semi-Protect templates
Recently I have noticed that anons have done stupid things in the templates. Take [|this, for example]. We don't want anons putting fake things in the templates. Or [|what about that?] We don't want them putting DS games in the Wii template either. It may not happen a lot, but it still happens and we don't want it.

Proposer: Deadline: August 21, 2013, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per my proposal. I still feel stupid I didn't do this earlier...
 * 2) Per proposal. It does happen and major templates that appear on many pages (such as templates listing games or Paper Mario templates, which appear on every item and recipe page) will change all those pages if the template gets vandalized.

Oppose

 * 1) - Per Megadardery in the comments. A couple bad edits is no reason for blanket protection of the templates: we're more likely to prevent good edits than bad edits from happening.
 * 2) Per Megadardery's comment.
 * 3) A vandal is not so enormous a problem.
 * 4) Template aren't usually targeted by vandals, so I don't think protection is needed.

Comments
I got this idea in my mind before, but it is unbelievable to protect all the templates. If we have to protect some, we would protect high usage/complicated templates, mostly like Formatting Templates, Media Templates and Internal Link Templates. However, Navigation Templates, and Infobox Templates should never be protected, because maybe anonymous user finds a problem and tries to fix it. Beside all that, it is still easy to revert any vandal edit, other than complicated templates, because a vandal may make an edit, and another user fix a code somewhere else in the template. So it become hard -but not impossible- to revert it. This is nothing like the last proposal of semi-protecting the Glitches pages, because a vandal may add unreal glitch, which doesn't become hard but almost impossible because we wouldn't know if it is real or not, that is the reason our admins protected them in the first place. -
 * I agree with Megadardery. The glitch lists were protected because they are often a target for vandalism and false info. It's true that anyone can add false information to templates as well, but it only happens once in a while (much less frequently than glitch pages), and are easy enough to revert. –

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.